Mind refers to the collective aspects of intellect and consciousness which are manifest in some combination of thought, perception, emotion, will and imagination.

Intellect is related to the physical abilities of the brain which is conscious.

Does "matter" have experiences?  Or does "life/mind"?  How about memories?  Does matter experience memories?  Or is that mind too?  How about creativity?  Curiosity?  Does matter solve problems and seek beauty and crave understanding?  How about self-preservation?  Does matter act to preserve its forms?  Why does a body readily decompose the minute the mind/life no longer "lives" in it?  I know all about evolution... don't miss the point here.  What kind of thing ever pushes and pulls on systems of matter for its own purposes?  What kind of thing has to find and share a word for a concept like "purpose"?

I would have thought that contrasting "observer" with "observable" would have clarified this basic distinction long ago.  A distinction in "kind," which to a monist boils down to a vast difference in "degree."  Kind or degree of what?  What is the substance of reality?  Well, whatever it is, it includes mind. 

From what I hear, and from what I've experienced, it seems the only known way to truly merge the observer/observable is through a mystical/spiritual experience... like being "able to see the mirror and the reflection and their unity, all at the same time." (thanks, Breath).  Materialist claims that "it shall someday be clear that mind IS only a product of the brain" are missing the essence of the distinction.  There's a way out for them, but "matter" has to change its meaning.  By the way, the terms mystical and spiritual convey a useful meaning too... nothing else comes close.  So please try to refrain from letting them trigger vigorous anti-religious sentiment.  It does not apply here.
 
When we speak of matter, we mean one kind of thing.  When we speak of "I," we mean another kind of thing.  A thing that holds all "beliefs and knowledge" about any and all other kinds of things (and itself!), whether those other things are material or immaterial.  For all those other things, we say "my...", as in "my brain" and "my nerves" and "my hand," or even "my memories" and "my hopes."  We even say, "my mind" (itself!).  My self.  With apparent boundaries.  For some reason.  For now.   

Once you've grasped the distinction, and realized that no matter how perfectly we ascertain the correlations between an observable brain and an observer mind, the crucial part of the distinction remains... there are a few options.

You can choose to believe that a mental entity is still somehow reducible to a physical entity (this is called "matter of the gaps&quot, OR that physical entities are somehow reducible to mental entities (but this requires the concept of a shared continuum of life/mind, like Max Planck's Mind), OR that both are somehow reducible to something far more complicated than either (at least as big as Mind), and yet quite flexible in expression (having at least all possible qualities of everything we can possibly experience, physical or mental, now or much much later in animal evolution).  I "opt" for "option" 2 or 3.  There are probably even more options, but they only get wilder still. 
 
I am now "being" a wee little critter limited by my bodily form/interface to experiencing 4 dimensions of this particular universe.  Wooo wooo    But the fact remains.  When exactly did human animals decide that our present intellectual and experiential (sensory) limitations were limitations on the sum total of reality?  Not likely.

Otherwise, it means absolutely nothing, to absolutely no one.  If matter itself can "know meaning," then matter must be made of mindstuff too.  May-haps... per-be.

To move something else is to move yourself, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, there can be no unmoved mover.

There may be an infinite regress of causes, and there may be uncaused events. Neither posibility is very palatable, but one or the other has to be true. But unless one of those posibilities can be ruled out, we can't conclude that the other is true. Saying, "I don't like infinite regress, so there must be a first cause," is not a stronger argument than saying the opposite.

The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of
conservation of mass-energy because these enigmatic quntum flux's only exist for brief periods of time, much less than the Planck time, 10^(-43) sec. There is a temporary suspension-violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle, DxDp >= hbar/2, and thus, has no impact on the observed macroscopic laws. The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. It
allows for the "Casimir effect" and Hawking radiation.

The basic point concerning Hawking radiation, is that the idea of
"vacuum" and also the notion of particles loses their meaning in the presence of a dynamic quantum background. Incoming modes of the quantum field are redshifted while propagating through the collapsing geometry, which is why the quantum state of the outgoing modes is different. The incoming state is a vacuum state while the outgoing state contains particles.

The negative energy flux decreases the mass of the black hole, and becomes equivalent to a positive energy flux of Hawking radiation at infinity.

It seems that the vacuum expectation value of the energy-momentum of the quantum field is negative near the horizon, analogous to a flux of negative energy into the hole and gives the heuristic basis for the the pictorial interpretation of the black hole radiation, explained as one particle of a virtual pair falling into the black hole, and enabling the other partner to become real and escape to infinity, allowing it to be observed as Hawking radiation.

Temperature T, is constant on a body in thermal equilibrium and the surface gravity k, is constant on the horizon of a black hole. The area of the horizon is related to the measure of its entropy S.

dE = TdS - pdV + (mu)dN

dE = (kc^2)dA/(8piG) + (omega)dJ - (phi)dq

dS >= 0

dA >= 0

A temperature of absolute zero cannot be reached.

A surface gravity of zero cannot be reached.

Unruh's law:
Accelerating observers see themselves as bathed in a gas of hot
photons, with temperature proportional to their acceleration.

Space can be hypothesized as a type of conductor, yet not a type of "medium", lest we revive the "lumeniferous ether".

e is the permittivity of free space and u is the permeability of free
space, epsilon and mu respectively.

E = mc^2

c^2 = 1/(eu)

E/m = 1/(eu)

The ratio of ([total energy]/mass) = 1/(eu)

(eu) would of course remain "ivariant" while observing from inertial reference frames but the E and m values would individually vary, yet vary in tandem producing a constant "c"
or 1/(eu) .

1/(eu) = (Ds/Dt)^2 , Ds and Dt would also vary in tandem, depending upon relative velocity.

Ds/(eu)^(1/2) = Dt

It seems that the permittivity and permeability of free space would not change, thus the "curvature" of space-time is independent of the conductivity of electromagnetism in space.

The controversial physicist Lee Smolin, wrote this interesting idea in the book:

"Three Roads to Quantum Gravity"

Yeah, I'm not sure what to think about absolute nothingness anymore; my brain once screwed around with and thrust into consciousness a crazy idea on the subject, adequately crazy that I haven't been able to rule it out.

Absolute nothingness is seen to be impossible, a logical contradiction, so nothingness was never the case to begin with and thus the universe/multiverse could not have been created ex nihilo. Of course, doesn't this line of reasoning rely on the very laws of logic which would fail to describe, "contain", or be "contained" within the state of absolute nothingness in the first place?

It's initially tempting, because of the strangeness of the subject and the lack of any sensible way to talk about it, to start asking whether capital-N Nothingness would be "deterministic" or "non-deterministic", but either of those would be attributing properties to something which doesn't have any properties at all. How do you discuss something which lacks any and all properties? Could you even say that Nothingness has the "property" of having no properties?

Anyway, it seems to be the case that the laws of logic wouldn't govern Nothingness, since if they did, the aforementioned laws themselves would still be said to exist, which wouldn't really be absolute nothingness. What happens at that point? Well, sans laws of logic, I guess anything could, and would, necessarily happen, and yet not happen, all at once. Odd, but this would also allow for the sudden ex nihilo creation of our known laws of logic and the reality they govern.

The current understanding of cosmology suggests that the multiverse features a near-infinite number of universes in which every logical possibility takes place, but it looks to be that if there had ever been Nothingness, the immediate everything-and-nothing-going-on-at-once would entail a multi-multiverse in which what we would understand as logical impossibilities would also all take place in some unrecognizably warped universes, along with all logical possibilities in our known universes.

I don't mean this as a challenge: I'd really like for someone to shoot down this silly and uncomfortable idea, if you please. Of course, not merely by virtue of its absurdity, because it's obviously the most ridiculous concept (un)imaginable, but actually find a way to rationally rule it out entirely. Naturally, just because things could have theoretically popped up out of Nothing like this doesn't necessarily mean that they must have, but that's hardly good enough to rule it out.

For myself, I'd like to be convinced that the laws of logic are merely a description of how things appear to work, rather than a prescription of how things will necessarily work. That's my Obi-wan Kenobi right now, and he's my only hope, heh.

As the instantiation of all possibilities and impossibilities somewhere in some tract of Existence implies the reality of a vengeful, hateful, sadistic psychopath of a god devilering sentient beings into an eternity of torment in "Hell", presumably featuring levels of pain which only an all-powerful god can inflict, I really don't care for this hypothesis. Somebody kill it.

The universe is all there is. There's no such thing of outside the universe. A god without timespace is absurd.

you admit this is a philosophical view that makes the most sense to you. And I can see where Relativity helps us to better understand using a 'block view' where all events, past present and future, coexist within a single 4D spacetime. But to take this tool of understanding literally means all arrangements of matter and energy from the big bang to the present and all possible arrangements of matter to come coexist in equal standing, each to be considered equally real is just to mind boggling to get my mind around. Where does all the energy and matter from the BB to the ultimate future come from so that the past, present, and future can sustain this equally real coexistence? Coexisting in the sense that one can jump backwards or forward within a space/time continuum and actually see and measure the arrangement of matter and energy of those times. Given the means, it implies time jumps are actually possible.

When I look at a galaxy a billion light years away, I consider the light that hits my eyes as old news, since I feel confident that the galaxy has changed position in 1 billion years. From your view I would have to accept that the light hitting my eyes is just as current and real as wherever that galaxy might be now. Unbelievable. Then again, who knows, your view might be the answer to all the missing dark energy and dark matter.

In Michio Kaku's Book, Hyperspace, he details many fascinating concepts about space, hyperspace, and theoretical physics.  I'm sure there are more recent works, but this is the book that came out right before Stargate (the movie), and Sliders (in the first episode, Quinn Mallory is asleep with Michio Kaku's Hyperspace covering his face).  This is the book that really popularized wormholes.

There are theoretical physicists out there who believe they have worked out how to create functional, stable wormholes.  Some of these proposed wormholes could potentially allow travel through time.  Steven Hawking's view of wormholes potentially includes travel between universes.

They've worked out the math for warping space-time, but can't do so today for a few reasons.  First, the energy required to test this is far beyond what mankind is capable of producing today.  Second, some of the theories require "exotic matter" which doesn't seem to break any laws of physics, but which scientists don't know how to produce at this time.  Third, there may be practical issues that prevent the experiment from being feasible (will the radiation output of the wormhole prevent the wormhole, or make it too dangerous).  Fourth, it might destroy the researchers, research facility, Earth, Universe, Multi-Verse, or something.  Ripping holes in space-time sounds like risky business.

The cosmological argument is supposed to deal with where everything came from, not just where some things came from. Only if universe, means "everything that exists," is it appropriate to discuss where the universe came from in a cosmological argument. Otherwise, we aren't dealing with ultimate origins. If universe, only means "some stuff, but not everything," it is not of interest. The origin of that kind of universe is at best a midpoint, not an ultimate origin.

But even that kind of universe (a partaverse, as opposed to an allaverse) has lots of contents, its causes could be myriad. Different parts of the universe could have been caused by different uncaused causes. So this version of the cosmological argument, even if it worked, could in no way suggest a single uncaused first cause.

The only way a first cause proponent might defeat this problem would be to define universe, as, "everything but the single uncaused first cause." But that would be arbitrary and self-serving, and would make the argument circular: the conclusion would be the same as the premise, so nothing would be proved.

I am not moved by your motion.

What about the movers not in motion?
Couldn't there be an infinite regression of things moved by movers not in motion?

Why would an infinite regression be impossible?

To make the reason clear, I'll employ a conversation Beavis and Butthead may have had one day about dogs:

Beavis: Hey Butthead, did you know that there are hairless dogs?
Butthead: You dumbass, Beavis, there aren't any hairless dogs.
Beavis: Yeah there are. I think they have them in Mexico or something.
Butthead: No Beavis, there are no hairless dogs. See, I know, because my dog Pantera has hair. And, you know... he's a dog. And he has hair.
Beavis: Oh yeah.

And.... scene.

You see the problem in the logic? You can't counter the claim, "Some A are B," with, "Some A are not B."

That said, the Casimir Effect itself may have a cause, (you've gotta bring the two plates close together,) but the quantum fluctuations that bring it about do not.

A God is anything one wishes it to be.

If God must be responsible for the creation of our universe because of its complexity, then who is responsible for creating the Creator because of His complexity?

IF this is true: (IF Complex, THEN Designed)
THEN, this is true: (IF God=Complex, THEN God=Designed)

If you have to start adding post-hoc "exception clauses" for God in order to make the statement "IF Complex, THEN Designed" true, then perhaps the "IF Complex, THEN Designed" theistic logic isn't such a good foundation.

It think a better analogy, as I remember from my Bible School when I was but a young'in, would be of an triangle—the three angles represent the three beings, that are separate yet part of the same object, the triangle.

However, it would be most instructive to remember why there is the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is never defined in the Bible, but instead it was created around AD 300, to settle a dispute on whether Christ, being God’s begotten Son, would have at one point not existed, so he could be begotten by God, and whether Christ was created by God, and so inferior to God.

So to make a long story short, the idea of Trinity is central to the idea of Christianity merely because one group of bishops outvoted another group of bishops.

Let's put this in perspective. There is a pretty complete understanding of physics, a consensus view among the vast majority of physicists, called the Standard Model. This model describes everything we see around us, from the tinyest constituents of matter and forces, up through atoms, molecules, proteins, life, weather, stars, giant molecular cloud complexes, star clusters, globular clusters, mini-galaxies, galaxies, giant galaxies, to clusters and superclusters of galaxies. It describes the universe when it was well under a microsecond old, and consistently describes everything that has happened since, including all of those things I mentioned. All of it. Every single bit. No questions, no doubts. No dispute. And if you're accepting evolution (and by the way, I see no conflict- all that is necessary is that you accept that the Bible is not literally true, even though this seems to be a big step for some folks we have over here in the US) then you're accepting all that, too.

Now, that means that what we don't know about is what happened before the first millionth of a second; everything for the thirteen some-odd billion years after that we have all figured out. You with me here? So it's kind of like saying that we don't know where you came from because we can't track that exact path of that exact spermatozooan to that precise egg. You with me here?

So now we're past that, I also have to tell you that we have a pretty strong theory about what happened during that first millionth of a second, too- it's called "inflation." It was originally a joke reference to economic inflation, which was going on at the time. Basically what it says is that the universe entered a state in which it expanded exponentially- that is, faster and faster- until it blew up what was then the size of a grapefruit to the size of everything we can see for thirteen billion light years in every direction away from us. Then, after everything had expanded like that, the field that was making it do that decayed- and you can imagine how much energy such a field had to have contained. So when it decayed, it dumped all its energy into space- and when that happened, it all turned into energy and matter, and it was very very hot and very very dense. So then things continued to expand, but at a very leisurely pace compared to the inflation that went before. And surprisingly enough, we find that there are several characteristics of the universe that we can't account for any other way, with one recent and not very well-developed exception, something called the "colliding branes model." But this exception isn't very well developed yet, and it's very very constrained- there's a pretty good chance we'll find something that will eliminate it in the next few years.

So now what we realize is that the Big Bang theory isn't really a theory of the actual origin of the universe, it's just a theory about how the universe was when it was a millionth of a second old. And there was something before that, called the "Inflationary universe theory." So now we're suspicious: is this the theory of the actual origin of the universe?

Good question! The answer is, "no." In fact, we don't have enough information to make a theory of the actual origin of the universe; we have a couple of conjectures (educated guesses) that, if we can find a way to get some evidence for or against them, we might be able to promote into hypotheses, that eventually we might be able to gather enough evidence for to promote into theories. The "colliding branes" idea actually says that the universe is infinite in time, and that it never had a beginning, just these colliding branes every so often that winds up in another Big Bang.

But not too long after the invention of the Inflationary Universe Scenario, someone came up with a way that that inflationary field could come about from a vacuum fluctuation in something called a "de Sitter space." Such a space is completely empty, and in fact might not even have space or time dimensions they way we understand them. So this de Sitter space really is much more like "truly nothing" than anything we have now, even empty space. And this looks very, very much like a description of creation ex nihilo, truly from nothing, with nothing coming before. Not even time or space.

This de Sitter space should still be there, but we can't see it past our dimensions. It might be eternal, or there might be some creation event associated with it, too; and in fact, there might be other universes embedded in this de Sitter space, but we'd have no way to get to them; the laws of physics as we know them prolly wouldn't exist in such a space, so if we tried to "cross over" to another universe, we'd prolly die. In fact, we might completely cease to exist- or we might form vacuum flucuation kernels that might start other universes, and maybe even damage or destroy ours.

But nobody's figured a way to check, so this is all just a conjecture; but it's a good guess, given what we know right now. We'll continue to gather more information, and there are even a few ideas floating around about some evidence we might see soon from an instrument called LIGO at the U of W, and a new piece of equipment at CERN called the LHC that might give us a look into some new energy ranges that will take us a bit deeper into that first millionth of a second of the universe's existence. So the story's not all told yet; but it's getting there. Stay tuned.

It does.

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future

By this concept/principle inre time/the continuum of time, the universe [space/time/physics—m/e] is infinite in duration.

Thus space is infinite in volume/size and in duration/time.

Your comment is not actually relevant to either.

It is of course logically false for an atheist to claim that God has done anything, since no-one can logically believe that something which they believe does not exist can have the power to act.

Whatever 'red herrings' you may produce, the simple fact is that neither christianity (nor even 'Catholics&#39 have been responsible for most of the deaths in war and mass murders over the last 100 years or so. The 'honour' for that belongs firmly to atheists irrespective of any excuse they might make, although I cannot believe that Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot would appeal to any supposed biblical authority (although I do accept that someone with a very muddled view of 'destiny' like Hitler just might!)

So as not to be accused of avoiding the issue raised however, I shall comment on your point.

You seem to be saying that biblical scripture implies that if God allows someone to be in charge, they can do whatever they choose and that is God's fault and not theirs. They are in effect not personally accountable for their actions, because God has given them the potential to act in this manner by allowing them to have their personal power.

Apart form any logical falsehood in such a proposition, it is not what either Old or New Testament teaches. What is actually taught is that you should obey God (and his law) first and that providing that that is not contravened you should obey human leaders. This means that if you are a christian you have to use the free will given to you to decide what to do in difficult circumstances, where you cannot possibly obey both human leaders and God's laws. Note that judgment and scale of response also have to be used (God did not give us those powers for nothing). For instance you do not start riots for minor matters with all the associated damage and risk of injury(nor even burn down abortion clinics however seriously wrong you might believe abortion to be) as the 'treatment' may well be at least as great an infringement of Godly prinicples as 'the disease'. At the other end of the scale, you may however have to go to war against those who would commit genocide either internally or externally to the society in which you live.

By allowing free will, God does permit a limited amount of evil to be perpetrated by people for a period. One logically implies the other. If you were not to permit any evil to take place you would have to remove the ability for people to choose to do it, by taking away their free will and creating automata.

It is interesting to note that (despite all the odds) Hitler did not succeed and ended as a demoralised physical wreck who committed suicide, although still bringing appalling consequences to his fellow Germans for years afterwards. Both Stalin and Pol Pot are now almost universally despised even by (or perhaps particularly by) their own people. Pol Pot died from a heart attack and lack of medical care whilst the cause of Stalin's death is controversial and many believe he was murdered. In China Mao Tse Tung died of a heart attack, as a broken man having failed to achieve his desire for both China and the rest of the world. China now is very critical of Mao and is undoing most of his legacy very rapidly.

The biblical view is that those who stand fast for what is right (and therefore of God) against what is wrong (and therefore what is against God) will prevail ultimately. This may mean standing against civil authorities if those authorities are themselves seriously against what is right. Those who stand for right may succeed within their lifetime or not. There are some recent examples such as Nelson Mandela against apartheid South Africa (in his lifetime) or such as Martin Luther King and black civil rights in the USA (after his murder). Another way to look at this is that God does not condone evil but knowing it will happen, uses it to His own purposes.

I believe that one of the reasons human beings love stories like 'The Lord of the Rings' is that the concept of evil prevailing for a period but then ultimately being overturned by good (usually with the assistance of very ordinary type people - even children) is because this reflects the much greater epic story of real life and is therefore programmed into us as a form of inate knowledge (although we can as always suppress our knowledge of it or pretend it is something else).

But there is a serious problem with this. Religion ramps up disparities of all sorts. Many very wealth people are wealthy partly as a result of their membership in churches. They may actually believe in the religion and get wealthier at the same time. Causality is possibly not provable, but what is open to examination is the content of their religious beliefs.
Looking through the holy books which were all written at a time when society was more or less primative we find God setting certain men above other men. When you actually believe you are the chosen one or one of the chosen ones, and you live in extravagant comfort and all seems well to you year after year, you believe with a bit more conviction. It slips the mind that your comfort is always at the expense of the lesser members of your society. Wealthy people so often actually believe it is their place and duty to separate the wealth from the workers who produce it for themselves.

The fairy tales in the books they claim to believe in seem to allow for their actions. The laws allow it. The people allow it. When they go into confessional, they don't even regard their greatest transgressions against their fellow men as sins, hence as Jesus suggested, we see very few camels threading through the eyes of needles. It all seems so set in stone. It is a frustration to live with predatory capitalism supported by religion.

The message of holy scriptures is that one is forgiven his sins and that this forgiveness is the key to eternally dwelling in paradise. For wealthy Christians, this means more of the same in material terms. The man who finds himself on the bottom of the dogpile reads the scriptures and only imagines. He knows it has to be better than what he has, and he is going nowhere in this life...well on to the next. So he keeps his place.

If the holy story content were different then society would be different. Just suppose the story said that God has only one thing in mind for ALL humans after death...eternal damnation and torture. We are his to process and slaughter like pigs in the slaughter house and we all know NO PIG IN A SLAUGHTER HOUSE IS CHOSEN for anything other than the quality of their meat. Now we are all in this together with an industrious god who hates humans. How differently would we treat each other?

I was brought up in mainstream Protestant churches (Methodist and Presbyterian), and we were taught that Catholicism is a form of Christianity. I was also taught that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses were cults. Now I lump them all together as Christians in that they believe, in some way, that Jesus Christ is "Lord" (whatever that means). Some are mainstream, and some are not, but, to me, they all fall under the umbrella of Christianity.

So to answer the question in the title of the original post, Catholicism is a subset of Christianity.

Most of these associations come from Papias via Eusebius, however even Ehrman doubts the reliability of these claims. Papias described a gospel the Gospel of Matthew as only a collection of Jesus' sayings. Was Papias referring to the version of Matthew we have today or was he referring to another sayings gospel which has since been lost. Papias' testimony is so unreliable and we don't have any of his writings except through Eusebius' quotations, that are questionable in and of themself.

For instance, did the now Catholic Euseubius quote Papias as saying that Mark was Peter's student to give some sort of Papal authority to the older synoptic Gospel?

I have, at least, to choose which hell I want to escape. The wager is no help in this situation. There are a few thousands christian denominations that offer hell for nonbelievers, so the risk is very high, and it is very unlikely to make the correct decision.

It is really very hard for me to believe that an intelligent adult believes that there are unicorns. I don't mean sculptures of unicorns; I don't mean paintings of unicorns; I don't mean unicorn-ideas. I mean real live unicorns. I recognize that you did not invent the term, "unicorn" but I fail to see how that is an argument for the existence of unicorns. Is it your view that because there is the term "unicorn" and you did not invent it, that there are, therefore, unicorns? Why? Could there not be a term "unicorn" without there being unicorns? Would you say that because there is the term, "mermaid" (and you did not invent that term) that there must be mermaids. Why should the fact that there is a term mean that there must be something corresponding to the term? I really don't know what you mean by saying that the enviroment "gave" you the attributes of the unicorn. Do you mean, perhaps, that you, at one time learned from reading (or such) that some people (perhaps) believed there were such animal, and those animals were supposed to have certain attributes? But why should that mean there really are unicorns with those attributes? The origin of the belief in fantastic creatures can be explained in many other ways than that such creatures really exist. The belief, for instance, in mermaids, with the attibute of a lovely maiden with a fishtail has been traced to the misperception of certain sea animals, like the manatee. Not by there really being mermaids. The least plausible explanation for the concept of unicorn is that there are unicorns. Just as the least plausible explanation for the concept of Santa Claus is that there is a Santa; and the least plausible explanation for the concept of the Easter Bunny is that there is an Easter Bunny. Why should you think that the most plausible explanation for your concept of unicorn is that there are unicorns prancing around?

I read that you are a science writer. Then you must know that it is a good idea that when you seek an explanation for some phenomena (like your having the concept of unicorn) it is probably not wise to choose the least plausible explanation. Or, do you think there is but one explanation for why you have the concept of unicorn? Namely, there are unicorns?

You say unicorn exist, but are not real. Could you explain the distinction between exist and real to me. Is it like, fake diamonds exist, but are not real diamonds; or fake pearls exist, but are not real pearls? Could you mean that fake unicorns exist, but are not real unicorns. But what is a fake unicorn? I have never heard that expression, but on analogy with my previous example of real and fake in the case of pearls and diamonds, a fake unicorn would be something that looks sort of like a unicorn, that a drunk might misperceive as a unicorn, but which is not a unicorn. But since you are the one who tells me that unicorns exist, but are not real, you'd better be the one that explains what you are saying.

Actually, the term "exist" is a common term in English, like the term "table" or the term "lamp", and, so, has a common ordinary meaning, and is not precarious at all. It simply means, having attributes. (That is why there are no unicorns; there is nothing that has the attributes that unicorns are said to have) But, I agree, that people who think that the term "exist" is some kind of "superterm" that doesn't have an ordinary meaning (like "lamp&quot like philosophers, are apt to invent some extremely odd meaning for it. By the way, exactly the same is true of the word "real". "Real" means in English, not fake, or sometimes, not imaginary. So when you say that unicorns are real, is that what you are saying- that they are not fake, and not imaginary. If that is what you are saying (and that is how the term "real" is used) then can you support the contention that unicorns are neither fake nor are they imaginary?

When universe = space/time/physics [matter/energy—m/e], and space is considered to be a volume, describable by x + i

wherein

x = radius [finite radius] of a finite volume, an x-volume
i = radius [infinite radius] of an infinite volume, an i-volume, which surrounds any and all finite x-volumes

... and ...

finite = having physical/mathematical limits
infinite = having no physical/mathematical limits

... and ...

the extrapolation principle = what is observed at local/finite scalar levels can be assumed to exist at all other scalar levels until disconfirming cases are observed

... then the volume of space = i-volume and is therefore infinite in size—having no physical/mathematical limits.

All other concepts of space are therefore irrational/nonsense.

Inre Physics—Matter/Energy

A closed matter/energy [m/e] system has the following characteristics:

1. M/E cannot be added (where would the additional m/e come from?).
2. M/E cannot be removed (where would the removed m/e go?).
3. The total m/e is a constant (because no m/e can be added/removed).
4. The m/e can be changed in form [m->e {m = e/c2} or e->m {e = mc2}] but never destroyed (where would the destroyed m/e go?), therefore the m/e is indestructible/conserved.

The m/e of the universe is a closed m/e system because it has the following characteristics:

1. M/E cannot be added (where would the additional m/e come from?).
2. M/E cannot be removed (where would the removed m/e go?).
3. The total of the universal m/e is a constant (because no m/e can be added/removed).
4. The m/e can be changed in form [m->e {m = e/c2} or e->m {e = mc2}] but never destroyed (where would the destroyed m/e go?), therefore the m/e is indestructible/conserved.

Because there is/can be only one i-volume inre space, and all the matter/energy of the universe must fit within the i-volume, there are no parallel universes and no multiple universes.

Inre Time:

Time = The measurement of the occurrences of events by the use of durations called time-intervals.

When time-intervals are equal—they are invariable/never vary, they generate a timemap/timeline, a history, and a continuum of time.

Software and Hardware are both unquestionably physical; very rigidly physical in fact.

Again, what are your thoughts on AI? Careful, it's a trick question as I'm sure you've noted.

I find this all a bit muddled and even contradictory, but interesting nonetheless.

The first quote above leads to an observation of where God came from.  God and the supernatural was invented as an answer to the "why" questions A_t posed, and other such "why" and "where from?"  questions.  God and the supernatural have hung around at least in part because many people still require some sort of answer to those questions.  As A_t himself said, "The reason a supernatural causes is invoked is due to the limitations of a so-called natural cause."  Where we lack solid explanations, God is invoked by some to fill in the gaps.

Many of the more straightforward questions to which supernatural explanations were once the answer (such as where thunder and lightning came from, and where does disease come from) have been answered.  Note that "Where did the diversity of life come from?" has also been thoroughly answered, though the question of how life originated is still open.

In other words, "the limitations of a so-called natural cause", for which supernatural causes are invoked to explain by some, has been steadily shrinking.  Most everyday things are now well-explained naturally.  What the supernaturalists are left with now are invoking their supernatural causes for "ultimate origins" such as the origin of life and the universe, or for invented "limitations" such as "irreducible complexity."

A_t is absolutely right when he says that "the undisputed fact of nature’s existence provides no reason or explanation for its existence", and when he poses the question "on what grounds does reality owe us an explanation?"

The problem lies in posing the "why" questions in the first place.  Why are we here?  There's no "why" answer in particular - it's just a brute fact that we are.  If we weren't here, we couldn't ask that question.  There is no other answer to that "why" question.  (This question might be better put as "how did we/the universe come to be?", which is how science approaches it).

And, because we are here, and because we've evolved complex brains, we've come up with a bunch of "why" questions.  We're a curious lot.  We've been able to answer a lot of such questions, and are inventive enough to make up answers for what we can't (as of yet) answer.  "God/the supernatural" is one of the answers we've invented.  But, as I mentioned, the domain of questions for which God/the supernatural is useful or necessary (to some) at all as an "answer" has been steadily shrinking.  It's more like a placeholder than an answer, a guess rather than an actual explanation, and invoking "God" actually raises more questions than it answers.  For example, if "God" is posed as the answer for "why are we here?", then it raises the question as to "why is God here?"

Summary: the best explanation as to where God came from is that we invented it.  There's considerable evidence from history as to how god-belief came about and evolved over time.  There's no solid evidence supporting the belief that God invented us - only various myths (including myths such as "irreducible complexity", BTW), which are explainable by my answer as to "where God came from" - we invented the myths.  And the gaps in our understanding for which the God-myth is a convenient and imaginative filler are steadily shrinking.  I wonder what will happen as more and more of them are filled in.

We have evidence of the brain. We don't have evidence of a "mind" other than as an abstract concept generated by us to describe an ineffable self-referential quality of perception. Why assume that it is the "mind" that commands the brain without some sort of evidence?

Once again, you are the one making the assertions, so back them up.

I have a couple of questions for all of you big-bang skeptics:
Have you studied the big bang model? If so, in how much depth? What predictions do you think it makes, and which of these are confirmed or refuted? What evidence supports or refutes them?
Have any of you done the math, worked out the equations, or done any sort of work on the subject?

If you have not done these things, but yet you're criticizing the big bang theory, you're in a pitch black room, throwing rocks at a black cat which may or may not be in there. You don't even know what the hell you're criticizing, much less what may or may not be wrong with them.

I certainly haven't done all of them. I am, appearantly, familiar with more of the evidence for the big bang than you are (do the words "quark-gluon plasma" mean anything to you? They do to me.), but I am still not even an amateur (which implies more familiarity with the subject than I would describe myself as having), just a biology major with some interest in, if little understanding of, physics. I could not criticize the big bang theory for the life of me.

However, there are people who spend their lives doing just that. We call them "physicists" (yes, far from all physicists do this, but there are many who do). They understand how to do the math, they know (some of)what to look for, and how to investigate it (or how to learn how to investigate it, anyhow). They tell me, and have explained why to the best of my current capacity to understand, why they have confidence in the theory up until the point at which it breaks down. I can look on www.sciencedaily.com and see many articles about various predictions of the big bang (and other related theories) being tested and confirmed in particle accelerators, by satellites, and by observing the 13.7 billion light-year radius observable universe.

Am I skeptical of its complete, 100% accuracy? Sure, just as I am of theories I understand better; I know there is some room for error, and probably much we haven't even imagined yet, and that the theory will likely have to be modified or replaced some day (but, if it is replaced, the new theory will predict EXACTLY THE SAME RESULTS for everything we have observed up until now, which indicates that the big bang theory is, at least, mostly dead-on). But that doesn't mean we can't be confident in the results in areas that are bracketed by observations of that time, space, or similar conditions.

As an analogy to evolution, there are things we may not know about yet; perhaps some of the RNA in a cell contributes more to inheritance or evolution than we presently realize. But, if and when we learn such, that will change some of the details of the theory, not suddenly indicate that life didn't evolve.

Whatever...

No.

No, you'll need to answer the question of what is "mind" without brain ???

If the word is determinate, if from state S1 of the universe we can calulate s2 in the future, Laplaces demon knows the future and fee will is impossible. Determinate here is opposite of free will. If the universe is determinate, and god can be a Laplacian demon, we have no free will.

This came out of the rebirth of atomism. Long ago, atomist Epicurus was disturbed by  ideas that the Universe, being made of atoms mechanicall rebounding off each other implied a determinate Universe. He declared that atoms from time swerved randomly. This broke up strict Laplacian determinism and kapt free will alive. He was derided for his obvious ad hocism by others, mainly Stoics.

But quantum physics does come to Epicurus's rescue. Things do swerve in a fashion.

You can take a cylinder of gas and calculate pressure and temperature and know exactly what your collection of atoms are doing. You cannot say what an individual atom will be doing 24 hours from now. Its determinate but not really to us. Maybe to a demon?

Quantum effects likewise allow a determinate word of laws of phsyics and chemistry we can use, but destroys strict detemination, its literally impossible even in theory to know the exact nature of the universe at state S2. Nor is it a case of hiddeen varuiabe we just do not know like our cylinder of gas.

The disproval of the Bell inequaiity theorum shows no hidden variables exist.

So all these quantum effects give us an Epicurus swerve that break hard determination. The butterfly effect takes care of the rest.

We can have laws that tell us how a galaxy forms and acts, but not which star will form wih a planet that will have intelligent life an a man named John Smith living at 1456 South Main in Houston, Texas.

That level of determinancy is forever broken.

Laplaces's demon is dead. Epicurus would dance a happy jig if he knew.

First, "material" explanations are not needed. By "mechanism" I mean at least an explanation or train of reasoning explaining how "X" (free will, thought, valid induction etc.) could be so. One needn't posit materialism to realize such questions exist in a world view such as yours. As long as you have causation in any realm, material or "spiritual" you are stuck with logical consequences. (And if you retreat to uncaused all over the place, you undermine your reasoning elsewhere).

Remember my posts earlier about free will? I pointed out how your world view has you inhabiting the same world as I do. That, unless you reject the findings of all science, you have to accept your body and brain are made up of the same atoms/chemistry/gene controls etc. as any other human being's body. All those have pointed consequences for your free will in this universe...along with all the "causes" within your life that have led to your being in X mental state at Y time. You either ignore these problems and admit your world view doesn't reconcile them with your purported free will, or you just ignore them and admit yet another area in which your world view is impotent or vacuous. The more areas in which we find you saying "I don't have an explanation...in my world view I don't have to explain this" the more your world view is shown as vacuous and incapable of handling inconvenient details and questions.

Essentially your case always boils down to ignoring inconvenient details and special pleading. Not unexpected when one uses magical mysteries in place of reasoning and explanation. But, it does illuminate the weakness and underlying impotence of your world view.

Like i said on the other thread...

Is he busy? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he somewhere else? Then he is not omnipresent.
Is he ignorant that I made the request? Then he is not omniscient.

All such excuses implies that a supposedly limitless God has limitations.

God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. If God is omniscient, then He knows everything that He will do, and thus cannot change what He will do without knowing about what He will do. If God decides to create a tree, then changes His mind, God will forsee that He will change his mind. Thus, God does not have the power to change his mind. (this also contradicts God having free will) But if God were omnipotent, He could have this power. Therefore God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and have free will at the same time.

Omnipotence is logically impossible, as per the stone analogy. Ya know, God cannot both create an unliftable stone and be able to lift it, since if God lifts it, it is no longer unliftable, and if God can't lift it, then God is not omnipotent since there is something He cannot do.

God is supposedly omnipresent (meaning everywhere at once) yet Christians contend that God is not present in hell. If God were omnipresent, then God would also be in hell. But since God is not in hell, you can't call Him truly omnipresent.

God is also perfect in every way. Therefore, God would not have a need to create the universe and everything in it. God would already have everything He needs. God would also not have a want to create a universe, since a want means that something is lacking. So yeah, if God were truly perfect, we wouldn't be here.

God supposedly loves everyone infinitely. Yet there are some that go to hell, according to the Christian belief. If God were both all loving and all powerful, there would be no one in hell, since God could prevent people from going to hell, being all powerful.

God supposedly knows everything. Yet God created Satan. God would have known that Satan would become evil and betray God. So why would an all-knowing God create Satan in the first place (or even have a want or need to create Satan)? Furthermore, since God is supposed to love us so much, why would He create an evil deity that causes suffering and evil?

God is supposedly atemporal as well. If God were truly timeless, the phrase "God created everything in 7 days" would be meaningless, since days are a time period. Everything that has ever and will ever happen happens at once to God.

God is supposedly intangible as well. If He were intangible, and cannot be detected in any way, then how can anyone hope to prove God's existence? The Bible is not evidence for God in itself. If the Bible were evidence, then so would every single written piece of material. I guess that would mean that all the supposedly 'fictional" characters exist as well. Say, is that Harry Potter over there? The Christian way is to just have faith, which means that they have to believe in something that is not known to be true., and is therefore irrelevant.

And now, my favorite one. Christians often say that their God is beyond logic as a defense to all these points. Now, if God were truly beyond logic, then there would be no way for humans to be able to describe, or even know about. Christians attempt to attribute qualities to God, but that is an act that requires logic. Even giving Him the name "God" is a logical act. If God were beyond logic, then He would have no qualities describable by man. (If anyone tries to tell you that God is beyond logic, challenge them to describe God without using logic. As soon as they say a word, stop them, since using words is a logical action.)

Some contend that God is equal to logic, and is within logical bounds, yet I have clearly demonstrated that not to be so. Furthermore, that would make something equal to God, and therefore, God alone would not be the highest thing in the universe.

And don't let any of them try the "God is within logical bounds" trick. Obviously that would put something, logic, higher than God.

In conclusion, the Christian God is indeed highly illogical, and irrelevant to believe in, therefore, god is imaginary = non-existent.

Depends how you define Omnipotence and Free Will and what point of view you are arguing.

If you take Omnipotence literally, then its omnipotence, meaning can do anything, no limits. But that obviously leads to the classic contradiction of doing something that can't be done, ie - the rock routine. So apologetics slip in the 'logically possible' exception instead of simply just abandoning the flawed concept altogether.

If you take Free Will literally, it means just that, unfettered, uninfluenced ability to choose what one will. Again, this is a flawed concept, there is no such thing as Free Will, because everything influences everything else. In the xian bible reality, god supposedly gives humans free will, but threatens to whack them if they don't choose what god wants. That is not free will, that's a sadistic game. Like the old saying goes, if you love something, set it free and if it loves you it will return of its own free accord and you truly will know it wants to be with you. Probably because whatever you have to offer is better than whatever else is available but maybe because it loves you. But having a shotgun ready to blast it if it looks like it might keep on going is only going to tell you it doesn't like being blasted out of the sky. Free Will is non-existent and just another apologetic ruse to explain a non-existent being they want to believe in and/or give an excuse for the appalling nature reported of that being and why it doesn't show its face any more.

Because "nonexistence exists" is obscure, philosophese, and incomprehensible without a lot of interpretation, but what I wrote is clear, not philosophese, and comprehensible straight away.

However, I am not persuaded that you really do mean what I mean. I just mean that there are concepts without objects. Or terms without referents. The concept exists, but what it is a concepts of does not. The term exist, but what it purports to refer to, does not. You, on the other hand keep issuing the challenge to name what does not exist. I can do that easily. Unicorns do not exist. Mermaids do not exist. (In other words, the term "unicorn" does not have a referent, and the term "mermaid" does not have a referent). But I don't think you would issue that challenge if you understood what I mean when I interpret the obscure, "nonexistence does not exist". Since it is so easy to name what does not exist.

The mind cannot be separated from reality but reality can be separated form minds. Reality does not need minds. Minds need reality.

Logic has nothing to do with it; and the scientific method indicates that you are wrong.

Total Initial Energy = Total Final Energy.

That line above should be enough to convinve that the energy that became the universe has always existed and will always exist.

There cant be energy showing up here and dissapearing over there.

Sure we can have matter and anti-matter pairs showing up here and there, but they surely obey that sentence since their energy isnt created nor doesnt it cease to exist.

Simple quantum fluctuations.

Also, defining time as a dimension is a precipitation, since time is relative to mass, or as i rather see it, relative to the ammount of caos. It is an illusory concept caused by movement, or rather the workings of entrophy.

If we take time as a dimension, and take the universe to have began to exist in a violation of the principle of conservation of energy, we will come to the conslusion that time didnt exist before the universe.

If there is no movement, there is no change in entrophy, and no change in time. It wouldnt be measurable.

Why do people use QM to disqualify causality? Because we may not know everything doesnt mean things dont obey a cause and effect. The probability if photons averaging out to be observed somewhere does hold true, but saying that they end up where they do because they are being measured is just making up stuff. The probability of a photon hitting a place instead of another is a result from the unknown charachteristics of its mechanics before it left an atom, and it goes on backwards as it will go on forward. If causality were to break down (trully, not due our unability to observe), the principle of conservation of energy would be destroyed, and nothing would be impossible.

Thus we come back to the universe itself. Using Occam's Razor, we can slash cut made up ideas that were created to try to explain the universe that are not required. A god creating the universe begs to what created god and icreases the complexity of the existance of the universe. We can disqualify it. Same for multiverses and everything outside of our boundaries of observation and induction. If we simply say the universe seems to have been created in a Big Bang, but we are unable to determine its origin (and therefore destiny), we can assume, for sake of simplicity, that the energy in the univere has always existed in one form or another and will continue to do so. This idea, as of now, is unable to establish what caused the universe to be what is like now, but all the degrees of knowledge remain the minimum necessary to explain things.

I dont know would fit very nice. And assuming the most conservative theories helps furhter by reducing speculation and promoting concentration of effort on thinking up theories that explain and predict reality as we can observe. Inventing supre branes to explain the energy we see could only be fruitful if it produced results that could at least be mathematically consistent. Since we we dont know many things, there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the origins of the universe and calculating superbranes and multiverses is a simple waste of time and energy. Inventin a god that is infinte, again, only adds an unnecessary degree of complexity that doesnt help determine anything at all, and so must be discarded too. Inventing causes to explain the effects observe doesnt fit with science.

This would rule out a priori any belief in supernatural. If there is physical evidence of a supernatural event then it ceases to be supernatural.

Does a god made of nothing make sence to you ?

Critical thinking is discouraged/not taught

Languages has evovled as a result of people being separated form each other and evolving divergent forms. There are several factors that influence this.

In older days - before writing was invented, and in particular fonetic writing - words that was perhaps similar originally diverged simply by people living away from each others. We see exactly the same happening every day around us - first they start out as variant forms, then dialects etc etc. According to the biblical view, american and english should have been identical if it weren't for some tower of babel consturct or other divine intervention to ensure that they differred. Yet, they are similar enough that an american has in general no problem understanding a brittish and vice versa so as a means of defeating communication it would be pointless.

In scandinavia people originally spoke the same language in sweden, denmark and finland and before that it was the same language as in northern germany. The scandinavian languages evolved away from northern germany and became a separate language. Then in mideval times education improved and we got states that started schools and teaching people the national language. Thus, in sweden they learned swedish and if you happened to grow up in Norway you learned Danish at the time (Norway was under danish rule). However, people near the border between norway and sweden spoke more or less the same language. However, as a result of the schooling influence their spelling and grammar diverged and followed the national forms rather than the dialectal forms that was similar on both side of the border. In the 19th century Norway experienced a growing nationalism and people wanted to re-establish "norwegian" as they recognized the language spoken in the cities to be heavily influenced by danish. Thus, Ivar Aasen went around rural areas and gathered words and grammatical rules and from this created a language called "landsmaal" or (national language). To counter this move, people in the cities who wanted to keep their forms created a language they called "riskmaal" (national language) which was originally essentially very close to danish but still distinct from it.

When translated to english the names for both languages becomes "national language" and that was because "land" = country while "rike" is also a word for "country" with each their separate etymology where "risk" is similar to the german word "reich" and "land" is similar to many other germanic language's word as the english word for "land&quot. The word land also have a double meaning in that it can also mean "rural area" as opposed to "urban area" and I guess that was also intentional.

However, even those two langauges has evolved. The landsmaal evolved into "nynorsk" (new norwegian) while riskmaal has evolved into "bokmaal" (book language) and both langauges and forms are used in Norway today. That is why a passport in norway has both the name "Norge" (bokmaal for norway) and "Noreg" (nynorsk for Norway) written on it. In addition we also have sami language which is spoken by the sami people in Norway and that language is completely different as it is not even a germanic language but belong to the same language family as finnish and hungarian.

Yet a modern theory as to how and why languages evolves has no problem to explain it. There are many processes that occur that causes language to change over time. You see it every day. The slang today is different from how it was 50 years ago. or even 20 years ago. That is language in evolution as you watch!

I do not know about any god(s); I do not believe in god(s).

I only know what I can experience or imagine, and I can never know for sure if my experiences or imaginations indicate any real or permanent truth. Therefore, as this is all I really have to grasp the nature of reality, to navigate through it if you will, and since we all have our own different ways of navigating reality, I tend to trust my own methods more than others.

Ok, so you asked about evidence, but would evidence that convinces me also convince you too? Who knows, but with that caveat here goes. You say that old memories are erased and only the highlights are kept. Ok, well that seems convenient and reasonable, probably describes the common experience, but how to account for those rare moments when long forgotten memories are triggered and return with a great amount of detail? I think that all our memories are kept (somewhere).

How can we be sure if what is recalled is an actual memory that belongs to us, or simply made up on the fly causing the sensation of an actual memory? Take a moment to consider this question very carefully; because it does not apply only to old memories, it applies to recent memories of last week, last night, two hours ago, five minutes ago, one second ago, etc, etc. If some demon were putting memories into our minds that did not belong to us, would we know the difference?

The problem is more than memory recall; we also need to know if we are recalling our own memories or if it is something else. The reason I mention this is a phenomenon called past life regression. It is similar to ordinary hypnotic regression, in fact, was discovered during clinical hypnotic regressions where the patient, who was expected to recall a period of childhood, regressed even farther to a past life. Now, you might be skeptical, as you should be, but whether past lives are real or not, it is the extraordinary degree of detail that is recalled that might be of some interest to you, since you said that the detail is erased. So, the question is, if this is not an actual past life regression, then whose memories are being recalled? It has been reported that some of these patients can even speak a foreign language, which they cannot ordinarily do. Unless these psychologists are intentionally risking their reputations to pull a hoax, then we might consider their research as evidence of memories that cannot possibly be stored in the brain.

Here is another experience that you may have never had, but I have many times. It happens on the cusp of sleep where I begin to recall past dreams. Usually, the dreams are the strange ones, the ones I never recall during ordinary waking consciousness. I know, it does not prove anything, but it does bulk up the quantity of memories that must be accounted for, if memory is truly stored in the brain.

Isn't consciousness, therefore mind, really a potentiality of physical material and energy? Matter can be arranged in various forms - as matter is constructed into physical objects that reflect a brain and energy is used to alter the brain in specific manners we achieve consciousness. This is no different from arranging matter in a specific manner - supplying energy and achieving the internet.

As for determinism - quantum theory would appear to make determinism very difficult. Things can still be calculated in probabilistic ways but the ability to acquire exactly the same results with exactly the same sets of preconditions may depend on the scale of assessment and the level of precision inherent to the assessment.

As for freewill - our experience is not the subject of or the creator of the workings of the brain - it is the workings of the brain. The nondeterministic variability of the variables that are required to result in thought means we are not controlled and not in control - we simply are!

I was talking about Anselm of Canturbury of course, 1033-1109. I can't believe you've never heard of him.

Concerning Aristotle, I never claimed that Aristotle was totally unknown or unstudied in the early middle ages, only that he was much neglected. Those philosophers did know of Aristotle and his philosophy; they simply didn't agree with it to any great extent, although most came to accept hylomorphism and they did credit Aristotle with setting up the framework for logical argumentation.

Concerning Albertus Magnus, yes, he was an aristotelean to the core. So was Aquinas. Starting with these men, aristoteleanism started to emerge in Europe. This also corresponds to the establishment of the Dominican order, a highly aristotelean order. But you're forgetting that their views were not widely well-regarded by the Franciscans, by the rest of the Church, by other philosophers, or by anyone else, for a long time. You seem to think that once Aquinas hits the scene, all of a sudden all the scholars in Europe became aristoteleans. Not so. Aristotelean philosophy would still take a while to percolate through Europe, starting (as I've said before) with hylomorphism and gradually moving on to other nominalist views. You mention that the university in Paris started teaching Aristotle in 1255, but you ignore (and in an earlier post, downplay) the condemnation of 1277, which condemned "radical aristoteleanism" including many of Aquinas's doctrines. On another thread, I've said that you tend to count the hits and forget the misses, and it sure seems you're stilll doing it.

On to other matters: I don't make the claim that philosophy would have turned to aristoteleanism immediately and naturally in the early middle ages without Christianity. All I'm claiming is that it might have. The possibility would have been there. With Christianity on the scene, with its early obsessive drive toward neoplatonist ideals, the possibility was not there. I want to stay away from claims along the lines of "History would have been different if..." because such claims are totally impossible to establish. I'm taling about possibilities only. There's no certainty that European paganism would have become dominant instead of some other religion like Islam. If Islam dominatated, we would have had aristoteleanism a lot sooner. It's also by no means clear that paganism would have remained wholly neoplatonic - Christian philosophers evenually went aristotelean, so why wouldn't pagan ones? These are the kind of asumptions that I won't make any claims about, because they're just too slippery. But I maintain that the only thing holding back the advance toward scientific thinking in the early middle ages was the obsessive drive by Christian philosophers toward neoplatonic ideals.

You've pointed out some valid flaws which I had realised after I posted my argument and gone to bed (tossing and turning).

Perhaps I should have phrased it like this:

A) Scientific knowledge is incomplete - this we all know

B) The problem with logical methodology is that we generally fail to account for every possible assumption that may flaw our argument. We are required to simplify the model for the practical purposes of debate and we cannot include assumptions that we do not no about (duh!)

The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser shows us that we often make the following assumption:

A "cause" in the past results in an "effect" in the future.

When indeed it has been observed that a "cause" in the future can influence an "effect" in the past.

My point is not to debate how this example might affect our average argument here at RRS, but rather to illustrate that we are only working with a part of the formula, an incomplete model. It is here that logic is flawed.
In essence this might just be a qualification for premise A.

C) There exist certain "Life Sciences" such as Heremtics, Alchemy and Esoterica which claim to have knowedge of aspects of the Universe not currently wholly quantifiable by the hard sciences, concepts such as God, demons, angels, the human soul, reincarnation etc.

The reason that the Hermetic sciences do not contain any "hard" proveable evidence is because like psychology their subject matter cannot currently be exactly quantified or qualified and reduced to specific formulae. Any "hard" aspects that were historically part of the Hermetic sciences have either developed into hard science or been absorbed by it. This is not to say that hard sciences do not contain an element of "softness" / "fuzziness" due to hypothetical areas, but the underlying data on which these hypotheses is based is pretty much "hard evidence". It is logical that any "hard evidence" would fall under the ambit of the hard sciences and therefore anything with "hard data" in Hermetics would be claimed as the ambit of hard science.

To illustrate, the 4 states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) which were originally based on the 4 elements of alchemy (earth, water, air, fire) currently fall under the ambit of the hard sciences. (This however does not exclude them from the domain of Alchemy.)

D) Many religions exist that also claim to account for concepts that are currently not wholly proveable / disproveable by the hard sciences.

Okay so due to A and B it is foolish to discount C or D (will substantiate this further on). D, while perhaps a somewhat "practical" model is fraught with contradictions and tends to lack scientific method (except perhaps for a few exceptions). C is a more viable model for investigation in the modern western world since it is literally the forefather of modern science and indeed invented many aspects of the scientific method - it is closer to modern science. (For example, a Magician keeps a Magickal diary to assess cause and effect relationships with any magickal workings.)

One reason why it might be foolish to discount C or D is history. We have seen that aspects that fall under the domain of C have come to be adopted by modern science (both hard and soft) and that Alchemists and Hermeticists, critical thinkers were directly responsible for the development of science.

Another small example might be the fact that ancient Greek philosophers theorised that matter was composed of elementary "particles". Though the math might have been wrong at the time, and certainly not responsible for such a hypothesis, it would have been counterintuitive for this theory to have developed by chance without some sort of mystical "observation" or insight. (though I admit not wholly impossible).

I also find it interesting and I might be wrong here, but I think that the fourth state of matter (plasma) was only relatively recently discovered - whereas the 4 elements were positied thousands of years ago. Bear in mind that the 4th element Fire does not literally mean fire, but is rather a category of classification as Earth relates to solid, Water to liquid. Air also seems a bit counterintuitive but I don't know exactly what facilities they had back in those days to percieve gasseous states so I may be wrong.

Another reason not to discount C or D is one of practicality. I used the example earlier of the Khoi San hunting rituals. An observeable cause-effect relationship exists for the Khoi San where successful hunts are partly dependant on successful ritual enactments. The exact mechanics of this are irrlevant. The effect however is vital to the Khoi San's survival. As with modern ceremonial Magick, the desired effect is the import thing not the exact mechanics in scientific terms although a lot of theories are currently going around. A Magician confirms the effects of his magical workings through a magical diary. Although this cause-effect relationship cannot be demonstrated scientifically (yet), it can be observed subjectively and many aspects of hermetics can be validated via general consensus. Unfortunately this means that the only way to verify this information is to pretty much become practically involved in such workings. If someone is not willing to make this investment then so be it. I have no "hard evidence" to offer.

Brainwashing 101

In later Christianity heaven and the throne of god were out beyond the Ptolemaic outer celestial star sphere.

Ptolemy's system was accepted by the Christian intellectuals from the late Roman period through the middle ages, and some refused to give it up even after Kepler and Newton ! This is what was taught in the universities and in the abbeys. Ptolemy's system is really a refinement of Aristotle's cosmology as I understand it.

Wiki has an article about ptolemy's celestial system with a little diagram of it but for some reason the enlarge button is no working. [URL="http://www.egodeath.com/ptolemaiccosmology.htm"]This Link[/URL] tells about it and there is a diagram a few pgdn's down the page.

Basically, the Ptolemaic system has a spherical earth at the center of the cosmos, with the sun, moon, planets and stars (order like moon, fast planets, sun, slow planets and stars) fixed on concentric spheres that rotate around the earth. (the objects themselves also rotate in small epicycles, etc)

Out beyond the outermost star celestial sphere is where the levels of heaven start and their god(s) lived out there and that is supposedly wher eheaven was. The Ptolemaic system is also what is being referenced in Dante's Divine Comedy,(in the Paradisio part of course).

It is clear that the Ptolomeic system is not really compatible with the Genesis 1 model, and some, like Augustine, simply interpreted Gen 1 metaphorically. Others seem to have resolved contradictions between the genesis model and Ptolemy's.(Just like biblical literalists today somehow resolve it with modern cosmology, I guess).

So, my guess would be that Christians pretty much believed that heaven, or the kingdom of heaven was up in the sky somewhere.  In one of the NT gospels, Jesus is portrayed as  "ascending" up into heaven.

As I remember,  the apocalpse of John of Patmos (or "Revelation" as some Bibles call it) has a scene where god peels back the firmament and stars fall to earth.  In that scene, I think the author thinks of the earth as being like a terrarium with a cover, and with one of their gods (god or Jesus) peeling away the firmament. (think of it like you were sitting in a covered stadium and a giant tore off the top).  This model is more in line with the genesis firmament and the "circle of the earth". In that passage, I always thought of it like the circle of the earth was a reference to the outer layer of the firmament.

An omniscient God cannot have free will either, as He cannot act differently to what He knows He will do. Which, I suppose, implies that an omniscient God and the totality of existence is immutable.

Next.
for all real non-zero numbers: m
m/0 is undefined (no solution because no two real non-zero numbers can be multiplied together to yeild zero)
0/0 has infinite solutions (any real number can be multiplied by zero to yeild zero)
0 x infinity=0 (any number multiplied by zero equals zero)
Therefore "Infinite Power" proof is incorrectThe point is that God could easily do additional things that would convince more people to become Christians. Many humans are much more convinced by tangible evidence than they are by spiritual evidence. Jesus supposedly used lots of tangible evidence. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the Miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these Miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his Miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

In the preceding Scriptures, Jesus’ Miracles confirmed his words. His words did not confirm his Miracles.

There are also a number of other Miracles that the texts say that Jesus performed. The texts also say that Jesus performed many Miracles that were not recorded.

Even after the Holy Spirit came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” The KJV translates “miraculous signs and wonder” are “miracles”. The texts say elsewhere in the book of Acts that some of those Miracles were tangible Miracles.

Today, people still place great emphasis upon good physical health. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure all diseases. There is much rejoicing by everyone when a cure or prevention is found for a disease. I am not aware that any Christians consider trying to prevent and cure all diseases to be counterproductive. Healing people is a good thing. God should do more of it. ANY supposedly supernatural being who showed and healed all of the sick people in the world would immediately attract a large following, and could easily found what would quickly become the largest religion in the world if he wanted to.

It all gets down to trust. Without more information that I have at this time, I will not trust any being who says that killing people is wrong, but hypocritically kills people himself, who makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5, told Jews to kill any Jew who kills a Jew, but told Jews to only punish a Jew who kills a slave, reference the Old Testament, killed Ananias and Saphira over money, reference the New Testament, kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, and babies, and innocent animals, allowed hundreds of millions and frequently distributes tangible benefits to those who are not in greatest need, while frequently withholding tangible benefits from those who are in greatest need, giving many people the impression that God indiscriminately distributes tangible benefits without any regard whatsoever for a person’s worldview.

Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in ancient texts. The simple truth is that there is not any particular tangible blessing that a Christian can expect to receive from God. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians have died of starvation. Would you call food a necessity of life?

The actions and allowances of the God of the Bible indicate that if he exists, at best, he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being helps AND kills people, including some of his most devout followers, and babies, and innocent animals.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

Regardless of what heaven is, or how a person gets there, there is not sufficient evidence that the Bible tells the truth about heaven, and about a lot of other issues that I could bring up.

If the God of the Bible exists, he might have answers to a lot of questions that rational minded and fair minded people would accept, but based upon the information that we now have, rational minded and fair minded people have only two choices, to conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist, or that if he does exist, his character is suspect, and he must be rejected.
Well, if God has provided an amputee with a new arm or leg, I have failed to see it, AND SO HAVE YOU, and apparently everyone else in the world as far as ALL world media sources are aware. World media are in all countries, you know, and they make their money by reporting news that is interesting to people. According to the New Testament, the Pharisees acknowledged that Jesus has supernatural powers, but they claimed that his powers came from Beelzebub. So, both sides acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers. Today, both sides do not acknowledge that God has supernatural powers, either because God does not exist, or because God does not wish to reveal his supernatural powers to both sides. It is a question of intent. If it is God’s intent to clearly demonstrate that he has abilities that are far beyond the abilities of humans, he could easily prove that by showing up and creating a large building in New York City in front of the world media and an audience of one million people. Almost everyone in the world would agree that at least one being in the universe has abilities that are far beyond the abilities of humans. That would not prove that that being was a God, or specifically the God of the Bible, but at least we would have a lot more to go on regarding the possible existence of a God than we do now.

It is my position that no being has the right to punish people who would accept him if they knew that he exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, and they would accept it if they had better evidence that God exists. If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, just like Christian doctors are trying to do, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. This makes sense because modern magicians would not have any trouble at all going to some remote jungle regions in the world and convincing at least some of the natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods. If the magicians were able to heal all of the sick natives, that would make it even easier for them to convince the natives to worship them as Gods.

Humans have always placed great importance on good physical health, and if ANY being showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world, people all over the world would rejoice with few if any exceptions. If ANY being showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world, if he started a new religion, it would probably quickly become the largest religion in human history.

Humans typically appreciate beings who are concerned with their spiritual AND tangible needs. God is concerned with humans’ tangible needs only to the point of frequently distributing tangible benefits to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, while frequently withholding tangible benefits from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that God does not exist, that he is apathetic and inconsistent about humans’ tangible needs, or that he has gone out of his way to make it look to many people that tangible benefits are distributed entirely according to the laws of physics.

Many non-Christians are wonderful, loving people. It would be out of character for them to reject any human or God who was able to demonstrate that he is loving. Actions are a much better indicator of a person’s heart than beliefs are. The same goes for a God. The Bible is just words. Actions are much more convincing than words are. We must compare what copies of copies of ancient Bible manuscripts say with the world that we live in today. If the Bible is true, then there ought to be plenty of TANGIBLE confirmations that it is true. What tangible confirmations do you have that a loving God is consistently active in the world today? What tangible benefit can you ask God for and expect to receive? If God does not exist, then it is to be expected that the only benefits that would be available to believers would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. If he does exist, and if he is loving, it is to be expected that he would be compassionate about our spiritual needs AND our tangible needs.

There is more than enough evidence for people to reject God pending the disclosure of more evidence than we have today. There are not any known reasons why God’s refusal to provide us with more information than we have today benefits him or mankind in any way.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman

But I also think that since "everything that exists" is called "reality", then if something exists it must be real (and vice-versa). I think that is consistent and supported as well.

Who wouldn't agree with that? And, of course, if I think that everything that exists is called "a poached egg" (and vice-versa) then I think that if something exists then it must be a poached egg.

The question is whether it is true that everything that exists is a poached egg (and vice-versa).

And the question is whether everything that exists is reality and (vice-versa) whatever I think.

So, now, I gave several counter-examples to the view that exists and reality are the same thing. I pointed out that mirages exist, but they are not real. And that toy trucks exist, but toy trucks are not real. Now, if you think that existence and reality are the same, then how do you account for my counter-examples. Or do you just ignore them, In which case, of course, I could just ignore any cases in which you showed me it was not true that if something exists it is a poached egg.

Where does the dictionary say that words refer to meanings? Have you a sensible citation? That would mean, of course, that the word, "the Eiffel Tower" referred to a meaning, rather than to the Eiffel Tower. Which dictionary substantiates that nonsense? And how does the fact that we can always ask what a word means, mean that words refer to meanings? What is the argument for that? Here is another counter-example. The term, "the first president of the United States" means, "the first chief executive of the United States" but guess what (or who) that word refers to. Right. It is George Washington! So, the meaning of "the first president of the United States" remains the same. whoever that refers to. Suppose that John Adams had been chosen as the first president (as he might have been) then "the first president of The United States" would have referred to John Adams, but the meaning of "the first president of the United States" would have been exactly the same as it is when that term refers to George Washington.

Therefore, since the meaning of "the first president of the US" remains the same, but the person who is the first president of the US might have been one of several people, how could the meaning be the same as the referent?

Now, there is an argument against your theory. Have you a reply?

1. The known facts to not support the religious claims made by believers.

2. The known facts flatly contradict many of the religious claims made by believers.

3. Believers cannot produce evidence to support their belief. Instead, they rely on tradition, authority, and blind faith. That which is proffered as evidence is simply an exercise in question begging (circular reasoning).

4. Believers cannot provide a satisfactory explanation as to why anyone should accept their beliefs over those of others with contradictory beliefs, even though both sets of beliefs are equally supported by the evidence, or lack thereof.

5. As an explanation of a "first cause" or origin of all things, god, even in the general sense, is no more persuasive and supported by no more evidence than any other random explanation, including the explanation that there simply is no first cause.

''MUST'' is like wishing santa to give you gifts.

. Trinity is composed of three different persons: God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

2. Is logically possible for God to play chess with Jesus (under the tree of knowledge)

3. If any of them wins, Trinity becomes ilogical (the law of noncontradiction) : Trinity wins (T) and Trinity wins (F) at the same time.

C: Trinity is logical inconsistent and thus it does not exist, a logical impossibility.

Koya,

Here is another problem.

When God makes a move and Jesus does not, this means that the Trintiy is making a move and is not making a move in the same time. Again, logical inconsistency

Trinity is a logical incoherent concept. Because it entails three different persons or entities as being one. 3 = 1

Again i can use the law of non-contradiction against your god on the case of trinity & non-trinity because you said that there are 3 in 1 & not 3 in 1.

the Trinity does not exist simultaneously, but in chronological order. First came God the Father, and did his creation bit; He doesn't seem to be around any more. Then came the Son,-he came to a sticky end; then came the Holy Ghost,-and he seems to have gone as soon as he came.

Oh, trivial, my dear sir, trivial. Early Christian apologists didn't have the benefit of modern science (or old analogies) to go on. Their claim - three persons, but one nature, is easily understood.

Consider a photon: depending on the circumstances, it behaves like a wave. Or like a particle. Sometimes God behaves like a Father, sometimes like a Son, and sometimes like a Holy Spirit. The problem is the simple inadequacy of the language to deal with "God".

Alternatively, think of a God as a specialized case of "fuzzy logic" - rather than having binary persons, God has trinary persons - and given QM, we have a perfect analogy: that poor, unfortunate feline, who is both alive and dead simultaneously. God is simultaneously "Father", "Son", and "Holy Ghost."

I seriously think that modern science offers better and far more comprehensible analogies than poor Augustine had access to. And that worries me.

The mathmatical symbol for 'infinity' refers to the mathematical definition of infinity - a number so large as to be considered infinite in size.... This would only include bananas (etc.) if it referred to an infinite number of bananas (etc.).

So, in response to your supposition, I would say no, you are not supposed to understand such inclusions.

But I'm trying to be logical here and logic is notoriously arguable in all sorts of directions.

a) God does not exist or b) God does exist.

If God does not exist, we don't need to worry about this.

If God does exist, then let's prove that he doesn't.

Let's say it's a widely accepted fact that God is infinite. He has no beginning and no end.

If infinity has no beginning and no end, then infinity must include everything that exists (and maybe a few things that don't).

If there are things in existence that are Not God, then infinity must include Not God.

If God is infinite, then God must be everything that infinity is.

Thus, if God exists, God is Not God.

Existence is identity. Everything that exists is within existence (the universe), and everything that is is something specific. In other words, it has limitations and essential defining characteristics. Non-entities are non-existents. We shouldn't waste time talking about pure abstractions with no tie to existence. existence=the universe=reality. There is no super-reality divorced from this one.

1. The Bible is riddled with internal contradictions.
2. The Bible is riddled with statements that contradict external reality.
3. The Bible contains numerous morally-repugnant doctrines.
4. Even Christians can't agree on what it all means (30,000+ Christian denominations).
5. Those Christians who adhere most closely to Biblical tenets are intolerant ignoramuses who seek to suppress scientific progress and human rights.
6. No evidence that the "first cause" (if any) is an intelligent being.
7. No other phenomenon that appears to require a supernatural intelligence.
8. No known intelligence that is not a product of evolution (or a construct of such, e.g. a computer).
9. Many religions: hopeless confusion among theists regarding what "God" is, or wants.
10. Widespread use of factually-incorrect claims, unsupported assertions, and logical fallacies by theists: if all the arguments for God are so inept, it seems unlikely that such a thing exists.

Children have experiential evidence of Santa Claus. You know, the myth where Santa Claus lands on their roof with reindeer and a sled, slides down the chimney and leaves them presents under the tree.

Now to your experiential evidence of God. Do you surmise God or do you know God? How long will you avoid this question?

An emotional state caused by the specific activity of a material object, is a material effect. Emotional states exist, but not in the absence of some material which creates them. Hate does not exist anywhere except as an emotional state.

To say that Santa exists as a word, as a series of stories, etc. is true if that means that Santa exists only as a word, only as a series of stories, etc. But Santa exists only as a word does not imply that Santa exists. In fact, X exists only as a Y, implies that X does not exist. For to say that Santa exists only as a word is to say that the word "Santa" exists, but that Santa does not exist. And, remember, that if Santa exists only as a word, or only as a series of stories, pretty much the juice is drained out of "Santa exists" since the Santa who exists only as a word, or who exists only as a series of stories, does not deliver Christmas presents, since words don't deliver Christmas presents, and neither do series of stories deliver Christmas presents. So, don't go around telling little boys and girls that Santa exists, when you don't meant that a jolly old elf goes around delivering Christmas presents. It isn't nice to fool nice little girls and boys. It's mean!

Now, the expression "Santa Claus exists" means, "There is a jolly old elf who lives at the North Pole, and who distributes Christmas presents, exists" But the expression, "The word "Santa Claus exists" does not imply that previous expression, does it. And "There is a series of stories mentioning Santa Claus" does not imply that expression about the jolly old elf either. Does it. Therefore, that the word "Santa" exists, and that a series of stories mentioning Santa exists, does not imply that Santa exists. And if the term "only" is placed before "the word 'Santa'" in that expression, and if the term "only" is place before the term "a series of stories" in the second expression, then those two expressions will imply that Santa does not exist.

The question is whether you want to leave out the word "only". Do you want, that is, to say not only that the word "Santa" exists, but also that Santa exist? And do you want to say that not only do those series of stories exist, but that also, Santa exists?

If you want to put in the word only, then you are saying that only the word exists, but Santa doesn't, and that only the series of stories exists, but Santa doesn't. But if you leave out the word "only" then you are saying that not only does the word 'Santa" exist, but Santa exists. And you are saying that not only does the series of stories exist, but Santa exists. And, in that case, you are admitting that to say the word "Santa" exists or that a series of stories exists, doesn't mean or imply there is a Santa. In either case, you are admitting that "Santa exists" is different from saying that the word "Santa" exists.

Look, everyone agrees that the word, "Santa" exists. And everyone agrees about the stories. But no one over the age of 4 agrees that Santa exists. And saying that Santa exists "in a way" doesn't rescue the situation, because to exist in a way is not to exist in the way that people mean it when they say that Santa exists (or doesn't exist). When people say that Santa doesn't exist, you know full well what they mean. They don't mean that the word doesn't exist, or that the series of stories doesn't exist. So to tell them that Santa does exist (but in a way) is like a used-car salesman telling prospective buyers that although the great car advertised in the newspaper has "just been sold" and "you can't have it", not to worry, "I have something nearly as good for you" which turns out to be a much inferior version of what was advertised. That tactic is called, "bait-and-switch", and is expected of used-car salesmen. But not of philosophers.

And supposedly this god creates souls, which somehow, are attached to our physical bodies and minds and are part of the heart of our very existence. Then again,along with our bodies, our minds, our acts, our inclinations, god must have created these souls. But he also must have created them in relationship to our physical body and its created acts, acts created by god to the smallest details. It is the soul that allegedly is damned or saved and lives for ever, or some such, but again, all acts of ours are created by omnigenesis to the smallest quark so god either also creates a corresponding soul, damned or saved in parallel. Or maybe not, who can tell with such an incoherent chaotic, senseless, irrational system?

The doctrine of souls, confusing enough as is, now becomes impossible to explain in any fashion. It makes no sense in a physical world that is determinate to the most exacting omnigenesistic manner, how does a soul fit into that world?

With omnigenesis all bets are off, all supposed knowledge is impossible and incoherent to extremes.

Because god is made of nothing, therefore he does not exist.

If the universe is, say, 5 billion years old and infinite, with innumerable solar systems becoming and unbecoming; if the life-forms on this planet are innumerable ephemera with neither metapurpose nor teleology nor "meaning" for any so called "higher being", there's really very little probability that anything matters "ultimately". an ecosystemic component (wasp, worm, parasite ...) could be said to matter for that ecosystem (pollenator, aerobic agent , bacterial vector ...), but the ecosystem probably doesn't matter for the multiverse as a whole: it's an effect of combinations of conditions. humans - destructive parasites whose activities are important only to themselves - don't matter, ultimately, either. although an ecosystem which supports them might be integral to their continued persistence, they do not matter to it at all, excepting their (exploitative, destructive, but otherwise superfluous) effects on its disintegration or continuity (after the fact of their disruption to it). to humans many things could be said to "matter", but if nothing matters to an individual, then nothing matters to that individual regardless of what "should" matter. if something matters to an individual, then something matters to them (philosophically, psychologically, aesthetically ...). it could be damaging for the individual or the culture to behave as though something does or doesn't matter when it really doesn't or when it does. it's probably as dangerous for the individual or culture to not know how to determine what matters to it, but ultimately: "pffft ..." where are you trying to go with your "argument"(sic.) ? endorsing hypocrisy doesn't seem very wise, (eventhough hypocrisy is all that most people can amount to). things don’t matter to people because they should, but because they do if such is the case.

Because MIND includes something that is MATTER, like the BRAIN and NERVOUS SYSTEM, and also a part that is ABSTRACT, the thoughts themselves.
A brain is something material, and it IS part of the mind, because without a brain there is no mind.

So can you really say "Matter is matter and NOT mind"? I think not.

And without matter there is no mind. Note that I am not being reductivist here but I am saying that consciousness does not precede existence.

Spirits
- feelings or mood with regard to exaltation or depression: low spirits; good spirits.
- excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; mettle: That's the spirit!
- temper or disposition: meek in spirit.
- an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger.
- the dominant tendency or character of anything: the spirit of the age.
- vigorous sense of membership in a group: college spirit.
- the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. (opposed to letter): the spirit of the law.
- Chemistry. the essence or active principle of a substance as extracted in liquid form, esp. by distillation.


Schizophrenics are (or can be) normal members of society when on their meds. When they feel better, as they should while being treated, they should still stay on their meds. When they go off without a doctors consent, they are nutty.

I know people who are just fine when they take their meds. You wouldn't even know unless they told you their condition. On the flip side, I've seen families ruined because people go of their medication prematurely.

If we assume we were given free will at the moment of our creation, then that means that we possessed free will before we had knowlege of good and evil, and therefore it is proven true that free will can exist in the absense of evil (contrary to what Christians claim).

If we did not have free will before the apple, then there are two problems that come out of that. For one, that means that our choice to eat the fruit was not a choice. But disregarding that, let's say for the sake of arguement we did not have "true" free will until we ate the fruit. Assuming that, there is still the problem of why we were punished for that, when free will is supposed to have been a gift. That's like handing someone a present then punching them in the face for taking it from you. It does not make sense, then, that God would punish us for something he presumably was giving us out of the goodness of his heart. It also implies that God did not intend for us to have free will (the OOG concept makes this even more complicated).

Where did I say in my post that I actually believed in an uncaused universe? I'm content to allow the evidence to lead me wherever the truth may lie. In the absence of compelling evidence I think the strongest arguments thus far can be made in favor of an uncaused universe, but it doesn't mean that I actually "believe" the universe is uncaused. As has been pointed out by many others, there are a veritable plethora of possible explanations for a caused universe without resorting to pre-technology superstitions.

It is possible to have an opinion about something that cannot be fully understood. This opinion might be based on the best evidence one has available. This does not constitute faith.

My personal definition of "faith" is "A belief that influences one to behave in a manner differently from the way one would behave if the belief was not present." Back when I was a fundie preacher I often parroted the phrase that "faith is a belief that leads to action".

If you happen to have faith in the Judaeo-Christian god you might be influenced by such faith to sacrifice personal ambitions, opportunities, money, time, etc., on the alter of such a god. You might be influenced to evangelize others in an attempt to save their souls from hell. You might be inclined to vote differently in order to ensure that the political process and legislation favors your particular brand of religion.

My opinion that perhaps the universe is uncaused does not influence me to change any of the abovementioned behaviors in any way. Any of hundreds of possible causes for the universe, if proved one day, would not cause me to change the way I live or behave. Unless, of course, such cause turns out to be a vengeful, wrathful creator god who is bent on taking vengeance on those who do not know or obey it.

God is pure nothingness.

Universe = Infinite
Universe = No Beginning + No Ending = Always Was & Always Will Be
Universe = No Space (or Room) Before or Outside or Beyond Space/No Time Before Time/No Physics Before Physics

A plane is a spacetime, that means he didn't create X,Y & T. A plane is certainly a metric space (and therefore a topological space), and if you consider it as a complete set of 2-dimensional position vectors, it's a vector space too.

As Stephen Hawkins said: Space-time (t,x,y,z), into f() = E.t x E.s ; where E is energy, t is time, s is space where m is materialized. E.t and E.s are scalar products whereas f() is a vector product, counted, you. If you examine f() closely you will find the warping dictated by GR when the Hamiltonian is constructed, in this sense f() is identical to GR without the energy being taken as the functional operands.

However, counted, you, back to your conjecture, the fixed frame expansion maps intuitively into your 2nd dimension singularity. The fixed frame expansion means when the so-called singularity undulates it has a fixed frame of expansion since the singularity looks the same from all dimensions/perspectives. In keeping with the observed behaviour of sunlight, it expands the photon wave quanta Q, nQ, across the dimension it intersects.

So god did not create dimension. Timespace is required him to create. The poor dummy men in that picture is useless.
[P1] If the theory of gravity were in fact true we would all have condensed into an infinitely small singularity
[P2] We have not condensed into an infinitely small singularity
[C.] God does not exist
If you have time you must have space already also. If you have space and time you have vacuum and therefore get virtual particles, i.e. you have energy and given proper conditions some of that energy must be in the form of matter. If you have matter and energy in space and time you already have a universe. It is like God sitting for himself suddenly thinking "I want to create a universe" and then he open his eyes only to find that the universe is there already - nothing left for him to create. The mere presence of time enforces that there is a universe there already. As long as time has existed, the universe has always been there.

Consequently, God cannot have created the universe.

Well that depends on how one looks at it. If one looks at a circular (topologically) chain, then no origin of it is apparent in a sense.

In another sense, of course, one can view the origin not as something within the chain, but as what brought the chain about. A blacksmith perhaps. And one can then ponder the origin of the hypothetical blacksmith, the origin of that, and so on.

Until one gets to the point where one cannot explain the origins any more, and is left with either infinite regress, or invoking some sort of anologue of autocatalysis, or, among other possibilities, perhaps some all wise, all loving, all benificent creator who is somehow uncaused, and who manages to brilliantly create the world in a way such that innocent kids die before they can come to avoid eternal damnation by going through some some sort of shamanistic ritual because they inherit, and die of, some sort of sexually transmitable disease that their father caught as a result of being buggered by a priest while a child.

Now - why is infinite regress impossible?

If it's not science, it's bullshit.

But using "God" as an answer to "how can something come from Nothing"? only results in the question "How can God come from nothing"? without actually providing any mechanisms or evidence or measurable phenomenon or explanatory theories or verifiable predictions .It thus gets us no further forward and explains nothing at all.

First, by "universe", do you mean the observable universe, or the cosmos?

Second, by "cause", do you mean something that led to something else, or a being that actively participated in making something?

Third, by "faith", do you mean beleiving in something that has no evidence, or believing in something because of the evidence?

I'd like to clarify that last one a bit. I have "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow. Why? Because it has come up 11,000+ times in my life. It has failed to come up precisely 0 times. I have seen the sun and I have seen it come up. If I were a betting man, I would put my money on the sun coming up tomorrow. It's possible that it won't, but it ain't friggin' likely.

However, I do not have "faith" in supernatural entities of any kind. Why? Because I have not experienced any, nor do I even have a meaningful description to go by if I were to encounter one.

Lastly, saying that the explanation of the physical has its source in the non-physical is actually not an explanation, at all. Unless you can explain how the non-physical produced the physical, you cannot show that the non-physical produced the physical.

After all, if god (a non-physical being) made the universe (a physical thing) what did he/she/they/it make the universe out of?

To exist is to exist as something. God is made of nothing.... therefore he's non-existent.

As far as "models and hypotheses", yes, some models and hypotheses have been proposed as to how the universe may have come about. Look into the ekpyrotic model (involving string theory and branes) for one example. I'm sure you're aware of that.

As for evidence, there is evidence that there was a big bang, but what evidence should we expect to find of anything before that?

IMO, your two propositions are a false dichotomy in that they leave out what I consider a third "proposition":

Proposition three: We don't know, and we quite possibly will never know with any confidence, what the ultimate origin of the universe was.

Of course, there are other "propositions" that you overlook as well, probably more than I list here:

Proposition Four: The universe and sentient life came into existence through two or more Creators (commonly referred to as gods (pantheism)) who caused the universe to exist and have been monkeying around with things ever since.

Proposition Five: The universe came into existence through an impersonal Creator (commonly referred to as a deistic God) who caused the universe to exist, and then went about her merry way. She'd be surprised to find that there are things crawling around in there now.

Proposition Six: The universe came into existence through a "personal" Creator (commonly referred to as "God&quot who caused the universe to exist (without much design or plan) and then sat back to watch what happened.

Proposition Seven: The universe came into existence through a "personal" Creator (commonly referred to as "God&quot who caused the universe to exist (without much design or plan), planted the seed of life when the universe was ripe, and then sat back to watch what happened.

Proposition Eight: An initial creator of some sort created some "mindless processes" and let them run on their own. Lo and behold, one of them went and created the universe!

Proposition Nine: An intelligent creator in another universe, a creator that is not a "God" but a normal, physical being, cooked up our universe in a lab.

Proposition Ten: An intelligent creator, maybe a "God" of one sort or another, created another universe, possibly with plans and designs, and a side effect was that some quantum event in that universe kick-started our universe. Maybe that creator has discovered our universe, maybe not.

Proposition Eleven: The universe is not "real" - it's but a dream in the mind of some being or other, a program running in some supercomputer, etc.

Proposition Twelve: The "universe" and whatever was before this universe always was and perhaps always will be. There was no initial "creation" and therefore there was no creator or "mindless creative process".

And so on.

And this list doesn't even address the countless names and concepts of "God" that could be used to fill in the term "God" in your Proposition One.

And I suppose I should mention that worthwhile question: "If the universe requires a creator, and that creator is God, who or what created God?"

If you reply that "God always was", then you're claiming that something can always be; therefore, the universe (or whatever "unintelligent process" created it) could always be. If you claim "God does not require a creator or cause", then you're claiming some things don't require creators or causes, and therefore the universe does not necessarily require a creator or cause.

"Charles Darwin is great, Charles Darwin is good.
And we thank him for our food.
By Charles Darwin's hands we all are fed.
Thank you, Charles Darwin, for daily bread.
Charles Darwin is great and Charles Darwin is good.
And we thank Charles Darwin for our food.

Thank you for the world so sweet.
Thank you for the food we eat.
Thank you for the birds that sing.
Thank you, Charles Darwin, for everything.

Charles Darwin loves me, this I know.
For the Origin of Species tells me so.
Little ones to him belong.
They are weak but he is strong.
Yes, Charles Darwin loves me.
Yes, Charles Darwin loves me.
Yes, Charles Darwin loves me.
The Origin of Species tells me so."

In science

Okay, no evidence. And this contradicts your later claims. Copy-paste much? I am going to stop talking to your if all you do is copy paste pages and pages of crap.  

Quote:

Does "matter" have experiences?  Or does "life/mind"?  How about memories?  Does matter experience memories?  Or is that mind too?  How about creativity?  Curiosity?  Does matter solve problems and seek beauty and crave understanding?  How about self-preservation?  Does matter act to preserve its forms?  Why does a body readily decompose the minute the mind/life no longer "lives" in it?  I know all about evolution... don't miss the point here.  What kind of thing ever pushes and pulls on systems of matter for its own purposes?  What kind of thing has to find and share a word for a concept like "purpose"?I would have thought that contrasting "observer" with "observable" would have clarified this basic distinction long ago.  A distinction in "kind," which to a monist boils down to a vast difference in "degree."  Kind or degree of what?  What is the substance of reality?  Well, whatever it is, it includes mind.  From what I hear, and from what I've experienced, it seems the only known way to truly merge the observer/observable is through a mystical/spiritual experience... like being "able to see the mirror and the reflection and their unity, all at the same time." (thanks, Breath).  Materialist claims that "it shall someday be clear that mind IS only a product of the brain" are missing the essence of the distinction.  There's a way out for them, but "matter" has to change its meaning.  By the way, the terms mystical and spiritual convey a useful meaning too... nothing else comes close.  So please try to refrain from letting them trigger vigorous anti-religious sentiment.  It does not apply here.

Matter cannot be equal to spiritual substance, otherwise it loses all meaning. Also, if you merely move on basis of spiritual experiences without evidence, I cannot reason with you. It is called “blind faith.”
 

Quote:

I am now "being" a wee little critter limited by my bodily form/interface to experiencing 4 dimensions of this particular universe.  Wooo wooo    But the fact remains.  When exactly did human animals decide that our present intellectual and experiential (sensory) limitations were limitations on the sum total of reality?  Not likely.Otherwise, it means absolutely nothing, to absolutely no one.  If matter itself can "know meaning," then matter must be made of mindstuff too.  May-haps... per-be.

This is entirely and totally irrelevant to the discussion.   

Quote:

To move something else is to move yourself, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, there can be no unmoved mover.

Only in material space and if God is a body, which He cannot be if motion is to exist.

Quote:

There may be an infinite regress of causes, and there may be uncaused events. Neither posibility is very palatable, but one or the other has to be true. But unless one of those posibilities can be ruled out, we can't conclude that the other is true. Saying, "I don't like infinite regress, so there must be a first cause," is not a stronger argument than saying the opposite.

I don’t “dislike” the fact the an infinite regress cannot exist; it’s logically impossible. If no first cause exists, no further effects exist. If no first mover provides motion, nothing can be in motion. StMichael wrote:Didn’t I just say that “nothing exists” is a contradiction? What is the point of writing the symbolic logic? YOU were the one who advocated that the something that exists is really not in existence.  

Quote:

Absolute nothingness is seen to be impossible, a logical contradiction, so nothingness was never the case to begin with and thus the universe/multiverse could not have been created ex nihilo.

The universe was created ex nihilo because it was not made from any preexisting material, not because nothing existed. God is the cause, and hence existed as its cause. 

Quote:

 Anyway, it seems to be the case that the laws of logic wouldn't govern Nothingness, since if they did, the aforementioned laws themselves would still be said to exist, which wouldn't really be absolute nothingness. What happens at that point? Well, sans laws of logic, I guess anything could, and would, necessarily happen, and yet not happen, all at once. Odd, but this would also allow for the sudden ex nihilo creation of our known laws of logic and the reality they govern.

No, it would not. Nothingness is not the same as chaos. Nothingness cannot produce anything at all. No being exists in pure nothingness. We use the term to refer to an absence of being, not a presence of any sort.

Quote:

The current understanding of cosmology suggests that the multiverse features a near-infinite number of universes in which every logical possibility takes place, but it looks to be that if there had ever been Nothingness, the immediate everything-and-nothing-going-on-at-once would entail a multi-multiverse in which what we would understand as logical impossibilities would also all take place in some unrecognizably warped universes, along with all logical possibilities in our known universes.

No, only logically possible actions would occur (if we assume multiverse theory).Copy-paste much?

Quote:

As the instantiation of all possibilities and impossibilities somewhere in some tract of Existence implies the reality of a vengeful, hateful, sadistic psychopath of a god devilering sentient beings into an eternity of torment in "Hell", presumably featuring levels of pain which only an all-powerful god can inflict, I really don't care for this hypothesis. Somebody kill it.

Except that we’ve already addressed this. Copy-paste much? You know what, I give up. There is no further point. If you just want to act schizophrenic and change positions and copy-paste swarths of words, it's not worth my time. Have a nice life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On to people who are not totally insane:

 

God did not use any preexisting material to create the universe. It would be true, then, that God created the universe from nothing. God’s own act of existence is the foundation for the existence of individual created things, as they gain their being from Him.  StMichael wrote:First, the burden of proof is on your end to show me how something can come from nothing. Further, it is a contradiction in terms. X cannot be equal to ~X in the same respect at the same time.

Quote:

No, you are incorrect. There is no burden of proof on me to show anything. I am not claiming something can come from nothing. I am merely stating the obvious fact that to make any claim about 'nothing' is to make a claim that we have no reason to believe to be true.

You are making a claim that something can come from nothing, which is clearly contrary to reason. You have to back up your assertion. Further, nothing, by definition, cannot produce anything; it is a contradiction.  

Quote:

Further, you are again incorrect. You are stating a claim that is based in a space/time environment. There is no contradiction. See the bolded words above.

 It has nothing to do with space/time. It equally applies outside of time that thing cannot be equal to not that thing in the same respect. 

Quote:

 Which is not to say anything came into existence in any way relevant to the discussion.

Yes it is. How is it irrelevant? 

Quote:

 Nothing goes in or out of existence that we know of. Saying that things change form by cause within the universe is not relevant. And again something being prior to itself is only something one would consider in a space/time environment.

Things, however, change. This is all that is needed. Their particular existence is destroyed and created. Further, space/time doesn’t apply to issues of logical priority. A thing can logically be prior to something, but they coexist together as cause and effect. 

Quote:

 I would also like to say that I find it odd that you seem able to utilize the concepts of outside of space and time just fine when it benefits your god, but when it comes to the fact that you can no longer use space/time related contradictions to support your fallacious arguments the concept suddenly seems beyond you.

I do not use space/time in a contradictory way, nor does it invalidate my arguments.  

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

I'm problably stepping into something but, I do have a few questions here:

Am I mis-understanding the definition of "potency" or did you just say that "the First Cause has no ability to affect things"?

Doesn't saying "we have free will because an omniscient god wills it to be so" sound like "an omnipotent god can make a rock he can't lift"?

-Triften

 

Potency is here being used in the Aristotelian sense: a privation of being or perfection. For example, a piece of wood is potentially on fire, but not actually so.

I don't see a contradiction. God sustains the will in existence by definition, otherwise it does not exist. He wills that our will is free. This is how free will can truly exist freely.

On a sidenote, God cannot make a rock He cannot lift for precisely the reason that it is a contradiction (in the sense that the terms are basically loaded - "can God do an action that is impossible?&quot.

 

Yes, God is something. Thus, creation is ex nihilo only in the sense of external to God. However, God does not consist of any material. He did not "form" Himself into something else. God exists, but is utterly simple without parts as a purely immaterial entity. In fact, He is existence existing - "I am who am."

It is axiomatic. It is a logical contradiction and contrary to the first law of logic to say that something is and is not. This is equivalent to saying that something can come from nothing. There is no way to "prove" this because it is self-evident. If you do not accept this, there can be no sense of "proving" anything because every other logical argument cannot proceed. If we cannot accept that being exists, we cannot accept anything further.

A weasel cannot both be a weasel and not a weasel in the same respect. I cannot exist and not exist in the same respect. It is the primary truth from which we deduce all things. There is no proof for it; it is the first law of logic.

This is true. I agree entirely. The matter of the statue does not cease to exist. However, the statue ceases to exist. The statue is corruptible. The fact that its matter does not change is irrelevant. The fact that the thing itself changes is proof that it is in motion and hence relies on an unmoved mover. Matter is that in which change occurs, it is not an agent of change. If it is in motion, it requires a mover. The ultimate Prime Mover is God.

No it is not. Logical priority does not require either time or space. My idea of a an animal is logically prior to that of a racoon. Even in material things, heat is logically prior to fire. Mass is logically prior to gravity. But this does not necessitate temporal priority. Look at quantum mechanics where cause follows effect in temporal priority.

 

It has nothing to do with coming into existence absolutely speaking. When we speak of human creation, we create a statue. But this is not creation ex nihilo. Yes, this is mutually agreed. But we do not need to prove that things go in and out of existence absolutely speaking. All that is necessary is that things are changing and possible beings in this sense. They depend on other things for their act/motion. Thus, these things do not exist absolutely speaking. Matter itself is purely potency, a subject of change, and not an agent of change. Hence, it requires the Prime Mover or the Uncaused Cause.

Finally, nothing does not exist. Something cannot come from nothing. It is a truth that cannot be denied.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

God does not need worship at all. Worship, in a sense, is the ultimate happiness. This is because the perfect happiness of the human person can only exist united to God in the Beatific Vision. Worship is to our benefit, not God's.

While a sin is finite in the act committed by turning to a created good, it is infinite in regard to the Good itself which it turns away from. Thus, it merits an eternal and a finite punishment (the latter is the rationale of indulgences and purgatory). Further, sin is the punishment in itself because it turns away from the ultimate source of happiness. It can never attain the God it shuns which is the only place it can find perfect happiness. The perfect unhappiness it feels eternally after this turning away (in the seperation of the soul from the body after death) is hell.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Technically I'm a sub, but I don't find worship as happiness.

Worship is required by men, not by God. It unites man to God, which is the ultimate goal of humanity and their perfect happiness.

That is unproven. We also do not mean material happiness, but final and ultimate happiness in the vision of God.

They are the same. Perfect happiness is happiness considered under the aspect that it lacks nothing, whereas ultimate happiness is happiness considered in so far as it is the ultimate end of human life.

The Beatific Vision is the direct and unmediated "seeing" of the human intellect of God's essence. God Himself gives grace to the soul, whereby God shows the soul Himself.

That this is the ultimate end of humankind is a thing that can be proven according to human reason, not just on faith.

 The perfection of the human intellect is to know the causes of things as they are in themselves. The ultimate cause of the universe is God. Hence, the ultimate perfection of the intellect is to know the First Cause as He is in Himself. The same is true in terms of man's will, which desires the Good itself infinitely, which cannot be satisfied by finite material goods. Hence, its perfection exists in God alone as the source of Good itself.

 

No, worshipping God is to share in the grace of sharing in God's own life, as shown by the testimony of human reason operating naturally and God revealing. The way to attain this perfect happiness is to be baptized and to have faith in and love God (which is itself the source from which happiness springs). I wouldn't pass it up.

I don't see what these places have to do with it. The bodies of those tortured in the concentration camps were tortured merely in time and on a finite level. The torture of not seeing God is infinitely painful.

Well, that is not a rationally-founded statement. It is your rejection of something you refuse to try to understand.

These are merely finite goods. God is infinitely Good as Good itself. Only He can satisfy the human heart. Anything else leads us away from happiness, though it may provide temporary pleasure.

You have acted pretty schizophrenic in the past, just copy-pasting things you found somewhere else, or advocating contrary positions. I call that insanity. Otherwise, you just aren't listening to me or taking me seriously at all, which is good enough reason to ignore you in the future.

No, God is His act of existing. He is an entity whose nature is to exist.

Yes. Do you?

 

Read the post. I do.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

First, to equate "god" with happiness is to equate god to only one side of a relative reality. Such reality has TWO sides to it, BY NECESSITY.

You might feel the high of that relative happiness, but sooner or later there is a down side to it. That is what St. Teresa of Avila referred to in her "Noche oscura del alma" (Dark night of the soul).
She could feel "elevated" for a while but then she would have her dark "lows"...

Why is that? Because such is the nature of life! The process of evolution does not follow a straight upward line. It is a wavy line, with peaks and valleys. Your god can NEVER be just one side of it, happiness or unhappiness.
If anything it would have to be BOTH, and TRUE happiness comes from the fulfillment of EMBRACING the TOTALITY of life, not just one aspect.

You as a theist and I as an atheist, both, should embrace the totality of life, because in either state there is growth and because we both understand that it takes two (sides) to tango...

I agree about the "Worship is required by men, not by God." because there's no god to require it. I don't agree with the notion that unification with a non-existent entity is the ultimate goal of humanity. It would seem an awful lot of folks disagree with you as well.

Define perfect happiness. For me its nothing to do with some silly imaginary being cooked by some Bronze Age herders.

Ah, proof! I don't need any proof, proofs are for mathematics, they are meaningless in reality. But I suppose you mean supporting evidence, which is great, I am glad you mentioned it, I was just about to myself. Evidence will do. Empirical evidence, falsifiable, repeatable evidence. Got any?
The ultimate end of human life is death. That statement has very substantial evidence supporting it. Do your statements have any supporting evidence?
Could you explain that better? For one thing, what is god's essence? Why should 'seeing' it be cause for anything?
Do you have any supporting evidence for this god's essence? Do you have any supporting evidence for this soul thing? Finally, do you have any supporting evidence for this god?
Have at it. As stated above, I am not necessarily after any proof, proofs are for maths. But whatever you have, let's see it.
The first sentence doesn't mean anything.
Do you have any supporting evidence for the first claim in the second sentence?
Desires the good itself infinitely? Explain this.
Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim?
Who or what is the "its" that's perfection exists in this god you postulate?
Again, your sentences are impressive sounding but they don't really say anything. Have you any supporting evidence for any of these claims?
What "testimony of human reason"? Again, the sentences sound good but are nonsensical.
How does pouring water on your head and saying some words make any difference? Have you supporting evidence?
Obviously you wouldn't pass it up. Me? I'll pass. Just as I pass on 99.9% of the offers on TV, in various media, spam and otherwise. I try not to be a patsy.
Hmm, I haven't been bothered by not seeing your god. Do you have any supporting evidence for any of this?
Why isn't is a rationally founded statement? Can you support your contention? Do you have any supporting evidence? Have you considered the possibility there is nothing to understand?
And you know this how?
I couldn't find the reference you were responding to here. Can you provide links please ?
Have you supporting evidence of this?
You made the statements, you made the claims, its up to you to support them. You indicate you have said supporting evidence, so, show us what you have. If its as good as you seem to think, you should turn some heads around.Here we go again. How do you know this? Must the universe have an ultimate cause? Or should i also need to repeat my self ? Ill do a resume for you.

The first cause argument is invalid for these reasons:

- conservation of energy (a first cause violates this)
- it's based on a category error (the idea that the universe itself is the same as something contained within it)
- an infinite regress is coherent
- rooted in special pleading
- equivocation; the 'first cause' god does not resemble the 'jesus saves' god in any way shape or form and need not even be sentient
- failure to address why there can not be multiple equal 'first causes'
- universe creators can not be defined into existence.
- treating time as if it were independent of the universe

Here it is:
Beatific Vision: The immediate knowledge of God which angelic spirits and souls of the just enjoy in Heaven.
In this case, in order to see this 'vision', you have to be physically dead. And that renders you no longer human.

Psalm 84:2 My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God. Yet one must be deceased to find the LIVING God. How moronic...I mean....ironic.

What else do I see? Ah...
Deuteronomy 16:11 And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there. Now this sounds like required worship.

Well, we definitely can NOT worship any other gods:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Deuteronomy 6:13 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Deuteronomy 12:5-6
5: But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:
6: And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

Well, let us see what Jesus says:
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Here are things NOT to worship:
Deuteronomy 4:19  And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Imagine, if you will, no one worshiping God. What would God think when humanity comes to an end and no one shows up in Heaven?
I think you mean that some men need others to think that they need to worship God so that these men can collect offerings and tithes, tax free, from those who never achieved 'perfect happiness'.
This statement is insensitive. Disgustingly so. To be perfectly honest, I do not understand why such a statement. Why does the RRS disallow calling people names, but allow people to post this repugnant filth? How can one be expected to reasonably respond to a person who says, in effect, "You rape/torture victims are such whiners!" What possible rational response is adequate?

I listened to you. I took you seriously.

So, God can create the universe, our psyches/souls/etc.  as he sees fit, knowing everything that's going to happen, and we can still make our own decisions?

Also, how can we have freedom to act in the face of the ultimate coercion: follow my rules or suffer forever?

-Triften

If he causes them and if he knows in advance what they will be, all the fancy words you care to use won't change the fact that we're not really making a choice. Choice implies at least two possible outcomes. If God knows in advance that out of A, B and C I will choose C, there is no way I can choose anything but C, whether I think I made the choice or not.
Thank you for acknowledging that we exist. In return, we promise to tell the Black Helicopter squad to leave you alone for the rest of the day.
Ipse dixit
Your Bible would disagree. Try reading Isaiah 45:7.
Ipse dixit
Maybe it will force you to consider the fact that you've been asserting a lot of things without actually demonstrating that they're true.
Great, now define the Good and explain why you feel it needs to be capitalized.
I'll type the following slowly so you get it: You make a claim, you back it up with evidence. That's called Burden of Proof.
You see, you're assuming God is logically necessary in order to argue that God exists. That doesn't wash.
No, it's a pretty accurate one. Until you can prove that there is something that survives death (prepare your acceptance speech for when you get your Nobel Prize) then the statement stands.
Ipse dixit
[sarcasm]God is God. Gee, that clarifies everything.[/sarcasm]

P1. If God is God, then God is not something.

P2. Therefore, God is nothing.

C2. God cannot exist.

StMichael wrote:

The Prime Mover must exist, logically speaking. It is the First Cause.

Special pleading.

StMichael wrote:

The evidence would be from Revelation, because it is a purely supernatural action. It grants me sanctifying grace when I am baptized, so that God makes me into His adopted son and fills me with His life, washing away all sin.

So... you admit that you don't have anything that actually qualifies as 'evidence' given the commonly accepted meaning of the term.

StMichael wrote:

God is infinite Good because He is Goodness itself.

I get tired of saying this but Ipse dixit.

StMichael wrote:

And?

You opened by stating that God does not require worship. Please pay attention.

StMichael wrote:

Yes, this is correct. There is nothing outside of God before He creates.

Which entails a "before creation" which entails time (btw, I'm a presentist).

So, if there was nothing other than God before he created (and God has existed from everlasting in that state) but there is now something other than God, why did he change from having the universe as nothing more than a mental concept to having an actually existing mind.

"Inside" God meant "inside his mind" (as an idea). Outside of God meant, "outside of God's mind" (as more than an idea).

Nothing can come forth into existence un-caused. Everything has a cause, even your god.I may note that this mollycoddle idea of hell is a very modern invention, because even some of the most fundy Christians are a bit uncomfortable with their fellow human beings burning for all eternity.

How they do reconcile this version with the bible is beyond me.

The part about not proposing a counter argument is important.  Often times in conversation, even with our esteemed saint, the issue is painted as a conflict between ideas--in this case Catholicism (or some interpretation of it) and there being no God.

But I think it's fair to say that while many people here who align with the RRS argue taht God in nonsensical, not conforming to logic, or simply nonexistent would primarily answer that the evidence presented for God's existence (or God's necessity, as Michael says) is simply insufficient for many of our acceptance.

There have been more than a few times I remember Michael saying things about how all we have is battling assertions, and some reply that it is Michael's assertions taht are simply being challenged.  Vessel here said it succinctly, and I just wanted to comment on it with some kudos.

Further, when Vessel says something like the following;

I read it as a proposition, possibly of belief as well, but in this conext it is more like another logical possibility that implies that Michael's assertion of God's necessity due to the need for a prime mover is not, in fact, settled.

St. Michael, you claim it is a logical necessity to have a prime mover to start motion.  I won't reiterate the points made above (and elsewhere), but will say that what we are trying to do it present other logically possible explanations.  Whether they have scientific credibility, evidence, etc is important but not critical because all that matters is that they are at least as logically possible as your proposal. 

If there is more thna one logically possible explanation for something, then none of them are logicaly necessary without further argumentation.  You, Michael, have not given sufficient argumentation for your claim, and I reject it along with others here.

Yes.  The more we know about the universe, te less God has historically been asserted to explain.  It's been a slow and steady progression from gods explaining thunder, lightning, and storms to God simply being the prime mover.  This philosophical "god" is the result of people in ancient times realizing that we can explain everything else naturally.  And even if such a God exists, it still does not get close to the God of the Bible.

Your credulity towards teh Bible over other myths is, well, fascinating.

Shaun 

 

 

 

Thanks for that, you said it very well and it is precisely what I have been trying to demonstrate. I feel no need to offer forth my own assertions as to how the universe came to be, only to illustrate that there are other possibilities, and that his assertions are not logically necessary as he seems to think them to be. The first cause argument is based in assertions which are based in the familiar and then taken to a conclusion. They are not, in any sense, logical necessities. 

Or perhaps motion is an intrinsic quality of matter/energy, and thus matter cannot not move.

This is not the same as saying objects, which are made of matter, must move, but that the energy and particles that make them up are always in motion, necessarily.  Thus, no prime mover is ever required if motion is necessary.  AGain, you are pushing back the cause one step, and arguing for a special plead.

If this were so, then we don't need an explanation for motion but for existence.  And again, perhaps existence itself is necessary. I know the special plead is really tempting there, but you should resist that temptaton.

lead us not into temptation... 

 Shaun

This is exactly why I was hesitant to mention the problem with the reasoning behind your claim that an infinite regress was impossible. It is an unnecessary sidetrack to the point and one that I personally could care less about. (I see no evidence that there is any true infinite therefor I have no desire to argue for the possibility of an infinite regress).

We should not let that sidetrack us, however, from the fact that there is no reason to believe that there is any need for a first mover. This is what we need before we even begin to worry about deciding if an infinite regress is possible. 

First we need to decide what the universe is supposed to be in motion as compared to. Being as that motion is relative, in order to say the universe is in motion we need to be able to contrast it to something which is not in motion. What do we use for that reference point?

Next, we need to illustrate that everything in motion needs a mover.

And we need to illustrate that this applies to the universe the same as it does to things.

Let's start with that and see where we get.

False !

"Things" are effected by forces (that need not be sentient) and thus are in motion.

Now proceed with your syllogism.

You, like others, keep equivocating the verb "to move" with the proper noun "Mover," which is not justified. Please cease doing so. There is no necessity for a mover to be sentient or any kind of being whatsoever. Your argument is refuted with my paradox: Argumentum contra conscius primoris causa

1. Time is required for Change.
2. A Decision is a Change.
   
3. Decisions require Time.
   
4. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time.
   
5. Consciousness requires Time.
   
6. God is Conscious.
   
7. God requires Time.
   
8. God can't be the cause of Time if God requires Time.
   
9. God isn't the cause of Time.
   
10. God isn't The First Cause.
    
11. If God isn't The Conscious First Cause then God doesn't exist.
    
12. God doesn't exist.

There ya go. Validating evidence. Things are in motion and changing all around you. Try to deny it and see how far you go.

Things are in motion. Effect on the natural world. Try to deny that things are changing and in motion.

Actually "God" doesn't come anywhere close to theory status - at least in the scientific sense. Barely even a hypothesis.

The problem in your argument is that you're arguing against a straw man. I never argue that everything requires a cause.

It is not just merely improbable, but logically impossible to posit an infinite regress of motion and movers. In which case, it cannot happen.   

Even if it had, it still requires that an unmoved mover was needed to sustain the universe's motion in existence. 

 

This is a childish response and lacks depth. God exists outside of time, so the category does not apply to Him. Get over it.

 

 

 

Show me why my logic is flawed. Where specifically my argument violates logic.

You are confusing "actual infinites" in terms of sets of rational numbers, and the like, which do exist by mathematical proof. However, mathematics has never and has not deduced that actually infinite quantities or the like actually and physically exist in nature. Further, I already gave my response to why an infinite regress was impossible. Go read the three points that prove this.

At least dirt listens to me...

OK, but this is an assertion. You have not gotten anywhere by speaking of my faith being absurd. If my argument is false, point to a specific instance where it violates the rules of logic. Otherwise, own up.

That is silly. Aristotle saw the necessity of God and explicated it in his Metaphysics, book XII. Read it before you spout nonsense.

 

Don't make me repost the arguments. You need to ANSWER them before you claim that it is unproven.

 

This is entirely true. This proves...what? You later make a leap that this merely makes the argument require a "possible" infinity, whatever you mean by that, but I see no reason why such should follow. You clearly introduce a term that was not in the premise into the conclusion. 

 

You may believe this with your whole heart, but it doesn't make it true. You need to offer an argument.

 

We have not proven why the mover is sentient, but we need at this point only to prove that the mover exists. Sentience comes later in the logical course of the argument.

 

And what does that have to do with it at all?

 

A force is a mover. But it is not unmoved because it is in motion.

 

Yes, time. The particle is changing - in motion.

 

This is called a possible infinity. Aristotle solved this problem from Zeno; read the Physics (which is where I believe the proof is found). Further, it does not apply to motion and movers at all. This is about infinite distance.  

Yes, but this has nothing to do with it.

 

 

He did nothing of the sort.

It's funny you quote these folks, as Kant and Bacon were both believers in God. From Sir Roger Bacon's essays on atheism: "...a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion...."

Further, this is not an argument against my case.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

I have repeatedly.
Based on my experience in the seven odd years of philosophy study (this thread included) as well as in real life.
Equivocation and special pleading.
It's not a matter of belief. Define God.
You've just slipped in the sleight of hand preparation for equivocation.
Only through equivocation of terms, which is a fallacy.
You cannot demonstrate why the "first mover" isn't a natural force; you cannot demonstrate that the "first mover" is necessarily sentient.

How many times must it be repeated before you concede? Don't bother, it's rhetorical.

End of discussion then.
What is in motion?
Though not my point, how do you know? How do you know that isn't just your perception of unique events; your pattern making where none actually exists?
You haven't posted any argument even once. You've merely used more words to impart the exact same assumption over and over, and keep calling the expanded circular description of the same concept an argument.

All you have to do, is provide a disproof of the possibility of an infinite regress, that does not start by assuming the past as finite in some way. You haven't done that, nor can you. You can't do it, because actual infinities have been rigorously proven mathematically to be possible.

The entire prime mover argument (and numerous others similar to it) is contingient upon this disproof. Everything else you have to say about a prime mover argument is a complete waste of time until you provide a real proof, and not something to the effect of "the past can't be infinite, because then it would be infinite".

Zeno's paradox. That has nothing to do with an infinite regress, and is self refuting anyway. 

We know that the hare can catch up with the tortoise by direct experience, so we know something is wrong with the claim that it can not. 

The fact that the hare can catch up, and even pass the tortoise, is proof that an actual infiity is not only possible, but actual - if we accept all the assumptions of the paradox (which we probably don't).  An actual infinity is the only way to resolve the paradox in classical terms.

Contemplate this god existing "before" or "outside of time" and then creating time.

If there is no time, how could he make the decision that he will make time? Making a decision is an act and has to take place IN TIME so without time how could you decide to make time?

God "outside of time" is just bunk. Nothing can be "outside of time" or "outside of space". It is a time and a place that doesn't exist period.

On the first point, a natural force of attraction between two objects does not satisfy. The reason being that such attraction exists because of these objects exist inside of space and time. Without space, time, or mass, such objects would not attract. Hence, their motion is caused and put into motion by a mover - namely, the force resulting from their accidents in space and time. However, this force cannot be considered to be anything more than an intermediary mover. It is merely an accident of space itself and the masses of the objects which bends space. Space, as modern science tells us, is an actually existing entity with properties of its own. Likewise, quantum mechanics shows that, at the basic level, space time is a real fabric of reality that possesses its own structure and composition. The movement of space time itself is not accounted for. It is a mover of objects, but it likewise is in motion. It is either self-moved, or unmoved, or moved by another. As it is not unmoved (because it is in motion itself) nor self-moved (as this is impossible), it requires a mover exterior to it. Time itself likewise gives motion to things as they move through time, becoming always actual in one place in time (present) and potential in another (past and future). Any change in the potency and actuality of a thing is "motion."

Further, the intellgence of the mover is posited at the Prime Mover, not the intermediary movers such as space and time.  

 In the second place, in an infinite regress, we are not speaking directly about causation, but among an infinite regress in motion, which is a different subject. I would, however, agree with you when you say:

The cause must, yes, bear a likeness to its effect.  

Finally, I ask you read your own words here:

There is no actually infinite regress in this case, because there is required at least the initial act which cost 2 joules of energy (presuming that is the accurate measure of the initial action). There can be no final act if there is no initial act. That is all that is being claimed. There can be many potential divisions in what we term actors, so much that such a division is potentially infinite, but it nevertheless requires a Prime Mover or first "efficent cause" in order to give the reaction/movement any energy at all. If there was no initial movement, there is no subsequent movement. This last statement is all that is needed to prove that a Prime Mover exists.

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

But cannot prove that a Prime Mover is a sentient being who "initiated" said alleged movement on purpose and once again we're at the question.

We can grant all day long that a Prime Mover exists, but if you cannot demonstrate why that Prime Mover must necessarily be a sentient being, who gives a flying rat's ass?

Demonstrate directly that a Prime Mover must necessarily be a sentient being. Don't go round and round the question to imply it through equivocation of terms, prove that a Prime Mover must necessarily be a sentient being, or concede the argument.

In your mind (in the theist mind) the Prime Mover must be a god, but that's not proving it, nor demonstrating why it must be a god that's assuming the conclusion and working backwards, which is not allowed. 

Here, I'll start you by granting for the sake of argument that there must be a Prime Mover:

P1: The Prime Mover must necessarily be _______________.
P2: _________________ must necessarily be a god.
C1: Therefore, the Prime Mover must necessarily be a god.

You fill in the blanks coherently to make P1 and P2 valid and then we can get to establishing that said god is necessarily the Christian god (or Muslim god, or Jewish god, or Hindu god, etc).Before Time God Did not Have Time To Decide To Create Time.
This is just a slight rewrite of the original problem of achilles and the turtle.

Achilles runs 10 times faster than the turtle can walk, so to be fair we allow the turtle to start 100 meters ahead of Achilles. So, Achilles speed up the 100 meters only to find that the turtle is 10 meters ahead. Ok, so he speed up the 10 meters only to find that he still didn't catch up with the turtle, she is now 1 meter ahead. Ok. He runs that meter, but, alas! The turtle is ahead by 0.1 meters! Ok, he run that stretch fast but the turtle is ahead by 1 cm! Darn it, he can never catch up with the turtle!

Of course, he does catch up with the turtle, we all know that. So, although it sounds logical and reasonable, there is a fundamental flaw here. The flaw is of course that it isn't logically correct, it isn't mathematically correct. It is flat out wrong. Achilles will catch up with the turtle on exactly 111.11111111111111.... meters or 1000/9 exactly. From then on he will be ahead and speed away.

Yes, there is another half point but that half point is half distance away, you will reach it in half the time it takes you to reach the full distance given that you walk with the same speed.

The ancient greeks didn't understand this completely - especially not the philosophers. Those who worked with math and in particular those who came after the greek - the hellenistic culture, they understood it quite well and found even rules for simple integration or specifically the area under the parabola which was found to be a cubic equation (involving x times x times x). They understood infinite sequences quite well, yet the greek philosophers did not and so they made the wrong conclusion.

If anything it proves that ancient philosophers were on the whole rather clueless and we shouldn't worry too much about their conclusions whenever they do not coincide with our own. There is absolutely no reason to think that they were right and we are wrong, it is far more likely that it is the other way around. For example they thought that emotions was centered in the heart while the intellect was in the head. From where did they get that silly idea? I have no idea, perhaps because you feel your heart pounding when you are scared or in love or otherwise in an emotional state but that has to do with hormones and not with emotions being centered in your heart.

If God Doesn’t Change When Making A Decision Then No Decision Was Really Made.

Pikachu, seems like you lean somewhat toward my attitude to philosophers, especially the older ones.

You are so biased it's not even funny. Further, I make no such statement. I merely claimed to show that the Prime Mover was God, but I wanted to consider correctly the argument that He exists before I prove that He has knowledge and understanding. It is merely to follow the logical order of things.

 

Well, you conceded the Prime Mover argument (which you challenge later). Assuming the Prime Mover exists, He is, as we have said, pure act. He must be an unmoved mover. Hence, He is not in potency to any other thing. He must be purely in act. But such a state requires Him to be without any division, as such division would be a potency - a part. Even a division between essence and existence would imply such a potency. However, the Prime Mover, as pure act, cannot have any parts, otherwise it would be in potency to itself.

Also, He cannot be in potency to any other thing, even in the order of existence. If He is not His own existence, He cannot be the Prime Mover, as He would be dependent on another for His act of existence.

Thus, it must be conceded that God does not have an division, and hence no composition whatsoever between matter and form or essence and existence, but is supremely simple and without division.

As such, God must be supremely immaterial because He is divorced from all matter. But knowledge is more and more knowable as it is more and more immaterial, reaching a kind of infinity. In God, therefore, the most immaterial thing, there must be the most knowability and knowledge in God.

Further, God Himself must have an intellectual life because what is alive is clearly that which moves itself. The more perfectly one moves oneself, the more perfect that life is. But some life moves itself without an internal form, but according to the exterior disposition acting upon it (like plants). Other life has a higher movement where the living thing takes in other forms (like animals). However, this is inhibited by its lack of being able to determine its own end. But the most perfect moving would be to move ones self toward a definite end. This is intelligent life. Our intellect might will some things over another and some less voluntarily, but the most perfect intellect would be that whose knowing is His own substance, only determined by Himself. Such is God, and thus He must possess intellect of the most supreme kind that is always in act.

 

The fact that the time is divisible as well is Aristotle's point as well. However, he likewise divides the realm into actual and possibly  infinite distance as well as time. It could be possibly divided into an infinite, but it is not actually so. Hence, I can move the meter.

Except that they solved it before you. And their philosophers were mathematicians, very often.

This is a fallacy of association. "They thought X, which is wrong, so they must be wrong on Y."  

 

Yep, then God makes no "decisions" according to your definition. God eternally wills something, without deliberation.

 

 

But you are presuming that these motionless masses exist in space, or even in the first place at all. But to exist in space and to have dimension and to be subject to a force of gravity is to be in motion, even in so far as they move in time. As in motion, they cannot be the first mover, but the first mover must be prior to them.

 

This is misleading on a number of levels. My argument does claim that motion requires a mover; this much is clear. However, it does not claim that motion must proceed infinitely backwards to movers. The universe cannot provide this motion just "because," but for the reason that the universe is itself moving. If it is moving, it cannot be the source of its own motion, but must be moved by another. This is because self-moved movers are logically impossible. So, if the universe is in motion, it cannot be an unmoved mover. Thus, we still need to postulate an unmoved mover, prior to all others, and this is God. 

 

God does not move Himself. You are committing a fallacy of equivocation. You move from the fact that no self-moved mover exists to claim this contradicts God's ability to move others. But God is not claimed to be self-moved, but to be the unmoved mover. So the argument doesn't hold.

 

Except that logic does apply to God. So, the argument fails. 

It is not a fallacy of composition. The whole is the sum of its parts. All things in the universe are in motion, so the universe is in motion. There is no invalid inference in my claim.

 

 

Only in a physical sense. But, I would point out, if there is no first mover, no motion exists at all in the set.

? Are we now claiming that all things are nothing? It is a logical contradiction to claim that something came from nothing, as this violates clearly the first principle of logic.

Coming to the conclusion that things move because of nothing and then committing equivocation fallacies and being dismissive of other people's claims "a priori" is not the best, either.

 

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

I call it God because it can be proven to be such, not because it has already been proven such. However, if that is what you mean, there was no equivocation because I was not trying to prove anything from the term that I used. I merely called it God, which I think is really even fair at this stage assuming that by "God" we mean the "cause of all things."

 

God, then, does no such thing.

God merely thinks and wills eternally without "making" a decision or deliberating.

 

Actually, I went to find where I showed this in this forum, and it seems that you were right in that I had not given my reasons why an infinite regress of movers was impossible in this forum. 

 I quote myself from another forum:

The reason we cannot proceed infinitely in movers can be proven three ways:

[1] If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these things must be bodies - coporeal entities. But every body that moves some thing is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinite bodies are moved when moving some thing. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all these infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is a contradiction. Hence, it is impossible that an actual infinity of movers can exist.

[1.a] Furthermore, it is impossible for an infinite to move in a finite time. This is because the moved and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except by continuity or congruity. Now, as has been proven, all these movers and things moved are bodies and thus most constitute a single congruity or continuity as a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in finite time. This, however, is impossible.

[2] If there is a series of ordered motions, where a mover moves a moved thing, and so on, it is necessarily a fact that if one removes the first motion, the subsequent motion ceases. This is because the first motion is the cause of motion in the others. If the order of causation was infinite, it possesses no first mover. Hence, no subsequent motion can exist.

[3] That which is in motion is only moved in so far as something moves it. Thus, a log is potentially hot but not actually so until it is set on fire. But, if there were no first mover, all things would be merely instrumental movers. They will thence be moved movers and there will be no motion because there is no first mover. Hence, no motion would exist, which is impossible.

 

 

P1: "To be alive" is to be able to move oneself, in some manner of speaking.

P2: The more perfect life is, the more perfectly a thing moves itself.

P3: Intellectual life is a self-motion that determines the mover's end.

C1: The most perfect life would be an intellectual life that thinks  its own substance as an end.

P4: But God is pure act and His own principle of motion - moving Himself toward Himself as an end.

C2: Therefore, God has the most perfect intellectual life, moving Himself toward His own substance as His end. 

 Also,

P1: Potency is imperfection

P2: But God, as pure act, is without potency.

C1: Therefore, God is without imperfection and wholly possessing every perfection.

P3: Knowing is a perfection.

C2: God possesses the ability to know.

P4: God cannot depend on another for His act of knowing.

C3: Therefore, God's knowledge is identical with His substance.

 

 

That makes no sense. You are the only one who might be committing the fallacy of composition here. The universe cannot be its own source of motion, as nothing can be self-moved. The universe is further in motion, as is clear from the motion of things, of which the universe is composed. It cannot move relative to anything outside of the universe, but it still is in motion and changing. For example, it changes and is in motion in time.

No, because those things remain in motion because they remain changing in at least more than one way. One way they are in motion is through time. Another is through natural motion of atoms. Even if they are the reference to our coordinate system, other things still act upon them, such as the ball hitting it. They are still changing. I would also argue that they remain in motion, even if we use them as the reference for a coordinate system. 

None of these could be the unmoved mover, likewise, because they are all acted upon by other forces and are changing, which is a form of motion.  

First, the universe changes, and is thus in motion. 

Second, you are assuming the universe is a uniform entity. Even if there is no absolute point of reference, things remain in motion even relatively.

 

The whole set is not moving only if you assume it is a uniform set. Otherwise, the set is still in motion, but only relatively.

 

Yes it is. Something cannot be and not be in the same way in the same respect. You violate that when you claim that something can come from nothing.

I never said that everything has to have an origin. I said that every thing in motion must have an mover. The universe is moving and changing and hence cannot be the ultimate source of that motion. Only an unmoved mover can satisfy.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

It does not assume finite time.

Also, yes I believe science seems to show that space is a real entity, with qualities that probably render it a body. For this reason, we can bend space/time with gravitational fields and so forth. Newer quantum mechanics likewise seems to indicate that space has a structure to it that renders it a real entity.

But, even without the science assumed, space is an entity, or not absolute nothing. This, I suppose, is really all that I advocate.  

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael