Religion II

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

boxie never answers anything to anyone's satisfaction except his own.

He is convinced only a creator can be eternal for some
incomprehensible reason and therefore only the eternal can be the "first cause"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Do you even know what model means, let alone map? Or are you sure how to spell " patheistic" [sic], Shirley?

You are suffering from Alzheimer Shirley. Who created the creator is a classical
philosophical debate we discussed some pages back which you never answered to anyones satisfaction.

Of course, I answered the question! See my 5981 and 5995! I keep telling you that you are totally shot!

To sum up what I said, however, to Mr. Pirate, I stated that an eternal entity cannot by definition have any origin because for a thing to have an origin it must have a beginning.

Also, an eternal entity cannot, again, by definition have been caused, since only entities that have origins (i.e. have come into existence in space and time) require a cause. Therefore, the question you raise is utterly stupid, revealing that you don't have the first clue of what "eternal" means!

Finally, because of the above facts there can be no such thing as infinite regression with an eternal entity -- an entity that has no beginning or end, that is timeless, everlasting and of infinite duration. Infinite regression can only occur with finite entities to which we can trace no ultimate cause. This is why the I AM simply IS!

I can explain this to you and your sidekick Actor, but I can't make this dynamic tag team duo of Humpty and Dumpty understand it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

boxie never answers anything to anyone's satisfaction except his own.

That's what everyone says who can offer a coherent rebuttal.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

To sum up what I said, however, to Mr. Pirate, I stated that an eternal entity cannot by definition have any origin because for a thing to have an origin it must have a beginning.

There is no reason, your "eternal entity" cannot be the universe alone or Einstein's' and Spinoza's pantheistic universe/god combination. Just repeating the same unfounded statement repetitiously does not make it so

Also, an eternal entity cannot, again, by definition have been caused, since only entities that have origins (i.e. have come into existence in space and time) require a cause. Therefore, the question you raise is utterly stupid, revealing that you don't have the first clue of what "eternal" means!

Meaningless! Once again. There is no reason, your "eternal entity" cannot be the universe alone or Einstein's' and Spinoza's pantheistic universe/god combination. Therefore your version of cause and effect applies the same illogical way.
Just repeating the same unfounded statement repetitiously does not make it so

Finally, because of the above facts there can be no such thing as infinite regression with an eternal entity -- an entity that has no beginning or end, that is timeless, everlasting and of infinite duration. Infinite regression can only occur with finite entities to which we can trace no ultimate cause. This is why the I AM simply IS!

I just showed your above "facts" are not true

I can explain this to you and your sidekick Actor, but I can't make this dynamic tag team duo of Humpty and Dumpty understand it.

You are your own "tag team".
Duplicitous 1 and duplicitous 2.

Or if you like, bunky 1 and 2

[Actor]

1. The Big Bang occurred. We know this because, for one thing, we can observe the cosmic microwave background radiation.
2. The universe has no center. We know this because we observe the CMB in every direction.
3. If the universe has no center then space cannot be flat, i.e., space is elliptical. This means that if you follow a straight line far enough (billions of light years) you will come back to where you started. All straight lines are finite (having a definite length) and unbounded (having no ends).

We specify a point in space with three numbers x,y,z. Four numbers are required to specify a point in spacetime: x,y,z,t.

x,y,z are limited to values less than 2 x pi. x 13.8 billion light years.

There are four possibilities for values of t:

• the values of t could be infinite, extending infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future.
• they could have a definite boundary in the past and extend infinitely into the future.
• they could extend infinitely into the past and have a definite boundary in the future.
• values of t could be like values of x,y,z, i.e., finite and unbounded.

If x,y,z and finite and unbounded then it seems unlikely that the fourth number in the ordered quadruple x,y,z,t would not also be finite and unbounded. This is admittedly a philosophical view since I cannot, at this time, offer any way to verify or falsify it. That is not to say that I, or someone else, will not think of a way to test it in the future.

If the universe is finite and unbounded then that means that the past and the future are the same.

More tomorrow.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, an eternal entity cannot, again, by definition have been caused, since only entities that have origins (i.e. have come into existence in space and time) require a cause. .

I think you are saying since causality is n effect for everything in the universe, the universe as a whole must also follow the same law of causality.

We have had this conversation before.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...of-Composition


Fallacy of Composition

(also known as: composition fallacy, exception fallacy, faulty induction)

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

Example #1:

Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.

Example #2:

Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet. Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.

Example #3:

Your brain is made of molecules. Molecules do not have consciousness. Therefore, your brain cannot be the source of consciousness.
.................................................. .........................


Therefore you may not infer the whole is a continuation of the inner workings of the whole logically. It may be in certain things and processes within the universe do scale up, but scaling up to infirmity is one of the things we have no evidence of to make that leap of faith.

[hcap]

Furthermore, causality itself breaks down on the quantum level. Once again your macroscopic human scale of laws are not so clear just like your idolized law of non-contradiction, on the sub atomic level.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html

"One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one. The findings will be published this week in Nature Communications"

Box, do yourself a favor and study Actor's science lessons. You are an abject failure when you venture into science out of your erroneous cloisters of biblical Christianity. As I told you when we first started discussing religion, I will accept your beliefs as faith and personal experience, but using science, logic and mathematics only fatally demolishes your public face.

I have had personal experiences I can not intellectually analyses, but unless maybe you know me personally, I can not "hoist up" my experiences as fact and influence anyone. Some people of faith only wind up...

Hoist with his own petard

Shakespeare again.

"Hoist with his own petard" is a Shakespearean idiom from Hamlet meaning "to cause the bomb maker to be blown up with his own bomb". (A petard is a small bomb used for blowing up gates and walls when breaching fortifications).

[hcap]

Furthermore, causality itself breaks down on the quantum level. Once again your macroscopic human scale of laws are not so clear just like your idolized law of non-contradiction, on the sub atomic level.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html

"One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one. The findings will be published this week in Nature Communications"

[hcap]

I will repeat this....

Box, whenever you venture out of the smugness of your erroneous cloistered biblical Christianity into science, logic and mathematics, you wind up demolishing your public face. As I told you years ago, I will accept your beliefs as an article of faith. I have had experiences I cannot analyse intellectually. However I have no pretensions I can influence or convince anyone of their validity, except by drawing on the glimpses of occasional bits of truth I have had.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

There is no reason, your "eternal entity" cannot be the universe alone or Einstein's' and Spinoza's pantheistic universe/god combination. Just repeating the same unfounded statement repetitiously does not make it so

Meaningless! Once again. There is no reason, your "eternal entity" cannot be the universe alone or Einstein's' and Spinoza's pantheistic universe/god combination. Therefore your version of cause and effect applies the same illogical way.
Just repeating the same unfounded statement repetitiously does not make it so

I just showed your above "facts" are not true


You are your own "tag team".
Duplicitous 1 and duplicitous 2.

Or if you like, bunky 1 and 2

As I said, I can explain it to you, but can't make you understand it.

The universe cannot logically be eternal because whatever is eternal is by nature is pure existence. But whatever is pure existence in its essence cannot change, and I explained why previously. For the universe to be eternal it would have to be IMMUTABLE, which the universe is not. Since there IS all this change in the universe, this violates the Law of Identity.

Also, as stated earlier, since the universe is full of change everywhere, there is no way to say with certainty that the universe did not change from a state of non-existence into a state of existence OR that the universe will change from a state of existence into a state of non-existence.

Another insurmountable problem with this lame theory of an eternal universe is a little item called TIME. Time, of course, is an expression of all this change that we see and experience in this universe. And Time is successiveness of Motion. Time is a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from Past through Present to Future. (M-W tracing the flow of time chronologically, no doubt. ) . Time is actually measurable periods. But how can this possibly be in an eternal universe? It's not possible that anything can be measured in an entity that's essence is eternal.

Try to wrap your mind around this: Eternity and Time are mutually exclusive categories. Therefore, the model of an eternal universe would
also violate the Law of Noncontradiction. If the universe were truly eternal, not only would Time not exist but none of us would or could have a sense of Time. Not one of us! Time would be as alien concept to us as would be eating our own feces, eating our own flesh from our bodies raw, throwing our bodies into a raging fire or holding our breath for an indefinite period of time! But if you say that Time is "merely" a construct of the human mind -- that Time isn't real -- it's just an illusion, then it must be explained how this kind of construct could have possibly entered the infinite human mind since we ourselves would have to be an integral part of this eternal universe -- being a product of it. It would be easier to postulate the creature alfjaljho;rweqksnalaklsfoqiwjksdfnawljoqi in our mind than to postulate what would be a totally foreign concept as Time in an INHERENTLY eternal environment. In such an environment, Time would necessarily have to be outside human experience! Just as our finite minds in this finite universe cannot wrap our minds around the length, breadth or height of eternity, likewise our infinite minds in an infinite universe would not be able to grasp the concept of the limitations to Time. (Our minds would have to be infinite, for how could the infinite produce that which is contrary to itself? Oops...the Law of Identity again!)

As stated often, the model of an eternal universe runs into two brick walls -- The Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction. This goes whether you postulate an atheistic universe or a pantheistic one. For the same problems as stated above would apply in either model. In your lame god-universe model, you're just adding another layer of complexity which does nothing to mitigate the insurmountable problems stated above. But with biblical theism, no such problems exist; for the eternal God is immutable and transcendent. Therefore, biblical theism violates none of the laws of logic.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As I said, I can explain it to you, but can't make you understand it.

The universe cannot logically be eternal because whatever is eternal is by nature pure existence. But whatever is pure existence in its essence cannot change, and I explained why previously. For the universe to be eternal it would have to be IMMUTABLE, which the universe is not. Since there IS all this change in the universe, this violates the Law of Identity.

What part of nature says "The universe cannot logically be eternal because whatever is eternal is by nature pure existence."

What is "pure existence"?
What is immutable?

Some would say.....

“The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change -”
― Heraclitus

Immutable as you and your set of ritual cats maybe?

A Zen ritual cat....

When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, a cat who lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them. One day the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice.

Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up. Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice and your collection of ritual cats



BTW, didn't the nature of the Jude-Christian god change from the OT to the NT?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... whatever is eternal is by nature is pure existence.

Is this an article of faith or can you prove it?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What part of nature says "The universe cannot logically be eternal because whatever is eternal is by nature pure existence."

What is "pure existence"?
What is immutable?

Some would say.....

Logic would dictate that that whatever is eternal in its essence cannot change. The Law of Identity REQUIRES this. And the Laws of Logic trump your "laws of nature". But if you insist that that which is inherently eternal can change, then neither you or anyone else can say with certainty that this universe didn't come into existence by changing from a state of non-existence or that it will go out of existence by changing into a state of non-existence. You leave both these doors open.

“The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change -”
― Heraclitus

Then the universe cannot be eternal. But apart from this, the above "maxim" is not true! There are things that cannot change. Again, I refer you to the Law of Identity.

Of course, in your teeny, tiny universe which houses your web-filled, dust-infested attic, if you think that the Law of Identity is also an invalid law of logic, then please humor us with your attempts to disprove/invalidate this law.

Immutable as you and your set of ritual cats maybe?

A Zen ritual cat....

When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, a cat who lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them. One day the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice.

Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up. Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice and your collection of ritual cats

Both the spiritual leaders and their disciples of Zen were monsters for violating the laws of humaneness by cruel and unusual punishment of innocent cats. So much for compassion in Zen.

BTW, didn't the nature of the Jude-Christian god change from the OT to the NT?

No it did not! Go back and read what I posted about the Incarnation of Christ a couple of weeks ago. The preincarnate Christ's divine nature did not change when God added a human nature to Christ. Both natures at once occupied Jesus' body. Jesus was fully divine and fully human -- not half and half.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Is this an article of faith or can you prove it?

Anything that is inherently eternal must also be inherently at its very core by pure existence. What else could an eternal entity possiblhy be? Again, bone up on the Law of Identity.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

Is this an article of faith or can you prove it?

He just proved it is an article of faith. Along with all of his proclamations from on high