Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 46 of 297 (416397)
08-15-2007 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mike the wiz:
That quote about philosophical coherency is interesting.
This part is interesting;
" science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world ".
For me - it is frustrating that people therefore dismiss such things.
It is frustrating, because the logical quesiton is, 'why'?
They have to have a philosophical purpose for doing so. they cannot just pull it out of thin air...
But that is exactly what they do.
They have to get outside of the box to make it stick.
It is utterly sophist. But I don;t think all that many are aware of it. It takes a pretty keen discernment to uncover the contradiction. I didn't find it myself... But now that I see it, it is becoming more clear all the time, and it is getting easier to communicate.
mike the wiz:
Such arguments are powerful in regards to a formal cause, etc...that being that entities have the nature of that which they come from, within them etc...so the statement doesn't rule out value to philosophy.
Not only that, the statement is based upon a philosophical pressuposition.
And that, my dear Watson... is the whole point.
ps. hope you don't mind me calling you Watson...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 3:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 47 of 297 (416398)
08-15-2007 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
08-15-2007 1:51 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
No, you are believing an account that is (& even that isn't the case)internally consistent.
yes, i was going to say, rob must be reading a very different bible than i am. what do we make of the fact that the god of the bible is internally inconsistent? that in some books, he punishes the wicked and rewards the just (the torah), and in other punishes the just just for the sake of proving a point (job), and in still others, forgives everyone (the gospels).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 1:51 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 4:07 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 50 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 5:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 48 of 297 (416400)
08-15-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rob
08-15-2007 3:23 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,
Are you saying that if we could duplicate that, you would beleive that the universe is essentially one giant lab, and that God used?
No, if god did it, not us. I'm not talking about genetic manipulation, I'm talking about going "allakazam" & pop, there is a completely & unambiguously new organism in front of us, by magic.
I'd allow he/she/it to use dust, but it would have to be on the spot created ex nihilo dust .
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 3:23 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 5:14 PM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 49 of 297 (416402)
08-15-2007 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
08-15-2007 3:51 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Arach,
I'd expect some gymnastic philosophism that makes it all consistent even though it obviously isn't, but perhaps that's off topic.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 08-15-2007 3:51 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 8:18 PM mark24 has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 50 of 297 (416408)
08-15-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by arachnophilia
08-15-2007 3:51 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Arachnophilia:
yes, I was going to say, rob must be reading a very different bible than i am. what do we make of the fact that the god of the bible is internally inconsistent? that in some books, he punishes the wicked and rewards the just (the torah), and in other punishes the just just for the sake of proving a point (job), and in still others, forgives everyone (the gospels).
I've argued this one before, but not here at EVC.
God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. How can he be all three?
Well it's easy to see that they are interdependant. You couldn't be omnipotent, unless you were also omniscient. And you couldn't be omnisicent, without being omnipresent.
It's the same with Justice and mercy. If one is merciless toward the victem, then one cannot deliver justice to the guilty. As for job, it doesn't take a great deal of faith to believe that omnipotence knows how to dispense both... for the goal of total justice when all is said and done.
If we look at a smal frame in time, then justice appears to be lacking in some cases. But in the eternal scheme of things (which is the proper Biblical context), God is absolutely Just, while being absolutely merciful.
I would however, expect it to be a bit of a mystery to us as we are very impatient creatures. And that leads to unecessary criticisms which really reveal a lack of belief, rather than any actual shortcomings of the concepts in question.
No gymnastic philosophism necessary. it's rather logical and straightforward thoelogy. But it will take some baseless assertions (inevitably founded on 'unkown to the author gymnastic philosophisms') to argue against it.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by arachnophilia, posted 08-15-2007 3:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 08-16-2007 7:58 AM Rob has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 51 of 297 (416413)
08-15-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mark24
08-15-2007 4:03 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
No, if god did it, not us. I'm not talking about genetic manipulation, I'm talking about going "allakazam" & pop, there is a completely & unambiguously new organism in front of us, by magic.
Well that's easy... according to some of our most sophisticated scientific theorists, the whole universe... 'Life and all (irrespective of time)' did just that!
Bang!
We are here mark24... I guess if you can't be God (which would be required to witness such an event), you won't believe in the Biblical God.
And the Historical accounts of the miracles are not valid either I presume?
Has it ever occured to you what a miracle really is? They're ultimately, not all that miraculous really...
May I reccomend 'Miracles' by C.S. Lewis to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 4:03 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 5:27 PM Rob has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 52 of 297 (416418)
08-15-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rob
08-15-2007 5:14 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,
Well that's easy... according to some of our most sophisticated scientific theorists, the whole universe... 'Life and all (irrespective of time)' did just that!
You're not listening.
The big bang didn't have to have god light the blue touch paper. But to have acceptable evidence that a being exists that can create universes, I want to see it, or anything else that is attributed to god.
Having something happen doesn't mean god did it.
You asked what evidence I would accept, & the answer is to see under lab conditions a being do things attributed to god.
And the Historical accounts of the miracles are not valid either I presume?
The mythical acounts, you mean? Or what about the "Historical" accounts of other religions that contradict yours? Logic again.
But back to the topic in hand. In order to ask the question whether god is caused or uncaused? We must first have evidence of gods existence, or we may as well be asking what colour unicorns eyes are.
We don't know god exists, so the question is moot.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 5:14 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 7:55 PM mark24 has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 53 of 297 (416441)
08-15-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by mark24
08-15-2007 5:27 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mark24:
You asked what evidence I would accept, & the answer is to see under lab conditions a being do things attributed to god.
Something necessarily designed... I see!
Will a bacteria do? The Evolution of the Flagellum
Or try this one: Abiogenesis and click the play button on the 'Harvard Biovisions' video.
mark24:
The mythical acounts, you mean? Or what about the "Historical" accounts of other religions that contradict yours? Logic again.
Well some people don't believe in the Holocaust you know? Your point is valid...
But that only goes to show that someone is wrong, and that the truth is exclusive. At least your not one of those who believe 'we are all right' (except that I'm wrong not to believe that of course) kind of guys. I can respect that.
However, we have tests for historical credibility and accuracy. One of which you have already mentioned, and that is the test of internal consistency.
Do you know them? Put the Bible on trial alongside other history that is considered fact: http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/bible.html
mark24:
But back to the topic in hand. In order to ask the question whether god is caused or uncaused? We must first have evidence of gods existence, or we may as well be asking what colour unicorns eyes are.
Nah... unicorn is not synonymous with reality.
Of course God exists... it is not possible for reality not to exist. And that is the context of 'the God' of the Bible. The creator of all things. Like logic, He is axiomatic or self evident. Not some being that exists in reality, but is what it is.
When Moses asked God's name, what did God say? "I am that I am". You cannot make the connection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 5:27 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 08-16-2007 3:19 AM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 54 of 297 (416452)
08-15-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mark24
08-15-2007 4:07 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
I'd expect some gymnastic philosophism that makes it all consistent even though it obviously isn't, but perhaps that's off topic.
EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?
Edited by Admin, : The link had been rendered improperly, so just rerendering to fix it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mark24, posted 08-15-2007 4:07 PM mark24 has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 55 of 297 (416460)
08-15-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by mike the wiz
08-15-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
mike the wiz:
May I ask though Rob - do you think ID should be a part of science then?
Well ID is not science by definition. But that is because science is defined as 'methodological naturalism'. What I was showing is that that is a contradiction.
Methodological naturalism is based upon a philosophical assumption that contradicts it's own claim to be non-philosophical.
So the problem isn't really that ID isn't science. The problem is that so called science isn't what it claims to be.
And since both are ultimately only philosophical constructs, and ID is ultimately more philosophically coherent (logical) than 'methodological naturalism', then if anything, ID is more scientific than so-called emperical science.
ID is certainly an inference to the best explaination.
If you want to chew on that, here is a link to an excellent video which explains what I have just said 'in their own words': Abiogenesis
Give it a moment to load, and then just scroll down to the man on the chalkboard. After clicking play, watch the clip (which is clip 6, about ten minutes) and then watch clip 7 by finding it in the menu that should pop up automatically after clip 6 is finished.
Study it carefully....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by mike the wiz, posted 08-15-2007 3:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by pbee, posted 08-15-2007 9:56 PM Rob has replied
 Message 60 by mark24, posted 08-16-2007 3:25 AM Rob has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6027 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 56 of 297 (416474)
08-15-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rob
08-15-2007 8:44 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Fascinating video Rob, thanks for sharing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 8:44 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 10:10 PM pbee has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 57 of 297 (416480)
08-15-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by pbee
08-15-2007 9:56 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
pbee:
Fascinating video Rob, thanks for sharing.
It my utmost honor maddam... watch the whole thing (about 18 times).
The only one better (or equal) is called 'The Privilaged Planet'. But rather than biology it deals with the cosmological side of the issue. I don't however know of any links to it online.
I own both (well I did... until I gave my copies away). Just can't seem to keep it to myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by pbee, posted 08-15-2007 9:56 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by pbee, posted 08-15-2007 10:21 PM Rob has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6027 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 58 of 297 (416482)
08-15-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rob
08-15-2007 10:10 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob, I don't mean to be the party basher but I would like to know what you think of this comment regarding the Video in question.
quote:
Proteins do self-assemble without DNA. Saying otherwise is a lie or a falsehood. These people are ignoring known biochemistry. It happens. It sounds like another version of "irreducible complexity", which we already know is creationist-speak for "too difficult for me to envisage". Just like mousetraps. Good things these guys are not engineers. Natural selection operates before Life. These guys just are not intelligent enough to cope.
Again, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I thought it was interesting that some would contest that the information given here is not accurate or honest.
Personally, despite my own fascination with science and evolution, this stuff is beyond my own understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 10:10 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:09 AM pbee has not replied
 Message 68 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 2:52 AM pbee has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 297 (416501)
08-16-2007 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Rob
08-15-2007 7:55 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,
Will a bacteria do?
Did god do it in a lab with credible witnesses & recording equipment? If not, no. But apply the same design inference to god & by your own logic he must be designed.
But that only goes to show that someone is wrong, and that the truth is exclusive.
It goes to show that at least one account is wrong, it does nothing to show that one of them is right, or that even one of them is right.
However, we have tests for historical credibility and accuracy. One of which you have already mentioned, and that is the test of internal consistency.
Watership Down with talking rabbits is internally consistent, that doesn't stop it being fiction.
Do you know them? Put the Bible on trial alongside other history that is considered fact:
Most fiction is set against a historical or contemporary (at the time of writing) setting. Doesn't make it true. As mentioned, Watership Down is set against a latter half of the twentieth century setting in England. Complete fiction.
Nah... unicorn is not synonymous with reality
Exactly, neither is god.
Of course God exists... it is not possible for reality not to exist.
Baseless assertion. As far as you are concerned it is perfectly possible for reality to exist without god. Reality is everything, therefore it is uncaused. Your logic, not mine.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 7:55 PM Rob has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 60 of 297 (416502)
08-16-2007 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rob
08-15-2007 8:44 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob,
So the problem isn't really that ID isn't science. The problem is that so called science isn't what it claims to be.
But it is, I have given you a standard of empirical evidence that I & science would accept as valid evidence of god. There could be evidence of god, there just isn't. ID as it stands just doesn't meet the standard.
You are confusing methodological naturalism with metaphyshical naturalism. The former merely requires physical evidence, the other rejects the supernatural.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rob, posted 08-15-2007 8:44 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:01 AM mark24 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024