Non-linear (outside of time) causation is what God did. Since the cause needs to have a mind to create a mind, you're avoiding this point.Originally Posted by philosophik
I agree.Linear causation necessitates space-time, and can be described as every cause simultaneously being an effect. In other words, cause A has effect B, and effect B simultaneously becomes cause B resulting in effect C, and so on. Thus space-time is required to structure these ordered events, where every cause has an antecedent cause in time, and results in a subsequent effect in space; which, of course, are necessary conditions for infinite regress to emerge as a concept.
In no space time only one cause requires no antecedent effect, that would be God, because a mind is needed and only God has a mind. Alas, I am repeating myself. Every effect needs a cause that's why its an effect, and every effect always becomes a cause of something else. Always! Before you said there was "non-linear causation" outside of time, now you say there is not sometimes. Sounds ad hoc.With no space-time, however, there is no structure to order linear cause and effect. Consequently, the concept of infinite regress is null and void. In the larger system, which has no space-time, non-linear cause and effect is the rule. Where every cause does not require an antecedent cause, and every effect does not necessarily become a cause of something else. With no structure, there is nothing to prevent causes from happening uncaused, and nothing that requires effects to transform into a cause.
I am glad you stand against your atheist brethren who try to promote "infinite regress". You're a lone wolf in the wilderness. That the singularity is the cause of the big bang in now way suggests the singularity is uncaused. Since the singularity has no mind and you admit non space time has causation, then the singularity needs a cause, that being God. There can only be one uncaused cause, because anything that exists needs an ultimate mind, for the lesser can never produce the greater. So the singularity has a cause whether directly God Himself or as result of God's actions. Your doubletongue is flapping hard when you said "another uncaused cause that emerged." That which emerges is not an "uncaused cause" but had a "caused cause" because it emerged. There is no need for you to assume a non-mind could create the universe for a non-mind can never produce the greater, that being a mind. We can go even farther than that. We can say only One Mind can create a mind since man can't do what God did over 13.7 billion years.So in the case of our universe, the singularity could be viewed as cause A, and since there was no space-time until the big bang, or effect B, then the singularity as the initial cause does not require an antecedent cause. The singularity could be the uncaused cause of the 4 dimensional observable universe we now inhabit. Or it may be a result of another uncaused cause that emerged from the unstructured larger system. We may never know which is the case, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a sentient being, or proclaim infinite regress.
The universe is not actually creating minds though it may appear to the flesh that it is. It is rather the conduit God uses to bring minds into existence along with His directly breathing the breath of life into the body to create a living soul at the point of inception, for man is not a spirit, nor just a soul, nor just a body. Man is tripartite: spirit, soul and body. "For the word of God [66 books of the Bible] is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4.12). Joints give you movement, marrow gives you sensation (our spinal cord). Again we read, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5.23). I'm always repeating what you are always avoiding. A mind is needed to create a mind since the lesser can never produce the greater.I already told you that the universe is creating minds all the time, and it does not have mind. You may say that god created the universe, but all that is really saying is that god created a mindless creation, which in turn, facilitated the emergence of minds, or in other words, the mindless produced minds. How would go about proving that god in fact created our minds any ways?
There has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to even produce 1 protein molecule of 200 amino acids, and you need at least 1000 protein molecules to produce the simplest life from the dust and particles of the universe. Scientists will try to simulate this always falling short, but that's the best they can do because that simulation is just a facsimile, never the real thing, because the real thing can mutate and generate to be a catalyst in sentient life for one component of man's tripartite nature-namely, the body. It does not have a living soul and body fully developed in God's image if God were to be a man, until God breathes in the breath of life directly creating man's spirit which when it makes contact with the body, man becomes a living soul.
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Gen. 2.7). Hence, "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Only man can do all these things. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so" (Gen. 1.28-30).
Only man can replenish the earth. No other creature can do this showing that God created us. No other creature has dominion over the earth or ever will but man, again, proving God did it. No creature has control over every living thing but man, because God created us. No creature can access every tree. If naturalism is true it would be more likely more than just one creature could share in this responsibility. God's going to come like the rain very soon and you will be left without.
Finally after 5 paragraphs you at least try to deal with the fact a mind is needed to create a mind. Natural elements are part nature, hence a grain of sand is part of the beach. It is neither greater no lesser just part of the system, and it has no self-consciousness nor does the beach as a whole. Atoms only make up the component of the capsule in which the body, soul and spirit utilize. The atom has no self-consciousness and never will, so it is lesser. Since all the atoms in the universe that ever existed were unable to interact together to produce even one protein molecule you know God did it. A sperm and an egg are, again, the complements utilized, for notice an egg can never produce life by itself, nor can a sperm. So it is erroneous to say these lesser things could create a mind. They can't. In fact, since the sperm and egg are already part of the God-conscious, self-conscious, world-conscious being they had not come from nature alone.It seems your argument that a mind is needed to create a mind hinges solely on the assertion that the lesser can never produce the greater, which is patently false. A grain of sand is lesser than a beach, but grains of sand produce beaches. An atom is lesser than a brain, but atoms produce brains. An H2O molecule is lesser than an ocean, but H2O molecules produce oceans. In fact, in nature the lesser is a requirement for the greater to be produced. Finally, a sperm and an egg is lesser than an adult human, well I think you can see where this is headed.
How can you have an eternity to come into being right now when an eternity is still going on before now? That's the nature of eternity, it goes on for forever in infinite regress. What you even agree too is if there was an infinite regress in cause and effects of the past for eternity, you don't believe in it anyway. So move on from Step 1 even if you don't like the reasoning, since it does not materially impact our discussion in the proof for God, because you don't believe in infinite regress anyhooo! You though should agree if an eternity is going on for eternity before now then it is still going on as eternity does and would still be doing.I told you, that is why I exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so, and I finally did. In any case, we seem to have a fundamental difference in our understanding of eternity and how it affects what actually comes into being when we philosophize about infinite regress. Since we both agree that the universe does not have an infinite regress, continuing to discuss how thing would come into being if there was an infinite regress is pointless, especially since we can't even agree on what eternity means.
Because the lesser can never produce the greater. We observe this in world. Man is unable to do what God did, create a sentient being from bouncing particles alone. The best man can do is simulate it robotically and pretend like it has self-awareness.Why?
A larger system can't have attributes less than a mind for we have a mind. It most certainly is lesser if it is not self-aware which is the attribute of a mind. The greatest thing in this universe or any others is not just having a mind, volition, feelings but self-consciousness through these functions to the highest level in creation. And it is not enough to just have intuition, communion and conscience, but a spirit through which we have God-consciousness. And it is not enough to just have a body but the highest body order ever known, so much so, God Himself entered His creation in just such a body. He did not come as a fish or a giraffe.Oh because of this again, well good thing the larger system is greater than our human minds.
Always existing doesn't imply time always existed, for the uncaused cause exists outside of time and never ceased to exist nor was ever caused to come into being. For something to "just exist" implies it always existed whether in time our outside of time. We don't know virtual particles come into being outside of space-time just because they are too complicated and small to observe. Why assume? Since those virtual particles eventually lead to the body of man fully formed (in God's image of course) and receives a spirit to be a living soul with world-consciousness, self-consciousness, and God-consciousness we know that virtual particle could not have ultimately originated from mindless space time, since mindless space time is lesser than a mind, just as a particle of dust is lesser than a human being, because that particle of dust has no self-awareness. A non-mind space-time likewise has no self-consciousness. That's why God is so amazing because only He can do this, for His mind is the ultimate mind. His intuition and conscience are perfect.The larger, timeless system has not always existed, for if it did, that would imply time; and thus the statement is self contradictory. The larger system simply just exists. There is no past tense. Furthermore, just like our universe mindlessly causes virtual particle to come into being, the larger system can mindlessly cause a singularity to come into being--if it's laws of physics allow it, then there is no reason why it can't happen.
We don't have to worry about the origins of the universe for Step 1 by those who claim infinite regress, because in infinite regress there is always another origin to an origin. I am glad though you agree infinite regress is impossible, so we can move from Step 1 to Step 2. Step doesn't need to explain origins either because it is simply addressing the fallacy of thinking something can come from nothing, for that which does not exist can't produce anything. Now that you agree also that the universe can't come from nothing, you can move onto Step 3. The first 2 steps destroy the faith of lots of atheists. The kicker comes in in Step 3 and 4 to win.Oh I understand it, however those two steps only address the laws of physics from within the universe, but since the universe did not come from within the universe, then those two steps have no bearing on the origins of the universe.
Your statement is false, for this universe doesn't need to exist in another universe and even if it had, it would still need to be circumscribed by God. The universe doesn't require something larger than itself to exist in. It is all that has been created by God. Your hostility to God causes you to come up with mistaken assumptions.It is not an 'other worldly imaginary universe,' because if it were, then there would be nothing for the universe to exist in. Because our universe is finite, it requires something larger than itself to exist in. What exactly this larger system consists of, or what kind of physics dictate its existence is beyond our scope of awareness.
We know for a fact your imaginary greater universe, that one billion pound gorilla you carry on your back, can't produce a mind, because it has no mind of self-awareness. The lesser can never produce the greater. You don't need to know all the things your imaginary universe can't do, for you would be requiring you be God to know for sure, but that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God. We have no reason to believe your imaginary universe exists, but if it did, we know it could not produce minds because it has no mind; hence, God is the ultimate cause. The proxy would be from God. The universal truth is a mindlessness can never produce a mind, for mindlessness doesn't know how to generate self-consciousness and conscience. These are two elements greatly lacking in your faith, thus morally degrading yourself for Satan.In order to emphatically declare that the larger system cannot mindlessly produce minds, you must be aware of what it is in fact not capable of, which of course, you are not. No one is. What we do know, is that it exists as a phenomena that is capable of producing our universe, and sustaining it. This universe is then capable of producing minds by proxy. Naturally, the universe and the larger system are greater than our minds, so this doesn't violate your assertion that 'the lesser can never produce the greater,' which I have pointed out is not a universal truth anyways.
Since I have shown you the error in your thinking regarding the first two steps it is highly advisable you deal with those first before moving on. First things first as they say.Because I have raised legitimate objections to your first two steps, I see no reason to address the other two.
I realize you are just entertaining the idea, but you are also stating the things you say affirmatively, for you say since this is true, then this must be true: since this moment is always present, there must be infinite regress. Not at all! as explained why. My advice is since you are making mistakes trying to defend infinite regress and you don't even believe in it anyway, then don't worry about it. You agree with Step 1 anyhow. Move on! I was hoping we could get through all 4 Steps in the next year, so get off Step 1.Again I was just entertaining the notion of an eternity with an infinite regress, it was a philosophical exercise I took a part in because I felt you were logically misconstruing the concepts. But as I noted above, we can't agree on what eternity means so this exercise was futile and is really besides the point anyways.
It doesn't matter that you don't agree what infinite regress is, for you know how I am using the term for Step 1 of the proof, that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, it would still be going on, and thus you would never have come into being, because it would still be going on for forever never reaching this point. Find yourself another term. Stop trying to high jack mine in your petty self arguing over semantics. Personally, can't think of another term in the English language that is better than "infinite regress" or "eternity of the past" in nature. Look, you are still arguing against Step 1 when you agree with Step 1 that there can't be infinite regress which you don't believe is possible anyway, so move onto Step 2. You're killing my brain cells with your mindlessness. That's worthy of an infraction: not dealing with the argument and arguing over terminology.It also seems we don't agree on what infinite regress means as well. I never conceded that infinite regress always goes on and never stops in actuality. I maintain that infinite regress is nothing more than a concept, and that it does not somehow literally go on into the past for eternity like some sort of real reverse time phenomena. My definition of infinite regress is that it is a concept, which only makes sense from the present moment; and is used to describe an infinite past from the universe's present state of affairs, if the universe is eternal. Until we agree on the defintion, there is no point in arguing about it.
I am not using infinite regress as a concept. I am saying if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as many atheists contend for, I present Step 1 to shut them down in their mindlessness. We don't need to agree on terms, but you do need to agree on the way I am using the term for the proof for it is the proof that is in view and not your dislike of this or that term for this or that meaning. We are dealing in meanings and not terms, but it's good to use the best term possible, so I am glad you couldn't find one better than the one I used for what I am describing.
We agreed, you just didn't realize it, that infinite regress is impossible (my definition).This is what I mean when I said we could not agree on the definition of eternity.
Infinite regress is eternity of the past. Infinite progress is eternity in the future. The word "eternity" by itself is lacking because it leaves out which directly specifically we are talking about, for there can be eternity of the future but none of the past or an eternity of the past but then none in the future (for the sake of those who are arguing for an infinite regress still). Since you agree on the meaning, after all this time why are you still arguing about Step 1 when you agree infinite regress is impossible? It's because of your flesh, I assure you, that needs to die on the cross with Christ to your petty self. Are you selfless enough to allow God to do this for you to bring you to that sure death to your old man? so you can move on to Step 2? Even if you can't, move on anyway! It will be 2012 before we know it.My definition--eternity is a term that describes beginning-less and endless time, or in other words, eternity is the present moment proceeding after an infinite amount of past events, and preceding an infinite amount of future events.
I never said, "eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future." You deserve another infraction for blatantly sinning bearing false witness. I said since infinite regress is false then there is not a past eternity, so this present moment would be true and so could be future eternity. What is meaningless is to profess infinite regress when it doesn't exist. You're slow eh?Your definition, based on what you said above--eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future and therefore is meaningless.
These infractions are necessary because if you keep erring unchecked, repeating yourself mindlessly, you waste valuable space and time. If I was on a forum and made your same mistakes I would expect the same infraction for repetitively redundant errors. Let us give thanks to God that there are good moderators here at biblocality forums. Notice you are not banned, but these infractions are healthy for you, so you can remember not to make the same mistakes again. You shouldn't promote another forum just because of your own obstinacy.Note- If churchwork decides to apply one of his completely unnecessary infractions, which seems to be his M.O. with any and all atheist, then this will be my last post. I have read other post in the atheism and science sections, and if any one dare to disagree with churchwork, or continue to question a position that is inadequately defended, he pulls out the only weapon he has left, MOD powers. Seriously churchwork, why do you even have an atheist section, or allow atheist on this forum at all? You should really consider having a disclaimer that states 'read the threads before joining, and if your are not a christian who agrees with me, then don't bother joining because I will end up silencing you with my trigger happy infraction gun.' Any how Parture, if I do end up getting an infraction and get temporarily banned, we can continue this discussion over at christianforums.com if churchwork does not delete this link. I don't see why he would, it is another Christian forum. If it comes to that, I have the same screen name there and you can PM me or just start a new thread titled 4 step proof of god and I'll know it's you.
We are banned at christianforums.com and so is the word biblocality. You realize the majority control of that forum is run by the Roman Church, the great harlot of religious Rome (Rev. 17) that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8) the Bible says. Go see for yourself. Hope to have you back here and continue the discussion when you feel ready, possibly even to give your life to Christ.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks