Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proof of an Intelligent Creator and

AndersBranderud
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:04:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org...).This paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause. Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. Causality and the fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time, i.e. a Creator.

To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah, see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from www.netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn't self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

The most common counter arguments are answered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com...)

Anders Branderud
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:08:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
God of the Gaps. You are using the concept of God to fill in the gap we have in our understanding of the origin of the Universe.

Furthermore, your argument fails because the Creator must itself have been created by something before (as per your citation of the laws of physics). Therefore, your Deity runs into the same problem.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:14:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Let me also note that your second argument does not necessarily follow the first. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that there indeed MUST have been a creator, it is not necessarily true that that creator is the one that you claim (presumably, Yahweh).
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:17:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
This is probably one of the most complicated subjects to discuss in the field of creationism/evolution. Whatever you believe in, it is hard to explain when it all began. I believe that it didn't begin anywhere, and I can explain it by definition, but logically, it would meet evolution, because evolution supports the theory that there must've been a beginning, but we don't know when it all began, why, how, out of what etcetera.

You can call this a point where creationism and evolution meet logically. I think that if we find out that the universe is finite, which I personally believe it is, then we may also find out whether or not this universe had a beginning.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:24:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1) If you accept the law of causality, you must accept God needs a cause, ad infinitum - infinite regress.

2) Your argument is a non-sequitor as your conclusion does not follow. Why conclude a God of a religion or any God for that matter - all your argument concludes is that there is some form an intelligent designer.

3) God has no reason to create anything.

Alternatives to an intelligent designer as a first cause

- Matter eternal, no cause needed.

- Multiverse theory.

- Visual particles and quantum physics/mechanics.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:39:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:08:47 PM, JBlake wrote:
Furthermore, your argument fails because the Creator must itself have been created by something before (as per your citation of the laws of physics). Therefore, your Deity runs into the same problem.

Not true, if those laws of physics were created along with the rest of the universe. Causality is an observable truth about the physical universe; we have no reason to assume that any of the laws that govern our universe have any bearing whatsoever on things spiritual.

I get annoyed at sloppy arguments like this one, that assume baselessly that:
a) God is physically bound by the universe, whether He created it or not;
b) God has a specific time/space location;
or c) spiritual things can be observed, measured, seen, recorded, or explained by physical science.

By definition, Spiritual =/= Physical.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:41:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ahh, the causality proof. There is one major problem here - causality requires time to exist (because without time, cause/effect is meaningless). However, before the existence of the universe, time didn't exist (neither did space). Causality was invalid until the universe came into existence, and thus a 'first cause' is not needed.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:44:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org......).
According to logic, this is a contradiction.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:45:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Further, your source doesn't establish your claim. Rebutting steady state theory does not mean demonstrating finite time.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:48:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:44:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org......).
According to logic, this is a contradiction.

Only if your first premise is that nothing could exist before time.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:56:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Chrysippus, you did not address my arguments. Also, make sure you do not answer with an appeal to ignorance. Also, do not claim that since "God" is spiritual and can not be proven, therefore he exists - because then I can claim that since invisible pink unicorns are spiritual and therefore, exist.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 3:56:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:48:41 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/29/2009 3:44:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org......).
According to logic, this is a contradiction.

Only if your first premise is that nothing could exist before time.

What does "before time" mean?
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:56:15 PM, Nags wrote:
Chrysippus, you did not address my arguments. Also, make sure you do not answer with an appeal to ignorance. Also, do not claim that since "God" is spiritual and can not be proven, therefore he exists - because then I can claim that since invisible pink unicorns are spiritual and therefore, exist.

@Nags: First off, I was addressing JBlake's statement. I was not addressing your "arguments," and have no interest in stretching my post to cover both.

Second, I make no claim in my post that God can be proven to exist; quite the contrary, if you would read it.

IF God exists, physical science has no ability to measure Him, and physical laws has no binding effect on Him. That was the gist of my post.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:12:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:09:13 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
@Nags: First off, I was addressing JBlake's statement. I was not addressing your "arguments," and have no interest in stretching my post to cover both.

Ok, then. My arguments stand.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:17:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:12:18 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/29/2009 4:09:13 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
@Nags: First off, I was addressing JBlake's statement. I was not addressing your "arguments," and have no interest in stretching my post to cover both.

Ok, then. My arguments stand.

1) If you accept the law of causality, you must accept God needs a cause, ad infinitum - infinite regress.

2) Your argument is a non-sequitor as your conclusion does not follow. Why conclude a God of a religion or any God for that matter - all your argument concludes is that there is some form an intelligent designer.

3) God has no reason to create anything.

These all look like decent debate topics to me; a little threadbare, perhaps, but still potentially satisfying. Not on the forums; but otherwise, whenever you like...
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:20:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Nags, I don't have a lot of time, but I am willing to spend what it takes to argue any of the following with you:

1) God must have a cause

2) There is no reason for God to create anything

or

3) Science can disprove God's existence
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:25:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:20:50 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Nags, I don't have a lot of time, but I am willing to spend what it takes to argue any of the following with you:

1) God must have a cause

2) There is no reason for God to create anything

or

3) Science can disprove God's existence

No thanks. I'm not going to prove a positive to prove the non-existence of a negative. It's your job to do the affirming as you are the one making the positive statements, I am merely refuting and pointing out logical inconsistences. Also, I would never debate something with "must" or "no reason" because they imply absolutes, I would be open to debating probables. Also, I disagree with 3 - although I do think that science somewhat disproves attributes of God.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:34:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:25:57 PM, Nags wrote:
At 10/29/2009 4:20:50 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Nags, I don't have a lot of time, but I am willing to spend what it takes to argue any of the following with you:

1) God must have a cause

2) There is no reason for God to create anything

or

3) Science can disprove God's existence

No thanks. I'm not going to prove a positive to prove the non-existence of a negative. It's your job to do the affirming as you are the one making the positive statements, I am merely refuting and pointing out logical inconsistences. Also, I would never debate something with "must" or "no reason" because they imply absolutes, I would be open to debating probables. Also, I disagree with 3 - although I do think that science somewhat disproves attributes of God.

Nags, with all due respect, these topics are YOUR statements on this forum; I merely put them in topic form. If you disagree with the way I have stated them, please re-state them to reflect your views.

1) If you accept the law of causality, you must accept God needs a cause, ad infinitum - infinite regress.

3) God has no reason to create anything

These are your exact words. Both of these are absolute statements. Both of these are completely unsupported at the moment.

I offer you the opportunity to support either of these; or even a "probables" version of either.

I am CON.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:37:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 3:39:38 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Not true, if those laws of physics were created along with the rest of the universe. Causality is an observable truth about the physical universe; we have no reason to assume that any of the laws that govern our universe have any bearing whatsoever on things spiritual.
Sure.

But you also cannot assume that the spiritual world, or the universe outside this universe also does not have its OWN set of rules, physical laws, etc. In other words, youre replacing one question with another question.

I get annoyed at sloppy arguments like this one, that assume baselessly that:
a) God is physically bound by the universe, whether He created it or not;
If God can affect the universe, then he must also be within it, atleast temporarily. Therefore, he would be subject to the laws of this universe.
b) God has a specific time/space location;
Whether or not God has a specific time/space location, is irrelevant to the fact that one could not possibly claim otherwise.
or c) spiritual things can be observed, measured, seen, recorded, or explained by physical science.
If it cannot be observed, measured, seen or recorded, youve just disproved every religion out there. Miracles no longer exist, since miracles by their very definition can be observed. Congratulations.

By definition, Spiritual =/= Physical.
By definition, spiritual affects the physical world.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:45:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:34:19 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 10/29/2009 4:25:57 PM, Nags wrote:
1) If you accept the law of causality, you must accept God needs a cause, ad infinitum - infinite regress.

3) God has no reason to create anything

These are your exact words. Both of these are absolute statements. Both of these are completely unsupported at the moment.

I offer you the opportunity to support either of these; or even a "probables" version of either.

I am CON.

1) It is not an absolute. I am simply stating that you would commit the fallacy of special pleading if you stated that the law of causality exists, yet God does not have to follow this law.

3) It is not an absolute. You have to give a reason why a God who is omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient would want to create anything - because he can not be pleased and he gains nothing by creating anything.

And no, I'd rather not debate right now. I have way too much homework and schoolowork and other sh1t going on right now. Around Thanksgiving time I'd be willing to debate.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 4:54:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:25:57 PM, Nags wrote:

1) It is not an absolute. I am simply stating that you would commit the fallacy of special pleading if you stated that the law of causality exists, yet God does not have to follow this law.

3) It is not an absolute. You have to give a reason why a God who is omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient would want to create anything - because he can not be pleased and he gains nothing by creating anything.


Tabled for now, not conceded.

And no, I'd rather not debate right now. I have way too much homework and schoolowork and other sh1t going on right now. Around Thanksgiving time I'd be willing to debate.

Fair enough. I have no idea of what my work schedule will be like then, but if there is time, I'd be happy to debate you. (Not even necessarily on these... :)

And good luck with the schoolwork! Midterms, isn't it?
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:16:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:37:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/29/2009 3:39:38 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Not true, if those laws of physics were created along with the rest of the universe. Causality is an observable truth about the physical universe; we have no reason to assume that any of the laws that govern our universe have any bearing whatsoever on things spiritual.
Sure.

But you also cannot assume that the spiritual world, or the universe outside this universe also does not have its OWN set of rules, physical laws, etc. In other words, youre replacing one question with another question.

If there is a spiritual realm, its (spiritual) laws are certainly up for debate; science can hardly help us there, though... The point was that the Physical and the Spiritual are potentally two separate realms; it would be a fallacy to assume that the laws of one bind the other, or that they are in any way fundamentally connected.

Christianity posits that the physical is subordinate to the spiritual; not the other way around. Not that that makes it so; just

b) God has a specific time/space location;
Whether or not God has a specific time/space location, is irrelevant to the fact that one could not possibly claim otherwise.

I claim otherwise.

Hmm. That was too easy. What other impossible things can I do before dinner?

Why is it impossible to suppose that God has no location in space or time? That, perhaps, he is outside both? Or even, that He fills both, and exists even where they do not?

As I understand it, this last has been the orthodox position of Christianity.

or c) spiritual things can be observed, measured, seen, recorded, or explained by physical science.
If it cannot be observed, measured, seen or recorded, youve just disproved every religion out there. Miracles no longer exist, since miracles by their very definition can be observed. Congratulations.

On the contrary; if it is unobservable and unmeasurable, it is outside the realm of science to prove or disprove.

Miracles are physical events with spiritual causes. If a miracle happens, it is certainly observable. However, it would be impossible to prove that its cause is spiritual, as all you can observe is the physical effect.

(Under this definition of miracles -which no-one is obligated to accept- it is my unsubstantiated opinion that all aspects of nature -from sunlight and gravity to life itself- are miraculous in nature. I won't burden you with my reasoning unless someone asks, though!)

By definition, spiritual affects the physical world.
By my definition, certainly; although the reverse is not necessarily true.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 5:17:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 4:37:37 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/29/2009 3:39:38 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
Not true, if those laws of physics were created along with the rest of the universe. Causality is an observable truth about the physical universe; we have no reason to assume that any of the laws that govern our universe have any bearing whatsoever on things spiritual.
Sure.

But you also cannot assume that the spiritual world, or the universe outside this universe also does not have its OWN set of rules, physical laws, etc. In other words, youre replacing one question with another question.

If there is a spiritual realm, its (spiritual) laws are certainly up for debate; science can hardly help us there, though... The point was that the Physical and the Spiritual are potentally two separate realms; it would be a fallacy to assume that the laws of one bind the other, or that they are in any way fundamentally connected.

Christianity posits that the physical is subordinate to the spiritual; not the other way around.

b) God has a specific time/space location;
Whether or not God has a specific time/space location, is irrelevant to the fact that one could not possibly claim otherwise.

I claim otherwise.

Hmm. That was too easy. What other impossible things can I do before dinner?

Why is it impossible to suppose that, if God exists, He has no location in space or time? That, perhaps, he is outside both? Or even, that He fills both, and exists even where they do not?

As I understand it, this last has been the orthodox position of Christianity.

or c) spiritual things can be observed, measured, seen, recorded, or explained by physical science.
If it cannot be observed, measured, seen or recorded, youve just disproved every religion out there. Miracles no longer exist, since miracles by their very definition can be observed. Congratulations.

On the contrary; if it is unobservable and unmeasurable, it is outside the realm of science to prove or disprove.

Miracles are physical events with spiritual causes. If a miracle happens, it is certainly observable. However, it would be impossible to prove that its cause is spiritual, as all you can observe is the physical effect.

(Under this definition of miracles -which no-one is obligated to accept- it is my unsubstantiated opinion that all aspects of nature -from sunlight and gravity to life itself- are miraculous in nature. I won't burden you with my reasoning unless someone asks, though!)

By definition, spiritual affects the physical world.
By my definition, certainly; although the reverse is not necessarily true.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:00:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why pick only on Nags, though? Anders, you have logic problems...

At 10/29/2009 3:04:32 PM, AndersBranderud wrote:
According to Alexander Vilenkin and Arvind Bonde our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org...).

Fixed.


It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.

Is a God with no cause more likely than a particle with no cause?

Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. Causality and the fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time, i.e. a Creator.

"Since space-time had a beginning" <= this is still unproven. The majority belief among scientists today seems to be that it did not.

Nor can you assume from this that a Prime Cause must be a Creator, in the sense of an intelligent powerful being. You would need more evidence than this article to conclude that.


To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.

Emphasis on known... This is arguing from the lack of evidence. You cannot prove the absolute non-existence of causeless things and events without absolute knowledge of all events and things in the universe; not merely the presently known universe. (Not that that isn't hard enough! :)

Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator).
Ergo: There is no universe.

Fun! But wrong. Assuming that there is no first cause, one could also conclude that the causality chain is infinite, or closed (ie. circular). Closed causality chains are great fun, and certainly smaller than an infinite and nebulous Prime Cause.

Apply Occam's Razor, and the least complex conclusion is:

Ergo: The universe caused itself.

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect.

Why is this must? Why is it not may?

An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

Unless He wanted us to figure it out for ourselves, and inspired competing religions to test us...


It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah, see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from www.netzarim.co.il)

Just for kicks, here is another example of "enduring documents of this kind:" The Rigveda; "one of the oldest extant texts of any Indo-European language..." http://en.wikipedia.org...


The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn't self-contradictory.

How did His Perfection become an established fact?
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 6:27:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 5:16:41 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
If there is a spiritual realm, its (spiritual) laws are certainly up for debate; science can hardly help us there, though... The point was that the Physical and the Spiritual are potentally two separate realms; it would be a fallacy to assume that the laws of one bind the other, or that they are in any way fundamentally connected.
But yet you believe that they are. Otherwise, how else could another being from the spirit realm, possibly affect this realm? How could God possibly affect this physical universe? Clearly you are making the claim that there is a connection.
Christianity posits that the physical is subordinate to the spiritual; not the other way around. Not that that makes it so; just

And this is the fundemental problem. You have to be honest and admit that your beliefs are baseless, and infact, contradict logic.

Theists are the ones who are making the assumptions. I agree, you couldnt possibly assume what sort of possible laws a spirit realm could, or could not have. But guess what? You coudlnt possibly assume that a spirit world, or any wordl outside this one, exists in the first place!

I claim otherwise.

Hmm. That was too easy. What other impossible things can I do before dinner?
I agree. Simply claiming "I dont agree" is too easy and simple an argument. Infact, it borders on a logical fallacy.
Why is it impossible to suppose that God has no location in space or time? That, perhaps, he is outside both? Or even, that He fills both, and exists even where they do not?
Again with the baseless assumptions. Did you not just say that it would be a fallacy to assume anything?
As I understand it, this last has been the orthodox position of Christianity.
As i understand it, this is a logically contradicting argument. Thanks.

Hey, youre right. That was easy.

On the contrary; if it is unobservable and unmeasurable, it is outside the realm of science to prove or disprove.

Not so. If something can be observed, then it clearly can be measured, even if it is a one time thing.

Miracles are physical events with spiritual causes. If a miracle happens, it is certainly observable. However, it would be impossible to prove that its cause is spiritual, as all you can observe is the physical effect.

Well, is there any reason to suspect that a spiritual cause is even present?

(Under this definition of miracles -which no-one is obligated to accept- it is my unsubstantiated opinion that all aspects of nature -from sunlight and gravity to life itself- are miraculous in nature. I won't burden you with my reasoning unless someone asks, though!)

Please, burden me with your reasoning. Infact, i insist.

By my definition, certainly; although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Why is the reverse not true?
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2009 7:43:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/29/2009 6:27:23 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 10/29/2009 5:16:41 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
If there is a spiritual realm, its (spiritual) laws are certainly up for debate; science can hardly help us there, though... The point was that the Physical and the Spiritual are potentally two separate realms; it would be a fallacy to assume that the laws of one bind the other, or that they are in any way fundamentally connected.
But yet you believe that they are. Otherwise, how else could another being from the spirit realm, possibly affect this realm? How could God possibly affect this physical universe? Clearly you are making the claim that there is a connection.

But not that they are the same, or that they operate by the same rules; which is what the original argument I was criticizing needed to be correct. I was not claiming they are unconnected. Nor am I claiming that there is a connection; I do not assert that anything spiritual exists. Only IF.

Christianity posits that the physical is subordinate to the spiritual; not the other way around. Not that that makes it so; just

And this is the fundamental problem. You have to be honest and admit that your beliefs are baseless, and infact, contradict logic.

My beliefs are baseless, in that their essence cannot be proven (in this life, at least. I may get a chance to find out if I am right later. :)

My belief do not contradict logic however. All A is B, all B is C, ergo all A is C is still logically correct even if the real-life verity of A is unknown. We can only say is such a case, that IF A is true, then all A is C in real life as well as the paper world of formal logic.

I only claim an If. I believe; I do not know.


Theists are the ones who are making the assumptions. I agree, you couldnt possibly assume what sort of possible laws a spirit realm could, or could not have. But guess what? You coudlnt possibly assume that a spirit world, or any wordl outside this one, exists in the first place!

Sigh. You CAN assume anything you want; that does not make it true or logical. Some people assume that they are Napoleon; the verity of their beliefs does not depend on their ability to assume.


I claim otherwise.

Hmm. That was too easy. What other impossible things can I do before dinner?
I agree. Simply claiming "I dont agree" is too easy and simple an argument. Infact, it borders on a logical fallacy.

This was not an argument, my confused friend; this was an example that proved your unsupported absolute statement, "one could not possibly claim otherwise," wrong.

Why is it impossible to suppose that God has no location in space or time? That, perhaps, he is outside both? Or even, that He fills both, and exists even where they do not?
Again with the baseless assumptions. Did you not just say that it would be a fallacy to assume anything?

Do you know what an assumption is?

These are questions. Asking, not positing. I ask you why these three alternate options to your claim are "impossible"?

As I understand it, this last has been the orthodox position of Christianity.
As i understand it, this is a logically contradicting argument. Thanks.

Hey, youre right. That was easy.

Chuckle. Glad you enjoyed it! :)

But again, it was not an argument. This goes with the above questions, asking why these particular positions on the location of God are impossible. I was merely clarifying here that one of these was the one called into question when we speak of the God of Christianity, rather than a faceless First Cause.


On the contrary; if it is unobservable and unmeasurable, it is outside the realm of science to prove or disprove.

Not so. If something can be observed, then it clearly can be measured, even if it is a one time thing.

Thank you for explaining that point. There is no disagreement here, and you don't seem to be contradicting my statement with this one. It was kind of you to elucidate our agreement on this point, perhaps some readers were confused.


Miracles are physical events with spiritual causes. If a miracle happens, it is certainly observable. However, it would be impossible to prove that its cause is spiritual, as all you can observe is the physical effect.

Well, is there any reason to suspect that a spiritual cause is even present?

It might depend on the miracle. If the Devil appears over Manhattan and ties the skyscrapers in knots, one might be forgiven for suspecting a spiritual cause for the resulting sheepshank.

All aspects of nature -from sunlight and gravity to life itself- are miraculous in nature. I won't burden you with my reasoning unless someone asks, though!

Please, burden me with your reasoning. Infact, i insist.

Begin with my (unproven) belief in God; unmeasurable, subtle, possessing power over every aspect of creation. He created all things; all energy, all life, all existence is from Him, granted by Him, and part of His essence.

If Physical events with spiritual causes = Miracles,
and all aspects of nature have a spiritual Cause,
ergo, all aspects of nature are miraculous. :D

Of course, this is only true in real life if my starting beliefs are true.

This is tangential to this thread. Moving on.


By my definition, certainly; although the reverse is not necessarily true.

Why is the reverse not true?

Read before you post. I said "not necessarily true." The word is there for a reason.

For the reason, see the beginning of this comment.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2009 9:26:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Great post I like the fact its close to falun gong
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable