WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Ed1wolf]

Define nothing.

Nothing is the absence of anything.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, but it is rational to believe what I posted in post 67.

hs: No.

Who caused god?

Something can logically be a cause without being an effect. That is what God is, He is a cause but not an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Something can logically be a cause without being an effect. That is what God is, He is a cause but not an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

It's also what physical reality may be, and that's a more parsimonious answer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Something you should be familiar with, whether you agree or not.

Nothing in that video refutes what I have written.

 

[Ed1wolf]

There is no evidence that it does require a cause. That is where the burden of demonstration is.

Fraid so. It has all the characteristics of an effect. It has a beginning and it is changing, these are both basic characteristics of an effect.

eud: This is a logical point. I'm saying that while the universe in the form that it exists today may require a causal explanation, that doesn't mean that its physical existence requires a causal explanation. Your view runs into a logical fallacy.

Fallacy of composition - Wikipedia

If the universe as a whole has the characteristics of an effect as shown above, then there is no fallacy of composition.

eud: No, it doesn't. Science would be vastly different if it did.

Science can not exist without a personal creator. Especially a lawgiving creator. Without the laws of logic and physics science would be impossible.

eud: Of course, but the only purposes that science knows of that can only come from an intelligent personal being are human purposes, since we are intelligent personal beings. No non-human purposes are known to exist, unless perhaps some non-human animal species may be said to have purposes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No, you are assuming what we are trying to prove. If purposes exist in nature then that is evidence that non-human personal intelligent beings exist. IOW the being that created nature, especially living creatures in nature.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Fraid so. It has all the characteristics of an effect. It has a beginning and it is changing, these are both basic characteristics of an effect.

You are talking about a type of causation that takes place within the context of the universe. A car "has a beginning" in the sense that it didn't exist as a car at one time, but only as a set of materials with which to make a car. Note, that the materials existed just as much as the car does, simply not as a car. It is not something that comes from nothing. It is a transformation of something existing to something else existing.

The "beginning" of the universe is not analogous. There is no reason to think that it involved such causation, especially since the universe itself is the context for change/time and causation. This is why your argument runs into the fallacy of composition. You are confusing properties that make sense within the context of the universe to the universe as a whole. That's invalid reasoning.

If the universe as a whole has the characteristics of an effect as shown above, then there is no fallacy of composition.

Nope, since the "beginning" of the universe isn't necessarily the same thing as the "beginning" of a car. That's equivocating on the word "beginning", and is certainly an example of the fallacy of composition.

Science can not exist without a personal creator. Especially a lawgiving creator.

I have no good reason to think that. See below.

Without the laws of logic and physics science would be impossible.

Yes, but all you need is some physical universe in order for there to be logic and physics.

Physics is the study of a physic-al universe, however it may happen to behave. Its "laws" are simply conceptually-recognized similarities that can be understood through abstract thought -- that is, through generalizing from specific instances. It's not clear why a physical universe wouldn't have at least some similar entities with similar behaviors that one could generalize. I'm not even sure what a physical universe that did not have anything that one could generalize from would (or could) even look like.

Logic is simply keeping your ideas from contradicting each other. Logic is easy in a physical universe, because physical stuff can only be what it is, and not what it is not. It can't contradict itself, because then we wouldn't be talking about anything physical.

No, you are assuming what we are trying to prove.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about what human beings actually know. It isn't assuming anything, because what I am doing is pointing out your burden in the discussion.

Perhaps you actually wanted some justification for human purposes existing within nature? Here it is.

- I have purposes. (This post is the result of personal activities that were performed for the sake of achieving that purpose.)
- I exist within nature.
- Therefore, my purposes exists within nature.

- Human beings have purposes like myself (such as posting at message boards, or else conversations would be very one-sided.)
- Human beings exist within nature.
- Therefore, human purposes exist within nature.

I don't know of the existence of any other purposes in nature, and Christian apologists haven't demonstrated the existence of any.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Larniavc]

There is a whole range of evidence available from scripture, Christian saints and the life of Christ himself.

That is not evidence: that is a claim.

Claims are not evidence.

 

[mindlight]

That is not evidence: that is a claim.

Claims are not evidence.

Prophecies that come true, accounts that enrich, guide and ennoble ones life, the testimonies of transformed lives and the example of Christ are the best kinds of evidence.

Why would you cling to methodologies and types of evidence which are irrelevant to this discussion? Methodologies that yield no certainty and which cannot prove or disprove the claims beings made do not work here by contrast.

 

[Larniavc]

Why would you cling to methodologies and types of evidence which are irrelevant to this discussion? Methodologies that yield no certainty and which cannot prove or disprove the claims beings made do not work here by contrast.

Because those methodologies work.

Claims are not evidence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Prophecies that come true, accounts that enrich, guide and ennoble ones life, the testimonies of transformed lives and the example of Christ are the best kinds of evidence.

Those sound to me like the most ambiguous sorts of evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

what evidence would that be?

I just stated some in the post you are responding to.

tm: Is that the same logic that says that there is no "north" of the north pole and no "before" time?

That logic dictates that you can't have causality in an atemporal context.

First how do you know this? Second, there is evidence for another time dimension besides the one in our universe.

tm; Just like that house north of the northpole.

See above.

tm: According to the same criteria, that god must also have a cause that is "personal and intelligent".

Not if He is not an effect. Things that are not effects do not need causes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

what evidence would that be?

I just stated some in the post you are responding to.

tm: Is that the same logic that says that there is no "north" of the north pole and no "before" time?

That logic dictates that you can't have causality in an atemporal context.

First how do you know this? Second, there is evidence for another time dimension besides the one in our universe.

tm; Just like that house north of the northpole.

See above.

tm: According to the same criteria, that god must also have a cause that is "personal and intelligent".

Not if He is not an effect. Things that are not effects do not need causes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What evidence would that be?

It is a corollary of the space-time theorems.

tm: And then you'll just be pushing the question back for "a dimension". Now one needs to explain where that time dimension came from.

That time dimension may be a characteristic of the eternal Cause/Creator and therefore eternal and not need a cause.

tm: Because you know that you don't have the required evidence to do so.

Fraid so, see above.

tm: You're not doing a really good job, I must say.

Of course, I would expect you to say that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What evidence would that be?

It is a corollary of the space-time theorems.

tm: And then you'll just be pushing the question back for "a dimension". Now one needs to explain where that time dimension came from.

That time dimension may be a characteristic of the eternal Cause/Creator and therefore eternal and not need a cause.

tm: Because you know that you don't have the required evidence to do so.

Fraid so, see above.

tm: You're not doing a really good job, I must say.

Of course, I would expect you to say that.

 

[mindlight]

Because those methodologies work.

Claims are not evidence.

Those methodologies do not work here. You can neither prove or disprove the existence of God using science. So again why do you insist on using methods that can deliver no certainty.

One has to be aware of ones own conditioning

 

[Larniavc]

Those methodologies do not work here. You can neither prove or disprove the existence of God using science. So again why do you insist on using methods that can deliver no certainty.

One has to be aware of ones own conditioning

That's not the point I was making.

I said the evidences you suggested are claims, not evidence.

I made no claim to be able to prove your god does not exist.

 

[Larniavc]

Second, there is evidence for another time dimension besides the one in our universe.

Please provide this evidence it sounds fascinating.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It's also what physical reality may be, and that's a more parsimonious answer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Possibly, but most of the evidence points to it being an effect and therefore needs a Cause.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Possibly, but most of the evidence points to it being an effect and therefore needs a Cause.

No evidence points to this.

You are confusing evidence for the Big Bang with such evidence. Evidence for the Big Bang isn't necessarily evidence for physical existence being an "effect". It is -- at best -- evidence for a finite past, which is not in itself a reason to think that the universe is an "effect". One may speculate about that, of course, but that speculation is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of time as it pertains to spacetime, and many have pointed out.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please provide this evidence it sounds fascinating.

And provide a cogent explanation what a second arrow of time actually means in reality.


eudaimonia,

Mark