Jackal, we are still curious to hear your own beliefs. I know you like to play the offense but inquiring minds want to know. The only thing we know about you is that you like to spend time debating Christians.
As to quantum physics, that argument has been hashed out many times before and I have to believe you already know that. But regardless, I was making a philosophical point (which Newton validated) not a scientific one.
You made this comment: You seem to confuse a tangible thing with properties of tangible things. I could say a ball has roundness. Therefore, roundness needs to have a cause. The roundness does not exist independently from the ball, any more than "intelligence" exists as an independent entity separate from our brain.
How exactly does a lump of gray matter produce a property called "intelligence?"
You said this also: But you start from the premise that what Jesus said, or more correctly what the books of the New Testament say, is true, which you acknowledge as a presupposition. While you believe that to be true, that belief is based principally on faith. For someone who doesn't share or hold to that faith, that presupposition doesn't hold, and then it becomes impossible to tell which, if any, may be true.
Seems you completly ignored the last part of my parargraph. Is that how skeptics read the bible as well? You find something that makes your point and ignore the flow of thought? At least that would be consistent.
You said: Christians rarely appreciate how arrogant they come across when they hide behind scripture to hurl insults, though this is not my personal chriticism of you, just what common sense says.
I see. Well, you could easily prove me wrong but we know nothing about you or what you believe, other than the fact that you're hostile to Christians. Perhaps you can shed some light on that for us.
[/b]
Need some help this Argument. . .
Oh, and Jackal, maybe you should call in to Steve's show one day. I'm sure we'd all love to hear you two reason out your best arguments on the air. Steve is always polite to his callers so you don't have to worry about it turning into a shouting match. Would you be interested in a formal debate? I'm sure Steve would go for it since that's kind of the point of his show.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve and JC, I am not sure what you mean by "the law of cause and effect". Are you simply saying "For every cause, there is an effect"? If so, then you are not making any significant statement, for the statement is a tautology (that which is true in virtue of its own constituent terms). For the meaning of "effect" is "that which is caused", and the meaning of "cause" is "that which creates an effect".
More likely, you are referring to the supposed "necessary connection" between what is considered "cause" and "effect". One can argue against that. For example, when iron is heated it expands. So we say that heating iron causes it to expand. But is there a necessary connection between the two? Many believe that there is. But what is the reason for their belief? Is it not that every time a person heats iron, it is observed to expand? Thus the belief is derived from experience. Indeed, it is a case of experiential faith that when one heats iron, it will expand. But it is not derived from logic. There is no logical impossibility that some day someone may heat iron and it will notexpand.
The view of determinism is that there is a cause for every event, and that cause is another event. When I took post-graduate philosophy in 1976, this was the view accepted by most philosophy professors. I argued against it, and in the essay or thesis upon which my success in this course depended, I promoted free will. I managed to get an A on the essay, though the professor, in his final comment on the paper, stated that it was much improved (over my initial attempt) but still "wrong".
If determinism is true, then mental events also have causes. It follows that all of our actions are caused by events outside of ourselves. One of the implications of this is that we are not responsible for our actions. Given the circumstances in which we acted, we could not have done other than we we actually did.
It is my belief that each person (whatever "person" means) is himself the cause of the events that transpire as a result of his choice. Determinists consider this to be an unusual use of the word "cause". They think that every event has to be caused by some other event.
More likely, you are referring to the supposed "necessary connection" between what is considered "cause" and "effect". One can argue against that. For example, when iron is heated it expands. So we say that heating iron causes it to expand. But is there a necessary connection between the two? Many believe that there is. But what is the reason for their belief? Is it not that every time a person heats iron, it is observed to expand? Thus the belief is derived from experience. Indeed, it is a case of experiential faith that when one heats iron, it will expand. But it is not derived from logic. There is no logical impossibility that some day someone may heat iron and it will notexpand.
The view of determinism is that there is a cause for every event, and that cause is another event. When I took post-graduate philosophy in 1976, this was the view accepted by most philosophy professors. I argued against it, and in the essay or thesis upon which my success in this course depended, I promoted free will. I managed to get an A on the essay, though the professor, in his final comment on the paper, stated that it was much improved (over my initial attempt) but still "wrong".
If determinism is true, then mental events also have causes. It follows that all of our actions are caused by events outside of ourselves. One of the implications of this is that we are not responsible for our actions. Given the circumstances in which we acted, we could not have done other than we we actually did.
It is my belief that each person (whatever "person" means) is himself the cause of the events that transpire as a result of his choice. Determinists consider this to be an unusual use of the word "cause". They think that every event has to be caused by some other event.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidion, maybe this link will shed some light on the subject:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2005
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2005
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thanks, JC. I read the article, but must admit that I didn't find it convincing.
The following statement quoted from it is merely a tautology:
"But simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause."
The following statement quoted from it is merely a tautology:
"But simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Paidion, that's fair. Tautology is somewhat rampant among scholars. It reminds me of being in college where you try to fill up ten pages of writing with only five pages of material. Just repeat the same idea five different ways and call it an essay. Having said that, I'm simply arguing that something cannot come from nothing, which seems self evident to those who understand the laws that govern our physical universe. Jackal wants to disprove this using a field of science that is hotly disputed among its own ranks. Neils Boar and Albert Einstein had a very public dispute about the nature of quantum mechanics. Even the Uncertainty Principle starts with something. I know that skeptics are jumping all over this because it seems like a good way to refute the cosmological argument (and I thought it was a good one too at one point) but the uncertainty principle would seem to do the opposite, unless an oribiting electron produces what we'd call intelligence.
For example, Christians claim God created all that exists ex nihilo. Quantum mechanics, some say, prove that subatomic particles can sometimes pop into and out of existence. All we can say, then, is that either God created something out of nothing or nothing created something out of nothing. Quantum mechanics, if proven, merely observes God's haniwork and ascribes it to intelligent nothingness. This is slipping into the realm of silliness. Can you see why I'm not entirely impressed by this objection to my argument?
For example, Christians claim God created all that exists ex nihilo. Quantum mechanics, some say, prove that subatomic particles can sometimes pop into and out of existence. All we can say, then, is that either God created something out of nothing or nothing created something out of nothing. Quantum mechanics, if proven, merely observes God's haniwork and ascribes it to intelligent nothingness. This is slipping into the realm of silliness. Can you see why I'm not entirely impressed by this objection to my argument?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi JC,
As for tautologies, they are not really saying anything about the real world. What follows is perhaps a plainer example of such a tautology which will clarify this:
All purely red objects are completely red in colour.
A "tautology" is a statement which is true in virtue of its own constituent terms, and therefor tells us nothing.
I do see where you are going and what you are trying to accomplish in your argument.
You might be interested in my "Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation" which is found in this same area of the forum. It is the third post in the thread entitled "Proof of God's Existence."
As for tautologies, they are not really saying anything about the real world. What follows is perhaps a plainer example of such a tautology which will clarify this:
All purely red objects are completely red in colour.
A "tautology" is a statement which is true in virtue of its own constituent terms, and therefor tells us nothing.
I do see where you are going and what you are trying to accomplish in your argument.
You might be interested in my "Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation" which is found in this same area of the forum. It is the third post in the thread entitled "Proof of God's Existence."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Hi, I'm not familiar with the scientific terminology but i do know that Jackel believes the universe is eternal and that matter just morphs from one form to another but always existed. It does'nt make sense to me since i would think matter decays regardless of what form it's in so at it's origin someone would have created it.
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve7150,
I don't work in the science field either, though I try to keep myself up to date with regard to the latest theories. The fact that matter decays over time is not a theory, however, but a proven fact. Anyone can look under a microscope and watch a cell decay over time. An eternal universe seems like an impossibility to me if the laws of thermodynamics are accurate. The universe is like a clock that's winding down. Of course new theories will continue popping up to challenge the old paradigm but the law of entropy is one of the easiest to prove. You can understand why certain individuals would oppose entropy since it proves the universe is not eternal. It leads to a question that many people aren't comfortable with. If the universe isn't eternal, then it was created. Not only that, but whatever or whoever created it must exist outside of the space/time continuum. Oh my... that's... well... supernatural. *runs and hides*
I don't work in the science field either, though I try to keep myself up to date with regard to the latest theories. The fact that matter decays over time is not a theory, however, but a proven fact. Anyone can look under a microscope and watch a cell decay over time. An eternal universe seems like an impossibility to me if the laws of thermodynamics are accurate. The universe is like a clock that's winding down. Of course new theories will continue popping up to challenge the old paradigm but the law of entropy is one of the easiest to prove. You can understand why certain individuals would oppose entropy since it proves the universe is not eternal. It leads to a question that many people aren't comfortable with. If the universe isn't eternal, then it was created. Not only that, but whatever or whoever created it must exist outside of the space/time continuum. Oh my... that's... well... supernatural. *runs and hides*
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_SoaringEagle
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: Louisville, KY