Wicca - Good or Evil

[HadouKen24]

Ok, you are right there.
I am right in saying Newtonian physics, far from refuting physical causality, actually reinforces it.

You equivocated motion with acceleration. That was the cornerstone of your argument - the fact that acceleration requries a cause, and that all motion is acceleration. Because that premise is false, your conclusion must also be false.

Furthermore, given the nature of the causes of acceleration - gravity, electromagnetism, etc. - it does not necessitate a first cause even if you were correct. It is always mutual between two bodies, and the total amount of energy does not decrease - energy is always conserved. In the Newtonian understanding, it is entirely possible for the universe to be a perpetual motion machine - which does great damage to your thesis.

The second law of thermodynamics does support your ideas, but they are by no means universal; scientists have found many exceptions to it, especially at extremely high and extremely low temperatures.

And, if we are to say there is no first cause, no point A, then the distance is infinity, for it will never be far enough from B to place A.

Your own diagram refutes your very refutation.

I see now where the confusion is coming from.

Point A is not "the first cause" in my diagram. It is simply any point along the line that precedes some other point B - which is any point that comes after point A. I'm smart enough not to define self-contradictory terms.

I don't understand why you say that point A has to be the first cause.

I never said you are using any formalism. I said you were asking for it on my part.

And your point is...?

I'm demanding a level of precision from both of us. If you are unable to meet that level, then say so. Otherwise, can we proceed with the discussion?

But for any of these causes to take place, they would need the one before them to have taken place. You can get two causes along the line, but none of them will ever take place if one before the first of them doesn't.
This is simple logic.

Yeah.

So?

If you state that there is no first cause, you state that there is an infinite distance between A and B, which is like saying there is no A.

See the above. I said nothing of the sort.

You mustn't do anything. However, if you wish to comply to the principles of logic, you'll have to agree that every effect needs a cause, and that B, being an effect, needs a cause, which in its turn needs another cause, etc.
Either there is a first cause, or B never takes place, since it needs its cause to have taken place, which needs its cause to have taken place, to infinity.

But remember that there is no cause which is an infinite amount of time away from cause B. Every individual effect might have a cause, but that does not mean that a series of causes must have a cause; every integer has a number before it and a number after it, but the set of all integers does not itself have a number before it and a number after.

A collision needs a cause. They haven't gone far enough in their search for a first cause.

The theory does provide for a cause for a collision, to my knowledge.

Furthermore, one need not posit a cause for the universe in general once we have the idea of something with no cause; if it is truly necessary, then it is just as likely, from a logical standpoint, to be the universe itself or something that caused "God," as to be God himself.

To tend towards something is to have increments in a certain direction. As the vibration becomes more intense, the hotter it becomes.

I see.

Now, what does that have to do with Aquinas' Fourth Way?

You have not used any formality at all. You have merely asked for it in my part.

I assumed that when you spoke of "formality" you meant my use of a geometrical diagram. I realize now that was a foolish assumption.

So what exactly do you mean by "formality?"

-Newtonian physics eliminated the belief on physical causation.
Answer: on the contrary, it has strengthened it.

-there needn't be a first cause because, no matter how distant A-------B are, there will always be a finite distance between them.
Answer: when two points are picked, it is a first cause scenario.
If no point A is picked, B will never happen, for we agree that every effect needs a cause.

You forgot:

-The First Cause need not be God.

-Aquinas' Fourth Way depends on long discredited Aristotelian ideas.

-One begs the question if he says that bodies act toward the "best end."

 

[bt_st_At]

There is only one truth. Anything different is false. Therefore, reality is "dogmatic".

If your only proof of this is the bible then my friend you are way off course and way to far in the sand. How are you to know that there is one "truth" (truth as in the way humans believe)? What about science which is proving new things once known as miracles? What about the good things that happen to people everywhere despite their faith?

If there was only one truth than as before are world would be like a Facist Government with God the Celestial Hitler!! It's impossible for there to be one truth. IMPOSSIBLE....

Yet another person who founds a new religion and actually thinks it's "the right one". Every man is becoming his own god...

And what is so wrong with that really? If the man is following the laws set down by...oh..man he is not hurting anyone and he means no harm. Why does that concern you so much? Has this become an Abortion debate about Religion and the right to practice it.

The Divine is always in control of our lives whether we know it or not. It makes the descions for us and knows what road we will take. It does not care if we believe in this or believe in that because it is what created us and it is what we will go back to....So there is no real truth, there are just many roads to one destination...Plain and simple no Dogma required.

 

[Starcrystal]

Lifesaver,
Yet another person who founds a new religion and actually thinks it's "the right one".
Every man is becoming his own god...

What "new religion" ~ I neither make nor endorse any religion, but accept Gods grace through Christ, just as his disciples followed him and renounced the institutional religion of their day. Actually it was institutional organized religion that crucified Christ and many of the disciples! Today those of us who live in the Spirit as Christ taught us are crucified verbally and shunned by todays organized religion... but Jesus said in Matthew 5 that we are blessed when this happens... so cool!

As far as becoming my own god.... there is only One God, one Creator, and I for one can accept and acknowledge that fact. Actually I wouldn't even want to be a god and deal with petty human issues. What a burden! Christ takes our burden if we will learn of HIM and who he was, what he taught...

 

[peaceful soul]

origianlly posted by Starcrystal

What "new religion" ~ I neither make nor endorse any religion, but accept Gods grace through Christ, just as his disciples followed him and renounced the institutional religion of their day. Actually it was institutional organized religion that crucified Christ and many of the disciples! Today those of us who live in the Spirit as Christ taught us are crucified verbally and shunned by todays organized religion... but Jesus said in Matthew 5 that we are blessed when this happens... so cool!

Let us not fall into a trap of thinking that being persecuted = proof of being a follower of Christ. The Spirit and the Word can not disagree with each other; otherwise the Bible is void. That would mean that even if you found something in it that worked in your life, it could not be from Jesus Christ because Christ would have been be proven a liar. Do you follow?

 

[Starcrystal]

^ Sure I follow on the surface.
Yet I have shared my testemony on CF how several years ago I was persecuted by organized religion and its preachers. Pentecostals (Assembly of God included) Congregationalists, Baptists.... They forced me out of my home, turned me away, instructed someone to leave me in the pouring rain on a winters day, refused to take me in even for a night, refused to offer food when I was hungry.... even went so far as to subtley kidnap my girlfriend, commit criminal acts, and make violent threats. Very "Christian" acts, huh?
During this same time, as poor as I was, God placed people in my path to help. I gave rides to strangers, helped keep some young people away from gangs and drugs, gave to those even more needy than me. Ok, so I have my reward because I just "boasted" that I did that. Its to make a point.... who was REALLY doing what Jesus taught? Read the gospels, read the prophets when they speak of the true fast which is to releive the oppressed and undo heavy burdens.

Most of the "church" is only comfortable with its own, if you fit in, if you beleive THEIR doctrines. Otherwise they consider you unworthy. Jesus said if you have love only for your own, what does it profit you? Even worldly people do that... Just some food for thought...

And BTW, since this is a Wicca thread I will reaffirm as I posted earlier on this forum, it was a WICCAN who first came to my aid during the times I just described. She took me in, fed me, leant me money.... and went way above and beyond what most would do. A year and a half later when I was stranded out of state, this same Wiccan is the one who came to pick me up. The Christians wouldn't... and I ASKED THEM!

 

[Kernonnous]

Just a simple attempt to bring back the original topic here.

First let's look at the definition of the word 'evil' shall we?

\E"vil\ ([=e]"v'l) n. 1. Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm; -- opposed to good.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

There are many definitions of the term evil mind you, non of which can be properly defined as having anything to do with Religious belief (Non that I could find however). So in that sense the term which has been appointed to evil in this topic is a fallacy. A fallacy from the standpoint of a dictionary and the authors of said source. However from a religious standpoint one could define it as being anything which goes against ones personal (or global.. Not likely though) belief system.

So taking a logical arproach to this (which seems to be the norm for several. At least earlier on) one could say that as religion goes it is not a logical concept. Only that we have our sources (however accurate or inaccurate they me be) to gather information from. What I mean to say is leaving all religious belief behind for just a moment and looking at the term of evil from that standpoint it is easy to see that evil is a concept which holds little water.

However from a religious standpoint evil is a widely organized topic of debate; one which as been severed it's due and then some.

To be honest I read about the first 17 pages and tired of the countless and pointless debates. One side presenting their ideas and concepts and the other breaking it down, often with little regard for presenting a pure view, and looking like a fool. By this I mean the only thing that was used from both sides was either what the Bible says or ones personal ideas and concepts (which are true!). This left a large hole. Is there no other side to this? No documented proof beyond the Bible? I am sure there are many educated people on these forums that could provide a well thought out post with a strong basis. Alas I did not see one in those threads that I read.

As for the Pagans I would think that you would have some basis for which to present your ideas. Although there is no set 'doctrine' to breath life into your posts I do know that you are more educated on your beliefs then you present. And if you are not I suggest you go out and learn.

In order to add to the topic I present to you a bit more beyond that I have already.

Wicca is a Pagan belief system we know that much. Paganism being what it is predates Christ yes? Well that makes sense to anyone with proper studies. But what of the rest? No worries, this is leading to an on topic debate.

Christianity itself is believed to have started around 4 BCE with the Jesus movement being around 7 CE the the Jesus movement continuing till about 170 CE.

While I know these dates well I know that there will be many who do not agree with me on this. But fact is this is documented, and accounted for. So to continue.. Absolute evil (i.e. Satan) is a Christian/Muslim belief. Pagans not being of either faith have no need for this concept. So it is therefore clear that Wiccans (having a Pagan faith) have no need for this concept. Paganism in general is older then the teachings of Christ and that of Christianity.

Again another argument can and most likely will derive from the latter. So I ask where then was God for the many centuries when Pagans where out and about? Why did he not feel compelled to present himself in those times? I know you can say that humanity came from Adam and Eve and this alone has holes. But what of the Egyptians? How come no mention in there writings exist of God and Jesus? What of the early Welsh and the Druid's? The Bards (Master Poets) never mentioned God or Jesus in their prose till the over flow of Christian belief and even after that point the mention was non existant save for a brief word or two.

So where was God all this time... Perhaps he fell asleep. I think not. The answer as we all know is an obvious one, but for the sake of not offending anyone further I will leave it be at that.

All in all I think the evidence leads to Wicca's roots being of a Pagan nature (If you disagree by all means feel free to present to me any documentation that proves otherwise) is not evil as the concept of evil is a useless term outside of Chistianity and forms thereof. With this in mind the truth becomes clear.

Perhaps we could all do with a bit of study of other faiths to better understand them. Notice I said understand and not believe nor accept. There is a difference. In doing so you not only can present a better spread of your concerns but you can provide a structure for which your views can stand.

 

[Starcrystal]

Thank you Kernonnous. < Is that name the derivative of Pan? I've seen it spelled differently before but about sounds the same.... anyways,

In regards to Paganism predating Christianity, I'd have to ask the question: if the Jewish religion & message from God was fairly localized in the mideast & mediteranian area, and Christianity was only spread into Europe for the first few hundred of years after Christ, WHAT BECAME OF ALL THE PAGAN SOULS THAT LIVED BEFORE AND IN FAR REACHING PLACES??

No, God wasn't sleeping. He/She "Creator" was revealing through NATURE & SPIRIT, being clearly seen. Even Paul recognised that and wrote it to the Romans. David wrote about it in Psalms.

How can people be so one sided when they think they have an exclusive corner on God? God is everywhere and has revealed to people before there was a Bible or a church, or even before Moses. It seems only the mystics and visionaries understand.

 

[bt_st_At]

origianlly posted by Starcrystal



Let us not fall into a trap of thinking that being persecuted = proof of being a follower of Christ. The Spirit and the Word can not disagree with each other; otherwise the Bible is void. That would mean that even if you found something in it that worked in your life, it could not be from Jesus Christ because Christ would have been be proven a liar. Do you follow?

You know what that sounds like it sounds like a Government cover up. "Uh yeah, we know that if you say it this way or look at it from this view the bible is void, but we'll just keep on looking at it from this view. Screw the fact that people can prove it is false." Then Christians wonder why they are considered ignorant. We try to find the truth not believe everything we are told by our teachers, you learn from experience and by testing out methods not by reading a book, that's only one step. Why don't you go out and test it?

 

[Lifesaver]

What "new religion" ~ I neither make nor endorse any religion

Yes you do, the one you just created. Saying it is not a religion is just being contradictory. Afterall, is it not a way to connect with God?

but accept Gods grace through Christ, just as his disciples followed him and renounced the institutional religion of their day.

His Apostles were the first leaders of the visbible Church.
Just because they renounced a religion (like Christians renounce yours), doesn't mean that they renounce religion altogether.

Actually it was institutional organized religion that crucified Christ and many of the disciples!

St. Peter, the first bishop of Rome, was crucified there by the Pagans.

Today those of us who live in the Spirit as Christ taught us are crucified verbally and shunned by todays organized religion... but Jesus said in Matthew 5 that we are blessed when this happens... so cool!

Many are verbally shunned. Catholics, Muslims, people with self-made religion like you, etc. Since they all disagree, they can't all be part of the true Church. Therefore, being verbally abused is no proof of being right.

As far as becoming my own god.... there is only One God, one Creator, and I for one can accept and acknowledge that fact. Actually I wouldn't even want to be a god and deal with petty human issues. What a burden! Christ takes our burden if we will learn of HIM and who he was, what he taught...

And the only way to learn about it is by accepting the knowledge preserved inerrantly in the Church, not through "feelings" and opinions, which lead people to many many different and contradictory places.

Flee from your own created religion, which mixes Paganism with Christian elements, plus socialistic views, all filled with insults against St. Paul. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, with God.

 

[ravenwolf]

i think u will be very surprised when you go to heaven when u see me and starcrystal chillin' up there too.

 

[Lifesaver]

I do hope to see in him in Heaven, if I get to go there myself.

However, I must warn people against error in all situations, and make them aware that there is no salvation outside the Church.

If people are formally outside her(not members, disagree in some things) for no guilt of their own, then it is possible that they'll be saved. But we mustn't have any hope of that, or expect it to happen.

Bringing those who are astray back with the flock of Jesus Christ is a Christian priority.

 

[ravenwolf]

Bringing those who are astray back with the flock of Jesus Christ is a Christian priority.

i have noticed this

 

[Lifesaver]

You equivocated motion with acceleration. That was the cornerstone of your argument - the fact that acceleration requries a cause, and that all motion is acceleration. Because that premise is false, your conclusion must also be false.

Accuse as much as you will, the argument right now relies on one thing: we see events taking place in the physical world. Objects change their motion, either its speed or its direction; they become hotter and colder; they form structures and fall apart.
Do physical events need a cause, or do they happen uncaused?
If they do need a cause, the argument remains irefuted. If the events that take place in the universe do not need a cause, then the argument has been refuted.
I bow to your superior physical knowledge, so I'll leave you to answer: do the physical events (a comet falling, a rock rolling, a bycicle speeding, a car turning, etc) of the world need a cause to take place, or do they happen uncaused?

In the Newtonian understanding, it is entirely possible for the universe to be a perpetual motion machine - which does great damage to your thesis.

But were it perpetual, all energy would be dissipated already. And yet, there is still a lot of concentrated energy.
Plus, the concept of the perpetual motion machine (that is, the endless cycle) is still defeated by the need of a first cause.

Point A is not "the first cause" in my diagram. It is simply any point along the line that precedes some other point B - which is any point that comes after point A. I'm smart enough not to define self-contradictory terms.

I understand that. But for point A to take place, if it is not the first cause, there needs to be a point to left of it, and one to the left of this point, and so on. If there is no first cause, none of those will ever happen, A will never happen and B will never happen.

I don't understand why you say that point A has to be the first cause.

It doesn't need to be. But for point B ever to happen (or A as well), it has to be either the first cause or there needs to be a first cause before A.

I'm demanding a level of precision from both of us. If you are unable to meet that level, then say so. Otherwise, can we proceed with the discussion?

But remember that there is no cause which is an infinite amount of time away from cause B. Every individual effect might have a cause, but that does not mean that a series of causes must have a cause; every integer has a number before it and a number after it, but the set of all integers does not itself have a number before it and a number after.

According to the "no first cause" theory, any point to the left of B, no matter how far, must have a cause itself.
Not even the point to the left of B would ever happen, no matter how much to the left of B it is.

Furthermore, one need not posit a cause for the universe in general once we have the idea of something with no cause; if it is truly necessary, then it is just as likely, from a logical standpoint, to be the universe itself or something that caused "God," as to be God himself.

Only something immutable can be uncaused. The universe is mutable. In fact, it is always changing.
God, on the other hand, is immutable. He doesn't need to have been caused (He can't have been caused, actually).

Now, what does that have to do with Aquinas' Fourth Way?

Vibration is the maximum heat. It is heat itself.

You forgot:

-The First Cause need not be God.

If you want to shift the discussion integrally to this point, and be done with the refuted thesis that a first cause is not necessary (and your diagram helped to prove it), let's do it.
I can tell you that not physical event can possibly be the first cause.

 

[Kernonnous]

Thank you Kernonnous. < Is that name the derivative of Pan? I've seen it spelled differently before but about sounds the same.... anyways,

Kernonnous is a misspelling of the name Cernunnous who was the Horned God of the Celts. (Cenunnous means horned).

PAN was the God of flocks and shepherds who wandered the hills and mountains of Arkadia playing his pan-pipes and is Greek.

In anycase I spell if differently to define a separate aspect. One that is non-existent, and personal. If that makes sense.

In regards to Paganism predating Christianity, I'd have to ask the question: if the Jewish religion & message from God was fairly localized in the mideast & mediteranian area, and Christianity was only spread into Europe for the first few hundred of years after Christ, WHAT BECAME OF ALL THE PAGAN SOULS THAT LIVED BEFORE AND IN FAR REACHING PLACES??

Very Good question, and by asking you further my point. That point being that before Christ and or the Christian view of deity there was only the Pagan Gods who resided over the soul of mankind. Christ although unheard of not only before and even after his birth death, and reserection among many had no need for salvation, or at least needed no concept depending on your view.

No, God wasn't sleeping. He/She "Creator" was revealing through NATURE & SPIRIT, being clearly seen. Even Paul recognised that and wrote it to the Romans. David wrote about it in Psalms.

Wonderful. So he presented himself just as the Pagan Divine did? In Nature and Spirit that is.. Taking this view one could arrive at the conclusion that the people of the time where obviously confused and mistook the God of the Christians as many Pagan Gods... Perhaps I misunderstand what your saying, or taking it out of context?
It would help to better understand mans first divine views which I assume you are aware of, but for the rest.. The first and most important Divine beings for early man was that of the Lord of the Hunt, and the Goddess of Fertility. Both obviously important to the existence of mankind (or humankind if you prefer). So it is easy to see how one could have mistaken their views of the Divine. If the Christian God was presenting himself in the same nature as the Pagan Gods were, then it is perfectly understandable. This being the case perhaps after these Pagans died God pulled them aside and said, "Hey those Gods and Goddesses you where worshiping. That was me." and saved their souls anyway..

Nice thought but unlikely in my opinion. But to further the topic, why did God not just come down and flat out say something? If it was such an important thing for our souls to be saved, or rather (speaking before Jesus was around) so important that we only worship him then he should have been more precise, perhaps even came down and smacked us around a bit.

How can people be so one sided when they think they have an exclusive corner on God? God is everywhere and has revealed to people before there was a Bible or a church, or even before Moses. It seems only the mystics and visionaries understand.

My views have all ready been presented on the latter part. But the first half I agree with. There have been many who have been persecuted for claiming to have direct communication with God. As if it is a fallacy for talk to God directly instead of seeing him as some far off and unreachable being. When I was young, I could feel God with me when I had questions, and when I prayed. I could really feel him there. Mind you I had little of any knowledge of Jesus at this young age, and even after finding out about him later I had no interest in discussing my personal matters with him.

But as I grew out of the shell, and moved into Paganism I did not loose that direct connection with the Divine. Only my views have changed. My views being that their is a Divine being a single one. But I see it as a cube with many facets. Each one being a different aspect but they are all the same being.

I have to be honest with you here. I used to fear hell and what not. But never feared God, and never feared him sending me there either. The views of God today however as taught by many are that he is vengeful. I never knew that side. And in any case I am Pagan, I am many things at that. But most of all I am a student of faith above all. And by having faith in any belief system I think it is very important to have an open mind, and to study not only the scriptures of your faith but it's history in it's many forms. And also the study those other faiths in turn. To better understand your religious roots, is to better understand your faith no matter what that might be.

So in conclusion; no matter your faith, no matter your Divine, be happy with what it is you believe and in turn let others do the same.

 

[psychedelicist]

However, I must warn people against error in all situations, and make them aware that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Oh the comments I wish I could make but cannot for fear of getting banned...

 

[bt_st_At]

Bringing those who are astray back with the flock of Jesus Christ is a Christian priority.

An unfortunate and most annoying desicion made on your part one that most do not apprectiate.

Very Good question, and by asking you further my point. That point being that before Christ and or the Christian view of deity there was only the Pagan Gods who resided over the soul of mankind. Christ although unheard of not only before and even after his birth death, and reserection among many had no need for salvation, or at least needed no concept depending on your view.

What say you to that Lifesaver? There is no getting around the hundreds of different cultures and religions that came before Christ and the Bible...so tell me did they all go to hell for doin bad things or did they go to heaven, or to limbo, or to the underworld, or did they riencarnate? eh eh...What say you??? God must have lost his hold over us; since so many different religions popped up, but wait I'm reading from the bible no wonder my thought process is so scramble. So if I look at history. oops there it is, Christianity has only been around for a couple thousand years. But the world wasn't concieved a couple thousand years ago...I guess the Bible is void eh Peaceful Soul

 

[HadouKen24]

Accuse as much as you will, the argument right now relies on one thing: we see events taking place in the physical world. Objects change their motion, either its speed or its direction; they become hotter and colder; they form structures and fall apart.
Do physical events need a cause, or do they happen uncaused?
If they do need a cause, the argument remains irefuted. If the events that take place in the universe do not need a cause, then the argument has been refuted.
I bow to your superior physical knowledge, so I'll leave you to answer: do the physical events (a comet falling, a rock rolling, a bycicle speeding, a car turning, etc) of the world need a cause to take place, or do they happen uncaused?

The question is not whether individual events need causes, but whether they need an ultimate cause. Because energy can be neither created nor destroyed, there is no reason to assume that there must be an ultimate beginning from physical reasons alone.

From there we go the question of whether a first cause is logically necessary.

But were it perpetual, all energy would be dissipated already. And yet, there is still a lot of concentrated energy.
Plus, the concept of the perpetual motion machine (that is, the endless cycle) is still defeated by the need of a first cause.

A perpetual motion machine, by definition, does not run down or have its energy dissipate.

I understand that. But for point A to take place, if it is not the first cause, there needs to be a point to left of it, and one to the left of this point, and so on. If there is no first cause, none of those will ever happen, A will never happen and B will never happen.

I agree with your first statement. It seems blindingly obvious to me; I believe that I represented it on my diagram. One may pick point A as a new point B and find a point A that is further down the line, if he wishes, ad infinitum.

I don't understand how your last sentence follows from that fact, however.

It doesn't need to be. But for point B ever to happen (or A as well), it has to be either the first cause or there needs to be a first cause before A.

So... either A or a point before A has to be the first cause because there has to be a first cause.

You've gotten very good at begging the question.

According to the "no first cause" theory, any point to the left of B, no matter how far, must have a cause itself.
Not even the point to the left of B would ever happen, no matter how much to the left of B it is.

How does the second statement follow from the first?

Only something immutable can be uncaused. The universe is mutable. In fact, it is always changing.
God, on the other hand, is immutable. He doesn't need to have been caused (He can't have been caused, actually).

I'd like to see you back up that first sentence. As it stands, I have no reaosn to accept it as true.

Furthermore, I might argue that an immutable God cannot be the Creator at all. After all, to take an action requires at least an internal change (a decision to act). Something that is immutable cannot have even an internal change. If omnipotence can get around that barrier, then you must yield to all sorts of absurdities, the classic being that God would be able to make a rock too big for even himself to lift.

Vibration is the maximum heat. It is heat itself.

Hmm. I think you are confusing the physical makeup of heat with the maximum of heat. Are you familiar with Aristotelian thought at all?

 

[Lifesaver]

A perpetual motion machine, by definition, does not run down or have its energy dissipate.

The energy in the universe dissipates itself.
Therefore, if we accept your claim, the universe is not a perpetual motion machine.

I agree with your first statement. It seems blindingly obvious to me; I believe that I represented it on my diagram. One may pick point A as a new point B and find a point A that is further down the line, if he wishes, ad infinitum.I don't understand how your last sentence follows from that fact, however.

For A to happen, the point to the left of A must have happened. For this point to happen, the one to the left of it, and so on.
For any point in the scale to happen, an infinite sequence of events must have taken place.
It is impossible for an infinite sequence of events ever to have taken place. It would take an infinite amount of time.

Therefore, neither point B, point A or any other point in a no first cause scenario can ever happen.

Furthermore, I might argue that an immutable God cannot be the Creator at all. After all, to take an action requires at least an internal change (a decision to act). Something that is immutable cannot have even an internal change. If omnipotence can get around that barrier, then you must yield to all sorts of absurdities, the classic being that God would be able to make a rock too big for even himself to lift.

Finally something new.

First, God exists outside of time. So speaking of before and after in relation to God alone makes no sense.

Second, the non-existent problem of unliftable rock. I say non-existent because a rock which God cannot lift is non-existent. It is a contradiction in its own terms, and therefore means nothing.
Why is that?
Is there any weight God cannot lift? No. All rocks have weight, and it is this which makes them easier or harder to lift. Therefore, all rocks can be lifted by God.
Now, to speak of a rock, or in other words, "an object which can be lifted by God", that cannot be lifted by God, is inherently contradictory. A contradiction is nothing more than meaningless words. It does not refer to any actual concept.
Married bachelors, triangles with internal angles adding more than 180°, unliftable rocks, these are all meaningless expressions, which in fact amount to the same thing: nothing.

Hmm. I think you are confusing the physical makeup of heat with the maximum of heat. Are you familiar with Aristotelian thought at all?

Is vibration not maximum heat?

 

[Lifesaver]

Oh the comments I wish I could make but cannot for fear of getting banned...

Send me a private message.

 

[psychedelicist]

I'm getting tired of this. Lifesaver, arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. Many people have posted countless well written posts about how Aquina's Five Ways have been disproven, but you still say they are wrong. Is it that you cannot understand it, or that you simply cannot accept being wrong? Whenever they post something, you either dodge the point completely, or twist words around to mean what they don't.

Yes the universe is at the most basic level is a perpetual motion machine. Simple 8th grade science tells us that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there will ALWAYS be a physical universe at some level. It it will always be around, it is logical to assume that it always has been around.

You also do not seem to understand the String theory.
<-----A-------B-----C-------D------E---->
This is what it is. The events are not an infinite distance apart, they are finite, but there are infinite points. You seem to think that in order for there to be an infinite string of events, they must all be infinite distances apart.

So are we going to continue this pointless dead end argument or can we get back on topic? Or better yet, just let this topic die.