Letter to a Christian Nation

[Leela]

Please dispense with the fuzzy logic. Belief is what we do, and not what others do to us.

If you don’t believe something, you need to find out why. Do you not think the source of the offered “wisdom” is credible? Do you want what is “unwise”? Do you simply not know what “wise” means?

No, I don’t think the source of the offered “wisdom” is credible. I think we know more about just about everything than we did 2000 years ago which includes ethics.

Therefore, you are quite simply left with only relying on yourself as “arbiter of wisdom”. You decide what is moral (and immoral).

Wisdom is not “invention”. It is recognition. We don’t fashion new wisdom, but rather recognize the truths which make us wise.

What you are missing is that storehouses of wisdom come from experts in wisdom, and how are we (or you) experts in wisdom comparable to the Church (extended back to Adam himself)?

I think wisdom is different from intelligence. Wisdom is about perspective rather than computational power. I think a broader perspective is now available to us than was available 2000 years ago, and we should make use of what we’ve learned and try to make new discoveries rather than trying to discover what Adam knew.

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m not sure where you are coming from. Hume’s criticism of causal reasoning seems to undercut the idea of a First Cause. Perhaps you could articulate the argument you’d like to make?

Best,
Leela

Fine.

Leela:

I think the First Cause argument has a lot of problems. Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t. The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the universe itself rather than God.

You are just cutting and pasting somebody else’s ideas and presenting them as your own, which is absolutely intellectually dishonest. Attribute the ideas of others properly instead of resorting to the intellectual theft and lies of the plagiarist.

Your plagiarized statement is incoherent. Nothing causes itself. If there is no first cause, then necessarily there are no subsequent causes. Further, your plagiarized claim of an infinite chain of causality leads me to ask you to provide an example of the existence of an actual infinity. :coffeeread:

 

[Fran65]

Who could decide for someone else what to believe? No one can believe something to be moral or immoral for you. You have to believe it yourself. I don’t see how it could be or has ever been any other way. What am I missing here?

I am not talking about beliefs. I am talking about objective goods or absolute morality.

As to what you are missing; you’ve asked that question before and I’ve answered - to my satisfaction if not yours.

Here’s a suggested reading list:

The Puzzle of God ;The Puzzle of Evil; The Puzzle of Ethics all written by Peter Vardy who is a *real, qualified, working *philosopher.

Why there almost certainly is a God by Keith Ward who is a philosopher who has held the position of regis professor of theology at Oxford University. Anything written by him is excellent. He is one of Dawkin’s main opponents as they were contemporaries at Oxford up until last year.

There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (2007) with Roy Abraham Varghese written about Anthony Flew who became a Theist before his death after a lifetime of atheism.

Happy reading!

 

[Leela]

Hi Holy1,

I previously posted without quotations “I think the First Cause argument has a lot of problems. Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t. The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the universe itself rather than God.”

Your plagiarized statement is incoherent. Nothing causes itself. If there is no first cause, then necessarily there are no subsequent causes. Further, your plagiarized claim of an infinite chain of causality leads me to ask you to provide an example of the existence of an actual infinity.

I just wonder why you think that there must be a first cause. I’m not claiming that inifinities exist. I’m just saying how can you know that they don’t? The first cause argument depends on this supposition that I don’t think can be justified.

The other side of the argument against the first cause arguement is that even if you make that supposition that there must be a first cause, I wonder why you think that God doesn’t have a cause? The First Cause argument claims this as part of the definition of God, but it completely begs the question. The First Cause argument is not an argument at all. It just defines God as the First Cause and then claims that this definition and the existence of causality is proof of God’s existence.

If all you wanted to do was define the word God to refer to the first cause then there would be no problem. But why should we believe that the first cause is a higher intelligence when what we know of nature is that higher intelligence evolved from less intelligent beings and complexity evolves from the less complex?

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Hi Leela

The other side of the argument against the first cause arguement is that even if you make that supposition that there must be a first cause, I wonder why you think that God doesn’t have a cause? The First Cause argument claims this as part of the definition of God, but it completely begs the question. The First Cause argument is not an argument at all. It just defines God as the First Cause and then claims that this definition and the existence of causality is proof of God’s existence.

I think the idea is that since nothing in the universe, as we experience it, appears to be uncaused and since there appear to be no infinities in STEM, there must exist something of a different kind-something uncaused and infinite -which causes everything else.

If all you wanted to do was define the word God to refer to the first cause then there would be no problem. But why should we believe that the first cause is a higher intelligence when what we know of nature is that higher intelligence evolved from less intelligent beings and complexity evolves from the less complex?

Because it makes absolutely no sense for order to be the result of disorder- or intelligence the result of non-intelligence-or mind of non-mind.

 

[cranster]

Hi Holy1,

I previously posted without quotations “I think the First Cause argument has a lot of problems. Either everything has a cause, or there’s something that doesn’t. The first-cause argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God does, too, and there is no first cause. And if something doesn’t have a cause, it may as well be the universe itself rather than God.”

I just wonder why you think that there must be a first cause. I’m not claiming that inifinities exist. I’m just saying how can you know that they don’t? The first cause argument depends on this supposition that I don’t think can be justified.

The other side of the argument against the first cause arguement is that even if you make that supposition that there must be a first cause, I wonder why you think that God doesn’t have a cause? The First Cause argument claims this as part of the definition of God, but it completely begs the question. The First Cause argument is not an argument at all. It just defines God as the First Cause and then claims that this definition and the existence of causality is proof of God’s existence.

If all you wanted to do was define the word God to refer to the first cause then there would be no problem. But why should we believe that the first cause is a higher intelligence when what we know of nature is that higher intelligence evolved from less intelligent beings and complexity evolves from the less complex?

Best,
Leela

 

[cranster]

I wonder why you think that God doesn’t have a cause?

because of the absurdity of infinites. Who created us? Well God… then who created God? A bigger and better God… Well who created that God? An even bigger and better God ad infinitum. Under that condition you have an infinite regress of god’s creating the next god. So let’s go back infinitly to the very first god… oh wait a minute we can’t because there is no first god cause we are going infinitely back through god’s. If there was no first then there can’t be a second or a third and finally no us. Yet here we are. There has to be one that stands alone beyond space and time to cause all that is.

Same thing with the universe. You can’t have an infinite regress of days. You can never reach the present from an infinite amount of previous days. The universe had to begin or we couldn’t be here, but then again we know that modern cosmology places the beginning of the universe about 14,000,000,000 years ago.

 

[Leela]

I think the idea is that since nothing in the universe, as we experience it, appears to be uncaused and since there appear to be no infinities in STEM, there must exist something of a different kind-something uncaused and infinite -which causes everything else.

If you find the fact that everything seems to be caused and feel the logical necessity to postulate something uncaused to start the chain of causation, it may as well be the universe itself.

I also disagree that there are no infinities. How many “nows” are there in a minute?

Because it makes absolutely no sense for order to be the result of disorder- or intelligence the result of non-intelligence-or mind of non-mind.

It is easy to find examples of complex order arising out of chaos, There is a whole branch of mathematics concerned with this phenomenon.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

because of the absurdity of infinites. Who created us? Well God… then who created God? A bigger and better God… Well who created that God? An even bigger and better God ad infinitum. Under that condition you have an infinite regress of god’s creating the next god. So let’s go back infinitly to the very first god… oh wait a minute we can’t because there is no first god cause we are going infinitely back through god’s. If there was no first then there can’t be a second or a third and finally no us. Yet here we are. There has to be one that stands alone beyond space and time to cause all that is.

Same thing with the universe. You can’t have an infinite regress of days. You can never reach the present from an infinite amount of previous days. The universe had to begin or we couldn’t be here, but then again we know that modern cosmology places the beginning of the universe about 14,000,000,000 years ago.

Hi Cranster,

It seems like you want to talk about what happened before the beginning of time. I think that “before” has no meaning without a concept of time in place, so it may be an inappropriate “one hand clapping” sort of question.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

I also disagree that there are no infinities. How many “nows” are there in a minute?

The concept of minute is a mental construct that we create in order to divide time into convenient segments. We don’t find infinite quantities of existents anywhere.

 

[Leela]

The concept of minute is a mental construct that we create in order to divide time into convenient segments. We don’t find infinite quantities of existents anywhere.

I don’t know what we can possibly talk about if concepts are not considered to exist. (I am continually amazed on this forum how people criticize materialism, but always make the materialistic assumptions about reality. In other words instead of STEM, we have STEM plus God.)

Anyway, if you don’t think minutes are real, then consider how many “nows” there were between now and the instant your were born (or if you prefer, the moment your were conceived.)

Best,
Leela

 

[cranster]

Hi Cranster,

It seems like you want to talk about what happened before the beginning of time. I think that “before” has no meaning without a concept of time in place, so it may be an inappropriate “one hand clapping” sort of question.

Best,
Leela

I’m sorry you’re gonna have to elaborate I’m not following your reasoning. I’m not following your premise at all based on what I said. Sitting here in a chair typing on the computer right now is time in place. I Didn’t say before time, I Said outside of time, or beyond time where there is no past, present, or future. That is where the first cause set time and space in motion. It’s called eternity, a never ending now which is the realm of God. A place where time has no relevance because it doesn’t exist. There was no before, because that in itself indicates time. There was just a beginning.

 

[Leela]

I’m sorry you’re gonna have to elaborate I’m not following your reasoning. I’m not following your premise at all based on what I said. Sitting here in a chair typing on the computer right now is time in place. I Didn’t say before time, I Said outside of time, or beyond time where there is no past, present, or future. That is where the first cause set time and space in motion. It’s called eternity, a never ending now which is the realm of God. A place where time has no relevance because it doesn’t exist. There was no before, because that in itself indicates time. There was just a beginning.

I think that beginning in this case indicate time, too. I don’t know in what other sense the beginning of time could be a beginning.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

I don’t know what we can possibly talk about if concepts are not considered to exist. (I am continually amazed on this forum how people criticize materialism, but always make the materialistic assumptions about reality. In other words instead of STEM, we have STEM plus God.)

One of the reasons for conceiving of the existence of God is an attempt to explain the existence of STEM.

Anyway, if you don’t think minutes are real, then consider how many “nows” there were between now and the instant your were born (or if you prefer, the moment your were conceived.)

Best,
Leela

Time is not understood well enough for individual moments called “now” to even be definable, let alone to exist in infinite quantities.

 

[cranster]

I think that beginning in this case indicate time, too. I don’t know in what other sense the beginning of time could be a beginning.

Best,
Leela

The beginning indicates the first moment of time, prior to that there was no time because there was no prior.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Nothing can cause itself from nothing, To avoid an infinite regression you have to one thing with nothing preceding it that’s self existent and bound by nothing including time . The universe is a something, and a something can’t cause itself from nothing, a something has to be caused. We can logically say that everything that has a beginning has a cause, but we can’t logically say that everything that exists has a cause because we don’t know everyhing that exists therefore we can’t say whether it was caused or not.

 

[cranster]

I think wisdom is different from intelligence. Wisdom is about perspective rather than computational power. I think a broader perspective is now available to us than was available 2000 years ago, and we should make use of what we’ve learned and try to make new discoveries rather than trying to discover what Adam knew.

Best,
Leela

I’m sure we are a lot more wise today than people were 2,000 years ago.There is certainly a broader perspective now than then given all the scientific advancements. We are not more wise today than one Man was 2,000 years ago who Himself is wisdom. In fact He proclaimed Himself to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and backed up His claim by rising from the dead. If you don’t believe in the historicity of the resurection you should educate yourself. Nothing in history was more attested to than that event.

It’s safe to say we are more wise today than people in general 2,000 years ago, but in no way can we approach the infinite wisdom of Jesus Christ. We can only taste it through the Sacraments with a contrite heart and prayer.

 

[Leela]

Hi cranster,

The beginning indicates the first moment of time, prior to that there was no time because there was no prior.

“Prior” is still a “time word” that makes no sense without time already being in place. Same with “first” which means that nothing came before and something came after. So I’m still not sure it makes sense to talk about the beginning of time. It seems necessarily self-referential or circular to do so.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Nothing can cause itself from nothing, To avoid an infinite regression you have to one thing with nothing preceding it that’s self existent and bound by nothing including time. The universe is a something, and a something can’t cause itself from nothing, a something has to be caused.

Is God a nothing then since nothing can cause itself from nothing?

Why is infinite regression disallowed?

I can’t pretend to understand what it would mean to exist outside of time as you say God does since for the concept of existence is very much tied up with my concept of time.

We can logically say that everything that has a beginning has a cause, but we can’t logically say that everything that exists has a cause because we don’t know everything that exists therefore we can’t say whether it was caused or not.

If everything has a cause, then what of the concept of free will? Doesn’t free will require to some extent that we are our own cause? If we are the sum of our physical selves and our thoughts and deeds (you are free to add “soul”), then to have free will means that to some extent we create ourselves as we choose our deeds.

For example, what caused you to write that everything that has a beginning has a cause? Did something cause you to write that or did you choose to out of your own free will?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I’m sure we are a lot more wise today than people were 2,000 years ago.There is certainly a broader perspective now than then given all the scientific advancements. We are not more wise today than one Man was 2,000 years ago who Himself is wisdom. In fact He proclaimed Himself to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and backed up His claim by rising from the dead. If you don’t believe in the historicity of the resurection you should educate yourself. Nothing in history was more attested to than that event.

It’s safe to say we are more wise today than people in general 2,000 years ago, but in no way can we approach the infinite wisdom of Jesus Christ. We can only taste it through the Sacraments with a contrite heart and prayer.

Hi Cranster,

I don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Can you support your claim that nothing in history was more attested to than that event? As far as I know, the only source on the subject is the Bible, and the Bible does not even claim a very large number of witnesses–I think just the Apostles and the Marys were mentioned. But I could be wrong.

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m not claiming that inifinities exist.

Less than four hours pass…

I also disagree that there are no infinities.

:hypno:
You appear to be unfamiliar with the concepts of a potential infinity and an actual infinity.

Why is infinite regression disallowed?

1. 
   *]Infinity, by definition, is unachievable.
   *]Past time has occurred (been achieved.)
   *]Infinite past time therefore would be an achieved unachievable.
   *]An achieved unachievable is a contradiction and cannot be.

 

[cranster]

Hi Cranster,

I don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Can you support your claim that nothing in history was more attested to than that event? As far as I know, the only source on the subject is the Bible, and the Bible does not even claim a very large number of witnesses–I think just the Apostles and the Marys were mentioned. But I could be wrong.

Best,
Leela

There were 500 people that witnessed Him ascend into Heaven. Then there was the silent witness of the Pharisees. They were a witness because they made sure Pilate had that tomb locked down tight so nobody could tamper with it. Pilate placed a Roman guard at the tomb… some where between 4 and 12 men. The best way for the Pharisees to squelch a budding Jewish heretical sect was to have a body to show, and with the vigor they had Jesus executed they would have put just as much energy in making sure all knew where that body was. They were silent because they did not have a body to show. The claims of Resurrection happened in the center of Judaism… Jerusalem. All people had to do was go to the tomb to see for themselves. History has never been able to provide a body. The Mary’s are significant because women at the time were not considered credible witnesses and were not permitted to testify in court. It was difficult for the Apostles to mention this fact because of the prevailing attitude about women at the time. Their accounts were simple and lacked the element of legend. If the Apostles were making it up they would have used the 1st century Jewish understanding of Resurrection to explain it to the Jew’s. They understood a resurrected person to shine as bright as a star. Their account wasn’t anything like that.
Here is a good little article about the historical evidence.
I have to go to bed but will try to answer your other posts as soon as I can.