Login

**Silver** · May 25, 2018 at 12:39 pm

1+1+1= trinity.

Dur.

Angrboda · (This post was last modified: May 25, 2018 at 12:48 pm by Angrboda.)

(May 25, 2018 at 10:45 am)SteveII Wrote:
(May 25, 2018 at 6:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Here, with an added comment from Grandizer here.

And I replied here

I don't think either your or Craig's talk disarm the objection to Ghazali's argument. Either God exists timelessly or he does not. There is no boundary line where he is both. So God creating doesn't in some magical way insert time into a timeless state. As such, Ghazali's argument still fails. (In particular, you draw the following, "God existed prior to creation with the potential for creation," out of thin air. If I accept this whole theory of timeless apart from creation, temporally with creation, it still doesn't eliminate the objection. Moreover, I think it simply points to the incoherence of the implications of Craig and your ideas about God and time.) At the very least, Ghazali's argument becomes a matter of speculation, disarming its potential as an argument for the necessity of a personal God being the only interpretation of a first cause.

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · (This post was last modified: May 25, 2018 at 1:13 pm by Edwardo Piet.)

(May 23, 2018 at 10:19 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Read Spinoza if you're really stuck on the PSR. The only attribute required for a first cause is that it is itself uncaused (or perhaps self-caused). It is erroneous to think that a first cause needs any other attributes than that.

The only attribute required for a first cause is that it itself is uncaused. Self-causation is incoherent. The idea of something causing itself would appear to violate the law of identity, the most fundamental law of logic.

And as for the silliness of a self-causation Friedrich Nietzsche said the following on that matter:

Quote:The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness.

The absurdly incoherent notion of self-causation is what would be required for libertarian free will to be possible.

@ the OP

It's interesting to discuss causation and Aristotle's four causes. What is not so interesting is to have people speak of a first cause and then illogically jump from that to the idea of that first cause being a god.

pocaracas · May 25, 2018 at 3:05 pm

(May 25, 2018 at 10:45 am)SteveII Wrote: Are you saying there is a thing called spacetime that just sat changeless from the infinite past?

Maybe. I don't know. You don't know. No one can even claim to know.

Besides, your concept of change applies to things in spacetime, not spacetime itself. But we know that things in spacetime can somehow alter it.

RoadRunner79 · May 25, 2018 at 4:20 pm

(May 25, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Get thee to a priest!

I'm fine... the trinity states that there are three persons!

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: May 25, 2018 at 4:24 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

So long as 3=1, I;m sure you'll be fine. Thats the beauty of the abstract.

RoadRunner79 · May 25, 2018 at 5:16 pm

(May 25, 2018 at 4:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So long as 3=1, I;m sure you'll be fine. Thats the beauty of the abstract.

It’s fine when you are not talking about same thing in the same way. No need for abstractions or anything complicated.

RoadRunner79 · May 25, 2018 at 6:32 pm

What is 1 + 0. I assume you’re not just getting me to do your homework for you?

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: May 25, 2018 at 6:37 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

(May 25, 2018 at 5:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(May 25, 2018 at 4:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So long as 3=1, I;m sure you'll be fine. Thats the beauty of the abstract.

It’s fine when you are not talking about same thing in the same way. No need for abstractions or anything complicated.

The irony, it burns the flesh! Wink

For real though, wtf is going on with religion when two different believers start to lose their shit over pre-k math in a -totally- legit convo about a -totally- legit god?

RoadRunner79 · May 25, 2018 at 6:50 pm

(May 25, 2018 at 6:36 pm)Khemikal Wrote:
(May 25, 2018 at 5:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It’s fine when you are not talking about same thing in the same way. No need for abstractions or anything complicated.

The irony, it burns the flesh!

For real though, wtf is going on with religion when two different believers start to lose their shit over pre-k math in a -totally- legit convo about a -totally- legit god?

There isnt any disagreement on the math, that I’m aware of. I’ve mostly just found some atheists who have difficulty with the math.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Proving the Existence of a First Cause	Muhammad Rizvi	3	964	June 23, 2023 at 5:50 pm Last Post: arewethereyet
	[Serious] Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause	GrandizerII	8	1702	August 24, 2020 at 2:12 pm Last Post: GrandizerII
	God As Groundhog Cause	BrianSoddingBoru4	8	1640	May 26, 2018 at 10:18 am Last Post: Edwardo Piet
	Bhagavad Gita First Cause	watchamadoodle	4	1571	April 6, 2015 at 8:48 am Last Post: Mudhammam
	"Everything has a cause and an explanation" discussion.	Pizza	66	17819	February 22, 2015 at 11:59 am Last Post: The Reality Salesman01
	An uncaused cause	Phil	47	18658	April 23, 2012 at 7:57 pm Last Post: orogenicman