(February 9, 2018 at 6:04 pm)polymath257 Wrote: First, if there were an infinite regress of causes, you would simply always be counting. it isn't a matter of counting up or down from infinity, but simply of always counting.
You can't even understand the problem you have let alone articulate an answer. Probably because of your verificationist's low opinion of logic and metaphysics. Oh well.
Quote:Those physicists that are searching for the cause of the universe do so within a multiverse model. In that case, the universe of our discourse is the multiverse and time *is* infinite into the past for the multiverse.
You are just kicking the can up the road. Positing a multiverse escapes nothing. The same logical impossibility applies. You can't have an infinite number of causes that lead up to now.
Quote:Yes, it is a claim. Causality is a well-established part of physics and even in QM, there is the assumption in field theories of causal independence outside of light cones. ALL causality happens withing the universe (or multiverse if you go up to that sort of system).
How about: all known causes are physical causes. There is no reason to suspect anything other.
You are affirming your conclusion in your premise (circular reasoning aka begging the question). You don't know that all causes are physical causes. It is entirely plausible that a supernatural cause can and does have natural effects (definition of a miracle). A miracle is not "breaking the laws of physics" as you have said before. Additionally, science cannot even comment, let alone prove, that miracles cannot happen. Saying so is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. Science cannot make metaphysical claims. The best science can do is articulate how physical causes produce physical results.
Quote:Well, I don't know about your specific metaphysics, but if it is based on Aristotle (which so much is), then it is guaranteed to be faulty. But feel free to elaborate on your views.
Yeah...yeah. You read somewhere that Christians depend too much on Aristotelian philosophy. You thought that would be a good point to throw out there, sound intelligent, and see if it stuck. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote:yes, it is called delusional when someone's views are contradictory to reality. Since your view requires well-tested physical laws be violated, it is much, much more likely to have a billion deluded people than that. Not much different than those believing the earth to be flat. They are deluded also. I don't need to know the internal quality of their experience to know it to be delusional.
No, my views do not require physical laws to be violated. Physical laws describe natural causes and natural effects. Christianity proposes that on occasion, supernatural causes produce natural effects--see there, by definition, physical laws do not apply to that combination--nothing "violated". So, we are right back to the fact you have no grounds to deny the possibility and that by continuing to do so is question begging. You cannot get out of this trap. All you have grounds to say is that you personally do not believe the evidence. It strikes me that if that is all the grounds a person has, he should not be throwing out claims that people are definitely "delusional".
Quote:I'm quite willing to lump the other 'eye-witnesses' together in this. Of course, most of the claims to be eye-witnesses are not validated by the evidence. But yes, the claims of supernatural events in the Bible are delusional. There are historical events that are possible to independently validate (Tiglath Puileser), but others that have been falsified (Exodus, anyone?).
Wait a minute. We have been clearly talking about the NT. I could believe between nothing and 100% (and anywhere in between) and still be a perfect Christian. You have no idea what the billions of people you call delusional think about the OT--because it is NOT REQUIRED to be a Christian. You are shifting the goal post because you don't know enough about the NT to support your "no evidence" claim (as I said from the very beginning).
