Existence of God

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kruzkal
Warning! By participating (i.e. posting) in this thread, you agree to the following terms:


Logic applies to everything (i.e. without exceptions).

An argument is invalid if it contains any logical contradictions.

I declare fully, the definition of each word I use that have subjective definitions (i.e. god, omnipotent and omniscient) before I make any arguments.

I declare fully, all my assumptions before I make any arguments.

I declare fully, all my assertions before I make any arguments.

I provide evidence to prove or at least support my arguments.

If I fail to meet any of the terms listed here. Moderators reserve the right to modify and/or delete my posts.

If I fail to meet any of the terms listed here. All other perticipants reserve the right to egnore all my posts in its entirety.



The subject of debate:
Does god(s) exist? If so, which one(s)? Any brave "rational" theists around here? Please explain your case !

__________________

Nobody's perfect
I am a nobody
Therefore
I am perfect


Hello Kruzkal. I will take your bait. BTW, nice self portrait on your website. I am a Christian theist. The existence of God is based on a basic law of logic, ie the Law of Causality and its corollary the Law of Sufficient Cause. The law of causality states that all effects require a cause. Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect, therefore it requires a Cause. Also that cause must be sufficient to produce the effect. And part of the effect is that personal beings exist in it, therefore whatever caused the effect must be sufficient to produce the personal. And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God. And there are other characteristics of the universe that point to the Christian God benig the cause. Therefore now you know that Christianity's foundation, ie the existence of a personal God, IS rational contrary to yours and other atheists assumptions.

[Jobar]

Kruzkal, you are of course free to do this, but I and the other EoG mods advise against it. Ed is not known here for rational and meaningful discourse.

If you want to though, feel free- in ~E~. Jobar, mod.

[Bible Humper]

Hi Ed,

The existence of God is based on a basic law of logic, ie the Law of Causality and its corollary the Law of Sufficient Cause. The law of causality states that all effects require a cause.

Well, why are deities exempt from this but not universes or multiverses? The only way this could be considered sufficient to justify belief itself is if you could demonstrate that the existence of the universe CAN'T be explained by nature, not just that it HASN'T.

At best, this could lead to agnosticism regarding SUPERNATURE, since I doubt you know more than the top physicists, who themselves haven't unraveled this mystery.

And this ONLY could lead to agnosticism regarding SUPERNATURE in general, not theism specifically. How do you know that this supernature isn't an animistic force?



Also that cause must be sufficient to produce the effect. And part of the effect is that personal beings exist in it, therefore whatever caused the effect must be sufficient to produce the personal. And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

This is terrible logic.

Only persons can create the personal? WTF?

Since I'm assuming that you are talking about souls in a roundabout way here, I think that you need to read up on some psychology and demystify the human mind, my man. Read about the Milgram experiments and see how many of our responses to things are automatic. Sure, it SEEMS to us that our minds are a seemless whole, and that includes the process that gives us that sense of self-awareness, so it feels like we are in total control of our decisions, but it just isn't so.

Ugh, don't want to go too off topic but the Milgram experiment shows that questions of MORALITY, which is supposed to be the bailwick of the "soul", are influenced by our natural instinct to defer to authority. If it was just a question of whether you had a good soul or not, in order to administer harmful shocks to the subject, authority would not influence your decision. This is just one example.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jobar
Kruzkal, you are of course free to do this, but I and the other EoG mods advise against it. Ed is not known here for rational and meaningful discourse.

If you want to though, feel free- in ~E~. Jobar, mod.


Why was this thread moved here from the Existence of God board? It was on-topic and serious. This could not be because atheists do not want to face the truth could it? Censorship by placing in a board that hardly anyone will look at.:rolleyes:

[Laci]

"Why was this thread moved here from the Existence of God board? It was on-topic and serious. This could not be because atheists do not want to face the truth could it? Censorship by placing in a board that hardly anyone will look at. Ed"


Yes it could, Ed, have been moved for that very reason. But don't give up. There are few of us around here.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Ed
And part of the effect is that personal beings exist in it, therefore whatever caused the effect must be sufficient to produce the personal. And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

Non-sequitor.

[Keith Russell]

ed, every 'cause' is also an 'effect', of an earlier 'cause'.

So, what caused 'God'?

K

[Ed]

Originally posted by Bible Humper
Hi Ed,
Ed: The existence of God is based on a basic law of logic, ie the Law of Causality and its corollary the Law of Sufficient Cause. The law of causality states that all effects require a cause.

bh: Well, why are deities exempt from this but not universes or multiverses?

Deities are not exempt from this. But the Christian God is not an effect and therefore does not need a cause. Something can logically be a cause without being an effect.

bh: The only way this could be considered sufficient to justify belief itself is if you could demonstrate that the existence of the universe CAN'T be explained by nature, not just that it HASN'T.

It cannot be be explained by something within nature. It is logically impossible for something to create itself, ie nature cannot cause its own existence. So its cause must be "outside" nature, ie supernatural.

bh: At best, this could lead to agnosticism regarding SUPERNATURE, since I doubt you know more than the top physicists, who themselves haven't unraveled this mystery.

But with basic knowledge of logic we can judge whether a scientist's theory is logical. Even some of the greatest scientists sometimes make mistakes of logic, unwittingly.

bh: And this ONLY could lead to agnosticism regarding SUPERNATURE in general, not theism specifically. How do you know that this supernature isn't an animistic force?

Because we can learn from the characteristics of the universe what the cause of the universe is mostly likely to be like.


Ed: Also that cause must be sufficient to produce the effect. And part of the effect is that personal beings exist in it, therefore whatever caused the effect must be sufficient to produce the personal. And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

bh: This is terrible logic.

Only persons can create the personal? WTF?

Only persons can produce personal communication, personal relationships, and etc. How is this terrible logic?

bh: Since I'm assuming that you are talking about souls in a roundabout way here, I think that you need to read up on some psychology and demystify the human mind, my man. Read about the Milgram experiments and see how many of our responses to things are automatic. Sure, it SEEMS to us that our minds are a seemless whole, and that includes the process that gives us that sense of self-awareness, so it feels like we are in total control of our decisions, but it just isn't so.

If that is the case then your view is self refuting. Because you and these experiments are providing evidence for a certain view, but your view is that we cannot truly make decisions therefore your conclusions are not based on the evidence but rather just the chemistry of your brain.

bh: Ugh, don't want to go too off topic but the Milgram experiment shows that questions of MORALITY, which is supposed to be the bailwick of the "soul", are influenced by our natural instinct to defer to authority. If it was just a question of whether you had a good soul or not, in order to administer harmful shocks to the subject, authority would not influence your decision. This is just one example.

See above about how this view is self refuting and also provide evidence that we have a natural instinct to defer to authority. Have you ever raised children? Children naturally REBEL against authority.

[Godless Dave]

Great White sharks are predators.

Only a predator can create another predator.

Therefore, God is a predator.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...Sheesh.

Ed's still recycling THAT argument, even though it's been thoroughly demolished several times already?

"Only persons can produce the personal" is, of course, utter tripe.

As Ed already knows, I have a cat that can produce the personal (presonal communication, with me). Furthermore, under "Eddian logic", God must be a cow, because only cows can produce the cowish.

And so on (and on, and on...)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Laci
"Why was this thread moved here from the Existence of God board? It was on-topic and serious. This could not be because atheists do not want to face the truth could it? Censorship by placing in a board that hardly anyone will look at. Ed"


Yes it could, Ed, have been moved for that very reason. But don't give up. There are few of us around here.

Thanks for the encouragement Laci. I am afraid my hunch is proving to be true, look at the response I got in the "Bugs and Complaints" forum. BTW, I am in SC too!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Godless Dave

Originally posted by Ed
And part of the effect is that personal beings exist in it, therefore whatever caused the effect must be sufficient to produce the personal. And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

dave: Non-sequitor.


In what way?

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by Ed
Thanks for the encouragement Laci. I am afraid my hunch is proving to be true, look at the response I got in the "Bugs and Complaints" forum.

It's true, we live in fear of you. Our membership has declined at a 30% annual rate since you signed up, so many have converted. In our plush New York offices, where we handle the Evil Atheist Conspiracy in conjunction with the ACLU, the EPA, and the AMA, panic infests the corridors. Employees gather in small groups at the water machine to whisper your name, as a talisman against the entrenched II bureacracy, bent on protecting its high pay and cushy hours.

I go now to read some Bertrand Russell, as II demands of every poster who interacts with Ed.

Vorkosigan

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Ed
In what way?

You are just asserting that only the personal can create the personal. It would help if you defined what you mean by "personal". But even if you did that you would have to back up your assertion. Also, see my post re: carnivores.

[King Rat]

It's true, we live in fear of you. Our membership has declined at a 30% annual rate since you signed up, so many have converted. In our plush New York offices, where we handle the Evil Atheist Conspiracy in conjunction with the ACLU, the EPA, and the AMA, panic infests the corridors. Employees gather in small groups at the water machine to whisper your name, as a talisman against the entrenched II bureacracy, bent on protecting its high pay and cushy hours.


HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cough, sip of water...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D :D :D

[Daggah]

Originally posted by Ed
Thanks for the encouragement Laci. I am afraid my hunch is proving to be true, look at the response I got in the "Bugs and Complaints" forum. BTW, I am in SC too!

And people wonder why I hate this state...

By the way Ed, it should be telling that the only person supporting you here is a known troll.

Also by the way, how many times does this pathetic argument need to be refuted? Really, you're just wasting bandwidth.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Keith Russell
ed, every 'cause' is also an 'effect', of an earlier 'cause'.

So, what caused 'God'?

K


No, something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

[Daggah]

Originally posted by Ed
No, something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

Therefore the Big Bang is a cause, and not an effect, and therefore does not need a cause.

Argument over. You've lost. Go home.

[Mageth]

The law of causality states that all effects require a cause.
...
Something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

Your arguments get you to "something caused the universe." And only that far, as illustrated by many on this thread.

Godless Dave said:

And part of the effect is that personal beings exist in it, therefore whatever caused the effect must be sufficient to produce the personal.

So, somebody goes into an abandoned building one night, drinks a bottle of whisky, and tosses the empty bottle into a pile of rubbish. Next day, the sun comes up and shines on the building. About 10 am, the sun shines in a window of the building. The sun strikes the whisky bottle, which focuses the sun's rays on the rubbish, which catches on fire, which ignites the building, which burns down.

Now, was the sunshine sufficient to burn down the building? No. Was the rubbish? No. Was the whisky bottle? No. Now, in combination, something emerged from all these components - a tiny spot of heat, sufficient to ignite the rubbish and burn down the building.

Lesson from this simplistic example? Synergetic effects (e.g. the fire, and the personal) can, and do, arise from a combination of components, events, and principles, none of which are individually a sufficient cause for the effect. In other words, whatever caused the universe did not have to be "sufficient" by itself to produce the personal; once the universe got started, what we observe in the universe, including ourselves, synergetically emerged from the components of the universe interacting according to the natural principles of the universe.

[niggle]

Originally posted by Ed
Why was this thread moved here from the Existence of God board? It was on-topic and serious. This could not be because atheists do not want to face the truth could it? Censorship by placing in a board that hardly anyone will look at.:rolleyes:

All Ed has done is given us the Old "every effect must have a cause" canard. :rolleyes:

We used to have trolls like you and Laci (anyone remember Eternal?) post these simpleton arguments on a near daily basis.

The moderators of this board wisely decided to move all of the old, constantly refuted already arguments like yours, to a "Rants, Raves, and Preachings" forum which I guess was renamed the "Elsewhere." It was humorous for awhile, but eventually...

:banghead:

You have done nothing give us the "everything must have a cause" and then argued your God as an exception to the rule.

For your next trick I imagine you'll give us a version of Pascal's Wager, and then refuse to admit that's what you've done.

[Mr. Neutron]

Originally posted by Ed
This could not be because atheists do not want to face the truth could it?

Pardon me, but what exactly is the color of the sky in this little world you inhabit?

[Vorkosigan]

Well Ed, since you wanted this in EoG, we're sending it back. Enjoy your stay in the Big Leagues.

I feel like Ardneh telling John Ominor Thy wish is granted.

Vorkosigan

[GunnerJ]

I'm still waiting for him to bring up his brilliant "diversity within a unity" argument.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Great White sharks are predators.

Only a predator can create another predator.

Therefore, God is a predator.


Yes, there are aspects of what it takes to produce a predator in God, but since there exists things far more complex than great white sharks, ie persons, we know that He is far more than that. Also we know that some predators are produced by natural processes(microevolution), ie grasshopper mice from herbivorous mice. So it is not a complex process and did not necessarily REQUIRE a personal cause, but we know from experience that personal things DO require personal causes.

[Daggah]

but we know from experience that personal things DO require personal causes.

No, we don't.

[Jack the Bodiless]

but since there exists things far more complex than great white sharks, ie persons, we know that He is far more than that.
"Persons" are far more complex than sharks (or cows)?
Also we know that some predators are produced by natural processes(microevolution), ie grasshopper mice from herbivorous mice.
...How do we know this?

Similar evidence allows us to know that humans evolved from (other) apes. Therefore we know that the personal can be produced by non-persons.

Not that you've ever provided an adequate definition of "personal", of course. Maybe all apes are persons anyhow?
but we know from experience that personal things DO require personal causes.
As Daggah said: "No, we don't". In fact, we know from experience that many personal things DO NOT require personal causes.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Sheesh.

Ed's still recycling THAT argument, even though it's been thoroughly demolished several times already?

"Only persons can produce the personal" is, of course, utter tripe.

As Ed already knows, I have a cat that can produce the personal (presonal communication, with me). Furthermore, under "Eddian logic", God must be a cow, because only cows can produce the cowish.

And so on (and on, and on...)


Yes, but the primary mode of personal communication is propositional and cats cannot do that. See my post above about sharks and predators, this also applies to cows.

[Xeno]

Too bad no one takes the law of causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause seriously anymore. Where have you been for the last two thousand years?

[Thomas Metcalf]

Originally posted by Ed :

And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

I think you could have started and ended your argument with that sentence.

I would worry about how you think we learned that only persons can produce the personal. Do you think we're in a position to observe the personal being produced by anything other than a person? There have been several suggestions for how persons could have been produced by non-persons, chief among them the Theory of Evolution. Even if the Theory of Evolution weren't correct in this world, it is easy to see how it could be. So I don't think you can say that only persons can produce persons.

Another way to object to your argument is to observe that only limited persons can produce limited persons, according to our experience. Therefore, the ultimate cause of persons must be a limited person.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Yes, but the primary mode of personal communication is propositional and cats cannot do that.
Mine can.
See my post above about sharks and predators, this also applies to cows.
Nope, see previous posts.

And if the whole basis of "only persons can produce the personal" is your (erroneous) claim that "throughout human history, only persons have been observed to produce the personal", I'd just like to point out that God cannot produce the Universe. This has never been observed throughout human history. Even the Bible says that no humans observed this. So it's clearly impossible.

[Spenser]

Ed,

It would be great if you could actually demonstrate how things are logical and not just say that they are.

Originally posted by Ed
No, something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

Um, why? I smell assertion, I was hoping for some support on this. It seems you think you can slide this argument by simply by changing the word everything to 'all effects'. So because everything would include God, he would also require a cause however if you can think of a way to exclude God from everything else then you might be on to something. Wrong, this seems like nothing more than an attempt to weasel a way around an already weak argument.



Originally posted by Ed
Deities (wait, I thought you only believed in one) are not exempt from this (If you only believe in one, and yours is exempt from this then you've just stated something you do not believe). But the Christian God is not an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

The rest of this is assertions. How exactly do you know the Xian God is not an effect? Just saying so doesn't make it true. If making assertions is the best you can do then there really isn't much to discuss. Especially if you are going to avoid things like defining personal and explain how only persons can produce the personal... :rolleyes:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
You are just asserting that only the personal can create the personal. It would help if you defined what you mean by "personal". But even if you did that you would have to back up your assertion. Also, see my post re: carnivores.

Persons are beings that have a will, conscience, emotions, and a mind.

[Jack the Bodiless]

So psychopaths aren't persons?

Whereas my cat IS a person?

[Volker]

Now lets reevaluate the argument:

(1) Everything has a cause.
(2) The universe must have a cause.
(C) This cause we say is god.

We assume that this is true. Now if we say everything has a cause, god must have a cause. So we have an indefinite chain of causes.

If we have an indefinite chain of causes, nothing could have been created. So there ist no creator of anything.

The christian god ist defined as the creator of the universe. The universe can't have a creator, because it is just a part of an indefinite chain.

Therefore, the christian god does not exist, the universe just existed for an eternity.

(Most of the proofs can be used to show that god does not exist, if you remove the false logic from the proofs. After you have done that for a few proofs, most theists will retreat to the line that god cannot be proven. You've converted them to agnosticism, though they won't admit that. Its always fun to watch.)

[GunnerJ]

Volker,

As much as I hate to play any sort of devil's advocate here, this is not Ed's argument. I know, I have experience with it.

Ed's saying that all effects have a cause (by definition), and that the presence of certain properties will show something to be an effect, and that the Universe has all these properties, and therefore must have a cause (as do all effects).

The real problems with this argument are that his list of properties that show something to be an effect are shaky at best, and their application to the Universe is tenuous. Also, his method of determining that the J/C God is the cause is batshit insane.

See ya.

[Arvel Joffi]

Ed, do you see that even if your "sufficient cause" made sense, then you haven't proven that it was a Christian God at all, only that some supernatural force made the universe. I prefer to think of that supernatural force as "Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar, and he was before aught else was made," but that's just a personal preference.

Also, any supernatural force is simply one that operates outside of the laws of nature. The closer you get to the Big Bang, the more the laws of nature, as known, break down. So any force at that time would be considered supernatural. It doesn't necessarily have to be a vengeful, anthropomorphic, and multiple-personality-stricken homophobe, now, does it?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
It's true, we live in fear of you. Our membership has declined at a 30% annual rate since you signed up, so many have converted. In our plush New York offices, where we handle the Evil Atheist Conspiracy in conjunction with the ACLU, the EPA, and the AMA, panic infests the corridors. Employees gather in small groups at the water machine to whisper your name, as a talisman against the entrenched II bureacracy, bent on protecting its high pay and cushy hours.

I go now to read some Bertrand Russell, as II demands of every poster who interacts with Ed.

Vorkosigan


Pretty funny Vork! I never thought you had a sense of humor!;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by Daggah

Originally posted by Ed
Thanks for the encouragement Laci. I am afraid my hunch is proving to be true, look at the response I got in the "Bugs and Complaints" forum. BTW, I am in SC too!


dag: And people wonder why I hate this state...

By the way Ed, it should be telling that the only person supporting you here is a known troll.

Also by the way, how many times does this pathetic argument need to be refuted? Really, you're just wasting bandwidth.



Well, why don't you move? She is not a troll, she probably just doesn't want to be insulted for her beliefs. Provide one example where this argument was refuted.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Provide one example where this argument was refuted.
You have been given several, on this very thread.

I suggest you re-read the thread.

[GunnerJ]

Wait, ready, ready...

Provide one example where this argument was refuted.

See our posts on the other thread!

[B. H. Manners]

Hello,


Guy's let's keep things nice and not let the thread slide into ugliness.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Daggah

Originally posted by Ed
No, something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

dag: Therefore the Big Bang is a cause, and not an effect, and therefore does not need a cause.

Argument over. You've lost. Go home.


No, the BB has the characteristics of an effect, ie a beginning, change and etc.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mageth
The law of causality states that all effects require a cause.
...
Something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

Your arguments get you to "something caused the universe." And only that far, as illustrated by many on this thread.

Godless Dave said:

And part of the effect is that personal beings exist in it, therefore whatever caused the effect must be sufficient to produce the personal.

So, somebody goes into an abandoned building one night, drinks a bottle of whisky, and tosses the empty bottle into a pile of rubbish. Next day, the sun comes up and shines on the building. About 10 am, the sun shines in a window of the building. The sun strikes the whisky bottle, which focuses the sun's rays on the rubbish, which catches on fire, which ignites the building, which burns down.

Now, was the sunshine sufficient to burn down the building? No. Was the rubbish? No. Was the whisky bottle? No. Now, in combination, something emerged from all these components - a tiny spot of heat, sufficient to ignite the rubbish and burn down the building.

Lesson from this simplistic example? Synergetic effects (e.g. the fire, and the personal) can, and do, arise from a combination of components, events, and principles, none of which are individually a sufficient cause for the effect. In other words, whatever caused the universe did not have to be "sufficient" by itself to produce the personal; once the universe got started, what we observe in the universe, including ourselves, synergetically emerged from the components of the universe interacting according to the natural principles of the universe.

Yes, all these things together are sufficient and necessary to produce the effect. However, we know from experience that things as complex as persons and characteristics intrinsic to personhood such as personal relationships, can only come from other persons.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Ed
Yes, all these things together are sufficient and necessary to produce the effect. However, we know from experience that things as complex as persons and characteristics intrinsic to personhood such as personal relationships, can only come from other persons.

Two pages later, and you're still just making the same assertion with nothing to back it up.

I'll repeat what I said in my post:

What we observe in the universe, including ourselves, synergetically emerged from the components of the universe interacting according to the natural principles of the universe (see: evolution).

In other words, "persons" emerged from the universe; another way to say it is that we evolved from earlier lifeforms, which evolved from even earlier lifeforms, back to the original lifeform, which emerged from non-life. We are an emergent phenomenon.

There's plenty of evidence to back up evolution; I won't bother repeating it here. In any case, it's sufficient to say that something other than "persons" have generated "persons" at least once on earth, as clearly indicated by the fossil record, etc. So your claim that "we know from experience that things as complex as persons...can only come from other persons" is false, as we know of at least one case where "persons" emerged from "non-persons" or "near-persons" (even if we didn't experience it - how could we? and don't know exactly when it happened).

Note that archaeological and anthropological evidence also allows us to trace back "characteristics intrinsic to personhood", whatever those are, to some degree; it's obvious from the archaeological record and from antrhopological studies that "characteristics intrinsic to personhood" have evolved from "characteristics similar to personhood"; i.e. human social systems have evolved over time from precursor social systems. At one time, our distant ancestors perhaps had a social system similar to chimps or gorillas, or perhaps even baboons.

In any case, my cat and my dog have personal relationships with me and other members of my family. My cat, in particular, has distinctly different personal relationships with me, my wife, and my son. When we had two dogs, the two dogs had quite a distinct personal relationship with each other.

One more thing; I think the idea of "personhood" is very much a human invention, one that evolved along with our evolving social order. "Person" is just a label that we put on members of the species "H. Sapiens" based on the human-created idea of "personhood". In other words, we need no God to explain where the idea of "persons" and "personhood" came from; we invented them, just like we did the idea of God, created in our own image. And, because of evolution, we need posit no god to explain the origin of H. Sapiens.

[Daggah]

Originally posted by Ed
No, the BB has the characteristics of an effect, ie a beginning, change and etc.

How convenient...how did you determine that? Being the origin of the universe sounds more like a cause to me.

Oh, and Laci IS a troll...why don't you look at her post history - especially her posts in political discussion!

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Ed
And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

The reasoning in this post has already been outlined by others but I feel it is worth reiterating that, by a process of attrition, the walls of unreason which surround your thoughts are eroded by the correct application of propositional logic and you are freed.

If the personal can only be created by the personal, and if the god of the Abrahamic Mythos is a person so qualifying him to create further people, then what is the nature of the person which created this personal god ? If people cannot simply be without personal cause then neither can the person of your god.

Your attempt at logic fails and dies. Propositional logic does not end with the final clause in a statement. The meaning of a statement must apply to appropriate terms within that statement. This does not occur with your statement. Your statement is illogical.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Ed
And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

The begetting of the personal does not require an asserted god as explanation. It occurs ever day between men and women. It is carried out each day in vitro. The god of the Abrahamic Mythos did not create us. No gods created us. We create us.

There are no gods. There is no afterlife. Magic does not work. Religious and superstitious belief is cultural junk. We are best rid of it.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Ed
But the Christian God is not an effect and therefore does not need a cause. Something can logically be a cause without being an effect.

No. Everything has a cause.

If you are adamant that the god of the Abrahamic Mythos is not an effect but is definitely a cause, then please describe this thing by reference to Aristotle.

(i) Of what is it composed ?

(ii) What form does it take ?

(iii) How does it come to be ?

(iv) What is it's purpose ?

You have already denied that your mythical god has a cause yet despite this you have asserted that it remains a cause. Causes may be apprehended by meeting the four questions asked above. Please answer these questions. If you cannot provide an answer to each question which is congruent with their meanings then, in the name of Philosophy and the Logic you appeal to, the god of the Abrahamic Mythos is not only without cause but does not have the status of a cause. This being so then your mythical god can have no reality.

Further, having denied the Principle of Causality you have no right to use the word logic in your posts. You may continue to do so yet you will continue to find that others point out errors in your posts. To appeal to logic you must apply logic.

There are no gods. There is no afterlife. Magic does not work. Religious and superstitious belief is cultural junk. We are best rid of it.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Ed]

Originally posted by niggle
All Ed has done is given us the Old "every effect must have a cause" canard. :rolleyes:

We used to have trolls like you and Laci (anyone remember Eternal?) post these simpleton arguments on a near daily basis.

The moderators of this board wisely decided to move all of the old, constantly refuted already arguments like yours, to a "Rants, Raves, and Preachings" forum which I guess was renamed the "Elsewhere." It was humorous for awhile, but eventually...

:banghead:

You have done nothing give us the "everything must have a cause" and then argued your God as an exception to the rule.

For your next trick I imagine you'll give us a version of Pascal's Wager, and then refuse to admit that's what you've done.

No, the law of causality is not everything must have a cause, it is every EFFECT must have a cause. And something can logically be a cause without being an effect. Pascal's wager generally doesn't work with hardcore atheists, they are too close-minded.

[Ed]

Originally posted by GunnerJ
I'm still waiting for him to bring up his brilliant "diversity within a unity" argument.

Thank you! Maybe I will, soon!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Daggah

Ed: but we know from experience that personal things DO require personal causes.


dag: No, we don't.


Ok, provide an empirical example of the impersonal producing the personal.

[Mageth]

Provide an empirical example of a God producing the personal. Producing anything, for that matter.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ok, provide an empirical example of the impersonal producing the personal.
You won't believe that cats can communicate with humans unless you see a video clip?

[Daggah]

Originally posted by Ed
Ok, provide an empirical example of the impersonal producing the personal.

Evolution.

[niggle]

Originally posted by Ed
Pascal's wager generally doesn't work with hardcore atheists, they are too close-minded.

Actually, it doesn't work because we're not as susceptible to scare tactics. Anyway, Pascal's Wager is the smoking gun proof that Christianity is based on fear and not love anyway.

Speaking of which, why were you willing to take this challenge and not my challenge which asked theists how the existence of God would create morality?

[Kruzkal]

Jeez, I was away for a week and this happened . . . lol.

Cause and effect denies god
In his famous essay "Why I am not a Christian (http://www.users.drew.edu/%7Ejlenz/whynot.html)", Bertrand Russell dismisses the Argument From First Cause almost immediately, pointing out that if everything must have a cause, then the question "Who made god?" needs to be asked. At this point, theists have a habit of resorting to special pleading ("Everything except god, I meant"), mystery or just faith.

Invoking an acausal god to avoid the inifinite regression problem is not the answer, however. Solve a mystery with an even greater mystery? I don't think so. It also raises yet more problems (not the least of which would be "What caused god's first action?").

To say that god is the "Prime Mover" or "First Cause" implies that cause-and-effect is a universal, unbroken chain of events leading back through space and time to god. That is to say, every effect has a cause, which in turn has another cause. This is pure determinism, and would mean that the entire universe, ourselves included, is nothing more than a large clockwork toy wound up by god. It denies any form of free will whatsoever, as to make a free action you would have to break the chain of cause-and-effect. Otherwise, all your actions are explicitly determined by previous causes, which in turn have their own causes, right back to before life began and the universe consisted entirely of "atoms banging into each other", and then back to god.

If you believe in truly free will, then it is unreasonable to think that god must have been the First Cause of your universe. There must be a break in the chain somewhere, otherwise all your actions are determined by previous actions, in an unbroken chain originating from god's action. God himself could not break this chain, as to do so would be just another "cause" from which followed all other effects.

It must be possible for some effects ("events" would be a better word) to happen without cause, or you are just a robot following a predetermined path programmed by god.

To accept that there is free will, chance, randomness or acuasality of any sort opens the distinct possibility that the universe itself had no cause. No Prime Mover. No god.

You assertions:
1 - Your specific god exists.
2 - Your specific god has the ability to create the universe.
3 - Only your specific god has the ability to create the universe.
4 - Your specific god created the universe.
5 - It is possible for your specific god to exist without a cause of existence.

You need to provide evidence to prove or at least support them.

Kruzkal's Wager
"It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him/her/it."

__________________

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
-Mohandas Gandhi

[Vorkosigan]

What? This thread is still going on? Reading it is like watching a dog that's been hit by a car struggling to get up and walk.

Vorkosigan

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
What? This thread is still going on? Reading it is like watching a dog that's been hit by a car struggling to get up and walk.

Vorkosigan

or the knight from the holy grail who said, Im not quite dead yet. after all, ed just denies that the car hit him.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Ed
... Pascal's wager generally doesn't work with hardcore atheists, they are too close-minded. I've noticed that believers in Pascal's Wager tend to be totally closed-minded about applications of it to other religions and belief systems. Consider an Islamic version:

If you believe that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet and Islam is true, you will enjoy an eternity of sybaritic joy in the Islamic Paradise, getting to live like a sultan and having a harem of lovelies.

If Islam is false, then you've lost nothing as compared to rejecting Islam.

But if Islam is true and you had rejected it, then you will be sent to Hell, where you will be chained in place, be beaten with iron rods, have filthy boiling water poured down your throat, and be given new skin every time your old one burns off as a result of its superhot fires.

Does anyone want to convert to Islam as a result of this "scenario"?

[JCS]

Does anyone want to convert to Islam as a result of this "scenario"?

Ed?

Pascal's wager generally doesn't work with hardcore atheists, they are too close-minded.

Ed?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Xeno
Too bad no one takes the law of causality and its corollary the law of sufficient cause seriously anymore. Where have you been for the last two thousand years?

Huh? Without the law of causality science is impossible. Where have you been? Obviously not in a science class.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Thomas Metcalf
Originally posted by Ed :

And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.

tm: I think you could have started and ended your argument with that sentence.

I would worry about how you think we learned that only persons can produce the personal. Do you think we're in a position to observe the personal being produced by anything other than a person? There have been several suggestions for how persons could have been produced by non-persons, chief among them the Theory of Evolution. Even if the Theory of Evolution weren't correct in this world, it is easy to see how it could be. So I don't think you can say that only persons can produce persons.

Yes, but given the empirical observations of only persons producing the personal it is the most rational assumption.

tm: Another way to object to your argument is to observe that only limited persons can produce limited persons, according to our experience. Therefore, the ultimate cause of persons must be a limited person.

Limited by what? I am not referring to just the cause of persons, I am referring to the cause of the universe as a whole. We know from logic that the cause of something cannot be part of the effect, ie it must be "outside" the effect. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be transcendent to space and time. Which fits the Christian God. Personhood is just one aspect of that cause.

[JCS]

Therefore, the cause of the universe must be transcendent to space and time. Which fits the Christian God. How many other gods might also fit the bill? Also in case I missed something here, where is the evidence that it was caused?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Yes, but given the empirical observations of only persons producing the personal it is the most rational assumption.
But, given the empirical evidence that you're wrong, it isn't.

...So why continue?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: Yes, but the primary mode of personal communication is propositional and cats cannot do that.

jtb: Mine can.

Ok, provide a sentence that he communicated and explain his syntax and grammatical system.


Ed: See my post above about sharks and predators, this also applies to cows.

jtb: Nope, see previous posts.

And if the whole basis of "only persons can produce the personal" is your (erroneous) claim that "throughout human history, only persons have been observed to produce the personal", I'd just like to point out that God cannot produce the Universe. This has never been observed throughout human history. Even the Bible says that no humans observed this. So it's clearly impossible.

No, it is called rational historical extrapolation, this is done all the time in science.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Spenser
Ed,

It would be great if you could actually demonstrate how things are logical and not just say that they are.


Originally posted by Ed
No, something can logically be a cause without being an effect and therefore does not need a cause.


spenser: Um, why? I smell assertion, I was hoping for some support on this. It seems you think you can slide this argument by simply by changing the word everything to 'all effects'. So because everything would include God, he would also require a cause however if you can think of a way to exclude God from everything else then you might be on to something. Wrong, this seems like nothing more than an attempt to weasel a way around an already weak argument.

No, we can plainly differentiate between causes and effects and therefore, something could logically have all the characteristics of a cause and not an effect and vice versa.



Originally posted by Ed
Deities (wait, I thought you only believed in one) are not exempt from this (If you only believe in one, and yours is exempt from this then you've just stated something you do not believe). But the Christian God is not an effect and therefore does not need a cause.

Mine is not exempt from it.


spenser: The rest of this is assertions. How exactly do you know the Xian God is not an effect? Just saying so doesn't make it true. If making assertions is the best you can do then there really isn't much to discuss. Especially if you are going to avoid things like defining personal and explain how only persons can produce the personal...

Because a communication claiming to be from Him(the Bible), states that he is eternal, ie He does not have a beginning and does not change. Having a beginning and changing are characteristics of effects.

[markfiend]

Originally posted by Ed (About Jack The Bodiless' cat)
Ok, provide a sentence that he communicated and explain his syntax and grammatical system.

Does this mean that if I meet someone with whom I have no common language, I can assume he is not human?

[Jack the Bodiless]

...Apparently so!

Perhaps Ed's definition of "propositional communication" would help. But remember, Ed: a person doesn't have to be able to speak to be capable of communication.

We're building up an interesting picture of those Ed considers to be "sub-human". On the "Foramen magnum placement" thread, Ed has repeatedly argued that short people are sub-human (because their short stature is what disqualifies Australopithecines). He's also eliminated mutes, and apparently non-English-speakers too.

What about those who use tonal languages? Are Polynesians sub-human?
No, it is called rational historical extrapolation, this is done all the time in science.
Like the evolution of humans from (other) apes.
Because a communication claiming to be from Him(the Bible)...
There is no "Book of God" or "Book of Jesus" in the Bible. It is merely a collection of books written by human beings who claim to be "inspired".

In fact, God is quoted as actually saying very little. Most of what Christians believe about God is merely the personal opinions of people like John, Paul, and various OT authors.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
So psychopaths aren't persons?

Whereas my cat IS a person?


Psychopaths have consciences, they are just the opposite of normal persons. Evidence you cat has a conscience?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Volker
Now lets reevaluate the argument:

(1) Everything has a cause.
(2) The universe must have a cause.
(C) This cause we say is god.

We assume that this is true. Now if we say everything has a cause, god must have a cause. So we have an indefinite chain of causes.

If we have an indefinite chain of causes, nothing could have been created. So there ist no creator of anything.

The christian god ist defined as the creator of the universe. The universe can't have a creator, because it is just a part of an indefinite chain.

Therefore, the christian god does not exist, the universe just existed for an eternity.

(Most of the proofs can be used to show that god does not exist, if you remove the false logic from the proofs. After you have done that for a few proofs, most theists will retreat to the line that god cannot be proven. You've converted them to agnosticism, though they won't admit that. Its always fun to watch.)


No, the classical law of causality states that every EFFECT has a cause not every THING. So your attempted refutation fails.

[Ed]

Originally posted by ArvelJoffi
Ed, do you see that even if your "sufficient cause" made sense, then you haven't proven that it was a Christian God at all, only that some supernatural force made the universe. I prefer to think of that supernatural force as "Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Illuvatar, and he was before aught else was made," but that's just a personal preference.

You will have to provide more characteristics of Eru to see if the characteristics of the cause is sufficient to produce the characteristics of the effect, ie the universe. In the case of God they fit very well.

aj: Also, any supernatural force is simply one that operates outside of the laws of nature. The closer you get to the Big Bang, the more the laws of nature, as known, break down. So any force at that time would be considered supernatural. It doesn't necessarily have to be a vengeful, anthropomorphic, and multiple-personality-stricken homophobe, now, does it?

Evidence He has any of those characteristics?

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Ed
Psychopaths have consciences, they are just the opposite of normal persons. Evidence you cat has a conscience?

Ed, psuchopaths don't have a conscience, if by that you mean an ability to express remorse, differentiate between right and wrong or show guilt.

"Conscience", as we may think of it, is a function of many things that don't exactly apply to cats. But conscience is nothing more than a reponse to a stimulus, which is very much applicable to dogs, cats, bears and rabbits.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Ed
Because a communication claiming to be from Him(the Bible), states that he is eternal, ie He does not have a beginning and does not change. Having a beginning and changing are characteristics of effects.

I was going to ask how you could possibly know that the bible actually is a direct communication from God but you made it suspect enough by your use of the word claiming. I have a note in my hand here that is claiming to be wriiten by God; it says all atheists will be allowed into heaven and all others, especially Canadians, will be forced to mow the lawns of hell for eternity. What say you of that?

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Spenser
...especially Canadians, will be forced to mow the lawns of hell for eternity. What say you of that?

Who's running hell, George W. Bush?

I took this same approach with Peter Faulkner way back when. There is validity to it in that Ed, or any Christian, must account for why some sources are accepted while other are not.

[coreyfh]

it seems alot of athiests accuse believers of being intolerant or derogetory or closeminded regarding the athiest position. i have to say that after reading the posts here, people are all the same- you guys are being the same way. as people, we are not all that different, we act in the same ways, we just have different emotional dispositions that cause us to accept different reasonings. as the bible would say, your hearts have been hardened.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by coreyfh
it seems alot of athiests accuse believers of being intolerant or derogetory or closeminded regarding the athiest position.

Because many of them are, as demonstrated by their actions and words, as you demonstrate later in this post.

i have to say that after reading the posts here, people are all the same- you guys are being the same way.

I don't believe any direct harm is going to come to somebody because they believe in this god or that. Many Christians and other theists believe that I and other atheists are going to hell for an eternity of suffering because of my (lack of) belief.

as people, we are not all that different, we act in the same ways, we just have different emotional dispositions that cause us to accept different reasonings.

Trust me, I do not lack belief in god(s) for emotional reasons.

as the bible would say, your hearts have been hardened.

What was that about being "closeminded"? In any case, if that is true, then my lack of belief is not due to any "emotional disposition" that causes me to accept different "reasonings", but due to the actions of the heart-hardener (God, IIRC).

[Spenser]

Originally posted by coreyfh
it seems alot of athiests accuse believers of being intolerant or derogetory or closeminded regarding the athiest position. i have to say that after reading the posts here, people are all the same- you guys are being the same way. as people, we are not all that different, we act in the same ways, we just have different emotional dispositions that cause us to accept different reasonings. as the bible would say, your hearts have been hardened.

..and this proves God how?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Ed, however, is arguing that he can prove the existence of God. By using truly atrocious "reasoning".

It is the bogus nature of his style of argument that we are attacking.

[rdalin]

Originally posted by Ed
No, the classical law of causality states that every EFFECT has a cause not every THING. So your attempted refutation fails.
By this reasoning, we're left with two choices:
1) There are lots of 'THINGS,' every one of which is uncaused. Your supposed God is just one of those things, in which case there's nothing special about him (if you claim there is something special about your God, please tell us what differentiates your God's 'THINGNESS' from all of the other 'THINGS').
2) Everything but God is an 'EFFECT;' your God is the only 'THING.'

My guess is that you're in favor of #2. In that case, I have some questions: what's the difference between a THING and an EFFECT? How do you tell the difference? What is it that makes your God a THING rather than an EFFECT?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You have been given several, on this very thread.

I suggest you re-read the thread.


Just name one.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mageth

Originally posted by Ed
Yes, all these things together are sufficient and necessary to produce the effect. However, we know from experience that things as complex as persons and characteristics intrinsic to personhood such as personal relationships, can only come from other persons.

mag: Two pages later, and you're still just making the same assertion with nothing to back it up.

I'll repeat what I said in my post:

What we observe in the universe, including ourselves, synergetically emerged from the components of the universe interacting according to the natural principles of the universe (see: evolution).

In other words, "persons" emerged from the universe; another way to say it is that we evolved from earlier lifeforms, which evolved from even earlier lifeforms, back to the original lifeform, which emerged from non-life. We are an emergent phenomenon.

There's plenty of evidence to back up evolution; I won't bother repeating it here. In any case, it's sufficient to say that something other than "persons" have generated "persons" at least once on earth, as clearly indicated by the fossil record, etc. So your claim that "we know from experience that things as complex as persons...can only come from other persons" is false, as we know of at least one case where "persons" emerged from "non-persons" or "near-persons" (even if we didn't experience it - how could we? and don't know exactly when it happened).

Note that archaeological and anthropological evidence also allows us to trace back "characteristics intrinsic to personhood", whatever those are, to some degree; it's obvious from the archaeological record and from antrhopological studies that "characteristics intrinsic to personhood" have evolved from "characteristics similar to personhood"; i.e. human social systems have evolved over time from precursor social systems. At one time, our distant ancestors perhaps had a social system similar to chimps or gorillas, or perhaps even baboons.

I am not referring to the process by which the cause produced the effect of persons but rather the ultimate cause of persons. There is no reason for impersonal organisms to evolve into the personal. Impersonal organisms have just as good if not better survival rates than persons or organisms that just have some aspects of personhood like apes. But also impersonal time plus chance has never been empirically observed producing persons or the personal.

mag: In any case, my cat and my dog have personal relationships with me and other members of my family. My cat, in particular, has distinctly different personal relationships with me, my wife, and my son. When we had two dogs, the two dogs had quite a distinct personal relationship with each other.

Truly personal relationships can only be established with propositional communication which cats and dogs are unable to do. But cats and dogs do have some of the more simple aspects of personhood but they do not have the full complement of a person.


mag: One more thing; I think the idea of "personhood" is very much a human invention, one that evolved along with our evolving social order. "Person" is just a label that we put on members of the species "H. Sapiens" based on the human-created idea of "personhood". In other words, we need no God to explain where the idea of "persons" and "personhood" came from; we invented them, just like we did the idea of God, created in our own image. And, because of evolution, we need posit no god to explain the origin of H. Sapiens.

No personhood is more than just an identifying label for a H. sapiens, personhood is everything that makes you who you are. We cannot invent who we are. Did you invent who you are? If so, how? Also, there is evidence that personhood is immaterial so we could not "invent" it. For example, every seven years almost every cell in your body is replaced and yet you still remain you. But if you replace all the parts of a table or even just all the legs it is no longer the same table. This is true of everything that is material.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by Ed
Impersonal time plus chance has never been empirically observed producing persons or the personal.

No? So what would you call reproduction and growth? You know, when atoms derived from food become gametes, which become children, who (with time and a LOT more food atoms) become persons.

(not that children aren't persons)

I mean, forget evolution and the first ape-person coming from non-person parents; there was a time when you and I were just a bunch of disassociated atoms (about as impersonal as you can get). Yet we are here (or at least I am) -- is that empirical enough for you?


Also, there is evidence that personhood is immaterial so we could not "invent" it. For example, every seven years almost every cell in your body is replaced and yet you still remain you. But if you replace all the parts of a table or even just all the legs it is no longer the same table. This is true of everything that is material.

This is your evidence of immateriality?
Loosely speaking, I wouldn't say I was the same person I was seven years ago. I have the feeling of a continuity of identity, for sure; but I can barely recognize myself when I read my diary from way back when.

So I guess it comes down to what you mean by the word "same", and whether you use the same "same" when talking about persons as you do tables.

For instance, if you use the word "same" to mean 'All material properties are identical', then neither the table-with-new-legs or the person-seven-years-later are the "same".

So, what "same" are you talking about?

Cheers

[Jack the Bodiless]

I am not referring to the process by which the cause produced the effect of persons but rather the ultimate cause of persons. There is no reason for impersonal organisms to evolve into the personal. Impersonal organisms have just as good if not better survival rates than persons or organisms that just have some aspects of personhood like apes.
You're saying the intelligence is completely useless?

Intelligence allows organisms which have it to exploit opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be available to them.
But also impersonal time plus chance has never been empirically observed producing persons or the personal.
Again: if you're trying to use this utterly moronic argument, you must accept that it applies to your God. God has never been empirically observed to produce ANYTHING.
Truly personal relationships can only be established with propositional communication which cats and dogs are unable to do.
Another baseless assertion leading to nonsensical results. You still haven't given us your definition of "propositional communication", and now you're assering with no evidence whatsoever that it's necessary for "personal relationships" (also undefined)?

Mutes aren't capable of personal relationships? Ah, but they're not human, I forgot. Especially if they're short Polynesians.

[Wyz_sub10]

Spurious Quirk,

Welcome to IIDB and the worold-famous EoG forum! Please take a moment to drop by the SL and introduce yourself.

Happy posting,

Wyz_sub10,
EoG Moderator

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Spurious Quirk,

Welcome to IIDB and the worold-famous EoG forum! Please take a moment to drop by the SL and introduce yourself.

Happy posting,

Wyz_sub10,
EoG Moderator

Thanks!

One question.....what is the SL? The Secular Lifestyles forum?

Sorry -- I'm not up on my abbreviations.

Also, what does "OP" mean? Opening Post? Opinionated Person? :)

Cheers

[Philosoft]

I think Wyz meant to write "TL" - The Lounge. Please forgive the man; he's new to his administrator duties and The Lounge itself has undergone about 17 name changes in the past 4 minutes or so. And "OP" refers to either "original post" or "original poster."

Cheers,
Philo

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I think Wyz meant to write "TL" - The Lounge. Please forgive the man; he's new to his administrator duties and The Lounge itself has undergone about 17 name changes in the past 4 minutes or so. And "OP" refers to either "original post" or "original poster."

Cheers,
Philo

Thanks.

Cheers

[Wyz_sub10]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I think Wyz meant to write "TL" - The Lounge. Please forgive the man; he's new to his administrator duties and The Lounge itself has undergone about 17 name changes in the past 4 minutes or so. And "OP" refers to either "original post" or "original poster."

Cheers,
Philo

What he said.

Part of the old Lounge name was "Secular Lounge". I only clarify that because I didn't want you to think I was asking that you bare yourself in "Secular Lifestyle." Of course, you're always welcome to do so.

[lpetrich]

I notice that Ed has not commented on the Islamic version of Pascal's Wager. One wonders what he finds unconvincing about it.

[Infidelettante]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
It's true, we live in fear of you. Our membership has declined at a 30% annual rate since you signed up, so many have converted. In our plush New York offices, where we handle the Evil Atheist Conspiracy in conjunction with the ACLU, the EPA, and the AMA, panic infests the corridors. Employees gather in small groups at the water machine to whisper your name, as a talisman against the entrenched II bureacracy, bent on protecting its high pay and cushy hours.

I go now to read some Bertrand Russell, as II demands of every poster who interacts with Ed.

Vorkosigan

No icon could do this one justice. I am awed. And humbled. And so very proud to share a page with such as this.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
The reasoning in this post has already been outlined by others but I feel it is worth reiterating that, by a process of attrition, the walls of unreason which surround your thoughts are eroded by the correct application of propositional logic and you are freed.

If the personal can only be created by the personal, and if the god of the Abrahamic Mythos is a person so qualifying him to create further people, then what is the nature of the person which created this personal god ? If people cannot simply be without personal cause then neither can the person of your god.

Your attempt at logic fails and dies. Propositional logic does not end with the final clause in a statement. The meaning of a statement must apply to appropriate terms within that statement. This does not occur with your statement. Your statement is illogical.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.


Ummmm......Huh?:confused:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish

Originally posted by Ed
And we know from human experience that only persons can produce the personal therefore the Cause most likely has a personal aspect to it just like the Christian God.


gf: The begetting of the personal does not require an asserted god as explanation. It occurs ever day between men and women. It is carried out each day in vitro. The god of the Abrahamic Mythos did not create us. No gods created us. We create us.

Men and women are persons and in vitro requires persons. The question is how did persons get here before there were human persons?

gf: There are no gods. There is no afterlife. Magic does not work. Religious and superstitious belief is cultural junk. We are best rid of it.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

I never said there were gods, only God. Evidence that there is no afterlife? I never claimed magic worked. And I agree about superstition. Christianity is not superstition. And Christianity is not cultural junk, if it were not for Christianity almost all the great things that you enjoy and take for granted about Western Civilization would not exist.

[Javaman]

Originally posted by Ed
Christianity is not superstition.
Christianity is only not superstition to you. To non-christians, it is superstition:
from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
2. An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity; excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; also, a rite or practice proceeding from excess of sculptures in religion.

3. The worship of a false god or gods; false religion; religious veneration for objects.

Originally posted by Ed
And Christianity is not cultural junk, if it were not for Christianity almost all the great things that you enjoy and take for granted about Western Civilization would not exist.
...Mere conjecture. I'll grant you some things would likely be different. I make the (equally unsubstantiated) statement that without Christianity, everything would be 17.6 times better.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
No. Everything has a cause.

The only way you could know that is if you were omniscient.

gf: If you are adamant that the god of the Abrahamic Mythos is not an effect but is definitely a cause, then please describe this thing by reference to Aristotle.

(i) Of what is it composed ?

(ii) What form does it take ?

He is composed of spirit in a spiritual form. IOW He is immaterial and transcends space and time.

gf: (iii) How does it come to be ?

Since he is self existent, ie has the power of being witihin himself, he already IS and never had to come to be.


gf: (iv) What is it's purpose ?

We do not know his purposes exhaustively, but one of his purposes is to give humans the most fulfilling lives possible in a universe with free will beings.

gf: You have already denied that your mythical god has a cause yet despite this you have asserted that it remains a cause. Causes may be apprehended by meeting the four questions asked above. Please answer these questions. If you cannot provide an answer to each question which is congruent with their meanings then, in the name of Philosophy and the Logic you appeal to, the god of the Abrahamic Mythos is not only without cause but does not have the status of a cause. This being so then your mythical god can have no reality.

Further, having denied the Principle of Causality you have no right to use the word logic in your posts. You may continue to do so yet you will continue to find that others point out errors in your posts. To appeal to logic you must apply logic.

How have I denied the principle of causality? You have yet to demonstrate that something that is just a cause cannot exist.

gf: There are no gods. There is no afterlife. Magic does not work. Religious and superstitious belief is cultural junk. We are best rid of it.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

See above.

[Goober]

He is composed of spirit in a spiritual form.

-Ed
I hate to sound rude, but that post was composed of bullshit in a craptacular form.

Since he is self existent, ie has the power of being witihin himself, he already IS and never had to come to be.
Prove he is self-existent. Also, maybe the universe is self-existent.

We do not know his purposes exhaustively, but one of his purposes is to give humans the most fulfilling lives possible in a universe with free will beings.
Then he has failed miserably. Take, for example, the ebola virus. It kills people, which obviously interfers with their fulfillment in life. Would a world in which the ebola virus did not exist lack free will? No, of course not. God does not only prevent this, he created the virus in the first place, so it is obvious that the universe is inconsitent with a omnipotent being that wants us to live maximally fulfilling lives.

[coreyfh]

there is alot of insults flying about and attacking each other's credibility. there are very smart people on both sides of the fence, just b/c on person believes a certain way doesn't make that person stupid. and we all know that when people get defensive and start calling names they just look like they are out of stuff to say. look, all these laws of science that both sides have been using- who cares? who created those "laws"? and what made him/her so special? those people could have been wrong. neither side will "prove" they are correct, it is simply impossible. but, to my athiest brothers and sisters out there, please consider this: doesn't it seem that the more we reject God and Christian values, the worse society seems to be. the more "free thinking" we become the worse we seem to be. conversely, if everyone you knew actually followed Christain values, wouldn't we be alot better off?

[GunnerJ]

He is composed of spirit in a spiritual form. IOW He is immaterial and transcends space and time.

Ohhh... shit! Ed n00bs himself in two sentances.

Here I thought, if only persons can produce "the personal," then only the material and nontrancendant could produce the material and nontrancendant. Yet Ed would have us believe that an entirely spiritual and trancendant entity can produce the material and nontrancendant.

Care to explain the discrepancy, Ed?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mageth
Provide an empirical example of a God producing the personal. Producing anything, for that matter.


We cannot reproduce a one time past event. Its called a rational historical extrapolation. However, there are ancient documents that record empirical observations of God resurrecting his son.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by coreyfh
there is alot of insults flying about and attacking each other's credibility. there are very smart people on both sides of the fence, just b/c on person believes a certain way doesn't make that person stupid. and we all know that when people get defensive and start calling names they just look like they are out of stuff to say.

I agree.

but, to my athiest brothers and sisters out there, please consider this: doesn't it seem that the more we reject God and Christian values, the worse society seems to be.

No.

And when you use the word "we", and the phrase "my atheist brothers and sisters"; are you implying that you are yourself an atheist? Because, while I don't want to call you a liar (or even worse, a christian!), the nature and content of your above comments strongly indicate that you are, in fact, a Theist. No atheist worth his or her salt would say such a thing.

They might say that certain christian values (such as the golden rule) should be kept around; but then the golden rule isn't uniquely christian anyway (as they would probably note). They most certainly wouldn't say we are worse off for "reject[ing] [g]od". In fact, most atheists probably wouldn't even use the word 'reject' to begin with. They would say something like, "Are we worse off for realizing that god doesn't exist?" or, "Are we better off living with a comforting illusion?"

To which they most likely would say No.


the more "free thinking" we become the worse we seem to be. conversely, if everyone you knew actually followed Christain values, wouldn't we be alot better off?

The worse we "seem" to be? What criteria are you using to judge this? This is just my opinion, but the 21st century "seems" much better in more ways than I can count than more 'god-fearing' times (such as the Middle Ages, or the 50's).

And which christian values are you promoting? The values that subjugate women, burn homosexuals, repress freedom of thought and speech, eliminate tolerance, and clip the wings of science?

See, I think you are; and my evidence is your own post -- you speak of "free thinking" as if it lead to evil and suffering. Words cannot express the contempt I have for such a view. I can only hope that A) you are trolling for a reaction and don't actually believe the shit you are spewing, or B) I have grossly misinterpreted your position.

Cheers

[GunnerJ]

No atheist worth his or her salt would say such a thing.

I'd just like to point out that this is falt-out false. The only "requirement" for being an atheist is that you disbelieve in god(s). Whatever other opinions you may hold, if you don't believe in god(s), you're and atheist.

There are no "good atheists," "bad atheists," or "atheists worth their salt."

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by GunnerJ
I'd just like to point out that this is falt-out false. The only "requirement" for being an atheist is that you disbelieve in god(s). Whatever other opinions you may hold, if you don't believe in god(s), you're and atheist.

There are no "good atheists," "bad atheists," or "atheists worth their salt."

True. But then, how many atheists would think "rejecting" god leads to the downfall of society? How many atheists would even use the phrase "rejecting god"?

Cheers

[GunnerJ]

Whether or not the poster in question is, in fact, an atheist isn't really relevant to the question of whether an atheist can be considered "worth his[/her] salt" based on his/her opinions on other things besides whether or not god exists.

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by GunnerJ
Whether or not the poster in question is, in fact, an atheist isn't really relevant to the question of whether an atheist can be considered "worth his[/her] salt" based on his/her opinions on other things besides whether or not god exists.

How can you speak about "rejecting" something which you don't believe exists? You can reject the notion, because the notion itself exists -- but the actual thing itself? There are certain attitudes and manners of speech that come with a lack of belief in god. If you claim to be an Atheist and yet continue to sport the terminology and attitudes of a christian, then this is indicative that deep underneath you still believe in a god, and are just 'rejecting' him. Would such a person satify the criteria of Atheism? I think not -- and as such they would be bad at being an Atheist; they would be "bad Atheists" in the same way that a Theist is a "bad Atheist".

Cheers

[GunnerJ]

I find your terminology superfluous. If soemone really believes in a god or gods, they are a theist. If they don't, they are an atheist. It may be fun to question whether coreyfh is actually an atheist based on the content of his post, but since he's never out-and-out claimed to be (he's simply claimed to have atheist "brothers and sisters"), it's just speculation, with all the signifigance of a dorm room bull session.

I would find a refutation of his claims based on pointing out the illogic of them more compelling than just questioning if coreyfh is an atheist "worth his salt."

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by GunnerJ

I would find a refutation of his claims based on pointing out the illogic of them more compelling than just questioning if coreyfh is an atheist "worth his salt."

Well that's fair, I suppose. Though to do so I would really need more information from him -- such as how he defined "better", and what point in time he believes was "better" than the 'free-thinking' present. Listing the benefits of free thought is all well and good, but if coreyfh has a weird idea of 'benefits' it won't help.

Cheers

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You won't believe that cats can communicate with humans unless you see a video clip?


I didnt say that cats could not communicate with humans. I said that cats cannot have a full personal relationship with humans because they cannot communicate propositionally, ie linguistically.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Daggah

Ed: Ok, provide an empirical example of the impersonal producing the personal.

dag: Evolution


Fraid not, macroevolution has never been empirically observed.

[Ed]

Originally posted by niggle

Originally posted by Ed
Pascal's wager generally doesn't work with hardcore atheists, they are too close-minded.

nig: Actually, it doesn't work because we're not as susceptible to scare tactics. Anyway, Pascal's Wager is the smoking gun proof that Christianity is based on fear and not love anyway.

Actually I think atheists are more afraid of what their "intellectual" peers will think of them than any possibility of God being real. Those are the scare tactics that work best with atheists. How is Pascal's wager proof that christianity is based on fear?


nig: Speaking of which, why were you willing to take this challenge and not my challenge which asked theists how the existence of God would create morality?

Because I thought this challenge was more interesting. But I will take your challenge also. If there is no God then there is no rational basis for morality just a sentimentality for your own species. But if God exists then morality has a rational and objective basis in his objective moral character.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Ed
I didnt say that cats could not communicate with humans. I said that cats cannot have a full personal relationship with humans because they cannot communicate propositionally, ie linguistically. However, human babies and fetuses and embryos and fertilized egg cells cannot do so, and late-stage Alzheimer's patients cannot do so.

[lpetrich]

Originally posted by Ed
Fraid not, macroevolution has never been empirically observed. And Ed has never observed Jesus Christ rising from the dead.

[lpetrich]

Ed:
Actually I think atheists are more afraid of what their "intellectual" peers will think of them than any possibility of God being real. Those are the scare tactics that work best with atheists.

I wonder where Ed gets his stereotypes from.

How is Pascal's wager proof that christianity is based on fear?

Fear of being sent to hell unless one believes in some flavor of it.

But if God exists then morality has a rational and objective basis in his objective moral character.

However, god's opinions would still be god's opinions and not "objective" morality.

[Daggah]

Originally posted by Ed
Fraid not, macroevolution has never been empirically observed.

Define "observed." The evidence for macroevolution and common descent is overwhelming. It's been shown to you numerous times.

[niggle]

Originally posted by Ed

Because I thought this challenge was more interesting. But I will take your challenge also. If there is no God then there is no rational basis for morality just a sentimentality for your own species. But if God exists then morality has a rational and objective basis in his objective moral character.

Uh no. Those are just assertions. You just restated the conclusion. You've given no evidence to support it.

[Keith Russell]

Ed, only by studying a universe without 'God' could you claim to know, for certain, that a 'Godless' universe offers no possibility for a rational morality.

Do you believe that this is such a universe...?

K

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by Ed
Because I thought this challenge was more interesting. But I will take your challenge also. If there is no God then there is no rational basis for morality just a sentimentality for your own species. But if God exists then morality has a rational and objective basis in his objective moral character.

These are all just unsubstantiated assertions. I guess that philosophy, reputation, sense, and living standards mean nothing. I'd also like to challenge your assertion that a supernatural being can provide a rational basis for morality.

We must first note the epistemological problem. How do we know what this being's morality is? The other problem is the ethical problem. To borrow an example from George H. Smith, if God appeared before you and told you to, say, pay more attention to your daughter, then you'd no doubt obey. If the same thing happened, except he told you to kill your daughter, you'd no doubt be more skeptical. That means, obviously, that there is something other than this being guiding your moral virture.

As far as evolution goes, there's an EvsC board on here, let's try to stay on topic.

[Keith Russell]

A rational basis for something (whether morality, or anything else) is a morality based only on one's evaluation of the available evidence alone.

'Rational' certainly doesn't necessarily mean 'correct'.

One might base one's moral opinions only on the available evidence. Yet, if one is unaware of key pieces of evidence, one thus might form a completely rational--yet completely incorrect--opinion.

Or, one might have all the evidence, but evaluate that evidence incorrectly.

Besdies, a 'rational' morality requires only that there be evidence--and there can certainly be evidence, without any need for a 'God'...

K

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kruzkal
Jeez, I was away for a week and this happened . . . lol.

Cause and effect denies god
In his famous essay "Why I am not a Christian (http://www.users.drew.edu/%7Ejlenz/whynot.html)", Bertrand Russell dismisses the Argument From First Cause almost immediately, pointing out that if everything must have a cause, then the question "Who made god?" needs to be asked. At this point, theists have a habit of resorting to special pleading ("Everything except god, I meant"), mystery or just faith.

It is hardly special pleading, a self existent being is a rational assumption, ie there is nothing illogical about the existence of something that is a cause and not an effect and therefore does not need a cause.


kruz: Invoking an acausal god to avoid the inifinite regression problem is not the answer, however. Solve a mystery with an even greater mystery? I don't think so. It also raises yet more problems (not the least of which would be "What caused god's first action?").

To say that god is the "Prime Mover" or "First Cause" implies that cause-and-effect is a universal, unbroken chain of events leading back through space and time to god. That is to say, every effect has a cause, which in turn has another cause. This is pure determinism, and would mean that the entire universe, ourselves included, is nothing more than a large clockwork toy wound up by god. It denies any form of free will whatsoever, as to make a free action you would have to break the chain of cause-and-effect. Otherwise, all your actions are explicitly determined by previous causes, which in turn have their own causes, right back to before life began and the universe consisted entirely of "atoms banging into each other", and then back to god.

If you believe in truly free will, then it is unreasonable to think that god must have been the First Cause of your universe. There must be a break in the chain somewhere, otherwise all your actions are determined by previous actions, in an unbroken chain originating from god's action. God himself could not break this chain, as to do so would be just another "cause" from which followed all other effects.

God's will to act caused His first action. And most of our actions are caused by our free will. Now explain how that violates a chain of causes and effects and our free will?


kruz: It must be possible for some effects ("events" would be a better word) to happen without cause, or you are just a robot following a predetermined path programmed by god.

To accept that there is free will, chance, randomness or acuasality of any sort opens the distinct possibility that the universe itself had no cause. No Prime Mover. No god.

Logically it is impossible for an effect to occur without a cause. This would violate the law of non-contradiction. But of course there are the claims about QM but even if quantum events could occur without a cause, that still does not mean the universe could, because quantum events require an interval of time but at time=0, there is no time for a QE to occur.


kruz:
You assertions:
1 - Your specific god exists.
2 - Your specific god has the ability to create the universe.
3 - Only your specific god has the ability to create the universe.
4 - Your specific god created the universe.
5 - It is possible for your specific god to exist without a cause of existence.

You need to provide evidence to prove or at least support them.

I did, see my other posts.

Kruzkal's Wager
"It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him/her/it."



There is no "better" if there is no God. How do you know what is better? Also, how do you know that a benevolent God would do such a thing? You could only know that if you were omniscient.

[Ed]

Originally posted by lpetrich
I've noticed that believers in Pascal's Wager tend to be totally closed-minded about applications of it to other religions and belief systems. Consider an Islamic version:

If you believe that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet and Islam is true, you will enjoy an eternity of sybaritic joy in the Islamic Paradise, getting to live like a sultan and having a harem of lovelies.

If Islam is false, then you've lost nothing as compared to rejecting Islam.

But if Islam is true and you had rejected it, then you will be sent to Hell, where you will be chained in place, be beaten with iron rods, have filthy boiling water poured down your throat, and be given new skin every time your old one burns off as a result of its superhot fires.

Does anyone want to convert to Islam as a result of this "scenario"?

If the person is sincerely searching for the truth, I have no problem with them trying an Islamic pascals wager. Because I know that eventually they will not be truly satisfied with Islam.

[Ed]

Originally posted by JCS
How many other gods might also fit the bill? Also in case I missed something here, where is the evidence that it was caused?


No other gods fit the bill. The universe has a definite beginning and is in a state of change. These are evidences that it was caused.

[Ed]

Originally posted by markfiend

Originally posted by Ed (About Jack The Bodiless' cat)
Ok, provide a sentence that he communicated and explain his syntax and grammatical system.


mf: Does this mean that if I meet someone with whom I have no common language, I can assume he is not human?


No, ALL languages are propositional communication.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Apparently so!

Perhaps Ed's definition of "propositional communication" would help. But remember, Ed: a person doesn't have to be able to speak to be capable of communication.

I know, propositional communication is even how we speak to ourselves with our own thoughts. And of course, sign language for deaf people is also prop communication.

jtb: We're building up an interesting picture of those Ed considers to be "sub-human". On the "Foramen magnum placement" thread, Ed has repeatedly argued that short people are sub-human (because their short stature is what disqualifies Australopithecines). He's also eliminated mutes, and apparently non-English-speakers too.

What about those who use tonal languages? Are Polynesians sub-human?

Evidence I said that short people are sub-human? See above about prop communication.



Ed: No, it is called rational historical extrapolation, this is done all the time in science.

jtb: Like the evolution of humans from (other) apes.

The only problem is evolution is not as rational an extrapolation as creation because it is not based on empirical evidence.


Ed: Because a communication claiming to be from Him(the Bible)...

jtb: There is no "Book of God" or "Book of Jesus" in the Bible. It is merely a collection of books written by human beings who claim to be "inspired".

In fact, God is quoted as actually saying very little. Most of what Christians believe about God is merely the personal opinions of people like John, Paul, and various OT authors.

But there is also evidence it is inspired. And there is evidence that what the biblical authors wrote is more than just their opinions.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by Ed

But there is also evidence it is inspired. And there is evidence that what the biblical authors wrote is more than just their opinions.

Present it please.

[Jack the Bodiless]

You won't believe that cats can communicate with humans unless you see a video clip?

I didnt say that cats could not communicate with humans. I said that cats cannot have a full personal relationship with humans because they cannot communicate propositionally, ie linguistically.
This is another "short Polynesian mutes aren't human" argument. You are arbitrarily decreeing a standard of "personhood", altering it to fit each case, making special exceptions where it doesn't appear to work the way you want it to, and so forth.

Non-persons CAN produce the personal. Accept it and move on.

Besides, my cat CAN communicate linguistically. He has a considerable vocabulary of tonal "words".
Fraid not, macroevolution has never been empirically observed.
This is, of course, a lie.
But I will take your challenge also. If there is no God then there is no rational basis for morality just a sentimentality for your own species. But if God exists then morality has a rational and objective basis in his objective moral character.
No, it doesn't. We've been here before.
kruz:
You assertions:
1 - Your specific god exists.
2 - Your specific god has the ability to create the universe.
3 - Only your specific god has the ability to create the universe.
4 - Your specific god created the universe.
5 - It is possible for your specific god to exist without a cause of existence.

You need to provide evidence to prove or at least support them.

I did, see my other posts.
...Ah, yes. Everything is proved in the "other" posts. :rolleyes:
The only problem is evolution is not as rational an extrapolation as creation because it is not based on empirical evidence.
Another lie. Evolution is based on empirical evidence from living organisms, the fossil record, and DNA analysis. And you know it.
Ed: Because a communication claiming to be from Him(the Bible)...

jtb: There is no "Book of God" or "Book of Jesus" in the Bible. It is merely a collection of books written by human beings who claim to be "inspired".

In fact, God is quoted as actually saying very little. Most of what Christians believe about God is merely the personal opinions of people like John, Paul, and various OT authors.

But there is also evidence it is inspired. And there is evidence that what the biblical authors wrote is more than just their opinions.
No, there isn't.

[niggle]

How much longer do we intend on giving this troll attention. Ed has given us nothing but the usual old assertions w/o evidence. He has nothing original to offer us, only the usual bland fundie arguments.

[markfiend]

Originally posted by Ed
Originally posted by markfiend

Originally posted by Ed (About Jack The Bodiless' cat)
Ok, provide a sentence that he communicated and explain his syntax and grammatical system.


me: Does this mean that if I meet someone with whom I have no common language, I can assume he is not human?


No, ALL languages are propositional communication.

OK, but I cannot "provide a sentence he communicated and explain his syntax and grammatical system" of a Japanese man who only speaks his native language, because I do not speak Japanese.

That someone else may be able to provide such for Japanese (the language) is beside the point. There are people who claim to be able to speak cat. There is a book about learning to speak cat here (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0399147411/qid=1063812432/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-8184190-8788608).

[Weltall]

I'm still waiting for your proof that the bible writers were inspired Ed.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10

Originally posted by Ed
Psychopaths have consciences, they are just the opposite of normal persons. Evidence you cat has a conscience?

ws: Ed, psuchopaths don't have a conscience, if by that you mean an ability to express remorse, differentiate between right and wrong or show guilt.

What are psuchopaths? I guess you mean psychopaths. They can express remorse about not killing an eyewitness to one of their own murders. And they can differentiate between what is right and wrong from their perspective. For them there is no universal right or wrong. For example, for Hitler, killing Jews was "right". So as I stated above they do have a type of conscience but it is not like most persons.


ws: "Conscience", as we may think of it, is a function of many things that don't exactly apply to cats. But conscience is nothing more than a reponse to a stimulus, which is very much applicable to dogs, cats, bears and rabbits.

If conscience is nothing more than just a response to a stimulus then psychopaths like Hitler have not done anything wrong and should not be held accountable. They just did not respond to stimulus the same way you would.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Spenser
I was going to ask how you could possibly know that the bible actually is a direct communication from God but you made it suspect enough by your use of the word claiming. I have a note in my hand here that is claiming to be wriiten by God; it says all atheists will be allowed into heaven and all others, especially Canadians, will be forced to mow the lawns of hell for eternity. What say you of that?

I used the word claiming because I am arguing against atheists. If I just said "God said ...." I knew I would be jumped on immediately. We come to believe that the bible is God's word by finding out thru research that it is historically accurate and finding out that it is spiritually accurate thru experience. Neither of these criteria are matched by your note.

[Jack the Bodiless]

What are psuchopaths? I guess you mean psychopaths. They can express remorse about not killing an eyewitness to one of their own murders. And they can differentiate between what is right and wrong from their perspective. For them there is no universal right or wrong. For example, for Hitler, killing Jews was "right". So as I stated above they do have a type of conscience but it is not like most persons.
Why do you assume that Hitler was a psychopath?

I have seen no evidence of that. He was a thoroughly unpleasant man, but he doesn't appear to fit the psychological profile of a "psychopath". He was an idealist, motivated by an apparently genuine desire to restore Germany's pride and purge it of "foreign contamination and oppression". His Christianity also seems to have been a relevant factor: anti-Semitism in Germany was rooted in German Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic.
We come to believe that the bible is God's word by finding out thru research that it is historically accurate and finding out that it is spiritually accurate thru experience.
This is, of course, completely untrue. No reasonably objective person has ever come to believe the Bible "because of its historical accuracy", because it isn't accurate. It merely contains s