Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[GrandizerII]

Good thing we don't have to worry about all this anyway (except purely for the sake of intellectual stimulation and nothing more), considering the implications of modern cosmology/physics with regards to time and causality and all that.

You just said we don't have to worry about your favored eternal universe theory being logically impossible because...why? Even B-theory of time affirms causality and a direction of causality. You don't escape the problem one bit.

No, not in the sense you're thinking. If you "zoom out to the max" so that you're now looking at the totality of the cosmos, there is no causality happening, just connections.

[polymath257]

And that's the point: there is no problem. It isn't logically impossible to have an infinite regress. The negative integers form a good model of such.

[SteveII]

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. 

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.

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. 

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.  

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". 

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).

[polymath257]

Once again, there is no *logical* problem with an infinite regress. Mathematics deals with the set of negative integers all the time. It isn't a logical problem. This is one example of the problems with ancient philosophy: we have learned a LOT about how to deal with infinities over the last 150 years or so. Yes, they don't act the same way as finite things do. But that isn't a contradiction.

You are imagining a problem (counting from negative infinity) where there is none. At each point, the 'counting' has been going on forever. So? The only problem with that is that there is no start. And that is not a *logical* problem. We are here and the clock has always been ticking.

Every single cause we have ever seen has been a physical cause. Since there is no reason to even assume the existence of a supernatural, it is reasonable and valid to say that all causes are natural. In fact, I strongly suspect you can't give a coherent definition of what it means to be supernatural.

As for OT vs NT, there is some valid history in the OT. Some historical persons are mentioned in the NT (Pilate, Herod), but many of the facts are wrong about them (timing of census that never happened?). Past that, it is stories and expositions of religious positions.

[SteveII]

You just said we don't have to worry about your favored eternal universe theory being logically impossible because...why? Even B-theory of time affirms causality and a direction of causality. You don't escape the problem one bit.

No, not in the sense you're thinking. If you "zoom out to the max" so that you're now looking at the totality of the cosmos, there is no causality happening, just connections.

I love these great big metaphysical assertions that contradict just about everything without any backup whatsoever. 

Most people feel you need a baby horse to get an adult horse. Please explain why that is not the case. Please explain these "connections". Perhaps some quotes from leading scientist? Stuff I can look up?

[Minimalist]

There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

I thought you were somewhat brighter than G-C.  Perhaps I was mistaken.

[SteveII]

Once again, there is no *logical* problem with an infinite regress. Mathematics deals with the set of negative integers all the time. It isn't a logical problem. This is one example of the problems with ancient philosophy: we have learned a LOT about how to deal with infinities over the last 150 years or so. Yes, they don't act the same way as finite things do. But that isn't a contradiction.

You are imagining a problem (counting from negative infinity) where there is none. At each point, the 'counting' has been going on forever. So? The only problem with that is that there is no start. And that is not a *logical* problem. We are here and the clock has always been ticking.

This is getting tiring. Look back over your posts. I give reasons why an infinite series of past causes are logically impossible and all you keep coming back with is "no it's not". SHOW ME SOMETHING. A syllogism would be great. Post a link from a respected source if you can't articulate it. Until then, you are simply making assertions with no reasons to believe them. I want to see something that says there can be an actual infinite number of anything.  

Every single cause we have ever seen has been a physical cause. Since there is no reason to even assume the existence of a supernatural, it is reasonable and valid to say that all causes are natural. In fact, I strongly suspect you can't give a coherent definition of what it means to be supernatural.

You have NO IDEA if every single cause we have seen has been a physical one. The people in the NT think otherwise. The billions of Christians who believe they have a relationship with God or feel God has changed them, or has performed this or that miracle in their lives or someone close to them think otherwise. 

To say "all causes are natural" is the very height of a question begging argument! I have pointed out this very logical fallacy over and over, yet you still repeat it. Smart people would read up on it and adjust their arguments to they don't through out textbook fallacies. 

Sure I have a definition of supernatural: Not natural. Not originating nor belonging to the natural order of things. 

As for OT vs NT, there is some valid history in the OT. Some historical persons are mentioned in the NT (Pilate, Herod), but many of the facts are wrong about them (timing of census that never happened?). Past that, it is stories and expositions of religious positions.

LOL. There are a thousand articles and books written about the census. Have you actually read one or are you just reading off an atheist internet bullet list? There were regional census all the time plus there were enrollments where people would be compelled to go and pledge loyalty to Caesar. It is entirely possible one of these happened in Palestine in 6-4 BC. Luke was not an eyewitness--he was investigating and writing. He had records and people available to him that are long gone. 

I don't know what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

[GrandizerII]

No, not in the sense you're thinking. If you "zoom out to the max" so that you're now looking at the totality of the cosmos, there is no causality happening, just connections.

I love these great big metaphysical assertions that contradict just about everything without any backup whatsoever. 

Most people feel you need a baby horse to get an adult horse. Please explain why that is not the case. Please explain these "connections". Perhaps some quotes from leading scientist? Stuff I can look up?

Why scientist, first of all? Why not philosopher or something? Should I ask you to back your shit up with quotes from actual scientists then, given that you adhere to a theory of time not supported by modern science?

You already know what to look up, if you've already looked up theories of time and such.

Think about the implications of eternalism. If there is no flow of time, then how can there be a change? How can there be cause and effect?

If two countries are connected to each other, does one cause the other? No, look at reality in the Laplacian sense, rather than in this intuitive sense that you conceive of things from a temporal perspective. Causality is meaningful only from such perspective, not when we're discussing the fundamentals of reality itself.

[Amarok]

A horse is not the sum total of existence or even the local universe . So this analogy fails you cannot conditions that apply to things within the universe or existence (Causality and beginning etc ) and them to the universe or existence . So your taking concepts  and applying them to situation you have no reason to assume they hold . Sloppy reasoning steve .

[GrandizerII]

About the horse thingy, Steve. According to eternalism, the time moments containing the baby horse are separate from the time moments containing the adult horse, but logically connected based on a logical structure. The structure itself is eternal, and all connection possibilities are eternal. It's not like there was a time when the connections were not yet there, and they were still under construction or something. They've always been according to this doctrine of time.