Just a question

[Rasta]

Why would we assume that any action at any time was uncaused? Please answer this question this time.

Once you answer this question, you will have your answer. I've gotta go. I'll be back tomorrow.

Thanks for the disscussion.

 

[Abbadon]

What caused causality? Aristotle. Next?

This is not what I'm saying. Causality is not a specific event in time. It is a dynamic that has been givin a name. Though this is only an idea.

You're changing the subject from that dynamic to the label we apply to it. If you're allowed to do that, then the geocentrists will be able to argue against gravity since the term to describe it isn't a universal law in itself, and WarEagle would be on the spot by saying "Who invented evolution? Darwin? Next!"

And fail or succeed?

I honestly have to answer that?

Fail. An omnipotent being would be able to limit thier power for a couple of hours so that they would fail to pick up a pebble, and then continue to be omnipotent and go back and pick up the same pebble.

Yes it is simple. I'm not debating the simplicity of the idea, which you seem to be associating with it making sence.

I don't associate it with making sense, I'm trying to make it more understandable.

Three gods are one. Simple idea. Though it is clear for me to see that 1+1+1 does not equal 1. Simple ideas don't need to make sence to be simple.

Are the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments dealing with three different seperate deities or the same one?

Why would we assume that any action at any time was uncaused? Please answer this question this time.

I have already answered this question:
Either
A) causality is uncaused (which would violate causality)
or
B) causality has a cause (which would be in line with causality since everything has a cause)

B implies:
B1) the cause of causality has a cause (which would mean that it is bound by causality, and effect would preceed cause, violating causality).
B2) the cause of causality is uncaused (which, since cause preceeds effect, and effect cannot preceed cause, does not violate causality).

B2 is the only option that does not violate causality, which you affirm, yet it is the one you deny the most.

 

[WarEagle]

...

 

[WarEagle]

That is not what he said. You owe him an apology for your misrepresentation.

I'm sure he can speak for himself just fine without your help.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I'm sure he can speak for himself just fine without your help.

Perhaps, but whether he can, or whether he can't, is never an excuse for someone to sit back and allow another to be bullied, libeled, or abused in any way. To remain silent is often no different than to be complicit.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Do you realize that when you falsely accuse people of attacking others it makes you look like a troll?

Had I made a false accusation, you would be correct. However, your ad hominem remarks are there for all to see.

 

[GeratTzedek]

There is NO WAY to tell if it is true.

Does god exsist? You will say yes. Does you saying the three letters that comprise the word associated with the idea Yes an indicator of the truth of the actual state of affairs?

Or is that your opinion?

You don't know what I'm talking about?

We need to stay on topic. This side discussion has nothing to do with whether G-d exists or whether we can know G-d exists. It has to do with the motivations why someone would make the remarks they do. The definition of deception is to knowingly state a falsehood, ergo if the individual doesn't realize it is a falsehood, they cannot be being deceptive. They can be mistaken, but they cannot be lying. My comments which you quote were to that effect.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Fail. An omnipotent being would be able to limit thier power for a couple of hours so that they would fail to pick up a pebble, and then continue to be omnipotent and go back and pick up the same pebble.

As a Christian, I find that answer unacceptable. Omnipotence should be defined, from a Christian perepective, as the power to do anything that is logically possible. In a very broad sense, omnipotence would mean the power to do absolutely anything, but I wouldn't apply this broad meaning to God.

Are the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments dealing with three different seperate deities or the same one?

Seperate ones. Now how are you going to show me wrong? (I'm actually interested in the answer because I have been unable to come up with one I find sastifactory for specifically the cosmo. and tele. arguments). The problem with the cosmo. is that it could imply one god or many gods or no god. The tele. could imply one god or many gods. Therre is also several fallacies in those aguments which I find interesting.

In answer to the relation between the three and the one we see examples of this all the time. Take the relation in the following statement: "black black black". How many words were in there? Or take an example of time, it has a past, present, and future yet all are still members of time. Those probably aren't perefect examples of a Triune God, but it does show that a relation between 3 seperate things that are 1 in some sense is at least not completely impossible.

I have already answered this question:
Either
A) causality is uncaused (which would violate causality)
or
B) causality has a cause (which would be in line with causality since everything has a cause)

B is circular reasoning or question begging, I will explain a little below.

B implies:
B1) the cause of causality has a cause (which would mean that it is bound by causality, and effect would preceed cause, violating causality).
B2) the cause of causality is uncaused (which, since cause preceeds effect, and effect cannot preceed cause, does not violate causality).

B2 is the only option that does not violate causality, which you affirm, yet it is the one you deny the most.

I think you should define the causal principle a little better and it's relation to the implied Uncaused Cause in B2. It seems to me that the causal principle would be a necessity and absolute principle more than a caused principle and in B2 it seems you affirm something a little off track in that B2 implies that the causal principle exists before the causal principle which doesn't make sense to me. See, if the causal principle is itself caused, then the causal principle exists before the causal principle exists.

 

[Snowbunny]

I do not believe in god and I’m doing some research out of pure interest for I have never been educated about religion.

If the world is so amazing it can not exist without a creator, then wouldn’t the creator be so amazing it needed a creator as well? And if the creator does not need a creator of its own why should the world?

I do not need fact based arguments but at the same time please answer my question with respect.

hola svafree,

we do not believe that God is a creation... He is beyond it...

i really do not think you will have much luck attempting to understand God through observation of the physical world. there is evidence of Him that can be reasoned, i think, but that is really more like chasing an imprint or a shadow. to understand Him in a fuller capacity means reading the Bible, becoming a part of the Church and accepting what He chooses to reveal to you personally.

i think a lot of Christians struggle to find an 'objective' evidence for God that appeals to the larger population that looks upon us as superstitious zealots. 'objective' is almost without fail something that excludes the bible or personal experiences and feelings (what we might consider the illumination of God through the Holy Spirit)... and without those tools it is difficult to speak the same language.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Rasta]

You're changing the subject from that dynamic to the label we apply to it. If you're allowed to do that, then the geocentrists will be able to argue against gravity since the term to describe it isn't a universal law in itself, and WarEagle would be on the spot by saying "Who invented evolution? Darwin? Next!"

Darwin didn't invent evolution? My point is, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Ones I never said.

Fail. An omnipotent being would be able to limit thier power for a couple of hours so that they would fail to pick up a pebble, and then continue to be omnipotent and go back and pick up the same pebble.

That doesn't make sence. He tried to pick it up, but was unable to pick it up? If he "limited" his power, then he didn't really try did he? This is a logical paradox. Just because there are "traditional" answers doesn't mean they're valid.

Are the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments dealing with three different seperate deities or the same one?

I was merely illustrating a point. Simple doesn't equal logical inherantly. Though occams razor says that's usually the case.

Pink flying bunnies is a simple concept anyone could reckognize, even a toddler. Though the idea is not logically sound.

B) causality has a cause (which would be in line with causality since everything has a cause)

What is this causality you speak of? You speak of it as if it is a specific thing that occured at some point in time. This is a false distiction you attempt to draw.

 

[Snowbunny]

Darwin didn't invent evolution?

hola,

just as an aside the word 'invent' comes from the latin word 'invenire' (in-weh-neer-uh) 'to find' or 'discover' which is a starkly different idea than 'create' the way invent is sometimes used today.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Rasta]

The definition of deception is to knowingly state a falsehood, ergo if the individual doesn't realize it is a falsehood, they cannot be being deceptive. They can be mistaken, but they cannot be lying. My comments which you quote were to that effect.

Ok. If they are speaking authoritatively about something they do not KNOW to be true, I guess that's just ignorance rather than dishonesty.

If they claim to know something they don't really KNOW that's dishonest.

 

[Rasta]

hola,

just as an aside the word 'invent' comes from the latin word 'invenire' (in-weh-neer-uh) 'to find' or 'discover' which is a starkly different idea than 'create' the way invent is sometimes used today.

que Dios te bendiga

No doubt, I think you are right. That's usually what I think of when I say the word. I wasn't implying that Darwin created the fundimental mechanics to make evolution true.

 

[Snowbunny]

I wasn't implying that Darwin created the fundimental mechanics to make evolution true.

lol, most of what i mean to say is written in between the lines...

 

[Rasta]

lol, most of what i mean to say is written in between the lines...

Mee too!!

 

[Yekcidmij]

Mee too!!

*Reads between the lines.............*


You do believe in God!

 

[Snowbunny]

what kind of pilot are you?

 

[Yekcidmij]

what kind of pilot are you?

I pilot ships.

 

[Snowbunny]

I pilot ships.

oh that must be interesting! i grew up on the ocean... my husband is a very avid sailor, but he's in the air force and i don't see him very often. 25 seems too young to be a naval lieutenant... what are you?

 

[Yekcidmij]

oh that must be interesting! i grew up on the ocean... my husband is a very avid sailor, but he's in the air force and i don't see him very often. 25 seems too young to be a naval lieutenant... what are you?

A naval lieutenant (jg).