Religion III

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The universe cannot be eternal because what is eternal by nature cannot change. Yet, this universe is filled with change, including changes of things coming and going out of existence.

Also, the Law of Causation is a philosophical law. And the operative term here is "law. It is a universal law. If you doubt this, give one example of some change that is not caused.

By the way, "it is what it is" is circular.

You have posted your change definition many times. You define your concept of god as unchanging. How do know it does not change except by your definition of god?

Since you have grasp of what infinity is, you can not rule out infinity's ability to change. Infinity must include all. Change and no change.

YES, it is what it is, is circular. So is the suchness of things.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You have posted your change definition many times. You define your concept of god as unchanging. How do know it does not change except by your definition of god?

Actor's "goat herders" were eminently logical. They wrote that God is immutable.

Since you have grasp of what infinity is, you can not rule out infinity's ability to change. Infinity must include all. Change and no change.

If an eternal entity can change, then who can say with certainty that that entity did not come into existence and, therefore, not be eternal? Or for that matter, if an eternal entity is subject to change, who can say with certainty that that entity will not go out of existence and, therefore, not be eternal?

YES, it is what it is, is circular. So is the suchness of things.

Such is the stuff of a logical fallacy.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Such is the stuff of a logical fallacy.

Experiencing something is not only thinking about it.
Is said "

"Tathātā", the "thusness" or "suchness" of things is sufficient. However experiencing it fully is vital. Be here now.

An emotion may be analyses to death. We can break it down to biochemical processes, and electrical signals. But that is standing outside the suchness of those emotions. Philosophy, science, logic and religion, can also be picked apart as nerve cells firing, useful to know how, but does not replace the richness of those thoughts of those topics. For instance, the color blue is experienced. Seeing it is not measuring and calculating the wavelength.

Life's wonders must be directly experienced. "Tathātā" is the direct interaction with everything possible. It is circular only because it can not be defined into contingent parts. It is what it is, refers to itself.

Zen speaks a of this directness. Words are how we communicate and specify, but in subtle ways interfere with the experiences they describe

Zen practice is difficult (some would say impossible) to explain using written or spoken language, because the essence of zen is “the unsymbolization of the world” . A very difficult “concept” to grasp, because in zen, what we’re trying to be “free” of is exactly that — all symbolization and conceptualization.

Zen instead seeks direct life experience, without the filters of language, concept, or interpretation. Overly thinking robs us of the richness of the natural order.

A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Experiencing something is not only thinking about it.
Is said " An emotion may be analyses to death. We can break it down to biochemical processes, and electrical signals. But that is standing outside the suchness of those emotions. Philosophy, science, logic and religion, can also be picked apart as nerve cells firing, useful to know how, but does not replace the richness of those thoughts of those topics. For instance, the color blue is experienced. Seeing it is not measuring and calculating the wavelength.

Life's wonders must be directly experienced. "Tathātā" is the direct interaction with everything possible. It is circular only because it can not be defined into contingent parts. It is what it is, refers to itself.

Zen speaks a of this directness. Words are how we communicate and specify, but in subtle ways interfere with the experiences they describe

Zen practice is difficult (some would say impossible) to explain using written or spoken language, because the essence of zen is “the unsymbolization of the world” . A very difficult “concept” to grasp, because in zen, what we’re trying to be “free” of is exactly that — all symbolization and conceptualization.

Zen instead seeks direct life experience, without the filters of language, concept, or interpretation. Overly thinking robs us of the richness of the natural order.

A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

Turtles, toads and centipedes? That's all you've got? Were you deprived of pets when you were a kid?

And you need to pass the word along to all physicists that "overly thinking robs of the richness of the natural order."

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you need to pass the word along to all physicists that "overly thinking robs of the richness of the natural order."

Physics is all about discovering the natural order. And it's beautiful.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Turtles, toads and centipedes? That's all you've got? Were you deprived of pets when you were a kid?

And you need to pass the word along to all physicists that "overly thinking robs of the richness of the natural order."

Let's go back to your erroneous assertion you can know the in infinite and whether or not the infinite does not change. Infinity includes anything we can conceive. Including change and no change

[Actor]

Thallus was a historian who some apologists cite as non-biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus. Thallus supposedly wrote of an eclipse following the crucifixion but such an eclipse is impossible during passover since the moon would be on the wrong side of the earth. Moreover no surviving work of Thallus describes any such event. Thallus is supposedly quoted by Africanus but again no surviving work of Africanus contains such a quote.

There was a solar eclipse whose path of totality passed over Syria and Iraq on 24 Nov 20 C.E. but it would not have been visible from Jerusalem.

[Actor]

The Epistle of Barnabas is a Christian document which believers claim to have been written between 70 C.E. and the early 2nd century, however the text of the epistle does not support this claim. The writer describes the temple as "even now being rebuilt." The 2nd temple was never rebuilt nor was any attempt made to rebuild it. Clearly the writer is referring to the building of the 2nd temple so the epistle must have been written sometime around 516 B.C.E. Since the epistle addresses Christians it follows that Christianity must have been around 500 years before the supposed date of the crucifixion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Let's go back to your erroneous assertion you can know the in infinite and whether or not the infinite does not change. Infinity includes anything we can conceive. Including change and no change

That is your assumption. What if infinity transcends the finite? Doesn't the potter transcend the clay pot he has made? Doesn't the artist transcend his artwork on the canvas?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

That is your assumption. What if infinity transcends the finite? Doesn't the potter transcend the clay pot he has made? Doesn't the artist transcend his artwork on the canvas?

No, you assert god is immutable. The only thing you have ton support that claim is your definition of god.

Once again you are projecting the finite, the potter and his pot, out onto the infinite. Your entire thesis is the parts of the whole, those within the whole, may prove the nature of the whole is the same as it's parts.

The fallacy of composition invalidates that thesis, and what you think are all "clever" variations on that same thesis. You cannot assume there is a cosmic potter, because within the universe there is a little one for all little pots

Look, I am not denying something grander than our being, just your version of that grandeur. I will accept you believe in your heart what you do, but when you wander out from faith into an attempt at an "ironclad logical proof", you are wasting everyone's time with stilted pseudo-intellectualiasm.

You become the centipede who has forgotten how his legs work, and is trying to instruct other centipedes which leg goes first.

"A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No, you assert god is immutable. The only thing you have ton support that claim is your definition of god.

Once again you are projecting the finite, the potter and his pot, out onto the infinite. Your entire thesis is the parts of the whole, those within the whole, may prove the nature of the whole is the same as it's parts.

The fallacy of composition invalidates that thesis, and what you think are all "clever" variations on that same thesis. You cannot assume there is a cosmic potter, because within the universe there is a little one for all little pots

Look, I am not denying something grander than our being, just your version of that grandeur. I will accept you believe in your heart what you do, but when you wander out from faith into an attempt at an "ironclad logical proof", you are wasting everyone's time with stilted pseudo-intellectualiasm.

You become the centipede who has forgotten how his legs work, and is trying to instruct other centipedes which leg goes first.

"A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run."

But God is not inherently within the whole. God transcends his creation the way the potter transcends his pot. (You obviously missed this biblical analogy altogether! )

This is precisely why monotheism does not violate any laws of logic.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But God is not inherently within the whole. God transcends his creation the way the potter transcends his pot. (You obviously missed this biblical analogy altogether! )

This is precisely why monotheism does not violate any laws of logic.

Simply because you make that potter, pot analogy, does not mean it is true.

You Aristotle-Aquinas folks use the "prime mover", theory derived from within the finite universe, to project outside the universe, to an infinite creator claiming the finite can determine the nature of that infinite deity.

How can you even know anything of the infinite, particularly when you may be according to your analogy, just a little pot, in a cosmic potters workshop?

And more importantly why should we believe you?

[hcap]

It is ok for you to believe anything you wish, but please don't present the prime mover theory as "ironclad logical proof" for a deity.

It can't be proven logically oh great logician.

Try again.

It's only been 17+ years you have been at it since I have witnessed you attempt it.
A bit repetitious.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Simply because you make that potter, pot analogy, does not mean it is true.

You Aristotle-Aquinas folks use the "prime mover", theory derived from within the finite universe, to project outside the universe, to an infinite creator claiming the finite can determine the nature of that infinite deity.

How can you even know anything of the infinite, particularly when you may be according to your analogy, just a little pot, in a cosmic potters workshop?

And more importantly why should we believe you?

The prime mover theory is derived from both within and without the universe. Just as the potter interacts with (designs, shapes, form) his created pot, likewise God is proactive with his creation. He is so proactive that every second of the universe's existence is contingent upon God's preserving, sustaining power.

A couple of years or so ago I posted Dr. Feser's example of this divine sustaining, preserving power by the Unmoved Mover with his great hand, stick and stone illustration. If you want, I can post that excerpt from his book again.

I can know something about the infinite because he is a personal, intelligent, moral being and he has chosen to reveal many things about himself and his creation through his prophets, apostles and finally through his only Begotten Son -- to everyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see.

[hcap]

Experimentally, the prime mover is a bit shaky...
Metaphysics often gets updated and refined scientifically.

Of course quantum theory was not around when Aristotle and Aquinas pondered.

Actor and I have mentioned quantum fluctuations before.

You and Aristotle and Aquinas believe that nothing can be a cause of itself . Something can NOT come out of nothing, so you folks explain how something, was caused by something, and that caused by something, ad infinitum.....eventually leading back to god.

However, on the sub-atomic level, in quantum theory, particles come in and out of existence without a detectable cause. This shows that a cause for everything is not always necessary and some events could be triggered by the random contingent nature of these particles, without the need for a first cause.

So then on the human scale of things dominoes knock each other over as Aristotle predicted. But how come it does not work on the sub atomic level? Did god not really create neutrons, protons photons and quarks?