Maz,

Take a look at this http://www.springerlink.com/content/120878/ for more info about evolution.

mazaje:

@ Huxley

Why are things not evolving any more ? Or has evolution stopped? Why don't birds for example evolve into something else? I was watching a documentary on national geographic about the salmon. . . the live a very inefficent life style having to migrate to where they were born to reproduce  while coming across a lot of danger on the way(a lot of them die in the process of migrating). . . if evolution is true why don't they evolve into something else and avoid these inefficent life style. . . .

Hello Maz,

The key to understanding evolution is to realise the elements that almost certainly "guarantees" the evolution of a specie.

1) Genetic variation
2) Selection pressure
3) Time
4) (Possibly Genetic drift)

With this three elements present in a given ecosystem, evolution is almost certainly going to happen. It happens right now, all the time. Think of all the global scares about bird flu, swine flue, HIV, and many other bacteria/viruses resistance to drugs. How do these creatures develop such resistance? Basically, all of the first three of the above elements (plus possibly genetic drift) play a part in evolving new species of bacteria/viruses that are drug resistance. This sort of evolution that does not create new bodyplan and morphologies is generally called micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution, the generation of new bodyplans, takes a long long time, certainly longer than a human life span. If you undertand how evolution works, then you will see why it makes no sense to ask questions like;

1) Why don't we see a hippo turning into a whale?

or, as you put it,

2) A bird turn into something else?

There are two answers to this:

1) Animals like hippos, birds, etc, are vastly complex animals than bacteria/viruses and therefore to change their bodyplan would require rather more changes at the genetic level.

2) The creation of a new bodyplan takes a long time, something that is difficult to see in animals with long generational life span.


So if these animals are currently evolving, you would not see it. But as long as the same types of selection pressures continue to exist, your grandchildren 5 million years from now would see the new animals descended from present animals. For examples of macro-evolution happen within (a few) human life spans, check out the following;

1) The evolution in Sticklebacks, http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/e120.html

2) Evolution of The Nylon eating bacteria

Pastor AIO:

Na wa for you o, Huxley. Fela sang a song called opposite people about nigerian people that do their things in a topsy turvy way. It seems that that affliction also exists in Cameroon. Or is it in Manchester that you learnt it?

As far as I can recall this conversation is about ETHICS and I asked how you are to invent an ethical system whilst aware of the realities of existentialism.

Mister Opposite, I wasn't asking about existentialism and how you propose to deal with existentialism. I didn't ask how your ethics affects your existential reality. I asked how Existentialism affects your Ethics.

Please answer my question again.

How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism, or

Ya own too much. You no sabi say some quesshun di pass me.

Like I said, I am not sure whether ethical systems have a obligation to deal with existential issues. If you think that ethics should include or specifically seek to exclude existential issues, it is for you to show me how and why?

My view is that ethic has no link with existentialism and therefore as we invent new ethical systems existentialism should not be brought it. But I stand to be correct by the superior knowledge.

bindex:

That is the same problem I have with the theory too many assumptions and subjective suppositions.

Any example of the assumptions and subjective suppositions you have a problem with? Any why they are a problem?

Prizm,

Many, many thanks for the great response to my mail.  I really do appreciate the effort you have put it in addressing EVERY aspect of my post to you.  Who said good, health debates were dead?

I take from your lastest post a number of things which I shall endeavour to address.  These are:

1)  The main blank of our discussion, ie, the Cosmological Argument.

2)  Other sub-topics like Ontology of entities (Dragons, Satyr, etc) , meaning of words (atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc)

3)  And importantly, you have challenge me to explain WHY I am an atheist, which I shall do in a subsequent post.

I am sure you are keen to see my response to your very interesting post, but unfortunately, I am not feeling very well at the moment and I have got plenty of work to do.  So my full response will come nearly towards the end of the week.  So please, Pardon me.  I ask just one little favour from you - Can you oblige me with an answer to the following question?

Are all entities and beings (transcendent minds and non-transcendent minds ) within and without (like God) the universe, subject to the same rules or laws  of logic?  Or are there some rules/laws of logic that are applicable to some beings and not to others?  Further, do you think the rules/laws of logic are immutable?




A response to the above would be much appreciated as it would enable me to respond to all your queries on this subject in my next post to you.

Many thanks.

Just watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY.

Pastor AIO:

Let us not forget why we've come back to this thread after soo many weeks.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.192.html#msg4490575

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.192.html#msg4490714

in which you said:
Since you insist that Ethical systems are invented, rather than discovered, I ask once again, "
. . . So Huxley How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism? "

By Existentialism I said I meant,"When faced with meaninglessness or absurdity in the world, it has the effect of disorientating people.  This state of disorientation is called the existential state.  My question to you is how does one create an ethical system in such a state of disorientation. 
Ethics give you a scale of values (moral values), do they not?  Ideals exist at the top of the scale and they are striven for, while at the bottom of the scale are the lowly valued things and they are striven against.  Thus Ethics give us an orientation.  We are oriented towards the ideals.
If however the basic state of reality is acknowledged to be existential (ie. disorientated) then on what are the Ethics to be based on. "

My view of existentialism is the following - It is the point of view or philosophy which seeks to address the putative meaninglessness of human existence, especially by focusing on issues that directly impact or have consequences on human thriving. 

Now,  why would human existence seem potentially meaningless?  How could one organise their live so as to obviate this feeling of meaninglessness?
It is obvious that any thought person, upon contemplating the status and condition of humans in this universe would inevitably be driven to regard this existence as meaningless within this existence, in the grand scheme of things;  we are but a very very small portion of a unimaginably vast universe, to the extend that if our solar system were to vaporise right now (as will soon happen ) it will make not a dent in the overall mechanism of the functioning of our galaxy, nevermind the universe.  Upon realising just how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe, and how soon we are fated to be even less insignificant, how would we derive or impact meaning to our that would so very soon be extinguished, like the 99.9% of all other living things that have already gone that way.  The spectre of not existing, after having basked very briefly in the sunshine, is frightening for very many people.  So, how do we deal with such frightening thoughts, that emptiness of the future, that thought of relative insignificance?  That is what existentialism seeks to address.

Pastor AIO:


If my buckle is still not tight enough for you I'll attempt to tighten it one further notch. 

Ethics is a scheme that evaluates events and orders them from Ideal/Good to Bad/wrong/evil.  Ethics orientates us towards achieving the Ideal/the Good.  This is the first point.  Do you agree or do you not agree?

The state of existentialism does quite the opposite and leaves one disorientated.  Things are pointless.  And there are no value schemes.  Nothing is better than the other.  or more preferable than the other.  This is the second point.  Do you agree or do you not agree?

Then finally, how do you reconcile the invention of an Ethical system with an existential reality?

I know that you are quite expert at picking apart weak arguments.  You demonstrate this all the time.  It is only with me that instead of picking the argument apart you decide to turn your nose up at it disdainfully as if I were too stupid to be worth your while.  If you like this time keep insisting that I don't understand what existential is, I will accept that and look forward to your explanation of what it really means and how it has no bearing on the creation of an ethical system. 

Ethics, on the other hand, is a system of thought and practice aimed at regulating the interfaces of human interactions with other humans (and latterly with the environment). For instance, it deals with such issues as:

1)  What is good
2)  How we ought to behave


So, on the whole, I do agree with the definition of existentialism and ethics that you have given here.  The problem I had with your questions, namely,

                                               How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism, or

                                               How do you reconcile the invention of an Ethical system with an existential reality?

is rather one of my own inadequacy and lack of strong grounding in these hefty subjects (existentialism and ethics).  From my limited perspective, I am not able to see how ethics are related or directly address humankinds existential needs. Allow me to paint a little autobiographical picture to illustrate.

What do I do for my existential consolation?  How do I address the putative problem of meaninglessness in my life?  I shall start by saying that my life is very meaningful to me and to my friends and family.   How do I derive this meaningfulness amid such overwhelming spectre of meaninglessness? Well, for me, it is primarily my way of thinking, acting and behaving.

First and foremost,  I regard this present life and existence as the only one I shall ever get.  That empowers me and frees me from the subjugations of superstitions thus allowing me  to make it as good a life as I ever can  in the little time I have available in this sunshine.  I engage in jobs I find meaningful and interesting, I take a keen interest in the welfare of my friends and family, I engage in activities that gives full expression to my skills and talents (such as playing football, dancing, debating on NL with you ,  cooking, reading, etc, etc), I try as little as possible to sit down and brood in things, tend to have little regrets on the whole, etc, etc.  I accept that as natural entities in a cold and dispassionate universe, we are inevitable subjects to the vagaries of nature and happenstance. I hope you get my drift.  I summerise my attitude with the following:

                                                                             All the world is a stage 

                                                                         Perform rather than spectate

The above is a quick broadbrush summary of how a address my existential needs.  You could do well my reading some of the ancient philosophers on these subjects - Seneca and Epicurus are great.  Check out the book "The Consolations of Philosophy" by Alan de Boton.  It a great read.

Now,each of the activities I listed above has ethical dimensions.   For instance, when I engage in team contact sports, would it be good for me to deliberately seek to hurt the opposition, or cheat at the game?   For me, the answer is a resounding NO.


BUT do ethics seek to directly address the question of meaninglessness in human life?  For me, the answers seems to be NO.  This is not what ethics is supposed to do.  Whatever gives meaning to your life, it does not seem to me to  be the role of ethics to prescribe a method of impact such meaningfulness in your life.

Ethics does not say you ought to the polite to your neighbours because that will engender friendly relations with them.

Ethics does not require you to visit your parents regularly

Ethics make no compulsion of you to take up any hobbies, or activities of enrich your life

Ethic does not make requirements of you to seek consolations in the supernatural

etc, etc, etc.


I hope I have done a better job at explaining my position this time.  And I apologise for not responding to this directly earlier.  Far from being disdainful to you, I find my discussions with you rather more engaging than the normal rabble here at NL, and you know I have said as much in the past.

what sort of welcome would you like?

Deep Sight:

Prizm, Huxley - many thanks for expatiating the issues.

However, lets try to keep the arguments simple, otherwise we shall be lost in a maze of extended and unnecessary philosophy.

Huxley - you need to understand this: what is sought to be proven IS NOT the mechanics of God, how he must interact with the universe, how he caused it, etc. If you understand this, you will have no need to ask questions such as: "How does he interact with the universe, can he move an object from point A to point B", ETC.

What is sought to be proven is that AN element exists which CAUSED the universe. That element is the element we seek to refer to as the FIRST MOVER, or if you like, GOD.

It seems to me that the significance of the equation i laid out in the beginning is entirely lost on everybody.

If we appreciate that 0 + 0 (or any amalgamation or configuration of zeros) will always = zero, we will immediately see the irrefutable logic in Prizm's Cosmological Argument: to wit: Once any quantity exists - it could not have come from zero.

I am surprised and somewhat amused that the participants on this thread have failed to see the deeper implicit truth embedded in this rationale about the existence of God: because embedded within that equation lies the very obvious fact that since things exist, there must perforce be on the left side of the equation an irremovable and permanent quantity. That's what makes it clear that the element, whatever it is, is eternal.

It is futile and entirely outside the point of this thread, to begin to ask - "How did God begin to exist" or "what caused God" for several reasons -

1. As Prizm pointed out - God is not said to have begun to exist, he is not said to have been caused

2. This is made clear within a deeper understanding of the zero equation

3. And most importantly, we are not out to give the rationale for his existence, or show the mechanics of his operations, but simply to show that PERFORCE, he (or "she", or "it" IS THERE.

@ Tudor - i would suggest that rather than sit back in the discussion, you begin to show us how these equations are disproven, or actively advance proof that GOD POSITIVELY does not exist.

Through the Cause and Effect argument we can prove there was a cause for existence.

But with no argument can we ever PROVE that GOD POSITIVELY DOES NOT EXIST.

Supposing I grant to you that the God of your definition exists, BUT I contest that this God did not cause the universe - that this universe was caused by some other entity who by necessity also exists, but is not the God of your definition. So, in effect, the God you posit is on an eternal holiday, but the entity of my definition is a diligent creator busily in the habit of creating universes.

I contend that my proposition is equally valid, don't you agree?

Pastor AIO:

Okay Huxley, Here I come. At first I wanted to say that what you've said above is a far cry from what Paul Kurtz said because I was under the notion that he was looking to create a non-religious ethical system. But then I looked again and what the interviewer said was that he was 'searching for an ethical alternative to religiousity'. So I guess by that he is not trying to invent one but rather discover one without recourse to religion.

I would agree with you that ethical systems evolve over time. I would even go further and say that there is no such thing as a universal absolute ethics. But rather they differ from individual to individual and from epoch to epoch.

Where I would disagree with you is where you say that ethics is the product of a 'slow, considered opinion of a people of a society/community'. I take ethics to be more than the subjective opinion of people but rather a objective influence on events. Saying it is the opinion of a people, no matter how well considered, amounts to saying that it is invented. I say that it is discovered. It is there already as a part of creation.

Whether God has anything to do with it is tied into the whole issue of What God has to do with the creation of the universe at all which is a topic I know that you and I can go on arguing about until the cows come home without resolution.

The Divine Command theory is mired in the fact that God is nothing more than a Concept in most text based religions. As I've stated before elsewhere, My belief in God is based primarily on experience. Any attempt to discuss or articulate such an ineffable experience will only leave one tied up in all sorts of convoluted knots.

As you might expect, I have issues with the notion of discoverying ethical codes, as this suggests that these are obsolutes facts out there in the world that are just awaiting our uncovering. The obvious question with regards to the notion of discoverying ethics is the following:

Is it ever possible to KNOW whether one has discovery the optimum or best ethical code for a given situation? If so, how does one know that what one has at hand is the "best" ethical code?



Let us play consider the following scenarios that require sometimes very acute ethical evaluations:

1) Consider the ethical systems that were founded on the idea that human life started at the moment of conception, ie, the union of the eggs and the sperm. It bears to note that this system held sway for about 2000 years. When this system was discovered, was it the case that they had made the correct and proper discovery at the time, or was it a wrong discovery, or not an optimum discovery? How does one know when the best ethical decision has been discovered where say, a pregnant mother's life is a risk as a direct result of the fetus she is carrying inside her?

2) Consider the case of using embroynic cells for stem cell therapy and research? How do we go about discoverying THE ethical code about this one?

Pastor AIO:

Perhaps you don't understand the english. Let me try to rephrase what it says.
When faced with meaninglessness or absurdity in the world, it has the effect of disorientating people. This state of disorientation is called the existential state. My question to you is how does one create an ethical system in such a state of disorientation.
Ethics give you a scale of values (moral values), do they not? Ideals exist at the top of the scale and they are striven for, while at the bottom of the scale are the lowly valued things and they are striven against. Thus Ethics give us an orientation. We are oriented towards the ideals.
If however the basic state of reality is acknowledged to be existential (ie. disorientated) then on what are the Ethics to be based on.


The above is classic because here you suggest that there is no connection between existentialism and ethics. I couldn't respond because I didn't feel clever enough to get beyond your formidable impression of a dullard.

So in the end I tried to proceed by removing the whole issue of existentialism from the discussion.

I shall respond to this in the thread in which it was raised.

this one?

was it on this thread?

Pastor AIO:

I can't remember what threads exactly but I particularly recall you not knowing what existential meant even after I provided dictionary definitions.

And you also conveniently found it hard to distinguish between timeless eternity and temporality a few months back.

I'll look for the threads but it might take a while. Meanwhile please don't let me distract you from your discourse with Prizm.

Yes, I do remember those discussions. I did NOT say I did not know the meaning of the word "existential". What I was disputing was your use and understanding of said word. That is why I asked you to provide a definition. For goodness sake, do you think going to a book or wikipedia is beyond me?

On the question of timess eternity and temporality, my dispute was that your definitions were inconsistent, illogical and incoherent.

I am happy for us to resume the discussion (if you can find it) to try to iron things out.

Pastor AIO:

Well done Huxley. And while I agree that defining terms is very important in discussions of this sort you can't deny that you suddenly become quite obtuse about the meaning of words and concepts when it suits you. Anyway sha, please continue. As you were gentlemen . . .

Hello Pastor,

I don't know what you mean by "you can't deny that you suddenly become quite obtuse about the meaning of words and concepts when it suits you". I generally tend to use words as they are standard used in the general public or in trade literature. Can you show examples where I have deviated from this principle?

Prizm,

Consider these two statements of yours:

Statement A:

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

And this

Statement B:

So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it.

[size=14pt]Statement A asserts that God cannot have a material form (because he will cease to be necessary) BUT Statement B says God can temporarily assume material form. Are These two statements logically consistent?[/size]

bindex:

Interesting videos but one thing with evolution is that it is full of conjectures and suppositions to the extent that it makes little sense to me. Personally I believe that evolution is on the same page with creationism. The FACT is no one knows how the universe began and how we got here or even if we are the only ones here in the universe any body that claims to know for sure is a LIAR.

Really surprised to read this from you. Looks like there is some confusion in your mind about what constitute the FACTS of evolution & The Theory of Evolution. Allow me to say the following;

1) Evolution is a FACT. That is, the gradual change of lifeforms over time is an irrefutable FACT. If this were not true, how would you explain the following;

- No fossils of mammals are ever found found in the pre-cambrian but in much later ages. If they were not in the pre-cambrian, how did they "emerge" into reality some hundred of millions of years later?

- About 250 million years ago, 99% of all living things on earth went extinct due to a global environmental catastrophe. If 99% of all living were wiped out 250MYA, how would you account for the vast diversity you see around you today?

- How do you account for the fact that some whales are born with fully formed hind limbs, just like a hippo's hind limbs?

- How do you account for the fact that there were absolutely no placental mammals in the Australian continent before they were introduced recently by humans.

- How do you account for the fact that genetic studies show very close relationships between animals? For instance, humans are only a few percent (about 1 - 2%) different from apes.

- etc, etc, etc.


Under what theoretical framework would one explain all these FACTS? Can you explain them under the creationist framework, or the framework of the Theory of Evolution?


The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is only one of possibly many different frameworks that provide plausible explanations for the observed FACTS of evolution. The core elements of the theory are:

1) Genetic variation in the population of animals/plants.
2) A long period of time.
3) A Selection pressure acting over that long period of time.


OK, you may not accept The Theory of Evolution (By Natural Selection), which is fine. But you will face a hard time explaining the FACTS of evolution, some of which I have listed above. I would very much like to see you explain these FACTS in a non-evolutionary (non-Darwinian) framework?

Over to you !

Hello Prizm,

Nice to see you back here - I was beginning to wonder what happened to you.  Good to know you have been whacking all this while .

I shall dive straight into the substance of the debate, avoiding all the fuss about whether you or I are being unnecessarily pedants about some words, as important was this is in its own right.

I did ask you how you came to the knowledge that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation"  and your responds was :

Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists".

Barring the qualitatives of "scientifically of otherwise",  I deduce that what you meant here was that this knowledge was a priori.  You seemed to have had issues with me describing this as a priori, as evident from below;

Prizm:

What exactly is your objection here? Have I argued that the premise is a prior[/i]i? This is one of those situations where you strive to misunderstand what has been said. If you remember, I dealt with exactly this objection in my reply to your objection to the Cosmological Argument. Some people may feel that the first premise “Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation” is reasonably a priori knowledge and I have no problem with that. But let us grant that it is [i]a posteriori knowledge to satisfy you. That little distinction on your part totally aligns with the way I see it and it is the way I want you to consider the premise.

From the foregoing, it is still not clear how you came by that knowledge.  As you know, a priori knowledge is knowledge that can be arrived at by pure reason or analysis alone - it requires no appeal to experience or the empirical methods.  On the other hand a posteriori knowledge requires an appeal to the empirical methods or experience. In view of what we know a prioir and a posteriori to mean, can you look back at your earlier statement and categories it under 1)  a priori 2)  a posteriori [/i]3) both [i]a priori and a posteriori 4) None of the above?  In other words, is the statement

Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists".

1)  a priori ?
2)  a posteriori ?
3)  both a priori and a posteriori ?
4)  None of the above ?

Note that it is not a matter of satisfy me, but satisfying the rules and rubrics of reasons an logic that matter.

I noted earlier that there are many empirical facts that indicates that somethings can come into existance without a cause.  The two well-known and commonly accepted of these class are the radioactive decay to atomic elements and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  I did ask you to consider the case of radioactive decay. For instance, what causes Carbon-14 to decay to Nitrogen-14?  You said;

Nevertheless that minute distinction does not obviate or undercut the first premise at all. So when you say that there are many empirical facts that do so, I’ll have to strongly disagree with you and ask for your evidence. Now, it seems to me that you are trying to undermine the first premise of the Cosmological Argument by talking about radioactive decay? Am I right?

Here’s how we are going to do this. Rather than asking me what I mean by “cause”, I’ll allow you to explain what Radioactive decay is and how it supposedly subverts the first premise. The reason why I am doing it this way is because I want this to be conversational in nature. You don’t get to simply assert that Radioactive Decay belies the premise. To me this is the main crux of this entire post. Besides, I do not want a situation where I demonstrate initially that the premise is intact only for you to recline in your comfortable skeptical chair to declare it some unjustified adhoc assertion. So, here’s your opportunity to take a crack at physics to show us that Radioactive Decay destroys the first premise. It may be that this little exercise may help to fully illuminate the depth and scope of the first premise though as I said previously, it has been constantly confirmed philosophically and scientifically.

OK, at this point it pays to take a break and make some definition of terminology - CAUSATION.  What do we understand by the word CAUSATION?  This is where wikipedia comes in handy:

Causation - Causality refers to the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a direct consequence of the first.  See wikipedia for details.

Obviously, this is a simple definition, but it is still useful for our discussion.  Causation implies a cause and an effect, with the cause happen before or at the same time as the effect. 

Now, what is radioactive decay?    Again wikipedia to the rescue:

Radioactive decay is the process in which an unstable atomic nucleus [b]spontaneously loses [/b]energy by emitting ionizing particles and radiation. This decay, or loss of energy, results in an atom of one type, called the parent nuclide transforming to an atom of a different type, named the daughter nuclide. For example: a carbon-14 atom (the "parent" emits radiation and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter". This is a stochastic process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay, but given a large number of similar atoms the decay rate, on average, is predictable.  See   here for more.

Now, what causes an unstable atomic nucleus to decay such that it emits other particles?  As far as I know,  NOTHING is known to cause the decay of the nucleus.  For instance, you could not act such as to take away the "cause" of the decay.  Nothing influences the rate of decay, nothing can stop.  No amount of heat treatment, pressure treatment, etc, etc, is known to affect the rate of decay.  If the "cause" of radioactive decay is anything outside of the atom itself, then on the view that causation requires two things - the cause and the effect, then you could imagine a scenario where you could take away the cause to prevent the decay.

So, from this analysis, it could be said that the N-14 atom came into existence from C-14 without a cause.   Hey, I am happy to be contradicted if you have got some better evidence that what I just described is wrong.


In view of your use of some terms from modal logic (ie necessity and contingency) and your use of the word transcendence, and your ascription of these words to God, I asked:

Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent disembodied being inter-acts with a physical universe?  BY WHAT MECHANISM?

You said:

Prizm:

I am not exactly sure what you are asking me here. When you asked how one knows that a necessary entity (like God) transcends the universe, I gave my answer. I also contrasted it with another type of necessary entity like numbers.

At any rate, I may be wrong, but it seems that you are asking me the mechanism or physics by which God (here you can substitute the word ‘God’ with any appropriate synonym for this necessary first mover) created the universe. In other words, you are asking me to speak on exactly how God created ex nihilo. If this is what you are asking, the answer is that I don’t know and no one can possibly know how this supernatural event happened. There is no physics for this event. No one is equipped to pronounce on how such a metaphysical event occurred. Our human physics can only probe or go back to the first few moments after this event. There is a limit to what we can actually postulate or verify scientifically because our contemporary physics break down at certain barriers. So we may need a whole new physics to probe even further than we currently know.

No, I was not asking how God created the world - rather I wanted to know things like the following, given his disembodied, transcendent and necessary ontology:

1)  Does he created material things within the universe?  If so, by what mechanism?

2)  Can he move an object from A to B?  If so, by what mechanism?

In short, how does the immaterial unphysical inter-act with the material physical world?  For the sake or argument, I am taking for granted that God, on your definition exists, but am examining claims that you have made about his ontology.  That was my line of reasoning with that initial question.

Prizm:

But here’s a point to consider: no matter what advances we make, there is no chance that we can ever get to a model that is eternal in the past. Here I am reminded of how nebulous or metaphysical some of these new areas in physics like the String Theory are—there is always the specter of a cosmic beginning even if we can get ourselves to not only picture deeply counterintuitive things like 11 dimensional hyperspace but to actually show that it exists. In the end, there are boundaries even to the string theory model assuming we decide that it successfully unifies all fundamental physical interactions. And so no physics could speak about what happens in that transcendental domain.

I think you are shouting horay here a bit prematurely and for someone to say this of science betray your lack of knowledge not only of science, but also of the current state of knowledge in cosmology and theoretical physics.  If you have not kept up with the state of affairs in cosmology, astromony and theoetical physics,  allow me to tell you the following.  The two competing candidates for the best explanation of the origins of the cosmos are  1)  Inflationary Theory 2) The Cyclic Model founded on String Theory and the concept of membranes (or branes)

1)  The Inflationary model is essentially the Big Bang, modified to accommodate more explanatory potential.

2) The Cyclic Model envisages a totally different view of the universe. That our universe sit on one of several membrane and that the Big Bang was the result of the collision of two of these membranes.

For my money, the Cyclic model promises to answer more of the currently baffling features of the universe than the inflationary model, features such as:

-  the flatness of observed space
-  the origin and role of dark energy and dark matter.

Both models make prediction that can be verified empirically and at present both have pass all but one of the six milestone predictions.  In fact, the fifth milestone prediction was only achieved quite recently, with the publication of the results of WMAP, regarding red tilt,  - a feature that both models predicted.  The winner will turn on which models best predicts the sixth milestone, something called gravitational waves.

The Cyclic Model postulates that membranes are in a cyclic pattern of collision, retraction, attraction and collision, ad infintum.  Although it is not necessarily committed to a infinite past, it can also very well support a finite past model.

So let's keep our ears to the ground for developments in this space before we make forecast like this.

Physics picks up and makes sense only after the universe is created along with it every physical quantity or phenomena.  Indeed the way I see it, the theories or the models of the Origin of the Universe can indeed be revised as time goes on, but in any and all revisions, there is no chance or possibility that any viable and experimentally verifiable model will be shown to have been eternal in the past. So, you can push back the origin of the Universe as far as you want, but you will always be confronted with the specter of a cosmic beginning. That cosmic beginning cries out for an explanation. This is where, as I have demonstrated over and over again, the necessary existence of God becomes very evident. So, the possible existence of multiple universes in some Mother Universe does not even affect the argument. Nevertheless, I am by no means dogmatically wedded to any model. We’ll go with where the evidence points.

On the burden of proof question, you said the following;

First of all, this assumption is Wrong. This is a burden of proof fallacy on your part. But before I show how that is the case, allow me to briefly explain the terms theist, atheist and agnostic. An agnostic is one who confesses ignorance on the question of whether God exists or not. An agnostic therefore makes no claims on whether God exists or not. Theists and atheists on the other hand, make knowledge claims about the existence or non-existence of God. An atheist maintains that a God does not exist while a theist maintains that a God exists. The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic. Now, if an agnostic is sufficiently persuaded, he may decide that some kind of God exists even if he does not think that his feeble human reason can fully understand that God. He becomes an agnostic theist. On the other hand, there are equally agnostic atheists and they maintain that not only does God not exist, if such a thing as God did in fact exist, that God cannot be accessed by human reason.

As you might expect, I do not agree with some of your definitions above.  I know we could quibble about this until kingdom come, nevertheless I shall say what I understand by these words:

Atheism - Admits of a number of definitions - 

1) The view that there are absolute NO Gods.  This is sometimes called Strong or Positive or Explicit Atheism, and is generally understood in philosophical as rather a metaphysical commitment ( I shall not go into why this is so for now)

2) The view that one does not have a belief in god or one lacks a god-belief. This is also called Weak or Implicit Atheism. Comtemporary philosophy regards this view as essentially questioning the ontology of gods given by the theists.

Agnostic or Agnosticism - The agnostic makes a claim (or rather lack of claim) about knowledge.  The agnostic basically says that it is unknowable one way or the other.  See the below from wikipedia and see the etymology of the word.

Agnosticism . . . is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.  See here   for more details.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." T. S. Huxley.

So according to the standardly accepted version of the term agnostic, an agnostic is not making any claims, but simply says that the answer to the question of god's existence is UNKNOWABLE.   How could you go from the definition of agnosticism to the following claim?

The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic.

Note that the agnostic is NOT neutral -  if you consider the two extremes of theism and atheism, the agnostic does not sit in the middle.  For instance, it is conceivable that one could be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.  So which flavour of agnostic will you give the role of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides?  Will it  be;

1) An agnostic theist
2) An agnostic atheist
3) An agnostic agnostic (if there is such a thing)?


Still on the terminological issue, you said the following;

With the term atheist defined as I did, you can see that I do not subscribe to some newly revised definition of atheism which merely seeks to present atheism as “the absence of belief in the existence of God.” This loose redefinition absolves the atheist of a responsibility or burden in any discussion and squarely puts all the responsibility on the theist. By this definition then, an atheist becomes synonymous with non-theist - a broad term which would include not just traditional/strong Atheists but Agnostics and Verificationists.

As far as I am concerned this redefinition trivializes the discourse because by this definition, atheism ceases to be a viewpoint. It becomes a psychological state which is shared by people who hold a wide range of views or no views at all. With this definition, babies who hold no opinion on the issue would also have to be called atheists; people who suffer some deep and irreversible brain damage will automatically have to be reclassified atheists since they have no demonstrable belief or opinion on the matter. We can even stretch that definition to include your pets - suddenly your pets would qualify as atheists since they have no belief in the existence of God. Consequently a theist may equally loosely define theism as “the belief in the existence of God” and be equally absolved of any responsibility or confirmatory burden. The result is that everyone will sit tight in their domain of belief or disbelief and no God debates/discussions will ever arise; neither will any answers arise.

Supposing, I tell you that my position is the following -  I do not have a god-belief and that I do not belief there is a god.  And that people with this state of mind call themselves Nodists. I argue that I have every right to call myself whatever I want, just as Huxley had the right to formulate the word AGNOSTIC to describe people of a certain state of mind.  Under this new view,  these terms now become

1)  Atheist - one who asserts positively that there are no gods
2)  Nodist -  one who does not have a god-belief and does not belief in god.
3)  Agnostic -  one who thinks that it is unknowable one way or the other.

Supposing the word nodist enters into current usage, how would you deal with the arguments from the nodist position?  By the way, I am arguing the nodist position.


For there to be the sort of discussions that have raged for centuries on whether God exists or not, we have to understand that the atheist is not just stating some innocuous absence of a belief in the existence of God, but he is making a  positive knowledge claim that a God as a matter fact doesn’t exist. He needs to provide justification for that position.


You said:

For example, I do not know whether extraterrestrials exist or not. I have not visited all of the vastness of the universe to be able to say with any degree of confidence that there are no aliens in Andromeda or anywhere else. As far as extraterrestrials are concerned, I am agnostic about their existence or non-existence. They may or may not exist and I’ll openly confess my ignorance on that matter. However, there might be people who are deeply convinced that there are extraterrestrials and may have good reasons for such a conviction. Equally, there are people who are convinced that there are no such things as extraterrestrials. In any discussion on whether extraterrestrials exist or not, both sides which affirm or deny the existence of extraterrestrials have to present good arguments why their side should be believed. As an agnostic, all I get to do is weigh the evidence. In the end, I may be unconvinced that extraterrestrials exist OR I could be convinced that they do exist even if before that point, I have never actually witnessed an extraterrestrial. Before this can happen though, I have to be willing and receptive to the evidence offered for or against. If I am dogmatically set against one side of the discussion then it may be that no countervailing evidence from that side will convince me.

Like I said above, I do not agree with your ascription of the role of the mediator or arbiter to the agnostic.  All parties in the debate have as their responsibility to assess ALL the evidence from ALL other parties.

Let me address the below with the following thought experiment:

A person who posits that extraterrestrials do not exist cannot say that the inability of the other side to show evidence that would suggest the existence of an extraterrestrial is a positive proof of his own claim that extraterrestrials do not exist. That would be logically fallacious. All this would show in this example is that the person proposing that extraterrestrials exist has not proven his own case or has not shown evidence that would strongly suggest so – NOT that the denier of the proposition has been proven right! From the denier of the proposition, we need to hear a positive case that would suggest that their side is to be believed. Such a person, for example, may provide authoritative evidence of having traversed the entire universe and seeing no evidence of such extraterrestrials. In the absence of such strong positive disconfirming evidence, anyone is still completely within his rational rights to believe in the existence of extraterrestrials.

Thus, we are not in some law court where a person is assumed innocent if the prosecution cannot demonstrate some palpable guilt. This is more or less an academic exercise and each side of this conversational divide has to show with positive reasons why their side ought to be believed. Each side in essence has to build up a case that argues for the truthfulness of their knowledge claims. It is utterly fallacious therefore to think that in this scenario, you bear no responsibility or burden of proof for adopting your position, and as such, you can claim the possible lack of evidence for theistic positions as positive proof of atheistic positions. This false reasoning simply reduces to a fundamental presumption of atheism because “Absence of evidence” [/b]is not [b]“Evidence of Absence”.

Can you tell me which of the following entities are standardly thought to exists and why? Can you also explain HOW YOU COME TO KNOW THEY EXIST OR THEY DO NOT EXIST?

1)  Dragon
2)  Nfenah-nfenah
3)  Santa Claus
4)  Mami Wata
5)  Satyr

Could you methodology for investigating the five entities above be applied to investigating the existence of God?  WHY?

So it is entirely possible for instance for a theist not to be able to present any proof at all for his position. Nevertheless, it would be deeply illogical to assume that that necessarily proves the assertions or positions of the atheist.  Atheism is not the default position here. The default position is agnosticism, a confession of nescience, which essentially says “I don’t know whether God exists or whether God does not exist”.

What do you mean by default?  Is it suppose to mean one who has not take a view or a position of the God question?   How about a two-year old child?  On your definition of theism atheism and agnosticism,  where would you put a two-year old child?

Below, you are giving some sort of ontology of God, following on from your earlier definition of God as a necessary, transcendent, disembodied being with a mind and intelligence.

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

As an omnipotent being however, he can interact and directly impact the physical realm/universe. So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. Such interventions would appropriately be supernatural interventions since by definition, a supernatural event is not simply an ‘implausible’, ‘impossible’ or counter-intuitive event, BUT an event that in its proper context cannot be adequately explained by a simplistic recourse to naturalistic explanations.

To my question about why God lacks a body, you said " he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity".  So God is a necessary being.  But that statement is worrying, as your God already possess other attributes of the universe such as minds, freewill and inteligence.  Why does this not make him part of the universe, but having a body would make him part of the universe?

Can God bring about a state of affairs that result in him having a body?  If so,  would he cease to be a necessary being ?  Remember what you said above -( he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity)

If God ceases to be a necessary being by obtaining a physical body, as you say above,   does he also lose the quality of transcendence, since necessity implies transcendence?

If God cannot bring about a state of affairs whereby he has material form,  can he be said to be omnipotent?


You said:

So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it.

You said above that if God were to bring himself into the universe in material form, he would no longer be a necessary being. So in the fleeting moments that he assumes material form to show himself in the world is he necessary or contingent or transcendent?


Consider these two statements of yours:

Statement A:

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

And this

Statement B:

So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it.

[size=14pt]Statement A asserts that God cannot have a material form (because he will cease to be necessary)  BUT Statement B says God can temporarily assume material form.  Are These two statements logically consistent?[/size]



From your reading of philosophy, can you provide an reference to books, journals, articles, material that support the view that an entity is capable of at one time being necessary and at another contingent?


On the Christian view, Jesus was God in material form.  I don't know if you are Christian, but let's assume that you are.   From you analysis,  what was the ontic status of Jesus?  Was he

1)  Necessary and hence transcendent?
2)  Contingent given that he possess a material form and consequently non-transcendent?
3)  Necessary and contingent?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLbTE56HqLE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOmSYHzeoNA&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rP8ybp13s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5q6VFn17o&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNWqvEIcJpo&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTbkgcFi7k

What is the point of Christian evangelism? Christian believe that those who have never heard the gospel and the words of Jesus will be judged under a different dispensation that those who have.

There are many millions of people today who have never been exposed to the gospel, nor will they ever be exposed to it. Many billions of humans have come and gone who never heard the gospel. Will such people be judge against a standard they never were exposed to?

If it is true that people will be judged against their own standard if they had never heard the gospel, then what is the point of evangelising them. In fact, ironically, evangelising them ONLY maximises their chances of ending up in hell, for once they have heard the gospel, they are automatically present with more things against which they will be judge.

What do you think?

If you are a Christian and you believe in God through your FAITH, you face many challenges to that FAITH from a variety of sources such as;

1) Internal personal doubt
2) Attack and temptation from the devil
3) Contact with other religions
4) Contact with non-believers and atheists
etc
etc
etc

So, what do you do to maintain your faith in God?  Do you read up on Christian and bible history to shore up your faith? Do you simply pray to god for more faith?  Do you bury your head in the sand?  Do you avoid contact with non-Christians and atheists.

I would like to how you sustain your faith.

This is a call to ALL faithfull, Jesus-loving and God abiding Christains. The world, the human race need your help. The human race is afflicted with diseases, natural catastrophes, poverty, hunger, etc, etc, (you get the picture).

[size=18pt]I would like to call upon ALL Christians to pray to God and ask God to eradicate these afflictions from the face of the earth by the end of next year, 2010.
[/size]
Please, Christian, Can you do this for the sake of humanity, since you possess such a powerful God and an extremely reliable method of communicating with him.

Many Thankz & Regards

No2Atheism:

Nope there is no contradiction, YES I KNOW YOUR MOTIVATION is that you are actively trying to find fault where there is none to be found, so i would take my time to enlighten you since its obvious you are missing a very important detail and actively trying to find fault where there is none.:

- you said Men of God, notice you did not say pastor and you did not mention the new testament, most of your references were taking from the old testament, for which it was lawful to go to war (i.e. the spiritual principle of turning the other cheek had not come into effect). Those in the old testament were operating under an old covenant, nevertheless the Creator still maintained His own standards of them not being able to do certain spiritual things once they have done certain physical things.
- The people you mentioned were in the old testament.
- David was not permitted to do certain spiritual things (e.g. not allowed to build the temple) because he had blood on his hands (one way or another) such as being an active partaker in wars.
- Solomon was allowed to build the Temple because he did not have blood on his hands (one way or another) hence why the Creator made sure that there were no wars during his time as King.
- Being an active partaker in wars does not mean he is condemned before the Creator, it only means he is not qualified to do certain spiritual things.
- Pastors are expected and required to do most, if not all spiritual duties, hence as a result cannot be expected to partake of things like David had done.
- Hence why you do not see any Disciple being military in nature after the ascension of the Messiah.
- Hence why you see the Messiah actively prevented his disciples from taking physical actions even wen they wanted to, instead he admonished them to be spiritual, because their duties were no longer physical nor administrative but spiritual in nature.
- Hence why you see even the Messiah preventing any of his disciples from being violent or worldly, because their duties in the new testament has changed from being partly administrative to being completely spiritual.

- I repeat again that the position of a Pastor is a spiritual position and not an administrative one, hence he is not allowed to participate in administrative duties some of which might end up being like what David had to do.

- THAT MY FRIEND IS THE REASON WHY A TRUE PASTOR CANNOT BE PRESIDENT, THE DUTIES AND PURPOSES ARE DIFFERENT AND COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO HIS SPIRITUAL POSITION AS A PASTOR.

Since you claim to be an atheist, then you need not bother yourself about what the Creator can or cannot do

Whereabouts in the New Testament are the functions of a Pastor (and I mean Pastor, not any other name) delineated?

May kelly:

@poster
U want to see death before dying
Where GOD Almighty Jehovah sits is Heaven and If u can see where HE sits, that's Heaven. There is NO LOCATION for Heaven.

Advise for poster - wait first, do not be in a haste.when you die first, then u can see hell and heaven including their location.
Good luck

Doesn't the bible say that "Heaven or the Kingdom of God is within you"? Or is there is difference between HEAVEN & the Kingdom of God?

My suspicion is that Joseph was probably a middle-aged or elderly man when Jesus was born and that he would have died when Jesus and his siblings were still children and teenagers. If Jesus had 5 siblings as some sources allege, the early death of his father would have left the family really cash-strapped and in penury.

The question is - how would she have supported her family without the income of her husband? I suspect she would have taken to prostitution, which I think was one of the only avenues available for women at the time. And there would have been a huge demand for the services of prostitute given the cosmopolitan nature of the area at the time, populated by peoples from Rome, Greece, Africa, Persia, etc, etc.

And there appears to be some tradition that Mary's family was not particularly averse to prostitution. Mary's relation, Mary Magdalene, is known from some tradition to have been a prostitute. If this is true, Magdalene would have been well place to advise Mary mother of Jesus to enter into the profession.

Christians believe that Jesus is in heaven with his father right now - but what about his mother? Whatever happened to her?

One foolproof way of recognising the false prophet is checking out what the prophets says/said. Surefire signs of a false prophets are:

1) Someone who claims to be the son of God;

2) Someone who makes prophecies that do not come to past;

Prizm:

Notice that I said, "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation" and not “everything that begins to exist has a cause or explanation”. I said that because I know that sometimes dogmatic atheists may start to quibble with the definitions of even simple words like "something" "everything" etc in a manner that they wouldn't even dream of doing in the real world.  Just take a look at the thread to see how some have even started asking for the meaning of "something" or "nothing". Can anyone reasonably conclude that the persons asking such questions are conspicuously mired in ambiguity when these terms are used? Can it be said that they have no conception of what it means to say that there is "something" or "nothing"? It kind of reminds one of the way Bill Clinton reputedly asked for what the word 'is' really meant during his Monica Lewinsky sex  scandal investigation. Who really has the time or the desire for such inconsequential hair-splitting?

Thankz for the correction - I erred to have miss-quoted you and I understand your zeal for such pedantry as any productive debate can bearly get off the ground if there is ambiguity in the substantive terms, words or notions of the questions at hand.

But you do not seem to want to practise what you preach.  You call me to task for using the word "Everything"  instead of "Whatever, yet you evince cavalier interest to some of the core terms of the question. 

Deep Sight formulated a line of arguments, using the words "Something" & "Nothing" along some pseudo-logical reasoning.  He ascribed the number zero to "Nothing" and non-zero to "Something".  Now, is this a line of argumentation that you agree with?  How could we even proceed with this line of reasoning when no definition of the terms has been made?

Although there are many terms, notions or concept that we may be content with from an everyday, common-sense perspective, when doing philosophical debate we must be wary of that approach, as I am sure you will apreciate.  We must ensure that the terms or concept we use convey exactly the meaning we intend - hence the necessity for precise defintions.

Incidentally I notice early just how you were calling him on his being loose with his argumentation; 

Prizm:

Sometimes, people who call themselves theists, or who attempt to defend a theistic worldview make the mistake of not being very precise with their statements. One of the areas that shows this inattention to language is in statements about the metaphysical existence of God.

When an atheist asks a question like "If God is something, then from what "something" did God come from?", it shows that such an atheist is very attentive and has caught a theist flatfooted because such a theist has said something like "everything has a cause" or "for anything to exist, there must be a cause".

Once again, the way to say it, and which no serious theist should ever make the mistake of misrepresenting is:

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation".

By this statement, no sensible atheist who has understood the premise will begin to ask "what caused God?" or "from what something did God come from?" etc.

The reason is fairly obvious: God is not said to have begun to exist. In other words, we are talking about entities which exist necessarily and are not contingent - they exist by a necessity of their own selves. These necessary entities  did not begin to exist at any finite time in the past. It is useful to remember that this was the way atheists thought about the universe (well at least until that was debunked). To ask what caused God is to presuppose that God started to exist at some point and thus needed a cause or explanation.  It is rather amusing how a point so simple continues to elude people here. You can only ask "what caused" or "what came before" type questions of things which began to exist at a finite time in the past. You cannot ask that of things which exist by necessity and not by contingency. The two examples that are clear to me would be God (an unembodied mind) and numbers. These entities transcend the physical realm and thus have no material, temporal or spatial component.

[size=14pt]What a shame that you do not take your own medication.[/size]

Prizm:


[size=15pt]Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence [/b]which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists". [/size]

For example, if I allege that you are simply a brain connected by electrodes in a vat stimulated by some mad scientist somewhere; OR that you are a character existing in a virtual reality like the Matrix, and [b]therefore that you are not real, there is no way, you can get out of your sense organs to confirm the validity and reliability of your sense organ data. Think about it: Assuming I made that allegation and you countered with the reply that you can sense the external world, then what sort of answers would you give when I charge that you are simply wired in this vat or virtual reality to perceive the vat or virtual reality as real? How can you prove without/outside your sensory data the validity or reliability of sense data to be able to refute my allegation? It is just not possible. That doesn't mean that you begin to doubt the existence of the external world, does it? I hope not. At any rate, it is not like I am saying that the statement is some scientific law which you have to swallow whole and entire - it is a premise which has been demonstrated true without fail.

No, I do NOT agree.  This premise is not a priori knowledge and there are many empirical facts that belies this premise.  By the way, what do you mean by CAUSE or CAUSATION? And in view of you definition of causation, can you explain what causes the following events:

1)  The decay of a radioactive nucleus


I asked:

You say that God transcends the universe, etc, etc, .  How did you come to know this?   It is possible for an entity that transcends the universe and has no spatial, material or temporal component  to inter-act with material components of that universe?   By what mechanism does such inter-action occur?

And you responded with the following:

Prizm:

That is what it means to talk about necessary beings/entities. Things that exist out of a necessity of their own nature are timeless, spaceless, immaterial and uncaused. To say this is to say that these necessary entities transcend the universe. This is not a difficult thing to understand. Once again, if you remember the Cosmological Argument, as I laid it out, these inferences or deductions are unmistakably subsequent from the premises. One doesn't even have to appeal to any special knowledge or revelation here. If you disagree with that premise, you are then faced with the task of demonstrating with unassailable evidence any assertion of yours that refutes a premise that is already painfully obvious with boring consistency and tiresome repetitiveness.

Now, assuming that we are settled on "Contingent vs Necessary" entities, you may want to ask why God is by that definition able to interact with the universe.

You seem to be making unjustified and adhoc assertion.  How is the concept of contingency/necessity connected with the question I asked.  I asked by what mechanism was a transcendent being capable of inter-acting with the universe. 

You have a habit of brandishing some philosophical concepts (such as contingency and necessity) about without making any connections between your arguments.  Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent disembodied being inter-acts with a physical universe?  BY WHAT MECHANISM?

Prizm:

That is a very good question.  But before one gets to that point, there has to be some agreement that God or at least something like God exists. I am afraid, with you, we are not there yet. So we have to keep the conversation right at the fore--which is whether a God exists or not. You are the one stating the proposition that God does not exist, remember? I am still waiting for some other counterargument to the Cosmological Argument that we were engaged in elsewhere.

This is an extremely bizarre way to argue.  Remember that it is the theist that is making the POSITIVE claim that a God exists.  So the onus is on the theist to present the evidence for his God.  All the atheist need do is examine such evidence as presented by the theist and see if they make sense in the light of our knowledge of the nature of reality. For this the atheist wil surmon succor from sciences, logic mathematics philosophy, etc, etc, as deemed fit.

So it make no sense for me to accept the existence of an entity whose very nature and existence is at question before you can advance your arguments.  This is back-to-front argumentation - it would be tantamount to accepting the guilty of a defendant before seeking to prove him quilty.

Isn't this discussion part of the (Kalam) Cosmological Argument (KCA)?  I hope you remember that I have issues with the very premise of the KCA and my response to your posts and to Deep Sight's have been about the CA.   In fact, I would rather we discuss it here, as it stands to benefit more people interested in such matters, rather than moving the discussion to your private website with only a small audience of people.

Prizm:

You see, the definition of God is that God is a transcendental unembodied mind. A mind has attributes like freewill, intelligence, reasoning, etc. This is what it means to say that God is a person or is personal - He can freely choose to create or not. As an incorporeal being/mind, he has no physically complex parts; he is NOT said to be composed of an infinite number of finite particulars. He is just a mind--remarkably simple. But as a mind, he is capable of complex thoughts. As a matter of fact, his attributes are just infinite and superlative extensions of our own limited personal attributes - and thus he is omniscient, he is the embodiment of the loftiest logic and power, and exists beyond time, space and matter. Being personal does not mean that he has physical human parts or limitation. Note that this in no way limits a being that transcends all physical reality – he is a self-conscious, rational, necessary and superlative being; and the efficient cause of the universe or physical reality.

Now, an epistemological question.  You said God is "a transcendental unembodied mind. A mind has attributes like freewill, intelligence, reasoning, etc. This is what it means to say that God is a person or is personal - He can freely choose to create or not. As an incorporeal being/mind, he has no physically complex parts;"

How did you come to know this?  By what mechanism did this transcendent being (with no spatial, material or temporal component) inter-act with you (or other material humans) such that you ended up with this knowledge?


How do you know God has a mind but no body?  Which rules or laws are contravene if god were to have a body?  (Note that I am not gonna insist that all minds MUST reside in a body)

Deep Sight:

huxley. I believe in God but do not subscribe to any religion.

I think personal conscience and inner growth are the keys.

Does the god you believe in intervene in the world, or in human affairs? Why do you find the narratives of the religions unconvincing?

Prizm:

Sometimes, people who call themselves theists, or who attempt to defend a theistic worldview make the mistake of not being very precise with their statements. One of the areas that shows this inattention to language is in statements about the metaphysical existence of God.

When an atheist asks a question like "If God is something, then from what "something" did God come from?", it shows that such an atheist is very attentive and has caught a theist flatfooted because such a theist has said something like "everything has a cause" or "for anything to exist, there must be a cause".

Once again, the way to say it, and which no serious theist should ever make the mistake of misrepresenting is:

[size=18pt]"Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation".[/size]

By this statement, no sensible atheist who has understood the premise will begin to ask "what caused God?" or "from what something did God come from?" etc.

The reason is fairly obvious: God is not said to have begun to exist. In other words, we are talking about entities which exist necessarily and are not contingent - they exist by a necessity of their own selves. These necessary entities  did not begin to exist at any finite time in the past. It is useful to remember that this was the way atheists thought about the universe (well at least until that was debunked). To ask what caused God is to presuppose that God started to exist at some point and thus needed a cause or explanation.  It is rather amusing how a point so simple continues to elude people here. You can only ask "what caused" or "what came before" type questions of things which began to exist at a finite time in the past. You cannot ask that of things which exist by necessity and not by contingency. The two examples that are clear to me would be God (an unembodied mind) and numbers. These entities transcend the physical realm and thus have no material, temporal or spatial component.

After we have established that the universe is not eternal but started to exist a finite time in the past, the explanation for the cause of the universe has to be something which is spaceless, timeless and immaterial for space, time and matter came into existence with the Big Bang or with the universe.  God, by definition, transcends the universe and as such has no spatial, material or temporal component. The much we can do in cosmology is investigate the earliest moments of this Big Bang creation - and how the rest has fallen into place since this supernatural act of creation since contemporary physics breaks down at a certain point when you start extrapolating back in time.

Indeed, if one is to follow astrophysics and cosmology carefully, the universe was created out of literal nothingness (which is to say that there was no material substance from which the universe was created).  This remarkable insight can lead any serious seeker of the truth to the fact that there is a God even if it doesn't lead such a person to understand the way in which that God actually created ex nihilo. All physical phenomena came into existence with the creation of the universe and that includes space, time, matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy, gravitation, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and a number of initial conditions and constants which were remarkably fine-tuned for the universe to have continued expanding instead of recollapsing. As a matter of fact, that large scale structures like planets, stars or galaxies appear at all in the universe seems to have been a function of this remarkable fine-tuning.

But of course there are other theories which are being worked on that aim to show that the Big Bang is not the absolute beginning. These theories are welcome as well. Apart from the fact that many of these theories have not been proven, observed and in some cases cannot even be falsified there is the additional headache that these theories make no predictions not to talk about predictions which there is the faintest glimmer of hope that they can be scientifically discovered.  But the biggest worry that some of these models have is that even if one is to grant that the Standard Big Bang model is not the absolute beginning, there is still the uncomfortable fact that none of these other alternatives can be proven to be eternal in the past. One still has to confront the specter of a cosmic beginning. It is no wonder that people of the hard core sciences like Physics are seldom as fanatically atheistic as people of the softer sciences like evolutionary biology.

How do you come to know that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause or an explanation"?   How did you come to this knowledge?


You say that God transcends the universe, etc, etc, . How did you come to know this? It is possible for an entity that transcends the universe and has no spatial, material or temporal component to inter-act with material components of that universe? By what mechanism does such inter-action occur?

Deep Sight:

i hope mazaje's story (Be it real or imagined) will help christiam fanatics see that the world is too big anmd diverse for everybody to subscribe to one religion.

Of course there are millions of people who have lived and died without ever hearing of the jewish carpenter. Its really silly to imagine that they are all damned as a result. If that were true, certainly all our forefathers are in hell. Not to talk about the billions of red indians, asians, etc who have lived and died within their own culture, not ever hearing of the jewish magician.

Learn! Only the state of your inner being is important!

Nice one mazeje.

Deep Sight,

Where are you on the theism spectrum? Are you a christian, moslem, agnostic, or deist?

Deep Sight:

Huxley,

The answers to your question are embedded and implicit in my previous posts.

1. What is nothing? Nothing is zero.

2. What is something? Something is any quantity other than the zero quantity.

3. Observably, the universe is something, since it contains matter, and creatures.

You seem to be making a huge category error here.  Zero, one, two, three, seventeen, ten billion - these are abstract constructions of the mind (possible only human mind).  Think about it this way:

- Did numbers exist 10 billion years ago?


Even if I grant you that numbers are concrete things, they are at best representation of AMOUNTS of other things.  Think of it this way;

Depending on how you define a thing, there is probably a finite amount of such things in the universe at any given time.  For instance, at any given time there is a finite amount of electrons, or stars, or grains of sand, or bacteria in the universe.  But there is an infinite amount of numbers such that if you were to make a one-for-one link between the things and the numbers, you would run out of things but never run out of numbers, depicted below;

ELECTRON-A  --> 1
ELECTRON-B  --> 2
ELECTRON-C  --> 3
--
--
--
ELECTRON-last --> n (The last electron in the whole universe)
                         --> n + 1
                         --> n + 2
                         --> n + 3

This show numbers are simply abstraction or representation of quantity or amounts of things, but are NOT in themselves the things they represents. So to assert that "Nothing" is Zero is a huge caterogy error.

Deep Sight:

4. Since we understand that for anything top exist, there must be a cause, we can see clearly that the universe had a cause. We cannot speak of an endless regression of causes, because that would mean that there is no cause for all that exists, and this is impossible because of the law of cause and effect. Accordingly, we can only see that there must perforce be an ultimate cause: a cause that is itself its own cause, that is in and of itself and that accordingly needs no external cause.

No, we are not agreed on that.   How have you demonstrated that for anything to exist it MUST have a cause?  If this were true,  how would you justify the existence of God?


I was hoping you would address the question of whether God is Something, which I repeat below;
[size=16pt]
If God is Something, then from what "Something" did god come?[/size]