|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Rob,
Let me give this circle a go. Draw a circle on a piece of paper, name the circle eternity. At 9:00 put a mark and name it beginning of time as we know it. At 9:05 put another mark and name it the end of time as we know it. Time is just a little space in eternity that man exists in. Time is controled by day and night. Before time as we know it there was only day. After time as we know it there will be only day. As far as God is concerned the entire circle all of eternity is just one great big now. I hope I didn't muddy the water too much. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
ICANT:
Hi Rob, Let me give this circle a go. Draw a circle on a piece of paper, name the circle eternity. At 9:00 put a mark and name it beginning of time as we know it. At 9:05 put another mark and name it the end of time as we know it. Time is just a little space in eternity that man exists in. Time is controled by day and night. Before time as we know it there was only day. After time as we know it there will be only day. As far as God is concerned the entire circle all of eternity is just one great big now. I hope I didn't muddy the water too much. You did fine... perhpas I am the one confusing the issue. Yours and AIG's are useful illustrations. As C.S. Lewis' said (and very wisely)I only ask that we remember than an illustration is not the actual picture of reality. I addressed this issue privately a while back with my own thoughts. It is written in article form and not a reply to another post. I do believe it is good theology, but it is not essential to understand the simple point you have so aptly summarized. It does however summarize the difficulty between the perception of being limited by the finite, and how that is bridged by eternity within a relationship with the Eternal and uncaused God. It's a bit long, but I offer it to explain my position. Any comments are welcome since I have not reviewed it in some time, and it may need ammending.
Infinite perfection By Robert S. Lockett Psalm 119; 96 To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless (NIV). Many perceive the idea of an absolute reality or divine way as limiting the options of existence and thereby harming objectivity. Law is seen as a confine rather than a cohesive fabric. This is a misconception that I wish to dissolve if I am able. It is the perfect law which manifests freedom from conflict and the resulting decay. It is a perfect system yet never imposed. When one imagines a perfect system, it is common to notice the limit to its horizon. It is natural for finite beings to do so, but that is a rather incomplete analysis if we stop there. Take a circle for example, it is perfect by definition and yet limited by its circumference. What about squares and triangles etc.? Does the perfect circle leave them out of the picture? We often fail to realize that perfection can be added to without end, as long as the whole system remains in harmony. Imagine a geometric pattern with an endless variety of circles, as well as other shapes added, so long as they fit the overall theme or nature. That nature is inevitably illustrated by the law of non-contradiction. So perfection is essentially that law, and not only one expression of it. In a computer program, the information available as well as its function is limited only by time, space, and energy of the programmer, etc. As long as the end result is without error, the program will operate as designed. However, if an error does occur; if some component of the whole system misses its mark, then the system breaks down either slightly or completely and outside correction is required. In either dysfunction, the result is the same, as the perfect unity of the system is lost. Since every system in this universe is chained to the entropic reality of the second law of thermodynamics, my illustration is obviously just an analogy. A computer and its software are not absolute (ultimately perfect). My thesis is for illustrating the common practice of denying the possibility of a stable-entropic reality that founds our existence. The key to such a reality is a power that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and altogether unfailing. Far from limiting humanity, the harmonious reality expressed in the Biblical Word of God and fulfilled by Jesus Christ opens the door to observe a truth at work that transcends runaway entropy, our finite universe, and unites all things into a divine order that has no limit. For simplicity, imagine again the geometric pattern that only gets richer and richer. The building of layers and dimension are as infinite conceptually as our conceptions of the infinite in any other area such as ”space’. As long as the components are doing what they were designed to do, there is no limit to the additions of any sort provided they are achieved in unity with the whole. This denotes proper placement and order of things, not the demise or limitation of them. Clearly, the richness of our universe from the sub-atomic to the galactic reflects the incalculable potential for order to be expressed to an extent that transcends simple mathematical equations. In such a system, time would evaporate as the process of decay may well not exist and the end would not threaten the individual parts. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that time would be transcended by eternity (a much different sort of measure). With proper (perfect) discipline, I see no reason to exclude any legitimate purpose or pleasure that exists in life within the parameters of such selflessness and commitment to order. In light of that, our only danger (as we presently witness) would be to assume control of the whole, of which we are only part. There is no need to desire such control other than to bring glory to an individual part that belongs to another, or the whole. In fact, the only ”real’ glory of any one dimension or part of a perfect system is in the fact that its proper place is realized and fulfilled. Then the part would actually be in concert with, and contributing to the divine wonder of the ever expanding horizons of being. Being perfect (real), it would not be possible for the part not to exist. Each part becomes essential and meaningful to the whole of existence. In Psalm 119; 96 king David delights in the boundless nature of the law of God and I believe we can understand the nature of the truth and its source that he is worshipping. God is whole and complete and wills us to live in His reality that we were designed for. We were designed for perfection. We set our bar far too low without Him. Without Him, we cannot conceive of what is ultimately His vision (we wouldn’t expect to). We are commanded to be perfect and He intends to make us whole again if we let Him (He will not give us less). Only He is capable of that. We are so far removed from this reality of His that we do not even desire to attain such an existence. He only asks that we believe in His perfection and turn (repent) from expecting less. We must accept His offer and choose it by humbling ourselves. Fortunately, He has the ability to give us the strength to endure the transition. One only need ask Him for it. We can trust that our faith is well placed, as nothing can replace or outdo perfection. It is simply more real than anything else. As a Christian, I believe based on empirical, rational, and personal experiential evidence, that we can see that reality even now ”as through a glass’ by way of a personal relationship with Christ. The truth reveals itself and it’s opposition, and sets us free from any deception. As finite natural creatures, we miss the mark, but God does not. We need not have faith in ourselves, when we can have faith in the perfect one. It is in the pre-natural or super-natural that the answers are found; the infinite nature of the God’s truth. His perfection is the reality we are so feeble to find on our own within our finite selves. What is reality? As G.K. Chesterton said, the only philosophy is the philosophy that is eternal (paraphrased). It is the absolute truth; the will of God. As Jesus said, ”my kingdom is not of this world’, but He did in fact create it. He is the uncaused I/you relationship who said, ”Let us create man in our image’. In Him, all things consist. We may very well discover, on the other side of this life that the invisible anti-matter theorized by so many physicists, is in fact the mighty hand of God. He spoke the universe into being, so that ”being’ would not be limited to Himself or His glory. God did not choose to stay ”in perfection’ as He always was in His triune nature, so being love, He chose to create ”infinite perfection’. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : made some new ammedments...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
After reviewing my old article... I... um... er...
Well.... it may be good theology, but it's bad communication and even childish... Even so, I'll leave it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Phat
Are you saying that there is no such thing as an original thought? I am sorry, Phat,but I fail to connect the relevance of an original thought with the question I asked.
sidelined writes: How can something that had no beginning be said to exist? If something has no beginning then this is equivalent to saying it never existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
sidelined writes: Why must it have never existed? What if it always existed? If something has no beginning then this is equivalent to saying it never existed. Are you asserting as fact that anything and everything must have a beginning? If so, the beginning is our awareness. (on an individual level) You may well have existed before I was born, but as far as my perspective, you began when I became aware of you. From a scientific perspective, we can determine that the universe existed before we as humans did, but it is entirely our perception, perspective, and reasoning abilities that determine this.. As far as the concept or belief in God, we can not determine anything for certain beyond our beliefs. As far as the concept of an eternal universe versus a universe with a definite beginning, we again are only scratching the surface of our understanding and/or perception.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
God did not have a beginning, therefore He does not need a cause.
The point is that you don't know god did not have a beginning, you merely assert it & attempt to use it as a premise in your argument. Evidentially vacuous premises ultimately lead to evidentially vacuous conclusions that can be discarded. But you also apply a design inference to complex things & conclude they were designed. Applying this to god concludes he was designed by another bigger, better god, & so on. In other words using your own logic, the god you assert is everything, isn't. Either the design inference is valid, or it isn't. If you refuse to apply it to god then you are guilty of special pleading & hypocricy. But to return to your topic title, asking such questions is meaningless until you first demonstrate at least one god exists. Only then can you fill your boots with logical fallacies. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mark24:
The point is that you don't know god did not have a beginning, you merely assert it & attempt to use it as a premise in your argument. Evidentially vacuous premises ultimately lead to evidentially vacuous conclusions that can be discarded. No... it's not a premise, but a conclusion based upon careful examination of the evidence. Assuming the existence of God for a moment, what are our options on this issue? 1. God is uncaused 2. God is caused. Now, you cannot show that God is caused either. You can however make an inference based on material (physical) obsevations. And I think that is part of your position. If so, I understand... The fact is, the physical dimension is dependant upon causation. But it is not the only dimension. If confining the emperical 'to the physical and natural' (methodological naturalism) is itself only a philosophical assumption, then by what natural method is it based? The attempt is being made to escape from philosophy. That is not possible. You cannot get outside of the box to make that stick. It's an asssumption. So who has the flawed premise? I can quote Kant and Hume and show you the violent contradictions in their thinking. Their ghosts still haunt us... Philosophy is not material. Philosophy is an assumption, 'that since the physical world is logical, our observations and philsophical models of it's appearence must be as well'. So philsophical coherence is essential as a further test of our observations. This ties in with the whole 'theo'ry 'theo'logy debate. Though it is true that the root of both words is different, both are rooted in the same belief; that the universe is ordered in an intelligable manner. As Paul Davies points out, that cannot be proven logically. It is a philosophical assumption. mark24: But you also apply a design inference to complex things & conclude they were designed. Applying this to god concludes he was designed by another bigger, better god, & so on. In other words using your own logic, the god you assert is everything, isn't. Either the design inference is valid, or it isn't. If you refuse to apply it to god then you are guilty of special pleading & hypocricy. Design applies only to 'physical things'. God exists as a Spirit ultimately who caused the arrival of the physical dimension. It is the quantum realm where our physcal laws are not violated, but transcended in some way. I don't fully understand it either. But the quantum is a reality. Striking isn't it? That the writers of the Bible could invent 'this God', in such a manner that even modern science thousands of years later would confirm... more than defy? Mark24: But to return to your topic title, asking such questions is meaningless until you first demonstrate at least one god exists. Oh that's actually pretty easy when you think about it. Reality exists, irrespective of it's (or His) nature. Reality is God. As Descartes showed us long ago, that is the one thing we cannot deny; 'I think, therfore I am'. Something definitely exists. If nothing else, we can be sure that there is a 'doubter' doing the doubting. So there is a God, we're really only tryting to establish his nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
No... it's not a premise, but a conclusion based upon careful examination of the evidence. You have no evidence god exists at all, that's why religions are called faiths. But, knock yourself out & present some, I guarantee logical fallacies.
So who has the flawed premise? You do, nothing you have said has made any difference to the FACT that you do not know that god had a beginning, or not.
Design applies only to 'physical things'. Baseless assertion & special pleading. God can make non-physical things, he's omnipotent, right?
God exists as a Spirit ultimately who caused the arrival of the physical dimension. Baseless assertion.
Striking isn't it? That the writers of the Bible could invent 'this God', in such a manner that even modern science thousands of years later would confirm Whaaaaat? Science has not confirmed the existence of god!
Reality is God. Baseless assertion. The fact remains that: 1/ There is no evidence that god exists; 2/ Therefore the question, "is something we have no evidence of caused or uncaused is moot; 3/ Applying the design inference to god results in a "designed" conclusion. 4/ Any attempt to avoid this results in hypocritical special pleading. Nothing you have said has changed this, just saying "god IS reality", or "god is a spirit" is meaningless, evidentially vacuous nonsense that you use as evidentially vacuous premises to come to evidentially vacuous conclusions. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: Reality is God. mark24: Baseless assertion. Actually, it is the definition of God. 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality... :God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster That's what God means... If definitons are baseless, then every word you used is baseless and purely meaningless. Words mean things or they don't. I didn't hink you were a postmodernist. Was I wrong? mark24: You have no evidence god exists at all, that's why religions are called faiths. But, knock yourself out & present some, I guarantee logical fallacies. Fine... what evidence are you willing to accept? Let me guess... 'Emperical'? But the appearence, ressurection, and ascension of Christ was not in the flesh and in time? Were the holes in His hands when Thomas touched Him illusions. Thomas didn't think so... he fell to His knees and said, 'My Lord and my God'! Let me ask you this... would you believe if you witnessed all of the above for yourself? Thomas didn't until he saw Him risen. Jesus (speaking prophetically) said, 'even if someone was raised from the dead, they still would not believe'. Mark24:Whaaaaat? Science has not confirmed the existence of god! I was equating God with spirit as the Bible says. You were not aware of the quantum? I know it's still up in the air. Not implying everyone sees the same implications. But you might read John Polkinghorne's book 'One World'. He says the dimension of the transcendant can no longer be ignored. John is professor of quantum at Cambridge. You cannot be certain of anything at this point in terms of physicality. But why can I be certain of that? We are forced to rely upon our inferences and logic. And that's not science (because of the definition of science currently). Words mean things. You keep saying, 'Baseless assertion'! Well, tell me mark24, what is the difference between a baseless assertion and one with a base? Is it not called 'cause and effect' which is dependent itself on the 'ground consequent' and vice versa? Logic is our only tool Mark. And it transcends cause and effect, and inevitably is only as good as our individual associations and inferences based upon incomplete information. But good theoretical philosophy (which is what theology is) must be assumed to be valid, since otherwise nothing is valid. And that is a philsophical position whether you are a naturalist or not. So, philsophical coherence is where all the answers ultimately lie. They are consequently grounded on the belief that logic illutrates and sheds light on reality. We live in a culture that has by and large abandoned philosophy as meaningless. Don't they understand that their's is a philsophical position? And... it is immediately contradictory! 'We cannot have it both ways, and no sneers at the limitations of logic...amend the dilemma.' (I.A. Richards /Priciples of Literary Criticism, chap. xxv.) mark24: nothing you have said has made any difference to the FACT that you do not know that god had a beginning, or not. Baseless assertion!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
Actually, it is the definition of God. 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality... That god is all reality is still a baseless assertion. Just because a dictionary defines Zeus, Jupiter, Vishnu etc. doesn't mean they exist. You are having real problems with logic, reason & reality here, mate.
Let me guess... 'Emperical'? Yes, that's right. Otherwise I have to accept all gods & goddesses regardles of whether they are mutually contradictory, or not.
You keep saying, 'Baseless assertion'! Yup, because you keep saying things you want to be true without evidence. You think this unfair?
what is the difference between a baseless assertion and one with a base? One has evidence & one doesn't.
Logic is our only tool Mark. And yours is appalling. For example, you think a dictionary definition is support for god not only existing but is also all reality!
mark writes: Nothing you have said has made any difference to the FACT that you do not know that god had a beginning, or not.
rob writes: Baseless assertion! That is a lie. None of your posts have provided evidence for your position. The EVIDENCE is your previous posts available for the perusal of all, ergo, my statement is an assertion with an evidential basis. You should try it. Rob mate, you're a waste of time, & you have the balls to tell me how important logic is. Embarrassing. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Phat
Why must it have never existed? What if it always existed? That is the problem Phat. If something never began to exist {no beginning} then we can hardly turn around and say that it does have existence now can we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
sidelined writes: That is the problem Phat. If something never began to exist {no beginning} then we can hardly turn around and say that it does have existence now can we? Lets consider abstract concepts for a moment.
By the same token, God can exist before humans can define/describe/perceive Him.(or Her...or It...) I will not argue the point that God necessarily must exist. I am only going with can for now.
sidelined writes: What about the universe itself? There is no indication that matter had a beginning, is there? ...If something never began to exist {no beginning} then we can hardly turn around and say that it does have existence now can we? Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them. * * * * * * * * * * “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Homer Simpson: Sometimes, Marge, you just have to go with your gut! Marge: You *always* go with your gut! How about for once you listen to your brain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Yes, that's right. Otherwise I have to accept all gods & goddesses regardles of whether they are mutually contradictory, or not. Ahhh - it's a false dillemma though Mark. Either we accept empirical evidence, or we accept all gods. The latter is a popular appeal to the consequences used by many atheists. Infact, logic does not require that God/s do not exist, or that you accept all gods. It requires that you treat all gods equally, when assesed logically. But their validity can not be known through logic alone, necessarily, without assuming that only empirical evidence can "find" out their truth-value. For we do not know what should be credence for a God, so it is very hard to treat them equally, when we are left to conclude that which is most plausible, through individual subjective analysis. Hence we then go back to science, if we are not convinced. I contend that spiritual experience is the only detector worth bothering with. I admitt that the biblical God can not be treated in a special sense, objectively, but I think logical positivism is essentially flawed because if something doesn't exist untill it's proven by humans, then everything we had not discovered, did not exist untill we discovered it. This is essentially the positivist's position; to deny all unless discovered. It is an appeal to ignorance. BUT, you did say that you are an atheist who does not reject God as a possibility, if memory serves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6056 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
quote:We have evidence to support that the universe had a point of origin. Wouldn't that qualify as a beginning? As for matter itself, we have very little capacity to analyze it at this point so it would be premature to try and draw conclusions as to whether or not it supports the concept of creation. I'm guessing that it will though
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
pbee writes: We have evidence to support that the universe had a point of origin. Wouldn't that qualify as a beginning? So the uncaused first cause assertion has no evidence, eh? Poor God! His creation gets all the credit for defining itself, while He gets kicked to the curb! I certainly hope He can find a job, since everything appears to have been created. And is anyone going to hire Him if He cant show any job history on His resume? I can imagine it now..... Interviewer: OK...."God" is it? You wrote here that you are the Creator of all that is seen and unseen? I'm sorry but you appear to be overqualified for the position we have open.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024