Where did life begin? (Merged)

[The Ron Mexico]

Well, that's not how the arguments go.

Go on...

 

[Septic]

A prime mover is not illogical.

Logically necessary perhaps but not logically sound.

petitio principii

 

[JHuntVols]

Thanks for the read. As you probably already know, alot of learned Christian theologians disagree with this idea about the nature of God. The question I posed was in response to alaVol’s

He claims (probably correctly so) that there must be a creator as nothing cannot create something. I asked what created God.

Divine simplicity allows a separation of the person from his attributes as seen here from the link you provided.



So what created the person of God?

I'm not sure about the extent (e.g., 30% adhere to some form of theistic personalism, 25% adhere to classical theism, etc.) to which theologians disagree over the nature of god, however their agreement is ultimately irrelevant. Truth is not a game of credibility, although that sure helps in the art of convincing another person. I do know that this move was heavily influenced by the practical success of the natural sciences and inevitably resulted in scientism conquering every branch of knowledge, which includes philosophy. But I digress...

You may want to reread the sentence right before that excerpt.

If distinctions are made when speaking of God's attributes, they are distinctions of the "modes" of God's being, rather than real or essential divisions.

Those distinctions are merely to help people understand the nature of God. In the Scholastics (read: St. Aquinas and co.) metaphysics that provides the foundation of divine simplicity, there is no distinction in his attributes as he does not have attributes but is actually that attribute. He is goodness, he is power, he is existence. That is merely a tool to help us understand that vastness of what God is. Also, God has no "person" per se, however he is the attributes (e.g., intellect, will) that exemplifies what we would call a person.

 

[Wafflestomper]

A prime mover is not illogical.

How do we know there weren't billions of prime movers? Is there anything that limits the number of uncaused causes?

Say we grant the argument that there are such things. How do you get to any specific god from there?

 

[Septic]

Throwing out the "word salad" complaint is a lazy tactic to ignore the argument and technical terms being used.
Aquinas accepted an eternal universe, so it's obvious you don't understand.

His first cause argument isn't that hard to understand.

In the second of five he states,

"There is no case known (neither, indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause … Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

He's arguing against infinite regression and it appears to a primer on how to go about special pleading while barely dodging it.

 

[JHuntVols]

How do we know there weren't billions of prime movers? Is there anything that limits the number of uncaused causes?

Asking such questions must mean you did not understand the argument at all.

Say we grant the argument that there are such things. How do you get to any specific god from there?

That depends on what you mean by God. There are certainly more powerful creatures than humans, such as angels, that would appear godlike but are certainly not God properly defined. If we only use the proper definition, then certainly some degree of revelation is required to nail down the specifics of salvation, etc. However, classical theism implies a god that intervenes in the universe and thus its creatures in a very intimate way even outside divine conservation. In fact, you can reason all the way down to resurrection of the body.

 

[JHuntVols]

His first cause argument isn't that hard to understand.

In the second of five he states,



He's arguing against infinite regression and it appears to a primer on how to go about special pleading while barely dodging it.

I'm fairly sure Summa Theologica counts as more than "barely dodging."

 

[JHuntVols]

I could
I have on many cases.
We once lost a thread over it as the conversation turned ......heated.

Let’s go with the simple approach.
With scripture
Life means life.
Death means death .....1st 2nd or otherwise
We come from dust and will return to it.
Life is in the blood
You are a living soul.....you don’t have one.

I agree to with the point of I believe you are trying to make, which is that the soul is inseparable from a person's complete identity. I am more than my soul. My soul contains merely the basis of who I am but does not completely explain my identity. My mind, my experiences, etc. completes who I currently am, however I do have a soul in that it's part of my identity just as much as my mind and experiences are... in fact, I can survive with only a soul but obviously cannot flourish and fulfill my potential without all the other parts that complete me.

I do not want to misinterpret what you said in an earlier post, but could you elaborate further on your theories on the second death? Do you think of it is a complete annihilation, which is to say its removal from existence, of the soul?

 

[QuickSmurf]

Bart Ehrman believes the gospels were originally circulated anonymously. May want to check your sources.

I have. He says one thing on shows like the daily show and another around people who know the material. You may want to read more than books like misquoting Jesus. I have Muslims, atheists and others who quote him but have no real understanding of his position. His field of study is the new testament greek manuscripts of the Alexandrian text type only. These days he is going beyond his field of study making Dan Brown like blunders with the historical facts.

If you're going to quote him I suggest you buy every book and lecture of his. The real basis of his argument is that if God did inspire the new testament then God would have made every scribe down through the centuries hand copy Xerox like every manuscript. His assertion that variant readings, which are less than 1% (source Dr Daniel Wallace who has debated Dr Ehrman) is a very radical form of skepticism. Pure speculation. The kind that will sell some books, get you on the daily show etc but does not do anything with real historical evidence among scholars.

Dr Wallace He is the executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (Home - CSNTM). Those who really care about truth hear ALL the evidence.

Good day to you sir.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Asking such questions must mean you did not understand the argument at all.

That's not an answer. Which version of the argument? There are many.

That depends on what you mean by God. There are certainly more powerful creatures than humans, such as angels, that would appear godlike but are certainly not God properly defined. If we only use the proper definition, then certainly some degree of revelation is required to nail down the specifics of salvation, etc. However, classical theism implies a god that intervenes in the universe and thus its creatures in a very intimate way even outside divine conservation. In fact, you can reason all the way down to resurrection of the body.

The question was how do you reason down to a specific God from this argument. These arguments start becoming more and more suspect when specific traits are attributed to the non-contingent being.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I have. He says one thing on shows like the daily show and another around people who know the material. You may want to read more than books like misquoting Jesus. I have Muslims, atheists and others who quote him but have no real understanding of his position. His field of study is the new testament greek manuscripts of the Alexandrian text type only. These days he is going beyond his field of study making Dan Brown like blunders with the historical facts.

If you're going to quote him I suggest you buy every book and lecture of his. The real basis of his argument is that if God did inspire the new testament then God would have made every scribe down through the centuries hand copy Xerox like every manuscript. His assertion that variant readings, which are less than 1% (source Dr Daniel Wallace who has debated Dr Ehrman) is a very radical form of skepticism. Pure speculation. The kind that will sell some books, get you on the daily show etc but does not do anything with real historical evidence among scholars.

Dr Wallace He is the executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (Home - CSNTM). Those who really care about truth hear ALL the evidence.

Good day to you sir.

I read Forged a few months ago. Saying he's wrong and/or inconsistent isn't the same as saying he knows the truth but chooses to say otherwise.

I've seen a couple of his debates and thought some of his arguments were suspect, but what you just explained wasn't his argument (at least in Forged and other debates I've seen) against the traditional gospel attributions.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

Less today than yesterday.

 

[The Ron Mexico]

Less today than yesterday.

This thread will have that effect on folks.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

 

[Roustabout]

His first cause argument isn't that hard to understand.

In the second of five he states,



He's arguing against infinite regression and it appears to a primer on how to go about special pleading while barely dodging it.

Appears? In what regard?

 

[Roustabout]

View attachment 151396

View attachment 151397

Memes, now there's an original way to intelligent address the subject matter.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

Memes, now there's an original way to intelligent address the subject matter.

If you're going to question intelligence, at least have an adverb modifying your verb.

 

[Septic]

Appears? In what regard?

In the regard that the argument for a first cause asks for an exception to the logic that something can't come from nothing.

Aquinas argued for a cosmological argument for god. The cosmological argument for a god states that everything must be created, but not the god that created everything ex nihilo - it just is.

That is special pleading, is it not?

 

[Orange_Crush]

In the regard that the argument for a first cause asks for an exception to the logic that something can't come from nothing.

Aquinas argued for a cosmological argument for god. The cosmological argument for a god states that everything must be created, but not the god that created everything ex nihilo - it just is.

That is special pleading, is it not?

The cosmological argument for God states that all causes need an effect and that "nothing" can't create "something". That's it.

It is asking for no exemption. All you have to do is show that the universe is eternal and you're all good. Or, all you have to do is show that God isn't eternal, and you're OK. Then the question "then who created God" becomes less of an avenue to show your own ignorance of the logic involved.

 

[Septic]

The cosmological argument for God states that all causes need an effect and that "nothing" can't create "something". That's it.

It is asking for no exemption. All you have to do is show that the universe is eternal and you're all good. Or, all you have to do is show that God isn't eternal, and you're OK. Then the question "then who created God" becomes less of an avenue to show your own ignorance of the logic involved.

Changing the syllogism doesn't change the premise.

One can't argue for "cause and effect" as a justification and then shirk the same application as an exception for the cause.

You can wrap it up however you like but it's still special pleading.

All you have to do is show that the universe is eternal and you're all good.

Really then, how does one 'show' that? How does one do that without cause and effect? Wouldn't the premise in that argument assume the conclusion to be accurate? That doesn't smell right either.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Changing the syllogism doesn't change the premise.

One can't argue for "cause and effect" as a justification and then shirk the same application as an exception for the cause.

You can wrap it up however you like but it's still special pleading.



Really then, how does one 'show' that? How does one do that without cause and effect? Wouldn't the premise in that argument assume the conclusion to be accurate? That doesn't smell right either.

Please post more often on subjects such as these. When you do, you show an incredible lack of ability to reason.

Merry Christmas, Septic. :hi:

 

[Septic]

Please post more often on subjects such as these. When you do, you show an incredible lack of ability to reason.

Merry Christmas, Septic. :hi:

So..... maybe I missed it. What then is the justification for granting the exception to the rule of cause and effect, prime mover, alpha and omega etc?

Your condescension aside, it's ok to admit that it's faith not a dependence on logic that drives the belief.

 

[rjd970]

So..... maybe I missed it. What then is the justification for granting the exception to the rule of cause and effect, prime mover, alpha and omega etc?

Your condescension aside, it's ok to admit that it's faith not a dependence on logic that drives the belief.

It can be dressed up however somebody wants, it’s still a special exception. And “proving” the universe is eternal is going to have to be explained since we are talking about the existence/non-existence of the “beginning” of time itself. What does that even mean?

If the concept of God or a creator was never considered everyone in this thread would be in happy agreement the unmoved mover is simply bad logic. It HAS to have an unmoved mover, because you know, God/Jesus/Allah/Spaghetti Monster, etc.

I’m sure there will be responses to this with logical and mental gymnastics so they can hold on to the “something can’t come from nothing” notion while still believing the creator came from nothing. The underlying conflict will still hold regardless, and it has nothing to do with hating religion.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So..... maybe I missed it. What then is the justification for granting the exception to the rule of cause and effect, prime mover, alpha and omega etc?

Your condescension aside, it's ok to admit that it's faith not a dependence on logic that drives the belief.

No. It's very much based in logic, despite whether you're able or willing to recognize the logic.

You took issue with the argument ex nihilo, claiming that it makes special pleading for God--i.e grants God an exception to the logic that is applied to the universe. However, the argument ex nihilo demands, by definition, some construct such as God that would be the uncaused cause. Ex Nihilo nihil fit. From nothing, nothing comes. i.e. If something exists, then some uncaused something by definition had to exist. It's built into the logic. It is not a special pleading.

The logic of the ex nihilo argument is sound and rooted in the most basic laws of logic that we have. As a matter of fact, without the laws of causation, rationality and logic would cease to exist.

The basis of such laws, and the ex nihilo argument, is that every effect must have a sufficient cause.

That's the most basic. Ripples in a pond were caused by something. And a tsunami wasn't caused by a frog jumping into the ocean.

Now, if the universe is an effect (if it had a beginning), then the universe must, by the laws of causation, have a sufficient cause.

All indications are that the universe had a beginning. Science has pointed us to the singularity of the beginning of the universe. Logic tells us that an infinite regression of moments is a logical impossibility.

Science goes further to tie time and matter together inseparably. It shows that when the universe began, time began as well.

In case it's not obvious, the laws of causation that the ex nihilo argument are based on, are dependent on the existence of time, for the description and observation of causes/effects are at base a description of change over time. An effect comes after a cause, by definition.

So... The universe had a beginning, making it an effect. All effects must have a sufficient cause, therefore the universe must have had a sufficient cause.

That cause must be external to the universe and not bound by the universe, so it is outside of both matter and space.

Outside of--and unbound by--time, it is therefore not subject to cause and effect, and is eternal.

So, if that cause is God, God would be eternal and uncaused.

As I tried to point out earlier, and you were either unable or unwilling to grasp, you are making a classification fallacy.

And as I mentioned, all you have to do is change its class/type of the universe and it will have the same insulation of the ex nihilo argument that God would.

It is not special pleading. Now, it's up to you to either grasp that, or not. Whether you do has no effect on the veracity of the argument.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It can be dressed up however somebody wants, it’s still a special exception. And “proving” the universe is eternal is going to have to be explained since we are talking about the existence/non-existence of the “beginning” of time itself. What does that even mean?

If the concept of God or a creator was never considered everyone in this thread would be in happy agreement the unmoved mover is simply bad logic. It HAS to have an unmoved mover, because you know, God/Jesus/Allah/Spaghetti Monster, etc.

I’m sure there will be responses to this with logical and mental gymnastics so they can hold on to the “something can’t come from nothing” notion while still believing the creator came from nothing. The underlying conflict will still hold regardless, and it has nothing to do with hating religion.

It's been my observation that when people refuse to deal honestly with an argument, and brush it aside with phrases such as "word salad", "dressed up", "logical gymnastics"... Well, you haven't really had much of a debate, have you?

:hi: