Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I just told you I can't prove it. I also mentioned that much of science's suppositions and conclusions are founded on such jumps in logic. This is no less of a valid supposition.Filling in the gaps with unfalsifiables is intellectually lazy. And now you're making an argument from ignorance fallacy: that I cannot prove your unfalsifiable wrong does not mean your unfalsifiable is true
Un-logical isn't the same as illogical. However, un-logical is perhaps unfalsifiable, so oh well. First Cause With Intent is not self contradictory or otherwise violating those principles. I don't say God is identical with logic. I say logic is his making. No, I can't
But logic itself is unfalsifiable. It is a basis for reasoning, and can be shown to be useful as such, as you indicated, but that is still question begging of a sort. You can't show it to be invalid, not because it is not invalid, but because it is of a sort of thing that cannot be accessed for that purpose.
Because, if no mind, then you are left with mechanical fact, which I think I already showed to be illogical. Meanwhile, the idea that the mechanical principles we are subject to come from him, because of his very nature, does not at all mean he is mere mechanical fact. You kinda sloughed that thought in. (Furthermore, it is only my opinion that they are the result of his nature --it only makes sense, to me).
Most forceful to me is the acknowledgement, and this too I cannot logically prove, that mere mechanical fact cannot absolutely begin anything new.
At best, gravity is co-emergent with whatever emerged. Also, cosmologists like Hawking say it too (apparently) began with the big bang, at least gravity as we conceive of it at this point (we still don't know what it is). Meanwhile, to those of us who are a little less advanced in cosmology, gravity is part of a system we might conceive as "what is", if we fail to see "what is" is not First Cause, because it is only a system of principles, that has no self-existence. We want to say they self-perpetuate, and that may be valid (though I doubt it), but it shows nothing about how that system came to be. First Cause is not a system, that operates by laws. That is mere mechanical fact, which I showed to be illogical, I think.
No, they're not leaps in logic, they're fundamental axioms necessary for the observations to make sense: that our empirical observations are reasonably trustworthy with methodological limits we place on studies (double blind, etc)I just told you I can't prove it. I also mentioned that much of science's suppositions and conclusions are founded on such jumps in logic. This is no less of a valid supposition.
I find it more likely that God wanted Moses to dodge the question.Halbhh 117 said:14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
It's interesting though isn't it that He answered this question this way those many thousands of years back, yes? Long before our modern ways of discussing. Existence Itself sent Moses to the Israelites. The One God. Our Father.
I don't buy WLC's support, based on Hilbert's Grand Hotel example, for an infinite series being impossible. He commits a proof by example fallacy.Zippy2006 119 quoting WLC to Silmarien 118 said:What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.
What is that, 'the energy of creation' ?childeye2 120 to OP said:By the way, the term 'God' when defined as the source of the energy of creation, is an axiom, so it's self evident in concept.
I suspect Craig prefers A-theory because it suits the KCA better.2PhiloVoid 122 to Silmarien 121 said:I know you don't have a preference for the A-Theory, which is one of the reasons I find this specific video interesting, especially since it seems that Craig attempts to explain why he takes this approach rather than the B-Theory option.
[8] What is that, a 'source for existence'Mark Quayle 179 to OP said:--And there is, in the end, logical proof that other sources for existence are not possible[8], through simple rules of logic: Infinite regression is illogical, as is the power of Chance.[9] And the favorite of the suddenly humble atheist, "I don't know", as if that is more intellectually honest than, "So far, First Cause is the only thing that makes sense to me." The universe did indeed have a beginning,[10] and the caused universe does not encompass or include God.
Assuming the definition from childeye 2 in post 164, God is the source of the energy of creation. What evidence can you present that it was male ? What evidence can you present that it still exists ?Mark Quayle 181 said:Thus, God did not "come from". He simply IS.
The KCA has been presented without support for its premises. The premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause is also ambiguous because the meaning of cause is unclear. No good definition for cause has been provided. It is the duty of the adherents of the argument to do so, not of its detractors. The definition I would come up with for cause requires time. If you know a good definition without time, please present it.Mark Quayle 181 to Amoranemix 192 said:Why would time be a requirement for causality? Logical sequence, yes, but time? Cause and effect is a principle that doesn't seem to me to depend on time, any more than actuality does. Perhaps reality by our parameters, i.e. existence as best we can understand it, but what (as we would define it) do we know does or does not exist beyond that?[11]
[12] Can you prove that ?Mark Quayle 195 said:Yet, if the universe is First Cause, self-aware, etc, it is BOUND by laws, particularly noticeable is the law of Cause and Effect. You have logically contradicted yourself, since such a universe did not Cause the laws it is subject to.[12] You may then argue that the laws were "co-emergent" with the ripening universe, but that is worse, as it begs outright for a beginning, which therefore had to be caused.[13] In this thought I hope you can see why we attend to "First Cause With Intent".muichimotsu 194 said:What if the universe is self aware and is just going through cycles that manifest in what we observe as the universe's expansion from the Big Bang? It still constitutes a cause and the beginning part can be qualified with a sub premise to reflect our limited perspective cosmologically.
How does one do that, speak in the absence of time ?Mark Quayle 198 to muichimotsu said:With First Cause, sequence of cause and effect (which itself I believe to be his invention also) need not be temporal. I suppose he could well have spoken his "final" (our concept, i.e. finished product) into existence, but subjects us to the temporal process that was necessary for that finished product to work out. He need not see it our way. He said it --it therefore was.
You are merely proposing a hypothesis. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of any being that caused time.Mark Quayle 198 said:Your concept of "static and frozen" is also a reference to time. But the being who invented both time and cause-and-effect does not fit our understanding of such things, not being subject to them. He causes them --he need not be under their authority.
[14] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?Mark Quayle 201 to muichimotsu said:No, he fits logic most perfectly.[14] But we lack much information. Meanwhile, it is altogether reasonable to say that he is logical, not because logic make sense and by it we can find out what he is, but that logic is what it is, because he is logical.[15] It is more than poetry. The same can be said, for example, of love. Our idea of love leads us astray when we try to use it to describe him. He is not loving because it is good to be loving, nor because that is his way of behaving; rather, love is what it is, because God is love.[16] We are pretty blind.
Please explain the activity 'making logic'.Mark Quayle 204 to muichimotsu said:You assume then, logic to be solid fact, regardless of who may have set up this order of things? God made logic, or he is not God. He is not subject to it except as it is his very nature.
Another problem is that you don't present any evidence. You are merely sharing your beliefs. The KCA points to Chritian beliefs, but constitutes no evidence for those beliefs.Mark Quayle 204 said:My concept is weak, my descriptions inept. I am only trying to point out that we are not capable of putting him into a basket, and that he is indeed by virtue of who he is, (not to mention by the fact that he made it all), above it all and in control of it all. I am sorry for my lack of logical explanations.
[17] That would be an opinion. How could it be an error ?Mark Quayle 204 said:I must insist though, that his definitions are the only entirely complete and sound. To claim that God must fit our definitions is an error.[17] Yet, when one says that therefore mine are not true, and they present a God who is subject to his creation, I say
(I Interpret First Cause as being God, possibly without intent.)Mark Quayle said:First Cause has intent, because if not, it is mere mechanical fact, which is in itself subject to principles. It has been programmed.
If mechanical facts is, by definition, anything not God, then your dichotomy is true. However, you have yet to demonstrate that anything not God is illogical.Mark Quayle 220 said:Because, if no mind, then you are left with mechanical fact, which I think I already showed to be illogical. Meanwhile, the idea that the mechanical principles we are subject to come from him, because of his very nature, does not at all mean he is mere mechanical fact. You kinda sloughed that thought in. (Furthermore, it is only my opinion that they are the result of his nature --it only makes sense, to me).muichimotsu 217 said:Where is your evidence or reasoned argument that existence requires a mind behind it rather than that minds apprehend it after the fact of its existence?
Any existing system is governed by laws. A minimal set of laws would at least obey one law, perhaps the law that says there are no other laws.Mark Quayle 220 said:At best, gravity is co-emergent with whatever emerged. Also, cosmologists like Hawking say it too (apparently) began with the big bang, at least gravity as we conceive of it at this point (we still don't know what it is). Meanwhile, to those of us who are a little less advanced in cosmology, gravity is part of a system we might conceive as "what is", if we fail to see "what is" is not First Cause, because it is only a system of principles, that has no self-existence. We want to say they self-perpetuate, and that may be valid (though I doubt it), but it shows nothing about how that system came to be. First Cause is not a system, that operates by laws. That is mere mechanical fact, which I showed to be illogical, I think.
Hey hey Friend
I have just been unbanned. We had quite a conversation lined up. Wanna continue here or somewhere else?
I have been gone as well, due to some events in life that came up. Nothing serious; no health or legal issues...just things demanding my time.
I'll get back to you when I can, but I've got an experiment I'm doing that's going to occupy much of my board time here for a bit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?