When in Rome

Originally posted by josephw
Lighten up mr. T. 😉

Can't you see I'm trying to cope here? 😀

Yes I do, and I am trying to give you friendly advice on how to cope. Your current strategy clearly isn't working. My advice is to stop thinking of it as a war zone, and consider listening to other people for a change. Also try and educate yourself a little. With the internet today its free and easy to find fantastic courses on a range of subject from top institutions.

Originally posted by josephw
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to da ...[text shortened]... e, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Amen

Originally posted by josephw
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to da ...[text shortened]... e, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

There may be a time to turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught. But it seems clear that Jesus did NOT mean ALWAYS turn the other cheek. I would not expect any nation that has an enemy firing explosive missiles into their cities to turn the other cheek. How does that even make sense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There may be a time to turn the other cheek, as Jesus taught. But it seems clear that Jesus did NOT mean ALWAYS turn the other cheek. I would not expect any nation that has an enemy firing explosive missiles into their cities to turn the other cheek. How does that even make sense.

I think that was covered...
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You mean logic!

Originally posted by josephw
I think that from now on I'll use the atheist methods of debate.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You mean logic!

Logic? Did you say logic? Do you mean the kind of logic that is reduced to a mathematical formula that serves to obfuscate the meaning of a concept or an idea?

Or do you mean something like common sense? That is, the sense to perceive reality? Like seeing all that exists as evidence for a creator God? 😉

Originally posted by josephw
Originally posted by josephw
I think that from now on I'll use the atheist methods of debate.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]You mean logic!

Logic? Did you say logic? Do you mean the kind of logic that is reduced to a mathematical formula that serves to obfuscate the meaning of a concept or an idea?

Or do you mean something like c ...[text shortened]... is, the sense to perceive reality? Like seeing all that exists as evidence for a creator God? 😉[/b]

"...seeing all that exists as evidence for a creator..."

It would be an interesting thought experiment to imagine there to be a person behind it all and to construct a story about the person -- their biography, character, motivations, etc. Oh wait, that's been done, more than once.

Originally posted by JS357
"...seeing all that exists as evidence for a creator..."

It would be an interesting thought experiment to imagine there to be a person behind it all and to construct a story about the person -- their biography, character, motivations, etc. Oh wait, that's been done, more than once.

So you think that the concept of a creator God is a 'construct' of the human imagination?

How do you know that? How do you know that the denial of a creator God isn't a 'construct' of the imagination?

It's not logical to think there is evidence for there not being a creator God, but it is very logical to see what exists as evidence for the existence of its creation.

It is not logical to think that all that exists just exists without a cause.

All that is is the evidence for a creator God. True logic!

Originally posted by josephw
So you think that the concept of a creator God is a 'construct' of the human imagination?

How do you know that? How do you know that the denial of a creator God isn't a 'construct' of the imagination?

It's not logical to think there is evidence for there [b]not being a creator God, but it is very logical to see what exists as evidence for the exis ...[text shortened]... xists just exists without a cause.

All that is is the evidence for a creator God. True logic![/b]

Even if there is a creator, we form a concept of it in our minds. This is true of any factual situation we think of. It is true that if the factual situation is that there is and was no creator, we form that construct too.

"Everything has a cause" is a very powerful principle of thought that is very useful in our everyday lives. Accepted as a premise, it is a starting point for the logical conclusion that the universe was caused. Some philosophers question its applicability in all areas of thought. I don't have a belief about its applicability to the topic of origins.

Originally posted by josephw
It is not logical to think that all that exists just exists without a cause.

You believe a god exists without a cause.
atheists believe the Universe exists without a cause.

Both beliefs have the same problem.
(Although science has more than one theory to logically explain the atheist point of view)

Originally posted by josephw
It's not logical to think there is evidence for there [b]not being a creator God, but it is very logical to see what exists as evidence for the existence of its creation.

[/b]

Show us the logical argument for either clause.

... Please.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
atheists believe the Universe exists without a cause.

Not true.
I am an atheist and have no clue as to whether or not the universes existence has a cause.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not true.
I am an atheist and have no clue as to whether or not the universes existence has a cause.

conceded

Originally posted by JS357
Even if there is a creator, we form a concept of it in our minds. This is true of any factual situation we think of. It is true that if the factual situation is that there is and was no creator, we form that construct too.

"Everything has a cause" is a very powerful principle of thought that is very useful in our everyday lives. Accepted as a premise, it is ...[text shortened]... in all areas of thought. I don't have a belief about its applicability to the topic of origins.

"Even if there is a creator, we form a concept of it in our minds."

If there is a creator, while one may form a concept of (it), the factual construct formed must be based on real knowledge.

"This is true of any factual situation we think of."

If and when our perceptions are unclouded by illusions or biases, or any other idea or concept contrary to the truth of any given factual situation.

"It is true that if the factual situation is that there is and was no creator, we form that construct too."

That is a bit more tricky to answer. Possibly, that if there was no God, then the construct "there is no God" may never occur, in a perfect world. But we know this isn't a perfect world, and there are many illusions upon which mental constructs exist. In a perfect world illusions would have no meaning as they would be without basis.

From my personal perspective, if the Biblical narrative is correct, then false mental constructs are formed based on illusions caused by deception. More could be said on this.


""Everything has a cause" is a very powerful principle of thought that is very useful in our everyday lives. Accepted as a premise, it is a starting point for the logical conclusion that the universe was caused. Some philosophers question its applicability in all areas of thought. I don't have a belief about its applicability to the topic of origins."

"Everything has a cause" is a broad brush stroke to be sure, but I make a specific application as to the origin of all things whether visible or invisible. If all that exists was created, then all that exists has a cause.

My contention is that what exists, i.e., 'all things whether visible or invisible', is the evidence for a creator God. If that is true, then 'everything has a cause'.

I have made this claim time and again in this forum, but have been unable to develop the argument because as of yet I don't think it has resonated.

That, and I keep running out of time. Like right now.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Even if there is a creator, we form a concept of it in our minds."

If there is a creator, while one may form a concept of (it), the factual construct formed must be based on real knowledge.

"This is true of any factual situation we think of."

If and when our perceptions are unclouded by illusions or biases, or any other idea or concep ...[text shortened]... of yet I don't think it has resonated.

That, and I keep running out of time. Like right now.[/b]

It hasn't resonated because as stated, it is a fallacy of argumentation.

It works like this:

If God created all existing things then this will be evidenced by things existing.

There is evidence of things existing.

Therefore, God created these existing things.

This is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

(It being a fallacy is NOT evidence that god did NOT create all living things.)

It is a fallacy of this sort:

If P then Q

Q

Therefore, P.

It is a fallacy because some R could be the cause of Q. P could be the cause in this instance, or it could be R and not P that caused it.

The fallacy is avoided by saying:

If and only if God created all things, then this will be evidenced by things existing.

But the "and only if" stands in need of its own evidence.

Edit: It may also be similar to Aquinas' First Cause argument but that is an a priori argument not based on evidence but on causal principles.

Originally posted by JS357
It hasn't resonated because as stated, it is a fallacy of argumentation.

"If God created all existing things then this will be evidenced by things existing.

There is evidence of things existing.

Therefore, God created these existing things.

If P then Q

Q

Therefore, P.
If P then Q

Q

Therefore, P.

This is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent."

But I did not follow that logic! Nor did i say it the way you think i did. I said, "all things whether visible or invisible', is the evidence for a creator God".

Merely a statement of belief.

Remember what you said a couple of post back, about forming constructs in the mind, suggesting that an idea or concept is formed there whether they are based on truth or not?

Really JS, you should go back and follow the progression of thought, that I had assumed you had been doing through the thread, but it seems you got off track with the fallacy thing.

Just sayin'.

Logic doesn't work when thought is in play. Just too many variables in perception. Logic can be used to manipulate an outcome, and by its own cannot explain our existence. Has anyone developed an argument so sound that it has revolutionized human existence, or answered the questions that puzzle and perplex us all?

Has the mind of man achieved omnipotence? That should be evidence in and of itself for realizing that no matter what thought construct one may develop in the mind, it won't work to understand much, unless that construct is based on the knowledge of the truth.

So what is the truth? All that exists is the evidence for a creator God. "In the beginning God created..."

First truth.

Only two options.
Either build a mental construct on God's truth, or on man's truth. Whatever that is!