(August 14, 2018 at 9:12 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 14, 2018 at 8:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If God exists eternally in the past, he's a past-infinite himself, and the same argument against the universe ever occurring because the past is infinite applies to God. Making God 'timeless' is clearly an attempt to have your cake (eternal God) and eat it too (can somehow begin a universe without time being involved beforehand). It has the advantage of sounding profound and the disadvantage of not making any additional sense if you think about it for ten seconds.

Thanks for clarifying my mistake. There is some scripture which suggest that God is not bound by time and interacts with time differently, but it’s not nearly as strong as his eternalness. In any case, this doesn’t remove the arguments against a past infinite number of events, and not being able to traverse an infinite. If time is a physical property of the universe (which I believe), then it would have began with the universe. It would also follow that something which is non-material, would not be constrained by time if it is a physical property.

As demonstrated in the thread in which Steve brought up those arguments, they're not particularly compelling. But I guess when your reasoning is driven by your ideology, you'll accept weak arguments in place of strong ones.

(August 14, 2018 at 9:12 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 14, 2018 at 8:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If God exists eternally in the past, he's a past-infinite himself, and the same argument against the universe ever occurring because the past is infinite applies to God. Making God 'timeless' is clearly an attempt to have your cake (eternal God) and eat it too (can somehow begin a universe without time being involved beforehand). It has the advantage of sounding profound and the disadvantage of not making any additional sense if you think about it for ten seconds.

Thanks for clarifying my mistake. There is some scripture which suggest that God is not bound by time and interacts with time differently, but it’s not nearly as strong as his eternalness. In any case, this doesn’t remove the arguments against a past infinite number of events, and not being able to traverse an infinite. If time is a physical property of the universe (which I believe), then it would have began with the universe. It would also follow that something which is non-material, would not be constrained by time if it is a physical property.

Then you are using a definition for the word "exists" that is completely incoherent.

Existence is necessarily temporal and spacial. So, how can your god exist without a space, or without any time to do it in?

If you are defining existence in such a way that does not require time or space, please explain.

(August 12, 2018 at 1:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 10, 2018 at 10:58 am)SteveII Wrote: I will grant that it is broadly logically possible that the cause of the universe isn't personal (defined in a weak sense as intentional/purposeful). But I think you must then say the universe is co-eternal with its cause. The cost of this is that you need to expand your metaphysics to include an infinite series of events in the past. Because this and other similar arguments are probabilistic, I would say that "personal" does not come with such a cost and is therefore the more reasonable conclusion. 

First of all, your objection would only be relevant if you were making an inductive argument, and not a deductive one.  The cosmological argument and other first cause arguments can take both deductive and inductive forms.  However I'm not addressing the cosmological argument, but rather an inference based upon the conclusion that a necessary first cause exists, and that this first cause is necessarily personal.  That is a separate argument from the first cause argument, and must stand or fall on its own merits.  Now I contend that you actually are making a deductive argument, in spite of your last complaint, but let's examine the inductive argument first, just to be thorough.  You claim that a personal first cause is the most plausible conclusion.  This is either an implicit appeal to an argument to the most likely hypothesis, or it is mere subjective opinion.  If it's just opinion, it can be readily dismissed.  If on the other hand it is an argument to the most likely hypothesis, then such an argument requires at least an estimate of the probability of all relevant alternatives.  You cannot construct such a set of possibilities, so no such argument can be made.  I don't even fathom how one would estimate the probability of a metaphysical conjecture, if the idea is even coherent.  So you are necessarily making a deductive argument about what must have been the case, so speculations such as you have offered here are irrelevant.  And I will point out you are still confusing the two senses of eternal, and the two conditions under which God was operating.  A timeless state does not imply an infinite series of events in the past because a timeless state has no past.  No infinite series of events is either required nor postulated, so I'm going to be charitable and simply attribute your claim of such to your ongoing confusion regarding the matter.  Given that your appraisal of the "personal" conclusion is based upon a serious misunderstanding of the relevant facts, it obviously holds no water. 

I understand your point. 

Deductive Argument:

1. The cause is past-eternal
2. The effect (the universe) is not past-eternal 
3. The cause exists prior to the effect (from 1-2)
4. If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect then if the cause is there, so is the effect.
5. The cause-->effect was not deterministic (from 3-4)
6. A mind with intention (libertarian free will) is the only completely non-deterministic cause
7. Therefore the cause is a mind with intention (personal).

I'm working this out on my own so don't be harsh.

(August 14, 2018 at 11:06 am)Simon Moon Wrote:

(August 14, 2018 at 9:12 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thanks for clarifying my mistake. There is some scripture which suggest that God is not bound by time and interacts with time differently, but it’s not nearly as strong as his eternalness. In any case, this doesn’t remove the arguments against a past infinite number of events, and not being able to traverse an infinite. If time is a physical property of the universe (which I believe), then it would have began with the universe. It would also follow that something which is non-material, would not be constrained by time if it is a physical property.

Then you are using a definition for the word "exists" that is completely incoherent.

Existence is necessarily temporal and spacial. So, how can your god exist without a space, or without any time to do it in?

If you are defining existence in such a way that does not require time or space, please explain.

Exists - haveing objective reality or being.

This is one definition, but those that I looked at, do not support your statement. Webster’s even mentions spiritual or physical being.

---

(August 14, 2018 at 10:52 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(August 14, 2018 at 9:12 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thanks for clarifying my mistake. There is some scripture which suggest that God is not bound by time and interacts with time differently, but it’s not nearly as strong as his eternalness. In any case, this doesn’t remove the arguments against a past infinite number of events, and not being able to traverse an infinite. If time is a physical property of the universe (which I believe), then it would have began with the universe. It would also follow that something which is non-material, would not be constrained by time if it is a physical property.

As demonstrated in the thread in which Steve brought up those arguments, they're not particularly compelling. But I guess when your reasoning is driven by your ideology, you'll accept weak arguments in place of strong ones.

I don’t think that my reasoning is driven by ideology. And I think that they do make sense, both logically and mathematically as can be demonstrated. For instance in Zeno’s parodox. What you find convincing however, may be dependent on your ideology.

(August 12, 2018 at 3:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 5:07 pm)SteveII Wrote: Let's look at your statement "I simply don’t find the evidence compelling". That could mean quite a range of things. 

1. What category of evidence? Historical, personal, the actual NT, discussions with knowledgeable believers.
2. How much evidence? Did you just hear this or that on AF or hear someone say like Dawkins say there was no evidence and decide that is good enough. Did you read a book and some articles by believers to see what it was about. Did you seek out discussions with knowledgeable Christians. Have you talked with people who have had changed lives and asked them their experiences. 
3. Do you actually understand the evidence in proper context? You can't determine if something is evidence if you don't even understand what it may be evidence of. 
4. Did you keep an open mind about the evidence in an honest search for any truth?

I think that 99% of the people on AF have not done 1-4 thoroughly enough to say they have rejected God with full knowledge of what they were rejecting. Before I get jumped on I also want to make the point that IMO more than 90% of Christians don't accept God/live their daily lives as Christians with a full knowledge of these things either. That's why you get plenty of people here that grew up in a "Christian" home and think they know what it is they have rejected. I will bet heavily on the fact that they don't.

You said to me once regarding god belief:

Quote:I think reasoning can remove the barriers but not get you over the goal line.

Why should a rational person bother with the effort of becoming a self-made biblical scholar if reasoning from knowledge can only get you to the point where you have to abandon it, and move forward on faith?  I don’t understand this.  You told me that atheism was a rational position.  Why would anyone abandon a position that is rational in favor of one that requires I leave reason behind in order to fully accept it?

Why would you have to say that you have to "abandon" reason? You have the abandon skepticism. You would have to abandon naturalism as a worldview. There is nothing irrational about believing in God. Faith is not a way of *knowing* something. Faith is a way of *trusting* something. Faith is trusting in that which you have some reason(s) to believe is true. It does not preclude that once you have come to believe that something is true, using reliable epistemological means, you can become more certain something is true.

To your second point, I think atheism is a rational position--however, you have to be satisfied with naturalistic worldview it entails and the gaps it leads to. A Christian worldview is based on reasons too (some from the natural world, some from revelation, some from testimony, and some from personal experiences). A big difference is that the Christian worldview has so much more explanatory power regarding the gaps in naturalism (origins, ethics, purpose, meaning, aesthetics, consciousness, free will, eschatology, etc.). 

Quote:

Quote:I never said "they don't want to believe". As I have pointed out the question is more like: have they searched enough and are they justified in their rejection. There is a lot at stake not to make an effort. This is not like a 50 person cult that is making some claim that you can dismiss without even knowing what the claim is. There is a mountain of information, discussion, experiences, and people available for an evaluation.

There is a Bible, a religion, and a lot of people who believe in it.  These are facts.  Beyond that?  Anything externally corroborating any of the claims made by the people of this particular religion, and their book?  We ask Christians for this information daily here.

Do you really need my list of why I believe again? P4 on has nothing to do with the Bible. Conclusions P12-13 are really hard to rebut. 

Quote:P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
     b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
     g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
     h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
     i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
     j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
     k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. I think there has also been sufficient connections made between cause and effect to understand the framework. Claiming that because the supernatural-->natural cause/effect have a different relationship than natural-->natural cause/effect and therefore somehow lacks sufficient connection, is a category error.

Quote:

Quote:I don't know why God did not send a sign you recognized. I believe it is still coming if you are still seeking it. Perhaps he knows what it will take for your to believe and that person/event has not been orchestrated yet.

Again, what is the purpose of reason and evidence if what we actually need is a beacon light straight from the source?  If get a message directly from god, there should be no question about it, regardless of how dim I am on the subjects of the Bible and Christian doctrine, no?  Further, why does god have such a hard time penetrating us with his message?  If he really wanted to save every soul, why not send one, large, indisputable revelation to every human on the planet, right now? 

A very good point. In Romans it says that God's law is written on everyone's heart. In another place it says that God is obvious from observing the world. I think that is born out in the vast majority of people on this planet--even in 2018--think there is something else out there. Perhaps it is because a relationship with God is more meaningful if you come to a place/circumstances in your life where you need it, seek it, and find it. I don't have all the answer to this question.

---

(August 13, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That doesn't strike you as an ad hoc way of getting out of the past infinite problem at all to you? It sounds to me like you're just assigning your God the characteristics it needs to make your arguments work.

It's not ad hoc when it is the only way to get out of the past infinite problem and still hold to something that has some metaphysical moorings. The alternative is to believe the universe (or precursor) is a brute fact. That is unsatisfying to a lot of people.

---

(August 14, 2018 at 9:22 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The impossibility of a past infinity has never been proven. It is counter-intuitive but can't be logically deduced without assuming the conclusion. I'm agnostic about whether it's possible. From my point of view, theologians tie themselves in knots over this seeming paradox unnecessarily. Zeno presented us with paradoxes, but the paradox doesn't actually keep us from overtaking and passing the slower runner or keep the arrow from reaching its target. The paradox of an infinite past never catching up to the present may be similar in nature. Even if time is past infinite, there has to be a present time somewhen, right?

Yes, it is proven to be impossible. By logic. If there are infinite series of events in the past, we could never have gone through them one after another to get to the current event. At any step in the series, there would always be an infinite more events that needed to be traversed. 

Zeno proved nothing. His examples were dividing. We are talking about addition: one event added at a time in a series. 

Saying a past infinite may still be possible is a high intellectual price to pay in an argument. That's why most back away and claim the universe is a brute fact. Not that we don't know the explanation, but there is no explanation.

How can something exist prior to time? It doesn’t make any sense to use language that suggests a timeless state existed chronologically as point on a timeline.

(August 14, 2018 at 8:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 13, 2018 at 7:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems to be hardly ad hoc; if the eternalness of God goes back milenia. This is not something that was just made up, as a solution to a problem.

If God exists eternally in the past, he's a past-infinite himself, and the same argument against the universe ever occurring because the past is infinite applies to God. Making God 'timeless' is clearly an attempt to have your cake (eternal God) and eat it too (can somehow begin a universe without time being involved beforehand). It has the advantage of sounding profound and the disadvantage of not making any additional sense if you think about it for ten seconds.

You are welcome to interact with my syllogism I wrote above (which I think addresses your point). 

Deductive Argument:

1. The cause is past-eternal
2. The effect (the universe) is not past-eternal 
3. The cause exists prior to the effect (from 1-2)
4. If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect then if the cause is there, so is the effect.
5. The cause-->effect was not deterministic (from 3-4)
6. A mind with intention (libertarian free will) is the only completely non-deterministic cause
7. Therefore the cause is a mind with intention (personal).

---

(August 14, 2018 at 1:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: How can something exist prior to time?  It doesn’t make any sense to use language that suggests a timeless state existed chronologically as point on a timeline.

Causally prior to is an entirely rational/coherent distinction.

(August 14, 2018 at 1:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: How can something exist prior to time?  It doesn’t make any sense to use language that suggests a timeless state existed chronologically as point on a timeline.

You can have logically prior.   And also if you have a beginning of time T=0, then you can have a period before T=0.   Prior to T=0, then it doesn't make sense to speak in temporal terms, but you can have a prior to.,

A period of time before the beginning of time............... If theres a t-..then t isn't the beginning, just an arbitrary point -in- time. "Prior" is an explicitly temporal referent.

(August 14, 2018 at 1:09 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 14, 2018 at 11:06 am)Simon Moon Wrote: Then you are using a definition for the word "exists" that is completely incoherent.

Existence is necessarily temporal and spacial. So, how can your god exist without a space, or without any time to do it in?

If you are defining existence in such a way that does not require time or space, please explain.

Exists - haveing objective reality or being.

This is one definition, but those that I looked at, do not support your statement. Webster’s even mentions spiritual or physical being.

---

How can something have being, without time to 'be' in? If there is no time, then something cannot 'be'.

How can something exist, if there is no space to do it in?