Cradlers

[glassjester]

Sorry, you lost that particular argument on 9/11.

You don't see the difference?

You've possibly just made an argument in favor of the claim of Christ's resurrection.
The jihadists are only willing to do what they do because they actually believe.

Are you saying the first Christian martyrs were the same?
Here's the problem. Wouldn't they know it was a lie, if they were the ones lying about having seen the risen Christ?

 

[glassjester]

Sure I have, lots of purported evidence. It just does not mean anything, it does not overcome the evidence from the natural world.

What evidence from the natural world disproves God?

 

[glassjester]

Sure I do. They're mortal (they can die), and they aren't omnipotent (their powers can be forcefully removed), and their species used to be just like humans - they evolved within the physical universe.

Therefore they could not have existed independently of the physical universe (spacetime). And since it is logically possible for them to not exist, they are contingent beings - not necessary ones.

But there must be a non-contingent being - something which must necessarily exist. Do you agree?

Bumping this for Jonahdog.

 

[Jonahdog]

You don't see the difference?

You've possibly just made an argument in favor of the claim of Christ's resurrection.
The jihadists are only willing to do what they do because they actually believe.

Are you saying the first Christian martyrs were the same?
Here's the problem. Wouldn't they know it was a lie, if they were the ones lying about having seen the risen Christ?

Who knows, and I dont care

 

[Jonahdog]

What evidence from the natural world disproves God?

There is no evidence from the natural world that proves your god. Read what I wrote.

 

[Jonahdog]

Bumping this for Jonahdog.

No, there need not be a non-contingent being. There is no reason for anything to exist.

 

[Nihilo]

Sorry, you lost that particular argument on 9/11.

lain:

You can't tell the difference, between Kamikazes killing innocent people, and innocent people who are killed?

lain:

The first martyrs of the Christian faith, those who were sentenced to die, with methods intended for and deserved by murderers. They kept babbling on about the RESURRECTION, but then they were arrested. And then before you knew it, they were executed. And they never once recanted. Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

But you're right: 9/11 lain:

 

[glassjester]

No, there need not be a non-contingent being. There is no reason for anything to exist.

Except for the pesky fact that something does exist. Lots of things, in fact.

And an infinite regress of contingent beings is impossible. There must be, at the beginning of that long series of contingents, a necessary being. A thing which exists independently of all other things. An uncaused cause.

This is logically necessary.

 

[Jonahdog]

Except for the pesky fact that something does exist. Lots of things, in fact.

And an infinite regress of contingent beings is impossible. There must be, at the beginning of that long series of contingents, a necessary being. A thing which exists independently of all other things. An uncaused cause.

This is logically necessary.

Yep, lots of things exist. And no there needs not be an uncaused cause. Just an excuse to wind up with your particular favorite deity.

 

[jsanford108]

And sorry, the musings of a 13th century Dominican does nothing for me in the 21st century.

Yet you accept the musings of a 13th century scientist? (Most of whom were monks) You no doubt accept the musings of de Nemore. Why not other deep analytical thinkers?

You accept Nietzsche, no? He knew very little on topics of the natural. He was philosophical. Much like Descartes. Much like Aquinas.

It seems you reject musings based solely on the author/thinker; which is biased, and intellectually dishonest, as it presents hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[glassjester]

And no there needs not be an uncaused cause.

The only alternatives are an infinite series of contingent things, or a finite series of contingent things - both of which are logically impossible.

 

[glassjester]

It seems you reject musings based solely on the author/thinker; which is biased, and intellectually dishonest, as it presents hypocrisy.

Bingo. He rejects the man, not the idea. The very definition of the ad hominem fallacy.

 

[glassjester]

The only alternatives are an infinite series of contingent things, or a finite series of contingent things - both of which are logically impossible.

Unless you can demonstrate the possibility of either of those, the uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

 

[Jonahdog]

The only alternatives are an infinite series of contingent things, or a finite series of contingent things - both of which are logically impossible.

why? Our universe appears to have a beginning 13+ billion years ago. Perhaps it began from that infinite series. Perhaps it just began from something, I dont know. You apparently must demand a non-contingent thing to start it all. Why? and why is it your particular god?
And the evidence does nothing to support the story in your Holy Book.
Did your god just start everything and then let it proceed according to some basic plan he had? Not sure your Book supports that, it seems to say he interfered with things along the way.
Or did he get involved from time to time, if so why does the evidence show that man evolved? Was there a certain point in time when he used his divine finger to make the first man? If so when was that? Did he make the first camel? If so when was that? If he only stirred the pot to make the first man, why?
The problem is that your story just does not hang together.
Your Holy Book cannot be taken literally.

 

[Jonahdog]

Yet you accept the musings of a 13th century scientist? (Most of whom were monks) You no doubt accept the musings of de Nemore. Why not other deep analytical thinkers?

You accept Nietzsche, no? He knew very little on topics of the natural. He was philosophical. Much like Descartes. Much like Aquinas.

It seems you reject musings based solely on the author/thinker; which is biased, and intellectually dishonest, as it presents hypocrisy.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Ah, musings. No I would rather accept facts. There is no need for a god, or for the Christian one in particular.
Ignoring the real world and depending on the musings of 13th century monks, or 13th century anyone, and ignoring what we know today is irrational.

 

[Jonahdog]

lain:

You can't tell the difference, between Kamikazes killing innocent people, and innocent people who are killed?

lain:

The first martyrs of the Christian faith, those who were sentenced to die, with methods intended for and deserved by murderers. They kept babbling on about the RESURRECTION, but then they were arrested. And then before you knew it, they were executed. And they never once recanted. Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

But you're right: 9/11 lain:

People died for their misplaced faith whether in early Rome or on 9/11.
You "know" about the martyrs because the supporters of those martyrs wrote about them. History belongs to the winners, or at least the survivors. You don't know that there were not many more who did recant, "This ain't worth my life" because those people do not fit with your story.

 

[glassjester]

why? Our universe appears to have a beginning 13+ billion years ago. Perhaps it began from that infinite series.

How is 13.7 billion years an infinite series?
13,700,000,000 is quite finite.

Anyway, an infinite series is impossible.

Perhaps it just began from something, I dont know. You apparently must demand a non-contingent thing to start it all. Why?

Because whatever caused spacetime must not be contingent upon spacetime. Again, this is logically necessary. Do you not see this?

and why is it your particular god?

First things first. Let's agree first that physical existence must have a non-physical cause.

And the evidence does nothing to support the story in your Holy Book.
Did your god just start everything and then let it proceed according to some basic plan he had? Not sure your Book supports that, it seems to say he interfered with things along the way.
Or did he get involved from time to time, if so why does the evidence show that man evolved? Was there a certain point in time when he used his divine finger to make the first man? If so when was that? Did he make the first camel? If so when was that? If he only stirred the pot to make the first man, why?

For Catholics there is no difference between God creating in the beginning versus acting on the world all throughout time. God exists outside of time, as He is its Creator. There was one moment of creation, and this is it - right now. Also 13.7 billion years ago. Also the end of the universe. It's all one moment of creation, and God is/was/will be creating it right now.

The problem is that your story just does not hang together.
Your Holy Book cannot be taken literally.

The Church does not demand a strict literal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Nihilo]

People died for their misplaced faith whether in early Rome or on 9/11.

You're still mixing apples and oranges. Kamikazes make victims, Christian martyrs are victims.

You "know" about the martyrs because the supporters of those martyrs wrote about them. History belongs to the winners, or at least the survivors. You don't know that there were not many more who did recant, "This ain't worth my life" because those people do not fit with your story.

If even one of the Apostles had recanted, I believe we would have heard about that, but obviously you're free to (wrongly) disagree.

 

[Jonahdog]

For Catholics there is no difference between God creating in the beginning versus acting on the world all throughout time. God exists outside of time, as He is its Creator. There was one moment of creation, and this is it - right now. Also 13.7 billion years ago. Also the end of the universe. It's all one moment of creation, and God is/was/will be creating it right now.




The Church does not demand a strict literal interpretation of Scripture.

I have 16 years of Catholic school education, I have a pretty good handle on Catholic thought, I know the Church's teaching on literalism. But that is clearly different from the needs of many on TOL who must accept a literal Bible or wear lots of sunscreen.

But I am confused by this continuing moment of creation you allege. Exactly how does that work in the real world?

 

[glassjester]

I have 16 years of Catholic school education, I have a pretty good handle on Catholic thought, I know the Church's teaching on literalism. But that is clearly different from the needs of many on TOL who must accept a literal Bible or wear lots of sunscreen.

But I am confused by this continuing moment of creation you allege. Exactly how does that work in the real world?

I should not presume to teach you anything new about Catholicism! I was only in public school for my K-12 education.

I will try to explain my earlier post, but it is likely that you will be able to correct me, if need be.


God, having created time, exists outside (or independently) of time. God does not have a past, present, and future, in the way that you or I do. He is the Alpha and Omega, the eternal I Am (note the present tense). He is, literally, ever-present (is, was, will be - all at once).

From God's extra-temporal perspective, the Creation is now. The Crucifixion is now. Men are making free choices now. The Endtimes are now.

Remember, time is inextricable from space - Einstein proved that. Meaning prior (I use the term loosely) to space (the physical universe), there was no time. And whatever brought about time and space exists outside of them. This thing - this non-temporal (eternal), non-spatial, logically necessary, uncaused cause - I call God.

What do you call it?