Causation

Printable View

11-28-2007, 04:33 PM
DD_8630

Causation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible (4SPFG)
1. Exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural realm since you would not still be sinning by now.

On the contrary, an infinity with a finite end is entirely possible. For example, consider an a straight line that, at some arbitrary point p curls round back onto itself at p. This is just one way in which this problem is averted.

I also have an issue with your mere assertion that the former precludes the latter. If this is meant to be a proof, where is your justification for this claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Therefore, the uncreated created who is God of the Bible ONLY since none can compare to Christ.

...

Therefore, the uncreated creator is the only known available possibility who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.

On the contrary, none can compare to Mithras. Mithras did, after all, do all the major things Jesus did 6 centuries before Jesus did them.

If you didn't get it, I'm being facetious. You are merely asserting that none can compare to Christ, rather than justifying this statement. Is this a proof or a rant?

By the way, you state that God is Uncreated. If God can be Uncreated, then why can't the universe be Uncreated?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

2. Nothing in the universe is without a cause.

Quantum mechanics would beg to differ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

3. Don't argue against a quality of some god that is not the quality of God of the Bible, otherwise you are arguing not against God of the Bible but something else (it is necessary to point this out because this problem of misreading the Bible happens so often).

Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated that the God of the Bible is the only possible Uncaused Causer / Uncreated Creator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

4. Exponential progression of conscience disallows the eternity of the past of cause and effects in the supernatural (the supernatural was proven to exist in Step 1 and 2) since you would not still be sinning by now. Ergo, the uncreated creator created who is God of the Bible because none can compare to Christ.

First, this step is synonymous with step 1.
Second, no such proof was given in steps 1 and 2, merely assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

4 Step Minimal Facts Approach, Proving the Resurrection of Jesus and that He is God (4SMFA)
1. 95 to 99.9% of scholars in the past half century (we know this because we counted them) agree Paul really wrote and really believed what he wrote in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2.

So?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

2. In these 3 chapters, Paul said he met with Peter, James (brother of Jesus) and John on several occasions in which the first meeting was with Peter and James within 5 years of Jesus' death on the cross, and they all agreed to the reason for being the eyewitness testimonies to the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Source?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

3. People do not go to their deaths as martyrs if they don't believe in what they are doing. The apostles really believed they saw, talked with, walked with and ate with the resurrected Jesus which convinced them He is God when before they were doubters.

They may believe what they saw, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. Ever heard of hallucinations? Mass hallucinations involving the same audio-visual manifestation is not unheard of, especially among from uneducated peoples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

4. If no naturalistic theory can account for witnessing the bodily resurrection of Jesus, very probably it is true then they saw Jesus resurrected which shows He created us, He is uncreated and salvation is through Him. Therefore, Hell would be needed for the unsaved to keep them eternally separated from God's own people.

Non sequitur, and equivocating "probable" with "certain". Try again.
12-02-2007, 03:53 AM
Churchwork

If you want to talk about curls that round about onto themselves, then you have to ask the question what caused that construct to begin with because it did not happen all by itself.

The documentation we have for Christ where 95+% of scholars agree on in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 where Paul says he met with the apostles and they had the same testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus is substantial. But Mithras has no claim of a resurrection until centuries after the resurrection of Jesus. Plus it is poorly documented. Very little written documentary evidence survives. Jesus is the first and only authentically documented case of resurrection.

No Mithraic scripture or first-hand account of its highly secret rituals survives, with the possible exception of a liturgy recorded in a 4th century papyrus, thought to be an atypical representation of the cult at best. Current knowledge of the mysteries is almost entirely limited to what can be deduced from the iconography in the mithraea that have survived.

Justin Martyr said, "Mithraists were diabolically imitating the Christians". There is very little information about the decline of the religion. Suffice it to say, the religion that is true would stand the test of time.

The universe cannot be uncreated because of the exponential progression of conscience, that we would not still be sinning by now; after all, we are of the creation.

Quantum mechanics does not agree with your view of it. Scientists don't close up shop and say something just happens all by itself in quantum mechanics. How silly.

Since none can compare to Christ, know He is the uncreated creator.

Step 4 deals with the supernatural and Step 1 deals with the natural. Both are needed and are without assumptions.

There is no such thing as mass hallucinations in modern psychology.

Since the strongest case remains that Jesus is uncreated and was resurrected, it is wise to go with the best evidence, logically speaking.
12-02-2007, 04:57 AM
DD_8630

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

If you want to talk about curls that round about onto themselves, then you have to ask the question what caused that construct to begin with because it did not happen all by itself.

On the contrary:
http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/rele...es/hexamer.jpg
http://www.uwec.edu/physics/thomas/P...15/index.1.jpg
http://conferences.fnal.gov/lp2003/f...atter/e-p1.jpg

Half-lines tending round an arbitrary point are common in nature.

In any case, I was merely highlighting how your initial premise was flawed, in that you assumed only simplistic temporal formations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The documentation we have for Christ where 95+% of scholars agree on in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 where Paul says he met with the apostles and they had the same testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus is substantial.

Where do you get this number from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

But Mithras has no claim of a resurrection until centuries after the resurrection of Jesus. Plus it is poorly documented. Very little written documentary evidence survives.

First, this is simply not true. Second, I was using Mithras as an example of pre-Christian saviours "born of a virgin, sacrificed for humanity, resurrected several days later; birth honoured on or near the winter solstice, death & resurrection honoured on or near the spring equinox".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Jesus is the first and only authentically documented case of resurrection.

The only documentation is Paul, and even that is disputed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The universe cannot be uncreated because of the exponential progression of conscience, that we would not still be sinning by now; after all, we are of the creation.

First, it is merely your assertion that conscience is exponentially progressing (one I feel you have derived from the Bible, which adds another loop to your circular logic). Second, even if the first were true, how does this imply that we would not be sinning now? Indeed, how can you determine whether we are sinning or not without assuming a particular faith or ethic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Quantum mechanics does not agree with your view of it. Scientists don't close up shop and say something just happens all by itself in quantum mechanics. How silly.

We physicists don't 'close up shop', but we do acknowledge the fundamental probabalistic nature of matter. On large scales, these probabilities tend to zero or one, so are unimportant to everyday observations. But on small scales, probabalistic influences give rise to radioactive decay, quantum tunneling, etc. Indeed, I'd like to see an explanation for quantum tunneling that doesn't involve spontaneity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Since none can compare to Christ, know He is the uncreated creator.

Since you have in no way justified this claim, this knowledge will have to wait.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Step 4 deals with the supernatural and Step 1 deals with the natural. Both are needed and are without assumptions.

On the contrary, you assume that none can compare with Christ, that the universe has simplistic temporal structure, that Paul's writings are de dicto true, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

There is no such thing as mass hallucinations in modern psychology.

On the contrary, epileptics have been having spiritual visions of their local deities for as long as we have had recorded history (and no doubt longer).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Since the strongest case remains that Jesus is uncreated and was resurrected, it is wise to go with the best evidence, logically speaking.

The only evidence you have presented is that 'most scholars think Paul believed what he wrote'. Gautama Buddha believed what we preached as well; does this make the Buddhist Nirvana true?
12-03-2007, 01:44 AM
Churchwork

All of these whirly things did not just pop into existence all by themselves. They had a root cause.

Gary R. Habermas compiled a list of the scholars who discussed the resurrection in the past half century, and 95+% of them agree Paul really wrote and believed Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15. Habermas is the leading scholar today on the resurrection.

A quick example of the exponential improvement of conscience is the fact that child sacrifices are no longer prevalent. In the dictionary a sin need no mention of some faith, for it is enough to know it is acquiescence to temptation and we throw people in jail for some sins.

Modern psychology says there are no such thing as group hallucinations seeing the same thing at the same time. A hallucination is an individual affair going on in their own mind. They are never the same. The apostles walked with Jesus for three years and confirmed with Paul when they met with him their eyewitness testimony of the resurrection of Jesus.

Nirvana is a false view of reality of shutting down your mind. God never asked you to do that. God of the Bible wants you to be spiritually and intellectually active.

It is very much true that the addition of a resurrection of Mithras came after the resurrection of Jesus and Mithras is poorly documented. And of course less than 1% of the human race believe in it, so what is true in God revealing Himself to us would not be so unaccessible.
12-03-2007, 05:05 AM
DD_8630

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

All of these whirly things did not just pop into existence all by themselves. They had a root cause.

Indeed. But my point was that they can occur naturally. Perhaps one of the mechanisms for their formation is analogous to the mechanism by which time itself formed. Or perhaps not.

Alternate possibilities exist, and so your proof (such that it is) is moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Gary R. Habermas compiled a list of the scholars who discussed the resurrection in the past half century, and 95+% of them agree Paul really wrote and believed Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15. Habermas is the leading scholar today on the resurrection.

Again, this amounts to an appeal to popularity: "This statement is believed to be true by many people, therefore it is true".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

A quick example of the exponential improvement of conscience is the fact that child sacrifices are no longer prevalent. In the dictionary a sin need no mention of some faith, for it is enough to know it is acquiescence to temptation and we throw people in jail for some sins.

You presume that
a) there is a linear relationship between time and the prevalence of sin
b) sin can be quantified
c) there is an objective morality by which sin is determined (indeed, morality is subjective in reality).

Thus, this point is little more than assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Modern psychology says there are no such thing as group hallucinations seeing the same thing at the same time.

Modern psychology says no such thing. It is a well-documented phenomenon that hallucinations induced by epileptic fits are almost always based upon the local cultural religion (so a British atheist might 'see' Jesus, whilst an Indian Christian might 'see' Krishna, etc).

Thus, epileptics frequently have very similar hallucinations when together, which reinforces the hallucinations themselves (and only further distresses the epileptic).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

A hallucination is an individual affair going on in their own mind. They are never the same. The apostles walked with Jesus for three years and confirmed with Paul when they met with him their eyewitness testimony of the resurrection of Jesus.

I contend that Paul hallucinated the whole Jesus fiasco, wrote it down, and future authors retroactively wrote the other gospels.
Prove me wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

EDIT: my contention is evidenced by the fact that non-Pauline NT writings contain many Pagan mythological derivatives common to second-fifth century CE Christianity (walking on water, feeding the multitude, born of a virgin, etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Nirvana is a false view of reality of shutting down your mind.

Why is the attainment of Nirvana not the goal of concious entities?

In any case, you contradict yourself: St. Paul believed what he preached, and you say his preaches are therefore correct.
Yet Gautama Buddha believed what he preached, and you say he is nevertheless incorrect.

Thus, your argument that "Paul believed what he wrote, therefore what he wrote was true" is refuted by example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

God never asked you to do that. God of the Bible wants you to be spiritually and intellectually active.

Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated either the Bible nor the God thereof. Remember that you can't use your 'proof' to support your 'proof' (that would be circular logic, y'know?).
12-07-2007, 08:43 PM
Churchwork

The proof remains solid that nothing in nature happens all by itself, hence all of nature and time can't cause itself, but was caused by, logically speaking, that which is uncreated since no other explanation can suffice.

All we have is evidence and the evidence is the reasons 95+% of scholars agree on leads them to be convinced Paul really wrote Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 in which he said he met with the apostles and they agreed on their eyewitness testimonies of the risen Jesus and walking with Him for three years. Paul said those with him saw the same light and heard the same voice when they too fell to the ground awestruck. Other people don't react this way and see the same thing if it was just one man's epilepsy. And it is unlikely all of them were epileptics on the road to Damascus. I go with the strongest evidence and do not resort to such silly explanations of scores of epileptics.

There is no linear relationship with time and sin. Sin does not need to be fully labeled. It is enough to know at least some things are clearly sins. Morality also need not be fully defined, but that there are some things the world over are agreed upon that definitely throws some people in jail at the very least.

Christians don't claim Krishna, for Jesus said when He returns all shall know it. We don't all know Krishna is Jesus, so he would be a false Christ. An atheist who saw Jesus does not deny Jesus existed, hence nobody denied his existence, even the Jews in the Talmud who said none in their faith denied the existence of Jesus, though rejecting Him as the Messiah.

Hallucinations have no objective reference, that is why there are no group hallucinations of seeing the same thing. There is no indication either that any of the apostles were epileptics, nor does science show epileptics have the same visions. They are always different.

In Paul meeting with the apostles about the twelve different group settings, they explained to Paul those group settings seeing the same Jesus, so you are on your own against what scholars discern as being authentic testimony that is most trustworthy.

Since scholars also agree the NT was completed in the first century, that destroys your argument about the 2nd century. In life, many things are similar and reoccurring, which is understandable, but that does not take away from the things that really happened and are substantially proven like a flood, Jesus walking on the earth, His resurrection and the martyrdom of the apostles. However much this offends you, large local floods can happen. Even God entered into His creation more than once. God has no problem entering into His creation several times, but He was resurrected only once. And those who saw Him were with Him and were with Him in His resurrection. Their martyrdom is to be expected because people hate those in Christ, they are jealous and hostile like yourself. People don't go to their deaths knowingly lying in martyrdom. The difference with Christianity is that they saw Jesus resurrected. That is far different than just assuming something and creating a philosophy or religion or misunderstanding quantum mechanics to rationalize your hostility.

Take a computer game with a player character that represents you. In that game, you could walk on water. It is no difficulty at all for Jesus to do the same.

The reason Paul's words are correct is not because he preached them, but they are substantially effective in reality compared to any challengers. For example Buddha preaching Nirvana fails because it entails shutting your mind down, blanking it out, but that is not reality. Reality is activating your mind and keeping it in harmony with the will of God. Some of the greatest achievements are through the thinking and thoughtful mind, not by shutting it down into a blank state, which actually opens it up to demonic spirits. The reason Buddha came up with this theory was due to suffering. It was thought that this was a way to handle human suffering. He was wrong and so were the Hindus.

The proof for God in the 4 Step Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach continue to remain unchallenged. It is through various findings the proofs are constructed. What supports the proofs is from the first finding to the last. Does the proof support the proof. Of course.

Praise the Lord!
12-09-2007, 09:32 AM
DD_8630

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The proof remains solid that nothing in nature happens all by itself, hence all of nature and time can't cause itself, but was caused by, logically speaking, that which is uncreated since no other explanation can suffice.

This argument contradicts itself: its premise is that there is nothing uncaused, and its conclusion is that there is/was something uncaused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

All we have is evidence and the evidence is the reasons 95+% of scholars agree on leads them to be convinced Paul really wrote Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15 in which he said he met with the apostles and they agreed on their eyewitness testimonies of the risen Jesus and walking with Him for three years. Paul said those with him saw the same light and heard the same voice when they too fell to the ground awestruck. Other people don't react this way and see the same thing if it was just one man's epilepsy.

Unless there was no-one around and Paul hallucinated the whole thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

And it is unlikely all of them were epileptics on the road to Damascus. I go with the strongest evidence and do not resort to such silly explanations of scores of epileptics.

I never postulated scores of epileptics, only that Paul was epileptic.
In any case, you are still making fallacious appeals to authority: something is not true simply because lots of people believe it is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

There is no linear relationship with time and sin.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Sin does not need to be fully labeled.

Of course it does. Otherwise, it makes no sense to talk of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

It is enough to know at least some things are clearly sins.

No, they are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Morality also need not be fully defined, but that there are some things the world over are agreed upon that definitely throws some people in jail at the very least.

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Christians don't claim Krishna, for Jesus said when He returns all shall know it. We don't all know Krishna is Jesus, so he would be a false Christ.

We don't all know Jesus, so Jesus is a false Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

An atheist who saw Jesus does not deny Jesus existed,

And an atheist who saw Krishna does not deny Krishna existed. Your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Hallucinations have no objective reference, that is why there are no group hallucinations of seeing the same thing.

On the contrary, two people's neurology is very similar. Hallucinating the same thing is not uncommon. In any case, I am only postulating that Paul was the epileptic.

My ultimate point is that while an alternate explanation exists, your conclusion is not proven, merely postulated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Since scholars also agree the NT was completed in the first century, that destroys your argument about the 2nd century.

In details only. My point stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

In life, many things are similar and reoccurring, which is understandable, but that does not take away from the things that really happened and are substantially proven like a flood, Jesus walking on the earth, His resurrection and the martyrdom of the apostles.

None of these things are proven. You have simply asserted that the Bible is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

However much this offends you, large local floods can happen.

Surprisingly enough, this does not offend me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Even God entered into His creation more than once. God has no problem entering into His creation several times, but He was resurrected only once.

God entering his Creation refutes the notion that humans have free will. Either he is absent from Creation, or we don't have free will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

And those who saw Him were with Him and were with Him in His resurrection. Their martyrdom is to be expected because people hate those in Christ, they are jealous and hostile like yourself.

Jealous? Hostile? I have been nothing but civil to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

People don't go to their deaths knowingly lying in martyrdom.

On the contrary, people are often willing to die for things they believe aren't true. In any case, just because someone thinks something is true, doesn't mean it is true. There have been martyrs from every religion, every culture, every school of philosophical thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The difference with Christianity is that they saw Jesus resurrected.

Allegedly. You have proven nothing. You have evidenced nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

That is far different than just assuming something and creating a philosophy or religion or misunderstanding quantum mechanics to rationalize your hostility.

You have yet to demonstrate my supposed misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. Indeed, you have yet to show any understanding on your part at all. What is your training in modern physics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The reason Paul's words are correct is not because he preached them, but they are substantially effective in reality compared to any challengers.

They posit a reality that is untestable. Paul's reality is no more evidenced than Gautama's reality. Who's to say Paul got it right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

For example Buddha preaching Nirvana fails because it entails shutting your mind down, blanking it out, but that is not reality. Reality is activating your mind and keeping it in harmony with the will of God. Some of the greatest achievements are through the thinking and thoughtful mind, not by shutting it down into a blank state, which actually opens it up to demonic spirits.

All of this is only under the mantle of Christian mythology. Without assuming a Christian worldview, these notions of demons and God become meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The reason Buddha came up with this theory was due to suffering. It was thought that this was a way to handle human suffering.

Gautama Buddha proposed the Middle Path, since he believed desire caused suffering, and too-little and too-much lead to desires. It's an interesting idea, but not one I agree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

He was wrong and so were the Hindus.

I love how you just tack the Hindus on the end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The proof for God in the 4 Step Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach continue to remain unchallenged.

The fact that I have still post here, challenging the 'proof', refutes this.
12-12-2007, 05:32 AM
Churchwork

Don't confuse nature that has nothing in it that is uncaused with the conclusion that nature must have a cause which must be uncaused.

Scholars don't consider Paul imagining because he had no reason to leave his faith which he had high standing in Judaism. He would have had no grief hallucination. He really was at work rounding up Christians for the Jews, doing what was deemed a good work and traveling to Damascus with his entourage. Paul even said that if what he said was untrue, any of those 500 or others could speak up against it. None denied it such as those he said he was with.

Again, the reason we agree with what 95+% scholars are in agreement about is for their reasons for so believing Paul really believed what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15. Have you read them yet? Antony Flew, a famous atheist, in his debate with Gary R. Habermas, gave up atheism as a result.

I agree with those reasons, this is my basis for belief; whereas you have assertion only? That is the difference between us.

God entering into His creation does not deny free will. My will is free in which I accepted God entering into His creation. You are free to deny it, remain unsaved and bound for hell.

Don't pride yourself on your civility, for it is not civil to call someone an idiot, for you are only showing your hostility and anger when you do that. I consider that uncivil.

I don't know of any examples of people dying for something they didn't believe in. The reason for the martyrdom is not to say that their faith is true, but that they truly believed in their faith. Since the apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected and group hallucinations don't exist in modern psychology, it is reasonable to accept that it is true; whereas other religions are just assumed without multiple group eyewitness accounts of a resurrection. Rather they are believing in some ethereal god or concept that is just assumed instead of eyewitnessing a resurrection of the uncreated Creator. Hard evidence is very powerful.

Again, with quantum physics, because there is no reason for us to think something happens all by itself with trillions of things in nature with causes and no hard proof for something without a cause, all you have is your assumption something happens all by itself which is a lame excuse to reject God. Lame excuses are embarrassing. I for one would be embarrassed by such an unfounded assumption.

You can't retest history. Paul is deceased. That is not a logical approach to demand a retest of Paul's ministry, but you can meet all historical demands for a proof in which Paul met with the apostles and they agreed on seeing the resurrected Jesus. The question remains, if no modern psychological condition can account for their claims in what they said they saw, then it is most probably true and Jesus is really Who He said He was/is/always will be.

We know Satan exists because there was the tempter in the garden. God does not tempt, nor does man fathom the idea. This is how we know the evil spirit exists.

We were talking about why Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong in their approach to attain Nirvana by shutting your mind down into a blank state which becomes inactive and open to suggestions like leaving a gate open at night for anyone or anything to enter unchecked. The mind was meant to be active, to be protective and have vitality. This is proven by the fact that great accomplishments are achieved not by shutting it down but engaging it and allowing for self-defense. I am glad you disagree with Buddha's approach being not of God. Desires are desirable. You have billions of nerve cells all over your body which give pleasurable sensations and which evoke desires. Obviously, our Creator intended it to be so.

Did you know the teaching of Hinduism is that its god's are amoral, that is, there is no right and wrong and he just "is"? How can you follow that impersonal god? If we are an extension of that source, then how can we choose rightly?

When you post, you are not challenging the proof for God at all, but showing your continued error. Hence the proof for God remains unchallenged.

May these words help you.
12-12-2007, 12:13 PM
DD_8630

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Don't confuse nature that has nothing in it that is uncaused with the conclusion that nature must have a cause which must be uncaused.

I do not. However, since it is fallacious to indulge in such special pleading, I advise you against it. Your arguments hold little water as it is without you poking another hole in them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Scholars don't consider Paul imagining because he had no reason to leave his faith which he had high standing in Judaism.

Like you said, he likely believed what he wrote. This does not mean it actually happened, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

He would have had no grief hallucination. He really was at work rounding up Christians for the Jews, doing what was deemed a good work and traveling to Damascus with his entourage. Paul even said that if what he said was untrue, any of those 500 or others could speak up against it. None denied it such as those he said he was with.

Again, the reason we agree with what 95+% scholars are in agreement about is for their reasons for so believing Paul really believed what he wrote in Gal. 1 & 2 and 1 Cor. 15. Have you read them yet? Antony Flew, a famous atheist, in his debate with Gary R. Habermas, gave up atheism as a result.

Nonsense. Flew converted to deism when he could not account for the first reproducing organisms. He believes in a First Cause deity, nothing more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

I agree with those reasons, this is my basis for belief; whereas you have assertion only? That is the difference between us.

I have my scientific training. I do not accept something unless there is reason to. Since you have yet to justify your claims, I remain sceptical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

God entering into His creation does not deny free will.

On the contrary, it does. God, in his omniscience, knows exactly what consequences his actions in the world will do. Ever heard of chaos theory? The Earth is a chaotic system, and any small changes within it are amplified over time. God's fiasco two millenia ago has made the world a very different place, not least because of the whole Christianity and Islam thing. Thus our free wil lis refuted: God's direct interferance in the world belies any spontineity in our actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

My will is free in which I accepted God entering into His creation. You are free to deny it, remain unsaved and bound for hell.

Unless, of course, hell does not exist. Since I do not ascribe to Judaeo-Christo-Islamic mythology, I see no reason to heed your threats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Don't pride yourself on your civility, for it is not civil to call someone an idiot, for you are only showing your hostility and anger when you do that. I consider that uncivil.

Nonsense. You made an idiotic statement, and I was commenting as such. It is not an insult if it is justified.

In any case, you have been accusing me of hostility and anger since long before my 'insult'. Try not to be so hypocritical in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

I don't know of any examples of people dying for something they didn't believe in.

My mistake, I meant to say:

On the contrary, people are often willing to die for things they believe, that aren't true.

That is, vhement belief in something does not constitute proof of it. People used to vhemently believe in a 6000 year old Earth, but we now know that to be false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The reason for the martyrdom is not to say that their faith is true, but that they truly believed in their faith.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Since the apostles truly believed they saw Jesus resurrected and group hallucinations don't exist in modern psychology, it is reasonable to accept that it is true; whereas other religions are just assumed without multiple group eyewitness accounts of a resurrection.

On the contrary, there are multiple religions whose supernatural events had multiple eye-witness. Besides, I only ever hypothesised that Paul hallucinated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Rather they are believing in some ethereal god or concept that is just assumed instead of eyewitnessing a resurrection of the uncreated Creator. Hard evidence is very powerful.

Indeed it is. Since you have yet to present any, our debate continues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Again, with quantum physics, because there is no reason for us to think something happens all by itself with trillions of things in nature with causes and no hard proof for something without a cause, all you have is your assumption something happens all by itself which is a lame excuse to reject God. Lame excuses are embarrassing. I for one would be embarrassed by such an unfounded assumption.

Well, good to see your refutations are as poor as ever. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate an understanding of quantum theory before you pretend to be an authority on it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

You can't retest history. Paul is deceased. That is not a logical approach to demand a retest of Paul's ministry,

I agree, and that is not what I am doing. If you read what I write, you might see what I'm getting at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

but you can meet all historical demands for a proof in which Paul met with the apostles and they agreed on seeing the resurrected Jesus.

Since no science, not even

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The question remains, if no modern psychological condition can account for their claims in what they said they saw, then it is most probably true and Jesus is really Who He said He was/is/always will be.

Perhaps, but this is not the case, so your point is, yet again, moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

We know Satan exists because there was the tempter in the garden.

According to the Genesis myth, yes. But what reason do you have to believe that this myth is actually true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

God does not tempt,

According to whom? God? How conviniant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

We were talking about why Buddhism and Hinduism are wrong in their approach to attain Nirvana by shutting your mind down into a blank state which becomes inactive and open to suggestions like leaving a gate open at night for anyone or anything to enter unchecked.

They teach no such thing. Stop acting like an authority in thing you know nothing about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

The mind was meant to be active, to be protective and have vitality. This is proven by the fact that great accomplishments are achieved not by shutting it down but engaging it and allowing for self-defense. I am glad you disagree with Buddha's approach being not of God. Desires are desirable. You have billions of nerve cells all over your body which give pleasurable sensations and which evoke desires. Obviously, our Creator intended it to be so.

Did you Creator also intend for those cells to become cancerous? If yes, then your God is not omnibenevolent, and your previous argument fails. If no, then your God is not omnipotent, and your initial argument fails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Did you know the teaching of Hinduism is that its god's are amoral, that is, there is no right and wrong and he just "is"? How can you follow that impersonal god? If we are an extension of that source, then how can we choose rightly?

By following our instinctive and reasoned moralities. We have evolved to abhor murder and paedophilia, rape and theft. We deduce that it is wrong to be prejudiced, biased. We do not need some Objective Moral Source to tell us what we should or should not do.

In any case, Hinduism doesn't teach this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

When you post, you are not challenging the proof for God at all, but showing your continued error. Hence the proof for God remains unchallenged.

And what error would that be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

May these words help you.

Help me? I didn't know I needed helping.
12-12-2007, 06:34 PM
Churchwork

It's not special pleading at all. There are trillions of things with causes, therefore to assume something is without a cause would be the special pleading on your part.

Antony Flew believed in an uncreated creator. He may not and never will give his life to Christ, but that is a choice everyone has to overlook the evidence in the 4SPFG and MFA. You see it is one thing to believe in the uncreated creator, but a whole other thing to be saved, because the later is by coming to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

You are unable to cite a single religion besides Christianity for multiple group attestation that was well documented for the resurrection of the one who said He is God and walked the earth. Praise the Lord!

Free will remains unchallenged, for just because God enters His creation, does not mean you lose your free-will. How silly. His atonement is grace, not annihilation of your free-will made in God's image. Because of God's infinite foreknowledge, He would enter creation because that is the only way some people could be saved who would receive Him, due to the sin of the first God-conscious man bringing sin into all the world and touching all souls. The salvation offered to all, but due to free-will some don't want it, such as yourself whom are going to hell. That some don't want it is proof that the will is free to reject salvation.

A personal God enters His creation. The amoral god of Hinduism remains impersonally afar off.

Since, obviously, there had to be a first God-conscious man and woman, that is the event in the Garden of Eden. See the causation in this so that now all men and women have God-consciousness in their spirit. God breathed the breath of life into body from dust to create a tripartite being - spirit, soul and body. Think of the soul and body as your outerman, and your spirit as your innerman. Your soul has the functions of mind, will and emotions; while your spirit has the functions of intuition, commmunion and conscience (see 1 Thess. 5.23, Heb. 4.12).

Paul could not have hallucinated because those with him did not protest his claim to say otherwise. They saw the same light and heard the same sound when they too fell the ground with Paul in which Paul saw Jesus resurrected. There was an objective reference experienced by others. If it was not objective, then it would not happen at the same time, nor have such unique similarities.

Because of sin, cancer occurs. In life, people get caught in the fallout and sin passes down through generations realistically. Our God is a real God, not pretend. If God disallows man the opportunity to reject Him, man is only a robot without cancer. God is bigger than that.

Your continued error is that you can't counter the MFA and 4SPFG, while still refusing Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Understand that no logic can convince you to receive Christ into your life. The logic I supplied you is not enough for you, for you will continue on with endless objections all of which continue to be answered each time. At some point, give your life to Christ before it is too late. In reality, what you are doing is simply going through the motions of saying that you want to go to hell and trying to cover it up to rationalize your flesh. That is that.
12-12-2007, 09:59 PM
DD_8630

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

It's not special pleading at all. There are trillions of things with causes, therefore to assume something is without a cause would be the special pleading on your part.

My dear, you are the one positing an Uncaused Causer. You claim that nothing can exist without a cause, but then turn right back on yourself and say that there is something that exists without a cause.
Your explanation for this is that the rule of 'must be caused' magically doesn't apply to this Caused.

That is special pleading, and it is fallacious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Antony Flew believed in an uncreated creator. He may not and never will give his life to Christ, but that is a choice everyone has to overlook the evidence in the 4SPFG and MFA.

Those two arguments are fallacious rhetoric that prove nothing. I have demonstrated this time and time again, yet you cling to your biases and your fallacious logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

You see it is one thing to believe in the uncreated creator, but a whole other thing to be saved, because the later is by coming to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Fantastic. I'll write that in my Book of Shadows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

You are unable to cite a single religion besides Christianity for multiple group attestation that was well documented for the resurrection of the one who said He is God and walked the earth.

Mithrasism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. All have mythological stories in which multiple eye-witnesses observe various mystical events (in Mithrasism in particular, one of these events is the resurrection of Mithras, witnesses and all).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Free will remains unchallenged, for just because God enters His creation, does not mean you lose your free-will.

As I explained in my previous post, it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

His atonement is grace, not annihilation of your free-will made in God's image. Because of God's infinite foreknowledge, He would enter creation because that is the only way some people could be saved who would receive Him, due to the sin of the first God-conscious man bringing sin into all the world and touching all souls. The salvation offered to all, but due to free-will some don't want it, such as yourself whom are going to hell. That some don't want it is proof that the will is free to reject salvation.

Or that we are simply biological processes. You contend that everything has a cause, right? Then how can we have free will?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

A personal God enters His creation. The amoral god of Hinduism remains impersonally afar off.

Except when he manifests: the Avatars of Vishnu, for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Since, obviously, there had to be a first God-conscious man and woman, that is the event in the Garden of Eden.

Why is this obvious? I repeat my question:

According to the Genesis myth, yes. But what reason do you have to believe that this myth is actually true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

See the causation in this so that now all men and women have God-consciousness in their spirit.

What on Earth does that mean? You sound more New Agey by the second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

God breathed the breath of life into body from dust to create a tripartite being - spirit, soul and body. Think of the soul and body as your outerman, and your spirit as your innerman. Your soul has the functions of mind, will and emotions; while your spirit has the functions of intuition, commmunion and conscience (see 1 Thess. 5.23, Heb. 4.12).

Yes, I am aware of the details of Christian mythology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Paul could not have hallucinated because those with him did not protest his claim to say otherwise.

That is because they did not exist. Like I said, he was hallucinating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

If God disallows man the opportunity to reject Him, man is only a robot without cancer. God is bigger than that.

So your God is not a good God. He prefers to make entities with free-will rather than entities which are happy. What a fun worldview you have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Your continued error is that you can't counter the MFA and 4SPFG,

Since I have done such a refutation, your point is moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

while still refusing Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

How can I refuse something that doesn't exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Churchwork

Understand that no logic can convince you to receive Christ into your life. The logic I supplied you is not enough for you, for you will continue on with endless objections all of which continue to be answered each time. At some point, give your life to Christ before it is too late. In reality, what you are doing is simply going through the motions of saying that you want to go to hell and trying to cover it up to rationalize your flesh. That is that.

No. That is your rationalisation for why someone doens't want to be a Christian. To you, it is obvious that Christianity is true. To the rest of us, we can see it for what it is: just another religion with self-righteous followers. Christianity is obvious to Christians for the same reason Islam is obvious to Muslims, or Hinduism to Hindus, or Buddhism to Buddhists.

CW, I ask you yet again: what training do you have in physics? What do you know of quantum mechanics? Don't give me hand-waving answers. I want specifics.
12-12-2007, 10:19 PM
Churchwork

You're repeating yourself and not responding to what was said which is just your self-righteous behavior. I said nothing in nature is without a cause, therefore, there must be the uncaused cause. I did not say anything is without cause only that which is in nature is never without a cause.

Because I am constantly repeating myself and you are constantly not responding to this, you're just being belligerent and obstinate and the burden of the proof is on you to show otherwise. Remember, the odds against you are more than a trillion to one because we have a trillions of things in nature with causes and no hard proof something is without a cause.

Thus, you have again, received the infraction for Board Etiquette #6.

Follow this simple principle. If only physicists who deeply study quantum mechanics can be saved, this would make God evil, because He would be violating the principle that He is no respecter of persons (Acts 10.34) from any generation. Therefore, it stands to reason if you are going to prove whether God exists, you need not study quantum mechanics as the determining factor no matter how much you do so as your point of pride.

The evidence that is to be considered is the same evidence that existed 2000 years ago that we have access to today. And that evidence is the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach. Nothing is new under the sun.

I am sad to say you are going to hell according to God's righteous Word. That is an easy call.