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.
Actually, that's exactly what "rational" means.If a belief is rational, it doesn't mean I possess a logical dialogue concerning that belief.
You're confusing "rational" with "true". They aren't the same thing. You can believe a true thing and all the while you have no rational reason to believe it is true.What I believe can be rational on its own merits —not because I am rational.
So Ive explained why reason is ill equipped to deal with things like a realm that outside of time.You have a point there, your last two paragraphs.
Funny to me is, the people, like my wife, who assume that if I am right I should be able to demonstrate how it is so. Many of us know the truth instinctively but can't explain why it is true. I would LIKE to, and wish I could explain, but so far, there are things I can't. But some of those things are necessarily beyond my comprehension, no matter how good my reasoning and how much data I acquire, like God's person.
Posited: Everything is merely the same "particles rearranging themselves into different patterns. According to fixed laws except for chaos, random and entropy. The kaleidoscope of now.Point is that the things you point to as "changing" are really just changing configurations of parts that might not be changing.
If all things are collections of "particles" we don't need a conscious mind. Why then did the laws of structure in the primordial ooze create from the same particles, rocks and amoeba? Amoeba does not follow rock in evolution or in physics. Amoeba should be another inanimate rock. There is a random, spontaneous generation of structural complexity beyond the laws of rock. Either all rocks, including amoeba are animate or all rocks, including amoeba are inanimate, being composed of inanimate particles operating by the same fixed laws.Trouble for you is that if there is eternally existing stuff, we don't need a conscious mind, so the first cause need not be "God".
Actually, that's exactly what "rational" means.
You're confusing "rational" with "true". They aren't the same thing. You can believe a true thing and all the while you have no rational reason to believe it is true.
Good question, but our intuition keeps trying, anyway.So Ive explained why reason is ill equipped to deal with things like a realm that outside of time.
But is intuition really any better? What could possibly equip our intuition for providing reliable results about such far-out matters?
Well sure, "if at some point", like if you had a long night of drinking and can't string some complex thoughts together in that state, that's one thing. If you didn't arrive at the belief through a rational process, then no, you aren't being rational to believe it. If you only believe something because your intuition or your instinct told you so, then you really believe that thing for no reason.The fact I may be at some point unable to put together a cogent defense for something doesn't make the thing I believe irrational. It doesn't even make my belief irrational. Is that said any better?
Well sure, "if at some point", like if you had a long night of drinking and can't string some complex thoughts together in that state, that's one thing. If you didn't arrive at the belief through a rational process, then no, you aren't being rational to believe it. If you only believe something because your intuition or your instinct told you so, then you really believe that thing for no reason.
We all do it, I'm not trying to single you out. All humans make assumptions and one of the most common assumptions is that our intuition is spot on. It isn't though.
I'd really like to see this discussion get back on track to the topic of the thread though. Hopefully you're still looking for a way to refute my infinite regress train. I don't see how. We can imagine an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter, so I see no logical impossibilities.
As for your infinite regress train, and @Ken-1122 's multiple first causes, I would like to see you (or him) since you posited these notions, prove them possible. After all, isn't it easier to prove a positive than a negative?Well sure, "if at some point", like if you had a long night of drinking and can't string some complex thoughts together in that state, that's one thing. If you didn't arrive at the belief through a rational process, then no, you aren't being rational to believe it. If you only believe something because your intuition or your instinct told you so, then you really believe that thing for no reason.
We all do it, I'm not trying to single you out. All humans make assumptions and one of the most common assumptions is that our intuition is spot on. It isn't though.
I'd really like to see this discussion get back on track to the topic of the thread though. Hopefully you're still looking for a way to refute my infinite regress train. I don't see how. We can imagine an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter, so I see no logical impossibilities.
It's logically possible, that's all I have to show to prove your argument doesn't work. I described a situation with logically consistent components that don't logically contradict one another. I don't need to prove how things actually are in reality. For me to win, all we have to conclude is, "Well gee, I dunno then".As for your infinite regress train, and @Ken-1122 's multiple first causes, I would like to see you (or him) since you posited these notions, prove them possible. After all, isn't it easier to prove a positive than a negative?
I'm mean, it's not fair to just speak them into being, is it?
Because different combinations of components produces different things. Oxygen and gold are very different things made from the same particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) too.Why then did the laws of structure in the primordial ooze create from the same particles, rocks and amoeba?
It's logically possible, that's all I have to show to prove your argument doesn't work. I described a situation with logically consistent components that don't logically contradict one another. I don't need to prove how things actually are in reality. For me to win, all we have to conclude is, "Well gee, I dunno then".
See, you already believe there's a God, so there is already a list of premises I can work with that I know you accept.
A thing can have an infinite access to matter/energy.
A thing can be eternal with no beginning or end.
A train is a thing.
A track is a thing.
A slope is a thing.
If such a train existed, then an infinite regress of events would also exist, ergo an infinite regress of events is not logically impossible. If a thing can be logically conceived, then it is logically possible. Your "first cause" argument requires it to be logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress of events.
Uh, sorry, no. That wasn't an argument, it was a list of premises... like I said. Your choice of variables isn't even representative of what I've written.Hmmm, let's see:
D can have access to I
E can be J
A = F
B = G
C = H
F, G, H, D, and E are things. Therefore, A, B and C can be I and J.
Uh, sorry, no. That isn't logical, even if one could accept D and E as true. One thing does not equal another thing does not equal another thing does not equal a possibility does not equal another possibility.
Oh dear!Uh, sorry, no. That wasn't an argument, it was a list of premises... like I said. Your choice of variables isn't even representative of what I've written.
If this response of yours is indicative of what future responses are going to look like, I'm not going to bother continuing a conversation with you.
Okay, seeya.Oh dear!
'Self-existent' necessarily implies not being what it is as a result of anything else. Whatever is self-existent is not an effect of external causes. If it bumps into another, and bounces off into another direction, not only are both subject to external principles, but both are effects of the other.Why couldn't "self-existent" things interact with each other? I'm not seeing any relation between something not having a cause for it's existence, and being capable of interaction.
Two eternally existing particles bump into each other and bounce off in opposite directions. What's impossible about that?
This is a well-reasoned and easy to follow description of the difference between God and everything else. It is a good introduction for, among many other subjects, the philosophical question of objective morality.
R.C. Sproul: Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God - Bing video
Edit: post #8 has a poor synopsis, for those who don't have the time or data limits or inclination.
Sounds like you didn't listen to the video, but only read my poor synopsis. He defined what he meant by being, vs becoming. "Being" in that use, is a different kind of thing from everything else. Everything that exists has real being, but not being as he was referring to. Self-existent, not just existent.I don't see any reasoning at all, just unargued assertions. He simply asserts that to have real being means to be unchanging. Why? because he rejects the identity of change. Is not the ability to change a part of an existent's identity? Blank out.
You apparently didn't hear him mention that God does not answer to form. Sparky does.I can talk about the aseity of Sparky the Wonder Unicorn and I can say that Sparky is, everything else is becoming. I can also give Sparky, which is completely a product of my imagination, the attribute of necessity. Sparky the Unicorn is a necessary being who is the first cause and it just is and everything else is contingent. The problem is that imagination is not a means of discovering what exists.
I'm more than halfway through it but I've heard it all before. I don't accept his definitions. Axiomatic concepts can not be defined in terms of other concepts, they can only be defined ostensively and there is no warrant for dividing a fundamental concept the way he does. As I said, it's pure rationalism. By what means is he aware of this kind of being that is unlike everything else? Please answer this one question for me if nothing else. Is it some way other than imagining?Sounds like you didn't listen to the video, but only read my poor synopsis. He defined what he meant by being, vs becoming. "Being" in that use, is a different kind of thing from everything else. Everything that exists has real being, but not being as he was referring to. Self-existent, not just existent.
One can assert this about anything one imagines. Sparky does not answer to form, whatever that is supposed to mean. Sparky is an absolute, uncaused, self-existent, unchanging, necessary being that is a different kind of being from every other kind.You apparently didn't hear him mention that God does not answer to form. Sparky does.
Nope. Only their location changed. Only their location is an effect. The particles remain the same particles. The particles themselves are not an effect and their existence is not impacted by the bump. Their existence remains unaltered even as their position in space is altered. The particles are what they are regardless of whether or not they ever touch another particle.'Self-existent' necessarily implies not being what it is as a result of anything else. Whatever is self-existent is not an effect of external causes. If it bumps into another, and bounces off into another direction, not only are both subject to external principles, but both are effects of the other.
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?