Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

    Re: 1dave1 @ atheist.net

    Quote Originally Posted by 1dave1
    What is your source for how the disciples died?
    Some verses in the Bible and some extra-Biblical sources.

    And how do we know none of them changed their mind?
    Because there is no record they changed their minds and they died for it.

    It seems unlikely that if one of them denied that he had seen Jesus risen that this would be preserved in writing.
    It seems likely that if one or more said that they had never seen Jesus alive from the dead then they would have said so since Paul even said that most were still alive to do so that he included in his list of eyewitnesses. And since they all died as martyrs for this testimony of seeing Jesus alive from the dead that doesn't mesh well with claiming they didn't see Him.

    Your right a quick web search failed to find a case. But of course if someone went to their death proclaiming the lie it would be hard to determine that they knew it was a lie.
    Anyway you have all of history to find one person who willingly died for a lie. You can't even find one.

    But does Peter ever say he was in a group who all saw risen Jesus. Does John?
    In their accounts, yes by their words these are groups just as given by Paul and and the Gospels and Acts. Never anything to contrary.

    What I mean here, is there any quote where someone is recounting a specific incident where he was with a group who all saw risen Jesus?
    Yes, John and Peter in their epistles. Matthew in his gospel and John in his gospel. Even Paul when he saw Jesus testifies those with him heard the voice, saw the light and also fell to the ground with Him, and saw the man, but only Paul could understand what Jesus was saying. The Gospels were oral accounts preserved. There was not a contrary message to this in the beginning in the primary sources.

    But would any record of this be preserved?
    As was said before, Paul said if there was a contrary message to what was being taught from the beginning, someone would have come forth.

    We have very few records from the time. The early christians would be unlikely to preserve such records. And there were hundreds of years when such records would have been considered heresy and would have been destroyed.
    Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. In fact, take any ten figures and Jesus has more sources written about Him within 150 years of the person's death. The early Christians are very likely to preserve this record. It's something you would want put to papyri right away so all the books of the NT were written before 65 AD except for Revelation which was written about 95 AD. Since all but 11 verses can be quoted from the early church fathers in the 1st and 2nd century if someone burned something centuries later that's irrelevant.

    Are you sure you aren't making the common atheist fallacy here?
    Do you mean the fallacy of believing something with no evidence? No, since I gave you the evidence and you have nothing to counter it.

    Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Right?
    Right. But such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence as we have seen is evidence.

    See above. How do we really know that many people didnt come forth to say otherwise?
    I saw above. Didn't see anything to help you. We can only go with evidence. If you want to suggest someone came forth to say otherwise, then you need some evidence. What we do have is many points of corroboration the disciples believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Christians like evidence so we will stick with the evidence and let you stir.

    But can you provide a quote where James is saying he was with a group who all saw risen Jesus?
    Why is this required? The twelve groups listed didn't include James and that's alright since James was not an original Apostles. Whether James was included in the 500 or not makes no difference. He was converted as a result of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

    (this to establish that a group saw Jesus, and because it was a group all seeing the same thing, it could not have been an hallucination)
    That's correct group hallucinations are impossible. And of those instances where there were individuals alone seeing Jesus physically in person, it's unlikely all would be hallucinations anyhow.

    And now part 2 of your proof requires that the diciples went to their death rather than deny having seen risen Jesus.
    That's correct, that's the evidence we have from both the New Testament, extra-Biblical and non-Christian sources.

    What is your source for the manner of their deaths?
    The church fathers and the Bible and non-Christian sources. All this information is common knowledge. Just read their writings. We have a total of 45 sources within 150 years of Jesus' death.

    Do you have any source that claims to be an eyewitness to their deaths?
    Starting with John who placed himself at the cross when Jesus died. I don't know of any sources of eyewitnesses of their deaths but some must have been present because, for example, Stephen's entire testimony was recounted. Though in most instance, it wouldn't make much sense for those Apostles to be present who would be the only to write about it, since they would be grabbed from the crowd and accosted.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default None of the Naturalistic Theories Work

    Quote Originally Posted by steenkh
    You could be right: we could have happened before, but we have no way of knowing it now. Besides, for all we know, time has not existed indefinitely, so your argument fails no matter how you look at it.
    You would not have happened twice, but you would have happened already because you would have had an eternity to do so. This is how you know infinite regress is impossible. If time didn't always exist then it needs a cause outside of itself. So no matter how you look at it your argument fails.

    You still have not explained how your god can create anything without time. Being "outside time" is not an explanation, it is a dodge that does not work. Besides, if your god can be outside time, so can the universe itself. Perhaps you should become a pantheist?
    We can't know everything. It is unreasonable to demand to know everything to know if God exists. It is enough to accept the evidence since nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed then nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And this is whom we call God. "Outside of time" is the explanation since obviously time did not always exist. It needs a cause. Don't doge this. If you want the universe to exist outside of time yet you require time for something to come into being then according to you we would never have existed. If you want some timeless singularity to start the universe up you still fail because, because a mind is needed to create a mind. The lesser can never produce the greater. Pantheism is false since God is outside of time and space. And God can't have morals below our own, so He has a conscience and morality. Nature by itself doesn't have that.

    Judging from the sources we have, the resurrection most likely did not happen, so Jesus' claim is just self-delusion.
    Historians don't use your sources since they are too late and irrelevant. They concern themselves with the primary sources. Of the 45 sources within 150 years of Jesus' death none of them suggest otherwise about the the disciples' belief they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

    We have already presented naturalistic explanations, and your problem of the lack of a proof for the resurrection does not go away by ignoring them.
    Of the 45 sources, 24 of them speak of the resurrection of Jesus. That's an astounding number of sources, more than enough. None of your naturalistic theories work such as swoon theory. For Jesus wouldn't have looked much like a risen Messiah. I doubt he could even walk with holes in his feet and his back scourged down to the bone. No respectable scholar uses that approach. And almost all scholars deny fraud theory and hallucination theory, so what you have you got?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philosophik
    I never claimed that particles, or anything for that matter, actually come from your idea of nothing (non-existence). I am saying that linear cause and effect is a rule from within our universe, to assume that it is a rule outside the universe is presumptuous.
    If according to your theory there is no causation outside the universe, then the universe would never have come into being so to assume there is no causation is to betray your own existence. Any theory you propose cannot contradict itself.

    Because you refuse to explain why I only could have happened in the past if the universe had infinite regress (which by the way makes no sense, considering the fact that whenever I do happen, from my standpoint it is always going to be the present) I'm just going to go ahead and humor you. Lets suppose you are right, if the universe had infinite regress I would have happened already, and therefore I would not exist today. So what. How does the time at which I occur in any way affect whether or not the universe can have infinite regress? And even if the universe can not contain an infinite amount of causes and effects within it, how does that logically prove god?
    Your standpoint is irrelevant. If you have an eternity to come into being, you had an eternity to come into being. Therefore, you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Very simple for a child or teenager to understand. Not so simple for you because you hate God. Any theory you propose can't contradict itself. If you want infinite regress to be true then you should not exist now since you would have happened already. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator. The common name we give to the uncreated Creator is God. So the issue is not whether God exists, but who God is? Therefore, atheism is false and you are living a lie.

    This is what you originally said in the OP: if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point.
    That's right.

    In the first sentence you claim that if infinite regress were the case, then I would have already existed, past tense. But then in the following sentence you say that if infinite regress were the case then I would never have existed, also past tense, contradicting yourself. But then you provide a bizarre reason to explain why the past could never reach the present moment, suggesting that the past could never reach the present because it goes on for eternity. This is confusing and nonsensical at best. I thought you deliberately worded it this way so you could say that infinite regress is a contradiction, therefore god. If you had just said 'if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so, therefore you would not exist today,' it wouldn't have been confusing. At any rate, the time at which I exist is irrelevant in attempting to disprove infinite regress. And whether or not infinite regress in our universe is possible, is irrelevant in attempting to prove god created our universe.
    The contradiction lies with infinite regress because it is both true you would have have happened already and you would never existed. You had an eternity to have existed so you should have happened before now. And if an eternity was going on it would be going on for eternity before now so this point would never be reached so you should not exist now. Any system of belief that contradicts itself is false. Based on this evidence, infinite regress is impossible, therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself, and this whom we call God.

    You realize that 'this point' you are referring to is the present. So to say that 'if there was infinite regress an eternity would still be going on never reaching this point,' is to say that eternity never reaches the present. But how can that be true? The present is the only point in eternity that actually exists, in fact, eternity functions as a perpetual present moment.
    Your theory does not hold as was said, if there was an infinite regress there would be an eternity going on before now so this point would never be reached, since eternity would still be going on for eternity.

    I did quote you, but i clearly said that that was the first time you ever mentioned that I would not exist right now.
    You didn't say that at all. Rather, you said, "Show me where you wrote in a previous post that I would not exist right now. I did not see it." So I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already.

    I showed you what you originally posted, and you did leave out that detail. You worded it in such a way that it appeared that you were deliberately attempting to create a false contradiction.
    What I posted that you quoted was this, "I never said anything about recurring as was said many times. I said you would have already happened and gone so you wouldn't exist now. You are really slow aren't you." You responded by saying, "this is the first time you ever mentioned that if infinite regress was the case then I would have happened in the past, consequently, I would not exist right now." That's simply not true, for there are many posts I have repeated the statement "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." Don't assume I am speaking of recurring for I said "already happened." "Already" means it should have happened already and thus, not now. If I meant how you misread then I should have used a word like "recurred before". You're simply misreading. Careless atheist.

    I challenge you to write the above passage into a logical argument, use as many syllogisms as you like. If you can do it, and have them at least be valid, then I can say that you are actually making progress. If you reply to this post with no syllogisms to demonstrate your logic, I'll take it as you conceding that what you have written above is illogical, incoherent, rubbish.
    How about I just repeat it so the reader can see there is no problem with it and thus, you are being illogical avoiding it. I am standing on the foundation of evidence but you are not so you will need to make some progress.

    I see energy in nature all the time. Go check out a nuclear power plant for example. Whether there is an infinite number of forms or not you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on before this point. Infinite regress is dumb and self-contradictory.

    You do realize that the universe doesn't exist in space-time, but rather space-time exists in the universe, right? It is a very basic concept.
    You realize those two statements in your petty self are one in the same, since the universe is space-time. Very simple to understand. Cyclical universes, multiverses, etc. don't change anything.

    I'm not proposing infinite regress, I'm demonstrating how the claims you make about infinite regress are illogical. Let me be clear, the crux of this debate hinges on the fact that you claim an uncreated creator is the only logical explanation for our universe. You use a 4 step proof in a feeble attempt to demonstrate this. I have only addressed the first two steps and pointed out the logical inconsistencies present in these steps. Not only that, but I have implied an alternative logical explanation for the existence of our universe. Just in case you missed it here it is again, in syllogism form.
    I am glad you are not proposing infinite regress now, so stop arguing for it. I have responded to everything to show you that you are being illogical and your claim for an infinite regress is self-contradictory. You're free to respond to my points or shut your mind down. Sorry, couldn't find anything in what you said for an alternative logical explanation to infinite regress. Why keep this secret to yourself? Share it with the world. People might think you are full of you know what being coy.

    Proof of a larger system

    P1- Finite systems require larger support systems in order to exist.
    P2- Our universe exists as a finite system.
    C- Our universe requires a larger support system in order to exist.
    Sounds like infinite regress to me, because you will just say the next larger system above that and on and on. You would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on. Boring.

    Proof that a larger system is all that is required

    P1- In order for any finite system to exist, all that is required is a larger system to produce it.
    P2- Our universe exists as finite system.
    C-- A larger system is all that is required to produce our universe.

    There you have it, I have shown you that there is no need to jump to the god conclusion.
    Your argument is faulty because you shut your mind down to that larger natural system. You need to ask what caused it. Since it is natural, and you admit nature needs a cause, then you are implying infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

    We are left with no other possibility as usual than nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God. God is the great I AM, the Intelligent mind. God is infinite but does not infinitely regress, because God is outside of time and space. Amen.

    That's not enough though. You would need to receive what God did for you to avoid going to Hell.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default Worldly People Shut Their Minds Down

    Quote Originally Posted by spacedog
    There is no reason for infinite regress to be impossible. Infinite regress itself could be the infinity you are seeing in god.
    Not at all. The infinite regress you propose is of nature, but if infinite regress were true, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. This fact alone proves nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. There is no infinite regress outside of time. It is simply the uncreated Creator. This takes humility to accept.

    Sounds very similar to the multiple reality theory, for which there is quite good evidence (look up the buckyball experiment). Although unlike you I will not make any decisions on something we have little or no understanding of, I would point out that if there really are multiple realities they would point towards the existence of an infinite regress.
    There is no multiple reality. We have proven the existence of the uncreated Creator so that's it. If you have little understanding then I trust you won't make a decision for atheism. Even if there was multiple realities they all exhibit cause and effect so you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

    Your brain is evolved to see the world as cause and effect. Perhaps the true nature of reality is not cause and effect. If this is the case your argument implodes. You or I have no way of knowing this is not true. How do you explain quantum randomness?
    True we can only go with the evidence, but if it were true there was no such thing as cause and effect then you would never have come into being and would not exist. All we can do is go with the evidence and the evidence is we see trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, atheism is wrong since infinite regress is impossible and something can't come from nothing.

    Again I ask you to read up on dark matter. I think you will find we have some insight into what is beyond our universe and it seems something can come from virtual nothingness.
    Our brains may just be evolved to see the universe in a certain way which makes them good at surviving. We didn't evolve to become theoretical physicists it's simply a byproduct of our adaptions for survival. From what we understand of the world around us we do not experience a 'true' reality at all, but rather have to piece together small individual laws which are part of a whole.
    You're confusing dark matter and empty space with that which does not exist. That which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. So the universe can't come from nothing. Dark matter and empty space are not nothing for they are made up of particles. Sure we experience true reality. This is a true world and we are real human beings.

    Seeing as there is no reason to believe infinite regress is impossible this still stands and you are yet to show it to be wrong.
    As was said countless times, infinite regress is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. You must deal with this point if you want to talk about it.

    How can you possibly know the nature of this infinite creator you seem so confident in? Please find me an answer other than the bible I will completely ignore any bible related claims.
    Now that we know God exists, we are free to find out where He has revealed Himself. God acknowledges Himself. Jesus does that. He also must prove Himself. Jesus does that too, since the original disciples testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. Since you can find no naturalistic explanation for this, you convince people to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, Creator and Resurrected. The primary source for proof Jesus is God is the Bible. Historians don't throw out a document because the historian is biased. He deals with it and gleans what data he can from it.

    Doesn't it seem odd that the Christian image of him thinks like a human being and is attributed with being male and capable of fathering a son?
    God condescends Himself to us. But it is not entirely true what you said because remember also, the Godhead is a Trinity of 3 Persons. All I can say about that right now is that God is relational in 3 Persons, so the Godhead can't help but create out of the glory that is the Triunity of God.

    1. Your infinite creator argument has been exposed as wrong, but you won't accept the arguments and constantly claim infinite regress is impossible, although you have no logical reason to believe this.
    I've responded to all points to show you that is not the case at all and quite the opposite actually.

    2. To jump from an infinite creator to a magical super-being described by the bible is a huge leap of faith for which you have no evidence to support.
    Don't jump, but compare Jesus. Find out who provides a proof as good as Jesus does in paying for the sins of the world and by the resurrection proof. None can compare.

    3.You seem to have a psychological need to be certain of something. To pretend we are certain about things physics is only starting to catch glimpses of is insane. You're engaging in science with a bias to evidence which supports your cause. A true scientist or just a rational human being will look at all the evidence with an open mind and then make an informed decision on what his cause should be.
    I would be agnostic right now if the evidence wasn't so compelling. You should be agnostic and not atheist if you didn't need to be so certain. Think how insane you are since we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself, then to claim otherwise that causation doesn't exist. If causation didn't exist, you wouldn't exist since you would have no cause to your existence.

    You're starting from the position that God does not exist whereas I am starting from the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects and the 1st law of thermodynamics which you violate. You're simply catering to some assumptions that violate reality out of your hostility and independency to your Creator for which I assure you that you will go to Hell for because you don't want to be redeemed back to God, and it is a choice to want to be eternally separated from God. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

    I've fallen into the trap and done what I said I wouldn't...Oh well I have some time on my hands.
    You shouldn't have tried to think things through? Maybe that's the problem is you don't do that enough, but usually just shut your mind down. That's what worldly people do. After you receive trillions of pieces evidence, don't embarrass yourself with false humility by claiming there is no such thing as cause and effect or there is still not enough evidence even though you can't find one thing that happened all by itself. Silly. That's just being belligerent. Guess what? There is no belligerent people in Heaven. God doesn't care for those types.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default Lesser Can Never Produce the Greater

    Quote Originally Posted by MysterMenace
    There is nothing new about the "4 Step Proof". It fails for several fundamental reasons.
    It's new because it is not the original 4 Step Proof for God. In terms of the proof of either, this proof was available to people who lived 5000 years ago so in that sense it is new at all. We are all without excuse (Rom. 1.20).

    The proof repetitively confuses the physical processes which are internal to our universe with the environment which is external to our universe.
    The proof includes both the internal processes of our universe as well as any environment posited external to our environment. If you want to propose an external natural cause to our universe then you would be extending this in an infinite regress, but as we have seen, infinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

    Conservation of energy and/or matter, causation, time, space, etc. have no meaning beyond the boundaries of our universe.
    If causation had no meaning beyond our universe then the universe would never have come into being. You should not exist according to your theory.

    Words such as "never", "always", "already", "eternal" have no meaning beyond the borders of space-time.
    This is my very point, that outside of space-time exists the spaceless and timeless uncreated Creator since space-time did not always exist nor can it start up from nothing. The uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Where does He reveal Himself but in Jesus Christ by proof of His resurrection.

    The proof depends upon these concepts having meaning--they don't.
    The proof does not depend on these terms. The proof is well formulated based on the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature. If nature always existed you would have happened already, and nature can't come from nothing. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God the uncreated Creator.

    The idea that "the lesser can never produce the greater" is so poorly defined it is useless.
    It need not be defined by more than that. That which does not have a mind can't produce a mind. That which has no conscience can't produce a conscience. Simple so you can understand the lesser can never produce the greater.

    A nebula can condense into a star system. (lesser complexity produces greater complexity)
    Nothing in nature is as complex as the human mind, so a nebula or star system can't produce a mind alone by itself. The nebula is going to condense further into empty space. The star system is just a fluctuation of matter in the process. Your scope is too narrow. You're seeing complexity where there is not near as much as in the DNA of a human being. Our most powerful telescopes can see down to the 10^25 level, but we know the depths of small things goes to at least 10^125 factor. And yet this does not compare to the complexity of the mind with free will, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and God-consciousness, the ability to commune and sense our intuition where the Holy Spirit resides in those who are born-again.

    A group of scientists can build a large hadron collider. (lesser size produces greater size)
    A group of scientists, with free will, a conscience, a mind, emotions, are certainly greater than a hadron collider. A hadron collider can't create us, but we can create the collider. In fact, the entire universe can't produce the collider, but we can.

    A farmer can plant and harvest seed crops (lesser seeds produces greater seeds)
    A farmer is lesser than seed crops? You really have a low view of man. I don't see crops with feelings and free will.

    Two human cells can create multiple humans, each with its own mind. (lesser life produces greater life)
    The human cell with DNA is the process God uses to create a mind. Nature can't produce a single celled replicating organism so behind nature is God who created the first single celled replicating organism. God inserts into His creation from dust a replicating organism.

    If you copy nonsense from one forum to another it remains nonsense.
    But if you don't then you don't. How deep.

    It's unlikely that you can convince anyone in this forum of the existence of your god, but at least you could try to present ideas with a modicum of intellectual challenge. Use the brain god gave you!
    It's likely someone will be convinced in Christ because many atheists do give their lives to Christ when they see it's crazy to believe in infinite regress or something from nothing. Antony Flew the most famous and published atheist scholar of the 20th century as of 2004 is a theist. Just think all his life until he reached his 80's he was living lie as an atheist. Hopefully you don't wait that long.

    Use the brain God gave you. If you want non-space and non-time to bring into existence time and space but you don't want it to be God, then you have a problem because a mind is needed to create a mind and mere spaceless timelessness doesn't have that.

    Think.

  6. #6
    Spacedog Guest

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    if infinite regress were true, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.
    Yet you fail to give a reason why this is impossible. Why can I not have already happened before?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    This fact alone proves nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space.
    A cause cannot not exist without time

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. There is no infinite regress outside of time. It is simply the uncreated Creator.
    Overall all I'm agnostic to the principle of infinite creator. My brain tells me there needs to be something infinite, whether it's right in thinking that or not I can't say. What I'm atheist to is the idea that the creator is a conscious being, or that we could claim to know the nature of this being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    There is no multiple reality.
    Please provide evidence to support this statement

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    We have proven the existence of the uncreated Creator so that's it.
    No the existence of a creator is proven in your mind, there are billions of humans, most physicists being in this group, who do not feel it is proven at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    If you have little understanding then I trust you won't make a decision for atheism. Even if there was multiple realities they all exhibit cause and effect so you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.
    I will refer you back to the start of this reply as to your opinion that infinite regress is impossible.
    I am atheist to the fictional characters people have applied to infinite creators, not to infinite creators themselves. Also my definition of atheism does not mean I totally rule out the possibility of say, Allah, I just find it very unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    True we can only go with the evidence, but if it were true there was no such thing as cause and effect then you would never have come into being and would not exist.
    I have no reason to disagree with this, but I also have no reason to assume my birth can be compared to the birth of existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    All we can do is go with the evidence and the evidence is we see trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
    This is evidence that cause and effect happens not that it is the only thing which can happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    infinite regress is impossible
    I await your reply as to why it is impossible

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    something can't come from nothing.
    Again you have no way of knowing this

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    You're confusing dark matter and empty space with that which does not exist.
    We are moving into very speculative physics here but it is still worth discussing to prove that an infinite creator doesn't have to be your god. You are correct empty space may not actually exist at all. In fact this is obvious because because it is nothingness, and nothingness does not exist, therefore we can't include nothingness in our arguments. What we see as nothingness in our universe, i.e. the vacuum of space, is not nothingness at all. It is filled by dark or anti-matter.
    My point here is that there's no reason to believe that nothingness is a thing at all, it's name even means something which is non-existent. It is possible that the infinity we are looking for could be simply the universe itself (I don't mean just the one we know, full of galaxies and stars etc but everything our little universe is contained in (whatever that may be)). The nothingness beyond existence may not be a factor at all because existence itself, at it's most basic level, could be infinite. So the idea we have is a sort of infinite breeding ground of universes. There's no need to conjure up fictional characters in order to explain the infinity which we think is required.
    As for how this 'breeding ground' might create a new universe, physics is starting to find answers and if you have any real interest in this you should read into dark matter theories. Seeing as I am not a physicist myself I won't risk the validity of my argument by wrongly explaining something to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Sure we experience true reality. This is a true world and we are real human beings.
    Agreed. Perhaps 'true' was a bad word. 'Naked' reality would fit better I think. Our reality is certainly distorted. Regardless, what we see is certainly based entirely on reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    As was said countless times, infinite regress is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. You must deal with this point if you want to talk about it.
    I have dealt with it. The issue is that you have yet to give a reason why me having existed more than once is impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Now that we know God exists
    We have not established any such thing. We have established that an infinite creator may exist and that there is no reason to believe it is the god you are imagining.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    we are free to find out where He has revealed Himself.
    This should be fun

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    God acknowledges Himself. Jesus does that. He also must prove Himself. Jesus does that too, since the original disciples testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.
    Where is your evidence for this other than the bible? The bible is not evidence it is a claim. What is your evidence for the claims made by the bible?



    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Since you can find no naturalistic explanation for this, you convince people to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, Creator and Resurrected.
    That's like saying I can find no naturalistic explanation for the events in Harry Potter, therefore we should all believe magic is real.

    Put more simply, my naturalistic explanation is that the bibles claims didn't happen. The evidence for them happening is one book written by cultists 100 years after the story they were writing about. Do you believe the Greek books about the gods on Olympus?


    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    The primary source for proof Jesus is God is the Bible. Historians don't throw out a document because the historian is biased. He deals with it and gleans what data he can from it.
    Yes as a historian myself I have found the bible very useful for studying Roman life and christian beliefs, but it doesn't prove that supernatural events took place, only that some people claimed they did (which is not uncommon in the ancient world!). There is no evidence to support their claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    God condescends Himself to us. But it is not entirely true what you said because remember also, the Godhead is a Trinity of 3 Persons. All I can say about that right now is that God is relational in 3 Persons, so the Godhead can't help but create out of the glory that is the Triunity of God.
    OK, maybe Christians on the whole don't believe god is as similar to a human as I made out, although past Christians certainly did and so did the writers of the bible. But still, I find it very improbable that an infinite creator would be able to think in a way which allows it to communicate with humans. Such thought processes require a brain (or similar) which has evolved and is based on the laws of space and time. You claim that god is outside of space and time and is infinite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Don't jump, but compare Jesus. Find out who provides a proof as good as Jesus does in paying for the sins of the world and by the resurrection proof. None can compare.
    Jesus and the bible are not proof of a claim they are the claim itself. A claim cannot be evidence for itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    I would be agnostic right now if the evidence wasn't so compelling. You should be agnostic and not atheist if you didn't need to be so certain. Think how insane you are since we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself, then to claim otherwise that causation doesn't exist. If causation didn't exist, you wouldn't exist since you would have no cause to your existence.
    No you are bias to a belief which brings you security. Any rational person who has read my arguments above will see that you are bias to evidence supporting an infinite creator, and hold on to claims with no evidence with regard to the Christian beliefs, while ignoring the mountain of evidence against them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    You're starting from the position that God does not exist whereas I am starting from the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects and the 1st law of thermodynamics which you violate. You're simply catering to some assumptions that violate reality out of your hostility and independency to your Creator
    As I have clearly explained in this reply your arguments are nowhere near as certain as you like to believe

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    for which I assure you that you will go to Hell for because you don't want to be redeemed back to God, and it is a choice to want to be eternally separated from God. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
    I'm terrified. Please provide some evidence for the existence of heaven/hell without simply restating a claim.



    As for that last comment stop being so immature and pathetic. You've just proved that you are desperate for any way to get at me due to your weak arguments. That comment was referring to the fact that I had said I wouldn't be drawn into arguing with yet another religious fanatic, but fell into the trap.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedog View Post
    Yet you fail to give a reason why this is impossible. Why can I not have already happened before?
    I cannot think of a reason why you could not have happened before, since you would have had an eternity to come into being before now. The reason given for why you would have happened already is because you would have had an eternity to do so, if infinite regress were true. Therefore, infinite regress is false.

    A cause cannot not exist without time
    Since infinite regress is impossible there cannot be a past eternity of time, so therefore, there must be a cause for time outside of time. Your assumption that there can be no cause without time would be a false assumption.

    Overall all I'm agnostic to the principle of infinite creator. My brain tells me there needs to be something infinite, whether it's right in thinking that or not I can't say. What I'm atheist to is the idea that the creator is a conscious being, or that we could claim to know the nature of this being.
    Your position is untenable since infinite regress as we have seen is impossible, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator. Since a non-mind can't produce a mind and that which has no conscience or consciousness can't produce a conscience and consciousness, the Creator must be an immaterial mind. Often people give the name to this uncreated the name of God.

    Please provide evidence to support this statement
    I don't need evidence against multiple realities, but you do since you propose it. But if I were to try, I would say the tv series Fringe is a good example of this being an evil construct. But if God exists, He considers all world ensembles and actualizes the one that is the best of all possible worlds.

    Another way to approach this is since the uncreated Creator is proven and Jesus is proven to be God, and there is multiple realities in God's design, then there is none. So "avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20).

    And even if there were multiple realities, since there is no evidence for it, it's really not too helpful to think in those terms, and it would not change infinite regress.

    No the existence of a creator is proven in your mind, there are billions of humans, most physicists being in this group, who do not feel it is proven at all.
    Actually most physicists believe a "transcendent cause" exists. Only a fraction deny this. But instead of appealing to authority, why don't you deal with the fact of the matter: If there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

    I will refer you back to the start of this reply as to your opinion that infinite regress is impossible.
    Thanks for the referral. As was seen it was no opinion, but proven since you would have happened already having had a eternity to do so.

    I am atheist to the fictional characters people have applied to infinite creators, not to infinite creators themselves. Also my definition of atheism does not mean I totally rule out the possibility of say, Allah, I just find it very unlikely.
    We know Allah can't be God because six centuries later he said Jesus never died on the cross, when that is all the evidence we have for Jesus dying on the cross. And we know Jesus is God because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

    I have no reason to disagree with this, but I also have no reason to assume my birth can be compared to the birth of existence.
    Why would your birth need to be compared to the birth of existence for God to exist? Since you are partially swayed to the idea the universe would not exist if there was no cause for time, then you wouldn't exist either since you are in the universe.

    This is evidence that cause and effect happens not that it is the only thing which can happen.
    In fact the trillions and trillions of cause and effects is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, accepted by any court of law. If there is no cause and effect then the universe and you would never have come into being. If you keep holding out that maybe one day you will find something that can disprove cause and effect in some instances, this line of thinking is problematic because let's say there was one last thing you didn't know. Would you still be so arrogant to hold out that you needed to know that last thing to know if cause and effect always apply? Talk about false humility! You would be claiming you need to be God or all-knowing to know if God exists, but that is itself a contradiction, since obviously you are not the uncreated Creator and never will be, so get over yourself. If you were, you could show us what happened at the singularity right now with perfect clarity in all its fine details.

    I await your reply as to why it is impossible
    Infinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Why do you ask this question after I have said this so many times already? Why not respond to what I said?

    Again you have no way of knowing this
    Of course we know this. Nobody has ever found something coming from nothing, and we have trillions and trillions of cause and effects which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt nature always comes from something. Moreover, that which does not exist can't produce anything. It has no energy and doesn't exist. You're violating the first law of thermodynamics. That's why the Bible says, "Avoid profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20).

    We are moving into very speculative physics here but it is still worth discussing to prove that an infinite creator doesn't have to be your god. You are correct empty space may not actually exist at all. In fact this is obvious because because it is nothingness, and nothingness does not exist, therefore we can't include nothingness in our arguments. What we see as nothingness in our universe, i.e. the vacuum of space, is not nothingness at all. It is filled by dark or anti-matter. My point here is that there's no reason to believe that nothingness is a thing at all, it's name even means something which is non-existent.
    I never said anything about empty space not existing. I said it does exist for it has particles in it I said. We are not talking about dark matter and empty space brewing with particles. They are subject to cause and effect. What we are talking about is that which does not exist can't cause anything (no energy, no existence); ergo, something can't come from nothing. Dark matter is not nothing.

    It's probably best before you start worrying about who God is that you realize that the uncreated Creator exists first, for it is not enough to know God exists. Satan knows God exists. But one must be saved from one's sins.

    It is possible that the infinity we are looking for could be simply the universe itself (I don't mean just the one we know, full of galaxies and stars etc but everything our little universe is contained in (whatever that may be)). The nothingness beyond existence may not be a factor at all because existence itself, at it's most basic level, could be infinite.
    You are building an infinite regress of Russian dolls, but that's not possible because you would have happened already, having had a eternity to do so. Nature's existence, therefore, could not always have existence. Non-existence can't create anything either, since something can't come from nothing.

    So the idea we have is a sort of infinite breeding ground of universes. There's no need to conjure up fictional characters in order to explain the infinity which we think is required.
    Don't worry about who God is yet. First deal with the problem of your theory. If there was an infinite breeding ground of universes that is an infinite regress, but if that were the case, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

    As for how this 'breeding ground' might create a new universe, physics is starting to find answers and if you have any real interest in this you should read into dark matter theories. Seeing as I am not a physicist myself I won't risk the validity of my argument by wrongly explaining something to you.
    Whether there was such a thing or not is irrelevant for our discussion, because an infinite regress is impossible. Since infinite regress is impossible then God created. Once you realize God created, come around to realizing who God is in Christ, then from there you know there is not multiverses, since it is not part of eternity future or eternity past in Scripture. I believe in M-theory, sounds plausible, or seems to be our best explanation so far. But that is just 11 dimensions, not other universes or realities.

    Agreed. Perhaps 'true' was a bad word. 'Naked' reality would fit better I think. Our reality is certainly distorted. Regardless, what we see is certainly based entirely on reality.
    I don't think our reality is distorted or naked. It is truly as God wants it to be. It's a perfect creation He could not make any better than this one. This is the best of the best.

    I have dealt with it. The issue is that you have yet to give a reason why me having existed more than once is impossible.
    If you dealt with it where I have not responded, please quote it. My proof has nothing to do with you existing more than once, but that if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already and not exist now, having had an eternity to do so. Why misunderstand the basic proof?

    We have not established any such thing. We have established that an infinite creator may exist and that there is no reason to believe it is the god you are imagining. This should be fun
    We have established, more specifically, that an uncreated Creator exists, because nature can't always have existed. It can't always have existed, because if it had, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. We can talk about whether Jesus is the God later after you realize God exists, but suffice it to say you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. Amen.

    Don't put the cart [Jesus] before the horse [proof of God].

    Where is your evidence for this other than the bible? The bible is not evidence it is a claim. What is your evidence for the claims made by the bible?
    I have 45 earliest sources, 17 of which are non-Christian, in the first 150 years of Jesus' death. This is unprecedented in antiquity. There are more sources for Jesus than the any ten figures combined. The Bible is filled with testimony and a claim, the claim by the original disciples in their writings and through oral tradition and creeds they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

    The evidence for the claim of the resurrection of Jesus, that the Bible is true, is that these are multiple independent attestations in agreement for the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. And that the disciples willingly died for their claim.

    That's like saying I can find no naturalistic explanation for the events in Harry Potter, therefore we should all believe magic is real.
    You can find a naturalistic explanation for the events in Harry Potter. The popular author wrote these stories from her imagination and she testifies to that fact. They are admitted into evidence as fictional writing and not actual beings or persons. You're slow eh?

    Put more simply, my naturalistic explanation is that the bibles claims didn't happen. The evidence for them happening is one book written by cultists 100 years after the story they were writing about. Do you believe the Greek books about the gods on Olympus?
    If you want to throw out the whole Bible as never having happened then you have to throw out all of history since Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. Your doublestandard exposes you as unthinking, and no historian throws out the whole Bible, but they glean certain facts they can be certain of. We have over 25,000 archaeological finds related to the Scriptures. Since the writing styles are very diverse and no one human being could write all the books, that blows that theory of yours. We have the Septuagint over 3 centuries before Christ predicting exactly when Jesus would be the ransom for sins. You can reproduce the enter NT except for 11 verses from quotes of the early church fathers in the 1st and 2nd centuries, so that blows your theory again.

    Also, Acts was a biography of Paul, but Luke makes no mention of his death though does recount several of his near death experiences. Death is sorta important to mention in a biography. Since Paul died in the Neronian persecutions around 65 AD, Acts would have been written around 55 AD. But Luke said this was two of his former work, the gospel of Luke, so that places Luke around 45 AD. Luke took from Mark so that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross. And since Mark worked closely with Peter, Peter's two books are quite early also, nearly right on top of the events. This is unprecedented in antiquity. Compare this to writings about Greek gods that nobody ever saw but were just assumed.

    Moreover, we can apply the same principle of infinite regress to gods. If there were gods creating gods for eternity, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. God of the Bible says there are not gods, they are just made up, idols, and that there is no gods beside God, before god or after God. He was alone from everlasting.

    Yes as a historian myself I have found the bible very useful for studying Roman life and christian beliefs, but it doesn't prove that supernatural events took place, only that some people claimed they did (which is not uncommon in the ancient world!). There is no evidence to support their claims.
    It is not common at all. Nothing could be more uncommon. There were no eyewitness resurrection claims of a God or of a person who claimed to be God. We know this supernatural event of resurrection took place because you concede you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs as documented in Scripture whom died for their testimony. People don't willing die for what they know is a lie and group hallucinations are impossible.

    OK, maybe Christians on the whole don't believe god is as similar to a human as I made out, although past Christians certainly did and so did the writers of the bible. But still, I find it very improbable that an infinite creator would be able to think in a way which allows it to communicate with humans. Such thought processes require a brain (or similar) which has evolved and is based on the laws of space and time. You claim that god is outside of space and time and is infinite.
    Past Christians thought no differently about the Triune God, recognizing Jesus was calling Himself God, forgiving sins, giving sight to the blind, healing the sick, and praying to the Father, and said He would be raised to the right hand of the Father and give the Holy Spirit which is the life of the Father and the Son. Here we see the operation of the Three Persons of the Godhead, co-equal and co-inherent.

    You think God is unable to communicate in a way to relate to us? How silly. Give God a little credit. He created all things. I am sure He can enter His creation in the likeness of the flesh to relate to us as Jesus did. He proved it by His resurrection. If you build a house, you should be allowed to enter it. Or if you play a computer game, you should be allowed to use your player character. That's a crude comparison but you get the point. Thus, Jesus can enter Hades, die on the cross, resurrect, ascend, give His Spirit to indwell born-again believers, and return to reign on earth for 1000 years before transferring His elect into the New City and you to Hell.

    Jesus and the bible are not proof of a claim they are the claim itself. A claim cannot be evidence for itself.
    A claim can be evidenced by itself or in conjunction with others. Jesus and the Bible are proof of the claim and they are the claim itself.

    Each of these books in the Bible are independent sources written by different authors in different places in different times, yet all in agreement. That's what historians like to see: independent sources. The New Testament writers give their testimony and oral tradition and creeds by these original eyewitnesses. So the Bible is allowed to prove not just the historicity of Jesus, but also His resurrection. Hence, over 99% of scholars who do thesis or peer review journal work on the resurrection claim concede a very important fact that the disciples truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

    If you can't find a naturalistic explanation, then you admit Jesus is God though you may not accept for your salvation, thus you would go to Hell.

    No you are bias to a belief which brings you security. Any rational person who has read my arguments above will see that you are bias to evidence supporting an infinite creator, and hold on to claims with no evidence with regard to the Christian beliefs, while ignoring the mountain of evidence against them.
    The truth gives me security I agree. Any rational person has seen you have not been able to overturn the infinite regress problem and as you go on in being unable to, people can see your bias in that behavior. Whereas I gave into the evidence nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and I too can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs so I give into reality. Don't ignore this evidence and the mountain of evidence in Scripture for the disciples' eyewitness testimony. It's all right there.

    As I have clearly explained in this reply your arguments are nowhere near as certain as you like to believe
    As we have seen, I responded to all your points show you what's wrong with your thinking and where it stems from ultimately.

    I'm terrified. Please provide some evidence for the existence of heaven/hell without simply restating a claim.
    Something tells me you are not terrified. Since you have no fear of Hell it's a perfect place for you. Since God is proven here, Jesus is proven to be God, and Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone, then to Hell you shall go. Another way you can understand this is to realize that free will is not truly free if you don't have the choice to be eternally separated from God.

    As for that last comment stop being so immature and pathetic. You've just proved that you are desperate for any way to get at me due to your weak arguments. That comment was referring to the fact that I had said I wouldn't be drawn into arguing with yet another religious fanatic, but fell into the trap.
    The last comment was true so why be immature about it? That's pathetic. Since all my points were strong and like you, I don't know how to overturn them either, you're acting desperate with ad hominems instead of giving into reality. Satan's minions like calling Christians religious fanatics, but think how religious you are in shutting your mind down. My faith pales in comparison to your faith, for it takes far greater faith to believe in what you do without any evidence at all and overlook the evidence provided here.

    Praise the Lord, God has chosen us before the foundations of the world, and no person knows all the wonderful and amazing things God has planned for those who love Him.
    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps. 14.1)
    Without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. (Heb. 11.6)
    Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3.19-20)
    For those such as yourself as we have proved, your future is the Lake of Fire. You're a bad person. Just like we have to lock up prisoners in jail fore life, you need to be locked up in Hell for eternity, for God would not be loving to let you out to do harm to His sons and daughters.

    My prayers go out to you. Let me leave you with the words of Jesus...

    Jhn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
    Jhn 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
    Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
    Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
    Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
    Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
    Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
    Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
    Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
    Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Jhn 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
    Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
    Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
    Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
    Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

    Now John the Baptist speaks of Jesus.
    Jhn 3:30 He must increase, but I [must] decrease.
    Jhn 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
    Jhn 3:32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
    Jhn 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
    Jhn 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
    Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
    Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

    The wrath of God is on you Spacedog.

  8. #8
    Spacedog Guest

    Default

    I will answer a few things. I have a life and therefore do not intend to read through your ramblings on proof of the bible and what not I find it incredibly boring. No level minded historian bases belief on something as bold as supernatural events on just one book plus maybe a few other writings. Jesus was not well documented considering it's claimed he was performing miracles. He was unmentioned by any Roman historians at the time. I do not doubt he may have existed. Indeed the bible accurately names people and places, but none of this proves supernatural events.

    Ok so first off lets deal with infinite regress.

    It seems we had a misunderstanding. I now realize you are assuming the same person can not exist more than once because you believe we have a soul. This actually made me laugh when I realized it was that simple. There is no reason to assume life has any kind of magical essence and I do not believe humans or any other animal have a soul. If someone existed in another universe with my exact genetic make-up and past experiences they would be the same person. Therefore you argument as to why infinite regress is impossible has been easily beaten. Of course you will disagree with me because you believe in souls, but that's besides the point.

    Now, the other thing I'd like to get on to is actually supporting an infinite creator but showing that your god is not necessary. You certainly are slow not to understand the simple example I gave, but I can't help but wonder if you pretended to believe I was still attempting to disprove infinite regress simply to avoid having to provide a proper response. Nonetheless, we shall try again.
    I shall start by restating that I am agnostic to an infinite creator. Indeed, I'm actually quite convinced that something needs to been infinite, but as I do not believe in souls I see no reason why that infinity should not be the regress itself. However, lets assume for the moment infinite regress is not real so we can move on to the important bit.
    My point, which you totally misunderstood (whether that was down to slow wit or intentional misleading I am not sure), was that the required infinite creator does not need to be a magic being. This is the infinite breeding ground of universes. There is no infinite regress here I've moved on, we are calling the breeding ground an infinite creator. There is absolutely no reason for us to assume there is a conscious being, an infinite breeding ground fills all of the rational slots and none of the irrational ones.


    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Praise the Lord, God has chosen us before the foundations of the world, and no person knows all the wonderful and amazing things God has planned for those who love Him.
    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Ps. 14.1)
    Without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him. (Heb. 11.6)
    Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3.19-20)
    For those such as yourself as we have proved, your future is the Lake of Fire. You're a bad person. Just like we have to lock up prisoners in jail fore life, you need to be locked up in Hell for eternity, for God would not be loving to let you out to do harm to His sons and daughters.

    My prayers go out to you. Let me leave you with the words of Jesus...

    Jhn 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
    Jhn 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
    Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
    Jhn 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
    Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
    Jhn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
    Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
    Jhn 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
    Jhn 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
    Jhn 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Jhn 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
    Jhn 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things?
    Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.
    Jhn 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
    Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
    Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    Jhn 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

    Now John the Baptist speaks of Jesus.
    Jhn 3:30 He must increase, but I [must] decrease.
    Jhn 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
    Jhn 3:32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
    Jhn 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
    Jhn 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
    Jhn 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
    Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

    The wrath of God is on you Spacedog.
    Lunatic.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,033
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedog View Post
    I will answer a few things. I have a life and therefore do not intend to read through your ramblings on proof of the bible and what not I find it incredibly boring. No level minded historian bases belief on something as bold as supernatural events on just one book plus maybe a few other writings. Jesus was not well documented considering it's claimed he was performing miracles. He was unmentioned by any Roman historians at the time. I do not doubt he may have existed. Indeed the bible accurately names people and places, but none of this proves supernatural events.
    I find you incredibly boring also. You come across as a "dullard". The Bible is not one book, but 66 books across 1500 years by 40 authors in different places and different settings. These are the contemporary writings of the day. Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. Tiberius who died just 4 years after Jesus only had 9 sources written about him within 150 years of his death, whereas Jesus had 45. In fact, Jesus has more sources written about him than any ten figures in antiquity combined, so to deny Jesus by claiming a lack of documentation is a double standard since I am sure you don't throw out everyone in antiquity along with Jesus.

    Not only do we not have any historians writing about Jesus when he was alive, we don't have any sources of other Messiah's either we know of at the time. This only shows they were considered of no significance by the general authorities. If you want to doubt Jesus existed this same problem exists for everyone in antiquity so you would have to deny all the popular figures of antiquity, but what historian is that belligerent? If you have a doublestandard it shows you have a bias.

    What proves the supernatural event of the resurrection of Jesus is that you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. The burden remains on you as it has been for all skeptics in previous centuries.

    It seems we had a misunderstanding. I now realize you are assuming the same person can not exist more than once because you believe we have a soul. This actually made me laugh when I realized it was that simple. There is no reason to assume life has any kind of magical essence and I do not believe humans or any other animal have a soul. If someone existed in another universe with my exact genetic make-up and past experiences they would be the same person. Therefore you argument as to why infinite regress is impossible has been easily beaten. Of course you will disagree with me because you believe in souls, but that's besides the point.
    I actually made no mention of the soul. I said if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Even if a person in one universe and a person in another universe had the exact same experiences they would still be two separately distinct independent sovereign beings with their own free will. You chose to overassume by thinking of a person reoccurring in history, but obviously that's not what I meant. Even if a person could reoccur in history it doesn't matter anyway because the you that you are now would have happened already, having had eternity to do so. Either way you slice it, infinite regress was wrong. You misunderstood, yes, but it doesn't matter anyway, you're still wrong.

    If you want to talk about the soul that's a different matter. Even if there was multiple universes there is something underneath the genetic code that could make someone else very similar to you different. The soul is proven to exist as a permanently existing sovereign being with self-consciousness and having a spirit of God-consciousness and a body of world-consciousness. The proof is that since Jesus resurrected, so shall we. My favorite proof is that it would be evil of God to create us with a soul and spirit aware of His existence and then allow us to cease to exist. That would be like having a child and telling that child who is fully are of their parents that they must be put to sleep permanently when they reach the age of 12. It's just evil. Man has a soul of mind, will and emotion made in God's image; whereas animals have a soul too but it will cease to exist and is not made in His image. Our soul is unique which is easy enough to figure out by simply observing the fact that we are so much different from all other creatures.

    Now, the other thing I'd like to get on to is actually supporting an infinite creator but showing that your god is not necessary. You certainly are slow not to understand the simple example I gave, but I can't help but wonder if you pretended to believe I was still attempting to disprove infinite regress simply to avoid having to provide a proper response. Nonetheless, we shall try again. I shall start by restating that I am agnostic to an infinite creator. Indeed, I'm actually quite convinced that something needs to been infinite, but as I do not believe in souls I see no reason why that infinity should not be the regress itself. However, lets assume for the moment infinite regress is not real so we can move on to the important bit.
    We can talk about my God later, but first accept that the uncreated Creator exists since nature can't always have existed. If there was an infinite regress of nature you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. At least Antony Flew, who is far smarter than you and has done an about face from being the leading atheist of the 20th century, accepts this starting foundation before deciding on who God is.

    So there exists the uncreated Creator outside of time and space. It is more accurate to call God uncreated rather than infinite because saying infinite might confuse some people thinking God exists inside an eternal regress of time. When you use the term infinite, it should be used in the sense that God is infinitely greater than us.

    My point, which you totally misunderstood (whether that was down to slow wit or intentional misleading I am not sure), was that the required infinite creator does not need to be a magic being. This is the infinite breeding ground of universes. There is no infinite regress here I've moved on, we are calling the breeding ground an infinite creator. There is absolutely no reason for us to assume there is a conscious being, an infinite breeding ground fills all of the rational slots and none of the irrational ones.
    Christians don't believe God is a magic being. There is no evidence for other universes, but even if there was it wouldn't matter because you would have happened already if infinite regress were true, having had an eternity to do so. A breeding ground of nature or in the supernatural realm is an infinite regress. I think what you are trying to propose is a non-being infinite creator breeding ground, but that has two problems: a) breeding ground implies cause and effect in an infinite regress (thus false), and b) a non-mind can't produce a mind for the lesser can never produce the greater. An unconscious entity can't produce a conscious one. Without a mind there is no purpose, but is arbitrary and meaningless.

    p.s. I do think you are lunatic too for avoiding those passages of Scripture and for your choice to go to Hell.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    If according to your theory there is no causation outside the universe, then the universe would never have come into being so to assume there is no causation is to betray your own existence. Any theory you propose cannot contradict itself.
    I never said there was no causation outside the universe. I said to assume it worked the same way outside the universe as it does in the universe is presumptuous.The physics outside the universe is unfathomable for us because all we know is the physics inside the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Your standpoint is irrelevant. If you have an eternity to come into being, you had an eternity to come into being. Therefore, you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Very simple for a child or teenager to understand. Not so simple for you because you hate God. Any theory you propose can't contradict itself. If you want infinite regress to be true then you should not exist now since you would have happened already.
    Why would I have happened already? Saying because I had an eternity to do so doesn't explain why I must have happened already. If possibilities are infinite, then an infinite amount of things other than myself could have existed before me. Tell me why the existence of an infinite amount of things that are not me, is impossible before my actual existence in an infinite regress. Saying because I would have happened already since I had an eternity to do so is not an answer, it's just repeating your assertion. Keep in mind that I am not saying the universe has an actual infinite regress of linear causes and effects, I'm just pointing out that your logic is faulty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    The contradiction lies with infinite regress because it is both true you would have have happened already and you would never existed. You had an eternity to have existed so you should have happened before now. And if an eternity was going on it would be going on for eternity before now so this point would never be reached so you should not exist now. Any system of belief that contradicts itself is false. Based on this evidence, infinite regress is impossible, therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself, and this whom we call God.
    Again, how is it both true that with infinite regress I would have happened already and I would never have existed? Why can't one be true and the other false, or neither be true, because I exist right now? How do you prove it? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Your theory does not hold as was said, if there was an infinite regress there would be an eternity going on before now so this point would never be reached, since eternity would still be going on for eternity.
    How is it possible for eternity to exist in the infinite regress model? The only way it can exist, is with a present moment, an infinite past, and infinite future. So why would it be impossible for this present moment to exist if the infinite past led up to this moment? Keep in mind the infinite past is always going to lead up to a present moment in eternity, whether it be this one or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    You didn't say that at all. Rather, you said, "Show me where you wrote in a previous post that I would not exist right now. I did not see it." So I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already.
    Yeah I wanted you to show me a post where you mentioned it previous to the post which I said was the first time you mentioned I would not exist now. And you never did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    What I posted that you quoted was this, "I never said anything about recurring as was said many times. I said you would have already happened and gone so you wouldn't exist now. You are really slow aren't you." You responded by saying, "this is the first time you ever mentioned that if infinite regress was the case then I would have happened in the past, consequently, I would not exist right now." That's simply not true, for there are many posts I have repeated the statement "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." Don't assume I am speaking of recurring for I said "already happened." "Already" means it should have happened already and thus, not now. If I meant how you misread then I should have used a word like "recurred before". You're simply misreading. Careless atheist.
    I know there were many post where you said "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." But that statement can be taken more ways than one, and since you never clarified which one you meant, I took it how I first understood it. Furthermore, already does not mean "it should have happened already and thus, not now." The superbowl has happened already, and guess what, it's happening again. I have typed on the key board already, and guess what, it is happening right now. Things that have already happened does not mean they won't happen again, all it means is that it occurred once in the past.


    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    How about I just repeat it so the reader can see there is no problem with it and thus, you are being illogical avoiding it. I am standing on the foundation of evidence but you are not so you will need to make some progress.

    I see energy in nature all the time. Go check out a nuclear power plant for example. Whether there is an infinite number of forms or not you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on before this point. Infinite regress is dumb and self-contradictory.
    Do you know what writing a logical argument in syllogism form means? Obviously not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    You realize those two statements in your petty self are one in the same, since the universe is space-time. Very simple to understand. Cyclical universes, multiverses, etc. don't change anything.
    Ask any physicist if the universe exists in space-time, and they will tell you that it does not. They will tell you space-time exists in the universe. It is very simple to understand, but you seem to have trouble with basic scientific concepts. If the universe existed in space-time, what would separate the inside of the universe from the outside of the universe? There would be no way to distinguish where the universe ends, and the non-universe begins, because space-time is connected with no dividing boundaries. Since our universe does not exist in space-time, we conclude that our universe is finite, and it ends where space-time does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    I am glad you are not proposing infinite regress now, so stop arguing for it. I have responded to everything to show you that you are being illogical and your claim for an infinite regress is self-contradictory. You're free to respond to my points or shut your mind down. Sorry, couldn't find anything in what you said for an alternative logical explanation to infinite regress. Why keep this secret to yourself? Share it with the world. People might think you are full of you know what being coy.
    I am saying the universe does not appear to have infinite regress in which every effect in the universe has a necessary antecedent cause for eternity. Linear cause and effect cease to exist in a quantum singularity. To ask what caused the singularity is to preform a categorical error. Cause and effect as we know the concept did not exist until the big bang. It is impossible for us to fathom the dynamics of a quantum singularity and it's environment, and it is erroneous to demand that our idea of physics be applied to such a phenomena.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Sounds like infinite regress to me, because you will just say the next larger system above that and on and on. You would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on. Boring.
    It's not infinite regress because I never said there was an infinite amount of finite systems. If the larger system to our universe is finite as well, then naturally there must be a larger system than that. And if that system is finite, well then there is one larger than that and so on. All that means is there has to be one system that is not finite, and that system is reality itself. Reality is an incomprehensibly vast existence that appears to contain a seemingly infinite amount of systems. But it only appears that way from our extremely limited perspective. From our perspective it appears as infinite regress because we view things as past, present, and future dictated by linear cause and effect. But our perspective is so limited, that us trying to understand these larger systems is like a single cell organism in a petri-dish trying to understand cosmology. Our knowledge and understanding is not capable of grasping concepts that we have no idea exist, much like the single cell organism does not have the capacity to comprehend the theory of general relativity or the big bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    Your argument is faulty because you shut your mind down to that larger natural system. You need to ask what caused it. Since it is natural, and you admit nature needs a cause, then you are implying infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.
    The larger system has a nature of it's own, but it cannot be understood the way we understand our nature, because it is not our nature, it obeys different laws. Our nature did have a cause, the big bang. There was no cause 'before' the big bang, because time did not exist as we know it until that event occurred. How such an event occurs is beyond our ability to even fathom.

    You really need to abandon your 'you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so' argument because it is meaningless in the 'larger system' context. It only applies if our universe had an infinite regress, and even then, why would it be impossible for me to happen twice, or more, given there was an eternity to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Parture View Post
    We are left with no other possibility as usual than nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God. God is the great I AM, the Intelligent mind. God is infinite but does not infinitely regress, because God is outside of time and space. Amen.

    That's not enough though. You would need to receive what God did for you to avoid going to Hell.
    The cause of nature outside itself is the larger system. Simple.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-23-2016, 02:32 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-04-2011, 10:25 PM
  3. The Leading Atheist No Longer Atheist
    By Churchwork in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2008, 05:14 PM
  4. The Parable of the Net (Matt. 24.47-50)
    By Churchwork in forum Partial Rapture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2006, 04:40 AM
  5. Are you thinking of having an affair?
    By Churchwork in forum OSAS Arminian
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2006, 02:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •