|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 14, 2002 16:05:26 GMT -5
I am not saying that it means anything different that what it says. You are. Big difference.
It says to hate your family, and yet it is you who are re-interpreting it to say that it doesn't mean that.
You've yet to name a contemporary historian, and the gospels are anonymous, written long after the alleged event. As such, there is no way to evaluate the credibility of such writers.
If you actually learn about what hearsay is and its function regarding testimony, you'd understand it's not credible, and not usable. Only eyewitness testimony can be used. As you've yet to provide a contemporary historian (not all too surprising), your argument rests on nothing.
Hearsay evidence- “evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath”.
In order to evaluate hearsay you must evaluate the source. What sources did these non-contemporary historians get their information? What are their sources? We have no clue, and can’t evaluate it. For all we know they could be repeating stories told by drunks.
In addition, based upon contradictory accounts and errors, we can reject the gospels (with not just their anonymity and significant passage of time, which automatically makes them suspect). So I repeat: can you provide me with a contemporary historian, Tim?
Who says our strongest leaders don't get corrupted? And if they do, who's to say an even stronger being (I notice that you disregard Tillich's bit of god not being "a being" here. Consistency amongst yourself would be nice) can't become corrupted? After all, unless you say "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is false, in which case you shouldn't have used it to begin with, then that poses a problem for a omnipotent figure such as a god, which, as far as I recall, is the only thing given the quality of omnipotence.
Why wouldn't god want to get corrupted? Are you claiming to know this supposedly infinite being? And people don't only become corrupt out of need. Many corrupt people become corrupt due to WANTS and DESIRES.
Yes, you are re-defining god to suit your needs. By first defining god as "ultimate reality", which is a pantheistic position, not a Christian one. Second, if one were to show that the universe was eternal, by your own incomplete definition you would then proceed to label the universe as god (Which is also re-defining). Next, your article of Tillich says that all existence rests upon god. You've already used this bit. Now, unless you wish to retract it, that IS what you've been using, which is the standard presuppositionist argument. Such a view is not possible to falsify. As to your new claim, that existence can only be triggered by god, you're simply assuming things, and relying upon a god of the gaps fallacy. It's no different than people who thought illness was caused by demons.
Nor can you define god into existence, which you are doing. By defining god as ultimate reality, there is no way to falsify your position. No matter what anyone argues, you will always simply say "I define god as ultimate reality, therefore god exists!". This is arbitrary, and destroys any distinction of theism and atheism, which makes it incoherent. As such, if you can play the definition game, so can I and anyone else. Until you come up with a falsifible definition of god that explains what god is in a coherent fashion, the definition game is being played.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 14, 2002 16:06:41 GMT -5
See above. In addition, it's a non-sequitir to say causality can be without existence. Causality PRESUPPOSES existence. You cannot have causality without existence, which is why existence itself doesn't need a causal explanation! You destroy the context in which causality is based, thus undercutting your very argument!
Just as existence is a causal primary, matter is a metaphysical primary. Matter is unconditional- as inductively we have never observed the creation nor destruction of matter- it does not depend on anything for its existence. Your use of "contingent existence" and "creation" involves various equivocation fallacies. When one says something has been brought about, or caused, we are saying that it has come from pre-existing materials, which is the metaphysical primary, matter. When we say something has ceased to be, it has changed the composition of the matter composing it, but it has in neither case involved the creation nor destruction of matter. The only real meaningful sense "contingent existence" bears is that a given thing within the universe has a certain form- this form could be different given different causal conditions- but that everything still is based upon something which does not depend on anything. As such, in the proper context, everything necessarily exists.
See above. As we are still learning about the Big Bang, we do not know everything about it yet. In addition, at best all that it shows is that the universe AS WE KNOW IT TO BE began. If you understand contingent existence in the proper fashion, you'll find science doesn't help you in the least. Not too surprisingly of course, you, like many other theists, posit god for something that is not completely explained.
As I stated before, you're the *FIRST* Tillichite I've come across. I have debated pantheists on an occasion or two, which believe approximately the same thing, but I haven't had an encounter with one such as you. And secondly, why would I think all theists think alike, when there's for one many different religions, and just by narrowing it to Christianity, involves choosing from various denominations that each use different approaches of belief? Hmm?
Considering I have yet to get a complete, coherent, falsifible definition and view of god that doesn't play the definition game, as well as non-circular and fallacious arguments, to which I have responded as to why they don't work, I would recommend you not be so quick to criticize me.
Began time as we know it. Whether or not time existed prior to the Big Bang is a moot point, and non-falsifible in either position. Existence itself only undercuts your argument, so you're best not using such a fallacious argument. In addition, I distinctly recall hearing you say the only thing we truly know is Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum" statement. I should point out that universal skepticism does exist and denies that there is an external world.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 14, 2002 16:07:11 GMT -5
As I pointed out, it destroys your argument that existence requires a causal explanation. Existence is a causal primary which doesn't need an explanation because it makes explanations possible.
Now, let's examine the infinite regress of causes for a moment. Is such possible? While a causal primary is needed for causality to begin with, there needn't be a first cause. If existence has no beginning, then change and causality, which follow from it, is not hard to similiar conclude.
I've seen an objection to this that a first cause is necessary for a second cause, which is needed for a third cause, and so on. But this objection invokes flagrant question begging. They're assuming a first cause, the very thing they're trying to prove. In addition, if existence is indeed infinite, and has no beginning, you cannot arbitrarily assign a finite beginning and proceed sequentially. Even if we cannot assign numerical descriptions of such events, it does not mean such cannot occur.
Now, a little problem is that by positing god you also encounter an infinite regress. What caused god to begin the Big Bang? Did he have a reason, or did it have no reason, or just accidenally did it? If he had a reason, what cause this reason? And so on ad infinitum?
If you object saying god, being omniscient, already knows what to do, then god is not a thinking, reasoning being. It simply does things, without reason or desire.
In addition, if you adhere to causality in the sense that every effect or event must have a cause, this is death to free will. By doing such, you've gone into the camp of determinism. If you instead cling to free will, by saying not everything event requires a causal explanation, then it's also possible to say the universe doesn't need a cause.
|
|
celticshiva
RPG Townie
"Cross me once, shame on you. Cross me twice, shame on me." --Mr. Scott
Posts: 296
|
Post by celticshiva on Nov 14, 2002 17:23:07 GMT -5
Hm.. sleepytemplar may have touched on what I'm about to say, but he sometimes uses big words that are over my head ^-^.
I have a question here... With the above quote your saying that existance needs a causeless cause to create it in order to exist. Dosn't that statement contradict itself? This 'causeless cause' (IE God) exists.. and therefore it needs a causeless cause to exist in order to create it, and therefore, God cannot be causeless and it therefore could not create the existance.
For what its worth, I do believe the universe to be eternal and this whole 'how did the universe come to be?' is a false question. This is a belief held in buddhism, although I'm not totally buddhist. However, I DO recognize my beliefs are falsiflible (sp?) and if they can be proven to be incorrect I will revise or eliminate the belief =).
The only things that are eternal are consiousness and the universe, and they don't exist separatly, but are co-dependant. Consiousness 'shapes' the universe and the universe has to be there to hold Consiousness. I suppose this thought COULD be streached so that Cosiousness is God in the sence that Consiousness is causless and it shapes the universe (but dosn't create it, they co-exist.. can't have one without the other.), but that's really pushing it because then we'd ALL be gods.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Nov 14, 2002 17:52:28 GMT -5
[Random Comment] In my opinion, when it comes to a religious standpoint, there are two kinds of people.
1) A person who beileves, and asks "Why not?" 2) A person who doesn't beileve, and asks "Why?"
|
|
Tool 666
RPG Townie
Remember, we are eternal, all this pain is an illusion...
Posts: 130
|
Post by Tool 666 on Nov 14, 2002 19:42:54 GMT -5
Paul, you should know that that's just basic generalisation. Nevertheless, it's still funny .
Anyway, in physics, we knw that everything we beleive about the way everything works is false. The chances of all our laws being correct are about the same as the chances of sticking jelly (jell-o to you yanks) to a cieling wih staples. Nevertheless, what we have here is a was to explain things without touching on a "divine conciousness" that controls/oversees everything.
Consider this (one of my only beleifs): IF there ever was a God, He's long gone. At the time of "creation," He created everything, then pissed off to let his creation take shape. If in fact it WERE controlled, it wouldn't exist, because it's impossible to control something without changing it. Changing the world, or the universe at large, would destroy it, because it only exists because it's in perfect balance and harmony.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Nov 14, 2002 23:24:16 GMT -5
Basic Generalization = teh r0x0r ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tim Not signed in on Nov 15, 2002 5:48:03 GMT -5
[Random Comment] In my opinion, when it comes to a religious standpoint, there are two kinds of people. 1) A person who beileves, and asks "Why not?" 2) A person who doesn't beileve, and asks "Why?" Well, I would dispute that I am a believer and I ask 'why'? The same goes for any believer so s0xx0rs be to you!
|
|
|
Post by Tim Not Signed in on Nov 15, 2002 5:50:34 GMT -5
Hm.. sleepytemplar may have touched on what I'm about to say, but he sometimes uses big words that are over my head ^-^. I have a question here... With the above quote your saying that existance needs a causeless cause to create it in order to exist. Dosn't that statement contradict itself? This 'causeless cause' (IE God) exists.. and therefore it needs a causeless cause to exist in order to create it, and therefore, God cannot be causeless and it therefore could not create the existance. It doesn't contradict itself. God doesn't need to cause it self because it is uncaused. It is outside of time, outside of contingency, and therefore has no need for cause. For what its worth, I do believe the universe to be eternal and this whole 'how did the universe come to be?' is a false question. This is a belief held in buddhism, although I'm not totally buddhist. However, I DO recognize my beliefs are falsiflible (sp?) and if they can be proven to be incorrect I will revise or eliminate the belief =). The only things that are eternal are consiousness and the universe, and they don't exist separatly, but are co-dependant. Consiousness 'shapes' the universe and the universe has to be there to hold Consiousness. I suppose this thought COULD be streached so that Cosiousness is God in the sence that Consiousness is causless and it shapes the universe (but dosn't create it, they co-exist.. can't have one without the other.), but that's really pushing it because then we'd ALL be gods.[/quote]
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 15, 2002 8:39:52 GMT -5
I am not saying that it means anything different that what it says. You are. Big difference. The easiest way to discredit something is to look at it in its simplest possible form. In Galations is reads 'there is no male or female'. What a stupid thing to say! Of course there is! Therefore, the bible is wrong. What the passage is describing when he speaks of hate, is a dislike. A dislike for the sinful behaviour of your peers. One must first realise how bad the real world really is in order to realise how good the true path is. Today, one might laugh at an insensitive joke. But in order to realise it is wrong, you must know that it is wrong. It could mean anything from hating how your family act to why they act that way. I don't think you have grasped the idea of an event happening before newspapers. People who witnessed Jesus wrote the event down after it happened, some when they are older and saw it as important only later in their life, some believed the appocalypse was coming in their times so didn't bother to write it down until much later, and historians wouldn't have been able to account for it until they'd met many witnesses. There is so much more evidence for Jesus that there is for many other historical figures you believe are true, it is simply because you disagree what he stood for that you do not want him to have existed. The problem is that if there WAS a contemporary historian, you would now be argueing that there shouldn't have been one, and that because there was one it was obvious to be made up at the time because historians in that historical context didn't write about such events until long after anyway. Um, just because Tillich is a christian also it doesn't mean that I agree with him on all points, so Im not inconsistent. Absolute power corrupts absolutely was simply there to suggest that generally when people come into power they tend to become corrupted more easily, which hopefully you agree with it. Don't turn everything I say into a big contest. Of which GOD has NONE. Why would GOD want to exploit us for his own needs if he has them all accounted for? Stop saying thats how I'm defining him! How many times do I have to tell you that that is not how I define him?!? Um... no I wouldn't.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 15, 2002 8:40:18 GMT -5
You misunderstand completely. I am saying that existence is impossible without a causeless being using deductive logic. Now, if there was no existence we could not be certain of the existence of God (but then, we couldn't get into that position anyway). But the FACT is, SOMETHING exists. At the very least, I exist because I am thinking.
Your arguments are wrought with misunderstandings of my arguments. Stop saying ultimate reality. The only way that you can argue against my argument is by telling us that a) Nothing exists b) The Universe is the brute fact
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 15, 2002 9:01:12 GMT -5
See above. In addition, it's a non-sequitir to say causality can be without existence. Causality PRESUPPOSES existence. You cannot have causality without existence, which is why existence itself doesn't need a causal explanation! You destroy the context in which causality is based, thus undercutting your very argument! In no way does it do this. Existence is contingent. Existence cannot cause its own existence without being existent before it caused its own existence which is illogical! The only way something can be existent is if it has always been that way. Now because all existence relies on something existent before its existence in order to exist, then as we go backwards we realise that one of two things are true. a) Eventually, something will have been eternally existent, breaking the chain of existence relying on previous existence b) Existence relies on existence which relies on existence, etc. An infinite regress of finite events. Now, if b is not true, then a is true. and if a is not true then b is true. Disjunct. Now, inductively through science we can see that existence began. An explosion, which caused the start of existence. But this is not an infinite series of finite events since it does not stretch back infinitely. And since this explosion was the beggining of time, and therefore contingency, then whatever caused such an explosion caused time (and therefore is outside of time, and outside of contingency). This breaks the chain of existence relying upon other existence thereby proving that option (a) is the true one.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 15, 2002 12:32:36 GMT -5
I have a question here... With the above quote your saying that existance needs a causeless cause to create it in order to exist. Dosn't that statement contradict itself? This 'causeless cause' (IE God) exists.. and therefore it needs a causeless cause to exist in order to create it, and therefore, God cannot be causeless and it therefore could not create the existance. No, because the moment you get a causeless cause you dont need any more causes anymore because it is causeless. Well thats a always a plus. The problem is, is that scientifically the universe isn't infinite. So either it was caused by something, it caused itself or it appeared spontaneously. Meh.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 15, 2002 12:40:15 GMT -5
Now, a little problem is that by positing god you also encounter an infinite regress. What caused god to begin the Big Bang? Did he have a reason, or did it have no reason, or just accidenally did it? If he had a reason, what cause this reason? And so on ad infinitum? Its not like it took him time to decide to do this. After all, being a timeless being, the universe would have exploded into existence straight away. In addition, if you adhere to causality in the sense that every effect or event must have a cause, this is death to free will. By doing such, you've gone into the camp of determinism. If you instead cling to free will, by saying not everything event requires a causal explanation, then it's also possible to say the universe doesn't need a cause.[/quote] Death to free will. Determinism is the highly held stance by scientists, and I agree (not because scientists say so but because I observe that cause and effect are natural partners - an eternal correlation within time) That is, if the body is unaugmented by the influence of an outside agent.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Nov 15, 2002 20:02:25 GMT -5
So your basically saying "Everything needs God, except God, 'cause God is God and therefore doesn't need God 'cause he's God"?
|
|