New member, looking for discussion

[wasmit]

more biblical errors:

Did Jesus know everything?

The case for yes:

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john16.htm
29
His disciples said, “Now you are talking plainly, and not in any figure of speech.
30
Now we realize that you know everything and that you do not need to have anyone question you. Because of this we believe that you came from God.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/colossians/colossians2.htm
2
that their hearts may be encouraged as they are brought together in love, to have all the richness of fully assured understanding, for the knowledge of the mystery of God, Christ,
3
in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john21.htm
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

the case for no:

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew8.htm
9
For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it."
10
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.

usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke7.htm
8
For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it."
9
When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him and, turning, said to the crowd following him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark13.htm
30
Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
31
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
32
"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark5.htm
29
Immediately her flow of blood dried up. She felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction.
30
Jesus, aware at once that power had gone out from him, turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who has touched my clothes?”
31
But his disciples said to him, “You see how the crowd is pressing upon you, and yet you ask, ‘Who touched me?’”
32
And he looked around to see who had done it.

 

[wasmit]

.
.
.

 

[jmcrae]

You are setting up little straw men and then knocking them down. The meaning of those passages is plain, when they are read in context. And no, while they certainly point to various mysteries about the nature of God, they aren’t contradictory - just mysterious.

For me, I think if God were fully explained, that would be proof that the whole thing is a set-up. The fact that there are things about God that we can’t explain, shows that He is real.

Scientists can’t explain gravity, either. Gravity apparently also does a great many things that appear to be contradictory. But that doesn’t mean you can go ahead and jump off of a high place, as if it didn’t really exist. It just means that we don’t know how to explain the apparent contradictions.

 

[wasmit]

You are setting up little straw men and then knocking them down. The meaning of those passages is plain, when they are read in context. And no, while they certainly point to various mysteries about the nature of God, they aren’t contradictory - just mysterious.

can you please explain the context? I just read what the words said, and gathered meaning from that.

The fact that there are things about God that we can’t explain, shows that He is real.

no it doesn’t

The fact that there are things about FSM that we can’t explain, shows that He is real.

Scientists can’t explain gravity, either. Gravity apparently also does a great many things that appear to be contradictory. But that doesn’t mean you can go ahead and jump off of a high place, as if it didn’t really exist. It just means that we don’t know how to explain the apparent contradictions.

What things does it do that are contradictory? Can you pelase explain more thoroughly?

 

[jmcrae]

can you please explain the context? I just read what the words said, and gathered meaning from that.

Okay. Peter. Age 16-20 years old. Says, “My teacher knows everything.” Ever hear a teenager or young adult say that? (Ever say it or think it yourself?)

Jesus, having taken on humanity and the limitations of the human form, can’t always predict the future, and doesn’t spend all of his time reading minds. Thus, people have the capacity to surprise him. So does God the Father. Surprise is an element of the human condition; part of what He came to the earth to partake in.

The fact that there are things about FSM that we can’t explain, shows that He is real.

It may or may not be - it is irrelevant. Even a fictional character, if it serves a useful purpose, can take on a mythical reality. The FSM obviously serves some purpose, thus, is “real” in the sense that it has an effect on how certain people think. Unlike God, though, when its usefulness ends, it will cease to exist.

What things does it do that are contradictory? Can you pelase explain more thoroughly?

According to Stephen Hawking, it behaves like a strong force, yet can be overcome by the weakest child, or even a weak magnet. It holds us to the earth, but does not confine us to it - people, even children, can jump - they can even fly, under the right circumstances. Thus, an apparent contradiction that science (physics) has not yet resolved.

 

[wasmit]

Okay. Peter. Age 16-20 years old. Says, “My teacher knows everything.” Ever hear a teenager or young adult say that? (Ever say it or think it yourself?)

Even if peter said that, (which we don’t know), this does not show that jesus is omniscient

Jesus, having taken on humanity and the limitations of the human form, can’t always predict the future, and doesn’t spend all of his time reading minds. Thus, people have the capacity to surprise him. So does God the Father. Surprise is an element of the human condition; part of what He came to the earth to partake in.

If jesus has taken on the limitations of human form, then he can’t do miracles.

If jesus is omnipotent, he doesn’t need to spend any time doing anything, as he can do anything instantly.

If jesus or the christian god are ever surprised, then they are not omniscient.

It may or may not be - it is irrelevant. Even a fictional character, if it serves a useful purpose, can take on a mythical reality. The FSM obviously serves some purpose, thus, is “real” in the sense that it has an effect on how certain people think. Unlike God, though, when its usefulness ends, it will cease to exist.

Unlike the christian god, who is fictional, FSM is everything, and He is everwhere. Everyone is touched by His noodly appendage.

According to Stephen Hawking, it behaves like a strong force, yet can be overcome by the weakest child, or even a weak magnet. It holds us to the earth, but does not confine us to it - people, even children, can jump - they can even fly, under the right circumstances. Thus, an apparent contradiction that science (physics) has not yet resolved.

Yes, the strong force is stronger than gravity. How is this contradictory?

 

[jmcrae]

Even if peter said that, (which we don’t know), this does not show that jesus is omniscient

Exactly. So then, there is no contradiction here, when we find that, in His humanity (as we see in those other passages that you quoted), Jesus was not actually omniscient.

(God the Father is, and when He returned to Heaven, God the Son, which is Jesus, no doubt had that power restored to Him, but while on the earth, He was, by His own choice, subject to the same limitations of us all.)

If jesus has taken on the limitations of human form, then he can’t do miracles.

Human beings (Moses, Elijah) have in the past done miracles, so actually, yes, human beings can do miracles, and Jesus also did miracles - so did His Apostles. The miracles come ultimately from God.

Unlike the christian god, who is fictional, FSM is everything, and He is everwhere. Everyone is touched by His noodly appendage.

Would that it were so; I know some boys in Zambia who would love to be touched by His noodly appendage (or anything edible, really).

Yes, the strong force is stronger than gravity. How is this contradictory?

Stephen Hawking did a TV show recently on the Discovery Channel on the subject of gravity, and since I am not a physicist, I highly recommend that you let him speak for himself, rather than have me be his interpreter - I’m sure you can do a Google on the Discovery web site and find more detailed information on this subject.

 

[wasmit]

Exactly. So then, there is no contradiction here, when we find that, in His humanity (as we see in those other passages that you quoted), Jesus was not actually omniscient.

(God the Father is, and when He returned to Heaven, God the Son, which is Jesus, no doubt had that power restored to Him, but while on the earth, He was, by His own choice, subject to the same limitations of us all.)

so, Peter was wrong in john21.17 , the disciples were wrong in john 16.29 , and paul was wrong in colossians2.3 ?

That does explain the apparent contradiction, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[jmcrae]

so, Peter was wrong in john21.17 , the disciples were wrong in john 16.29 , and paul was wrong in colossians2.3 ?

That does explain the apparent contradiction, thanks for clearing that up.

They weren’t “wrong” they were just using the excited hyperbole of youth.

 

[wasmit]

An exaggerated claim is a false claim.

It soulds like you are saying “they weren’t wrong, they were just wrong”.

 

[wasmit]

why is the bible true and the koran not?

 

[steve_b]

Hi,

I created an account here to get some viewpoints on god and the beliefs of others.

Some background about me: from ages 5 – 17 I went to christian(Roman catholic) schools, then to a secular university. I am in my mid 20’s. I believed in god, jesus, the bible, etc… until I was about 15 because authority figures (parents, teachers) told me that it was true. Around that time I looked more closely and critically at the religion and dismissed it as silly for many reasons. The reasons mainly centred around proof, evidence, feasibility, reality, etc…

I would describe myself as a 99% atheist; i.e. agnostic but leaning heavily towards atheism.

I am looking for clear, rational, arguments for the existence of a god, or the christian god, or to show that something in the bible is true. I have an open mind, and if you show something to be true, or almost certainly true, I must believe it.

I have recently read Aquinas’ 5 proofs, but counter-arguments have dismissed them.

I am coming here in good faith, hoping to be convinced or persuaded, looking at both sides of the argument.

I hope this is in the right section.

Thanks for your time.

I’ve been reading through much of the replys. I sense you’re not impressed with what’s been given so far.

Just sharing a true story. I haven’t spoken to this friend in many years. Primarily because of geographical distance and we don’t get together anymore as a result.

This friend is in a similar frame of mind. Only he is Jewish. He grew up studying Judiasm seriously, but questioned everything. At12 when Jews are supposed to make a commitment, Bar Mitzvah, he couldn’t do it. He walked away. By the time college rolled around he got into existentialism and the last vestages of belief in God was gone.

But the interesting thing, when we saw each other, he always wanted to have God talks, and why I believed. I didn’t bring it up first, he did. And this is inspite of having gone through all the best arguments I could give him. While my arguments were in general dismissed, I sense he still wanted to be convinced. IOW he is sure I’m wrong but he isn’t completely sure he is right.

That’s not me who put that doubt in his mind with any argument I gave. It’s God who put himself on everyones heart. That way in the end, no one can say they weren’t given a chance to come to faith. No one can complain they were sandbagged.

Bottomline, after he dismissed all my arguments as being unproven, or personal opinion, or corruption of history, yada yada yada, I finally said to him

Okay I see you’re a betting man. Take all you own in the world, convert it into a poker chip and go to Vegas and play the odds. Bet it ALL on the come line and role the dice.

Now he thought THAT was stupid!!! I said why? He said it’s a sucker bet. I said why? He said, the odds are terrible and you could lose EVERYTHING!!! Yeah but I responded OR you could walk away fabulously wealthy. It’s about strategy and odds
crapsage.com/craps_strategies.php

He didn’t buy THAT either. So it told me real quick, he wasn’t really a reckless gambler either. Certainly not using THAT particular test.

So I asked him, with my parting comment, why are you then gambling with your soul? If we both die at the same moment today, and are miraculously given an opportunity to communicate with each other for 1 last moment, AFTER the main event, where we are given a glimpse of eternity, meaning, either it’s lights out for all eternity with nothing there, therefore I’m wrong and you’re right, and we both know at that point there is nothing gained or nothing lost, no regrets, because there is no God, no heaven, no hell, there is just plain old NOTHING. Then all I can say to you is, It’s been nice knowing you.

But if I’m right and you’re wrong, you’re screwed. Is THAT really the odds you want to play? What are THOSE odds?

I only used that argument because he discounted all the other theological arguments I offered. So I had to bring it down to terms that meant the most to him. I can honestly say, I don’t think I have ever argued anyone to faith. That’s because faith is a gift from God one has to want. And it is a gift that requires constant watering and care, to bolster it throughout life or it becomes weak, and in some cases it dies from lack of attention or serious sin.

 

[wasmit]

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

One cannot sincerely believe something that one suspects to be false, just to be on the “safe side”

If a person does accept Pascals wager, which sect of which religion does he choose to practice his faith? There are many thousands to choose from. Even within a particular sect, there are belief/doctrinal variations. Which one is correct? There are millions of possibilities. To meet the requirements of Pascal’s wager, one would have to simultaneously become a believer in all religions in the world, and this would be utterly impossible, since many religions forbid beliefs in others.

Pascals wager proposes that, comparatively, nothing is lost. However, what do we have to lose? Intellectual integrity, self-esteem, and a passionate, rewarding life for starters. In short, everything that makes life worth living. Far from being a safe bet, Pascal’s wager requires the wager of one’s life and happiness.

According to the bible, to achieve salvation, more is required than docile belief. Some examples include: believe in God’s son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, the statement from Pascals wager “if you believe, you will gain eternal life” is wrong – more is required.

Some proponents of Pascals wager propose that there are only two alternatives (as steve b did above) – Catholocism or Atheism. In fact there are millions of alternatives, corresponding to each religious belief system that exists in the world.

When we consider their respective credentials, it appears that every religion has alleged evidence to cite in support of its truth-claims: evidence in the form of miraculous events on the public stage, of great changes wrought in the lives of believers, of answered prayers, of divine revelations, and the like. In addition, if each religion is contrary to all of the others, any evidence that might be cited in support of the truth-claims of one must thereby be taken to undermine the truth-claims of every other. But since the adherents of any given religion are outnumbered by those of all the others combined, the experiential evidence that undermines any given religion must then be greater than the evidence that supports it. If one “estimates the chances,” as Pascal recommended, one will have to conclude–on the basis of experiential evidence–that the chance of any single religion being the one true religion is vastly outweighed by the chance of it being false. Hence, the odds of having “wagered” correctly and being “on the winning side” are poor. And the very idea of there being any winner at all begins to look far-fetched.

Pascals wager proposes that If a god exists, then whoever doesn’t believe in him will end up being eternally tormented. There is no reason to believe this. Many theists in many religions do not believe this. Furthermore, if it is true, it leads to the argument from non-belief (ANB), coped out below:

• ANB: To formulate ANB, I put first forward these two definitions:
• Set P = the following three propositions:
o (a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe.
o (b) That being loves humanity.
o (c) Humanity has been provided with an afterlife.

• Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans coming to believe all three propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
• Using the above definitions, ANB may be expressed as follows:
o (A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
o (1) being able to bring about situation S, all things considered;
o (2) wanting to bring about situation S, i.e., having it among his desires;
o (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it;
o (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

• (B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain.
• (C) But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans have come to believe all the propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
• (D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).
• (E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.

 

[anon5216]

Try starting with the only firsthand proof that is possible. Self-Inquiry.

Inquire of yourself: “Who Am I?”.

Am I my thoughts?
Am I my emotions?
Am I my physical sensations?
Am I my self-definition?

Just ‘who’ is it that is asking the question “Who Am I?”?

If I have a soul that is supposed to be immortal, can I know it?

After you’ve successfully gotten to the bottom of these questions,
it might again be useful to start wondering about God or religion.

 

[JRKH]

peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

One cannot sincerely believe something that one suspects to be false, just to be on the “safe side”

However one can allow for the possibility that they might be wrong and that which they suspect is false is actually true. This practice alone can lead to much wisdom. Ben Franklin expressed this idea quite well in a speach he gave on the final day of the Constiutional Convention.
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.
Just admitting the possibility, based on the huge number of uncertainties involved and great numbers of people who display and live their faith could be enough of a start. Perhaps that is all you are capable of for now.
I know, for I too must battle questions and doubts. - We all do.

If a person does accept Pascals wager, which sect of which religion does he choose to practice his faith? There are many thousands to choose from. Even within a particular sect, there are belief/doctrinal variations. Which one is correct? There are millions of possibilities. To meet the requirements of Pascal’s wager, one would have to simultaneously become a believer in all religions in the world, and this would be utterly impossible, since many religions forbid beliefs in others.

one must begin any journey with the decision to start. Admitting to oneself that “there must be something to this” is that beginning. Then it is a matter of study and prayer. The Simple prayer of, “Help me Know the Truth”. Then keep your eye on what is Good and basic - Love. Love of God and Love of neighbor/creation/nature etc. Love! God will lead.

Pascals wager proposes that, comparatively, nothing is lost. However, what do we have to lose? Intellectual integrity, self-esteem, and a passionate, rewarding life for starters. In short, everything that makes life worth living. Far from being a safe bet, Pascal’s wager requires the wager of one’s life and happiness.

I don’t understand this. How does accepting the pssibility of God, result in the loss of happiness? How does Accepting that we don’t know everything and cannot know everything cost us “intellectual integrety, self-esteem etc.”? If admitting the possibility of God costs you your “self-esteem” then it is not “self-esteem” at all but self-worship.
My belief in God has cost me nothing that was worth hanging on to and given to me everything to live for.

According to the bible, to achieve salvation, more is required than docile belief. Some examples include: believe in God’s son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, the statement from Pascals wager “if you believe, you will gain eternal life” is wrong – more is required.

Thank you!! Now we need you to explain this to those poor proteatants who hold to OSAS.
God does understand that different people understand in different ways and only at different levels. He can work with each one in unique ways. For instance, even though you have rejected God, you have come here to debate. This may well be the work of God in your heart. For even though you’ve turned your back on Him you still feel some tug, some pull. This is the Start.

As for the rest of your post on the wager, I’m sure it makes Logical sense. But only if you dismiss the Mercy of God.
The Church does not teach that one must be Catholic to be saved.
Your premise that one must accept precisely the correct variation within precisely the correct sect, within precisely the correct belief system places a too narrow definition on the idea of salvation and eternal life.

Look at the Great Teachings from East to West. The great ones all teach Love of God, Love of Fellow Man, Kindness, Compassion, “The Golden Rule”.

The question then really becomes, Can you Accept that something “Godly” does exist, and can you live by the principles above, and are you willing to let the “God” of these principles guide you?
If you can, and if you do, you will find yourself on the greatest journey of your life. A journey INTO faith rather than a denial of faith.
The room of faith is dark for you - I see that. You fear stepping into that “darkness” and losing your “self”, your control. Yet your fear and your “reason” prevents you from finding the great and wonderful treasure that exists in that room of faith.
So long as you remain frozen and clinging to the post of human reason and logic, you will be unable to grow and will remain mired in the world whose ultimate end is death.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Just as an aside,
out of my own curiosity,
Have you read any Chesterton?

You might find him interesting…

Peace
James

 

[bluedogz]

• Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans coming to believe all three propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
• Using the above definitions, ANB may be expressed as follows:
o (A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
o (1) being able to bring about situation S, all things considered;
o (2) wanting to bring about situation S, i.e., having it among his desires;
o (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it;
o (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).

I have to admit that I am not a student of logic, any more than has been necessary for conversation. However, it strikes me that using situation S, above, adds your own opinion to the logical process. Who says that a God of any stripe wishes that all men absorb your propositions P? Some gods apparently wish this (according to the words of man); I do not believe my God does. Which makes the God of your argument a strawman, and binding that by an argument of man-made presumptions doesn’t really provide the proof or denial you asked for at the start.

Your presumptions for condition S could equally apply to my dog not dirtying on the floor, yet we both know he still does from time to time.

 

[wasmit]

I have to admit that I am not a student of logic, any more than has been necessary for conversation. However, it strikes me that using situation S, above, adds your own opinion to the logical process. Who says that a God of any stripe wishes that all men absorb your propositions P? Some gods apparently wish this (according to the words of man); I do not believe my God does. Which makes the God of your argument a strawman, and binding that by an argument of man-made presumptions doesn’t really provide the proof or denial you asked for at the start.

Your presumptions for condition S could equally apply to my dog not dirtying on the floor, yet we both know he still does from time to time.

It is interesting that you say that your god does not wish for all people to believe (a) there exists a being who rules the entire universe. (b) That being loves humanity. (c) Humanity has been provided with an afterlife.

This means that he is a capricious and petty deity, who has pre-chosen some people and not others to receive eternal salvation or torment, respectively.

This also contradicts 1Tim2: 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Also contradicts John12: 30Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”

Also contradicts 1Cor15: 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Also contradicts 1Tim4: 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

 

[wasmit]

peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The first cause argument makes the unfounded assumption that any the first cause must be the Christian god.
The first cause argument makes the unfounded assumption that the rules after the universe started applied beforehand.
Who created god?

If god does have a creator, then isn’t it God’s creator that should be worshipped rather than God? And who created God’s creator? The danger of an infinite regress of creators, each postulated in order to explain the existence of that subsequent to it, looms. If there is an infinite regress of creators, though, then there is no first creator, no ultimate cause of the universe, no God.

If god doesn’t have a creator, he is an uncaused cause. If uncaused existence is possible, though, then there is no need to postulate a God that created the universe; if uncaused existence is possible, then the universe could be uncaused.
The first cause requires circular reasoning – The claim is that everything must have a cause, except for the Christian god. There is no reason to believe that the proposed “first cause” is immune to such a rule itself. It is an unsubstantiated claim.

A common reply to the previous paragraph is that in the naturalistic Universe there looks to be a cause for every effect, but this can’t go on forever (there was the Big Bang and stuff, see?) under naturalistic order of things. Hence, there must be a cause that is supernatural and therefore exempt from itself requiring a cause.

However, this is refuted by the fact that, at the big bang, all words that relate to time (before, forever, after, prior) have no meaning because time does not exist. This is similar to there being no such thing as “north” when you are at the north pole or south pole on earth. Therefore, nothing can be said to exist before the big bag, and therefore nothing could have created it.
Quantum mechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random.

For instance, when photons reach a window, most will pass through it, but some will be reflected. We could make a statement like “99% of the photons will go through, and 1% will be reflected”. But we could not for any given photon predict what it will do, that is random. It has no cause.
Hume showed that humans cannot perceive ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, but construct these notions from past experiences.

cause and effect cannot be perceived. We postulate them and we use them in our daily lives and even in higher physics. But dare we use such uncertain notions when looking at the very ground of being? If Cause is somewhat doubtful in our daily lives, and far more doubtful in quantum mechanics … then how can we rely on it when we take it to the extreme of extremes, the beginning of the Universe?
Even if we agree that everything we see has a cause (which for quantum reasons I won’t) how can we infer from that everything has a cause? This is mere speculation, it is not knowledge we can ever have.

The point I make is not as esoteric as it may seem. We perceive cause and effect in a limited number of cases, but I’m very willing to accept cause and effect in all cases like the ones we observe. But we perceive not only a limited amount of things, we also perceive a very selective amount of things. We do not perceive anything smaller than a few tenths of a millimeter. Who says that causality holds all the way down? (And once again, quantum physics says it does not.) We observe distances up to a few light years at most (the stars are such a distance away). Who can say whether cause holds all the way up to infinity (and beyond)? We see only things in the present state of the Universe. Who can say whether cause holds all the way to the very beginning of the Universe, when even parts of physics seem to break down? How can we extend the notion of cause from the observed or observable to the unobservable? That we can does not seem clear to me at all, and hence I do not think that we can assume that everything has a cause, even if we had no other arguments for it.
If “everything in this universe has a cause”, it does not logically follow that the Universe itself has a cause.

 

[wasmit]

wasmit;4729288:

how is the bible true and the koran not?