*Krehlic puts on his rose colored Christian goggles*

1. God did it. The Bible says so.

2. God did it. The Bible says so.

3. God did it. The Bible says so.

4. God did it. The Bible says so.

5. God did it. The Bible says so.

6. God did it. The Bible says so.

7. God did it. The Bible says so.

8. God did it. The Bible says so.

9. God did it. The Bible says so.

10. God did it. The Bible says so.

Duh.

God is outside of nature and omnipotent. Where have you been?

I don't care what you say. I KNOW I'm right.

 

Woah, that was pretty easy. Maybe I should go back to being a Christian.

...nah.

 

More of this "present me with some extraordinary evidence" nonsense.

You know, in our courts today, evidence is presented and one jury, for example, is deadlocked (they can't make a decision and a mistrial is declared) and the next jury in the defendant's trial decides that the exact same evidence is sufficient and the defendant is found guilty.

There is no absolute evidence - do you understand - just as there is no ABSOLUTE evidence that I love my three little daughters.

You'll just have to take it my word for it that I love my three little girls. 

 

We are not talking about legal evidence, we are talking about scientific evidence.  The way the courts work, and the way science works is very different (Which is very unfortunate to any innocent person who "accidentally" gets put away).



We are not talking about ABSOLUTE evidence, we are talking about extraordinary evidence.  As for loving your daughters, we don't need extraordinary evidence since loving your own children isn't an extraordinary event.  Virtually all parents love there kids, so taking your word for it is good enough.  But the points that are above ARE extraordinary, and that is why you need extraordinary evidence.

The classic jump to ABSOLUTE  evidence, or proof. Arrrgh!

Nothing is ever established with absolutely 100% proof except tautologies, ie A = B, where B = A, the same thing by another name. 

Nothing can be absolutely ruled out, except contradictions.

I see so often persistent failure to grasp the idea of dealing with degrees of likelihood, weighing the strength of evidence, making sure as many plausible alternatives have also been weighed, and so on.

Instead we get "You can't absolutely prove God doesn't exist" or similar.... 

I love the dishonesty inherent in StMichael. We ask him for evidence for miracles, so what does he do? DOes he present a case file of a miracle occuring? Does he submit to us a peer reviewed paper on miracles and their evidence in the natural world? No. Of course not.

What does he do? He tells us the definition of miracles. =/

Typical. Way to be the human dictionary, Michael - seriously I congratulate you on your vocabulary skills.  Now, for the love of Pete, where is the damned evidence?

StMichael doesn't need hard evidence. All he needs to know is what makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside and that everything that doesn't agree with that feeling is a lie.

Rob:

 

Like I said, it's alot of nonsense.

If I can't "prove" that I love my own daughters (ALL I can do is provide alot of "evidence&quot, then how on earth could I possibly prove that a man, who was crucified over 2,000 years ago arose fron the dead 3 days later, was exactly who He said He was - the Son of God..???!!!

It's absolute nonsense.

 

It's sad, rowdy, that you can make it so close to rational thought and then fall flat at the last instant.

Yes, science deals with the natural world.  By "natural" we mean, "everything that we can verify as existing."

If God and Christ exist outside of the natural world, then that logically means "God and Christ's existence is unverifiable."

It is like asking you to draw a five sided triangle.  Exactly.  So how is it that you know five sided triangles don't exist, but you believe god does?

That's illogical.

 

St. Michael:

In regard to the soul, you might find this essay informative: http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2006/12/my-case-against-god-classic-soul.html

The evidence just does not support the soul notion.

With regard to God as an ultimate cause, I think that argument is bankrupt. Any God capable of creating a wondrously complex universe must itself be very, very complex. As such, it too would need a creator to account for its manifest complexity.

The "everything needs a cause" argument cannot be applied selectively, or else it becomes logically impermissible. Cheers.

Christ's existence has been verified. by most scholars.

Without Christ, Christians would have a very difficult - if not impossible - time believing in the existence of GOD.

I stand by my original statement - science deals with the natural world - the world where the laws of science apply - the world where 16 ounces weighs a pound - a world where 2 + 2 = 4  etc etc etc.

 

The world of Christ is one where a "man" was seen walking on water - a world where a man performed miracles - a world where a man died and days later arose from the dead.

 

In the spirit of this thread, I also invite Christians to kiss their own elbows.

Show your evidence, because the earliest secular evidence (and this evidence is refuted) we have for his existence is from a man name Flavius Josephus, in a work called the Antiquities of the Jews, which was written sometime around 94CE (Rook, is this correct or do you know of anything more previous then that?). In Antiquities, he makes two references to a Jesus Christ:

The first one, known as the Testimonium Flavinum:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.

However, there is a lot of problems with this one, firstly, it "looks" like it was added in. You could take out this entire paragraph, and the book would flow just fine. Secondly, in the entire book, he makes it very clear that he is a Jew, yet here he names Jeses as the Christ, and that the prophets foretold his coming. Needless to say, this is very bizarre for a Jew to claim, and yet still call himself a Jew. And of course the most damning evidence, is that no one quotes this paragraph (which clearly states who he is) until about the 4th century, even those who were trying to prove his existence don't use it till then.

Then second time he is mentioned, is a bit more bizarre:

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest." Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1

Now, this line "Jesus, who was called Christ" is quoted before the 4th century, so it is likely (or at least possible) that this is an origional line. However there is two problems here. For starters, Christus (the document was originally written in Greek) means "Annointed", so it may simply refer to the fact that at the end of the paragraph, the Jesus in this story was "annointed" as a high priest. And of course, the Jesus in this story is completely different from the Jesus in the gospels. This Jesus has a brother named James, who was stoned to death, that Jesus's father's name was Damneus, and that Jesus became a high priest. Needless to say, it is highly unlikely that this is the same Jesus from the gospels, because with the exception of James as being named as Jesus's brother (see Mark 6:3, but both Jesus and James were very common names back then, so this is probably just a co-incedence, and Mark says nothing about James being stoned to death), none of this appears in any of the gospels, even the gnostic ones.

And this is the earliest, and best, evidence that scholars usually claim when they are trying to prove the existence of Jesus. If you can give me better prove, I honestly would LOVE to see it. And I'm not being sarcastic either, I honestly would like to see actual evidence for Jesus, whether historical or otherwise, as I think it would be a major discovery.



I couldn't agree more.



Ok, so if I told you that some guy (let's call him Betty-Sue) went to Mars, and returned, but it all happened supernaturally, and that you had to take my word on faith, would you honestly believe me? Or would you want some type of extraordinary evidence (like a Mars rock) for proof?

Even though these events (whether Jesus or Betty-Sue) are supernatural in nature, they happened in a natural world, and that is why there should be proof. Granted, you wouldn't be able to explain HOW an event happened, you should still be able to explain (somehow) that it DID happen. Also, don't you think that if a man went around Jeruselum, curing people, walking on water, raising the dead, at least someone would have written about him? But of course, there is NO contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, or anything like this happening.

Also, this just goes back to the point, if there is no evidence for it happening, why believe in it? You must have had some reason to believe in it in the first place (whether or not because your parents taught you, or the bible said so), if this reason is no longer good enough, then why still believe? As Richard Dawkins has said:

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Funny, when I was an Anglican, I thought that Catholics were the ones with irrational methods of belief.  Oh the irony.

Anyways, with most things, you are right, belief is generally an intellectual act.  But I think you would agree, that many people do believe somethings not because they actually make sense, but because they WANT it to make sense (ie. self-denial).  The question that you should ask yourself, is are you one of those people?  Do you believe in God because the evidence makes sense, or because you WANT it to make sense?  If you do think the evidence makes sense (indeed, if there is actual evidence), then show it, because that is what this entire thread is about.



Wow, here's a tired old argument.  The problem with this one, is that it makes the assumption that things weren't moving in the begining, or that something had to get the big bang started.  And even if you do accept the fact that something got the big bang started (or that there was even anything before the big bang), it doesn't actually prove that there was a God, it only means that there was some unknown event in the universe that we can't yet explain (this is no one entails sentience).  With that said, the boundary principle states that there simply wasn't anything before the big bang, that going farther back in time is similar to travelling up north.  You can keep travelling north until you hit the north pole, in which case there simply is no more north to travel to, just like you can go back in time until you reach the big bang, in which case there simply is no more "back in time" to go to.  Since we know that the big bang included movement (obviously, otherwise the universe wouldn't be expanding), we can safely say that things have always been in motion.  Therefore no supernatural being is needed to start it.

In case anybody is interested, I made this follow-up post on my blog yesterday:

Responding To My Critics

Since posting “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence” on this blog and some message boards I frequent, I’ve monitored Christians’ responses. To this point, very little evidence has been presented—certainly none of an extraordinary nature. Mostly, it’s just been conjecture and rhetoric, capable of convincing only those who actively wish to be convinced. For those who, like me, have high standards of evidence, atheism remains the obvious default position with regard to Yahweh and his fan club.

 

This post will address the three most common “objections” that have been raised with regard to my original list of questions. The first objection, if you want to call it that, relates to proof via historical documents. Some Christians have informed me that the Bible serves as extraordinary evidence for all ten items on my list. The second objection asserts that I misunderstand religion by trying to impose evidence standards on it. These Christians tell me that religion is supported by faith, not evidence; as such, so say these people, religious claims need not have evidence. The final objection is that none of the claims on my list actually is extraordinary. As such, extraordinary evidence is not needed.

 

The easiest of these dragons to slay is the historical document objection. The Bible cannot serve as extraordinary evidence for biblical claims because the Bible, in fact, is what is being called into question! It is downright extraordinary to claim that the Bible is perfect in every way and completely infallible. Thus, anybody making the inerrancy claim must support it with evidence of a most extraordinary nature. I have seen no evidence—ordinary or extraordinary—that the Bible is unfailingly reliable. The Bible is perfectly analogous to the Quran, the Book of Mormon and L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics because each one asserts a monopoly on Truth, yet none is able to support that lofty claim with evidence. Perhaps the most convincing evidence against biblical perfection is the fact that, as Sam Harris observed, there isn’t a single sentence in the Bible that couldn’t have been written by a first century man or woman. In any event, claiming the existence of a perfect book is extraordinary; there’s no way I’m going to grant such a fantastical assertion without overwhelming substantiation.

 

Similarly bankrupt is the notion that religious assertions need not have evidence. The problem with separating religion as a unique sphere of knowledge is the fact that each religion makes truth-claims. Either Jesus rose from the dead, or Jesus did not. Either that serpent spoke in human language, or it did not. Either Mary gave birth as a virgin, or she did not. These are factual issues, with factual answers. I was careful to avoid philosophical questions in composing my list because I didn’t want anything to be subjective—unable to be phrased as a factual proposition. So, while a question such as “What does God want from me?” might be considered immune to evidence-based analysis, my list has no such immunity. If Christians, purely based on “faith,” accept the resurrection, or talking serpent or virgin birth, then they are accepting truth-claims without evidence. That is irrational. Every truth-claim demands supporting evidence. If none can be provided, the truth-claim should be tentatively rejected, while waiting for evidence to materialize. This is the proper process for every sphere of knowledge, from biology to archaeology to theology.

 

Finally, on one Christian message board, a respondent made the following counterargument: Over the course of time, an overwhelming majority of humans has believed in a deity. Therefore, belief in a deity is quite ordinary, not extraordinary. Ergo, Christian claims (including the ten I listed in my original post) are ordinary ones, not requiring extraordinary corroboration. What follows is my reply to that respondent. He has not yet directly responded to that post.

 

I have discovered why you are unable to grasp my point about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. You see, you are conflating two wildly dissimilar things: Belief in God and Existence of God.

 

Belief in God is ordinary and common, but it's also not a truth-claim. Existence of God is extraordinary, since such an entity (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) never empirically has been proved to exist anywhere in the cosmos. Indeed, the cosmos does not contain a single instance of omniscience, omnipotence or omnibenevolence by itself, much less all three at once in a single Superbeing.

 

You keep harping on widespread belief, which, again I say, has nothing to do with actual truth. For example, you probably dismiss Islam, despite the fact that one billion people currently follow that faith, many quite devoutly. Could one billion people be flat wrong? Christianity is not followed by the majority of the Earth's population; so, convincing as it might be, it's not that convincing.

 

Perhaps most importantly, the vast majority of religions are mutually exclusive, making your "lump sum" God-belief argument suspicious at best. Equating Yahweh, Enlil, Ninlil and Zeus is no way to defend the existence of God. Rather, pick your favorite God character and present some evidence.

 

People are easily deceived, confounded and confused. That's why I look upon every extraordinary claim with harsh skepticism. If the evidence for Christianity is so overwhelming that billions upon billions of people have been completely convinced ... please present that evidence to me. The whole point of this post is to serve as a receptacle in which evidence can be deposited. Present the best evidence you have, and I'll consider it in earnest. I promise.

 

Remember that 100 billion people who hold a belief on the basis of bad evidence are less convincing than a single person who holds a belief on the basis of solid evidence. A numbers game will not convince me until I see the evidence that rallied billions behind some particular faith.

 

Atheism is a positive claim only inasmuch as harsh skepticism toward Invisible Garden Banshees represents a positive claim. With regard to God and I.G.B., I presume non-existence until presented with evidence of a tremendously convincing nature.

Discuss....

You say it doesn't have anything to do with the big bang, but you make it clear both after this line, and in previous posts, that it has everything to do with the big bang. And as I was saying before, the argument would only hold any water it there was a time when there was no movement. Tell me what this time is, because it simply doesn't exist.



Ok, then show me how, because all you have really done, is said that there is something that doesn't make sense, and that proves God. That's pseudoscience, and it's just nonsense. Not only have you not explained what happened, you haven't made any connection to a sentient entity.



You mention the notion that God is outside of time, but you miss something here. The notion that the entire universe (as a whole, past, present, and future) exists outside of time (we only view the universe through the view point of time). The universe (as a whole) existing outside of time also deals away with the notion of a begining (it would be like trying to find the start and end of a dot). I think you need to start asking yourself, if a God could exist this way, why can't the universe exist that way? You need to show something that definitively shows sentience, and you haven't.

As for your so-called logical point, you still seem to be forgetting the point I made, and that is the universe has always been in motion. Your unseen mover is only needed if there was a time when there wasn't any motion, but that time never existed, so your mover doesn't need to exist either.

Ok, I'm going to make this very simple.  I want you to explain exactly why you think "an unmoved mover sustains the existence of motion in the universe."  Because you are asserting something as true without putting any evidence forward.

StMichael wrote:

Even if the universe was always in motion, it still logically requires an unmoved mover to sustain this motion (as what is in motion is either moved by another or self-moved, and the latter is impossible).

This is explicitly wrong scientifically, and invalid logically. There is nothing illogical about 'self-moved', whatever that may mean, and it isn't what we know from science anyway.

When a star collapses under the gravitational force of its own substance, could that not be called 'self-moved'?

When a rocket accelerates under the action of expelling some of its own substance, is that not 'self-moved'? 

Let's try this again, because you seem to be ignoring this:

Explain why you think "an unmoved mover sustains the existence of motion in the universe."

Just to let you know, I'm not trying to be a complete a-hole by asking this again, I'm am asking this again because you continually try to assert this claim, without giving any real reasoning behind this, and despite the fact that the point is mute in a universe where movement has always existed (unless you think God, or an unmoved mover, is needed to sustain movement, which is what your claim above sounds like).

It's also interesting that the unmoved mover argument was originally (or its the earlist that I can think of) made by Aristotle, and had nothing to do with the Christianity, or even monotheism.

Well, as I said, the unmoved mover is the cause of the existence of all things, not just in so far as they move, but in so far as they are actually existent. This follows from His nature as subsistent being itself (which follows from His character as pure act without potency). Other things cannot have being outside of His being (as He is subsistent being itself), and thus must participate in His act of being in order to exist.

 

Which is impossible in the sense that motion requires a mover. Unless there is an unmoved mover, motion cannot exist in things at all. It is concievable that motion like this existed from all time, but not without an unmoved mover as its efficent cause.

 

Yes, it is. The pagans had natural knowledge of God, as had any number of pagans and others before Christ. But I wouldn't say it had nothing to do with monotheism, as Aristotle was essentially a monotheist.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Aristotle, like Plato, believed in a transcendent supreme entity, because the Olypian gods failed to have any attributes that made them any better than humans. It's probably accurate to call him a monotheist, as the way that he defines gods basicly excludes other gods, but the StMichael's association with the Christian god is pure revisionism. As far as I know, there is nothing linking early Christians with Aristotle's theology.

I never said that Aristotle's God was, as he concieved it, identical with the Christian God (as obviously Christianity did not exist). I would, however, argue that it was identical in reality with the Christian God. 

 

God is necessary being, whose existence is identical with His essence. So, yes. But we don't have to move from this principle forward. The fact that things are in motion indicates an unmoved mover, where the universe cannot satisfy as an unmoved mover because it is in motion. Only an unmoved mover can do so.

The only way in which the universe could have existed perpetually is if it existed as a dependent cause upon God. Even if it existed forever, it would still not be an absolutely necessarily existing thing. Compare if I had light from a sun that existed perpetually. The light does not have a necessary and independent existence from the sun. The light exists only because the sun exists. In a same way, it would be possible to say that the universe existed perpetually, but it would always require an necessary cause.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

OK, personally I'm sick of this "unmoved mover".

The "unmoved mover" principle is, basically, a rare type of bad hypotheses fallacy. Physically, any object is "in motion" RELATIVE TO A SPECIFIC ENTITY if its parameters, that can be noticed, measured and calculated from that entity are changing. From this point of view, the entity from which the process is observed is simply A WITNESS.

The error you're committing here is to presume that to every physical point there must be a point of reference. It is true if you wish to actually measure/calculate the effect, but not necessary for the process to actually happen (for example, didn't the laws of thermal energy work before Kelvin calculated his 0 degrees ?). Remember that most reference points are taken mostly at random, possibly the most convenient reference point there was when there was need of it.

Therefore... your "unmoved mover" is simply a witness. Your bad hypotheses fallacy (a.k.a. in this particular case "the journalist's fallacy&quot: always assuming a real witness, even though one may not necessarily exist.

Want proof of motion without a witness, or a reference point? Simple experiment: take two balls of metal, charged with electricity, same sign. First off, look at them. You will see that they repulse one another. Next, don't look at them. They will continue to repulse one another. They can do that with or without you (or anyone/thing) actually being a witness of the process. (PS: obviously, I'm being a bit ironic here)

Furthermore, accepting the "principle" is in itself a paradox. Nobody can stop me from asking myself "What was there BEFORE this principle, as we imagine it?" Causality is, unfortunately, a "must-have" of our Universe. We know of nothing (in an objective way) that has no cause, like a sudden blob of matter appearing 12 miles east of NY, without no cause at all. Can we temporalize the event? At least in theory, yes... Can we observe the event? No. It just happens, and, unfortunately, nothing like that happened that I know of.

In the Bible, God behaves, takes action, is jealous, has feelings, ALL pointing towards the conclusion that God (or at least part of it) is a causal being. Had he been non-causal, then any of our actions would not constitute premises for His actions and states of emotion (and therefore our attitude towards Him wouldn't matter much). Furthermore, God also has a temporal lining of feelings and actions, thus making him not only subject to causality, but denying his atemporal status. Therefore, imagining that particular God as a principle is AT LEAST illogical.

PS: Please don't make me quote anything on the last paragraph. These facts have been heavily debated here at RRS, they will appear in my book as well, when I finish and release it.

PS2: Light does exist in absence of the Sun. My monitor is blinding me with it right as we speak. What exactly did you mean with your example?

It has nothing to do with the ontological argument. In context, I was referring to what God is and why He is thus necessary. As He is the Prime Mover, He is without motion, change, or potency in any degree. Any division in what He is is likewise a potency. So, God is utterly simple and non-complex. Even what He is does not differ from how He is. Contrast this picture of what constitutes an unmoved mover with the universe. The universe cannot exist in this manner because it is in motion and hence dependent on a mover underlying its motion.

 

OK, then. How does motion begin in a thing without a mover?

No, because God is unmoved. My premise is merely that things that are in motion require movers. The universe is in motion and requires an unmoved mover. God is unmoved and hence needs no ulterior mover.

 Show me how the universe is outside of time. Every thing in the material universe is a body, of some sort. As a body, everything in the universe is in time, as time is merely determined by bodies in motion. The whole is the sum of its parts. Unless the universe is composed of some non-material entity, the universe as a whole is not outside of time.

 

It does not matter, as the object still is in motion. Relative motion counts regardless, because it is clearly evident to us that things are in a state of motion and change. As long as things are in change, even merely relative change, this proves that case that an unmover mover follows. It doesn't matter what variety of motion exists, because every motion requires a mover.

 

I am not. Things are in motion, regardless of how relative said motion is. Even if things are in motion through time, this counts as motion. Even if things are not themselves in motion, but merely my reference point is in motion, or such concepts of reference are meaningless, something is being moved, something is changing. This is all that is necessary to posit that an unmoved mover is necessary. Further, your error is to assume, later, that my unmoved mover is a stable physical reference, which is false. Every physical action necessitates a reaction, and thus the unmoved mover must necessarily be non-physical if it is to be unmoved.

 

I see no reason why this impacts my argument for an unmoved mover. I am not arguing for an absolute frame of reference. Further, your argument is fallacious on the grounds that God could be witnessing the process. You have not definitively proven that God can't be witnessing the process, so you can't rule that out. But, as I pointed out, this is totally irrelevant to any unmoved mover argument. I was just pointing out the bad logic.

I was not arguing for an absolute first cause (I could, but I am not). I was arguing for an absolute first mover. If motion exists in a thing, it necessitates that a mover exists to move this thing and give it the initial momentum that it possesses. It is a basic rule of physics that a things cannot have motion unless given motion by a mover. An unmoved mover is necessary to explain how motion exists in things now.

 

Sacred Scripture uses allegory to explain God and His actions to us. But I don't see how this is relevant anyway.

Unless of course your reading of what Scripture says is false, which I believe is clear. Sacred Scripture speaks in analogies and figurative language. For example, God is depicted as creating the world in 6 stages in Genesis, when His creative act would create the world in a instant. The division is an analogy that helps us to understand the act of His creation (further, Scripture even clarifies this later).

I don't understand what you mean by "casual" as the phrase seems to have a specific meaning in your usage. It seems that you mean that God "can be affected" by outside factors, which is obviously false. Both from what reason tells us and from what Scripture clearly indicates elsewhere about God. God does not change. He eternally is. His decisions and thinking occurs purely outside of time in an eternal "now" that is proper to God, not in time. 

 

I didn't say that light itself was caused by the sun. But that the light of the sun is dependent on the sun for its existence. In the same way, the world could be argued to have existed from eternity, but it would likewise hold a similar relation in view of God - God would necessarily be its eternal source. This is because the universe does not possess a necessary existence - things in the universe clearly change, becoming generated and corrupted, and the universe is in motion in many ways, changing, and thus displaying that it requires an unmoved mover.

 

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

It is not unmoved, because its parts are moving.

Only in material bodies. Further, it will move as a whole because the part moves. It might not "change locations" or something like that, but the whole changes when the part changes, because the whole is dependent upon the part in this case.

An unmoved mover is absolutely unmoved in any part. In fact, it cannot have parts at all because it must be utterly simple and without any division.

That only assumes material bodies. Which is why the Prime Mover must be immaterial. Every body that is acted upon necessitates an equal and opposite reaction. There must be at least one immaterial unmoved mover which causes motion in material bodies.

This is motion proceeding from its own parts. It is only self-moved in an accidental sense. I would point out, however, that these might be natural movements (proceeding from the substantial nature of the thing), but that these are likewise dependent. For example, the car moves itself only in an accidental sense, because somebody designed the car, and filled the tank with gas, and began the reaction which proceeds without further intervention. Also, in the rocket, this proceeds from the reaction in the propellant. But someone is necessary to design and manufacture the rocket and to set the reaction in motion.  

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Yes.

Quantum physics appears to be truly stochastic. No matter what experiments are tried, it keeps looking noncausal. Quantum tunneling is exactly what you described (a blob appearing suddenly somewhere with no identifiable cause), but at a much smaller scale.

We observe causility at ordinary levels of precision, because all these random varioations happen at such a small scale that we observe them, and because, although they appear random, they still have an ordinary probability distribution function (PDF). Since they have an ordinary PDF, the multitudes of quantum events average out via the Central Limit Theorem to appear as causaility at the level we observe.

The universe might actually be fundamentally noncausal, which of course blows all these antiquated arguments from first principles out the door independent of the coherence of infinte regression.