|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: There was a time in history that an airplane would have been illogical, since the observations were that everything except birds was restrained by gravity. Well, no. The logic has always been that a combination of gravity and aerodynamics governs the flight of birds and stones. The observation that birds do fly has always led people to the logical conclusion that human flight is possible. It only required people like Otto Lilienthal and the Wright brothers to add to the body of observations which made human flight a reality.
Ravi Zacharias says that in response to "which came first? The chicken or the egg" the creationist would always say that the chicken came first because a Creator always precedes any form or shape of creation. And the creationist is wrong, of course. There were eggs long before there were chickens. The "creator" of the egg existed in a different form. What implications does that have for the evolution of God? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
All I am saying is that A is A, and not -A. God is logic. Therefore His logical reason for existing is found within Himself. However you never bothered to support that position with anything more than one of several possible definitions from a dictionary. The problem with that is that definitions provide no support for a position and the fact that a Dictionary does not tell us anything more than a history of how a word is used in general conversation. To make it worse the definition you used all the way back in Message 1:
Main Entry: 1god Pronunciation: 'gd also 'god Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind which is from this online Dictionary does not support your assertion that God is logic. In fact, logic is not even mentioned in the definition. You assert that God is logic. Well, Loki the Trickster was often illogical yet Loki is God so God can be illogical. So far you have provided no evidence of your assertion that "Reality (God) is logical" or that "logic is uncaused" even though others have explained to you that logic is simply a human construct, that logic can and often is internally and externally consistent while the logical construct is also wrong. Throughout this thread you have simply provided unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, and in many cases, when examined those assertion have been shown to be false, and as in this case, not even supported by your own sources. Then as usual, you trot out the old canard of the Law of Non Contradiction as though it had any relevance or even merit with this topic. The Law of Non Contradiction may be valid in some cases, however it is also not applicable or correct in all. As has been pointed out to you, there are things that are particles and waves. The chair still supports me even though in reality it is mostly nothing. The topic, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and I honestly thing that were those two issues taken as Axiomatic, and interesting discussion might develop from the consequences of each position. However it would be important to remember that the initial premise is only Axiomatic, taken as true for the sake of the argument and unrelated to whether either position is in fact true. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rob
God is logic. Therefore His logical reason for existing is found within Himself. This is known as a circular argument and is not logical. You must present the premises you assume in order to arrive at a conclusion.God is logic you say. A logical reason for God's existence cannot arrive after he exists since this is against the Law of contradiction. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Ringo writes: Who laid the first egg? There were eggs long before there were chickens. The "creator" of the egg existed in a different form. What implications does that have for the evolution of God? My position in this argument has always been that1) God exists 2) God was existing before any human had any logic to imagine God. Thus....God imagined/created (allowed us to evolve after foreknowing us) long before we became intelligent enough to make up ideas about God in order to suit our agendas and whims. 3) People are free to believe or disbelieve as they like, but are responsible for their behavior. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: God imagined/created (allowed us to evolve after foreknowing us) long before we became intelligent enough to make up ideas about God in order to suit our agendas and whims. That doesn't really say anything about the topic. God was around before we were. So what? The dinosaurs were around before we had ideas about them too. Never mind our ideas about God. That's what got Rob all confused. What about the cause of God? What egg did He come from and what laid that egg? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Rob writes: my point is that the god of the bible is not logically consistent Where so? i'd like to apologize for letting this reply go. got a little busy/distracted. you are currently involved in a great debate on just one such example of the inconsistency of god: holy genocide v. loving those that which you ill. it's probably off-topic here, but if you'd like to continue maybe we can we can in another thread, or perhaps after the GD is closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perhaps the issue is whether we humans seek to safely know about God and study Him safely (so we think) from an unbiased distance.
OR Whether we actually get to know God. (Don't ask me how its possible...I'm still exploring this approach myself!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: Perhaps the issue is whether we humans seek to safely know about God and study Him safely (so we think) from an unbiased distance. OR Whether we actually get to know God. You wouldn't treat any other relationship that way though, would you? A complete stranger comes to your door promising you a set of eternal encyclopedias. Would you get to know him as your personal salesman or would you want to know about him first? But what has that got to do with whether or not the salesman is caused or uncaused? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Sidelined:
This is known as a circular argument and is not logical. So is your statement. All logic is circular, A=A and not -A. The law of non-contradiction is valid because it doesn't contradict itself. Maybe we have to say that God is infinitely regressive within Himself. Since He is logic, then He is the reason for His own existence. Emperical senses are circular too...
This kind of reciprocity in reasoning is ultimately unavoidable. For example, suppose you want to defend the idea that the senses are basically reliable. It would be fallacious to argue, “I believe in the reliability of the senses because I believe in the reliability of the senses.” That is begging the question. Nevertheless, we should all realize that it is absolutely impossible to argue for the basic reliability of sense perception without relying at least implicitly on sense perception. How do we argue for the reliability of our senses? We accumulate examples of times when our senses gave us true knowledge of the world. This is a perfectly sound induction. But how did we know that our examples even took place? How did we know our senses gave us true knowledge at these times? The answer is obvious: through sense perception. In what other way could one possibly demonstrate the reliability of the senses, except by relying on the senses? This is the kind of circularity or spiraling that Van Til pointed out in all human reasoning. It has nothing to do with begging the question. Consider the law of non-contradiction. How can it be logically justified? Of course, no one should say, “The law of non-contradiction is true because the law of non-contradiction is true.” That is begging the question. We may say that the law is self-evident, but that is an assertion, not an argument. Every linear argument we muster in support of the law of non-contradiction at least implicitly relies on the law. Sometimes, we argue for the law of non-contradiction by saying that its denial leads to absurdity. But to recognize absurdity we have implicitly to use the law of non-contradiction. At other times, we argue for the law by pointing out that every attempt to deny it requires the implicit use of the law. Once again, we rely implicitly on the principle to support the principle. Because the law of non-contradiction holds as a universal principle for all human reasoning, we can never reason properly without it, even as we defend its necessity. If it is indeed necessary for human thought, we then use it all the time, even when discussing the law itself. To acknowledge this is not to beg the question, it is merely to acknowledge the reality of how we come to know things. It really boils down to this... do you trust your eyes, or the mind that interprets what they see? Do we listen to the flesh, or the spirit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
The Law of Non Contradiction may be valid in some cases, however it is also not applicable or correct in all. Why? What would it be contradicting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
Well, our mental constructs exist as chemical and electrical patterns in our brains. “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” (British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane / http://www.science-spirit.org/webexclusives.php?article_i... ) You may want to read the whole article at the above link. I have yet to do so... but the attempts of you and the others to create a meaningful evolutionary epistemology is itself self defeating. If our mental constructs are not valid, then your own disagreement with me is not valid. If your mind does not exist other than in you mind, then you should have never found out that it doesn't exist other than in your mind. The Bible calls it spiritual blindness and death. It is the result of sin...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mark24:
We don't see logical relationships, we may see consistent mathematical relationships, but that's not the same thing as logical relationships. So now mathematical relationships are not logical either? We're in big trouble...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
What about the cause of God? What egg did He come from and what laid that egg? God... It reminds me of a question I once had. How could God have begotton a Son who is eternal? Doesn't make sense... Then I asked God (what a concept). He is eternal. So if God begets God... then He begets that which is exactly Like Him. It's rather crude, but I imagine God as a cell. When He multiplies He simply mulitplies... 1 X 1 = 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
However you never bothered to support that position... You sound like a broken record jar... However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support that position...However you never bothered to support thatposition...However you never bothered to...However you never bothered to support that position... support that position...However you never bothered to support that position... Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting... Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting...Misrepresenting... I have never yet met a man who is so obsessed with the sin of others and accusing them day and night. Demonizing and condemning them... Until Ad Populum is the rule of the game and everyone is repeating after jar... Joseph Goebles would be proud... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As I pointed out in Message 272:
Then as usual, you trot out the old canard of the Law of Non Contradiction as though it had any relevance or even merit with this topic. The Law of Non Contradiction may be valid in some cases, however it is also not applicable or correct in all. As has been pointed out to you, there are things that are particles and waves. The chair still supports me even though in reality it is mostly nothing. It is possible to love and hate someone at the same time. The topic, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and I honestly thing that were those two issues taken as Axiomatic, and interesting discussion might develop from the consequences of each position. However it would be important to remember that the initial premise is only Axiomatic, taken as true for the sake of the argument and unrelated to whether either position is in fact true. Something can be a wave and a particle. My favorite ice cream can be chocolate ice cream and strawberry ice cream and cherry ice cream. The chair can support me even though it is mostly not there. In addition, the topic, in case you missed it, is "God caused or uncaused?" and I honestly thing that were those two issues taken as Axiomatic, and interesting discussion might develop from the consequences of each position. However it would be important to remember that the initial premise is only Axiomatic, taken as true for the sake of the argument and unrelated to whether either position is in fact true. So the whole strawman of the alleged Law of Non Contradiction is irrelevant to the thread. You also ignore the rest of the points raised in Message 272 and seem to hope that by raising the strawman of Law of Non Contradiction no one will notice you palmed the pea. A good example is your ignoring the rebuttal to your assertion that "Reality (God) is logical. And logic is uncaused" where I pointed out to you that Loki is often illogical yet is God and therefore God does not equate to either reality or logic. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024