God the middleman

[Nihilist Virus]

How is the Aristotelian law of causality (not mere statement implication) not logical?

To be logical is to be of or pertaining to logic. Aristotle's laws of causality pertain to physical reality.

Failure to meet the burden of proof is never determined by atheists' ever-increasing level of personal incredulity.

Ok, I'm not arguing that with you here.

Subjectivism is non-dominant in logic.

More rambling from you.

 

[Paulomycin]

To be logical is to be of or pertaining to logic. Aristotle's laws of causality pertain to physical reality.

It's the same thing.

Ok, I'm not arguing that with you here.

^ Gonna print this, frame it, and hang it from the Christmas tree.

More rambling from you.

No. Subjectivism is not a law of the universe.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Maybe there is no way for God to demonstrate how he knows something. Christians have stories of knowing things through the Holy Spirit with confidence yet being unable to explain. One possible definition of "faith" might be "knowing something is true without being able to explain why you know it". If humans can know truths without being able to demonstrate why they know these truths then maybe it is possible for God to know truths without being able to demonstrate why when it is impossible to demonstrate why. It seems that God's knowledge might be innate rather than a result of reasoning and reflecting and learning.

I don't see Christians letting any of that fly when other religions claim the same thing.

If God's mind is greater than the simulation then he should be able to know everything that will happen in the simulation from the initial conditions.

What does it mean for a mind to be greater than a simulation?

It depends how we define omniscient. I'm defining omniscient to include both God's simulation and Baal's simulation. You are defining omniscient for only God's simulation.

Ok I see what you mean.

I agree, and when I said "must be deterministic" I meant "must" as a requirement rather than an assertion.

One possible strategy for lack of omniscience of the future if the universe is non-deterministic even from God's perspective is to say that omniscience only requires knowing things that exist and the future does not exist until it happens. So God would not need to know the future, because the future doesn't exist.

I think this would only apply to a creature that is inside the universe, because otherwise one wouldn't be subject to time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You're thinking of logical implication.

No, it is a law of logic.

nv: Right. I don't believe in a god. That doesn't mean I believe there is no god. So why did you misrepresent me earlier? You said, "Your belief that there is no God which is a non physical entity, even has a cause." Why would you misrepresent my views like that?

I see no significant difference.

nv: What? You just provided Definition of atheist and your own souce says that it is a person who does *not* believe. Now you're saying it is a belief. Why are you so confused?

It is a belief, you do not know there is no god.

nv: Different? We aren't even in the same galaxy.

I see no significant difference as it regards to not being knowledge.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Do you know what a law is, in terms of logic?

Yes, do you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It's the same thing.

Lol, the very first sentence in your link states that the idea is speculative. What was it you were saying about speculation, earlier?

^ Gonna print this, frame it, and hang it from the Christmas tree.

Ok. I've got Jeremiah 10:3-4 framed for my Christmas tree.

No. Subjectivism is not a law of the universe.

Cool story.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, it is a law of logic.


I see no significant difference.


It is a belief, you do not know there is no god.


I see no significant difference as it regards to not being knowledge.

I'll go talk to a wall instead. I expect better results.

 

[Paulomycin]

Lol, the very first sentence in your link states that the idea is speculative. What was it you were saying about speculation, earlier?

That's editorializing, and you know it. Also, it's not "purely speculative," but has some real merit. I'm very careful with my words here.

Ok. I've got Jeremiah 10:3-4 framed for my Christmas tree.

At least we both agree it's worthless.

Cool story.

It's a hard fact to emotionally deal with. I get it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's editorializing, and you know it.

Uh, no. Of course it's speculative that physical reality literally is mathematics.

Also, it's not "purely speculative," but has some real merit.

Purely speculative.

I'm very careful with my words here.

No, I think you just refuse to admit when you're wrong.

You know, if you're going to fail on the apologetics front, you could at least bring some Christian humility and agape love. You come off as a know-it-all and are exposed as foolish whenever you speak to an expert in a given field. I know you don't understand set theory after talking to you.

I don't know what place you think you have in the body of Christ. I don't know what it is you think you offer. You're a massive turn-off to every atheist on here, I absolutely guarantee it. You don't know as much as you think you know.

 

[disciple Clint]

If there is no time without the universe, then “prior to the universe” cannot reference anything coherent. The duration of the existence of the universe and the full expanse of all time are equal.

and the material as I asked in the question you failed to answer, where did it come from and when if there was no time prior to the bb

 

[disciple Clint]

Two spirits flicker before you. One is Satan and one is the Holy Spirit. They both offer to come into your body. They both perform wonders and show you things that are inconceivable and leave you in such awe that you drop to your knees and weep.

They both claim to be the Holy Spirit. How do you know which is which? What could you possibly ask that would split them apart? According to 2 Corinthians 11:14, Satan can transform himself into an angel of light.

But now imagine a scenario a bit more terrifying. Now there's only one Spirit flickering before you.

very simple, all I have to do is consider what they are saying, the Holy Spirit is never going to ask me to anything against the will of God, the Bible tells us what the will of God is and is not. I can simply command in the name of Jesus depart from me satan.

 

[disciple Clint]

What is the difference between being self causing and being an uncaused cause? Whatever, why can't it be that the universe is an uncaused cause?

God is not caused, there was never a time when He did not exist.
The universe cannot be uncaused because it is a reaction. A ball does not just fly through the air, someone or something caused it to fly.

 

[Paulomycin]

Uh, no. Of course it's speculative that physical reality literally is mathematics.

All measurable testable evidence is math-dependent. It's not a stretch.

Purely speculative.

Then you don't believe in "measurable testable evidence." *shrug*

No, I think you just refuse to admit when you're wrong.

I think you refuse to admit you never read it. I think you refuse to admit you never bothered to look into it.

You know, if you're going to fail on the apologetics front, you could at least bring some Christian humility and agape love.

No, apologetics = defense, and I'm doing you a real favor here. You didn't objectively refute anything. Thank me.

You come off as a know-it-all and are exposed as foolish whenever you speak to an expert in a given field. I know you don't understand set theory after talking to you.

Please stop projecting. I never pretended to understand your attempt at "set theory of everything." I looked into it a little bit, and exposed it as a cheap scam. Maybe you'll get me next time.

I don't know what place you think you have in the body of Christ. I don't know what it is you think you offer. You're a massive turn-off to every atheist on here, I absolutely guarantee it. You don't know as much as you think you know.

I never claimed to. I just know where to look. And I'm not here to stroke anyone's ego. It doesn't work and never will.

 

[gaara4158]

and the material as I asked in the question you failed to answer, where did it come from and when if there was no time prior to the bb

You are not understanding my response. Asking where it came from smuggles in the premise that it had to have come from somewhere, and cannot be something that just exists. You have not justified this premise.

 

[gaara4158]

and the material as I asked in the question you failed to answer, where did it come from and when if there was no time prior to the bb

It can’t have come from anywhere. It must have existed for all of time. So it can’t be an effect. By your rules, anyway.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, do you?

You’re familiar with the Aristotelian laws of logic, then? The relationship between cause and effect as defined by the pseudo-law you’re referring to is merely an application of the law of identity, (something wholly separate from Aristotle’s speculative law of causality, which isn’t a law of logic).Everything that happens as a result of something else is defined as an effect, and everything that makes other things happen is defined as a cause. That’s all well and good, but the problem occurs when apologists try to use these definitions to extrapolate facts about reality. That’s not how logic works. Logic tells us how to make coherent statements about reality, not what reality is obligated to be. In reality, we can’t actually determine causal relationships with metaphysical certainty. Causation is an inference we make based on a variety of correlative factors. We cannot, therefore, determine whether the universe was caused to exist by something else merely by playing with the definitions of cause and effect.

 

[disciple Clint]

You are not understanding my response. Asking where it came from smuggles in the premise that it had to have come from somewhere, and cannot be something that just exists. You have not justified this premise.

What evidence do you have that it just exists and is an exception to everything we know about the way the universe works.

 

[disciple Clint]

It can’t have come from anywhere. It must have existed for all of time. So it can’t be an effect. By your rules, anyway.

there is no evidence for that

 

[gaara4158]

I'll go talk to a wall instead. I expect better results.

Know what’s more fun? Ignoring guys like this, engaging everyone else in the thread, and watching him ramble nonsense alone.

What evidence do you have that it just exists and is an exception to everything we know about the way the universe works.

We don’t have evidence either way. Therefore, arguments referencing the beginning of the universe as evidence for God are fallacious.

there is no evidence for that

Then your rules are wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God is not caused, there was never a time when He did not exist.
The universe cannot be uncaused because it is a reaction. A ball does not just fly through the air, someone or something caused it to fly.

Why can it not be that the matter of the universe and the basic forces of the universe always existed?

"Because I said so" is not an answer.