INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

I guess I have a better memory than you do.

Just apply what I said that you responded to, to this response, because the exact same thing was done by you here. Either quit making personal commentaries or prove they are true. I do not care which, but honor demands one or the other be done.

 

[1robin]

Quite! And a dogmatic belief that a supernatural being that sent his son, who was born of a virgin, to earth to die for our sins, and seeks a relationship with his own creation isn’t the “best fit, most explanatory and consistent with most of the evidence”! In fact the only evidence we have indicates that the world had a beginning.

That was confusing.

1. The only evidence we have is that the world has a beginning.
a. So you are excluding al other forms of evidence for all other claims beyond that one.
b. Is a world with a beginning not exactly what I have been trying so hard to get you to agree to.
c. Are you being rhetorical or something here?

2. In fact there is a consensus among NT scholars regardless of what side (theologically they are on) that four (among a great many) facts are true of history.
a. Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
b. Jesus was killed by crucifixion by the Romans.
c. His tomb was found empty.
d. The apostles 9and even critics and those hostile to him) sincerely believed
they had witnessed him after death.

The very best explanation available for just these four facts is the Gospel testimony. There is not even a close second.

That is a ridiculous argument from authority. This school yard “My Dad is bigger than your Dad” stuff isn’t the proper way to carry on a debate. These third person allusions mean nothing. By all means refer to these learned men but present their arguments here, in your own words, so that I may have a chance to refute to them.

I am forced to appeal to expert testimony just as every court system on earth does as another methodology to evaluate your claims. For every philosophical claim that concerns God there is a group that believes it is reliable and another that attempts to poke holes in by any means necessary. Using my knowledge and experience I find the theological position the most reliable between the two for most issues. You seem to suggest that was an invalid methodology. You claimed standard criteria's (like contradictions) eliminated the validity or the arguments made. Experts in those criteria that I have learned to trust (the same way the boards of major universities have) certain scholars who claimed the exact opposite of what you said. My conclusion is that you are incorrect. I have no methodology left that argues in favor of your view that I consider valid. You may be right but I have honestly and sincerely determined you are not. Is there a better way to resolve this?

That statement (1) is saying nothing at all. And in any case evidence from this world is not evidence for other worlds.

It most certainly can be. Let me point out something first. Your side of things loves the multiverse fantasy because it circumvents so many inconvenient facts like fine tuning, beginnings, etc.. (or they think it does). I have often said that there can't be any evidence of other verses because it would not be accessible from this one. I have been told that, that is incorrect that in fact anomalies in this universe are evidence for other universes. I can't remember your position on multiverse but scholars from your own side quite often disagree with your statement above. Back to this point. Yes, certain aspects of this universe that are independent from it are very good evidence for another realm beyond this one. The definition of evidence I have found the most meaning is a type of informational claim that makes a proposition more likely by it's inclusion. The claims I have made make the supernatural more likely by their existence. That does not mean they prove it, they argue for it or suggest it.

Let me remind you that you are not merely proposing a First Cause, or even a deist God, upon which we might find common ground; your argument is for a thinly-veiled dogma, the Biblical God and a world that is 6000 years old, created by a being that demands fealty from his creation yet seeks for it to worship and love him. I think your proposal is far more fanciful and speculative than mine!

It is in general it is not in detail. My use of the cosmological argument is as evidence for a first cause that must line up very closely with the Biblical God. We have not discussed much doctrine but I use very different argumentation for it. In summary certain arguments posit general claims and certain argument specific ones. My beliefs are independent from the arguments.

To say causality doesn’t depend upon the universe is to imply that it exists as some kind of ethereal or necessary being in its own right. If that is the case then it is for you to show that it is the case instead of continually making unsupported assertions to that end. What general experience do you call upon to make your assertion or what demonstrative reasoning can you provide? None!

That is exactly what I am saying. You have said causality is a contingent concept. If it is not contingent upon the natural then it has only one other option. I do not need to show it is necessary, I only need to show it exists and has no natural dependence. The rest is unavoidable deduction. If I find a document that was not produced inside my company it MUST be produced by entities outside my company. The height of futility is asking a question of me that you answer yourself. It is the epitome of semantic wrangling designed to win word fights not resolve issues.


Continued below;

 

[1robin]

You're not seeing the difference, which is that I don’t have a dogmatic position that I’m prepared to die in a ditch to defend. And nor was it a claim: I gave two opposing hypotheses.

The existence of a belief so strong life will be sacrificed for it does not make the claim any less reliable. It is quite irrelevant. My beliefs do not arise from dogma ( I hate dogma) they coincide with doctrine. I made no claims about dyeing for a cosmological argument at all. I would hope I would be able to die for Christ but that is a completely independent issue. We are discussing logical deductions not levels of commitment. Your deduction has no explanation for adopting, mine have no explanation for rejecting.

I’m trying to have a grown up debate with you but your default position is to keep pulling up the drawbridge and making pleas to authority. I’m sorry but it’s infantile.

It is so infantile that when the stakes are life and death the most meaningful thing done in a courtroom is to bring in expert testimony. This is a double standard that includes and insult as it's defense. Almost every debate with a non-theist winds up with the non-theist arrogantly insulting the theist. I had high expectations that you might be an exception but they are in real jeopardy. 99.9% of information adopted comes from authority or witness. Almost all arguments resolve to that dichotomy ultimately. If it is good enough to decide declarations of war, matters of legal life and death, and scientific academic doctrine on what basis are you rejecting it. BTW arguments from authority are only a fallacy if they are used to make proof claims. They are not a fallacy when used as a factor in a effort at resolution.

The essence of my argument is that the material world is finite i.e. it has not always existed and doesn’t have to exist at all. And since matter isn’t a logical absolute it may continue existing indefinitely or it may cease to exist altogether. If you remember I gave two hypotheses, both of which were grounded in the world’s finitude, one expounding the former possibility and the other the latter.

I agree with the first half and have spent mush time trying to convince you what you have claimed is true. The last half is a statement about what could happen extrapolated to a likelihood it will happen which is bogus. Matter does not have to exist eternally in the future. There is no reason to suggest it will not.

Yes, in the physical world!

However the relationships apprehended are not contingent on the natural so there exists no reason to suspend them beyond the natural. In fact all of science is based on the principle that rationality and lawfulness is not dependent on geography. We assume the speed of light is independent of where it is measured.

Cause and effect has no known existence beyond what is natural.

I never claimed it has. I claimed there is no reason to suspend it beyond the natural. If I have to account the natural and can't do so by the natural then assumptions like this must be investigated. I have and you have my conclusion. BTW assumptions that make that one look like a certainty are routinely made by science, why is it any less valid for faith? Double standards again.

All the available evidence, to borrow your favourite term, says nothing existed before the Big Bang. No space and no time. And causality is contingent and by definition a time related phenomenon. Nothing happens simultaneously, B always follows from A, which precedes it in time. It is always A, then B. And therefore causality could not have pre-existed the Big Bang.

No, it says nothing natural existed before the BB. Laws used to evaluate the natural and only explain the natural have no comment on the non-natural. Even if contingent and would believe it was that does not make it cease with the natural. It would only make it cease with the elimination of it's cause. It's cause (or source) is not natural and so it would exist even if the natural did not.

Your argument is not sound. Your second premise is false since you are trying to say causality exists independent of the world, a statement that isn’t true. Cause and effect as only ever been observed in the material world, and being contingent it cannot be necessary. So your argument is refuted empirically and logically.

[/QUOTE] Prove that statement is not true. I did not say it was true. I said there exists more reasons to believe it is that that is isn't. I do not even know a reason to believe it isn't. I have no burden of proof (I made no claim to certain knowledge), you do (because you did). Animals were at one time only observable or apprehended by people outside N America. Did that fact do anything to indicate animals did not exist in N America. My argument is basically the same. There are more reasons to believe life exists where ever it is possible than reasons to doubt it can or does. You are basically saying if you cannot prove X then X is impossible. Don't get the reasoning. My claim was not an empirical one and can't be condemned empirically. It is logical and is supported by logic and scholars of logic. There I go again using those that best know about a concept to evaluate a concept. How dare me?

Take a break if you need to. Your are my only hope for a civil and emotionless discussion at the moment. If you crack the jig is up. What is the saying "the jig is up" founded on anyway?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just apply what I said that you responded to, to this response, because the exact same thing was done by you here. Either quit making personal commentaries or prove they are true. I do not care which, but honor demands one or the other be done.

I've been talking to you for a very long time. I know it's true.

I'm sorry but I'm not searching through numerous threads filled with hundreds of posts to find these things to prove it to you. I'll point it out in future posts, if you like. Or you could just read some of your own posts once in a while.

 

[SkepticThinker]

2. In fact there is a consensus among NT scholars regardless of what side (theologically they are on) that four (among a great many) facts are true of history.
a. Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
b. Jesus was killed by crucifixion by the Romans.
c. His tomb was found empty.
d. The apostles 9and even critics and those hostile to him) sincerely believed
they had witnessed him after death.

Have these NT scholars you speak of never heard of the Mesopotamian ruler, Naram-Sin of Akkad who claimed divine authority? That's just one of the top of my head.

As to d, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does that mean it actually happens?

 

[cottage]

My statement is unaffected by your acceptance or denial of either contention. They are still the most likely probabilities known. I made my claims knowing which you would prefer but neither are consistent with ceasing to exist which is what I think you had claimed. A thing that ceases to exist does not suffer heat death. Only things that are have qualities or properties. The least likely future state is non-being of the contents of nature. I really can't believe you are claiming this.

You said: “In no case will it cease to exist all together.”
That is an absolute assertion, an explicit argument to certainty. Firstly you are not in a position to know it to be certain, but secondly the statement is wrong because it isn’t certain and therefore the statement can be neither true nor false, whereas every speck of contingent matter can be conceived to be annihilated without incurring any contradiction.

Arguments that rely completely on language use and not on extrapolation from actual existence are rhetorical IMO. I see very little value in them. Let me illustrate an example of that.

If I said a woman was hot, and then later said she was cool. A semantic objection would be to claim that two self contradictory claims to truth can't both be true. However in fact I meant two different things common in language use and both can be true at the same time.

That is an example of something that has no actual contradiction in reality being forced into a technical contradiction based on semantics. It is like trying to get a guilty person declared innocent based on a technical violation concerning procedure.

Now forget for a moment whether you agree with anything I said. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

There is no contradiction in what you’ve just described. A contradiction is demonstrated where two distinct things cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.

Let me try to step by step reflect what you have said here.

1. You and I both agree that cause and effect applies to all observations in the natural. Good start.
2. Ok next you claim no inference is meaningful beyond the natural because it negation does not involve a contradiction. I see the wheels are coming off. It is not the criteria of a meaningful claim that its negation produce a contradiction. That criteria might add to or detract from how strong the argumentation is not it's validity for inclusion.

What I said is that to make the claim that causality exists “beyond nature” is to assume first that there is in fact some thing “beyond nature”, and secondly to assume that causal sequences would still obtain; two highly speculative assumptions in other words, whereas no person can deny that causality exists in nature. There is nothing in general experience that gives an indication of anything beyond nature and no reason to believe even if there were that natural phenomena would still apply. The full argument is at the bottom of the page.

3. To say the supernatural exists is a very (almost necessary) claim. You seem to dismiss this for reasons I can't get. If things are apprehended in the natural which have no origin, cause, or dependence on the natural ten the supernatural (or beyond the natural) realm becomes a virtual necessity. This would take so long to illustrate and evaluate it is self prohibitive, but for now I want you to at least understand what I claim in response to specific claims you make.

That’s a truly terrible argument: basically we can’t explain X and so X must be supernatural! It’s an argument that belongs in the dark ages, where superstition took the place of anything that couldn’t be explained. And it is nonsense to say the supernatural exists is “almost a necessary claim” when it is based primarily on ignorance and/or a doctrinal belief as faith.

4. You said that cause and effects extrapolation to the supernatural would result in God's being subject to mutation, change, and movement.

Indeed! I’m quoting your own argument back at you, for that is what is implied.

You are first going to have to illustrate why this is. How is God mutated by an outside force (like thermodynamics for example) if cause and effect apply to the supernatural? I just do not see what your saying. The existence of cause and effect does not establish a hierarchy of causal forces. For example time would not degrade or mutate God because cause and effect existed. There is not much use in my trying to guess what you meant. Lay it out and I will evaluate it.

“Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect” is empirically true.
Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect, which necessarily requires mutation and movement, since one thing acting in relation to another in time is the definition of causality.
“Everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect” is unverifiable, and therefore it isn’t empirically true.
If causality does exist beyond nature then it must involve mutation and movement.
But:
There was no time before the Big Bang and therefore causality could not pre-exist the beginning of the universe, and so cause and effect, which acts in relation to time as mutation and movement, is only coherent after the universe is begun.
And:
If everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect then it follows that God is dependent upon causation and therefore subject to mutation and movement, which contradicts the notion of a timeless, immutable, unmoved mover. The only way out of that impasse is to make a special plea and say it doesn’t apply to God. But in that case “Everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect” is a false premise!” And it cannot be said that “Some things beyond nature are subject to cause and effect”. That won’t help you either for that means you’ve rejected your own argument since you’ve wanted to maintain that cause and effect is to be taken as a general principle that can transcend nature.
And:
If God is the prime mover then he himself is contingent upon a demonstrably contingent principle in order to create the world, and he cannot on those terms logically be given the appellation “Necessary”.

My argumentation long ago changed criteria. I over time have confined my goals with satisfying myself that an argument was sufficiently stated. God only require that we present the truth as best we can determine it. I do what is necessary to satisfy myself, it is up to you what you do with it. Just to show you the ambiguity involved here. Another atheist has said I must supply more evidence and sources, that same person also gave me a weeks worth of reading in a torrent of links. You suggest you desire less to read. There is no norm here, there is no known limit or requirement. I do what satisfies my conscience, what is done with it is not my responsibility. When discussing things with me (as we have been doing page after page after page) you will from time to time get long winded responses, brief responses, and various length references. I can not keep up with everyone's desired amounts and types of material. The best way to deal with this impracticality is for you to read what you wish and not read what you wish. As long as you explain what was done by you there is no offense given and no complaint on my part possible. Do as you wish, just let me know what was done.

Yes, I entirely agree that you ought to provide evidence or post links to scientific studies, in support of those forms of arguments, and the academic convention of course is to quote your sources. But in the case of philosophy we’re not referring to technical studies or lengthy research papers but arguments, and arguments are largely logic based and they stand or fall according to the validity of the premises and the soundness of the conclusions. Also, I’m debating you and not a third party and so I expect you to present arguments in your own words and not simply post cut and pasted arguments from the Internet.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to respond to so many posts, but I’m pleased you respond to mine as I rather like these protracted debates.

 

[cottage]

That was confusing.

1. The only evidence we have is that the world has a beginning.
a. So you are excluding al other forms of evidence for all other claims beyond that one.
b. Is a world with a beginning not exactly what I have been trying so hard to get you to agree to.
c. Are you being rhetorical or something here?

I’m excluding all claims that are contradictory, in this case the Biblical God. And I have never, ever argued for matter existing from eternity. The world is contingent and it therefore began, and that is consistent with my every argument or hypothesis.

2. In fact there is a consensus among NT scholars regardless of what side (theologically they are on) that four (among a great many) facts are true of history.
a. Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
b. Jesus was killed by crucifixion by the Romans.
c. His tomb was found empty.
d. The apostles 9and even critics and those hostile to him) sincerely believed
they had witnessed him after death.

The very best explanation available for just these four facts is the Gospel testimony. There is not even a close second.

If it were the best evidence then it would be generally accepted as a fact but it isn't and that is bcause a supposed existence of a supernatural deity cannot be demonstrated in general experience. It is an explanation for believers.

I am forced to appeal to expert testimony just as every court system on earth does as another methodology to evaluate your claims. For every philosophical claim that concerns God there is a group that believes it is reliable and another that attempts to poke holes in by any means necessary. Using my knowledge and experience I find the theological position the most reliable between the two for most issues. You seem to suggest that was an invalid methodology. You claimed standard criteria's (like contradictions) eliminated the validity or the arguments made. Experts in those criteria that I have learned to trust (the same way the boards of major universities have) certain scholars who claimed the exact opposite of what you said. My conclusion is that you are incorrect. I have no methodology left that argues in favor of your view that I consider valid. You may be right but I have honestly and sincerely determined you are not. Is there a better way to resolve this?

You are not giving evidence under oath in a court of law. You are supposed to be debating with me, and yet just read your own words above. What are you saying? Nothing!

It most certainly can be. Let me point out something first. Your side of things loves the multiverse fantasy because it circumvents so many inconvenient facts like fine tuning, beginnings, etc.. (or they think it does). I have often said that there can't be any evidence of other verses because it would not be accessible from this one. I have been told that, that is incorrect that in fact anomalies in this universe are evidence for other universes. I can't remember your position on multiverse but scholars from your own side quite often disagree with your statement above. Back to this point. Yes, certain aspects of this universe that are independent from it are very good evidence for another realm beyond this one. The definition of evidence I have found the most meaning is a type of informational claim that makes a proposition more likely by it's inclusion. The claims I have made make the supernatural more likely by their existence. That does not mean they prove it, they argue for it or suggest it.

Again, lots of words but no substance! You are saying nothing to me except to set up the straw man of mulitverses in order to knock him down.

That is exactly what I am saying. You have said causality is a contingent concept. If it is not contingent upon the natural then it has only one other option. I do not need to show it is necessary, I only need to show it exists and has no natural dependence. The rest is unavoidable deduction. If I find a document that was not produced inside my company it MUST be produced by entities outside my company. The height of futility is asking a question of me that you answer yourself. It is the epitome of semantic wrangling designed to win word fights not resolve issues.

Causation is contingent upon the natural world and the opposite is also true; and the two can only exist together in relation to objects, as in object A is observed to have the effect X on object B. But objects needn’t exist at all. All objects are contingent. And how do we know this? We know it to be certain because the non-existence of every distinctly conceivable object is possible and can never imply a contradiction. No contingent objects then no causality. And further more, statements that insist one thing must always be the cause of another are only contingently true. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow or that object A will not have the effect X on object B, since in both cases it might not.

 

[cottage]

The existence of a belief so strong life will be sacrificed for it does not make the claim any less reliable. It is quite irrelevant. My beliefs do not arise from dogma ( I hate dogma) they coincide with doctrine. I made no claims about dyeing for a cosmological argument at all. I would hope I would be able to die for Christ but that is a completely independent issue. We are discussing logical deductions not levels of commitment. Your deduction has no explanation for adopting, mine have no explanation for rejecting.

Well I certainly wasn’t speaking in a literal sense! The point I was making was that I don’t have to arrive a specific conclusion that agrees with what I want to believe or, as Bertrand Russell described it: “the finding for a conclusion that is held in advance”. You won’t allow anything to count against your belief as faith, whereas if “God exists” is proved true then I must accept that truth. (In the past I was known as a “Closet theist” on the AOL forum because of the way I used to test arguments.)

It is so infantile that when the stakes are life and death the most meaningful thing done in a courtroom is to bring in expert testimony. This is a double standard that includes and insult as it's defense. Almost every debate with a non-theist winds up with the non-theist arrogantly insulting the theist. I had high expectations that you might be an exception but they are in real jeopardy. 99.9% of information adopted comes from authority or witness. Almost all arguments resolve to that dichotomy ultimately. If it is good enough to decide declarations of war, matters of legal life and death, and scientific academic doctrine on what basis are you rejecting it. BTW arguments from authority are only a fallacy if they are used to make proof claims. They are not a fallacy when used as a factor in a effort at resolution.

But for heaven’s sake we’re not in a court of law, you are not under oath and very often you don’t even identify these so-called scholars or expert witnesses. And it is an argument from authority and it is fallacious when it given in a way that I can’t respond to because you’re merely alluding to what someone has said or claimed.
Oh and please don’t come over all offended and take things personally just because I’ve criticized your post, because I really don’t believe you have such tender sensibilities. "Attack the post but not the poster" is, I believe, message board protocol?

I agree with the first half and have spent mush time trying to convince you what you have claimed is true. The last half is a statement about what could happen extrapolated to a likelihood it will happen which is bogus. Matter does not have to exist eternally in the future. There is no reason to suggest it will not.

With regard to your first sentence my advice would be not to waste your time trying to convince me of what I already believe to be the case. And you’ve not taken in my argument. I gave two opposing hypotheses, either of which is possible.

However the relationships apprehended are not contingent on the natural so there exists no reason to suspend them beyond the natural. In fact all of science is based on the principle that rationality and lawfulness is not dependent on geography. We assume the speed of light is independent of where it is measured.

Well that’s wrong! You are just making an argument from speculation and it’s hardly dependent upon geography – unless that is you can identify where in the cosmos “beyond nature” is located.
Causality is a contingent principle that cannot be divorced from contingent objects and causality itself has no necessary existence so if you presume to export it beyond nature it will still be what it is.

I never claimed it has. I claimed there is no reason to suspend it beyond the natural. If I have to account the natural and can't do so by the natural then assumptions like this must be investigated. I have and you have my conclusion. BTW assumptions that make that one look like a certainty are routinely made by science, why is it any less valid for faith? Double standards again.

To say there is no reason to suspend cause and effect beyond nature is an empty proposition. It’s no different to saying there is no reason to suspend human existence beyond nature, when there is no reason whatever to believe either case can be true. We do suspend belief in
supposed supernatural things that are not factually evident or logically certain. And that is entirely reasonable.

No, it says nothing natural existed before the BB. Laws used to evaluate the natural and only explain the natural have no comment on the non-natural. Even if contingent and would believe it was that does not make it cease with the natural. It would only make it cease with the elimination of it's cause. It's cause (or source) is not natural and so it would exist even if the natural did not.

The BBT shows that nothing existed before that event. It doesn’t show that it was caused, but it does tell us that there was no time, which therefore demonstrates the impossibility of causality, a contingent phenomenon, pre-existing the Big Bang.

Prove that statement is not true. I did not say it was true. I said there exists more reasons to believe it is that that is isn't. I do not even know a reason to believe it isn't. I have no burden of proof (I made no claim to certain knowledge), you do (because you did).

Of course you have the burden of proof! You are stating something is the case, viz: that “there is more reason to believe it or not”. I’ve given you my argument, which is that cause and effect has only ever been observed in the material world (empirical), and being contingent it cannot be contingent and necessary (Logical). Therefore any supposed supernatural entity is dependent upon a contingent principle, which proves the contradiction.

Animals were at one time only observable or apprehended by people outside N America. Did that fact do anything to indicate animals did not exist in N America. My argument is basically the same. There are more reasons to believe life exists where ever it is possible than reasons to doubt it can or does. You are basically saying if you cannot prove X then X is impossible. Don't get the reasoning. My claim was not an empirical one and can't be condemned empirically. It is logical and is supported by logic and scholars of logic. There I go again using those that best know about a concept to evaluate a concept. How dare me?

Now you are confusing an argument from possible experience with your argument from speculation. The people outside North America had knowledge of animals and so it would not be unreasonable to believe there were animals elsewhere on the planet. You are supposing to take us out of the entire universe and not just to argue to other species but to propose a supernatural being – and one that is contingent upon a contingent principle.

And I’m not saying “if you cannot prove X then X is impossible”. I’m saying you cannot prove X because X is impossible.

 

[1robin]

I've been talking to you for a very long time. I know it's true.

I'm sorry but I'm not searching through numerous threads filled with hundreds of posts to find these things to prove it to you. I'll point it out in future posts, if you like. Or you could just read some of your own posts once in a while.

This string of personal commentary has long ago become pointless. I am not interested. You may point out whatever you wish but I am not bask stepping though 4 posts to find out what it is your talking about.

 

[1robin]

Have these NT scholars you speak of never heard of the Mesopotamian ruler, Naram-Sin of Akkad who claimed divine authority? That's just one of the top of my head.

As to d, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Does that mean it actually happens?

Quite often. Maybe 25% of the time I will post something and instantly realize what common distortions of it are used in it's defense. Sometimes I head these off, others I think that either the person is reasonable enough or familiar with the claims enough to risk hoping they know better. I am almost always disappointed.

That series of NT scholars claims to historical facts are used for one purpose. That purpose makes whether Jesus was actually had divine authority or was deluded irrelevant. The point only requires or makes relevant the admission by those who best know that he was a historical figure who though he had divine authority.

I can certainly discuss whether he had divine authority but that is not relevant in the context of the argument I made.

If people most capable of knowing one way or the other and were reputable by every test capable of administering claimed to be abducted, there were no scientific reasons (it is a scientific type of claim) to believe it impossible, and there were hundreds of millions or billions that claimed to have similar experiences (even if of a slightly different level or type) I would certainly consider it very likely. You are comparing a tiny fringe minority and what they claim (there is a fringe minority that will always believe anything), to counter what billons claim and what people who pass every test of sincerity and were in the best position possible to know have claimed. Why are you doing what everyone knows is bogus to counter what is not?

You must take all those facts together and provide a better explanation for them. It is completely meaningless to take one and make a completely irrelevant claim about it. Take another and make what any entry level statistics teacher would tell you is a ridiculous comparison fro another. Then write of the other two without a reason. You must take all four and give me a single better explanation for them that is relevant and uses proper comparisons.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Quite often. Maybe 25% of the time I will post something and instantly realize what common distortions of it are used in it's defense. Sometimes I head these off, others I think that either the person is reasonable enough or familiar with the claims enough to risk hoping they know better. I am almost always disappointed.
That series of NT scholars claims to historical facts are used for one purpose. That purpose makes whether Jesus was actually had divine authority or was deluded irrelevant. The point only requires or makes relevant the admission by those who best know that he was a historical figure who though he had divine authority.
I can certainly discuss whether he had divine authority but that is not relevant in the context of the argument I made.

I was referring to the following statement you made:

Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.

That appears to be false, as others who came before him made similar claims. Apparently these anonymous NT scholars you cite aren’t aware of this. If you had said, “Jesus appeared on the historical stage with a sense of divine authority,” I wouldn’t have taken issue with the claim.

If people most capable of knowing one way or the other and were reputable by every test capable of administering claimed to be abducted, there were no scientific reasons (it is a scientific type of claim) to believe it impossible, and there were hundreds of millions or billions that claimed to have similar experiences (even if of a slightly different level or type) I would certainly consider it very likely. You are comparing a tiny fringe minority and what they claim (there is a fringe minority that will always believe anything), to counter what billons claim and what people who pass every test of sincerity and were in the best position possible to know have claimed. Why are you doing what everyone knows is bogus to counter what is not?

What exactly is a “test of sincerity?” And what people were in the “best position possible to know have claimed?” Why am I just supposed to take the apostles’ word for it, based on things written years after the event was supposed to have taken place? How have these claims been tested and how can they be verified?

You must take all those facts together and provide a better explanation for them. It is completely meaningless to take one and make a completely irrelevant claim about it. Take another and make what any entry level statistics teacher would tell you is a ridiculous comparison fro another. Then write of the other two without a reason. You must take all four and give me a single better explanation for them that is relevant and uses proper comparisons.

I’m saying that they’re not all facts. Am I supposed to just ignore that? I have no need to consider all 4 statements as a whole when at least one of them isn’t considered a fact.

 

[1robin]

You said: “In no case will it cease to exist all together.”
That is an absolute assertion, an explicit argument to certainty. Firstly you are not in a position to know it to be certain, but secondly the statement is wrong because it isn’t certain and therefore the statement can be neither true nor false, whereas every speck of contingent matter can be conceived to be annihilated without incurring any contradiction.

That was probably a casualty of my typing as fast as possible. Let me re-state that claim in a far more consistent with my previous claims and general conclusions on the matter.

“In no case will it cease to exist all together.”

I meant in neither case which I had supplied but let me get this cleared up. There is no reason known to suggest the universe will ever likely ceased to be. In fact things like thermodynamics, laws of matter, and energy, etc... would suggest it is impossible, but I am not being that bold. I am saying there is no actual reason to conclude thee universe will ever not exist.

There is no contradiction in what you’ve just described. A contradiction is demonstrated where two distinct things cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.

However a person who wishes to win a word fight instead of let normal language use or things believed about reality to be stated without a fight could easily suggest that using the official definitions of those words used as I did are contradictory. The best analogy is an effort to clear a guilty man by reasons of some misstep in procedure. It depends on what your goals are which is chosen. I find that most of the time semantic technicalities are used in a effort to win an argument, not resolve an issue logically. When Clinton wanted to get shed of the Lewinsky business it came down to what is the definition of "is". He was not being honest he was trying to win. When I hear a philosopher or scientists try to prove 2 + 2 = 5 (and I can supply at least one example where they have) I instantly write them off. Much of your argumentation is of this type. I will not claim to know for certain your motivation. If your sincere, your are probably paying for their mistakes. When you say God can't exist because he is contradictory or what is true of some theoretical principle of necessity I get the same impression and your using the same argumentation that is used to get rid of reasonable but inconvenient claims by semantic technicality. Even if you are perfectly sincere they are still bad arguments and would be far more at home in a philosophical board discussion than a debate between laymen. I see no contradictions in what I claimed. If any actually do exist I think they would only apply to semantic exercises not the actual concepts.

What I said is that to make the claim that causality exists “beyond nature” is to assume first that there is in fact some thing “beyond nature”, and secondly to assume that causal sequences would still obtain; two highly speculative assumptions in other words, whereas no person can deny that causality exists in nature. There is nothing in general experience that gives an indication of anything beyond nature and no reason to believe even if there were that natural phenomena would still apply. The full argument is at the bottom of the page.

It is not an assumption (or at least it is a very reliable one) to know that if a thing exists and must have an explanation for it's existence that it does not have in nature, in must come from beyond nature. It is also a very proposition to claim that a dichotomy or concept tat applies to everything we can see but is not dependent on anything we can see also would apply to what can't be seen. All of theoretical science is based on this methodology or some far far worse. If you deny me claims validity then much of science will go down as well. I do not claim it is a certainty. When dealing with faith things are a bit different than with science. The major one being I must arrive at a conclusion in my lifetime. I must look at what is and make the best extrapolations and deductions I can from it. I do not have the luxury of benefitting from a person generations from now who has better access or from limiting my beliefs to only based on certainties. I must make the best determinations from what is available. I believe I have.

That’s a truly terrible argument: basically we can’t explain X and so X must be supernatural! It’s an argument that belongs in the dark ages, where superstition took the place of anything that couldn’t be explained. And it is nonsense to say the supernatural exists is “almost a necessary claim” when it is based primarily on ignorance and/or a doctrinal belief as faith.

Why in Sam Hill is that? The word supernatural does not describe a reality with less probability of existing than any other non-known subsection of natural reality. If you claim a multiverse existed you are doing so based on far less evidence than to claim a supernatural world exists. The term supernatural does not come with some semantic probabilistic penalty automatically. Not to mention thing that have no natural explanation are a very convincing argument for a realm beyond the natural. If you like you can use a Christian argument I heard once. The supernatural is a realm of the natural that has laws we do not understand. Is that realm any less likely than a multiverse, a future realm where the universe ceases to be, or that strings belong in. If things must contain an explanation for existing and they do not have one in the natural then what other choice is there than the supernatural. If I had called what is now known as quantum physics a supernatural realm would it have ceased to exist by using that term.

Indeed! I’m quoting your own argument back at you, for that is what is implied.

No, you are using my argumentation to arrive at conclusion that I think do not follow from the argument. I asked you to use the argument (regardless of who's it is) to show me how those conclusions follow. As they stand I do not agree they do.

“Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect” is empirically true.

Actually it isn't. It is theoretically true. It might be said to be true for that which we have observed but we extrapolate as probably applying to everything we have not observed, which is exactly what I did.

Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect, which necessarily requires mutation and movement, since one thing acting in relation to another in time is the definition of causality.

I think I can agree to this in general but there might be exceptions. The quantum for one has causes that appear to not require time intervals nor movement of any material entity (changes in potential of fields create matter), choice, moral intuition, etc.... might be exceptions but I will just go with it for now because I do not think it will matter.


Continued:

 

[1robin]

“Everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect” is unverifiable, and therefore it isn’t empirically true.

Here we have the crux of my complaint or contention. You have equated everything that is not empirical with not being true. That is a completely false criteria for truth. Things exist independently from any type of perception or measurement. All kinds of truth is held as true, by all people, that is not empirical. This is a proof or nothing criteria that if carried to it's logical terminus would leave only that we think as true. That is not much help, which is why it is not commonly demanded for anything but God.

If causality does exist beyond nature then it must involve mutation and movement.

If the God of the Bible exists in what way are your conceptual claims going to cause evolution and degradation of him? BTW only things that begin to exist require causation. The universe did, God did not.

I realized I left something out above. All things must have a reason for their existence either in their own nature, in something else's nature, or beyond it. That is a much clearer statement than what I said above.

But:
There was no time before the Big Bang and therefore causality could not pre-exist the beginning of the universe, and so cause and effect, which acts in relation to time as mutation and movement, is only coherent after the universe is begun.

Why are you assuming what is true about the supernatural if I can't even assume it exists? The one thing you could not do is imply that time binds cause and effect (which BTW it does not even do in the natural, quantum), on the basis that cause and effect, and time coexist. Every Christian who have heard use cause and effect and explain it in any depth claim that causation can be simultaneous, operate independent of time, operated traditional in time as we know it. The only thing time wise that it is claimed to not be able to do is act retroactively. I have never determined whether I agree or not but that is what many of the relevant scholars claim and I have never heard anyone disagree with that in a debate.

The reason I gave you Craig's argument previously is that he stated it a new and better way I think. Instead of claiming things have a cause. He said things must have an explanation for their existence. I think a more robust and explanatory claim and it fits my two main contentions about theology and cosmology. I would suggest we use this one from now on. Do you agree?

And:
If everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect then it follows that God is dependent upon causation and therefore subject to mutation and movement, which contradicts the notion of a timeless, immutable, unmoved mover. The only way out of that impasse is to make a special plea and say it doesn’t apply to God. But in that case “Everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect” is a false premise!” And it cannot be said that “Some things beyond nature are subject to cause and effect”. That won’t help you either for that means you’ve rejected your own argument since you’ve wanted to maintain that cause and effect is to be taken as a general principle that can transcend nature.

This is getting very speculative at his point but I would probably agree God must act consistent with cause and effect or at least he seems to have done so. That would not mean he as a being is subject to it. IOW he would not deteriorate over time, he would not require physical movement, he would not evolve. There is no connection between saying God (or his command) is the cause of X, and saying that means God must wither or change in his nature or essence. I have only connected cause and effect with things that begin to exist. I have made no further emphatic statements. You said cause and effect apply to God and I really could not think of a reason that would not be so. I did not say it is. IOW I think God must act for him to create but if God can be exempt from an aspect of cause and effect concerning creation (as he is concerning his always having existed), I would think his unique nature might exempt him from other aspects of it. The Bible suggests God would have been the cause of cause and effect it's self. Taking these last few items I am not so sure cause and effect must govern anything concerning God though I am sure they do apply in many cases. There are many more reasons to contend with what you claimed but all of them take a long time to detail. I am running out of time.

And:
If God is the prime mover then he himself is contingent upon a demonstrably contingent principle in order to create the world, and he cannot on those terms logically be given the appellation “Necessary”.

His role as prime mover would be contingent on a creation. He would be no less God (even for the loss of that role) if he did not create. If he and he alone existed forever he would still be God, though we could not say he is a creator God. Your extrapolating something true of a role and applying to essence. That is invalid. If your saying God being dependent on cause and effect can't be God if dependent, I say he is not dependent. If God exists and decided to operate through cause and effect that does not mean he must have nor he always does. A cause is never less a being by discovering a methodology through which a cause operates. Do you understand that God in the Bible is causal of everything, everything else is derivative (everything). I am not sure I understood you here.

Yes, I entirely agree that you ought to provide evidence or post links to scientific studies, in support of those forms of arguments, and the academic convention of course is to quote your sources. But in the case of philosophy we’re not referring to technical studies or lengthy research papers but arguments, and arguments are largely logic based and they stand or fall according to the validity of the premises and the soundness of the conclusions. Also, I’m debating you and not a third party and so I expect you to present arguments in your own words and not simply post cut and pasted arguments from the Internet.

What does a scientific study concerning the cosmological argument look like. The cosmological is a philosophical, theological, scientific argument. I have posted links to he parts I have used to justify the scientific claims, the post you objected to was a justification of it's philosophical claims, I have no given theological experts so far because I do not think you would consider them authoritative. That argument has three subsections. I have used only experts in their respective sections as authoritative. What am I lacking? My argument predates me. I did not create it and it's history is relevant and more importantly how it is stated.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to respond to so many posts, but I’m pleased you respond to mine as I rather like these protracted debates.

[/QUOTE] If I had my way I would have fewer, much longer, and more in-depth debates about far fewer issues. For some reason I consider it very important to respond to everyone and feel I have wronged someone if I do not. Every word I have time to type should actually be a hundred words. When I get done, I most of the time feel like I never really began. I have enjoyed our debates, if doubles standards and semantic technicalities did not appear from time to time I would have never had better. One guy who was a true scholar had a perfect debate with me one time. He knew his business and we discussed the resurrection events. We spent tens of thousands of words on the events of a few days. It was well covered and we both have great respect for the other. It was pure history and scholastic claims, no animosity, no triviality, no emotional rants clothed in academic dress. I wish they were all like that, and yours is not to far off. Most miss by miles. I have to go for now. Try and get to the rest soon.

If you agree, we can soon switch gears to something more historical and less speculative if you want. I appreciate scholarly and rational opinions even when I do not agree with them.

 

[cottage]

I meant in neither case which I had supplied but let me get this cleared up. There is no reason known to suggest the universe will ever likely ceased to be. In fact things like thermodynamics, laws of matter, and energy, etc... would suggest it is impossible, but I am not being that bold. I am saying there is no actual reason to conclude thee universe will ever not exist.

There is no reason to suppose that the world will not continue indefinitely in some form (as per the first I hypothesis I gave a while back) and equally there is no logical reason informing us that it must.

However a person who wishes to win a word fight instead of let normal language use or things believed about reality to be stated without a fight could easily suggest that using the official definitions of those words used as I did are contradictory. The best analogy is an effort to clear a guilty man by reasons of some misstep in procedure. It depends on what your goals are which is chosen. I find that most of the time semantic technicalities are used in a effort to win an argument, not resolve an issue logically. When Clinton wanted to get shed of the Lewinsky business it came down to what is the definition of "is". He was not being honest he was trying to win. When I hear a philosopher or scientists try to prove 2 + 2 = 5 (and I can supply at least one example where they have) I instantly write them off. Much of your argumentation is of this type. I will not claim to know for certain your motivation. If your sincere, your are probably paying for their mistakes. When you say God can't exist because he is contradictory or what is true of some theoretical principle of necessity I get the same impression and your using the same argumentation that is used to get rid of reasonable but inconvenient claims by semantic technicality. Even if you are perfectly sincere they are still bad arguments and would be far more at home in a philosophical board discussion than a debate between laymen. I see no contradictions in what I claimed. If any actually do exist I think they would only apply to semantic exercises not the actual concepts.

I must confess to being rather baffled by the entire paragraph. I pointed out your misunderstanding of a contradiction when you gave this example: “If I said a woman was hot, and then later said she was cool. A semantic objection would be to claim that two self contradictory claims to truth can't both be true.” I explained that there is no contradiction in what you described. A contradiction is demonstrated where two distinct things cannot be both true and false at the same time. You ignored that altogether but rambled on about “word fights” and arguments over picky definitions, confusing such sleight of hand with the need for logical clarity and proper argument. And then it seemed you wanted to question my motives and my sincerity! But then, still casting doubt on whether I am “perfectly sincere” you presumed to tell me my arguments are bad and suggest I take them to a philosophy board instead. It seems lost on you that theology is philosophy.

It is not an assumption (or at least it is a very reliable one) to know that if a thing exists and must have an explanation for it's existence that it does not have in nature, in must come from beyond nature.

That is a false assumption, and for the very reason that it isn’t reliable. There are no instances whatsoever of unexplained things in nature (of which there are many) ever being generally confirmed as answering to something beyond nature.

It is also a very proposition to claim that a dichotomy or concept tat applies to everything we can see but is not dependent on anything we can see also would apply to what can't be seen. All of theoretical science is based on this methodology or some far far worse. If you deny me claims validity then much of science will go down as well. I do not claim it is a certainty. When dealing with faith things are a bit different than with science. The major one being I must arrive at a conclusion in my lifetime. I must look at what is and make the best extrapolations and deductions I can from it. I do not have the luxury of benefitting from a person generations from now who has better access or from limiting my beliefs to only based on certainties. I must make the best determinations from what is available. I believe I have.

Begging the question again! You’re assuming that there is something that we can’t see that explains what we can see, and you attempt to justify that by conflating scientific models that are based on empirical observations and mathematical predictions that concern the material world, with mysticism and speculative arguments from religious faith. That’s the difference!

Why in Sam Hill is that? The word supernatural does not describe a reality with less probability of existing than any other non-known subsection of natural reality. If you claim a multiverse existed you are doing so based on far less evidence than to claim a supernatural world exists. The term supernatural does not come with some semantic probabilistic penalty automatically. Not to mention thing that have no natural explanation are a very convincing argument for a realm beyond the natural. If you like you can use a Christian argument I heard once. The supernatural is a realm of the natural that has laws we do not understand. Is that realm any less likely than a multiverse, a future realm where the universe ceases to be, or that strings belong in. If things must contain an explanation for existing and they do not have one in the natural then what other choice is there than the supernatural. If I had called what is now known as quantum physics a supernatural realm would it have ceased to exist by using that term.

Please, how many more times must I say to you don’t keep associating me with multiverse arguments. And no, the “supernatural” is just an idiom for a realm of the natural world that we do not yet understand. That is the reasonable position that has proved itself throughout history as superstitious beliefs were replaced one by one with scientific explanations.

No, you are using my argumentation to arrive at conclusion that I think do not follow from the argument. I asked you to use the argument (regardless of who's it is) to show me how those conclusions follow. As they stand I do not agree they do.

But you haven’t addressed the conclusion:
If causality is a general principle that extends beyond nature then everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect, from which it must follow that God is dependent upon causation and therefore subject to mutation and movement, which contradicts the notion of a timeless, immutable, unmoved mover.

Actually it isn't. It is theoretically true. It might be said to be true for that which we have observed but we extrapolate as probably applying to everything we have not observed, which is exactly what I did.

Yes it is!
Empirically true means things that are confirmed for us in experience. And what are these things that we haven’t experienced that you claim are as true as they are of the things we can experience? Your argument is nonsensical in every respect. You are saying all worlds are as this world, which means God is subject to the constraints and travails of this contingent world. I’m afraid it is contradictory and absurd!

 

[cottage]

Here we have the crux of my complaint or contention. You have equated everything that is not empirical with not being true. That is a completely false criteria for truth.

That most certainly is not what I’m saying! Matters of fact and experiential propositions are only contingent true. Necessary truths are logically certain and must imply a contradiction if denied.

Things exist independently from any type of perception or measurement. All kinds of truth is held as true, by all people, that is not empirical. This is a proof or nothing criteria that if carried to it's logical terminus would leave only that we think as true. That is not much help, which is why it is not commonly demanded for anything but God.

And why do you think that is, then? It is because the claims made for God are extra-experiential, that he is omnipotent and can create matter, conceive a son by means of a human virgin, has existed from eternity and cannot fail to exist. And since he never exists in general experience the only way the belief can be disproved is by demonstrating the many contradictions in the proposition, that is to say in the things that are claimed for and said about God.

If the God of the Bible exists in what way are your conceptual claims going to cause evolution and degradation of him? BTW only things that begin to exist require causation. The universe did, God did not.

There is no argument to demonstrate that “only things that begin to exist require causation”. Causality is an observable principle but we’ve never observed the beginning of contingent matter and we’ve certainly not observed the beginning of the universe. Therefore if all existent things require a cause, and God exists, then God requires a cause.

Why are you assuming what is true about the supernatural if I can't even assume it exists? The one thing you could not do is imply that time binds cause and effect (which BTW it does not even do in the natural, quantum), on the basis that cause and effect, and time coexist. Every Christian who have heard use cause and effect and explain it in any depth claim that causation can be simultaneous, operate independent of time, operated traditional in time as we know it. The only thing time wise that it is claimed to not be able to do is act retroactively. I have never determined whether I agree or not but that is what many of the relevant scholars claim and I have never heard anyone disagree with that in a debate.

Well that makes no sense at all. B always follows A; if no A, then no B. There is A and B, but A cannot be B. So they cannot be simultaneous as that would mean the necessary cause and the contingent effect would be as one, but a thing cannot be both contingent and necessary, and God as the necessary cause must always be prior to the contingent effect.

The reason I gave you Craig's argument previously is that he stated it a new and better way I think. Instead of claiming things have a cause. He said things must have an explanation for their existence. I think a more robust and explanatory claim and it fits my two main contentions about theology and cosmology. I would suggest we use this one from now on. Do you agree?

Yes, indeed I do, but you’ve never answered the argument I gave to Craig’s formulation of the Kalam and the conclusion he gave in this particular respect. Do you need me to post it again?

His role as prime mover would be contingent on a creation. He would be no less God (even for the loss of that role) if he did not create. If he and he alone existed forever he would still be God, though we could not say he is a creator God. Your extrapolating something true of a role and applying to essence. That is invalid. If your saying God being dependent on cause and effect can't be God if dependent, I say he is not dependent. If God exists and decided to operate through cause and effect that does not mean he must have nor he always does. A cause is never less a being by discovering a methodology through which a cause operates. Do you understand that God in the Bible is causal of everything, everything else is derivative (everything). I am not sure I understood you here.

Your argument is that causality transcends the natural world. You’ve not shown how that could even be possible; however we’ll assume that it is possible for the sake of argument. Now, if the only way that God can create the world is by use of a contingent principle then God is dependent upon something that is not God, which means it makes no sense to say he operates through cause and effect, since he is the non-contingent cause and his creation is the contingent effect.

 

[1robin]

I’m excluding all claims that are contradictory, in this case the Biblical God. And I have never, ever argued for matter existing from eternity. The world is contingent and it therefore began, and that is consistent with my every argument or hypothesis.

I see no actual contradictions concerning God. People who specialize in philosophical concepts like contradiction not only say there is no contradictions concerning God but that God is necessary to undue contradictions and unfulfilled dependencies that exist if he is absent. Your side constantly claims the universe or some natural reality has existed eternally. I have never been very clear about what you thing about the end or the beginning of the universe.

If it were the best evidence then it would be generally accepted as a fact but it isn't and that is bcause a supposed existence of a supernatural deity cannot be demonstrated in general experience. It is an explanation for believers.

Evidence just is. I was not offering the best evidence (that is incoherent), I was offering the best explanation for the evidence that exists.

Those most familiar with more of the evidence, claim that it justifies these claims among many.

2. In fact there is a consensus among NT scholars regardless of what side (theologically they are on) that four (among a great many) facts are true of history.
a. Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.
b. Jesus was killed by crucifixion by the Romans.
c. His tomb was found empty.
d. The apostles (and even critics and those hostile to him) sincerely believed
they had witnessed him after death.

They are about as certain as any historical event of ancient history can get. Given them, the best explanation by far is what is claimed in the Gospels. Your taking what is the best explanation then subjecting it to criteria associated with proof. Saying it falls short of proof, so it can't be the best explanation. That is not valid.

You are not giving evidence under oath in a court of law. You are supposed to be debating with me, and yet just read your own words above. What are you saying? Nothing!

I said exactly what was appropriate. What I responded to was not a historical claim. It was about technicalities associated with fallacies when expert testimony was used to claim certain knowledge (which was not even done by me to begin with). I agree I said nothing about evidence or history. I did not intend to. I intended to show why your over use of fallacy and technicality are invalid and do not apply to my claims anyway. Expert testimony is about the most common and best factor that can be used to resolve an issue. It is only invalid if I said that since Y claimed X then X is a fact. I didn't. What is used and is valid to be used in court under oath is certainly even more valid and more appropriate in an informal debate. Even professional debates make constant use of expert testimony. The only thing invalid is your claim to invalidity.

Again, lots of words but no substance! You are saying nothing to me except to set up the straw man of mulitverses in order to knock him down.

You said this:

And in any case evidence from this world is not evidence for other worlds.

Every word I said in response deals with that claim. You have made extrapolations from the known to the unknown, scientists do it constantly, every one does the same for much of their everyday decisions. It is not invalid when used concerning God. Are you forgetting what I address in my claims. They are not intended to deal with the issue. They are intended to deal with the invalid technical and semantic objections you make. Half of all my posts to non-theists involve a never achieved goal of establishing valid and consistent standards.

Causation is contingent upon the natural world and the opposite is also true; and the two can only exist together in relation to objects, as in object A is observed to have the effect X on object B. But objects needn’t exist at all. All objects are contingent. And how do we know this? We know it to be certain because the non-existence of every distinctly conceivable object is possible and can never imply a contradiction. No contingent objects then no causality. And further more, statements that insist one thing must always be the cause of another are only contingently true. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow or that object A will not have the effect X on object B, since in both cases it might not.

Cause and effect and many other concepts have no known dependence on the natural. I submit it is contingent but what it is contingent upon is not the natural universe. That is the explanation or description of causation that is consistent with the most evidence. Even if no object existed at all there is no reason to suggest cause and effect would be a casualty of that situation. Choice is causal, value is causal, energy can be causal, etc... none of these require physical objects. Numbers, morality, many constants, just seem to exist as brute facts independent of the natural. I would agree they are contingent but no argument exists that makes them contingent upon the natural. I agree the sun will rise tomorrow because of cause and effect, I agree the sun exists, what I do not agree with is that cause and effect is dependent on the sun rising or any matter doing anything in particular. If it was only God willing morality to exist no matter is involved, cause and effect is in operation, and morality does exist and has no natural explanation. There are many arguments to suggest that causality is contingent, independent of nature, and would operate even if nature as we know it did not exist. They all involve extrapolations from the known to the unknown and are less than certainties. They are still valid. You can't invalidate a claim because it falls short of certainty when it never had that burden. I have much better reasons to infer causation in creation (I even gave you examples of things that do come into being and have known causes) that the zero reasons you have to exclude it. Neither are certainties but mine has much better justification than yours and one of the two must be the case.

This is getting boring. Would you like to switch topics?

 

[1robin]

Well I certainly wasn’t speaking in a literal sense! The point I was making was that I don’t have to arrive a specific conclusion that agrees with what I want to believe or, as Bertrand Russell described it: “the finding for a conclusion that is held in advance”. You won’t allow anything to count against your belief as faith, whereas if “God exists” is proved true then I must accept that truth. (In the past I was known as a “Closet theist” on the AOL forum because of the way I used to test arguments.)

God is not falsifiable. What evidence is there that counts against God that I would not accept. No Christian that ever lived died with the world view they began with. All of us are born atheists and our natural minds is at enmity with God. (now this does vary but is never absent). All of us have chosen a different view point based on the strength of the evidence than we held at one time. An atheist is exactly where he began. He was born not believing and still doesn't. Christians show a much higher propensity to adopt what they formerly did not hold as true. Many of us (including me) did not want God to exist. I hated him even if he existed. I was drug kicking and screaming to faith by the evidence. The evidence that effected me is of a different type that what we are discussing. I t was the personal example of others and the philosophical; principles of evil and good and how they interacted in the world that really effected me. Christians have been shown many types of evidence and arrive at faith through different avenues. However it is always the strength of the evidence (no matter which type), that convinces us to abandon the world view we had. I am certainly not denying people see what they want to many times. The end all be all difference is if our faith was based on what we preferred it would not have produced a tangible result. I hate Catholic traditions, dogma, and man made doctrines. However salvation does not come from man, it comes with supernatural events that can't be faked or mistaken. No wishful thinking can produce what makes a Christian an actual Christian.

But for heaven’s sake we’re not in a court of law, you are not under oath and very often you don’t even identify these so-called scholars or expert witnesses. And it is an argument from authority and it is fallacious when it given in a way that I can’t respond to because you’re merely alluding to what someone has said or claimed.

I find it impossible to believe you did not understand my analogy. If expert testimony is good enough when life and death are on the line then it by necessity is more than good enough for an formal or informal discussion. Arguments from authority are only fallacious when used to claim certain knowledge. When you get sick do you read a box of luck charms or go to a well educated doctor? When you build a house do you hire a meteorologist or an architect? When a college needs a chair in physics do they ask a freshman or a Phd? If expert testimony is good enough for virtually everything else on earth it is certainly valid in a debate and is in fact a huge part of every professional debate I have ever seen.

Oh and please don’t come over all offended and take things personally just because I’ve criticized your post, because I really don’t believe you have such tender sensibilities. "Attack the post but not the poster" is, I believe, message board protocol?

Who is acting offended? I mentioned a bad argument that also had and insult. I did not say I was offended. I just hate wasting time with that kind of stuff and was disappointed because you have been civil in general. I don't care what you attack, I am used to it in this modern militant atheist age we live in, as long as what you claim is valid. I do not have any use for incidental insults or insults based on false reasoning, and most of all based on what can't be known. I was simply saying lets drop that nonsense and get back to the issue. Expert testimony is just about the most valid methodology possible in a debate. It is only invalid if used as proof. The entire world abides by that principle. Why are you not doing so if God is involved?

With regard to your first sentence my advice would be not to waste your time trying to convince me of what I already believe to be the case. And you’ve not taken in my argument. I gave two opposing hypotheses, either of which is possible.

Most people enter into a debate already convinced of something. If I was to not speak to an already held belief there would be no debate. As I have stated what I say is meant to satisfy me that I have met my burden as a Christian to:

1 Peter 3:15

New International Version (NIV)


15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

No offense but my responsibility to what God demands supersedes anything you might ask. I do what my conscience demands. If you have no use for it then ignore it.

I think the actual claim was that the universe would end.

1. If you mean cease to exist then I have far better reasons to claim it probably will never cease to exist than the none you have to claim it will.
2. If you mean that what we know as the universe will change or end then we agree.

Well that’s wrong! You are just making an argument from speculation and it’s hardly dependent upon geography – unless that is you can identify where in the cosmos “beyond nature” is located.

I see the new burden for what can be claimed is my knowledge of it's geographical location. That would render you non-existent since I could not say where you are. It would render about 99.9 % of the universe non-existent since I do not know where it is and have never seen it. things have two commonly accepted sources. The natural and a real beyond it. If a thing has no dependence on the natural and also exists then less than certain claims don't get much more justifiable. If I find a part in my company that was not created by my company, it is reasonable to claim that it came from another even if I have no idea what the other company is, what it's name is, where it is, what it does, or why it did it. BTW I have personal proof of the supernatural. If you had been to the center of the earth and saw a Wal-Mart there then your claims about a Wal-Mart being there are both perfectly valid and made about a known thing even if I do not know it. If I had a family member that died ten came back to life 24 hours later and said they saw X and Y and that Z and Q are how that realm may very well operate. I can say I do not believe you, I can say I deny what you claim, what I can't say is that they are claiming something invalid. When 2/3 of earths population testifies to a realm of reality that is beyond the natural it is anything but a debate about a fantasy, and should be taken as more evidence than what can be seen by a handful through a telescope a billion light years away.

Causality is a contingent principle that cannot be divorced from contingent objects and causality itself has no necessary existence so if you presume to export it beyond nature it will still be what it is.

It can be divorced from objects all together. Causality exists even in non-material interactions. I never said it was not contingent. I said there exists no theoretical way to make it contingent on only the natural. The effect of a thing seen in a medium does not limit the things existence to a dependence on the medium.

To say there is no reason to suspend cause and effect beyond nature is an empty proposition. It’s no different to saying there is no reason to suspend human existence beyond nature, when there is no reason whatever to believe either case can be true. We do suspend belief in
supposed supernatural things that are not factually evident or logically certain. And that is entirely reasonable.

It is a statement of fact. There exists no formula, no scientific principle, not even a philosophical exercise which would limit cause and effect to the natural. I have no idea how effective that fact is but it is true non the less and is exactly what you have been trying to do. Supernatural things are more factually relevant than most scientific things. They are just less empirical and less quantifiable. They are experienced by more people than any black hole, holographic boundary, or string that ever existed.

The BBT shows that nothing existed before that event. It doesn’t show that it was caused, but it does tell us that there was no time, which therefore demonstrates the impossibility of causality, a contingent phenomenon, pre-existing the Big Bang.

No it shows that more reasons exist to suggest nothing NATURAL existed before it than reasons to suggest there was something NATURAL. natural science is impotent concerning the supernatural by definition. I think it impotent in many other areas but that is the one that is relevant. A physicist or cosmologist is simply out of his element concerning supernatural concepts. I used them for what they specialize in. I used philosophers and theologians for things beyond that.

I am out of time again. Have to visit someone in hospital. I will get to the rest when I can.

 

[1robin]

Of course you have the burden of proof! You are stating something is the case, viz: that “there is more reason to believe it or not”. I’ve given you my argument, which is that cause and effect has only ever been observed in the material world (empirical), and being contingent it cannot be contingent and necessary (Logical). Therefore any supposed supernatural entity is dependent upon a contingent principle, which proves the contradiction.

So your asking me to prove a level of evidence comparison, not the actual claim it's self. That is very unusual and in most cases would not be possible.

1. Evidence (or better said reason) number 1 is that causality appears to be universal, and it has no dependence on the natural.
2. If you started subtracting molecules from the universe, at no point would you reach one where it's dismissal from reality would cause, cause and effect to disappear along with it.
3. It is not dependent on matter, nor space, nor even time, etc..... The elimination of those things would have no known effect on it.
4. The official or unofficial law in philosophy states. Everything that exists must have a cause and that everything that exists must have an explanation of it's self in it's own nature, in something or in something else's nature. Neither one of those rules have any dependence on the natural.
5. The moment the universe began to exist taken to be time = 0, required cause and effect to begin to exist by the rules above and by every single observation ever made. Since causes normally (but not always) occur in chronological order that puts the universes necessary cause prior to or beyond time = 0 and outside of nature. Something must have created it and whatever it is was not in time and not dependent on nature.

Now regardless how strong those reasons of the several dozen more I could list are, when compared to the exactly 0 reasons that exist to suspend cause and effect beyond nature they are infinitely better.

Normally it would be impractical to supply reasons why a level of evidence is better for such a generalized and large in scope claim like that (and it is almost never asked for) but when there is a big goose egg on one side it can be done.

Now you are confusing an argument from possible experience with your argument from speculation. The people outside North America had knowledge of animals and so it would not be unreasonable to believe there were animals elsewhere on the planet. You are supposing to take us out of the entire universe and not just to argue to other species but to propose a supernatural being – and one that is contingent upon a contingent principle.

That was my point. They extrapolated from what they knew as an almost universal about what they can observe to what they could not observe because no known reason prevented them from doing so. However that was even a less persuasive inference than mine. Animals do not exist universally. Cause and effect exists in every observation ever taken concerning anything. things do not get more universal. You labeling one speculation and the other an argument from observation is a semantic technicality that is not even true as a technicality.


I want to also point out something you have done by inference that your side has done for a long time. For some reasons a hypothesis or theory about something unknown and even unknowable if called science or the natural is just fine and considered valid no matter how fantastic. The second you do the exact same thing but label it super-natural it becomes a violation of a thousand rules, receives fallacies by dozen that do not apply, and is ridiculed and condemned. The only difference in those two is the label placed on them. However it gets much worse. I will use multiverses as an example but there are hundreds. No one has seen a multiverse, no one knows a single thing about them, no one has claimed to have experienced them - and yet they receive grant money to investigate them, are talked about as likely facts, and used as alternative theories to the one universe we know exists. In comparison people experience (or claim to) the supernatural by the billions and always have, we theoretically have documents coming from and describing that realm, and it is not an alternative to what we know it is addition that includes what many know. The supernatural has far more reasons to believe it is real than a multiverse, the only difference is that one is arbitrarily slapped with a scientific label and the other with faith or supernatural label. So apparently people decide what can be true by what term is used to label it. I actually think it is because science make no moral demands, posits no judgment, does not require any obedience, does not make us choose to be different from the general masses, and leaves right where our rebellious nature wants to be (free to determine our own reality and actions). That last part is certainly true in general but would be a speculation in your and many other cases.

And I’m not saying “if you cannot prove X then X is impossible”. I’m saying you cannot prove X because X is impossible.

Prove that X is impossible. There exists no law, no rule, and no evidence to suggest that cause and effect will cease if the natural does unless you previously have determined the natural must be all there is (and that has far more reasons to believe wrong than true as well).

 

[1robin]

I was referring to the following statement you made:

Jesus appeared on the historical stage with an unprecedented sense of divine authority.

That was not my statement. It is a statement given for one of three proposition NT scholars agree is historical. I included the part about "unprecedented divine authority" because it was part of the actual statement as it exists in academia. It makes no difference in the context I used those claims for and the conclusion reached. It is however true. No one in history has demonstrated Christ's level of claimed divine authority. Others may have and did make claims to divine authority but none of them exists at the same level as Christ's. The reasons this must be is that Christ's claims are maximums. There does not exist anything beyond what he claimed for any one else to have claimed. However as I stated this was simply part of a statement and irrelevant in the context I used the statement for nor the conclusion drawn.

That appears to be false, as others who came before him made similar claims. Apparently these anonymous NT scholars you cite aren’t aware of this. If you had said, “Jesus appeared on the historical stage with a sense of divine authority,” I wouldn’t have taken issue with the claim.

No one claimed the level of authority he did. Even if they did you would have virtually no way to know it unless you are some kind of theological historian. It does not matter anyway as this is irrelevant to my claim.

What exactly is a “test of sincerity?” And what people were in the “best position possible to know have claimed?” Why am I just supposed to take the apostles’ word for it, based on things written years after the event was supposed to have taken place? How have these claims been tested and how can they be verified?

There exist many test for sincerity even in modern law. Making claims that are inconvenient to the claimer. That called the principle of embarrassment. Another would be to check the parts of a claim that can be verified. If 90% of what they claim is true then the other 10% has a high likelihood of being true and sincere. Past consistency is another method. If a person always acts consistent (even when not in the public) with a claim then it is another factor that tends to sincerity. There are countless tests for sincerity. One of the greatest is a claim adhered to that has no material gain of any kind and places one at risk of death and/or suffering. If a person spends a lifetime suffering for X and then passively lays down his life for it without killing a bunch of other folks. You use tests for sincerity daily, we all do, why is it some bizarre concept when I do?

I’m saying that they’re not all facts. Am I supposed to just ignore that? I have no need to consider all 4 statements as a whole when at least one of them isn’t considered a fact.

They are all facts but since you seem to be shipwrecked on an unrelated auxiliary point so as not to be able to evaluate the other 90% of what I said for it's intended purpose just ignore the divine authority part, it has no role or relevance in my conclusion. However it was true. I did not say he is the only person in history that claimed divine authority. I said he claimed unprecedented divine authority. In other words his claims were unique but did have similarities within them with others. If I say that was an unprecedented rocket we launched. I do not mean that other rockets do not exist, that other rocket were not launched. I could mean many things but in this analogy I mean the rocket was the biggest and most powerful yet. Ok, we have wasted enough time on this irrelevant off ramp. Can you please answer my original claim?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That was not my statement. It is a statement given for one of three proposition NT scholars agree is historical.

Oh gimme a break!
Did you type it or not? Gee, for someone who gets all indignant about semantic arguments, you certainly like to play around with them yourself.

By the way, I already knew you cribbed that statement, line for line, from William Lane Craig. I watch debates too.

I included the part about "unprecedented divine authority" because it was part of the actual statement as it exists in academia. It makes no difference in the context I used those claims for and the conclusion reached. It is however true. No one in history has demonstrated Christ's level of claimed divine authority. Others may have and did make claims to divine authority but none of them exists at the same level as Christ's. The reasons this must be is that Christ's claims are maximums. There does not exist anything beyond what he claimed for any one else to have claimed. However as I stated this was simply part of a statement and irrelevant in the context I used the statement for nor the conclusion drawn.

It is not true. Others have claimed divine authority, so his claim was not unprecedented.
And I’m not sure how we know what Jesus supposedly said anyway, given that he never actually wrote anything down.

The statement is absolutely NOT irrelevant to the conclusion. It’s one of your premises for goodness sake!

No one claimed the level of authority he did. Even if they did you would have virtually no way to know it unless you are some kind of theological historian. It does not matter anyway as this is irrelevant to my claim.

So what? I’m the Queen of the Universe. There, I just did.

I have no idea why you think one of your premises is irrelevant to your claims or your conclusion.

There exist many test for sincerity even in modern law. Making claims that are inconvenient to the claimer. That called the principle of embarrassment.

How is the claim you say Jesus made inconvenient to Jesus? It seems to be quite the opposite.

Another would be to check the parts of a claim that can be verified. If 90% of what they claim is true then the other 10% has a high likelihood of being true and sincere. Past consistency is another method.

How do we verify Jesus’ supposed claim that he had divine authority of any kind?

If a person always acts consistent (even when not in the public) with a claim then it is another factor that tends to sincerity. There are countless tests for sincerity.

My brother-in-law has been claiming for years that he’s half-Italian (he isn’t even a tiny bit Italian). He maintains that to this day, even to people like his family members (who obviously know he isn’t), that he is in fact, half Italian. So maybe he’s sincere, but is he telling the truth?

One of the greatest is a claim adhered to that has no material gain of any kind and places one at risk of death and/or suffering. If a person spends a lifetime suffering for X and then passively lays down his life for it without killing a bunch of other folks. You use tests for sincerity daily, we all do, why is it some bizarre concept when I do?

It’s not a bizarre concept, I simply wanted you to explain what you meant by the phrase.

They are all facts but since you seem to be shipwrecked on an unrelated auxiliary point so as not to be able to evaluate the other 90% of what I said for it's intended purpose just ignore the divine authority part, it has no role or relevance in my conclusion. However it was true. I did not say he is the only person in history that claimed divine authority. I said he claimed unprecedented divine authority. In other words his claims were unique but did have similarities within them with others. If I say that was an unprecedented rocket we launched. I do not mean that other rockets do not exist, that other rocket were not launched. I could mean many things but in this analogy I mean the rocket was the biggest and most powerful yet. Ok, we have wasted enough time on this irrelevant off ramp. Can you please answer my original claim?

They’re not all facts. Sorry. How can you say “they’re all facts” (as in, the numbered list you gave are all factual statements) and then turn around and tell me that I’m shipwrecked on an unrelated auxiliary point which was one of the statements on that numbered list!?

What do you think the word “unprecedented” means?