You know there is more than one God even in the bible?Glad we cleared that up!
jan.
You know there is more than one God even in the bible?
I envy you your ability to live in the world of ignorance that you so aptly demonstrate, Jan. You say that it is not claiming God exists and then proceed to explain exactly why it is a claim. I sometimes wish I could just avoid all logic and be as pig-ignorant as you.That is not claiming that God exists, that is saying that if God does not exist (by definition), then (by definition), nothing would exist. The question is, how is it that God could be imagined to factually not exist, without bypassing the definition.
Your inability to see what your words logically imply is astounding.It wasn't an implicit claim, it was reaction to the notion that God does not factually exist.
So it is further evidence that you have an appalling inability to comprehend the implications of what you write.So what?
No it doesn't.By ''necessary'' it means that it is not contingent on anything else for it's existence.
Irrelevant given your lack of understanding of what it means to be considered necessary.The original cause can not be dependant on anything else for it's existence, by definition. One does not have to believe in God, or claim that God exists, to come to that understanding.
Sure, if it is only eternal in the future, but not if it is eternal in the past.Aside from the problems, and absurdity, that an eternal universe would create, it could still be the result of an original cause.
If you are claiming that if God does not exist then nothing would exist, you are claiming that God therefore exists - because we exist.
No it doesn't.
As I thought - you have no idea what it means.
Something is necessary if there is no possibility of it's existence being excluded and still reaching the conclusion.
You have contended that if God does not exist then we would not exist.
This is thus you claiming that God is necessary.
Irrelevant given your lack of understanding of what it means to be considered necessary.
Your question has no bearing on the nature of arguments thus put forth.So if I say that a vampire will burn in sunlight, am I claiming that vampires are real?
Which you contend exists, through not only the arguments you have so far put forth but including the one below.I have not contended that, that is part of the definition.
No it is not.An original cause is necessary for further cause and effects to take place...
Well, other than introducing another attribute for God, how do you imagine that something that is supposedly the original cause but does not come into being is able to interact with anything?, and it itself does not come into, or go out of being.
Who said it had to be?Neither is it dependent of anything else for it's exitense.
Firstly, stating that the definition implies necessity is a claim that the definition exists - that there is no possibility of it not existing.God is defined as the original cause/creator, therefore the definition implies necessity.
So again you seem to think it other people's fault for your failings.Ah! Don't be such a baby.
Totes for reals.Really?
jan.
Space time is the artist way ("God") of defining His work. And probability existing within the paremeters of spacetime to keep the integrity of the gift of free will an authentic principle of His creation.
So if I say that a vampire will burn in sunlight, am I claiming that vampires are real?
I have not contended that, that is part of the definition.
An original cause is necessary for further cause and effects to take place, and it itself does not come into, or go out of being. Neither is it dependent of anything else for it's exitense.
God is defined as the original cause/creator, therefore the definition implies necessity.
Your question has no bearing on the nature of arguments thus put forth.
Which you contend exists, through not only the arguments you have so far put forth but including the one below.
No it is not.
Do you not understand what eternal means?
An eternal chain of cause and effect is simply that: eternal - no beginning, no end.
Well, other than introducing another attribute for God, how do you imagine that something that is supposedly the original cause but does not come into being is able to interact with anything?
Firstly, stating that the definition implies necessity is a claim that the definition exists - that there is no possibility of it not existing.
Secondly, the definition still does not imply necessity. You have simply failed to deal with the possibility of something being eternal. You have ignored it. And until you address such things you can not claim that you have shown God, as defined, to be necessary, irrespective of your bleatings to the contrary.
You are right, but the introduction of Original Cause in the definition of God, presents a lot of logical problems, IMO.The definition does exist, I've never denied that. But I don't have to believe God exists to use the definition as it is it's own thing, which is why I don't have to make any claims. Other than the definition exists.
Definition - a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
What is ORIGINAL CAUSE?
the initial or main cause of a sensation- that being, the first in a chain of events generating a specific impact.
ORIGINAL CAUSE: "The original cause has yet to be determined."
http://psychologydictionary.org/original-cause/Psychology Dictionary: What is ORIGINAL CAUSE? definition of ORIGINAL CAUSE (Psychology Dictionary)
Yes but science does not say that God was responsible. After all this time, no measurable indications.And to make it worse science says it had to have a beginning (at least at present), jan.
Are you defining vampires as necessary for existence?Why not?
The definition exists. But as soon as you say that the definition implies necessity you are claiming that the thing exists, whether you admit to it or not, whether you explicitly state it or not. Or, now that you know (or should know) what necessity actually means, are you withdrawing the assertion that the definition implies necessity?I contend that the definition exits, of course.
I do. Do you understand why something eternal does not need one?Do you not understand what is meant by original cause?
The same way we are able to imagine such a universe to know that it is a fact that God does exist.How would you able to imagine such a universe to know that it is a fact that God does not exist?
Isn't it a case of wishful thinking?
First: this doesn't answer the question I asked: "how do you imagine that something that is supposedly the original cause but does not come into being is able to interact with anything?". Care to have another go?I imagine that if we have consciousness, then it would be likely that the original cause/creator had consciousness. And through that conscious interplay we could interact with the creation, and the creator.
Yet you claimed necessity. Are you still sticking to the notion that God is necessary, given that you have been corrected about what being necessary means?The definition does exist, I've never denied that. But I don't have to believe God exists to use the definition as it is it's own thing, which is why I don't have to make any claims. Other than the definition exists.
And you'd be wrong, as explained. Are you still sticking to that notion that God, as defined as "original cause" is a necessity.I beg to differ. The definition smacks of necessity.
I don't need to experience it to have an idea of it. That is just a pathetic fallacy of fake precision on your part. All one needs is a definition of it to have an idea. From that definition one can work with the logical conclusions that follow. Not the half-baked additive assumptions that you tend to drag in from nowhere without explanation, but simple logical conclusions.You have no idea of what eternality is, because you have no experience of it, in any way.
If you intend to have an argument on your own then feel free to make stuff up, feel free to argue the strawmen you have raised here, and feel free to argue ad hominem, again as you have done here. But while there are still other actual people in the discussion, please stick to what they have written. Their motives, whatever they may be, are irrelevant. Whether it makes them uncomfortable, or as comfortable as lying in a deck-chair in the Bahamas, is irrelevant.You are simply applying the term to the universe because you are pretty sure the universe had a beginning, and it makes you uncomfortable, because it could mean that God's definition may be correct after all. And you can't have that. Can you?
No, it doesn't. You have been shown why the BVG does not say what you think it says. What else do you have to offer that shows that "science says it had to have a beginning"?And to make it worse science says it had to have a beginning (at least at present),
What is CDT?Spacetime is the result of CDT. If you want to equate God as the artist, then God is a self iterating fractal.
btw. FW is an illusion, created by our belief of having choice. The problem is that the choices we make are always in the direction of greater satisfaction and therefore no choice at all.
Sometimes this choice in the direction of greater satisfaction turns out to have "unintended consequences", and we say, "he made the wrong choice from free will.", but he made the only choice he could make under the circumstances. It is true he could have made a different choice, but only if the circumstances had been appropriately different.
That is the Deterministic aspect of natural law. God's law?
Yes they do for the mind knows only belief...Reptiles have beliefs.
The definition of trueWe have no free will.
Because if you begin to see you are witnessing a miracle.
And why should it work at all? I hope you see the beauty in it all its artistic genius if you ask me. A unified system evolving as distinct seperate parts all having a common origin.Understood
But rather than miracle ; just our plain old Human intellect working as it should.
Complete thoughtUnderstood
But rather than miracle ; just our plain old Human intellect working as it should.