Mostly he is both. Look at the word of god as it's used presently. He loves him some addicts and hates him some gays.
Buy on AliExpress.com
What is your god like? (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
I guess that's why "civilized" christians said Hurricane Katrina was god's wrath against sinners and that the AIDS epidemic is due to the sins of gays. The truth of the matter is that the message given by christian pulpit takes different forms even to the point of discussing the punishment for sin and the love of Jesus in the same sermon.
I don't know what backwards is in Europe, but here the ambiguosity of the message is fairly mainstream. Backwards christians here tend to handle snakes and drink poison.
I don't know what backwards is in Europe, but here the ambiguosity of the message is fairly mainstream. Backwards christians here tend to handle snakes and drink poison.
Yes and that is why it is possible to get HIV/AIDS by having completely normal sex as well. Perhaps you should read a bit on the disease before posting such mindless comments. The epidemic in Africa is spread mainly through heterosexual contact anyway, so there goes your little theory. I hope, I really really hope, you get a warning for this, because having written a thesis on the subject, I know how dangerous these moronic statements really are.
Why?
No, I get what you meant. The attributes mean the same but they are infinite. What I'm saying is once they become infinite, what do they mean? Their meaning is predicated upon their finiteness. For example, to be kind means to act in a certain bounded way. To be kind is to not impose yourself on someone. If you were to exceed the norms of kindness it would suddenly spill into something else, kindness would no longer be the right word. People would start saying "excessive kindness" or "irrational kindness" or whatever. It wouldn't be kindness as such anymore.
Take kindness. To be kind means to be nice to people in certain cases where not being kind would mean you're neutral instead. So if you go buy a paper from a newsagent, being kind means you smile at him, you say hello, do some small talk. Now enter infinite kindness. What would happen then? Would that mean you spend an infinite time with the guy? Would it mean you stretch your greetings to superlatives? Would it mean you somehow affect him such that he experiences the maximum possible happiness?
You see the problem? Once you start talking about infinite attributes, it seems like they all begin to converge on a singularity.
As for the philosophers, this is why the Catholic Church is such a great gig. Every once in a while they decide to redefine something. Just like that. Why? Because they can!
No, I get what you meant. The attributes mean the same but they are infinite. What I'm saying is once they become infinite, what do they mean? Their meaning is predicated upon their finiteness. For example, to be kind means to act in a certain bounded way. To be kind is to not impose yourself on someone. If you were to exceed the norms of kindness it would suddenly spill into something else, kindness would no longer be the right word. People would start saying "excessive kindness" or "irrational kindness" or whatever. It wouldn't be kindness as such anymore.
Take kindness. To be kind means to be nice to people in certain cases where not being kind would mean you're neutral instead. So if you go buy a paper from a newsagent, being kind means you smile at him, you say hello, do some small talk. Now enter infinite kindness. What would happen then? Would that mean you spend an infinite time with the guy? Would it mean you stretch your greetings to superlatives? Would it mean you somehow affect him such that he experiences the maximum possible happiness?
You see the problem? Once you start talking about infinite attributes, it seems like they all begin to converge on a singularity.
As for the philosophers, this is why the Catholic Church is such a great gig. Every once in a while they decide to redefine something. Just like that. Why? Because they can!
This is more complicated than what i'll explain but i'll give you the basic idea..
Why there is a first cause?
You believe in science correct? The basis of philosophy and science is the understanding of causes. I assume anyone with half a brain believes in the rules of causality like i do (or else we have to argue about that first).
Every Cause around us, is in itself an effect of something else. so almost every object in our world is affected by something and causes something else.
So if you look around, you will see object A causing a change to object B(this makes B the effect of A), and object B causing a change to Object C(this makes C an effect of B and a cause of D) and so on and so forth.
Aristotle argues that since every cause is in itself an effect of something else then there are two possibilities:
1) Either there is an infinite regress of causes/effects.
OR
2) There is a First Cause that is not an effect of something else and that first cause we call God (whether he is the biblical/quranic God is something else)
a Good objection would be: The premise Aristotle uses is in contradiction with the final conclusion as he says since everycause is in itself an effect then there is a first cause that in itself is NOT an effect. This makes both assumptions (1) and (2) absurd.
However, what makes aristotle stick to (2)?
He says that there is ALREADY a chain of causality that we all can see and test. If there was no First cause, then there would not be the first effect (the second cause) and the chain would never had started. So judging by the fact that the chain of causality already exists, then it started and therefore (2) is more logical than (1).
Note: Regarding the infinitude of attributes or whatever, The reason you stated is why they said we cannot Know God's essence.. we only know what relates to us (the finite kindness). Think of the example i gave of 10 kilo's of sugar and a billion kilos. we cannot imagine how a billion kilo's would be like but we can have an idea of what sugar itself is.
This is false. The premise for cause is existence. Without existence there is no cause. Empirically speaking, matter as we observe it in the universe is constant. It changes form but never appears or disappears. Therefore it does not need a cause. To establish that matter has a cause you first have to show that matter cannot simply exist, for which you have no evidence. Good luck with that.
Secondly, the first cause argument falls flat on its face for the most obvious of reasons. If there must be a first cause for everything then there must be a first cause for god. Mind you, this is your argument, not mine. This is where a believer will say that god doesn't need a first cause. So he contradicts his own argument and the argument is therefore null and void.
This is a self contradiction. To say that a car is infinitely fast and that we simply observe it as being fast makes no sense. You cannot first assert a particular attribute, which defines particular behavior, and then assign a different behavior.
To say that a car which is infinite exhibits finiteness is to say that the word finite means both finite and not finite, ie. the logical law of excluded middle is broken.
Secondly, the first cause argument falls flat on its face for the most obvious of reasons. If there must be a first cause for everything then there must be a first cause for god. Mind you, this is your argument, not mine. This is where a believer will say that god doesn't need a first cause. So he contradicts his own argument and the argument is therefore null and void.
This is a self contradiction. To say that a car is infinitely fast and that we simply observe it as being fast makes no sense. You cannot first assert a particular attribute, which defines particular behavior, and then assign a different behavior.
To say that a car which is infinite exhibits finiteness is to say that the word finite means both finite and not finite, ie. the logical law of excluded middle is broken.
This is metaphysics i'll try to explain it further, An existing thing is made up of 2
Matter and Form. Matter without Form is what we call primatter (does not exist, it potentially exists). We are speaking from entirely different back grounds thats why you'll find my things weird or nonesense.. i can't explain everything i am doing my best.
Anyway regarding our issue, you said that something has to exist in order to be a cause.. Aristotle derived the existence from the observation of the chain of cause/effects. He started from Us (something we are sure of) and tried to go back in time/ causality towards God.
Think of it as motion. Motion comes from motion... something moves another when it is moved already.. and its mover is moved by another moving object that was in turn moved by a moving object....etc ( i am not sure my wording is right lol)
so X(in motion)===>Y(puts it to motion)===>Z (puts it to motion) ==>etc.
He looks at the current motion of objects and acknowledges that motion exists and starts to trace motion backwards..(like rewinding a tape to its very beginning)
he faces 2 possibilities:
1) Either motion never started (which would mean there is no chain of motion/causality)
2) Motion did start and is still running as we can see. The ignition start was by an unmoved mover (he moves stuff without he himself moving same as he is the first cause that is not an effect).
The 1st possibility is absurd as if motion never started we wouldn't have motion at all.
The 2nd possibility is absurd (yet less absurd as we already see motion everywhere) however as you pointed out and i did in the last post, the conclusion breaks the rule by which we arrive at it in the first place.
keep in mind that this hardly applies to the biblical god so you dont have to think of the first cause as a person or anything(could be just a rock or something lol).
i meant natural... with some exceptions
Matter and Form. Matter without Form is what we call primatter (does not exist, it potentially exists). We are speaking from entirely different back grounds thats why you'll find my things weird or nonesense.. i can't explain everything i am doing my best.
Anyway regarding our issue, you said that something has to exist in order to be a cause.. Aristotle derived the existence from the observation of the chain of cause/effects. He started from Us (something we are sure of) and tried to go back in time/ causality towards God.
Think of it as motion. Motion comes from motion... something moves another when it is moved already.. and its mover is moved by another moving object that was in turn moved by a moving object....etc ( i am not sure my wording is right lol)
so X(in motion)===>Y(puts it to motion)===>Z (puts it to motion) ==>etc.
He looks at the current motion of objects and acknowledges that motion exists and starts to trace motion backwards..(like rewinding a tape to its very beginning)
he faces 2 possibilities:
1) Either motion never started (which would mean there is no chain of motion/causality)
2) Motion did start and is still running as we can see. The ignition start was by an unmoved mover (he moves stuff without he himself moving same as he is the first cause that is not an effect).
The 1st possibility is absurd as if motion never started we wouldn't have motion at all.
The 2nd possibility is absurd (yet less absurd as we already see motion everywhere) however as you pointed out and i did in the last post, the conclusion breaks the rule by which we arrive at it in the first place.
keep in mind that this hardly applies to the biblical god so you dont have to think of the first cause as a person or anything(could be just a rock or something lol).
i meant natural... with some exceptions
Not really, if you think of time as something finite meaning that it has had a beggining and will eventually have an end, then time must have started at some point, yes? Meaning also that space must have also started at some point, yes?
No considering this casuiality theory, something must have caused time and speace to come into being, logically it was not anything before time since time did not exist before time, then it must have been something outside of time. The only possible hypothesis for something outside space and time would be a superatural force, why?
A natural force would not be natural if it were no bounded by space and time. Only a supernatural force could possibly have that attribute. Anyway, we have discussed this before.
No considering this casuiality theory, something must have caused time and speace to come into being, logically it was not anything before time since time did not exist before time, then it must have been something outside of time. The only possible hypothesis for something outside space and time would be a superatural force, why?
A natural force would not be natural if it were no bounded by space and time. Only a supernatural force could possibly have that attribute. Anyway, we have discussed this before.
- Status