Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Final Stage of Creation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    how can something be fixed at the "instant" of creation, since that instant is just one instant in the timeline of the universe? Your question makes no sense. If you mean from an external view, then it still makes no sense because how can you have an "instant" external to time itself?
    Well then make up your mind Sparko. Being external to time doesn't mean that you can see a time that doesn't yet exist. If only half of time has been recorded, then being outside of it doesn't magically allow you to see the unrecorded second half. If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist whether you are outside of it or not.
    No analogy is perfect, JimL, so you trying to pick apart the DVD analogy based on the fact that it was recorded in time itself, is just baseless and irrelevant to the point I was making. Try harder.
    I don't need to pick it apart as if it had any sense to it in the first place, it doesn't. The point you are trying to make is pointless. Surely you must have a logical analogy or explanation for that which you believe.
    Like I said, it is useless to discuss this with you because you just can't grasp the concepts nor the terminology. I am done here for now.
    Thats what we call ironic Sparko. You are trying to make sense of the nonsensical, but you can't do it so you blame it on the fact that there is just no perfect way to explain it, no perfect analogy. If you can't explain something simply and clearly, then you probably have no idea what you are talking about.
    Last edited by JimL; 09-02-2016, 09:23 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Limited omniscience is not omniscience. It’s like being “a little bit pregnant”, either one is or one isn’t, but not both simultaneously.
      But both omniscience and limited omniscience are true simultaneously. But do not occur simultaneously.

      Analogous to QM where a photon is both a wave and a particle. But not observed as such at the same time.

      Omniscience is impossible from a finite perspective. A cause is always finite. God is the uncaused cause. God being uncaused is so being omniscient. But as a cause is not omniscient in any finite way. Now an uncaused cause is both infinite being eternal uncaused and finite being temporal cause.

      I guess this is beyond your personal comprehension.

      Infinite eternal omniscient. Finite temporal not omniscient. An uncaused cause.


      Scriptural quotes are only useful for those who believe them to be more than folk tales about myth and magic.
      Last edited by 37818; 09-02-2016, 11:28 PM.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        But both omniscience and limited omniscience are true simultaneously. But do not occur simultaneously.
        They’re either simultaneous or not simultaneous; it’s a logical contradiction to say otherwise.

        Analogous to QM where a photon is both a wave and a particle. But not observed as such at the same time.
        That’s because they don’t exist at the same time. Like Schrödinger’s Cat, it’s either alive or dead, but not both simultaneously.

        Omniscience is impossible from a finite perspective. A cause is always finite. God is the uncaused cause. God being uncaused is so being omniscient. But as a cause is not omniscient in any finite way. Now an uncaused cause is both infinite being eternal uncaused and finite being temporal cause.

        I guess this is beyond your personal comprehension.
        So patronising!

        Infinite eternal omniscient. Finite temporal not omniscient. An uncaused cause.
        There is no reason to believe in an “uncaused cause”, this is purely a philosophical argument and it’s not backed by science. The flaw in it is the assumption that nothing (except for an assumed creator god) can extend infinitely into the past. But we don’t know this. This is a classic argument from ignorance. There's actually good reason to think an actual infinity is possible and no empirical reason to think it’s impossible. A law of physics is that energy cannot be created, and even in apparent nothingness actual nothingness appears to be impossible.

        Under the B Theory of time the flow of time is an illusion and the past, present and future are equally real, and time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality and that therefore free-will is an illusion too.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          If the son is how god appeared to men then why did the son say "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." Apparently Jesus didn't believe in that trinity nonsense either.
          Actually John 1:18 contradicts that the son is how god appeared to men. So too does Mark 15:34: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, and the verse already mentioned "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." It was obviously meant to be understood that Jesus was not God until someone came up with the silly idea of the trinity in order to elevate the stature of Jesus.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Actually John 1:18 contradicts that the son is how god appeared to men. So too does Mark 15:34: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, and the verse already mentioned "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." It was obviously meant to be understood that Jesus was not God until someone came up with the silly idea of the trinity in order to elevate the stature of Jesus.
            Only because you really do not believe in order to be able to correctly understand those texts.
            ". . .No man hath seen God at any time; . . ."
            Jesus claimed, ". . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; . . ." -- John 14: 6, 9.
            ". . . And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . ." -- Genesis 12:7 (John 8:56, 58).
            Add to this that when Jesus became a man, He as a man was also not God (Mark 15:34).
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              If the son is how god appeared to men then why did the son say "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." Apparently Jesus didn't believe in that trinity nonsense either.
              BTW, You quoted yourself and gave me credit for what you yourself had argued.
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              . . .
              The reaason Jesus said what He did was two fold. First off, all men are sinners (Romans 3:10). And Jesus was really a man. And the only way He as man could be good was to be God (Mark 10:18). Jesus in the incarnation was both God and man.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Actually John 1:18 contradicts that the son is how god appeared to men. So too does Mark 15:34: My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, and the verse already mentioned "why do you call me good, there is none good but the father." It was obviously meant to be understood that Jesus was not God until someone came up with the silly idea of the trinity in order to elevate the stature of Jesus.
                And the two-slit experiment contradicts the idea that light is composed of particles. Someone came up with the silly idea of quantum mechanics to turn light into particles.

                (If you approached God's world as naively and simplistically as you approach God's word, you would conclude that modern science is full of contradictions, too. It is easy to argue for contradictions if you don't think deeply enough.)
                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  They’re either simultaneous or not simultaneous; it’s a logical contradiction to say otherwise.
                  I said:
                  But do not occur simultaneously.
                  Like in QM it remains true that photons act both as a particle and a wave. So it is the Son of God who is both infinite God and even now in the incarnation is finite man. Infinite God is always omniscient. All finite entitys are not omniscient. A cause as a cause is always finite.


                  That’s because they don’t exist at the same time. Like Schrödinger’s Cat, it’s either alive or dead, but not both simultaneously.
                  The observed occurance does not exist at the same time. Yet until observed both are true.



                  There is no reason to believe in an “uncaused cause”, this is purely a philosophical argument and it’s not backed by science.
                  There is the physical and non physical knowledge. The latter being called metaphysics. There is reason to believe in "uncaused cause." An infinite regress of causes with no first cause. The regress if it has no cause it would be an uncaused regress[cause]. A regress is still contingent on having uncaused exstence. It is inescapable, there is an uncaused existence.


                  The flaw in it is the assumption that nothing (except for an assumed creator god) can extend infinitely into the past. But we don’t know this. This is a classic argument from ignorance. There's actually good reason to think an actual infinity is possible and no empirical reason to think it’s impossible. A law of physics is that energy cannot be created, and even in apparent nothingness actual nothingness appears to be impossible.
                  You are not getting it. There has to be an uncaused existence. And the true God's identity is that uncaused existence. Else there is no God. Yet that uncaused existence is the identity of the "Self Existent."
                  Under the B Theory of time the flow of time is an illusion and the past, present and future are equally real, and time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality and that therefore free-will is an illusion too.
                  The fact is there is for us only the now and the immediate past and the distant pasts. The future is always yet to happen. And that is from our finite perspective.
                  Last edited by 37818; 09-07-2016, 08:14 AM.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    I said:
                    Like in QM it remains true that photons act both as a particle and a wave. So it is the Son of God who is both infinite God and even now in the incarnation is finite man. Infinite God is always omniscient. All finite entitys are not omniscient. A cause as a cause is always finite.


                    The observed occurance does not exist at the same time. Yet until observed both are true.
                    The counter-intuitive, microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect on the macroscopic world where the laws of Classical physics hold true. People, including Jesus, inhabit the latter world.

                    There is the physical and non physical knowledge. The latter being called metaphysics. There is reason to believe in "uncaused cause." An infinite regress of causes with no first cause. The regress if it has no cause it would be an uncaused regress[cause]. A regress is still contingent on having uncaused exstence. It is inescapable, there is an uncaused existence.
                    A sound metaphysical argument depends entirely on the factual accuracy of its premises and only science is capable of verifying empirical facts.

                    You are not getting it. There has to be an uncaused existence. And the true God's identity is that uncaused existence. Else there is no God. Yet that uncaused existence is the identity of the "Self Existent."

                    The fact is there is for us only the now and the immediate past and the distant pasts. The future is always yet to happen. And that is from our finite perspective.
                    No there does not, for the reasons already given. And even if this was the case there’s no reason to assume “therefore God”.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The counter-intuitive, microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect on the macroscopic world where the laws of Classical physics hold true.
                      That an entity would have two counter intuitive natures. Christianity holds that this Jesus being the Christ who is both a man [which is finite and not God] and God [infinite, invisible, omniscient], being the Son of God in the flesh. One person having two counter intuitive natures.

                      People, including Jesus, inhabit the latter world.
                      An that now this physcal man inhabits the transcendent heaven of the heavens.


                      A sound metaphysical argument depends entirely on the factual accuracy of its premises and only science is capable of verifying empirical facts.
                      And if what is actually true is unacceptable to your preconceived notions. You can do nothing else but reject what is actually true.


                      No there does not, for the reasons already given. And even if this was the case there’s no reason to assume “therefore God”.
                      Ultimately you have to end up with what is uncaused. There is not nothingness - therefore there is existence. Now you do not want there to be a God, that is a choice. But what ever the Uncaused Existence consists - it defines all caused existence.

                      Note: space is invisible. There are things we see. It is by the things we see by which we perceive this invisible space. Space is a type of existence. And things in it are not the space. And of course, space is not God.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        The counter-intuitive, microscopic world of quantum physics has no discernible effect on the macroscopic world where the laws of Classical physics hold true.
                        Generally true, but not absolutely. There are lots of situations where quantum physics gives rise to macroscopic effects. E.g. quantum-based electronic components which are used in electronic circuits.
                        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          That an entity would have two counter intuitive natures. Christianity holds that this Jesus being the Christ who is both a man [which is finite and not God] and God [infinite, invisible, omniscient], being the Son of God in the flesh. One person having two counter intuitive natures.
                          I’m fully aware to the doctrine of the hypostatic union, thank you. But that, along with the other core doctrine of Christianity i.e. the Holy Trinity, is contradictory nonsense. And trying to explain these theological “mysteries” in terms of quantum mechanics puts you in the same league of woo as Deepak Chopra.

                          An that now this physcal man inhabits the transcendent heaven of the heavens.
                          ...so you believe. There’s no substantive evidence to support this belief.

                          And if what is actually true is unacceptable to your preconceived notions. You can do nothing else but reject what is actually true.
                          That has nothing to do with the premises of metaphysical arguments being dependent on verifiable facts, which only science can provide.

                          Ultimately you have to end up with what is uncaused. There is not nothingness - therefore there is existence. Now you do not want there to be a God, that is a choice. But what ever the Uncaused Existence consists - it defines all caused existence.

                          Note: space is invisible. There are things we see. It is by the things we see by which we perceive this invisible space. Space is a type of existence. And things in it are not the space. And of course, space is not God.
                          No you do not have to end up with what is uncaused. Even if you remove the postulated “first cause” you're not really removing anything at all. Instead, you're just adding causes before it. Every event would still have a cause. There would just be an infinite number of them.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            I’m fully aware to the doctrine of the hypostatic union, thank you. But that, along with the other core doctrine of Christianity i.e. the Holy Trinity, is contradictory nonsense. And trying to explain these theological “mysteries” in terms of quantum mechanics puts you in the same league of woo as Deepak Chopra.
                            Saying an explanation is "is contradictory nonsense" does not make that so.



                            ...so you believe. There’s no substantive evidence to support this belief.
                            For the record, what is it you want for "substantive evidence?"


                            That has nothing to do with the premises of metaphysical arguments being dependent on verifiable facts, which only science can provide.
                            Which metaphyical premises are you alluding to? Metaphysics as primarily to do with the non-empirical, where as verifiable facts from science primarily has to do with the empirical.


                            No you do not have to end up with what is uncaused. Even if you remove the postulated “first cause” you're not really removing anything at all. Instead, you're just adding causes before it. Every event would still have a cause. There would just be an infinite number of them.
                            Infinite causes would be so if they are infinite. An infinite set cause, that would be uncaused.
                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Infinite causes would be so if they are infinite. An infinite set cause, that would be uncaused.
                              What is an 'infinite set cause'?
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Saying an explanation is "is contradictory nonsense" does not make that so.
                                The doctrine of the hypostatic union states that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man. This is clearly contradictory. The same sort of contradiction applies to the Trinity.

                                For the record, what is it you want for "substantive evidence?"
                                You need to support your claim that Jesus the “physical man inhabits the transcendent heaven of the heavens”, whatever that means. There’s no credible evidence for any of this. It’s an article of faith.

                                Which metaphyical premises are you alluding to? Metaphysics as primarily to do with the non-empirical, where as verifiable facts from science primarily has to do with the empirical.
                                Metaphysics is concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it...i.e. the nature of physical beings inhabiting the physical world. This puts it in the realm of science.

                                Infinite causes would be so if they are infinite. An infinite set cause, that would be uncaused.
                                You wouldn’t need a first cause at all if there were an infinite number of causes.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                51 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X