PDA

View Full Version : The Infinitely lazy God?



firstfloor
05-03-2015, 01:45 AM
If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing then He also was created and His creator was created, and so on. In Religio-think the infinite regression is avoided by supposing that God is timeless or outside time or has existed forever or something of that sort. The details are never explained and you are just supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the person saying such a thing knows something that you don’t. But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 01:50 AM
If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing then He also was created and His creator was created, and so on. In Religio-think the infinite regression is avoided by supposing that God is timeless or outside time or has existed forever or something of that sort. The details are never explained and you are just supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the person saying such a thing knows something that you don’t.

Ignorant drivel. Go and read Aquinas, or Feser, or Bill Vallicella....


But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?


Are you alive?

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 02:48 AM
Are you alive?Should the work of my hands bless me for having worked it? No! The satisfaction for the work I do or its appreciation by others is unidirectional. That is the correct relationship of the worker to his work, between the artist and his art or between God and His creation. A focus on one’s creator is a distraction from the thing for which you were created. [Assuming that we were, in fact, created by God].

"If one holds, as D. M. Armstrong does, that reality is exhausted by the space-time system, then it follows straightaway that there is no God as Dale and I are using 'God.'" - Bill Vallicella [who thinks there is an ‘absolute’ existence beyond what is obvious but like all mystics he has absolutely no idea what it is.] He dreams of knowing the unseen order, he has mystical experiences but he does not understand himself. And he does not appreciate the power of science to get to grips with his quest – just not in his toolbox. And if you don’t use the correct tools you will not find the answers. He thinks spiritual development is important – actually, it is the wrong path to understanding [if you are interested in truth as he claims] and this has been proved many times. Vallicella worships ignorance.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 04:45 AM
Are you alive?

If this is the best you have to offer, your God is in trouble. Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 05:56 AM
Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.What, would you say, is it that the Mystic searches for? I had not heard of Bill Vallicella until now. Thanks to MaxVel for that.

Suppose some group comes upon a locked door. They wonder what is behind it and eventually somebody paints ‘The Throne Room’ on it. Now, whenever someone new encounters the door they begin to imagine the splendid décor, the King sitting on his throne surrounded by his many attendants and courtiers busily dealing with the affairs of a great state, etc.

Are we in need of some paint stripper?

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 06:06 AM
What, would you say, is it that the Mystic searches for?

If you search for something you will find nothing . . .



I had not heard of Bill Vallicella until now. Thanks to MaxVel for that.

Heard of him, read some, but not maverick enough for me.


Suppose some group comes upon a locked door. They wonder what is behind it and eventually somebody paints ‘The Throne Room’ on it. Now, whenever someone new encounters the door they begin to imagine the splendid décor, the King sitting on his throne surrounded by his many attendants and courtiers busily dealing with the affairs of a great state, etc.

If there was no religion, they would find a door and worship it.

I am an theist, at present a Baha'i with Buddhist leanings and everything is in pencil. I believes in a universal apophatic Source some call God(s). I will rag on all old world God(s) based on an egocentric ancient view, particularly those that believe in the King in the sky with his court. Actually, I am a skeptic of all world views including my own.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces,
God is the sea and we are the fishes.


Are we in need of some paint stripper?

Interesting thought!

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 06:18 AM
If this is the best you have to offer, your God is in trouble. Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

:ahem:


Three core principles establish a basis for Bahá'í teachings and doctrine: the unity of God, that there is only one God who is the source of all creation; the unity of religion, that all major religions have the same spiritual source and come from the same God; and the unity of humanity, that all humans have been created equal and that diversity of race and culture are seen as worthy of appreciation and acceptance.[2] According to the Bahá'í Faith's teachings, the human purpose is to learn to know and to love God through such methods as prayer, reflection and being of service to humanity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith)

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 06:20 AM
:ahem:

True, but not the point!

If there was no religion, they would find a door and worship it.

I am an theist, at present a Baha'i with Buddhist leanings and everything is in pencil. I believes in a universal apophatic Source some call God(s). I will rag on all old world God(s) based on an egocentric ancient view, particularly those that believe in the King in the sky with his court. Actually, I am a skeptic of all world views including my own.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces,
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 06:22 AM
God is the sea and we are the fishes.Ah! But you forgot to be apophatic.
You probably know this one.

"We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being." - Johannes Scotus Eriugena

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 06:33 AM
True, but not the point!

If there was no religion, they would find a door and worship it.

I am an theist, at present a Baha'i with Buddhist leanings and everything is in pencil. I believes in a universal apophatic Source some call God(s). I will rag on all old world God(s) based on an egocentric ancient view, particularly those that believe in the King in the sky with his court. Actually, I am a skeptic of all world views including my own.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces,
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

But you actually agree with Maxvel on this one point. God is to be worshiped because you are alive and he is the creator. That's all I'm pointing out. I would have thought that this is a topic you would want to defend but obviously from your Baha'i faith point of view. However you say that Maxvel's position is weak albeit it should also be your own position.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 06:50 AM
But you actually agree with Maxvel on this one point. God is to be worshiped because you are alive and he is the creator. That's all I'm pointing out. I would have thought that this is a topic you would want to defend but obviously from your Baha'i faith point of view. However you say that Maxvel's position is weak albeit it should also be your own position.

Like seer, my agreement with Maxvel ends in the view that we are all theists.

You do not get anywhere in a dialogue with accusations of 'Ignorant drivel,' when your own argument is logically egocentric and weak.

In reality it is worse then weak to justify the existence of God, because we are alive. The appeal to the universal in the Baha'i view in response to simplistic egocentric views and individual ancient world views is the heart of my arguments over time. The mindless simplistic vindictive attacks on atheism fail miserable. I have debated atheists in the past beyond simplistic confrontations and name calling exercises. I do not agree with atheists, but based on the evidence they have a better argument rom the universal perspective than individual egocentric theistic ancient worldviews that do not address the universal in time and space.

If you wish to read more on my world view as a Baha'i see the appropriate thread.

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 07:11 AM
If this is the best you have to offer, your God is in trouble. Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

Did I say that was the only reason to worship God?

What naivety you show to think that anything we could say, do, think or believe would somehow put God in trouble. You rail against 'egocentric old world views' of God, yet you yourself insist on clinging to them, and projecting your stale view of God onto others beliefs. The God I believe in is far beyond your pettiness. You claim to be a skeptic, but you won't let God choose how He reveals Himself. You put God in your box, and won't allow Him to come up close and personal with you - you hold Him away, at arm's length. A remote, impersonal, 'incomprehensible' God is more comfortable and convenient for you - He can't make claims on your life and lifestyle. Why aren't you skeptical of that view of God, too?


You need to read Aquinas, and modern presentations of his arguments, too. See the Fifth Way, and God as pure act - and what follows from that about God's nature.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 07:12 AM
Like seer, my agreement with Maxvel ends in the view that we are all theists.

You do not get anywhere in a dialogue with accusations of 'Ignorant drivel,' when your own argument is logically egocentric and weak.

Context is important. Firstfloor asked a question which pre-supposed the existence of God to begin with and Maxvel answered it. Maxvel wasn't making an argument for the existence of God in the first place.



But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?


Are you alive?




In reality it is worse then weak to justify the existence of God, because we are alive.

As shown above that's not what Maxvel was doing.


The appeal to the universal in the Baha'i view in response to simplistic egocentric views and individual ancient world views is the heart of my arguments over time. The mindless simplistic vindictive attacks on atheism fail miserable. I have debated atheists in the past beyond simplistic confrontations and name calling exercises. I do not agree with atheists, but based on the evidence they have a better argument rom the universal perspective than individual egocentric theistic ancient worldviews that do not address the universal in time and space.

If you wish to read more on my world view as a Baha'i see the appropriate thread.

Quick question, why are you a member of the Baha'i faith and not an atheist? As long as I can remember you always defend the atheist positions over theistic ones. Even above you defend first floor over something that Maxvel didn't do.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 07:17 AM
You need to read Aquinas, and modern presentations of his arguments, too. See the Fifth Way, and God as pure act - and what follows from that about God's nature.

Aquinas does not represent modern arguments for the existence of God. I consider them too anthropomorphic and self justified arguments and mostly too circular assuming God exists in the beginning.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 07:23 AM
Aquinas does not represent modern arguments for the existence of God. I consider them too anthropomorphic and self justified arguments and mostly too circular assuming God exists in the beginning.

:ahem:


The Bahá'í writings describe a single, personal, inaccessible, omniscient, omnipresent, imperishable, and almighty God who is the creator of all things in the universe.[11] The existence of God and the universe is thought to be eternal, without a beginning or end. [12] Though inaccessible directly, God is nevertheless seen as conscious of creation, with a will and purpose that is expressed through messengers termed Manifestations of God.[13][14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith#God)

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 07:23 AM
Like seer, my agreement with Maxvel ends in the view that we are all theists.

You do not get anywhere in a dialogue with accusations of 'Ignorant drivel,' when your own argument is logically egocentric and weak.

In reality it is worse then weak to justify the existence of God, because we are alive.


As usual your reading comprehension fails you, and you misunderstand me, and misrepresent my position. Please quote me accurately, and in context.


:ahem:

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 07:24 AM
Quick question, why are you a member of the Baha'i faith and not an atheist? As long as I can remember you always defend the atheist positions over theistic ones. Even above you defend first floor over something that Maxvel didn't do.

Defending firstfloor over Maxvel is easy, and not because one is atheist and one is theist. The atheist position is indeed viable logically, because it addresses the universal, where the arguments form the perspective of ancient world views, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail to do. Supporting the better argument to me is obvious, especially when the dark side uses vindictive name calling and bad arguments. Arguing for atheism/strong agnosticism does not mean I believe in it.

I am a Baha'i, because I believe in the Baha'i Faith.

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 07:25 AM
Aquinas does not represent modern arguments for the existence of God. I consider them too anthropomorphic and self justified arguments and mostly too circular assuming God exists in the beginning.

Then please cite Aquinas' Fifth Way, and show where it is circular, and assumes God exists in the beginning.

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 07:33 AM
Defending firstfloor over Maxvel is easy, and not because one is atheist and one is theist. The atheist position is indeed viable logically, because it addresses the universal, where the arguments form the perspective of ancient world views, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail to do. Supporting the better argument to me is obvious, especially when the dark side uses vindictive name calling and bad arguments. Arguing for atheism/strong agnosticism does not mean I believe in it.

I am a Baha'i, because I believe in the Baha'i Faith.


You're the kind of 'theist' who never argues for God, and the kind of Baha'i who doesn't affirm any of the actual core teachings of the Baha'i faith. It's OK, Frank, we understand you. :thumb:



I called Firstfloor ignorant, because his first paragraph was ignorant.


If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing then He also was created and His creator was created, and so on. In Religio-think the infinite regression is avoided by supposing that God is timeless or outside time or has existed forever or something of that sort. The details are never explained and you are just supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the person saying such a thing knows something that you don’t.


The bolded is factually untrue - even if you don't accept them, there are explanations. Either firstfloor is being deliberately obtuse - to troll or deceive; or he is very ignorant. I chose the less damaging to firstfloor of the two choices.

The underlined is insulting to people who do believe - so I replied in the tone that firstfloor set for this thread.

Now let's see you cite Aquinas' Fifth Way, and show how 'it is circular and assumes God's existence from the beginning'.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 07:35 AM
Defending firstfloor over Maxvel is easy, and not because one is atheist and one is theist. The atheist position is indeed viable logically, because it addresses the universal, where the arguments form the perspective of ancient world views, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam fail to do. Supporting the better argument to me is obvious, especially when the dark side uses vindictive name calling and bad arguments. Arguing for atheism/strong agnosticism does not mean I believe in it.

Most Christians I see are actually pushovers and it's atheists that use the name calling to a higher degree. This board is different in that respects but I don't see why theists should lie down and be pushovers for the anti-theists. I have no problem with atheists as such it's anti-theists I have a problem with.


I am a Baha'i, because I believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Would be nice if you could defend it at some point. :smile:

I have respect for theists. My wife is a Buddhist and I also respect her views. I do not respect the anti-theists who come to these kinds of boards with only an interest in disruption.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 07:41 AM
If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing then He also was created and His creator was created, and so on. In Religio-think the infinite regression is avoided by supposing that God is timeless or outside time or has existed forever or something of that sort. The details are never explained and you are just supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the person saying such a thing knows something that you don’t. But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?

Interestingly enough the bolded part is aimed towards all theists. Even those of the Baha'i faith.

It's my position that I don't see why Shunyadragon should have to roll over and accept this sort of abuse. However Shunyadragon seems to think that this statement is perfectly fine.

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 07:57 AM
What I am confident about is that really we are all in the same basic state of ignorance. But there are people who either pretend to or actually believe they know a greater truth and are terribly pleased with themselves for having discovered it. To impress the others or shame their enemies, some award themselves the special status of ‘saved’ or followers of the one true God. The risk is that this so-called greater truth or the attitude that comes with the belief is actually toxic and there are many examples to indicate that this might be the case.

Purity was once an important requisite in religious observance. It was so difficult to achieve the appropriate degree of purity that it was left to specialists (Bishops for example) to approach God on behalf of the people. In the West, I think this sense of distance from God has been unfortunately lost. Why is it that we dare to talk to God before supper? Is that not incredibly presumptuous? How would it be if we were to really humble ourselves and purify our thoughts about God before contemplating God, our human condition, matters of purpose, destiny and so on? Of what use is my creed in that situation?

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 08:03 AM
What I am confident about is that really we are all in the same basic state of ignorance. But there are people who either pretend to or actually believe they know a greater truth and are terribly pleased with themselves for having discovered it. To impress the others or shame their enemies, some award themselves the special status of ‘saved’ or followers of the one true God. The risk is that this so-called greater truth or the attitude that comes with the belief is actually toxic and there are many examples to indicate that this might be the case.

Purity was once an important requisite in religious observance. It was so difficult to achieve the appropriate degree of purity that it was left to specialists (Bishops for example) to approach God on behalf of the people. In the West, I think this sense of distance from God has been unfortunately lost. Why is it that we dare to talk to God before supper? Is that not incredibly presumptuous? How would it be if we were to really humble ourselves and purify our thoughts about God before contemplating God, our human condition, matters of purpose, destiny and so on? Of what use is my creed in that situation?

That almost makes a lot of sense... ...a pity you lump everyone in the same boat, though.

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 08:27 AM
I called Firstfloor ignorant, because his first paragraph was ignorant.["The details are never explained"] What you may be referring to is rationalization in the sense of making excuses (it is what apologetics does). It is the avoidance of explanation. One of the reasons that religious movements are often anti-education is that they don’t want to compete with real explanations, because they can’t. [The Devil made use of Eve’s curiosity.]

seer
05-03-2015, 08:43 AM
If this is the best you have to offer, your God is in trouble. Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

So Shuny, obviously if this is your standard, your god cares nothing for mankind.

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 08:43 AM
["The details are never explained"] What you may be referring to is rationalization in the sense of making excuses (it is what apologetics does). It is the avoidance of explanation. One of the reasons that religious movements are often anti-education is that they don’t want to compete with real explanations, because they can’t. [The Devil made use of Eve’s curiosity.]


:no:

seer
05-03-2015, 08:44 AM
Interestingly enough the bolded part is aimed towards all theists. Even those of the Baha'i faith.

It's my position that I don't see why Shunyadragon should have to roll over and accept this sort of abuse. However Shunyadragon seems to think that this statement is perfectly fine.

That is because Shuny is a functional atheist, who only gives lip service to the Baha'i faith.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 08:54 AM
That is because Shuny is a functional atheist, who only gives lip service to the Baha'i faith.

I have to say that was always the impression I got. I don't know his actions in real life so I can't comment on those but his posts here always left me confused afterwards. When talking ot him I always felt like I was talking to an atheist.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 09:00 AM
["The details are never explained"] What you may be referring to is rationalization in the sense of making excuses (it is what apologetics does). It is the avoidance of explanation. One of the reasons that religious movements are often anti-education is that they don’t want to compete with real explanations, because they can’t. [The Devil made use of Eve’s curiosity.]

I think you are pre-supposing here that explanations by Christians cannot be real explanations.

Apart from young earth creationism I don't agree with that assessment at all. I am a theistic evolutionist and YEC wasn't a movement until after the English interpretation of the Bible came about in the 1600's. So my religion functioned for over 1600 years without it.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 09:18 AM
As usual your reading comprehension fails you, and you misunderstand me, and misrepresent my position. Please quote me accurately, and in context.


:ahem:

:ahem: My comprehension is fine. In context you described the first floor as 'Ignorant drivel,' and expected second hand references to do the arguing for you, which is equivalent to arguing by web link.

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 09:28 AM
it's anti-theists I have a problem with.I am anti-theist in the same way that I am anti-seven being the sum of two and three.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 09:31 AM
:ahem: My comprehension is fine. In context you described the first floor as 'Ignorant drivel,' and expected second hand references to do the arguing for you, which is equivalent to arguing by web link.

Well first floor did say that theists only believe what they believe because they are too stupid to think about things on their own merits. Surely even you have to disagree with that. You are not a member of the Baha'i faith because you're stupid and can't think for yourself. You are a member of the Baha'i faith because you think it makes sense.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 09:33 AM
I am anti-theist in the same way that I am anti-seven being the sum of two and three.

So far your track record doesn't look too good but I usually give people an opportunity to show themselves for what they are.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 09:35 AM
I think you are pre-supposing here that explanations by Christians cannot be real explanations.

No, presupposition applies. I have followed these arguments for many years on Tweb, and yes, when it comes to dialoguing or debating atheists, the modus operandi is hostility and name calling.


Apart from young earth creationism I don't agree with that assessment at all. I am a theistic evolutionist and YEC wasn't a movement until after the English interpretation of the Bible came about in the 1600's. So my religion functioned for over 1600 years without it.

I disagree on your assessment of when and how the YEC world view came apart of the beliefs of Christianity. I believe a literal understanding of the Bible was very much the understanding of the apostles and most church fathers including a literal flood and Adam and Eve, including a Heliocentric Aristotelian universe as described in Genesis. Nonetheless, the justification of Adam and Eve, the Fall, Original Sin, and the world flood remain problematic in justifying the Christian world view in the light of the universal and today's knowledge. It remains a problem that between 40 and over 50% of the Christians inn the USA reject evolution, believe in a literal flood and seven day Creation world history based on the testimony of the apostles and church fathers.

Ancient world views remain problematic, because of the limited perspective of the culture from which they arose regardless of whether they are Jewish (resolves most issues by Midrash and severe pragmatism), Christianity, Islam, Vedic (Hinduism) Religion, and many others consider there view the only 'True' view.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 09:42 AM
So Shuny, obviously if this is your standard, your god cares nothing for mankind.

My God cares and all His Creation is noble and purposeful with humanity as the noble Souls and Talisman of His Creation, and does not shame humanity with 'Original Sin' by setting up the first humans for the Fall, and not taking responsibility for his Creation

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 10:16 AM
I think you are pre-supposing here that explanations by Christians cannot be real explanations.Christians are rational. Theology is possible if you accept that at least one god exists. The problem is that you can do something similar for characters in a novel by Charles Dickens (Dickensology). For theology to be a subject at all you need prima facie evidence of a god. That defect is just ignored in religions or you hear apologists like William Lane Craig using bad arguments such as nothing comes from nothing, therefore eternal (Christian) God (of the Bible).

Well, show me the arithmetic Bill.

Chrawnus
05-03-2015, 10:17 AM
or you hear apologists like William Lane Craig using bad arguments such as nothing comes from nothing, therefore eternal (Christian) God (of the Bible).


WLC has never used any argument like that, but good try. :thumb:

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 10:29 AM
No, presupposition applies. I have followed these arguments for many years on Tweb, and yes, when it comes to dialoguing or debating atheists, the modus operandi is hostility and name calling.

Except an ad hom argument is name calling instead of giving an argument. I always seen both an argument given in addition to the name calling. I have seen theists give arguments without any hostility or name calling at all. I too posted here for a few years before the TWeb crash and I too am all too familiar with the people who post here.



I disagree on your assessment of when and how the YEC world view came apart of the beliefs of Christianity. I believe a literal understanding of the Bible was very much the understanding of the apostles and most church fathers including a literal flood and Adam and Eve, including a Heliocentric Aristotelian universe as described in Genesis. Nonetheless, the justification of Adam and Eve, the Fall, Original Sin, and the world flood remain problematic in justifying the Christian world view in the light of the universal and today's knowledge. It remains a problem that between 40 and over 50% of the Christians inn the USA reject evolution, believe in a literal flood and seven day Creation world history based on the testimony of the apostles and church fathers.


In 1650 the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher, published a monumental history of the world from creation to 70 A.D. He used the recorded genealogies and ages in the bible to derive what is commonly known as the Ussher chronology. This calculated a date for creation at 4004 BC. The date was widely accepted in the English-speaking world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism#Religious_arguments)

I think this holds the date for young earth creationism.

As for creationism in totality the same source says of Augustine


[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism#Early_history] In the 5th century, Saint Augustine wrote The Literal Meaning of Genesis in which he argued that Genesis should be interpreted as God forming the Earth and life from pre-existing matter and allowed for an allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. For example: he argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. [=url]

I think at this point it was contested really.




Ancient world views remain problematic, because of the limited perspective of the culture from which they arose regardless of whether they are Jewish (resolves most issues by Midrash and severe pragmatism), Christianity, Islam, Vedic (Hinduism) Religion, and many others consider there view the only 'True' view.

A date for 4004 years though wasn't really place until 1650 as my first source shows.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 10:31 AM
My God cares and all His Creation is noble and purposeful with humanity as the noble Souls and Talisman of His Creation, and does not shame humanity with 'Original Sin' by setting up the first humans for the Fall, and not taking responsibility for his Creation

The story of original sin I interpret it as the beginning of man realising the difference between right and wrong. Hence before hand they had no knowledge of good and evil. I see it as a progression of human beings coming to a realisation of morality.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 10:33 AM
Well first floor did say that theists only believe what they believe because they are too stupid to think about things on their own merits. Surely even you have to disagree with that. You are not a member of the Baha'i faith because you're stupid and can't think for yourself. You are a member of the Baha'i faith because you think it makes sense.

I do not believe in name calling, whether atheists calling Christians 'stupid,' Christians relying on responses like 'Ignorant drivel,' to describe an atheist view. I consider the atheist argument as superior to the Christian, because it is better ground in the knowledge of today's world. Christianity appeals to an ancient paradigm of limited scope to justify their claim to 'Truth,' which is inherently weak.

I am a theist and a Baha'i and the argument for traditional Christianity makes no sense.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 10:37 AM
Christians are rational. Theology is possible if you accept that at least one god exists. The problem is that you can do something similar for characters in a novel by Charles Dickens (Dickensology). For theology to be a subject at all you need prima facie evidence of a god. That defect is just ignored in religions or you hear apologists like William Lane Craig using bad arguments such as nothing comes from nothing, therefore eternal (Christian) God (of the Bible).

Well, show me the arithmetic Bill.

WLC doesn't use that argument but he uses other ones. To a theist the existence of the world is evidence of God. Alistair McGrath used to be an atheist until he studied science and did the same degree as Richard Dawkins. His learning of science is what instigated him to change his mind and become a believer in God because he was amazed at how organised the Universe was. In all retrospect Science only shows the machinations of the Universe. The same way in which you can show how a computer works it does not show you the mind behind the maker of the computer. However, I don't consider it a big jump to assume a creator of these things.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 10:40 AM
Except an ad hom argument is name calling instead of giving an argument. I always seen both an argument given in addition to the name calling. I have seen theists give arguments without any hostility or name calling at all. I too posted here for a few years before the TWeb crash and I too am all too familiar with the people who post here.



I think this holds the date for young earth creationism.

Martin Luther fully endorsed a literal Biblical view of Creationism prior to this and he did not pull this view out of thin air.


As for creationism in totality the same source says of Augustine



I think at this point it was contested really.

Not completely, Martin Luther did not accept this view, and the other church fathers did not necessarily agree.


A date for 4004 years though wasn't really place until 1650 as my first source shows.

I will cite earlier sources like Martin Luther's view. The apostles most definitely described a literal Adam and Eve and world flood. an example follows, and there will be more.



The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2


Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3

This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

In reality the Literal Genesis view of Creation in Christianity goes back to the second century AD, and shared by many Rabbis.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 10:40 AM
I do not believe in name calling, whether atheists calling Christians 'stupid,' Christians relying on responses like 'Ignorant drivel,' to describe an atheist view. I consider the atheist argument as superior to the Christian, because it is better ground in the knowledge of today's world. Christianity appeals to an ancient paradigm of limited scope to justify their claim to 'Truth,' which is inherently weak.

I am a theist and a Baha'i and the argument for traditional Christianity makes no sense.

The Baha'i faith and the Christian faith do share some tenants. Especially in regards to the topic of this thread. Like I said earlier it would be nice for you to defend some of these tenants.

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 10:45 AM
So far your track record doesn't look too good but I usually give people an opportunity to show themselves for what they are.Let’s be honest, it’s abysmal. I am an opponent obviously. I know that people invest much of their personal identity in their religious faith so one appreciates the need to tread carefully. But I also assume that you take part because the debate interests you. So, there is no point in me telling you what I think you want to hear just to be agreeable.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 10:50 AM
Martin Luther fully endorsed a literal Biblical view of Creationism prior to this and he did not pull this view out of thin air.

Perhaps not, but I was just pointing out where the 4004 years for young earth creationism came from. I'm not sure how young Martin Luther thought the earth was.




Not completely, Martin Luther did not accept this view, and the other church fathers did not necessarily agree.

I don't think that these views were enforced though. The young earth creationist theory's are taught now. I don't think the early church fathers were as rigid in their thinking as this. Some of them might have believed in a young earth but I doubt they thought it was mandatory.




I will cite earlier sources like Martin Luther's view. The apostles most definitely described a literal Adam and Eve and world flood.

Not talking about world flood or a literal Adam and Eve. I believe that Adam and Eve existed but I believe that they were among the first humans to evolve. As for the world flood, there is a period where we did get floods across the world and this was due to end of the last ice age. I don't count this as a total world flood but I believe that the word used in scripture talks about the world as Noah knew it. So not the whole entire planet but the world around Noah that he personally knew about.


This flood could have resulted from a rise in sea level after the Ice Age. Another hypothesis is that a meteor or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean around 3000–2800 BC, created the 30-kilometre (19 mi) undersea Burckle Crater, and generated a giant tsunami that flooded coastal lands.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicity)

Here a list of flood accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

seer
05-03-2015, 10:52 AM
My God cares and all His Creation is noble and purposeful with humanity as the noble Souls and Talisman of His Creation, and does not shame humanity with 'Original Sin' by setting up the first humans for the Fall, and not taking responsibility for his Creation

Listen hypocrite you said:


Most people in the world live, die and suffer in poor situations and circumstances they have no control over. Actually by the evidence nature takes care of things from beginning to endings without any apparent Divine intervention.

Suggesting that God, our view of God, does not care for humanity. Original sin it not the question but God's care for mankind. So how is your God any better when it comes to helping the human condition, or why doesn't your objection apply equally to your false god?

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 10:55 AM
Let’s be honest, it’s abysmal. I am an opponent obviously. I know that people invest much of their personal identity in their religious faith so one appreciates the need to tread carefully. But I also assume that you take part because the debate interests you. So, there is no point in me telling you what I think you want to hear just to be agreeable.

I am OK with debate but what is the point in debate when the aim is just to antagonise those you debate by trolling? I'm not talking specifically about you here but in the past when I posted here there were quite a few skeptics who made it clear they were not here to learn what we actually believed but were here to argue against some constructed strawman that we didn't actually believe in.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 11:12 AM
Perhaps not, but I was just pointing out where the 4004 years for young earth creationism came from. I'm not sure how young Martin Luther thought the earth was.

Guess what, he did not equivocate, he stated he believed in a literal Biblical Genesis Creation. He accepted the view by the 2nd century church fathers. Please not I included a second century clear reference to Barnabas a second century Church Father. You responded before I edited it.



http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43][/url]

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2


Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3

This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

In reality the Literal Genesis view of Creation in Christianity goes back to the second century AD, and shared by many Rabbis.


I don't think that these views were enforced though. The young earth creationist theory's are taught now. I don't think the early church fathers were as rigid in their thinking as this. Some of them might have believed in a young earth but I doubt they thought it was mandatory.

I believe based on the historical evidence most church fathers and as the faithful follows, most Christians believed in a literal Creation and heliocentric universe as described in Genesis. Forced or not the view is clearly the dominant view going back to the 2nd century AD, another as follows:



Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:

“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:

“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”5

I can cite more if necessary, like the following which reflects a more complete view of Saint Augustine.



Firstly, even these three leaders who interpreted Scripture in a more symbolic way than the others, never once tried to mix the long ages of the pagan philosophers like Plato with their teaching. Every single person among the Christian leaders who spoke about Creation said it had happened much less than 10,000 years ago. Augustine (AD 354 – 430) could write:


“fewer than 6,000 years have passed since man’s first origin,”

and he referred to the pagans’

“fairy-tales about reputed antiquity, which our opponents may decide to produce in attempts to controvert the authority of our sacred books....”9

Liberals are keen to get Augustine on their side because apparently he believed that the days of Creation were symbolic, and not literal. He tells us in his City of God what he understood about the Creation days:


“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10


From this we realize that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.



.


Not talking about world flood or a literal Adam and Eve. I believe that Adam and Eve existed but I believe that they were among the first humans to evolve. As for the world flood, there is a period where we did get floods across the world and this was due to end of the last ice age. I don't count this as a total world flood but I believe that the word used in scripture talks about the world as Noah knew it. So not the whole entire planet but the world around Noah that he personally knew about.

Adam and Eve, the Fall, and the world flood are an inherent part of the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Creation, and the view of the apostles and MOST early church fathers.

The traditional view of scripture is as God knows it, not Noah




Here a list of flood accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

Not really meaningful since most ancient cultures experience catastrophic local and regional floods and likely understood them as world floods. So what?!?!?!

In reality it was the pagans, and non-Christians who got it right like Lucretius.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 11:46 AM
Guess what, he did not equivocate, he stated he believed in a literal Biblical Genesis Creation. He accepted the view by the 2nd century church fathers. Please not I included a second century clear reference to Barnabas a second century Church Father. You responded before I edited it.



http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43][/url]

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2


Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3

This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

In reality the Literal Genesis view of Creation in Christianity goes back to the second century AD, and shared by many Rabbis.



I believe based on the historical evidence most church fathers and as the faithful follows, most Christians believed in a literal Creation and heliocentric universe as described in Genesis. Forced or not the view is clearly the dominant view going back to the 2nd century AD, another as follows:




Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:

“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:

“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”5

I can cite more if necessary, like the following which reflects a more complete view of Saint Augustine.



Firstly, even these three leaders who interpreted Scripture in a more symbolic way than the others, never once tried to mix the long ages of the pagan philosophers like Plato with their teaching. Every single person among the Christian leaders who spoke about Creation said it had happened much less than 10,000 years ago. Augustine (AD 354 – 430) could write:


“fewer than 6,000 years have passed since man’s first origin,”

and he referred to the pagans’

“fairy-tales about reputed antiquity, which our opponents may decide to produce in attempts to controvert the authority of our sacred books....”9

Liberals are keen to get Augustine on their side because apparently he believed that the days of Creation were symbolic, and not literal. He tells us in his City of God what he understood about the Creation days:


“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10


From this we realize that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.

The source is a creationist website in concerns to this when they are citing their personal opinion. The Hebrew word for day is being interpreted here to mean a literal 24 hour period and are denying a possible definition of the word meaning an indefinite period of time. They are also ignoring the structure of Genesis in it's original Hebrew form as being poetic and thus not necessarily some to be taken in an completely literal format, which is funny because they ignore the other two passages by explaining them away as metaphors. This link would suggest that they are wrong.


“ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days
of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite
article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew
says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first
day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom
hasseni (“the second day”) but yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite
article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be
omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well
adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.” (http://godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf)

I think I'll take the view of biblical scholars rather than young earth creationists. Even you have to agree Shunyadragon that young earth creationists don't exactly use a very good methodology when reaching their conclusions.



Adam and Eve, the Fall, and the world flood are an inherent part of the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, Creation, and the view of the apostles and MOST early church fathers.

The traditional view of scripture is as God knows it, not Noah

I don't agree with that assessment at all. The language used is poetic as I suggested so I don't see why you take a poem as being strictly literal.





Not really meaningful since most ancient cultures experience catastrophic local and regional floods and likely understood them as world floods. So what?!?!?!

In reality it was the pagans, and non-Christians who got it right like Lucretius.

I also provided an explanation why. i.e. The end of the last ice age.


EDIT: Seems to me that the early church fathers quoted by all sides when arguing over the age of the earth but with different interpretations.


J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall support a 24-
hour day (young earth) view; Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer defend a day-age (old earth)
view; and Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline argue for the framework hypothesis. Each pair of
authors appeals to the church fathers’ writings to support their own positions; yet their analysis
of the material clearly contradicts their opponents’. (http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.pdf)

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 12:06 PM
.. in the past when I posted here there were quite a few skeptics who made it clear they were not here to learn what we actually believed but were here to argue against some constructed strawman that we didn't actually believe in.That problem cuts both ways.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 12:06 PM
[QUOTE=shunyadragon;193655]Guess what, he did not equivocate, he stated he believed in a literal Biblical Genesis Creation. He accepted the view by the 2nd century church fathers. Please not I included a second century clear reference to Barnabas a second century Church Father. You responded before I edited it.



http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/home/article/43][/url]

The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2


Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3

This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism.

In reality the Literal Genesis view of Creation in Christianity goes back to the second century AD, and shared by many Rabbis.



I believe based on the historical evidence most church fathers and as the faithful follows, most Christians believed in a literal Creation and heliocentric universe as described in Genesis. Forced or not the view is clearly the dominant view going back to the 2nd century AD, another as follows:




Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:

“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:

“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”5

I can cite more if necessary, like the following which reflects a more complete view of Saint Augustine.



Firstly, even these three leaders who interpreted Scripture in a more symbolic way than the others, never once tried to mix the long ages of the pagan philosophers like Plato with their teaching. Every single person among the Christian leaders who spoke about Creation said it had happened much less than 10,000 years ago. Augustine (AD 354 – 430) could write:


“fewer than 6,000 years have passed since man’s first origin,”

and he referred to the pagans’

“fairy-tales about reputed antiquity, which our opponents may decide to produce in attempts to controvert the authority of our sacred books....”9

Liberals are keen to get Augustine on their side because apparently he believed that the days of Creation were symbolic, and not literal. He tells us in his City of God what he understood about the Creation days:


“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10


From this we realize that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.

[quote] The source is a creationist website in concerns to this when they are citing their personal opinion. The Hebrew word for day is being interpreted here to mean a literal 24 hour period and are denying a possible definition of the word meaning an indefinite period of time. They are also ignoring the structure of Genesis in it's original Hebrew form as being poetic and thus not necessarily some to be taken in an completely literal format, which is funny because they ignore the other two passages by explaining them away as metaphors. This link would suggest that they are wrong.

The source you may object to, and of course I do not agree with is nonetheless accurate concerning what the church fathers believed including St. Augustine, which clearly discounts your contention that the literal interpretation is a recent phenomenon (since ~1600?).

I was not considering them right or wrong in the context of the argument. They were cited to support that this is the dominant belief in history, which the church fathers believed. Your argument that the literal belief in Genesis is relatively modern, since ~1600 AD does not work. This problem is one of the reasons, the link between Doctrine and Dogma and the belief in a literal interpretation of scripture, that I consider the traditional Christian arguments far far weaker then the atheist arguments, and not worthy of my support like other ancient world views of God..




I think I'll take the view of biblical scholars rather than young earth creationists. Even you have to agree Shunyadragon that young earth creationists don't exactly use a very good methodology when reaching their conclusions.

This view is quite modern and not universally held. Actually as I cited likely only half or less of the Christians in the USA.



I don't agree with that assessment at all. The language used is poetic as I suggested so I don't see why you take a poem as being strictly literal.

My argument is not based on the modern interpretations made by liberal Christianity and you, it is: 'What is the dominant beliefs throughout Christian history?' Despite the selective reference oft quoted from St. Augustine he believed in a literal Biblical Creation as described in Genesis.


I also provided an explanation why. i.e. The end of the last ice age.

Your arguing a modern understanding based on science, which is what I do. My argument concerns the reality of the traditional Christian view of Creation which has dominated most of the history of Christianity up until the present, and remains prevalent today. The literal belief in world and human history based in Genesis. This not a prevalent view that began after ~1600 AD.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 12:31 PM
That problem cuts both ways.

Indeed, but the question is are you part of the problem?

I do admit that there are plenty of Christians who are a problem. They usually believe in some wishy washy happy clap trap emotional form of Christianity and think that God should be thanked for giving you a parking space.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 12:57 PM
Sorry it was getting a bit messy, so I've removed the citations since they have already been made previously.


The source you may object to, and of course I do not agree with is nonetheless accurate concerning what the church fathers believed including St. Augustine, which clearly discounts your contention that the literal interpretation is a recent phenomenon (since ~1600?).

In terms of claiming it as part of orthodoxy then I would be correct. The early church fathers had different views on the creations but none of them thought their interpretation was necessary for orthodoxy. So in other words they could have been wrong on a personal level and it didn't really matter.


I was not considering them right or wrong in the context of the argument. They were cited to support that this is the dominant belief in history, which the church fathers believed. Your argument that the literal belief in Genesis is relatively modern, since ~1600 AD does not work. This problem is one of the reasons, the link between Doctrine and Dogma and the belief in a literal interpretation of scripture, that I consider the traditional Christian arguments far far weaker then the atheist arguments, and not worthy of my support like other ancient world views of God.

I don't think any of them had a dominant belief. A lot of them had varied views, even with some being in agreement about some things. However I think what I mean by Young Earth Creationism is that even though some of them had a 24 hour belief, they didn't enforce their view as being the only correct one with no other option being possible. My source also says this.


These facts carry two important consequences for Mook’s point. First, there was genuine
disagreement in the early church over how to best understand the days of creation, with a small
but significant number rejecting the idea that they were “ordinary” days. Second, the church
allowed for charitable disagreement on this point and did not view it as an issue of orthodoxy.
Recognition that Augustine was the single most influential theologian of the early church further
challenges Mook’s position by demonstrating that opposition to a calendar-day view cannot be
dismissed as a mere fringe position. (http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.pdf)

I suppose when I said that Young Earth Creationism didn't come about until the 1600's I meant that it wasn't really considered a must have view. i.e. Part of orthodoxy.






This view is quite modern and not universally held. Actually as I cited likely only half or less of the Christians in the USA.

This is correct, but the current trend is actually a modern one as well in terms of it's popularity. It wasn't always held this way. It's been up and down throughout history.


In 1878, American Presbyterians held the first annual Niagara Bible Conference, founding the Christian fundamentalist movement, which took its name from the "Five Fundamentals" of 1910, and came to be concerned about the implications of evolution for the accuracy of the Bible. But by no means all orthodox Presbyterians were opposed to evolution as a possible method of the Divine procedure. Dr Charles Hodge of Princeton Seminary objected in 1874 to the atheism he considered inplied in the naturalistic explanation but both he and Dr B. B. Warfield[27] were open to its possibility/probability within limits, and most churchmen sought to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creationism#Protoscience)





My argument is not based on the modern interpretations made by liberal Christianity and you, it is: 'What is the dominant beliefs throughout Christian history?' Despite the selective reference oft quoted from St. Augustine he believed in a literal Biblical as described in Genesis.

It's been a mixture. Yes a lot of them held to a belief of a 24 hour period but they did not enforce it as part of orthodoxy and there was room for disagreement as I cited before. Also more recently a lot of churches accepted evolution. The catholic church accepted evolution for instance. Young Earth Creationism had a resurgence in the 1920's which has led to the current situation in America today.




Your arguing a modern understanding based on science, which is what I do. My argument concerns the reality of the traditional Christian view of Creation which has dominated most of the history of Christianity up until the present, and remains prevalent today. The literal belief in world and human history based in Genesis. This not a prevalent view that began after ~1600 AD.

I would disagree with it being dominant. You might say it was the most popular view but then again they agreed it was not an important one. Today's young earth creationists hold it as an important view and demand it as part of orthodoxy which didn't happen until the 1600's and even then there was a resurgence in the 1920's in regards to it.

firstfloor
05-03-2015, 01:35 PM
Indeed, but the question is are you part of the problem?

I do admit that there are plenty of Christians who are a problem. They usually believe in some wishy washy happy clap trap emotional form of Christianity and think that God should be thanked for giving you a parking space.The problem (from my perspective) is that people’s religious views are not ordinary ideas about the world like those that philosophers and scientists tackle. They are often a very important element of personal and cultural identity and they are cocooned like no other idea. When in conflict with worldly truths they are defended against all reason.

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 01:52 PM
The problem (from my perspective) is that people’s religious views are not ordinary ideas about the world like those that philosophers and scientists tackle. They are often a very important element of personal and cultural identity and they are cocooned like no other idea. When in conflict with worldly truths they are defended against all reason.

I disagree. Philosophers mostly agree that there is no problem in holding a well thought out theist/religious view of the world. You have already mentioned William Lane Craig and William Lane Craig is a Philosopher.


The collapse of logical positivism renewed interest in philosophy of religion, prompting philosophers like William Alston, John Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Merrihew Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Antony Flew not only to introduce new problems, but to re-open classical topics such as the nature of miracles, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, (see existence of God) the rationality of belief in God, concepts of the nature of God, and many more.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion#Analytic_philosophy_of_reli gion)

In terms of science it's a different topic really. It's dedicated to studying the mechanisms of the Universe. It stills relies on a philosophy in order to make predictions and theories in how those mechanisms work.

37818
05-03-2015, 01:57 PM
If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing then He also was created and His creator was created, and so on. In Religio-think the infinite regression is avoided by supposing that God is timeless or outside time or has existed forever or something of that sort. The details are never explained and you are just supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the person saying such a thing knows something that you don’t. But let’s suppose that there was God-time before He made the world and God inhabited that ‘space’ for all possible God-times. If that space is not infinite then God is not infinite and He must have been created. If that space is infinite then God is infinitely lazy. OR, this world and you in particular is the infinitely least important thing on His agenda.

What I notice about the world is that God, at the very best, is not a hard worker. [Christians will excuse infinite God-idleness] What are we supposed to be praising Him for exactly?What is created or caused is not God. An infinite regression has no first cause, but still has an uncaused cause. And there also needs to be an uncaused existence. And what is uncaused needs no God. What is uncaused is eternal. All causes are temporal. An uncaused cause is both eternal being uncaused and temporal being a cause.

JimL
05-03-2015, 04:33 PM
What is created or caused is not God. An infinite regression has no first cause, but still has an uncaused cause. And there also needs to be an uncaused existence. And what is uncaused needs no God. What is uncaused is eternal. All causes are temporal. An uncaused cause is both eternal being uncaused and temporal being a cause.
Put in other words, the universe is eternal and uncaused and what is temporal are the changes that take place within the universe. In the words of Spinoza, things that begin to exist are temporal with respect to themselves, but they are eternal with respect to their cause. The point being that the universe, the cause and the effects, are all one and the same substance, and the substance is eternal. If the substance, the cause, is God, then so too would be the effects.

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 05:24 PM
Sorry it was getting a bit messy, so I've removed the citations since they have already been made previously.

In terms of claiming it as part of orthodoxy then I would be correct. The early church fathers had different views on the creations but none of them thought their interpretation was necessary for orthodoxy. So in other words they could have been wrong on a personal level and it didn't really matter.

I don't think any of them had a dominant belief. A lot of them had varied views, even with some being in agreement about some things. However I think what I mean by Young Earth Creationism is that even though some of them had a 24 hour belief, they didn't enforce their view as being the only correct one with no other option being possible. My source also says this.

I suppose when I said that Young Earth Creationism didn't come about until the 1600's I meant that it wasn't really considered a must have view. i.e. Part of orthodoxy.

This is correct, but the current trend is actually a modern one as well in terms of it's popularity. It wasn't always held this way. It's been up and down throughout history.

It's been a mixture. Yes a lot of them held to a belief of a 24 hour period but they did not enforce it as part of orthodoxy and there was room for disagreement as I cited before. Also more recently a lot of churches accepted evolution. The catholic church accepted evolution for instance. Young Earth Creationism had a resurgence in the 1920's which has led to the current situation in America today.

I would disagree with it being dominant. You might say it was the most popular view but then again they agreed it was not an important one. Today's young earth creationists hold it as an important view and demand it as part of orthodoxy which didn't happen until the 1600's and even then there was a resurgence in the 1920's in regards to it.

This line of reasoning does not work it all. I am not sure what you would call Orthodoxy, but I contend there was NO OTHER alternative among the church fathers, even Saint Augustine. If you feel there was an alternate view, please provide a reference. Even in the history of Christianity there is no alternative until crack began to appear in the Renaissance with the failure of the Heliocentric view of the universe, and rise of science. Feeling the heat the doctrinal intiatives you have noted beginning in the !600s. The issue warmed up with botanist John Ray, in his book The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation (1692), and later Linnaeus proposed a primitive form of variation of species.

As far as recent history, after Darwin published his 'Origin of the Species' there was a movement among progressive evangelicals to accept this and propose a Theistic Evolution and an ancient earth, at least millions of years old.

The monkey wrench in the works. Williams Jennings Bryan in 'In His Image,' and a little known popular Evangelist, William Bell Riley, began to seriously challenge the scientific view of the history of the earth, life and humans. Their views were grounded in the works of the Church Fathers.

37818
05-03-2015, 05:27 PM
. . . the cause and the effects, are all one and the same substance, . . .:lolo:

Darth Ovious
05-03-2015, 06:07 PM
This line of reasoning does not work it all. I am not sure what you would call Orthodoxy, but I contend there was NO OTHER alternative among the church fathers, even Saint Augustine. If you feel there was an alternate view, please provide a reference. Even in the history of Christianity there is no alternative until crack began to appear in the Renaissance with the failure of the Heliocentric view of the universe, and rise of science. Feeling the heat the doctrinal intiatives you have noted beginning in the !600s. The issue warmed up with botanist John Ray, in his book The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation (1692), and later Linnaeus proposed a primitive form of variation of species.

As far as recent history, after Darwin published his 'Origin of the Species' there was a movement among progressive evangelicals to accept this and propose a Theistic Evolution and an ancient earth, at least millions of years old.

The monkey wrench in the works. Williams Jennings Bryan in 'In His Image,' and a little known popular Evangelist, William Bell Riley, began to seriously challenge the scientific view of the history of the earth, life and humans. Their views were grounded in the works of the Church Fathers.

I did provide a reference. I provided it in my previous post and I even quoted from it. I'm not sure what else you want me to do :shrug:


These facts carry two important consequences for Mook’s point. First, there was genuine
disagreement in the early church over how to best understand the days of creation, with a small
but significant number rejecting the idea that they were “ordinary” days. Second, the church
allowed for charitable disagreement on this point and did not view it as an issue of orthodoxy.
Recognition that Augustine was the single most influential theologian of the early church further
challenges Mook’s position by demonstrating that opposition to a calendar-day view cannot be
dismissed as a mere fringe position. (http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.pdf)

Also not to mention all groups quote the early church fathers to support their views which is also noted in this document.


While my actual academic background is in chemistry, I became interested in patristics (the
study of early church fathers) after reading The Genesis Debate, which presents three different
views of the creation days side-by-side. J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall support a 24-
hour day (young earth) view; Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer defend a day-age (old earth)
view; and Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline argue for the framework hypothesis. Each pair of
authors appeals to the church fathers’ writings to support their own positions; yet their analysis
of the material clearly contradicts their opponents’. (http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.pdf)

shunyadragon
05-03-2015, 06:37 PM
I did provide a reference. I provided it in my previous post and I even quoted from it. I'm not sure what else you want me to do :shrug:

Your references were unclear, and the one concerning Saint Augustine misrepresents his actual view that my source quoted him directly.

You did not cite one early church father nor early theologian that did offer a different view than the literal Genesis belief. Your source, did not cite specific source of early church fathers or theologians.


Also not to mention all groups quote the early church fathers to support their views which is also noted in this document.

Please provide the citation specifically. Dr, John Williams is a chemist and did not cite any early church fathers that held a different view. His citations are very recent. Your tertiary sources do not accurately cite any early church fathers. Still waiting . . .

MaxVel
05-03-2015, 08:43 PM
Your references were unclear, and the one concerning Saint Augustine misrepresents his actual view that my source quoted him directly.

You did not cite one early church father nor early theologian that did offer a different view than the literal Genesis belief. Your source, did not cite specific source of early church fathers or theologians.



Please provide the citation specifically. Dr, John Williams is a chemist and did not cite any early church fathers that held a different view. His citations are very recent. Your tertiary sources do not accurately cite any early church fathers. Still waiting . . .


Found your evidence on Aquinas yet? Let's see you cite his actual argument, or a modern version of it, and support your claim that it is circular, and assumes God's existence from the beginning.

Still waiting....

Darth Ovious
05-04-2015, 02:56 AM
Your references were unclear, and the one concerning Saint Augustine misrepresents his actual view that my source quoted him directly.

You did not cite one early church father nor early theologian that did offer a different view than the literal Genesis belief. Your source, did not cite specific source of early church fathers or theologians.

Well Augustine believed in instantaneous creation which is different from the 6 days view of creation, although he admits that he doesn't really understand the concept behind the creation days.


This idea of a day being an age, or an unspecified period of time that commenced “there was evening” and concluded, “there was morning” the [ ] day was further elaborated in book one of On Genesis as he states “ For what I see throughout the whole tapestry of the divine scriptures is some six working ages” (Augustine, Hill62). (http://www.academia.edu/1598580/St._Augustines_view_of_Biblical_Creation_versus_a_ 21st_Century_Day-Age_View)

Also this article goes through the different quotes form early church fathers. Especially these from Augustine.


"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar"

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis)

There are other quotes there from the other church fathers showing their particular beliefs on it.

JimL
05-04-2015, 03:10 AM
Found your evidence on Aquinas yet? Let's see you cite his actual argument, or a modern version of it, and support your claim that it is circular, and assumes God's existence from the beginning.

Still waiting....
What Aquinas assumes is that there is a first cause. Does God have a cause? No. Then neither does the Cosmos/energy need a first cause. Is God is an unmoved mover? Then how did he initiate motion? The reason motion is said to need something to cause it to move, is because that which causes it to move is also in motion. Is God necessary existence and all else contingent? Well, he would be if he existed, but Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter and so there is no need to make a distinction between necessity and contingency. Is God the greatest degree of prefection, goodness? Then he must also be the greatest degree of imperfection, evil. If as Aquinas argues, existence, the physical laws and the order seen in nature, requires an intelligent designer, then why doesn't Gods own existence require an intelligent designer?

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 05:09 AM
Well Augustine believed in instantaneous creation which is different from the 6 days view of creation, although he admits that he doesn't really understand the concept behind the creation days.


Also this article goes through the different quotes form early church fathers. Especially these from Augustine.

Already addressed that with direst quotes from Saint Augustine. Your source, like other sources, misrepresents Him. Again, from the 'City of God;'



“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10


From this we realize that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.


There are other quotes there from the other church fathers showing their particular beliefs on it.

Please cite the church fathers directly. The citations you gave did not cite the church fathers directly. I have checked other sources, and can cite them directly if you wish. Other church fathers that supported a literal interpretation of Genesis were; Origen, Lactactius and Clement of Alexander.

It is also true that the Rabbinical teachings of the times were a literal Genesis.

The only detractors of the period were pagans who proposed beliefs similar thoughts, to the scientific modern view, like Lucretius of Rome. Actually, the church fathers actually strongly rejected any other views of the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, and rejected them calling them pagan.

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

Darth Ovious
05-04-2015, 05:28 AM
Already addressed that with direst quotes from Saint Augustine. Your source, like other sources, misrepresents Him. Again, from the 'City of God;'



“The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”10


From this we realize that Augustine held to a literal interpretation of the Creation days, although he admitted he had to take it by faith, rather than by reason. In his earlier book (AD 397 – 398), Confessions, he does spiritualize the Genesis account of Creation to communicate with a different audience, but his City of God was completed only four years before his death, and, as shown above, this later book shows a literal understanding of the days of Genesis.

He did teach an idea known as the “seminal principle,” which some liberals have jumped on with glee, stating that Augustine was a theistic evolutionist. This is, however, reading too much into his work from a post-Darwin mindset. He simply believed that all living things contained within them seeds, which grew to form the complete species, but that all kinds of living things had fixed boundaries. These seeds, he believed, grew rapidly into fully mature living forms during the creation process – there was no thought about millions of years in between each stage of the days of Genesis.



Please cite the church fathers directly. The citations you gave did not cite the church fathers directly. I have checked other sources, and can cite them directly if you wish. Other church fathers that supported a literal interpretation of Genesis were; Origen, Lactactius and Clement of Alexander.

It is also true that the Rabbinical teachings of the times were a literal Genesis.

The only detractors of the period were pagans who proposed beliefs similar thoughts, to the scientific modern view, like Lucretius of Rome. Actually, the church fathers actually strongly rejected any other views of the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, and rejected them calling them pagan.

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

If you want to believe Young Earth Creationists on the issue then fair enough. There isn't a lot more than I can provide you. I don't believe their assessment on the situation so if you excuse me I have better things to do with my time than to debate tomahto over tomayto.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 06:05 AM
If you want to believe Young Earth Creationists on the issue then fair enough. There isn't a lot more than I can provide you. I don't believe their assessment on the situation so if you excuse me I have better things to do with my time than to debate tomahto over tomayto.

I will take this as a duck, bob and weave act with dog and pony show that your not able to back up your claims.

The fact remains that the literal interpretation of Genesis has dominated the history of Christianity from its beginning, with only alternative movements arising after 1600!!

There were no alternative beliefs among the church fathers and theologians in church history up until the 1600s

MaxVel
05-04-2015, 06:13 AM
What Aquinas assumes is that there is a first cause. Does God have a cause? No. Then neither does the Cosmos/energy need a first cause. Is God is an unmoved mover? Then how did he initiate motion? The reason motion is said to need something to cause it to move, is because that which causes it to move is also in motion. Is God necessary existence and all else contingent? Well, he would be if he existed, but Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter and so there is no need to make a distinction between necessity and contingency. Is God the greatest degree of prefection, goodness? Then he must also be the greatest degree of imperfection, evil. If as Aquinas argues, existence, the physical laws and the order seen in nature, requires an intelligent designer, then why doesn't Gods own existence require an intelligent designer?

This is very confused. Please cite exactly which of Aquinas' arguments you're responding to.

MaxVel
05-04-2015, 06:15 AM
I will take this as a duck, bob and weave act with dog and pony show that your not able to back up your claims.


I'm taking your failure to support your claims about Aquinas' arguments as Shunya's "duck, bob and weave act". Just what I expected. :thumb:

You're unwilling to address anything but strawmen.

Darth Ovious
05-04-2015, 06:25 AM
I will take this as a duck, bob and weave act with dog and pony show that your not able to back up your claims.

This isn't constructive. The fact that this is how you reply just shows you're not interested in what I have to say on the issue. :shrug:

I provided my sources already, you don't agree with them and that's fine I don't care. I don't agree with the creationists that the church fathers are being misquoted. I don't think they are being misquoted at all.


The fact remains that the literal interpretation of Genesis has dominated the history of Christianity from its beginning, with only alternative movements arising after 1600!!

There were no alternative beliefs among the church fathers and theologians in church history up until the 1600s

I disagree but it doesn't matter. You hang on to your ideas I don't really care about changing your mind. Past experience shows me that you have your ideas and they won't be changed no matter what is shown.

it doesn't matter to me one jot. It wasn't part of orthodoxy so I don't really care either way.

Bill the Cat
05-04-2015, 06:46 AM
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

Fish crap in the sea.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 07:59 AM
This isn't constructive. The fact that this is how you reply just shows you're not interested in what I have to say on the issue. :shrug:

I provided my sources already, you don't agree with them and that's fine I don't care. I don't agree with the creationists that the church fathers are being misquoted. I don't think they are being misquoted at all.

I disagree but it doesn't matter. You hang on to your ideas I don't really care about changing your mind. Past experience shows me that you have your ideas and they won't be changed no matter what is shown.

it doesn't matter to me one jot. It wasn't part of orthodoxy so I don't really care either way.

It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 08:01 AM
Fish crap in the sea.

Where there is life, there is crap, and it grows beautiful roses.

Cerebrum123
05-04-2015, 08:10 AM
It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.

Which translation is that? Here's what I'm finding for 2 Peter 3:8

2 Peter 3:8New International Version (NIV)

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

seer
05-04-2015, 08:14 AM
It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.

Don't you believe that Moses was a manifestation of God Shuny? Isn't that what your religion teaches? So this manifestation of God got the whole creation story wrong?

Paprika
05-04-2015, 08:41 AM
Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:
:twitch:

:lol:

Bill the Cat
05-04-2015, 08:45 AM
Where there is life, there is crap, and it grows beautiful roses.

So you crap on your god and he gives you flowers. :thumb: :flowers:

Chrawnus
05-04-2015, 08:47 AM
Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.

That's from Lactantatius' Divine Institutes Book VII, Chapter XIV, not 2 Peter 3:8. :no:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.vii.xiv.html


ETA: But it's nice to see that you consider 2 Peter 3:8 to be genuine.

:outtie:

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 09:00 AM
Don't you believe that Moses was a manifestation of God Shuny? Isn't that what your religion teaches? So this manifestation of God got the whole creation story wrong?

We have no original text written by Moses.

seer
05-04-2015, 09:10 AM
We have no original text written by Moses.

Really? Then how does your religion know anything about him? Your faith teaches that Moses gave men and I quote "The Laws of God." Where did they get this information?

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 09:24 AM
That's from Lactantatius' Divine Institutes Book VII, Chapter XIV, not 2 Peter 3:8. :no:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.vii.xiv.html


ETA: But it's nice to see that you consider 2 Peter 3:8 to be genuine.

Agreed, the source of the translation was not an accurate translation. according to this the creation may took 6,000 years.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 09:26 AM
Which translation is that? Here's what I'm finding for 2 Peter 3:8

2 Peter 3:8New International Version (NIV)

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

The translation I references was in error, your correct.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 09:31 AM
So you crap on your god and he gives you flowers. :thumb: :flowers:

Odd and confusing! :rant::whack:

seer
05-04-2015, 09:34 AM
Odd and confusing! :rant::whack:


Really? Then how does your religion know anything about him? Your faith teaches that Moses gave men and I quote "The Laws of God." Where did they get this information?

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 10:15 AM
Really? Then how does your religion know anything about him? Your faith teaches that Moses gave men and I quote "The Laws of God." Where did they get this information?

I believe in Moses, because the Baha'i Faith, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism teach that Moses is a manifestation of God and gave the Laws of God to the Hebrews. The Laws were handed down by the Hebrews. Some Laws were universal and some Laws were temporal for the people the Laws given. Again we do not have original texts written by Moses. We have what was recorded later and handed down by the Hebrews.

The Baha'i Faith also taught that there were manifestations of God universal to humanity throughout the history of humanity through the Creation, Revelation and evolution of humanity, and some the names and scripture are no longer known. The religions of the ancients reflect both Revelation form God, and the fallible human view of God at the time of the Revelation.

seer
05-04-2015, 10:25 AM
I believe in Moses, because the Baha'i Faith, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism teach that Moses is a manifestation of God and gave the Laws of God to the Hebrews. The Laws were handed down by the Hebrews. Some Laws were universal and some Laws were temporal for the people the Laws given. Again we do not have original texts written by Moses. We have what was recorded later and handed down by the Hebrews.

So you believe that these records handed down by the Hebrews concerning Moses and what he taught were accurate.


The religions of the ancients reflect both Revelation form God, and the fallible human view of God at the time of the Revelation.

So the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh are fallible?

Darth Ovious
05-04-2015, 10:31 AM
It is not a matter of interest in what you have to say (but your opinion would hardly be an authority), nor an issue of orthodoxy. The church fathers and early theologians determined the belief of the flock through history. It is a matter of fact and all the references available, ALL the church fathers, and theologians believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. You have failed to provide any first person references that would support there was an alternative among Christians. There were of course alternatives among the pagans, but not Christians, until after ~1600. and nothing comprehensive until after Darwin in the 19th century.

You also failed to respond to the authority source that the church fathers and early theologians relied on for guidance.

No I provided the sources you just disagreed with them which is fine. I didn't come back to TWeb to get involved in this tit for tat so I will just say this. You will be going onto my ignore list if you keep this bullheadness up.


Also we have a direct and specific from the New Testament:

2 Peter 3:8 - Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years.

According to Peter it was a part of orthodoxy.

Really????? How long have you been posting here and you still don't know what is meant by the term orthodoxy? Honestly I've had enough now. Just go onto my ignore list. This just proves my point.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 11:05 AM
So you believe that these records handed down by the Hebrews concerning Moses and what he taught were accurate.

Not necessarily accurate. Historical accounts of history in ancient religions are notoriously inaccurate. The historical account was not written by Moses.




So the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh are fallible?

The moral teachings of the Baha'i Faith are infallible for the Age they were revealed, as with all religions. The knowledge of religions as with science evolve over time, even within the dispensation they were revealed. Science is for the progressive Revelation of the physical knowledge of our cosmos. In the principle of the Harmony od Science and Religion all scripture concerning the physical nature of our cosmos must be understood in the light of the evolving nature of science.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 11:11 AM
No I provided the sources you just disagreed with them which is fine. I didn't come back to TWeb to get involved in this tit for tat so I will just say this. You will be going onto my ignore list if you keep this bullheadness up.

No you did not cite first hand sources concerning the alternate beliefs of the church fathers. All you cited was the claim of third and sources and the misrepresentation of the views of Saint Augustine. All you need to do is cite one of the church fathers that presented and alternate interpretation other than a literal interpretation of Genesis. First hand source of the citation of the church fathers only.
Still waiting . . .




Really????? How long have you been posting here and you still don't know what is meant by the term orthodoxy? Honestly I've had enough now. Just go onto my ignore list. This just proves my point.

No list given of first hand sources of citations of church fathers. I acknowledge that my reference of 2 Peter was a bad translation.

Again your assertion that there were alternate views of the interpretation of Genesis is groundless in the early history of Christianity. Actually it is after ~1600 AD that alternate interpretations began to be proposed in response to the advances in science.

Still waiting . . .

seer
05-04-2015, 11:29 AM
The moral teachings of the Baha'i Faith are infallible for the Age they were revealed, as with all religions. The knowledge of religions as with science evolve over time, even within the dispensation they were revealed. Science is for the progressive Revelation of the physical knowledge of our cosmos. In the principle of the Harmony od Science and Religion all scripture concerning the physical nature of our cosmos must be understood in the light of the evolving nature of science.

So the teaching of Moses were infallible for his age? And there ultimately can not be harmony with with science and scripture. Science will never accept that human beings have an immaterial soul. And the soul is the most important aspect of the human being as both our religions teach. And as we know, science can be wrong, so their conclusions are not written in stone.

At every turn science is rejecting the idea of the soul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26soul.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Bill the Cat
05-04-2015, 11:43 AM
Odd and confusing! :rant::whack:

It was your words that prompted my comments. :rock:

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 11:51 AM
So the teaching of Moses were infallible for his age? And there ultimately can not be harmony with with science and scripture. Science will never accept that human beings have an immaterial soul. And the soul is the most important aspect of the human being as both our religions teach. And as we know, science can be wrong, so their conclusions are not written in stone.

At every turn science is rejecting the idea of the soul:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26soul.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Old turf seer. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify anything beyond the physical nature of existence. The existence of God, the soul and anything of the spiritual realms is beyond the scope of science. Scientists may present anecdotal arguments concerning the existence of God and the soul, but they cannot propose a hypothesis for anything in the spiritual realms that may be falsified.

The moral teachings of Moses, ie most of the ten commandments (5-10), are morals in harmony with science. Commandments 1-4 are a religious commitment to God, and not related to science.

First this is a layman's article soaked with opinion. The bottom line of your reference is the claim that science provides an adequate natural explanation for human morals, ethics and the mind, which is true, but that is as far as science can go.

The Baha'i view that God Created Natural Laws and the nature of our physical existence in harmony with the spiritual realms, would agree that, yes, science can come up with an adequate explanation of how God Created our physical existence, but that would be limit of science.

firstfloor
05-04-2015, 12:01 PM
... William Lane Craig is a Philosopher. Thanks for the link. William Lane Craig is perhaps a theologian or an apologist but he is definitely no philosopher.
This guy is though –
“Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.

seer
05-04-2015, 12:04 PM
Old turf seer. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify anything beyond the physical nature of existence. The existence of God, the soul and anything of the spiritual realms is beyond the scope of science. Scientists may present anecdotal arguments concerning the existence of God and the soul, but they cannot propose a hypothesis for anything in the spiritual realms that may be falsified.

Actually that is incorrect Shuny. I spend a good amount of time reading the Baha'i view of the soul recently - most of which I agree with as a Christian. And your view is that the soul is the seat of the intellect, reason and emotions - it is the immaterial soul that gives rise to these. Science is directly contradicting this - read my link. That the intellect, reason and emotion can be fully explained by the physical brain. This is a clear and direct contradiction, whether you want to admit that or not. Science and your religion are not in harmony on this issue.


The moral teachings of Moses, ie most of the ten commandments (5-10), are morals in harmony with science. Commandments 1-4 are a religious commitment to God, and not related to science.

That was not a question concerning science. So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 12:05 PM
The story of original sin I interpret it as the beginning of man realising the difference between right and wrong. Hence before hand they had no knowledge of good and evil. I see it as a progression of human beings coming to a realisation of morality.

This would not be a traditional Christian interpretation. It would be close to the Baha'i view where Adam is the first Manifestation of God (First human spiritually) to know God and right and wrong in God's spiritual Law for humanity.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 12:08 PM
Actually that is incorrect Shuny. I spend a good amount of time reading the Baha'i view of the soul recently - most of which I agree with as a Christian. And your view is that the soul is the seat of the intellect, reason and emotions - it is the immaterial soul that gives rise to these. Science is directly contradicting this - read my link. That the intellect, reason and emotion can be fully explained by the physical brain. This is a clear and direct contradiction, whether you want to admit that or not. Science and your religion are not in harmony on this issue.

No, science cannot contradict this because science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor determine the nature of the soul in the relationship to the main and body of human. Scientists and others may make anecdotal claims, but concerning the soul science has no ability to falsify the existence nor the nature of the soul.

Science can only observe the relationship between the mind and the brain, which does not deal with the relationship of the soul and the mind. The mind is eternal with the soul, but the mind also has an intimate relationship to the brain, which science can observe directly.

Your efforts to study Baha'i scripture is not one of sincere understanding, but one of a selective adversarial combativeness to demonstrate that the Baha'i Faith and science are false and in conflict.

seer
05-04-2015, 12:09 PM
Thanks for the link. William Lane Craig is perhaps a theologian or an apologist but he is definitely no philosopher.
This guy is though –
“Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.

How completely stupid...

seer
05-04-2015, 12:11 PM
No, science cannot contradict this because science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor determine the nature of the soul in the relationship to the main and body of human. Scientists and others may make claims, but concerning the soul science has no ability to falsify the existence nor the nature of the soul.

This is just double talk Shuny. If the physical brain can fully explain reasoning, the intellect and emotion, then there is no need for the soul. What does the soul do?


The Bahá’í writings explain that such faculties of the mind as thought, reasoning, understanding and imagination are “inherent properties of the soul, even as the radiation of light is the essential property of the sun.”The body of a man is “like unto a mirror, his soul is as the sun, and his mental faculties even as the rays that emanate from that source of light.”


The moral teachings of Moses, ie most of the ten commandments (5-10), are morals in harmony with science. Commandments 1-4 are a religious commitment to God, and not related to science.

That was not a question concerning science. So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 12:19 PM
This is just double talk Shuny. If the physical brain can fully explain reasoning, the intellect and emotion, then there is no need for the soul. What does the soul do?

Not double talk at all seer. It is a fact of Methodological Naturalism that the existence and nature of the soul cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Science cannot determine whether the soul is necessary or not.

The soul is the supreme Talisman of God's Creation, and beyond the realm of the provenance of science.


That was not a question concerning science. So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

I already answered the question, and you did inject science into the question and I answered it.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 12:24 PM
It was your words that prompted my comments. :rock:

You need to take responsibility for your on hostility throwing rocks, and not pass the buck!:bomb:

Darth Ovious
05-04-2015, 12:37 PM
Thanks for the link. William Lane Craig is perhaps a theologian or an apologist but he is definitely no philosopher.

:ahem:


William Lane Craig /kreɪɡ/ (born August 23, 1949) is an American [3] Christian apologist, theologian and analytical philosopher,.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig)


In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick. Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a post-doctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München in Germany.[citation needed] His studies in Munich led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,[15][17] awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, "The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy" (1985).[[/B],.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig)

and


Dr. William Lane Craig, born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois, is an American Christian apologist, philosopher, and theologian. He received a Bachelor of Arts from the evangelical protestant Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, a summa cum laude Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham (England),[2] and a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Munich (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig)


This guy is though –
“Other reactions to natural theology are those of Wittgensteinian philosophers of religion, most notably D. Z. Phillips. Phillips rejects "natural theology" and its evidentialist approach as confused, in favor of a grammatical approach which investigates the meaning of belief in God. For Phillips, belief in God is not a proposition with a particular truth value, but a form of life. Consequently, the question of whether God exists confuses the logical categories which govern theistic language with those that govern other forms of discourse (most notably, scientific discourse). According to Phillips, the question of whether or not God exists cannot be "objectively" answered by philosophy because the categories of truth and falsity, which are necessary for asking the question, have no application in the religious contexts wherein religious belief has its sense and meaning. In other words, the question cannot be answered because it cannot be asked without entering into confusion. As Phillips sees things, the job of the philosopher is not to investigate the "rationality" of belief in God but to elucidate its meaning.

Yes, there will be individuals who obviously have their own views but what I meant was that it wasn't a problem overall to the field of Philosophy.

firstfloor
05-04-2015, 12:46 PM
How completely stupid...“Kierkegaard believed religious belief to stand at an ‘infinite distance’ from philosophical clarity. He did not believe that such clarity could by itself bring anyone one whit closer to religious faith. I think that Wittgenstein would have taken the same view.” - Peter Guy Winch (another real philosopher)

Darth Ovious
05-04-2015, 12:52 PM
“Kierkegaard believed religious belief to stand at an ‘infinite distance’ from philosophical clarity. He did not believe that such clarity could by itself bring anyone one whit closer to religious faith. I think that Wittgenstein would have taken the same view.” - Peter Guy Winch (another real philosopher)

:yes: here is another real philosopher.


Rubem Azevedo Alves (15 September 1933 – 19 July 2014) was a Brazilian theologian, philosopher, educator, writer and psychoanalyst.[1] Alves was one of the founders of liberation theology.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubem_Alves)


1.Assistant professor of Social Philosophy, in the Faculty of Philosophy, Sciences and Letters of Rio Clarourl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubem_Alves)

:whistle:

firstfloor
05-04-2015, 12:54 PM
Yes, there will be individuals who obviously have their own views but what I meant was that it wasn't a problem overall to the field of Philosophy.I am glad you brought this up. These new (for me) lines of enquiry are very interesting.

seer
05-04-2015, 01:10 PM
Not double talk at all seer. It is a fact of Methodological Naturalism that the existence and nature of the soul cannot be falsified by scientific methods. Science cannot determine whether the soul is necessary or not.

But "science" is doing just that. If the physical brain can account for all mental function then there is nothing left for the soul to do. So you disagree with with the claim that the physical brain can account for all mental properties?




I already answered the question, and you did inject science into the question and I answered it.

This was a different question having nothing to do with science, so once again: So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 01:15 PM
No I provided the sources you just disagreed with them which is fine. I didn't come back to TWeb to get involved in this tit for tat so I will just say this. You will be going onto my ignore list if you keep this bullheadness up.

I made a sincere effort to review your references and found nothing referencing citations from early church fathers, nor early theologians to support your contention that there was a diversity of opinions concerning the interpretation of Genesis. My search revealed that prior to the 1600s I have found nothing in referencing an alternative to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Orthodox or not, prior to the 1600's there was no other alternative view.

You only referenced Gleason L. Archer and Dr. John Millam (a chemist), and both primarily discussed recent academics on the interpretation of Genesis. Neither directly cited the reference to what the early church fathers, nor early theologians believed and taught.



Really????? How long have you been posting here and you still don't know what is meant by the term orthodoxy? Honestly I've had enough now. Just go onto my ignore list. This just proves my point.[/QUOTE]

Chrawnus
05-04-2015, 01:47 PM
Agreed, the source of the translation was not an accurate translation. according to this the creation may took 6,000 years.


The translation I references was in error, your correct.

Not an accurate translation? Dude, it was a completely different text. :no:

JimL
05-04-2015, 04:45 PM
This is very confused. Please cite exactly which of Aquinas' arguments you're responding to.

If you know the argument then you should know I responded to all of it.

1) Aquinas claims God to be the unmoved mover. Answer: If God is not in motion himself, then how does he initiate motion?

2) Aquinas claims there must be a first cause. Answer: If God himself does not require a cause, then neither does the Cosmos/energy require a cause.

3) Aquinas claims the need of a necessary existence distinct from contingent existences. Answer: In the universe Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter (E=mc2). So contingent things are not dependent upon a distinct cause. Cause and effect are of one and the same source.

4) Aquinas argues that there are degrees of goodness and that therefore God is the greatest good. Answer: If there are degrees of goodness, there are also degrees of evil, ergo God must also be defined as the greatest evil.

5) Aquinas argues that the apparent intelligence seen in the order and perfection of nature requires an intelligent creator. Answer: Why then doesn't God himself need an intelligent designer?

Yttrium
05-04-2015, 06:07 PM
4) Aquinas argues that there are degrees of goodness and that therefore God is the greatest good. Answer: If there are degrees of goodness, there are also degrees of evil, ergo God must also be defined as the greatest evil.

I'm tempted to comment on several things in your post, but this one is most puzzling to me. Good and evil are contrasts. I'm not sure how you could have God being both the greatest good and greatest evil. There would then be no distinction between good and evil. The contrasts would be meaningless. I would think that if God represents the greatest good, then anything opposed to God's standards would be evil.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 07:19 PM
Found your evidence on Aquinas yet? Let's see you cite his actual argument, or a modern version of it, and support your claim that it is circular, and assumes God's existence from the beginning.

Still waiting....



B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)

Part I assumes that there must be an unmoved mover since everything moves. Part II assumes there is there is a First Efficient Cause that is Divine. It is possible the First Cause is simply Natural Law. Part III Assumes a necessary being not dependent on anything else. Part IV assumes there must be a Absolute God Being. Part V assumes a Great Designer is necessary to explain complexity in nature.

None of these assumptions are necessary.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 07:57 PM
But "science" is doing just that. If the physical brain can account for all mental function then there is nothing left for the soul to do. So you disagree with with the claim that the physical brain can account for all mental properties?

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.


This was a different question having nothing to do with science, so once again: So were the teaching of Moses infallible in his time? As you claimed the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh were in his time?

The Spiritual Laws of Moses were infallible for his time, as the Baha'i spiritual Laws are infallible for the Age of Baha'u'llah.

shunyadragon
05-04-2015, 08:03 PM
Not an accurate translation? Dude, it was a completely different text. :no:

True it is from on of the church fathers.

seer
05-05-2015, 07:26 AM
Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

You don't even understand the teaching of your own faith. If science is correct there is no need for the soul, yet according to your teachings rationality, intellect, emotion, etc... are dependent on the soul, the soul, not the physical mind, is what generates these mental properties. And that is at complete odds with what "science" is presently claiming.


The Spiritual Laws of Moses were infallible for his time, as the Baha'i spiritual Laws are infallible for the Age of Baha'u'llah.

You are a slippery one. So the "spiritual Laws" of Moses were infallible, but his other teachings weren't?

shunyadragon
05-05-2015, 08:12 AM
You don't even understand the teaching of your own faith. If science is correct there is no need for the soul, yet according to your teachings rationality, intellect, emotion, etc... are dependent on the soul, the soul, not the physical mind, is what generates these mental properties. And that is at complete odds with what "science" is presently claiming.

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.




You are a slippery one. So the "spiritual Laws" of Moses were infallible, but his other teachings weren't?

NO.

seer
05-05-2015, 08:41 AM
False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

You are just trying to have it both ways. There are no mental properties without the soul Shuny according to your religion. It is not about falsifying anything - but if it is, science has falsified the need for a soul. A man's mental faculties come from the rational soul, not the physical brain. According to your teachings.



NO.

So your prophet could be wrong about a number of things he wrote.

shunyadragon
05-05-2015, 09:30 AM
You are just trying to have it both ways. There are no mental properties without the soul Shuny according to your religion. It is not about falsifying anything - but if it is, science has falsified the need for a soul. A man's mental faculties come from the rational soul, not the physical brain. According to your teachings.

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

seer
05-05-2015, 09:34 AM
False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

If the physical brain can account for mental properties then your religion is WRONG. Get it? Because mental properties are generated from the SOUL, not the BRAIN. Get it?

shunyadragon
05-05-2015, 09:40 AM
If the physical brain can account for mental properties then your religion is WRONG. Get it? Because mental properties are generated from the SOUL, not the BRAIN. Get it?

False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

seer
05-05-2015, 10:59 AM
False seer, science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor its nature. Again . . .

Science cannot do just that, because the spiritual realms including the soul cannot be falsified. All science can do is make observations of the relationship between the brain and the mind. I agree that the physical brain can account for mental properties, but not the relationship between mental properties and the soul.

Then science is WRONG. The brain can NOT account for all mental properties, since it is the SOUL that accounts for mental properties. You can not have it both ways Shuny, it is straight forward logic. You can keep repeating yourself but you are exposed.

firstfloor
05-05-2015, 11:26 AM
Then science is WRONG. The brain can NOT account for all mental properties, since it is the SOUL that accounts for mental properties. You can not have it both ways Shuny, it is straight forward logic. You can keep repeating yourself but you are exposed.What is the soul? What are mental properties? And in what way does the soul account for mental properties? And, most importantly, how have you come by this knowledge?

I think that everything you claim to know about the soul and what it does comes from literature and traditions that at no point bear on the real world.

Science has discovered exactly what you are and if you don’t like what science tells you about yourself then in a sense you don’t like yourself either.

seer
05-05-2015, 11:30 AM
What is the soul? What are mental properties? And in what way does the soul account for mental properties? And, most importantly, how have you come by this knowledge?

I think that everything you claim to know about the soul and what it does comes from literature and traditions that at no point bear on the real world.

Science has discovered exactly what you are and if you don’t like what science tells you about yourself then in a sense you don’t like yourself either.

Not the point Homer.

Yttrium
05-05-2015, 01:20 PM
Then science is WRONG. The brain can NOT account for all mental properties, since it is the SOUL that accounts for mental properties. You can not have it both ways Shuny, it is straight forward logic. You can keep repeating yourself but you are exposed.

Science is wrong about what? Science doesn't claim that all mental processes are performed by the brain. Many scientists do (and many scientists don't). Science is used to find ways that the brain is involved in mental processes. Science might not be able to provide all the answers, especially if there's such a thing as a soul involved.

seer
05-05-2015, 01:22 PM
Science is wrong about what? Science doesn't claim that all mental processes are performed by the brain. Many scientists do (and many scientists don't). Science is used to find ways that the brain is involved in mental processes. Science might not be able to provide all the answers, especially if there's such a thing as a soul involved.

Well if you go back to my link, a few posts back, that is exactly where science is headed.

Yttrium
05-05-2015, 01:26 PM
Well if you go back to my link, a few posts back, that is exactly where science is headed.

Science is a tool. I really don't understand the point you've been trying to make.

shunyadragon
05-05-2015, 01:35 PM
Science is a tool. I really don't understand the point you've been trying to make.

He is trying to prove science is atheist, and not compatible with the belief in God.

All the computers are possessed by the demons of science. :mob:

seer
05-05-2015, 03:09 PM
He is trying to prove science is atheist, and not compatible with the belief in God.

I did prove Shuny that your religion is in fact at odds with the present understanding of science.

Darth Ovious
05-05-2015, 03:15 PM
I did prove Shuny that your religion is in fact at odds with the present understanding of science.

I have a question Seer. How do you think our religion stands up to this? Would you say that we need to say that Science is wrong on this subject? Or do you posit that we would be OK somehow?

Leonhard
05-05-2015, 03:18 PM
If things must be created and if God is the creator of things and He is a thing...

Here is where I see the problem with your OP.

God is not merely a creature amongst other creatures. Rather Classical Theology considers Him to exist in a category all of His own. If you made a list of all objects that exist in the sense that you exist, or a coffee table exists, God would not be on that list, because His mode of existence is not the same. He's the only who essentially exists, and the only being that could be of that kind.

shunyadragon
05-05-2015, 03:22 PM
I did prove Shuny that your religion is in fact at odds with the present understanding of science.

That is not quite what your argument stated; which is that science claims that the soul does not exist, and science explains the relationship between the mind and brain excludes any possibility of a soul. This line of argument describes science as atheist.

This proved nothing concerning 'my religion,' because my religion believes in the soul as the noble Talisman of humanity, not much different then Christianity.

No, science cannot contradict this because science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor determine the nature of the soul in the relationship to the main and body of human. Scientists and others may make anecdotal claims, but concerning the soul science has no ability to falsify the existence nor the nature of the soul.

Science can only observe the relationship between the mind and the brain, which does not deal with the relationship of the soul and the mind. The mind is eternal with the soul, but the mind also has an intimate relationship to the brain, which science can observe directly.

Your efforts to study Baha'i scripture is not one of sincere understanding, but one of a selective adversarial combativeness to demonstrate that the Baha'i Faith and science are false and in conflict.

seer
05-05-2015, 04:02 PM
I have a question Seer. How do you think our religion stands up to this? Would you say that we need to say that Science is wrong on this subject? Or do you posit that we would be OK somehow?

No, I think Revelation often can and does trump "science." But Shuny is always attacking Christian scripture for violating scientific conclusions - well his religion does exactly the same. It is hypocrisy.

firstfloor
05-05-2015, 04:10 PM
Here is where I see the problem with your OP.

God is not merely a creature amongst other creatures. Rather Classical Theology considers Him to exist in a category all of His own. If you made a list of all objects that exist in the sense that you exist, or a coffee table exists, God would not be on that list, because His mode of existence is not the same. He's the only who essentially exists, and the only being that could be of that kind.So, is He a ‘being’ that’s not a being? And why call it He? That is a god that has been forced into hiding. Why not just let Him out. Your god needs to be more accessible than that if He is to be of any use to you.

I want my god where I can punch him on the nose if I want to.

Leonhard
05-05-2015, 04:22 PM
So, is He a ‘being’ that’s not a being?

You said that God is a thing, I'm saying that He can't be placed in the category of things. He's something beyond that, and utterly unique in being it.


And why call it He?

Many reasons: symbolic, psychological and philosophical. I don't mind admitting I'm tipping my Christian faith here.


That is a god that has been forced into hiding. Why not just let Him out. Your god needs to be more accessible than that if He is to be of any use to you.

I want my god where I can punch him on the nose if I want to.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, so I can't respond to it.

Off to bed, goodnight.

Yttrium
05-05-2015, 05:40 PM
I did prove Shuny that your religion is in fact at odds with the present understanding of science.

I'm still seeing a pretty big flop there. Science is currently completely unable to determine whether or not humans have souls.

JimL
05-05-2015, 05:51 PM
I'm tempted to comment on several things in your post, but this one is most puzzling to me. Good and evil are contrasts. I'm not sure how you could have God being both the greatest good and greatest evil. There would then be no distinction between good and evil. The contrasts would be meaningless. I would think that if God represents the greatest good, then anything opposed to God's standards would be evil.
First off, Aquinas defining God as good, or in particular, the greatest good, without defining what he means by the term itself is a problem. Second, the logic that Aquinas uses, his conclusion is in the premise, could just as easily be used to define God as the greatest evil since he is the hypothetical source of the created world within which exists both good AND evil. Being the source of both good and evil contradicts the notion that God is the greatest good or that there is even such a thing.

JimL
05-05-2015, 05:55 PM
I'm still seeing a pretty big flop there. Science is currently completely unable to determine whether or not humans have souls.
And neither is there a need for science to prove that for which there is no evidence. Thats for the claimants to prove in the affirmative, which of course they can not do.

Yttrium
05-05-2015, 06:05 PM
First off, Aquinas defining God as good, or in particular, the greatest good, without defining what he means by the term itself is a problem. Second, the logic that Aquinas uses, his conclusion is in the premise, could just as easily be used to define God as the greatest evil since he is the hypothetical source of the created world within which exists both good AND evil. Being the source of both good and evil contradicts the notion that God is the greatest good or that there is even such a thing.

Let's say that a father teaches his child that stealing is wrong. Not stealing is good, and stealing is evil. The father has just introduced the child to the concepts of good and evil, and as far as the child is concerned for the time being, the father is the source of both concepts. Should the child consider the father to be evil because the father introduced the concept?

If God gives people free will, so they're not just robots, then humans gain the ability to do things that God considers to be bad. God might tell people what's good and what's bad, and leave it to people to make their own choices. God couldn't both be the greatest good and the greatest evil, since that would eliminate the contrast. God would have to be one or the other. It seems to me to be reasonable for Aquinas to define God as good, since God would be the ultimate authority figure. What God wants would be good, what God doesn't want would be evil.

Personally, it sounds to me like Aquinas is ignoring the possibility of a God that just doesn't care about human morality, but I suppose that's understandable.

Yttrium
05-05-2015, 06:07 PM
And neither is there a need for science to prove that for which there is no evidence. Thats for the claimants to prove in the affirmative, which of course they can not do.

Correct.

Leonhard
05-06-2015, 03:35 AM
First off, Aquinas defining God as good, or in particular, the greatest good, without defining what he means by the term itself is a problem... Second, the logic that Aquinas uses, his conclusion is in the premise, could just as easily be used to define God as the greatest evil since he is the hypothetical source of the created world within which exists both good AND evil. Being the source of both good and evil contradicts the notion that God is the greatest good or that there is even such a thing.

There's a couple of errors with what you're saying here.


Aquinas does not define God as good, its a conclusion he makes as a correllary of one of his famous Five Ways.
He does define what is meant by good in his work Contra Gentiles, and in his commentaries on Aristotle and assumes the reader is aware of this Aristotelian definition.
Aquinas does not beg the question, by having the conclusion as a premise.
God could not be defined as evil, since evil is not a thing in Aquinas conception of but rather the lack or corruption of a good quality, or end.

JimL
05-06-2015, 04:23 AM
Let's say that a father teaches his child that stealing is wrong. Not stealing is good, and stealing is evil. The father has just introduced the child to the concepts of good and evil, and as far as the child is concerned for the time being, the father is the source of both concepts. Should the child consider the father to be evil because the father introduced the concept?

If God gives people free will, so they're not just robots, then humans gain the ability to do things that God considers to be bad. God might tell people what's good and what's bad, and leave it to people to make their own choices. God couldn't both be the greatest good and the greatest evil, since that would eliminate the contrast. God would have to be one or the other. It seems to me to be reasonable for Aquinas to define God as good, since God would be the ultimate authority figure. What God wants would be good, what God doesn't want would be evil.

Personally, it sounds to me like Aquinas is ignoring the possibility of a God that just doesn't care about human morality, but I suppose that's understandable.
The point though is that the 5 ways of Aquinas are supposed to be proofs of Gods existence. This is certainly in no way a proof of anything except for Aquinas's own conception of the nature of the God he believes to exist.

shunyadragon
05-06-2015, 04:24 AM
There's a couple of errors with what you're saying here.

Aquinas does not beg the question, by having the conclusion as a premise.


Having the conclusion as a premise is the definition of 'begging the question.'

seer
05-06-2015, 04:27 AM
Science can only observe the relationship between the mind and the brain, which does not deal with the relationship of the soul and the mind. The mind is eternal with the soul, but the mind also has an intimate relationship to the brain, which science can observe directly.

You do realize Shuny, that in your religion the mind or intellect is the soul? Go back and look at my link to your sources. There is no relationship between the mind and the soul - they are the same thing.


Your efforts to study Baha'i scripture is not one of sincere understanding, but one of a selective adversarial combativeness to demonstrate that the Baha'i Faith and science are false and in conflict.

The problem is Shuny, you don't even know what your own religion teaches.

shunyadragon
05-06-2015, 04:32 AM
No, I think Revelation often can and does trump "science." But Shuny is always attacking Christian scripture for violating scientific conclusions - well his religion does exactly the same. It is hypocrisy.

False, I do not agree with the 'literal interpretation' of scripture concerning the scientific nature of our physical existence in Christian scripture nor Baha'i scripture. I believe I have made that clear many times. The Baha'i Faith believes in progressive revelation and the evolving nature of God's Revelation and human knowledge

The foundation principle of the Baha'i Faith is the harmony of science and religion. In this principle science it is considered the progressive knowledge of the nature of our physical existence, and ALL scripture must be understood in the light of this ever evolving changing scientific knowledge, including Baha'i scripture.

shunyadragon
05-06-2015, 04:39 AM
You do realize Shuny, that in your religion the mind or intellect is the soul? Go back and look at my link to your sources. There is no relationship between the mind and the soul - they are the same thing.

The problem is Shuny, you don't even know what your own religion teaches.

It is not a problem to describe the soul as the same as the mind, but the mind also has an observable scientific relationship with the brain, which is the limit of Methodological Naturalism, the fundamental principle of science. Note highlighted in my previous post.

No, science cannot contradict this because science cannot falsify the existence of the soul nor determine the nature of the soul in the relationship to the main and body of human. Scientists and others may make anecdotal claims, but concerning the soul science has no ability to falsify the existence nor the nature of the soul.

Science can only observe the relationship between the mind and the brain, which does not deal with the relationship of the soul and the mind. The mind is eternal with the soul, but the mind also has an intimate relationship to the brain, which science can observe directly.

Your efforts to study Baha'i scripture is not one of sincere understanding, but one of a selective adversarial combativeness to demonstrate that the Baha'i Faith and science are false and in conflict.

seer
05-06-2015, 04:58 AM
False, I do not agree with the 'literal interpretation' of scripture concerning the scientific nature of our physical existence in Christian scripture nor Baha'i scripture. I believe I have made that clear many times. The Baha'i Faith believes in progressive revelation and the evolving nature of God's Revelation and human knowledge

The foundation principle of the Baha'i Faith is the harmony of science and religion. In this principle science it is considered the progressive knowledge of the nature of our physical existence, and ALL scripture must be understood in the light of this ever evolving changing scientific knowledge, including Baha'i scripture.

Of course you believe in Revelation over science, you believe that men have a soul, which increasingly science is denying. And since nothing in science is written in stone and since science if often wrong, there is little reason to make science a god...

shunyadragon
05-06-2015, 05:19 AM
Of course you believe in Revelation over science, you believe that men have a soul, . . .

I believe men have a soul. I believe in the harmony of science and religion, Baha'i Faith provides the guidance for the nature of scientific knowledge as an evolving process describing our physical existence.


. . . which increasingly science is denying. And since nothing in science is written in stone and since science if often wrong, there is little reason to make science a god...

Humans can be wrong about many things including religion. I have never indicated that I believe 'science is a God.' No, it is too simplistic and basically wrong to describe science as 'often wrong.' Science is a self correcting body of knowledge that evolves and improves over time, and is based on the evidence. Science is most often correct based on the present knowledge and evidence available, and science is willing to change based on the evidence. Newton was not wrong, but his knowledge was 'incomplete.' Einstein' theories improved this knowledge with the Theory of Relativity, still not totally correct. Modern Quantum Mechanics has improved our knowledge of our physical existence, but again it is not totally correct. Science is not 'often wrong.' History is a witness that science has corrected errors and 'bad science' over time.

Your hostile and negative view towards science does not encourage a constructive dialogue.

Leonhard
05-06-2015, 05:35 AM
Of course you believe in Revelation over science, you believe that men have a soul, which increasingly science is denying. And since nothing in science is written in stone and since science if often wrong, there is little reason to make science a god...

Dude, put him on ignore, you're wasting time arguing with him. He won't budge. Ask yourself if this is producing any fruit, whether for him or you? Or whether its just a frustrating act of habit to argue with him.

Darth Ovious
05-06-2015, 05:37 AM
Dude, put him on ignore, you're wasting time arguing with him. He won't budge. Ask yourself if this is producing any fruit, whether for him or you? Or whether its just a frustrating act of habit to argue with him.

I agree with this.

seer
05-06-2015, 06:15 AM
Humans can be wrong about many things including religion. I have never indicated that I believe 'science is a God.' No, it is too simplistic and basically wrong to describe science as 'often wrong.' Science is a self correcting body of knowledge that evolves and improves over time, and is based on the evidence. Science is most often correct based on the present knowledge and evidence available, and science is willing to change based on the evidence. Newton was not wrong, but his knowledge was 'incomplete.' Einstein' theories improved this knowledge with the Theory of Relativity, still not totally correct. Modern Quantum Mechanics has improved our knowledge of our physical existence, but again it is not totally correct. Science is not 'often wrong.' History is a witness that science has corrected errors and 'bad science' over time.

Your hostile and negative view towards science does not encourage a constructive dialogue.

No Shuny, the fact is science is often just wrong. Growing up I was taught that the universe was in a Steady State, how may scientific medical studies have been overthrown? And if science is in flux, then again, nothing is written in stone. No need to worship at its alter as you do.

seer
05-06-2015, 06:16 AM
Dude, put him on ignore, you're wasting time arguing with him. He won't budge. Ask yourself if this is producing any fruit, whether for him or you? Or whether its just a frustrating act of habit to argue with him.

Good idea, done.

Leonhard
05-06-2015, 07:00 AM
Good idea, done.

:thumb:

MaxVel
05-06-2015, 07:43 AM
If you know the argument then you should know I responded to all of it.

There are Five 'Ways' in Aquinas' metaphysics, so there's not one argument, but five seperate ones.



1) Aquinas claims God to be the unmoved mover. Answer: If God is not in motion himself, then how does he initiate motion?



This makes no sense in terms of Aquinas' metaphysics, AFAICT. Something potential can only be reduced from potential to actuality by something that is itself actual. So fire,which is actually hot, makes wood, which is only potentially hot, become actually hot. The 'unmoved mover' is pure actuality.

PS: Aquinas' doesn't 'claim' that God is the unmoved mover, he argues to that conclusion. Not to say that he is necessarily correct, but it's not a claim.

PPS: I'm using terms from Aquinas' metaphysics, so the sense is not the same as we might take them. Eg 'motion' is our 'change'



2) Aquinas claims there must be a first cause. Answer: If God himself does not require a cause, then neither does the Cosmos/energy require a cause.


That's not anything like an accurate summary of Aquinas' second way. Try again. Secondly, the argument doesn't claim that 'everything except for God needs a cause'.



3) Aquinas claims the need of a necessary existence distinct from contingent existences. Answer: In the universe Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter (E=mc2). So contingent things are not dependent upon a distinct cause. Cause and effect are of one and the same source.


You're saying that 'things which depend on something else for their existence' (i.e. contingent things) don't need a cause? That's a self-contradiction, and so can't be a sustainable objection to an argument.




4) Aquinas argues that there are degrees of goodness and that therefore God is the greatest good. Answer: If there are degrees of goodness, there are also degrees of evil, ergo God must also be defined as the greatest evil.

Aquinas is arguing for the existence of transcendentals as pointing to the existence of God. Evil is not a transcendental but an absence of good. (Note that good here doesn't mean moral good, but something more like 'perfection in being'




5) Aquinas argues that the apparent intelligence seen in the order and perfection of nature requires an intelligent creator. Answer: Why then doesn't God himself need an intelligent designer?


Briefly, because the buck has to stop somewhere. The argument here is concerned with explaining why we see any causal regularities at all. What sustains existence here and now?

shunyadragon
05-06-2015, 07:53 AM
No Shuny, the fact is science is often just wrong. Growing up I was taught that the universe was in a Steady State, how may scientific medical studies have been overthrown?

You are describing scientific knowledge based on the evidence at the time. Medical practices and treatment will always change over time. so what? You reject science from the beginning, or maybe selectively use it when it suits your agenda.


And if science is in flux, then again, nothing is written in stone. No need to worship at its alter as you do.

The highlighted above reflects your self imposed ignorance concerning science and misrepresents my view concerning science.

You hostile and negative view toward science colors everything with a putrid smell.

MaxVel
05-06-2015, 07:54 AM
B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)


Aquinas argues for his conclusions. Professional philosophers of all stripes have found his arguments worth responding to (some agree, some disagree with his conclusions). Your assertion that Aquinas just 'assumes God's existence' simply shows your ignorance.




Part I assumes that there must be an unmoved mover since everything moves.

That's not what your cite actually says, so.... wrong.


Part II assumes there is there is a First Efficient Cause that is Divine. It is possible the First Cause is simply Natural Law.

Silly. Natural Law can't cause anything.


Part III Assumes a necessary being not dependent on anything else.

:duh:, No it argues for something that is necessary to explain the existence of all the contingent things we observe around us. You obviously don't know what 'assumes' and 'argues for' mean.


Part IV assumes there must be a Absolute God Being. Part V assumes a Great Designer is necessary to explain complexity in nature.

None of these assumptions are necessary.


More unsupported assertions based on your ignorance of philosophy. Aquinas gives arguments - premises that logically lead to a conclusion. His arguments may fail, but they are still actual arguments. They are not assumptions.

ETA: Your own citation even says that "Thomas argues..." .

shunyadragon
05-06-2015, 08:29 AM
B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)


Aquinas argues for his conclusions. Professional philosophers of all stripes have found his arguments worth responding to (some agree, some disagree with his conclusions). Your assertion that Aquinas just 'assumes God's existence' simply shows your ignorance.





[quote] That's not what your cite actually says, so.... wrong.

Explanation appreciated.


Silly. Natural Law can't cause anything.

Silly, silly!! Natural Law is the only objectively observed cause of everything known. You need to do better then that!


:duh:, No it argues for something that is necessary to explain the existence of all the contingent things we observe around us. You obviously don't know what 'assumes' and 'argues for' mean.

I see no argument, only assumptions, you are welcome to present an argument. Again here by the objective evidence the only known thing that everything (all contingent things) we observe around us is Natural Law. There is no known objective evidence that Natural Law has a cause. This only an assumption of the argument.


More unsupported assertions based on your ignorance of philosophy. Aquinas gives arguments - premises that logically lead to a conclusion. His arguments may fail, but they are still actual arguments. They are not assumptions.

I at present see only assumptions the same as the conclusions, but you are free to present the argument without assumptions.


ETA: Your own citation even says that "Thomas argues..." .

The citation does not mean that there is in reality a valid argument.

JimL
05-06-2015, 08:01 PM
There are Five 'Ways' in Aquinas' metaphysics, so there's not one argument, but five seperate ones.
Obviously, which is why you are responding to all five of my responses to to Aquinas's argument below.






This makes no sense in terms of Aquinas' metaphysics, AFAICT. Something potential can only be reduced from potential to actuality by something that is itself actual. So fire,which is actually hot, makes wood, which is only potentially hot, become actually hot. The 'unmoved mover' is pure actuality.
And you are assuming that motion was only a potentiality which at some point in time became actualized, and second that whatever the actuality was that the portentiality emerged from was of a distinct nature than that of the potentiality itself. I can make a scientific argument that has more validity than Aquinas's philosophical meanderings.: Nothing comes from nothing, including motion. And by that I mean that motion doesn't come from non motion.


The 'unmoved mover' is pure actuality.
The 'unmoved mover' is pure assertion.

PS: Aquinas' doesn't 'claim' that God is the unmoved mover, he argues to that conclusion. Not to say that he is necessarily correct, but it's not a claim.
Well, actually he is merely making use of Aristotlian metaphysics to rationalize his own beliefs. Eternity, prima facie, does not require a beginning to anything, including motion.

PPS: I'm using terms from Aquinas' metaphysics, so the sense is not the same as we might take them. Eg 'motion' is our 'change'
And that is a distinction without a difference.





That's not anything like an accurate summary of Aquinas' second way. Try again.
Thats an assertion, not a refutation.

Secondly, the argument doesn't claim that 'everything except for God needs a cause'.
Really, so there is no need of a distinct and uncaused cause which is the cause of all else? What other than God does not need a cause? The Cosmos maybe? Energy? Motion?




You're saying that 'things which depend on something else for their existence' (i.e. contingent things) don't need a cause? That's a self-contradiction, and so can't be a sustainable objection to an argument.
No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that effects and their causes are reflexive, that neither is dependent upon the other because they are merely different forms of one and the same substance such as is the case for energy and matter. E=mc2 !





Aquinas is arguing for the existence of transcendentals as pointing to the existence of God. Evil is not a transcendental but an absence of good. (Note that good here doesn't mean moral good, but something more like 'perfection in being'
All this is naught but an assertion that there is a good, or if you prefer, a perfection, a world, a God, that exists apart from the universe itself which is better than the universe. But to assert that there is something beyond the cosmos which is more perfect than the cosmos because you don't consider the nature of the cosmos to be what you would define as good is just wishful thinking. Good and bad are just human terms having to do with human concerns and not with the nature of existence itself.






Briefly, because the buck has to stop somewhere. The argument here is concerned with explaining why we see any causal regularities at all. What sustains existence here and now?
So, the buck stops here. Existence sustains itself. Just as in the notion of God, there is no need to explain what it is that sustains that which is.

MaxVel
05-07-2015, 02:08 AM
Obviously, which is why you are responding to all five of my responses to to Aquinas's argument below.






And you are assuming that motion was only a potentiality which at some point in time became actualized, and second that whatever the actuality was that the portentiality emerged from was of a distinct nature than that of the potentiality itself. I can make a scientific argument that has more validity than Aquinas's philosophical meanderings.: Nothing comes from nothing, including motion. And by that I mean that motion doesn't come from non motion.

.
The 'unmoved mover' is pure assertion.

Well, actually he is merely making use of Aristotlian metaphysics to rationalize his own beliefs. Eternity, prima facie, does not require a beginning to anything, including motion.

And that is a distinction without a difference.





Thats an assertion, not a refutation.

Really, so there is no need of a distinct and uncaused cause which is the cause of all else? What other than God does not need a cause? The Cosmos maybe? Energy? Motion?




No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that effects and their causes are reflexive, that neither is dependent upon the other because they are merely different forms of one and the same substance such as is the case for energy and matter. E=mc2 !





All this is naught but an assertion that there is a good, or if you prefer, a perfection, a world, a God, that exists apart from the universe itself which is better than the universe. But to assert that there is something beyond the cosmos which is more perfect than the cosmos because you don't consider the nature of the cosmos to be what you would define as good is just wishful thinking. Good and bad are just human terms having to do with human concerns and not with the nature of existence itself.






So, the buck stops here. Existence sustains itself. Just as in the notion of God, there is no need to explain what it is that sustains that which is.


JimL, you clearly don't understand enough about Aquinas' arguments to make informed objections to them. Perhaps his arguments all fail, but at least one has to understand what he's actually saying to make substantive objections to them. I recommed Edward Feser's 'Aquinas: A beginner's guide' as a cheap, accessible and readily available guide to at least getting some understanding of what Aquinas was actually arguing.

MaxVel
05-07-2015, 07:23 AM
[QUOTE=MaxVel;194939]

B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)


Aquinas argues for his conclusions. Professional philosophers of all stripes have found his arguments worth responding to (some agree, some disagree with his conclusions). Your assertion that Aquinas just 'assumes God's existence' simply shows your ignorance.







Explanation appreciated.



Silly, silly!! Natural Law is the only objectively observed cause of everything known. You need to do better then that!



I see no argument, only assumptions, you are welcome to present an argument. Again here by the objective evidence the only known thing that everything (all contingent things) we observe around us is Natural Law. There is no known objective evidence that Natural Law has a cause. This only an assumption of the argument.



I at present see only assumptions the same as the conclusions, but you are free to present the argument without assumptions.



The citation does not mean that there is in reality a valid argument.



Aquinas does not represent modern arguments for the existence of God. I consider them too anthropomorphic and self justified arguments and mostly too circular assuming God exists in the beginning.


You haven't supported your claims. Even the source you cited in support says you're wrong. The burden is on you to cite actual arguments and show they are circular, not argue by weblink - which you hypocritically condemned earlier.

shunyadragon
05-07-2015, 02:11 PM
You haven't supported your claims. Even the source you cited in support says you're wrong. The burden is on you to cite actual arguments and show they are circular, not argue by weblink - which you hypocritically condemned earlier.

No argument presented only assertion. I did not argue by web link. I cited the web site, as others did and you likewise have not responded with an adequate argument.

Your copping out with a lazy response, in fact responding to JimL with reference to a book, with presenting a coherent argument. Sort of arguing by web link. It would help if you actually present a coherent argument for at least one of Aquina's Ways.

JimL
05-07-2015, 06:41 PM
JimL, you clearly don't understand enough about Aquinas' arguments to make informed objections to them.
Thats all you've got MaxVell? Thats quite a detailed refutation.


Perhaps his arguments all fail,
Perhaps. But you do not believe so, so why don't you explain to us why you think they are solid arguments?

but at least one has to understand what he's actually saying to make substantive objections to them.
Your assertion that I don't understand, without explaining why is just a cop out Max.

I recommed Edward Feser's 'Aquinas: A beginner's guide' as a cheap, accessible and readily available guide to at least getting some understanding of what Aquinas was actually arguing.
And I recommend that you actually answer to the post rather than asserting your superiority by telling me to go read a book. You haven't proved that you understand, or are prepared to defend, anything concerning Aquinas's 5 ways. Perhaps you should go re-read Feser's 'Aquinas so that you could actually make a cogent argument of your own.

MaxVel
05-08-2015, 02:26 AM
No argument presented only assertion. I did not argue by web link. I cited the web site, as others did and you likewise have not responded with an adequate argument.

Your copping out with a lazy response, in fact responding to JimL with reference to a book, with presenting a coherent argument. Sort of arguing by web link. It would help if you actually present a coherent argument for at least one of Aquina's Ways.

Not here, and not now. I'm too busy.

And...

...you claimed a bunch of stuff about Aquinas' arguments that you haven't been able to support. Now somehow it's my job to show that your unsupported claim is wrong?

:no:

MaxVel
05-08-2015, 02:34 AM
Thats all you've got MaxVell? Thats quite a detailed refutation.


I don't need anything more to refute someone who pretty much doesn't understand the argument he's objecting to. To even begin to understand what Aquinas is actually saying one needs to study and understand the metaphysical background and terminology he uses. That's not something that can be done in one or two short posts. You've already shown me that you don't understand, and that you don't want to understand. Your objections rest on straw; misunderstandings, and confusions about what Aquinas means.


Secondly, I'm pretty busy IRL right now; thirdly, there are plenty of resources available online or in books if you're sincerely interested in actually understanding (which, based on previous interactions, I really doubt) what Aquinas is arguing.


Just to illustrate: Can you explain the difference between series ordered per accidens and per se?

shunyadragon
05-08-2015, 05:44 AM
You haven't supported your claims. Even the source you cited in support says you're wrong. The burden is on you to cite actual arguments and show they are circular, not argue by weblink - which you hypocritically condemned earlier.



Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae argues that God exists in Part I. While he presented his arguments very logically, he appears to have made some large assumptions without adequately proving them. To argue something logically, one must state their assumptions and present why they can make those assumptions without jeopardizing the integrity of their conclusions.

The unproven assumptions Aquinas made were these: The universe operates in a linear fashion from a beginning to an end. The universe is organized in a strict Hierarchy of Being. Order comes from intelligence. Good is a completely separate and independent "thing" from evil. If Aquinas had proven these assumptions before making them, or if he had not made them in the first place, he would have possibly presented a more logically sound argument for God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence was organized into opposing views, responses to the opposing views, and finally, arguments opposing the opposing views. The first opposing view Aquinas presented was that if God is all good and there is evil in the world, there is no God. This was a flawed idea that came from the idea that good and evil are two different things that are diametrically opposed. It showed that Aquinas (and the people who held the view presented) didn’t understand that good and evil are really the same thing. They are like the positive and negative charges of a magnet, integrally connected and inseparable. To separate good and evil is to say that something can have a front without a back or a top without a bottom. The top is as much a part of something as its bottom. Good cannot exist without evil.

The other opposing view presented was that all things that occur happen because of either nature or human reason, thus leaving no place for God. That idea didn’t account for the possibility that maybe God created nature to run on its own and created human reason to cause "intended things." He apparently thought that his opponents felt that if God doesn’t operate everything on a day-to-day basis, then God must not exist.

Aquinas then made five responses. The first response is that anything that moves must have been moved by something else. Since he made the unstated assumption that the universe operates in a linear fashion, he stated, "But this cannot go to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover" (Part I, Q.2, A.3). He ignored the possibility that the universe could be infinite, as in a circle. If this were the case, then there would not need to be a first mover to have other movers.

The second response Aquinas made was the "nature of efficient cause." This argument is that there is a first cause, which led to intermediate causes, which will lead to the ultimate cause, which will cause the ultimate effect. If there is no first cause (i.e. God), then there can’t be intermediate causes, which are happening everywhere now. Then there can’t be an ultimate effect. Again, he made the assumption that the universe is linear. If it were not linear, then there wouldn’t have to be a first cause or an ultimate effect. The thread of time could be but a series of intermediate causes.

More detailed, but similar refutation that JimL and I propose. Read on for more . . .

MaxVel
05-08-2015, 07:07 AM
Briefly -

misunderstands what Aquinas means by 'good' in his arguments

Nonsense objection about causality going in a circle

Misunderstands or doesn't realise that Aquinas is not arguing about temporal sequences of causality


What are the author's qualification to speak as an expert on Aquinas? I note that this is some occult/witchcraft group website: Under their 'Doctrine' link we find:


Do what thou Will shall be the whole of the Law. - a philosophy made famous by Aleister Crowley. Hmmm...

Darth Ovious
05-08-2015, 07:11 AM
What are the author's qualification to speak as an expert on Aquinas? I note that this is some occult/witchcraft group website: Under their 'Doctrine' link we find:

- a philosophy made famous by Aleister Crowley. Hmmm...

I've seen that name before. He is credited by some people to be the influencer of the satanic church. The satanic church deny it, but it doesn't matter because they all crazy anyway.

JimL
05-08-2015, 05:20 PM
Not here, and not now. I'm too busy.
Might i remind you Max that it was you who brought up the issue of Aquinas.

And...

...you claimed a bunch of stuff about Aquinas' arguments that you haven't been able to support. Now somehow it's my job to show that your unsupported claim is wrong?

:no:
As above, yes it is your job. If you don't want, or unable to defend Aquinas, then don't bring it up.

Adrift
05-08-2015, 06:22 PM
Might i remind you Max that it was you who brought up the issue of Aquinas.

As above, yes it is your job. If you don't want, or unable to defend Aquinas, then don't bring it up.

Well...no. The OP feigned that he knew what Christian thinkers thought about infinity and the nature of God. MaxVel told the OP to go back and read Christian thinkers on the subject. Aquinas is the obvious starting point on this subject when you're talking about Christian thinkers, so that's why he recommended him. Then shunyadragon pretended he knew something about what Aquinas thought, and then you jumped in and pretended you knew something about what Aquinas thought. Throughout, MaxVel has been imploring people who think they know something about Christian thinkers to read one of the primary Christian philosophers on this subject. Just because MaxVel tells people (who think they know something about thinkers like Aquinas) to, you know, actually read those Christian thinkers, it's not incumbent on him to hold your hand and spell out Aquinas' ideas in a web forum's thread. You know how many pages that would take? That's why he recommended you read a book. If you have neither the time nor inclination to read Aquinas yourself, then shut up. For those who don't know Aquinas, all you're doing is spreading your own goofy misinterpretation of his views, and for those who do know Aquinas, you're making yourself look ridiculous.

This whole, "if you can't defend Aquinas then you haven't refuted me, and you shouldn't bring him up", is a really transparent debate technique to save face when it's clear that you haven't comprehended the basics. I think I remember you doing something like this before where you jumped into a debate with Nick pretending you knew what you were talking about. You were so off base, that Nick recommended you read the book, and you pulled the same stupid stunt "I don't have to read the book. If you really knew your stuff you'd be able to explain it in a thread post". It's just slimy JimL. Stop acting like that.

MaxVel
05-08-2015, 07:51 PM
Might i remind you Max that it was you who brought up the issue of Aquinas.

As above, yes it is your job. If you don't want, or unable to defend Aquinas, then don't bring it up.


JimL - what Adrift said. Firstfloor in his OP claimed that there were no explanations in religious thinking. I pointed to Aquinas (among others). What I didn't do was say 'Here's why you should believe in God, Aquinas' arguments are ironclad, and they're why you should believe.' If]/b] I had done that, then I would have had some obligation to defend them in detail. But even then, only to those who actually engage and genuinely try to understand the actual argument.


I notice that you didn't answer my question: What are series ordered per se andper accidens?

If you can't answer that, you don't fully understand the argument Aquinas is making, and of course your objections are going to be off target.



Please note that this is only [B]one of the concepts/terminology that is needed to simply understand the arguments, let alone make relevant objections to them. A book like Feser's 'Beginners guide' - a smallish paperback - spends 65 pages just on the metaphysical background before getting to the Five ways themselves, then another 65 pages on the Five Ways and some objections. And you expect someone to present and explain all that on a plate for you in a couple of posts on TWeb?

Again, that you think that's a reasonable demand, just shows that you have no real idea what you're talking about.

Jim, this is not the kiddie's paddling pool. This is the ocean.

shunyadragon
05-08-2015, 07:53 PM
Completely logical.

Within the own mind all human rationale is acceptable: to the human doing the thought. Let us ask ourselves all this question.

Who here is able to see outside of their own mind?

Raise thy hands.

The sound of one hand clapping.

What is the evidence that any mind can be 'seen?' or exists outside the human mind. Is it possible to provide an assumption for a valid argument that would not assume such a mind existed and not be the conclusion of the argument with the same presupposition?

This so circular it bites in the butt before you get out of the starting date.

MaxVel
05-08-2015, 08:01 PM
Google 'Errors of Aquinas' and you get this (https://www.google.co.th/search?q=errors+of+aquinas&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=Palemoon:en-US&client=palemoon&gws_rd=cr&ei=PnZNVZjiHYuwuQTs_YDYBg).

Just by coincidence :ahem:, the very first result is the source Shunyadragon cited above.

One wonders if it was something he had found and read, and agreed with, previously; or just something dredged up to cover his unsupported claims. My money is on the latter.


Shunya, I'm betting that you just found that source in response to being pressed to defend your claim. You yourself don't actually know anything much about Aquinas' arguments, you just threw out a line about them being circular and assuming God - but you yourself don't know enough about them to make an informed comment.

How about you answer the question I asked JimL above? No argument be weblink, you know we don't like that here. :wink:

shunyadragon
05-08-2015, 08:04 PM
Google 'Errors of Aquinas' and you get this (https://www.google.co.th/search?q=errors+of+aquinas&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=Palemoon:en-US&client=palemoon&gws_rd=cr&ei=PnZNVZjiHYuwuQTs_YDYBg).

Just by coincidence :ahem:, the very first result is the source Shunyadragon cited above.

One wonders if it was something he had found and read, and agreed with, previously; or just something dredged up to cover his unsupported claims. My money is on the latter.


Shunya, I'm betting that you just found that source in response to being pressed to defend your claim. You yourself don't actually know anything much about Aquinas' arguments, you just threw out a line about them being circular and assuming God - but you yourself don't know enough about them to make an informed comment.

How about you answer the question I asked JimL above? No argument be weblink, you know we don't like that here. :wink:

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

shunyadragon
05-08-2015, 08:21 PM
Briefly -

misunderstands what Aquinas means by 'good' in his arguments

Please explain what is meant by good if good I not good.


Nonsense objection about causality going in a circle

Misunderstands or doesn't realise that Aquinas is not arguing about temporal sequences of causality.

No one is arguing that 'Aquinas is arguing about temporal sequences of causality only.' The objection is that Aquinas is arguing that there must be an uncaused cause as necessary outside all temporal causes, because all causes must have a cause, which is an assumption that is the same as the conclusion. It is possible there could be circular causation, regardless of your objection. It is possible that Natural Law is the uncaused cause that causes all temporal causes and effects. I would avoid special pleading that God cannot have a cause, because it is assumed that God is an uncaused cause. If everything must have a cause, without special pleading, God must have a cause. Id there a chain, 'Gods all the way down.



What are the author's qualification to speak as an expert on Aquinas? I note that this is some occult/witchcraft group website: Under their 'Doctrine' link we find:

- a philosophy made famous by Aleister Crowley. Hmmm...

Ad Hominem

MaxVel
05-09-2015, 01:40 AM
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Incorrect. An Ad Hominem would be if I had said: "Shunyadragon is a white-bearded stubborn old mule, and that's why he's wrong." Actually you're wrong because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, and are relying on whatever Google can find for you. Argument by weblink, you hypocrite.

Leonhard
05-09-2015, 02:24 AM
And you are assuming that motion was only a potentiality which at some point in time became actualized,

Motion is not a thing in scholastic metaphysics, it is what you call it when something goes from potentiality to actuality. Take for instance an unlit match. Its potentially lit, when struct, its moved from a state of being potentially lit, to being actually lit.


I can make a scientific argument that has more validity than Aquinas's philosophical meanderings.: Nothing comes from nothing, including motion.

You can call that science, if you consider philosophy to be a science.


And by that I mean that motion doesn't come from non motion.

Since motion is not a thing that has existence, but a description of change in those things that do exist, no account needs to laid of how motion came to exist (because it didn't as a thing in it self), which has to be accounted for is how there is motion, in that there is at least one object in the universe undergoing change.
The 'unmoved mover' is pure assertion.

Well, actually he is merely making use of Aristotlian metaphysics to rationalize his own beliefs. Eternity, prima facie, does not require a beginning to anything, including motion.

So unlike what you say, it is a distinction with a difference.



Secondly, the argument doesn't claim that 'everything except for God needs a cause'.
Really, so there is no need of a distinct and uncaused cause which is the cause of all else?

You're missing the point. Aquinas's second way, does not require as a premise that 'everything except for God needs a cause'. Rather it has as a premise that no efficient cause (a cause that moves something potentiality to actuality) has that cause in itself. Anything is always moved by something else. The match is struck by you, the nuclear core decays due to iso-spin interaction with the W-boson mediated weak field, the room is filled with the sound of a scream due to a woman screaming, etc. At no point do we have something happen that... just happens, without any cause.


I'm saying that effects and their causes are reflexive, that neither is dependent upon the other because they are merely different forms of one and the same substance such as is the case for energy and matter. E=mc2 !

E=mc² is an equation describing how energy relates to mass at rest with respect to an inertial frame. It does not say that energy is the cause of mass, or vice versa, but that they're two intrinsic properties related by that equation.

Furthermore if you say that causes are reflexive, you'd be forced to say that there's no causal explanation of anything, just statements about the way things are. Yet this is obviously false, because a match is lit by me striking it.


All this is naught but an assertion that there is a good, or if you prefer, a perfection, a world, a God, that exists apart from the universe itself which is better than the universe. But to assert that there is something beyond the cosmos which is more perfect than the cosmos because you don't consider the nature of the cosmos to be what you would define as good is just wishful thinking.

I'd agree but St. Aquinas isn't doing that. If he does, point it out and we can talk about it. I don't have to defend that he doesn't do that, its you making the claim and so you have to show where he does it. His five ways don't take up that much space, so it shouldn't be hard to locate for you.


Good and bad are just human terms having to do with human concerns and not with the nature of existence itself.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.


So, the buck stops here.

The point of the second way is to establish that it can't stop here, since every causality in the universe will always have to be moved by another, in order to account for motion. So it must come from something which is in itself entirely motionless and without potentiality. And that is what we call God.

Leonhard
05-09-2015, 02:30 AM
First off, Aquinas defining God as good, or in particular, the greatest good, without defining what he means by the term itself is a problem.

St. Aquinas most certainly doesn't merely define God to be good, he argues that because of final causality, God must exist and be the highest God, the one end towards everything ultimately points. You'd just need to read his five ways, but if you can show me a quote where he defines God to be good, rather than establishing it deductively, we can discuss it.

Secondly, he does define and discuss Goodness in Summa Theologica, though his larger discussion of it will be found in the commentaries on Aristotle and in Contra Gentiles.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1005.htm


Second, the logic that Aquinas uses, his conclusion is in the premise,

Where?


define God as the greatest evil since he is the hypothetical source of the created world within which exists both good AND evil. Being the source of both good and evil contradicts the notion that God is the greatest good or that there is even such a thing.

I agree that this would be an unsolvable paradox, but its not an intelligible position. In Aristotelian metaphysics, any evil is lack or privation of some good that exist. And if you're perfect possession of your goodness, which God most certainly is, then you have lack of it and none of it is turned away from its end, so you can't both by perfectly good and evil. Oddly enough you can't be perfectly evil either, since as long as there's any positive quality about you, there's something good, even its merely your talents, abilities, qualities and nature.

shunyadragon
05-09-2015, 04:25 AM
Incorrect. An Ad Hominem would be if I had said: "Shunyadragon is a white-bearded stubborn old mule, and that's why he's wrong." Actually you're wrong because you clearly don't know what you're talking about, and are relying on whatever Google can find for you. Argument by weblink, you hypocrite.

Ad Hominem is also attacking the integrity of the source of the reference without addressing the argument.

Again . . .



misunderstands what Aquinas means by 'good' in his arguments.

Please explain what is meant by good if good I not good.


Nonsense objection about causality going in a circle

Misunderstands or doesn't realise that Aquinas is not arguing about temporal sequences of causality.

No one is arguing that 'Aquinas is arguing about temporal sequences of causality only.' The objection is that Aquinas is arguing that there must be an uncaused cause as necessary outside all temporal causes, because all causes must have a cause, which is an assumption that is the same as the conclusion. It is possible there could be circular causation, regardless of your objection.



The gravitational field of a stationary circular cosmic string loop, externally supported against collapse, is investigated in the context of Brans-Dicke theory in the weak field approximation of the field equations. The solution is quasi-conformally related to the corresponding solution in Einstein's General Relativity(GR) and goes over to the corresponding solution in GR when the Brans-Dicke parameter w becomes infinitely large.

It is possible that Natural Law is the infinite eternal uncaused cause that causes all temporal causes and effects. I would avoid special pleading that God cannot have a cause, because it is assumed that God is an uncaused cause as presupposition of the argument. If everything must have a cause, without special pleading, God must have a cause. Is there a chain, 'Gods all the way down.

and again . . .

What is the evidence that any mind can be 'seen?' or exists outside the human mind. Is it possible to provide an assumption for a valid argument that would not assume such a mind existed and not be the conclusion of the argument with the same presupposition?

This so circular it bites in the butt before you get out of the starting date.

shunyadragon
05-09-2015, 05:04 AM
You can call that science, if you consider philosophy to be a science.

There is a discipline of the philosophy of science, but philosophy is not science.


Since motion is not a thing that has existence, but a description of change in those things that do exist, no account needs to laid of how motion came to exist (because it didn't as a thing in it self), which has to be accounted for is how there is motion, in that there is at least one object in the universe undergoing change.
The 'unmoved mover' is pure assertion.

Well, actually he is merely making use of Aristotlian metaphysics to rationalize his own beliefs. Eternity, prima facie, does not require a beginning to anything, including motion.



Not clear, but again an infinite eternal natural law can possibly be the unmoved mover, and the uncaused cause.

[/quote] You're missing the point. Aquinas's second way, does not require as a premise that 'everything except for God needs a cause'. Rather it has as a premise that no efficient cause (a cause that moves something potentiality to actuality) has that cause in itself. Anything is always moved by something else. The match is struck by you, the nuclear core decays due to iso-spin interaction with the W-boson mediated weak field, the room is filled with the sound of a scream due to a woman screaming, etc. At no point do we have something happen that... just happens, without any cause. [/quote]

I do not think this rewording helps the argument. The highlighted is likely true, but when their are alternate presuppositions that are possible, the presupposition of the necessity of an uncaused caused (a Source some call God) leads to a very circular argument. Example of a alternate presupposition is a Natural uncaused cause call Natural Law in the conclusion. Also a circular argument.


E=mc² is an equation describing how energy relates to mass at rest with respect to an inertial frame. It does not say that energy is the cause of mass, or vice versa, but that they're two intrinsic properties related by that equation.

Here the Natural Laws underlying E=mc² could be the uncaused cause.

Furthermore if you say that causes are reflexive, you'd be forced to say that there's no causal explanation of anything, just statements about the way things are. Yet this is obviously false, because a match is lit by me striking it.




The point of the second way is to establish that it can't stop here, since every causality in the universe will always have to be moved by another, in order to account for motion. So it must come from something which is in itself entirely motionless and without potentiality. And that is what we call God.

It could also be possibly simply Natural Law.

JimL
05-09-2015, 05:48 AM
Motion is not a thing in scholastic metaphysics, it is what you call it when something goes from potentiality to actuality. Take for instance an unlit match. Its potentially lit, when struct, its moved from a state of being potentially lit, to being actually lit.
Good, but the effect is in the cause, and the cause is in the effect, the potential is in the actual and the actual is in the potential. That is what we observe in the natural world, that the effect is in the cause not that it is distinct from the cause and is created ex-nihilo. The source of fire, the potentiality, is the universe, the actuality, and the source of our particular universe, the potentiality, is the greater Cosmos, the actuality, but they are one and the same substance. It would be silly to argue that fire was created by the universe ex-nihilo, and just as silly to argue that the cosmos was created ex-nihilo.



You can call that science, if you consider philosophy to be a science.
I call it science because it is an observed fact. The question of why there is something rather than nothing is philosophical, the fact from nothing, nothing comes, is observable fact. Now of course one can argue that this fact may be true with regards to the internal nature of the universe itself, but the universe itself came from nothing! But that is not science, but an argument from ignorance, a begging of the question.



Since motion is not a thing that has existence, but a description of change in those things that do exist, no account needs to laid of how motion came to exist (because it didn't as a thing in it self), which has to be accounted for is how there is motion, in that there is at least one object in the universe undergoing change.
Well thats getting a bit semantical i think. It is spoken of as motion because all objects are in motion, but if you would rather focus on why there is an object that undergoes change it is because the object is a part of the universe and it is the nature of the universe to undergo change. There is just no evidence supporting the idea that there is some immaterial thing that is static which creates, ex nihilo, material objects in motion.


You're missing the point. Aquinas's second way, does not require as a premise that 'everything except for God needs a cause'. Rather it has as a premise that no efficient cause (a cause that moves something potentiality to actuality) has that cause in itself. Anything is always moved by something else. The match is struck by you, the nuclear core decays due to iso-spin interaction with the W-boson mediated weak field, the room is filled with the sound of a scream due to a woman screaming, etc. At no point do we have something happen that... just happens, without any cause.
When you say that the match is struck by me, you are saying that the match is struck by a source within the universe, ergo the cause of the change from potentiality to actuality, the effecient cause, has that cause, me, within itself. You are making a distinction between the universe and the things within it in your analogy as if they do not all belong to one and the same universe, are not all of one and the same substance. I'm not arguing that things just happen without a cause, i'm arguing that there is no distinction of substance between cause and effect, or that the effects, the potentialities, are not distinct in nature or place from the actuality.



E=mc² is an equation describing how energy relates to mass at rest with respect to an inertial frame. It does not say that energy is the cause of mass, or vice versa, but that they're two intrinsic properties related by that equation.
Two intrinsic properties related to what? Energy and matter are 2 sides of the same coin so to speak. Thats what E=mc2 shows. The pent up energy of the hot big bang is released in the form of matter.

Furthermore if you say that causes are reflexive, you'd be forced to say that there's no causal explanation of anything, just statements about the way things are. Yet this is obviously false, because a match is lit by me striking it.
The match is struck by you, and you are part of the universe. The direct cause, you, is a part of, and related to, the efficient cause, the universe. Your argument is that the direct causes, if thats what they are called, need be distinct from the efficient cause.



I'd agree but St. Aquinas isn't doing that. If he does, point it out and we can talk about it. I don't have to defend that he doesn't do that, its you making the claim and so you have to show where he does it. His five ways don't take up that much space, so it shouldn't be hard to locate for you.
I'll have to go back and check on this. I'm not sure to what I was answering to in this.



Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
It may be assertion in that I can not disprove the claim that good and evil are objective realities, but since we only know them subjectively and have no evidence to the contrary, then it is for those who claim them to be objective realities to prove it.



The point of the second way is to establish that it can't stop here, since every causality in the universe will always have to be moved by another, in order to account for motion. So it must come from something which is in itself entirely motionless and without potentiality. And that is what we call God.
Or causality is the nature of the eternal and needs no external cause.

JimL
05-09-2015, 11:11 AM
Completely logical.

Within the own mind all human rationale is acceptable: to the human doing the thought. Let us ask ourselves all this question.

Who here is able to see outside of their own mind?

Raise thy hands.

:raisehand:

JimL
05-09-2015, 11:40 AM
St. Aquinas most certainly doesn't merely define God to be good, he argues that because of final causality, God must exist and be the highest God, the one end towards everything ultimately points. You'd just need to read his five ways, but if you can show me a quote where he defines God to be good, rather than establishing it deductively, we can discuss it.
Then God could just as validly be defined as the greatest evil, since just as it can be argued that evil is naught but the absense of good, good could be argued to be naught but the absense of evil. Who is Aristotle or Aquinas to determine that Goodness is a reality and that evil is just a lack or privation of that reality?





Where?
See above and below.



I agree that this would be an unsolvable paradox, but its not an intelligible position. In Aristotelian metaphysics, any evil is lack or privation of some good that exist. And if you're perfect possession of your goodness, which God most certainly is, then you have lack of it and none of it is turned away from its end, so you can't both by perfectly good and evil. Oddly enough you can't be perfectly evil either, since as long as there's any positive quality about you, there's something good, even its merely your talents, abilities, qualities and nature.
And upon what reasoning does Aristotle base his conclusion that God is good rather than evil? Perhaps God is the greatest evil and good is just the lack or privation of evil that exists. The conclusion that God is good is an assumption that Aristotle takes for granted.

shunyadragon
05-09-2015, 01:08 PM
Just a few corrections.




You can call that science, if you consider philosophy to be a science.

There is a discipline of the philosophy of science, but philosophy is not science.


Since motion is not a thing that has existence, but a description of change in those things that do exist, no account needs to laid of how motion came to exist (because it didn't as a thing in it self), which has to be accounted for is how there is motion, in that there is at least one object in the universe undergoing change.
The 'unmoved mover' is pure assertion.

Well, actually he is merely making use of Aristotlian metaphysics to rationalize his own beliefs. Eternity, prima facie, does not require a beginning to anything, including motion.

Not clear, but again an infinite eternal natural law can possibly be the unmoved mover, and the uncaused cause.


You're missing the point. Aquinas's second way, does not require as a premise that 'everything except for God needs a cause'. Rather it has as a premise that no efficient cause (a cause that moves something potentiality to actuality) has that cause in itself. Anything is always moved by something else. The match is struck by you, the nuclear core decays due to iso-spin interaction with the W-boson mediated weak field, the room is filled with the sound of a scream due to a woman screaming, etc. At no point do we have something happen that... just happens, without any cause.

I do not think this rewording helps the argument. The highlighted is likely true, but when their are alternate presuppositions that are possible, the presupposition of the necessity of an uncaused caused (a Source some call God) leads to a very circular argument. Example of a alternate presupposition is a Natural uncaused cause call Natural Law in the conclusion. Also a circular argument.


E=mc² is an equation describing how energy relates to mass at rest with respect to an inertial frame. It does not say that energy is the cause of mass, or vice versa, but that they're two intrinsic properties related by that equation.

Here the Natural Laws underlying E=mc² could be the uncaused cause.


The point of the second way is to establish that it can't stop here, since every causality in the universe will always have to be moved by another, in order to account for motion. So it must come from something which is in itself entirely motionless and without potentiality. And that is what we call God.

It could also be possibly simply Natural Law.

Leonhard
05-10-2015, 02:04 PM
Good, but the effect is in the cause, and the cause is in the effect, the potential is in the actual and the actual is in the potential.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement.

The effect in the cause, yes, otherwise the effect couldn't possible come about. If the phosphorous compound at the end of the matchstick didn't have the properties it has, the match might not even light up. I'm not sure how you could say coherently that matchsticks are in a flame. The rest of the sentence is unintelligible to me. As if most of the rest of the next paragraph.


It would be silly to argue that fire was created by the universe ex-nihilo, and just as silly to argue that the cosmos was created ex-nihilo.

It would be silly to say that universe had powers to create ex nihilo, but that is no argument against the notion that universe itself was created from no prior substance. That we haven't observed this, is no more an argument against it, than a failure to observe free quarks are an arguments against their existence.


I call it science because it is an observed fact.

Suit yourself. You're defining science to be a fairly broad topic here, if it covers all observable facts.


Now of course one can argue that this fact may be true with regards to the internal nature of the universe itself, but the universe itself came from nothing! But that is not science, but an argument from ignorance, a begging of the question.

I've stated before that I won't make an argument for God's existence based upon the universe having been created by God, from nothing. If you want to discuss it, open a thread entitled "Can God create ex nihilo?"

Classical theology does not claim it can be known through natural reasons that the universe came into existence from nothing. It considers this to be the case based on revelation. Therefore you can't claim there's an argument from ignorance, since we're not claiming that "science or natural philosophy has no account of the the beginning, ergo the universe came into being out of nothing" or something to that effect.

There's no begging of the question either, you'll need to get more specific with that. What conclusion is used as a premise?


if you would rather focus on why there is an object that undergoes change it is because the object is a part of the universe and it is the nature of the universe to undergo change.

All things that are composed of actuality and potentiality, which includes all things in the universe, are moved from actuality to potentiality by something else. Here you must be careful to distinguish accidental chains of causality, namely the historical ones that William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument focuses on, and the [i]essential chains of causality. A hand is bounsing a ball; the hand has these properties because its connected firmly to a human arm, connected to a torso, standing firmly on the ground; the hand has the proper bio-mechanical properties, because of its muscles, nervous system, bones, etc...; these in turn have their properties from the biological cells and the way they're connected together; all the way down to interactions between molecules and atoms; each layer has potentialities and actualities, so they must all be moved by something else.

So at one point you reach what... basic mechanics of fundemental units, quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... but they too have potentiality and actuality, so how come they move? The chain of essential causality can't be infinitely long, because then nothing would litterally happen. Its like having an ill defined recursive function, like the fork bomb :(){ :|:& };: (gives me the shivers... never type this into a bash shell) of Unix infamy, recursively calling another instance of itself without returning. To explain how the hand could even bounce a ball, there must be some cause, which itself is purely actual, containing no potentiality.

There is motion, ergo such as a purely actual cause must exist.

We can furthermore conclude that the power of this cause must be unlimited, since there's nothing that could happen in the universe, which it isn't a cause of, which implies that if anything could possible be, it is a potential cause of them. Hence this cause is omnipotent.

We can furthermore conclude that this cause is static, unchanging, as it has no potentiality, but is purely actual. From this consideration it must also be timeless and omnipresent, as its present everywhere without boundaries. Anywhere, anything happens, or could happen, it is.

We can also conclude that this cause is simple, containing no division in its substance or complexity, and is a soliton, its the only one of its kind. This follows because if there were two or more such causes, something would have to exist that could be different between them, otherwise they'd be identical. But then there would be potentiality of the cause, as it could be in one or many other different ways, and then they'd need a cause for them. Reducto ad absurdum: there is only one such cause.

Hence we get an unchanging, static, perfectly simple, unique, omnipresent, omnipotent, cause of everything.

And that is what we call God.

Note that the universe itself fails to fulfill the requirements, as it is undergoing change, and so is also composed of actuality and potentiality.


You are making a distinction between the universe and the things within it in your analogy as if they do not all belong to one and the same universe, are not all of one and the same substance.

"No cow's like a horse,
and no horse like a cow.
That's one similarity
anyhow." - Piet Hein

JimL
05-10-2015, 08:06 PM
I'm not sure what to make of this statement.

The effect in the cause, yes, otherwise the effect couldn't possible come about.
What is meant by the effect being in the cause is that the effect is of the same substance as the cause. An acorn is of the same substance as its cause aka the oak tree. They are of the material nature because the universe to which they are a part is of a material nature. The effects may be distinct in form, but they are not distinct in substance, from that of their causes. It doesn't make sense to claim that the effect is in the cause, if there is nothing of the effect which is actually in the cause.


If the phosphorous compound at the end of the matchstick didn't have the properties it has, the match might not even light up. I'm not sure how you could say coherently that matchsticks are in a flame. The rest of the sentence is unintelligible to me. As if most of the rest of the next paragraph.
Thats because you are misinterpreting what i said. Using your analogy for instance I am not arguing that the matchsticks are in the flame, but that the substance of the flame is in the matchsticks. If it weren't, then there would be no flame!



It would be silly to say that universe had powers to create ex nihilo, but that is no argument against the notion that universe itself was created from no prior substance. That we haven't observed this, is no more an argument against it, than a failure to observe free quarks are an arguments against their existence.
The point is that it is an argument from ignorance. We know that what we have named free quarks exist through scientific discovery, not from ill informed guesses.



Suit yourself. You're defining science to be a fairly broad topic here, if it covers all observable facts.
Yes, I am.



I've stated before that I won't make an argument for God's existence based upon the universe having been created by God, from nothing. If you want to discuss it, open a thread entitled "Can God create ex nihilo?"
If you can not make an cogent argument for it, which apparently you can not, then there is no sense in opening a thread to discuss it.

Classical theology does not claim it can be known through natural reasons that the universe came into existence from nothing. It considers this to be the case based on revelation. Therefore you can't claim there's an argument from ignorance, since we're not claiming that "science or natural philosophy has no account of the the beginning, ergo the universe came into being out of nothing" or something to that effect.
Revelation is a belief, just like any other belief. Therefore the argument that the universe came into existence from out of nothing is a belief based on a belief.

There's no begging of the question either, you'll need to get more specific with that. What conclusion is used as a premise?
The premise is creationism, that the universe is not eternal, that something comes from nothing, and the conclusion is that something, the universe, comes from nothing.



All things that are composed of actuality and potentiality, which includes all things in the universe, are moved from actuality to potentiality by something else. Here you must be careful to distinguish accidental chains of causality, namely the historical ones that William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument focuses on, and the [i]essential chains of causality. A hand is bounsing a ball; the hand has these properties because its connected firmly to a human arm, connected to a torso, standing firmly on the ground; the hand has the proper bio-mechanical properties, because of its muscles, nervous system, bones, etc...; these in turn have their properties from the biological cells and the way they're connected together; all the way down to interactions between molecules and atoms; each layer has potentialities and actualities, so they must all be moved by something else.

So at one point you reach what... basic mechanics of fundemental units, quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... but they too have potentiality and actuality, so how come they move? The chain of essential causality can't be infinitely long, because then nothing would literally happen.
Says who? The properties of anything that is itself infinite and eternal must also be infinite and eternal. I understand that people argue this point all the time, and that infinity is a difficult concept to wrap ones head around, but to me it is also just common sense that if anything can be said to be infinite and eternal, including God, then the properties that it has, such as change, are also without beginning. People argue that God doesn't change, but if that is true, then like you said above, nothing would ever happen.


Its like having an ill defined recursive function, like the fork bomb :(){ :|:& };: (gives me the shivers... never type this into a bash shell) of Unix infamy, recursively calling another instance of itself without returning. To explain how the hand could even bounce a ball, there must be some cause, which itself is purely actual, containing no potentiality.
If the hypothesized purely actual contains no potential, then again, nothing would ever happen.

There is motion, ergo such as a purely actual cause must exist.
Unproven assertion as faict.

We can furthermore conclude that the power of this cause must be unlimited, since there's nothing that could happen in the universe, which it isn't a cause of, which implies that if anything could possible be, it is a potential cause of them. Hence this cause is omnipotent.
More assertion. Power, unlimited power, implies a potential. One would define the oak tree as having the power within itself to bring the potential existence of the acorn into being, but that doesn't make the oak tree pure actuality. The universe is no different, the things that come to be within the universe are not distinct from the universe, they are just changes in form.

We can furthermore conclude that this cause is static, unchanging, as it has no potentiality, but is purely actual. From this consideration it must also be timeless and omnipresent, as its present everywhere without boundaries. Anywhere, anything happens, or could happen, it is.
Again, if it has no potentiality then how does anything happen. As to the last part of your statement, the universe as it is considered as a whole does exist everywhere without boundaries. Anywhere, anything happens, or could happen, it is.

We can also conclude that this cause is simple, containing no division in its substance or complexity, and is a soliton, its the only one of its kind. This follows because if there were two or more such causes, something would have to exist that could be different between them, otherwise they'd be identical. But then there would be potentiality of the cause, as it could be in one or many other different ways, and then they'd need a cause for them. Reducto ad absurdum: there is only one such cause.
So, conclude then that there is nothing other than the material world. Sounds as though you are defining your creator as nothingness, but calling it something. Nothingness would be simple, containing no division or complexity aka a soliton without the substance.

Hence we get an unchanging, static, perfectly simple, unique, omnipresent, omnipotent, cause of everything.
Yes, we get a nothingness, with the super added omnipotence, causing something.

And that is what we call God.
I know, and as simple as he is, he changes, and turns himself into human form, and walks around and does stuff.

Note that the universe itself fails to fulfill the requirements, as it is undergoing change, and so is also composed of actuality and potentiality.
Well, it fails to fulfill what you believe to be the requirements.



"No cow's like a horse,
and no horse like a cow.
That's one similarity
anyhow." - Piet Hein

Theres another similarity as well, they are both, the cow and the horse, material forms.

Leonhard
05-11-2015, 12:39 PM
What is meant by the effect being in the cause is that the effect is of the same substance as the cause.

I think it would be more clear then if you simple said that they're made from the same substance. The former isn't really language that makes proper sense. I guess I can see sorta, kinda, how you get it to be the latter, but I'd vastly prefer the latter then. I think it would be much clearer. :smile:

I certainly don't deny that they're both composed of matter, even if its not the same matter in all circumstances: my table is made wood, my body is made of flesh and bone. Both wood and flesh is made from atomic elements, so they have properties in common with that, however what is made out of one or the other won't have the same properties.

But if that's what you mean, then I'm afraid you can't say that the universe is the source of the universe.




It would be silly to say that universe had powers to create ex nihilo, but that is no argument against the notion that universe itself was created from no prior substance. That we haven't observed this, is no more an argument against it, than a failure to observe free quarks are an arguments against their existence.The point is that it is an argument from ignorance. We know that what we have named free quarks exist through scientific discovery, not from ill informed guesses.

But I haven't made any argument. I haven't argued for the temporal beginning of the universe. Or for Creatio Ex Nihilo. So how can I make an argument from ignorance? You can't make one unless an argument has been made.


If you can not make an cogent argument for it, which apparently you can not, then there is no sense in opening a thread to discuss it.

I'm willing to discuss it in another thread. Goading me won't help you. I know you're itching to talk about this because you disagree, but we can't start discussing every single tangent you disagree with, otherwise this already severely fragmented discussion will go off track.



There's no begging of the question either, you'll need to get more specific with that. What conclusion is used as a premise (in the 2nd way of Aquinas)?The premise is creationism, that the universe is not eternal, that something comes from nothing, and the conclusion is that something, the universe, comes from nothing.

You can read the argument yourself. At no point does St. Aquinas assume that the universe began to exist. In fact later in his works he argues that its impossible to establish by natural arguments whether that time had a beginning.

You share a misunderstanding many have about his arguments, they're not founded on the idea that the past can't be infinite. I've never talked about temporal succession at all. That would be the accidental (has nothing to do with 'oops i broke it' accidents) chain of causality. I explicitly marked it as not being what St. Aquinas was talking about. It was talking about essentially ordered chains of causality. Your hand is simultaniously moved by its bones and flesh, which are moved by their cells, moved by their molecules, moved by their atoms, moved by their quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... moved by something else. This chain, has nothing to do with time, just with the fact that there's motion. It is this chain, which St. Aquinas argues, has to terminate in a purely actual cause.


If the hypothesized purely actual contains no potential, then again, nothing would ever happen.

This doesn't follow. If it does, you need to show it. Currently you're only making an assertion.



There is motion, ergo such as a purely actual cause must exist.Unproven assertion as faict.

JimL, do you just wrap quote tags around every single statement in a post, and treat every quote as a context-less mini-post you respond to? The past few paragraphs were the argument, this line was a summary recap.

In other words, its a conclusion not an assertion. The fact that you later cite an argument, and call it an assertion says much. You can either attack the logical structure of the argument, or its premises, but calling it assertion amounts to ignorance about what formal arguments are.


As to the last part of your statement, the universe as it is considered as a whole does exist everywhere without boundaries.

But the universe moves from potentiality to actuality. Hence it must have a cause other than itself. This cannot be itself, as all things that are moved from potentiality to actuality, are done so by something else. To deny this would effectively be to deny causality as such, as then things could happen without cause.


Sounds as though you are defining your creator as nothingness, but calling it something. Nothingness would be simple, containing no division or complexity aka a soliton without the substance.

On the contrary: nothingness would neither have actuality nor potentiality. Nothingness has no being, and can't be the cause of anything. However this cause must be purely actual, and so its distinguished from nothingness. And since it contains no potentiality, its distinguished from the universe itself.


I know, and as simple as he is, he changes, and turns himself into human form, and walks around and does stuff.

This would be a challenge for Christianity, one I think we can meet, but its not a challenge for theism.


Well, it fails to fulfill what you believe to be the requirements.

Which of the requirements do you disagree with?

JimL
05-11-2015, 05:57 PM
I think it would be more clear then if you simple said that they're made from the same substance. The former isn't really language that makes proper sense. I guess I can see sorta, kinda, how you get it to be the latter, but I'd vastly prefer the latter then. I think it would be much clearer. :smile:

I certainly don't deny that they're both composed of matter, even if its not the same matter in all circumstances: my table is made wood, my body is made of flesh and bone. Both wood and flesh is made from atomic elements, so they have properties in common with that, however what is made out of one or the other won't have the same properties.
Everything is composed of the same fundamental substance.

But if that's what you mean, then I'm afraid you can't say that the universe is the source of the universe.
You can if the Cosmos, of which our universe is just a part, is eternal.




But I haven't made any argument. I haven't argued for the temporal beginning of the universe. Or for Creatio Ex Nihilo. So how can I make an argument from ignorance? You can't make one unless an argument has been made.
Of course you have. Revelation! That is an argument from ignorance.



I'm willing to discuss it in another thread. Goading me won't help you. I know you're itching to talk about this because you disagree, but we can't start discussing every single tangent you disagree with, otherwise this already severely fragmented discussion will go off track.
No, I'm not goading you, nor am I in the least bit itching to talk about it. I already know that there is nothing to discuss, no empirical argument that you can make for ex-nihilo creation other than your non empirical based belief in revelation.



You can read the argument yourself. At no point does St. Aquinas assume that the universe began to exist. In fact later in his works he argues that its impossible to establish by natural arguments whether that time had a beginning.

You share a misunderstanding many have about his arguments, they're not founded on the idea that the past can't be infinite. I've never talked about temporal succession at all. That would be the accidental (has nothing to do with 'oops i broke it' accidents) chain of causality. I explicitly marked it as not being what St. Aquinas was talking about. It was talking about essentially ordered chains of causality. Your hand is simultaniously moved by its bones and flesh, which are moved by their cells, moved by their molecules, moved by their atoms, moved by their quarks, leptons, gluons and photons... moved by something else. This chain, has nothing to do with time, just with the fact that there's motion. It is this chain, which St. Aquinas argues, has to terminate in a purely actual cause.
Whether the chain ends in what you would call a purely actual cause or not says nothing about the purely actual cause being a deity or a mind. Also if the universe is infinite and eternal then the chain needn't end at all. The properties of anything that is eternal and infinite must themselves be eternal and infinite as well.



This doesn't follow. If it does, you need to show it. Currently you're only making an assertion.
You made the assertion that the purely actual had no potentiality in it, not me. So, if it has no potentiality how does anything happen?



JimL, do you just wrap quote tags around every single statement in a post, and treat every quote as a context-less mini-post you respond to? The past few paragraphs were the argument, this line was a summary recap.
No I do not, I never even snip your posts as you do mine, but in this case I had already answered your argument, and then responded to your summary of the argument as well.

In other words, its a conclusion not an assertion. The fact that you later cite an argument, and call it an assertion says much. You can either attack the logical structure of the argument, or its premises, but calling it assertion amounts to ignorance about what formal arguments are.
I believe I responded to everything you posted, have not snipped anything. If I have please let me know exactly what I omitted and I will be glad to opine.



But the universe moves from potentiality to actuality. Hence it must have a cause other than itself. This cannot be itself, as all things that are moved from potentiality to actuality, are done so by something else. To deny this would effectively be to deny causality as such, as then things could happen without cause.
Not if the actual and the potentiality are one and the same thing. You are assuming in this line of reasoning that our universe, our particular universe, is a thing in itself and thus needs a cause that is external to it. If our universe is a part of the greater eternal and infinite cosmos then the potentiality is naught but a change within the actuality. In other words they are one and the same, the potentialities being merely changes taking place within the actual.



On the contrary: nothingness would neither have actuality nor potentiality. Nothingness has no being, and can't be the cause of anything. However this cause must be purely actual, and so its distinguished from nothingness. And since it contains no potentiality, its distinguished from the universe itself.
One could define a space, totally void of anything, a vacuum, ergo nothing, to be simple, containing no division or complexity. Thats basically how you describe God, but then you call it substance, a being, a cause of all else. Kind of like creation ex-nihilo! From nothing, something comes!



This would be a challenge for Christianity, one I think we can meet, but its not a challenge for theism.
Well, being that you are a christian, don't you think it a challenge you should undertake?



Which of the requirements do you disagree with?
Which have I agreed with so far?