Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The attributes and properties of your god may be defined and described by scripture, but in no way does it prove anything. Your scripture also told us the us the universe was created in six days.

You can jump up and down one one foot shouting "see I told you so" all day long, but we have no way of knowing it is so. Especially when you "interpret" what it all mean so pompously.

Word games on top of word games

And since scripture does teach the immutability of God, this makes the ancient sheepherders, nomads and other knucke-dragging neanderthal writers of scripture (compared to your "brilliant" mind, of course ) eminently more logical than you. Those writers knew that whatever is eternal cannot logically change!

Still having a tough time figuring the difference between "nature" and "mind", heh? Above your pay grade? Tsk, tstk. I mention that God cannot change in his essence, you retort with how God changes his mind. How long have you been a chronic sufferer of cognitive dissonance?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

We've been over this before. Here is Newton's Third Law of Motion right out of the textbook.

"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."

In other words, we have a causal loop. A causes B and B causes A. In the case of the three body problem A acts upon B and C, B acts upon A and B, C acts on A and B. This can be extended to n bodies and mathematically n can be infinite.

Cycles do not require a "first cause." In a one dimensional cycle (an oversimplification since the process can extend to infinite dimensions) one might arbitrarily choose some state as the initial state which causes a derivative state which in turn ultimately causes the arbitrarily chosen state, ergo no initial state exists.

Prove this nonsense with a real world example from classical physics. If you can't prove it, we're supposed to believe that cycles just are! There are no causes to cycles?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Prove this nonsense with a real world example from classical physics.

From classical physics? Do you mean you don't accept any of the discoveries of Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Lemaître?

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you can't prove it, we're supposed to believe that cycles just are! There are no causes to cycles?

There is absolutely no evidence that any cause is a deity.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

From classical physics? Do you mean you don't accept any of the discoveries of Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Lemaître?

There is absolutely no evidence that any cause is a deity.

I want one real world, everyday example of your claim. I'm not interested in quantum theory.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I want one real world, everyday example of your claim.

I don't recall making any claim. I simply explained how causation works.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I'll take a chance. You're looking for something that is perpetual? Well the net angular momentum of the universe is zero. Always has been. Always will be.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm not interested in quantum theory.

So you think quantum theory is not "real world?" Then how do you explain that nuclear weapons do explode? How do you explain that transistors work?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And since scripture does teach the immutability of God, this makes the ancient sheepherders, nomads and other knucke-dragging neanderthal writers of scripture (compared to your "brilliant" mind, of course ) eminently more logical than you. Those writers knew that whatever is eternal cannot logically change!

Still having a tough time figuring the difference between "nature" and "mind", heh? Above your pay grade? Tsk, tstk. I mention that God cannot change in his essence, you retort with how God changes his mind. How long have you been a chronic sufferer of cognitive dissonance?

Simply because you define something anyway you want, there is no evidence, or proof it is so.

There are hundreds of factual errors, absurdities and atrocities in the bible if you take it literally.

Telling us "scripture does teach the immutability of God" is a joke, that falls squarely on you. You make me laugh with your pompousness. And inability to follow anything outside your literal minded pigpen, trying to understand the basics of life. Keep scribbling away.. Maybe one day?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Simply because you define something anyway you want, there is no evidence, or proof it is so.

There are hundreds of factual errors, absurdities and atrocities in the bible if you take it literally.

Telling us "scripture does teach the immutability of God" is a joke, that falls squarely on you. You make me laugh with your pompousness. And inability to follow anything outside your literal minded pigpen, trying to understand the basics of life. Keep scribbling away.. Maybe one day?

You're the only pathetic joker around here. The fact remains, however, that since God's essence is pure existence, it's perfectly logical that he cannot change what he is in his being. If God could change, then it could be postulated that he could change for the worse and slip into non-existence.

Further, scripture teaches that God is perfect. A perfect being logically cannot change, since any change would be either for the better or worse and would actually contradict his perfect state. If he changed for the better, then he was never perfect, since perfection cannot be improved upon. Or if he changed for, the worse this, too, would prove he was never perfect, since perfection, is the highest degree of excellence or quality of attributes.

The ancient writers of scripture were so much smarter than your pathetic dumb butt.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't recall making any claim. I simply explained how causation works.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I'll take a chance. You're looking for something that is perpetual? Well the net angular momentum of the universe is zero. Always has been. Always will be.

So you think quantum theory is not "real world?" Then how do you explain that nuclear weapons do explode? How do you explain that transistors work?

Give me a real world, every day example. Plus you haven't explained how causation works.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Give me a real world, every day example. Plus you haven't explained how causation works.

I've explained it to you. I can't understand it for you.

The original subject was cyclic models of the universe. Your claim is that something had to start the cycle. The burden of proof is yours.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're the only pathetic joker around here. The fact remains, however, that since God's essence is pure existence, it's perfectly logical that he cannot change what he is in his being. If God could change, then it could be postulated that he could change for the worse and slip into non-existence.

Further, scripture teaches that God is perfect. A perfect being logically cannot change, since any change would be either for the better or worse and would actually contradict his perfect state. If he changed for the better, then he was never perfect, since perfection cannot be improved upon. Or if he changed for, the worse this, too, would prove he was never perfect, since perfection, is the highest degree of excellence or quality of attributes.

The ancient writers of scripture were so much smarter than your pathetic dumb butt.

As usual, you did not understand one word I wrote. What a waste you are.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Give me a real world, every day example. Plus you haven't explained how causation works.

You attempted to use the Fallacy of composition to disprove the theory of evolution. You failed miserably.

You had absolutely no idea what that was until I and Actor brought that up in debunking your archaic "First Cause" rigamarole. I will remind you again for the hundredth time, simply because you think there are first causes within the universe, there must be the same outside it. The fallacy of composition utterly destroys, you, Aristotle, Aquinas, Edward Feser, and other neo-Aquinians kicking around that old ball and chain.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You attempted to use the Fallacy of composition to disprove the theory of evolution. You failed miserably.

You had absolutely no idea what that was until I and Actor brought that up in debunking your archaic "First Cause" rigamarole. I will remind you again for the hundredth time, simply because you think there are first causes within the universe, there must be the same outside it. The fallacy of composition utterly destroys, you, Aristotle, Aquinas and other neo-Aquinians kicking around that old ball and chain.

Neither you or Actor are fit to lick the bottom of the boots of Aristotle or Aquinas.

All I said about evolution is that a cause must be in its effect, which does demolish evolution -- just like the caterpillar is in the butterfly.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Neither you or Actor are fit to lick the bottom of the boots of Aristotle or Aquinas.

All I said about evolution is that a cause must be in its effect, which does demolish evolution -- just like the caterpillar is in the butterfly.

So you are still kicking their boots? Figures.

Too bad you can't bury the fallacy of composition next to them, so you wouldn't have to deal with all the pesky logical fallacies tearing you down, that you have such a hard time following.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Neither you or Actor are fit to lick the bottom of the boots of Aristotle or Aquinas.

1. Why would we want to?
2. Plato's Apology says that Aristotle went barefoot.
3. Aquinas was a cleric. Clerics wore sandals because boots were expensive and clerics took a vow of poverty.

Originally Posted by boxcar

All I said ... is that a cause must be in its effect ...

What does that even mean?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Actor

[*]Plato's Apology says that Aristotle went barefoot.

If Aristotle hung around with Boxcar...he'd be wearing boots.