D
Damian
Guest
Guess we’re at an impasse here unless someone else can help clarify this.
- Status
A
Aquinas11
Guest
No impasse. You haven’t even sat down at the table. Again we’re fine with that, as means nobody refuting God of Catholicism
W
Wesrock
Guest
Yes… most natural theology is apophatic, meaning telling us what God is not. What we attribute to God follows either from the effects we remove (unchanging goes to immutable, non-composite to simple) or by a relation of God to his effects (creator). This is because we can’t argue cause to effect using essence as the middle term and so define what God is, but because we must argue effect to cause, only capable of demonstrating that he is. This is theology 101.Wesrock:
How do you get that a first cause is unchanging?
How do you get that a first cause has to be eternal moving forward from t=0?
“non-composite” = that’s not a positive descriptor, its telling me what it isn’t. Ex: if I try to describe a shoe as not a glove, have I told you any positive description of the shoe?
“purely actual” = no idea what this means.
“substitent being” = no idea what this means
omnipotence = how can you tell the difference between any powerful being over a level that you can’t tell the difference in it’s power any more to determine this and that you’ve looked at all beings to compare? lesser pixies could make realities as well for example.
“omniscience” = how can you determine that someone knows everything or just knows the answers to all your questions?
omniscience and omnipotence = starting to sound like north korean government.
“perfectly good” = good is subjective, your deity is my version of a devil.
No it doesn’t. If you don’t explain how this is the case, other than an assertion, you’ll just get an assertion back.
Married bachelor again. Thought is necessarily linear. A to B to C, and so on. So you’re saying that you can have a thought before you have your thought that you thought? Logic is broken here for me.
“dimensionless” = again a term that tells me what it is not, not what it is. See my shoe/glove analogy.
The first part of the post would require me to basically walk through an entire argument and present some background to help define terms.
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
Okay, telling me what it isn’t, doesn’t tell me what it is. Ex: If I tell you what a shoe is by saying it’s not a glove, have I told you any positive qualities about it?
You can have a changing first cause. This is demonstrated by the idea that the entity changed by making a decision to start reality. How it started reality is a different question. The pixies had to self destruct to create reality.
However, there’s an internally broken logic here. How can something make a decision to do something when it had an infinite amount of time before that to come up with the idea? It would never come to make the decision then since it had an infinite amount of time to think it up.
No idea what this means
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
Okay we’ll dig through this after I review it. Catch up on this specific point tomorrow.
But how does this address my point that you can not demonstrate this being to exist at all yet. It’s still just the hypothesis that no one can test to determine either way if it is true or not. I care that reality actually demonstrates itself to match my internal model of reality. That is justified belief, not an untestable internally logically consistent position. Fantasy novels are also untestable internally logically consistent position to hold as well. If that is justified belief for theists to hold about reality, then their logical process can not distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
That’s the problem though. There is a potential infinite amount of non-identities that something isn’t.
S
SuzanneMD
Guest
The Gift of Faith is Invaluable! Those of us who have faith are Infinitely Blessed to Know our Heavenly Father, our Beloved Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ, and to be embraced by God’s Holy Spirit of Divine, Love, Grace and Mercy! Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you! Ask God to reveal Himself to you, read the New Testament, the Word of God, His Word Is living and active, go and sit before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, and you will not be disappointed! But if you have never been Baptised or gone to Confession/Reconciliation and have accumulated venial and mortal sins on your soul in your life, then, of course, you will need to receive the Sacraments before you will be able to fully experience His Grace, so don’t delay! I suppose that God could do “visible spectacles” and allow all to see His Magnificent Radiance, His Divine Light, all day long through His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist but then He would just draw mere spectators and some people would also be frightened away by His Power. Our Lord is humble and Loves all and wants all souls to be saved and so He remains hidden in the humble disguise of bread. But for those who find Him Truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament, they feel His Divine Love, Grace and Mercy and reflect it back in their hearts, and many, many miracles take place! He Is The Bread of Life! But to one with no faith, they see nothing and so they walk away… How comparatively boring to find God only through scientific proof… It may be coming soon though. To quote from Tom Rogers, Engineer and Author of Darwin’s Replacement: “Our goal is to prove scientifically beyond reasonable doubt that the supernatural force known as the Creator God described in the Bible, is the essential force required to design, construct, grow, sustain, maintain, and repair all living entities. For instance, atomic biology reveals the enormous work performed in replacing all of our approximately 20 trillion red blood cells (rbc) about every 120 days. This works out to over 160 billion new rbc’s per day for each adult – or about 2,300,000 red blood cells produced in our bone marrow every second!² C.J. Pallister (1999) tells us that for an average 70 kg adult male about 2,300,000 red blood cells are produced every second.²
G.J.Tortora (2008) states that there are approximately 280,000,000 molecules of hemoglobin per red blood cell.³
M. Perutz (1997) states that each hemoglobin molecule contains approximately 10,000 atoms. 4
If you do the math, the number of atoms required to be sorted from the 70kg man’s eaten food, then selected, latched onto, assembled into new red blood cells and delivered into his blood stream is approx. 2,300,000 x 280,000,000 x 10,000 = 6,440,000,000,000,000,000 atoms every second of every day for every average adult male. That is 6,440 quadrillion atoms per second every second of every day just for his replacement red blood cells.
This goes far, far, far beyond the parameters of possibility for the theoretical, unguided, uncaring process called ‘Darwinian evolution’.”
G.J.Tortora (2008) states that there are approximately 280,000,000 molecules of hemoglobin per red blood cell.³
M. Perutz (1997) states that each hemoglobin molecule contains approximately 10,000 atoms. 4
If you do the math, the number of atoms required to be sorted from the 70kg man’s eaten food, then selected, latched onto, assembled into new red blood cells and delivered into his blood stream is approx. 2,300,000 x 280,000,000 x 10,000 = 6,440,000,000,000,000,000 atoms every second of every day for every average adult male. That is 6,440 quadrillion atoms per second every second of every day just for his replacement red blood cells.
This goes far, far, far beyond the parameters of possibility for the theoretical, unguided, uncaring process called ‘Darwinian evolution’.”
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
A
Aquinas11
Guest
We believe in infinite transcendent God and he’s refuting a finite material God.
D
Damian
Guest
Okay, let me clarify, what does “state of being” mean to you? This just sounds like a hippie BS generated term.
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
In reverse order:
Large and small numbers that we discover about reality are no more significant than any other number we discovered about reality. They are just large and small in comparison to what humans are able to do with precision at this point. 2.300,000 red blood cells is no more significant about reality than finding 2 apples on my desk. Both are just numbers describing the experienced reality. The religious are just in awe of these large and small numbers since they are looking for something that is hard for people to do at this point so they can justify to themselves that something other than people must have set this up. IE a deity. It’s, again, just painting the bulls-eye around the arrow.
I don’t care what a single scientist says about something. I care about what the scientific community says about reality. You can be religious and a scientist as well, just you can’t use the supernatural in the lab. You are not allowed to use “god did it” in the lab until you can demonstrate that god is there at all. That is called methodological naturalism. It does not state that the supernatural is not there. It states that since we have yet to determine the supernatural is a part of reality at all, it’s not allowed to be a solution to any question we have about reality. If we find a question we can not investigate further, we stop and say “we don’t know” because it’s about justifying your belief model of reality against what reality can demonstrate to be there. Demonstrate the supernatural and then we can use it in the lab for why something happened.
Large and small numbers that we discover about reality are no more significant than any other number we discovered about reality. They are just large and small in comparison to what humans are able to do with precision at this point. 2.300,000 red blood cells is no more significant about reality than finding 2 apples on my desk. Both are just numbers describing the experienced reality. The religious are just in awe of these large and small numbers since they are looking for something that is hard for people to do at this point so they can justify to themselves that something other than people must have set this up. IE a deity. It’s, again, just painting the bulls-eye around the arrow.
I don’t care what a single scientist says about something. I care about what the scientific community says about reality. You can be religious and a scientist as well, just you can’t use the supernatural in the lab. You are not allowed to use “god did it” in the lab until you can demonstrate that god is there at all. That is called methodological naturalism. It does not state that the supernatural is not there. It states that since we have yet to determine the supernatural is a part of reality at all, it’s not allowed to be a solution to any question we have about reality. If we find a question we can not investigate further, we stop and say “we don’t know” because it’s about justifying your belief model of reality against what reality can demonstrate to be there. Demonstrate the supernatural and then we can use it in the lab for why something happened.
Again, Faith is the excuse you use for believing something when you have no good reason to believe it.
D
Damian
Guest
So you admit that you’ve defined your deity and its realm to be in a place that we can never investigate or discover. That is the married bachelor again. To have justified belief that something exists, to me, means that it is necessarily temporal and that it is detectable in reality in some way. How do you determine the difference between a comic book reality and actual reality then, using your method? You can’t. That is why your method is broken to me. You can not have a way to distinguish between the two.
Historical evidence hasn’t been brought up yet. So to this point, I’m fine with someone existing called Jesus, carpenter, had followers, liked to fish, etc. But you claim he had magical powers. Sorry, but if that’s your reason to believe someone had magical powers then, 2000 years from now when they dig up New York City does that mean Spiderman existed as well?
Historical evidence hasn’t been brought up yet. So to this point, I’m fine with someone existing called Jesus, carpenter, had followers, liked to fish, etc. But you claim he had magical powers. Sorry, but if that’s your reason to believe someone had magical powers then, 2000 years from now when they dig up New York City does that mean Spiderman existed as well?
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Is commonly known as
To be in a state of being is to both have the potential to be and the actual being. God is unchanging, and thus has 0 potentiality. God instead is entirely actuality, the actual action. This makes him the state of action, the state of current being.
D
Damian
Guest
In reverse order:
As to my definition of existence, it’s about justified belief that something exists when in reference to reality. For example: we know that meteors exist. We also know that they can strike planets. You’re welcome dinosaurs. However, are we justified in believing, to live our lives as if, a meteor is currently heading to destroy our planet? No, no we are not until we detect it first.
So how can you have belief that something exists as part of reality if you can not detect in reality at all and that is within time. Because it makes no logical since to say that something can exist for t=0 or t<0. That is the married bachelor.
But I love how you assert things with no reason why other than you don’t like it. All you’re doing is going, Nu-huh and moving on.
Potential to be what and actual being of what? You keep dropping off the nouns at the end of your sentences.
So is the idea of “nothing”.
Entirely actuality of what? the actual action of what? need a noun here.
So god is motion? God is kinetic energy?
Again, need a noun at the end of this sentence.
As to my definition of existence, it’s about justified belief that something exists when in reference to reality. For example: we know that meteors exist. We also know that they can strike planets. You’re welcome dinosaurs. However, are we justified in believing, to live our lives as if, a meteor is currently heading to destroy our planet? No, no we are not until we detect it first.
So how can you have belief that something exists as part of reality if you can not detect in reality at all and that is within time. Because it makes no logical since to say that something can exist for t=0 or t<0. That is the married bachelor.
But I love how you assert things with no reason why other than you don’t like it. All you’re doing is going, Nu-huh and moving on.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Last edited:
D
Damian
Guest
In reverse order:
Eye witness accounts are not enough to shift our fundamental understanding of reality. You have to demonstrate that eye witness claim. This is the difference between the indoctrinated religious mindset and skeptics. Skeptics are not syncs first of all. But we are not primed to believe magic tricks are actually magic or cultural hero stories is evidence of magic because of the historical references in the story. King Arthur anyone? If you can demonstrate that it works and how it works and its repeatable to anyone, regardless of their biasness to the claim, then I’d probably accept it as part of reality and start swimming more to look for that Lady in the Lake for my own letter opener.
Supernatural: replace supernatural with magic and the sentence does not change at all. Not putting words in your mouth, but using a word to point out the issue with using language like “supernatural”. It’s indistinguishable from “magic” as well.
Comics: We know comics are fantasy from the people that wrote them, appears to be the only way your method of “justified belief about reality” could let you tell a difference. Just that your religion’s stories are more socially acceptable to talk about seriously at a job interview or for public office than these green lantern fans.
Your method: you’ve stated that you’ve defined your deity to not be detectable or ever detectable at all. That’s where I linked it to my statement that the difference between fantasy and reality claims would be indistinguishable to you since you are able to accept unfalsifiable claims of reality that are internally, logically correct. There are no tests that can be done against the claims to falsify either claims of reality other than a claim that goes against your cultural beliefs.
Miracles = “god did it” = god of the gaps. You have to first demonstrate that a deity is there at all before you can use it as a reason for why something happened. But since a deity is described as undetectable at all and can do anything, of course its an answer, but not really.
Eye witness accounts are not enough to shift our fundamental understanding of reality. You have to demonstrate that eye witness claim. This is the difference between the indoctrinated religious mindset and skeptics. Skeptics are not syncs first of all. But we are not primed to believe magic tricks are actually magic or cultural hero stories is evidence of magic because of the historical references in the story. King Arthur anyone? If you can demonstrate that it works and how it works and its repeatable to anyone, regardless of their biasness to the claim, then I’d probably accept it as part of reality and start swimming more to look for that Lady in the Lake for my own letter opener.
Supernatural: replace supernatural with magic and the sentence does not change at all. Not putting words in your mouth, but using a word to point out the issue with using language like “supernatural”. It’s indistinguishable from “magic” as well.
Comics: We know comics are fantasy from the people that wrote them, appears to be the only way your method of “justified belief about reality” could let you tell a difference. Just that your religion’s stories are more socially acceptable to talk about seriously at a job interview or for public office than these green lantern fans.
Your method: you’ve stated that you’ve defined your deity to not be detectable or ever detectable at all. That’s where I linked it to my statement that the difference between fantasy and reality claims would be indistinguishable to you since you are able to accept unfalsifiable claims of reality that are internally, logically correct. There are no tests that can be done against the claims to falsify either claims of reality other than a claim that goes against your cultural beliefs.
Miracles = “god did it” = god of the gaps. You have to first demonstrate that a deity is there at all before you can use it as a reason for why something happened. But since a deity is described as undetectable at all and can do anything, of course its an answer, but not really.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
You can stop talking now. You simultaneously destroyed any intellectual credibility you had and any inkling of open-mindedness you gave off with this ad-hominem.
D
Damian
Guest
You haven’t described what god is, not what it isn’t.
I can understand what no potential means in reference to say voltage for example. No potiential in reference to voltage means that the difference in voltage reference to another voltage point is the same. IE: 0Vref = 0Vtest point A or 8Vref = 8Vtest at point B. The difference is 0.
But I know what voltage is, I don’t know what a god is.
I can understand what no potential means in reference to say voltage for example. No potiential in reference to voltage means that the difference in voltage reference to another voltage point is the same. IE: 0Vref = 0Vtest point A or 8Vref = 8Vtest at point B. The difference is 0.
But I know what voltage is, I don’t know what a god is.
D
Damian
Guest
Science is the process of applying philosophical models of experienced reality to a question about reality. Such as the philosophical, mathematical model of 1+1=2. Now test that against reality, scientifically: 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. There demonstrated that philosophical argument that was in reference to reality. Now do this with your deity concept.
You first have to detect and then investigate. So how do you “detect” something that reality has yet to demonstrate is there at all? What are you going to look for to determine that it was supernatural verse an unknown natural for example? There has to be a contrast somewhere correct?
You first have to detect and then investigate. So how do you “detect” something that reality has yet to demonstrate is there at all? What are you going to look for to determine that it was supernatural verse an unknown natural for example? There has to be a contrast somewhere correct?
D
Damian
Guest
That’s wasn’t part of what you presented there, which is why I specifically quoted what you quoted. Now that you are adding in more information here that you left out before, lets go with that new data. So it’s unchanging but has no ability to become something different. Married bachelor again. Or are you saying that it is a deity, which is unchanging in the idea that a deity can always be a deity, like a dog is always a dog? And then changes by its choices, like a dog can choose to sit on the couch or chew your shoes?
Yes I do need a noun here, otherwise I wouldn’t have asked for it.
So is the idea of “nothing” it’s a state of being nothing
There’s enough physical evidence to justify this happened during the age of the dinosaurs and enough physical evidence to conclude that the impact would have created an extinction level event for those animals.
There is a difference between reality and the universe, just like there’s a difference between a fish tank and the apartment its in. Just that since we can’t look beyond the big bang, we (tentatively) use that point as t=0 reference point.
But, again, you’ve defined a deity into not ever being able to be detected at all unless it comes into our realm. Well to all those people it reveals itself to is first hand justified belief for them, to everyone else, it’s hearsay and your deity should be intelligent enough to understand that and why people won’t believe evidence just because someone said they experienced something.
Last edited:
- Status