Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:51 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:02 pm I'm thinkin' there's a lot you're not realizin'.
I often think the same about you. We just have different viewpoints and methods. I've acknowledged the things I agree with you on -- but *you seem less inclined to do so, instead arguing or presenting your 'more accurate answer'?
*cuz I don't agree with you

should I pretend I do?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:48 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:39 pm
"Down to earth," vs. "away with the fairies."
who is which?
Good question. What do you think?
Since I'm one of them supernaturalists, I suppose that has me dancin' with the fairies, and if I'm dancin' with the fairies then lace is your down to earth type (and if that's the case, then there's a bigger gulf between us than I thought).
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:45 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:41 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:07 am Here's an experiment demonstrating it.

Get yourself a piece of paper.

On it, write "0"

But before you write "0", this experiment requires you first have to have already written "-1."

But before you write "-1", you have to already have written "-2".

And before that, you already have to have written "-3", "-4", "-5," and so on, back to infinity.

That models an infinite regress of causes, because each integer is a prerequisite for the next one, just like each cause in an infinite regress is the prerequisite of the effect associated with it.

So just sit down with some paper, and try to do it.

And then respond as soon as you've managed to write "0," or when you realize the truth: that there will never come a point when you can write even a single integer, let alone reach the "0" point (i.e. the present).

And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.


👍
Where all the integers lead is uncaused cause . Do you and Immanuel agree?
If you mean: do we agree that God is the unmoved mover?

Yes (though we currently differ on His details).

Well, that was not what I asked, but was probably my next question. Here is another question if you don't mind.

What is the difference between God and atheist versions of the unmoved mover?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:41 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:45 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:41 am

Where all the integers lead is uncaused cause . Do you and Immanuel agree?
If you mean: do we agree that God is the unmoved mover?

Yes (though we currently differ on His details).

Well, that was not what I asked, but was probably my next question. Here is another question if you don't mind.

What is the difference between God and atheist versions of the unmoved mover?
When I was an atheist, I had no conception of an unmoved mover. I also didn't accept infinite regress. I figured there was a third option, though I had no clue as to what that coulda been.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Janoah wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:11 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:48 am And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.

So the fact of the matter is that the material world never began, but always was.
Impossible, if the Material world is subject to cause-effect relations. And empirically, we can see it is. A cause-effect chain simply can never be eternal in the past.
User avatar
Janoah
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 5:26 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by Janoah »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:52 pm
Janoah wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:11 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:48 am And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.

So the fact of the matter is that the material world never began, but always was.
Impossible, if the Material world is subject to cause-effect relations. And empirically, we can see it is. A cause-effect chain simply can never be eternal in the past.
there is no problem in a chain of cause-and-effect infinite in time, back to the past, and forward to the future. Since the days of Aristotle, it goes without saying (why reinvent the wheel).
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5153
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:14 pmWhen I was an atheist, I had no conception of an unmoved mover. I also didn't accept infinite regress. I figured there was a third option, though I had no clue as to what that coulda been.
The issue, if you will, the 'problem', to put it another way, is not to be solved through the notion of an infinite regress (a rational exercise) but in something different: that existence exists. That existence has no alternative. And since there is no alternative to existence -- that existence exists and that we are aware of it because we exist in it -- there is no need for a mental exercise of regressing infinitely -- to what exactly?

There never was a beginning. There cannot be a beginning to Existence. So if there is a mystery to be located it is not in locating a beginning, it is that there is no alternative to existence. I sort of feel bad referencing a Vedic notion but they do have an interesting one: Sat-Chit-Ananda.

sat (सत्): In Sanskrit sat means "being, existence", "real, actual", "true, good, right", or "that which really is, existence, essence, true being, really existent, good, true".

cit (चित्): means "consciousness".

ānanda (आनन्द): means "happiness, joy, bliss", "pure happiness, one of three attributes of Atman or Brahman in the Vedanta philosophy".
It seems to me fair to say that Christianity, except perhaps among its mystics (which are always problematic for its conventionalists), cannot really wonder at creation as the Vedic schools seem to be able to. I think this is because of the limitedness of the (Genesis) Creation Story. Within Judaism of course the Genesis story is expanded far far beyond its quotidian surface. But through an exegesis (really quite Gnostic) that verges into hyper-mysticism.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:46 pm But since the largest weight of your argument is through the understanding 'My Kingdom is not of this world", in essence your moral activity will take shape as a preparation for 'life beyond this life'. I regard that as a highly, if not intensely, problematic ideal...Therefore in a sense you encourage a pessimism and in this sense a hopelessness. Since nothing really can be built here, and in any case it will only amount to approximations, the Christian you define places all hopes in a 'world to come'.
Well, "pessimism" there is a matter of perspective. If you mean that my view dooms efforts to ignore God and produce heaven-on-earth through the intrinsic goodness of mankind's heart, then yes, quite right. But if you mean, instead, is there a hope that we can be delivered from our suicidal self-improvement efforts and learn to value something truly positive and lasting, then my view is far more optimistic than the alternatives.

Moreover, one of the points on which you and I seem to be in agreement is that the moral orientation provided by Christianity is just very salutary for the building of community and civilization. Which is better: to believe things like, "all human beings have rights," or "respect people's personal property," or "freedom of conscience is God-given right," or, on the other hand, to try to back those things without any reference to ultimate Authority? Or worse, to do what Western civilization is doing today, which is to loose grip on those values and to start to burn down society itself?

So I'm not seeing how the secular focus on manipulating this world is serving the interests of civilization. It seems to me that what's happening is actually a great deal worse than mere "pessimism" over human potential to control this world; it's actually Nihilism, leading to civilizational suicide.

And would you accept an advance on that?
People do not really live in that way.
Without Christ, that's quite true. They do not. Instead, preoccupied with this world and their diminishing opportunities in it, they begin to squabble over the crumbs of this life, to the detriment of what, according to Christian thought, actually matters and actually lasts.
Well, that's because all the above are mere collectives. It's only the individual who has a soul, or who can respond to moral imperatives, or to any vision of things as they do not now exist. Institutions, nations and states, along with "conglomerations" are not personal agents, and have no eyes, ears or consciences of their own at all. They are pushed around by "powers," but the forces of circumstance, or finances, or contingencies...with no ability, as collectives, to do anything at all about that.
I agree in principle. But even if all this is true nevertheless people function in and through these conglomerations.

Well, and to add to that, people who have no eternal perspective have no real alternative but to conglomerate, and to place their hopes in these human collectives. After all, the individual, left to himself, is simply to small, local and weak to have any chance of improving the world he lives in, or even to control the powers that are exercised over his own circumstances. And since, as you suggest above, he doesn't want to simply roll over and give up, he casts about for some hope, and eventually invests it in some corporate or collective project.

Unfortunately, the can be either good or bad. There are plenty of people who invest their hopes in, say, social-aid collectives, but there are far more who invest it in hell-bent, monolithic ideological causes such as Communist states.
An idea[l] Christian exists as an ideal and, only in the case of (perhaps) saints and a few notable individuals has or can the ideal of Christianity be realized.
Nobody's speaking of "ideal" persons. There is only one of those, and that is Christ.

But ideals, as JP has often pointed out, are extremely useful things in a practical way. They instruct us, fallible human beings as we are, what direction to move in order to attain the highest good. And even if we do not, ourselves, attain perfection in this life, it sets before us the right compass-point by which to orient our travel in this life. That's why just having Christian around is salutory for a civlilization, even for those who are secularists and Atheists; it provides them, too, with a social climate conditioned toward the right ideals.

And that's ironic: Atheists are only able to thrive where Christians have conditioned the social milieu. That freedom of conscience and speech, upon which the skeptic so depends for his freedom to be a skeptic, is provided by the Christian conviction in the primacy of the individual conscience and the right of all persons to decide their own stance toward the eternal, and their right to verbalize it as well. Only in an at least nominally-Christian society could Monty Python have created "Life of Brian." Atheists do not do well in a society run by Muslims or Polytheists: and they don't even do well in societies of Atheists, like Communist ones. In all these, their freedoms of conscience and their rights of speech are curtailed...sometimes with fatal results.
So for anyone who participates in 'building projects' in this world ethical and moral compromises will have to be made. And when one does that one displays 'christianesqueness'.
I don't see that this is true at all, unless by "building projects" we mean merely the treating of this world as the ultimate and the sort of vicious scrabbling for a humanly-created utopia that made the last century so bloody.
The more involved in the world, the more that one deviates from the abstract ideal.
No, not at all. In fact, one who believes in eternity has a very important perspective on this world...that it matters very much, since it is not only the gift of a gracious God (and as such, has to be held reverently and in stewardship under God, not recklessly and selfishly), but also because it is the "stage," so to speak, upon which God has Himself organized His plan of eternal salvation.

Nothing could possibly make the world more important than that. And yet, nothing could so subordinate the mere grasping after the things of this world to the seeking of the Kingdom of God as the ultimate good and point of it all.
In this sense, it seems to me, the Christian must continually ask for forgiveness for the sins that are inevitably committed.
One should always ask forgiveness, of course. What's the alternative? To carry on as if one hasn't sinned, as if one has committed no fouls, and hope that nobody else will notice and that the lying about that to oneself will not make one's own soul shrivelled and black? Or is it better to deal with what one has done, honestly and frankly, and admit one's fault both to God and to those one has victimized, obtain forgiveness and proceed as a better person? Is not the answer obvious?

At the same time, one cannot live every day in fear of one's failings, in fear of falling yet again into another sin. And that is why forgiveness in Christ is so essential; for it is ultimate forgiveness for all sins, in the ultimate court, regardless of those daily or momentary failings. It means that even if one fails and sins, there is always a road back, always sufficient grace, always reception with God.

This is what makes the admitting of sin, and the repenting of it, so fearful to those who do not know Christ, and so normal for the Christian. Those who do not know Christ have every reason to fear and feel shame for the admitting of faults they cannot cure, things done they cannot repair, people they have hurt to whom they can provide no sufficient restitution, and the guilt they know, deep in their hearts, they have before God. Why should one ever admit what one cannot cure? Who would revel in their own condemnation?

But for the Christian, the realization that one is a sinner is lamentable, but also natural. After all, what was one saved from but from one's sin and guilt, and what did one discover thereby but one's distance from God? The Christian knows all that. But he or she also knows that there is a remedy for sin, that sin can be both forgiven and forsaken, and that a road forward, with God's own help, is actually possible. He/she also knows that a better him/her is coming; that when the full grace of God to us is revealed, we shall be made what we ought to have been all along -- fit companions for God. So with freedom from fear, the Christian can face the truth about his own nature and also embrace the prospect of what he can be.

Again, which is the truly optimistic position?
There's nothing "organic" about a "state." It's an abstraction, a collective, impersonal. We must not draw a false analogy between the state and the "imperative" of an organism for survival. States come and states go.
Except that states function through their need, appetite, assertion of power, etc. Someone said "England has no friends it has interests".
This is only a metaphor. By "England," they mean "the people in power in the country." They cannot mean "the country itself." Countries are lumps of mud with grass and trees on them. They have no "interests" ever.

We must not mistake the metaphor for the reality.
Karma is a problematic idea. Let's not invoke it here. It requires us to believe that the indifferent universe has some interest in balancing scales throughout reincarnation cycles. That's too much nonsense to swallow, I think.
I do not see it quite like that. Karma is another perceeptual means of seeing and understanding the consequences of the insoluble problem of incarnated, biological life. The Vaishnavas of India (worshippers of Vishnu of the Bhagavad-Gita) refer to our incarnated life as 'the material entanglement'. Once entangled every action that is taken can result in incurring a karmic debt that will further entangle one. It is a logical and indeed a sensible view, it seems to me.
Karma depends on a couple of irrational beliefs, of course. One is the idea that the material world is eternal. Another is reincarnation, which is not at all a scientific postulate.

And it also rationalizes something very bad: the caste system. For if karma is what determines one's place in the world, then wherever one is, one has simply "deserved" it, and deserves to suffer or be privileged accordingly. There's not only no reason to raise anybody lower up, but every reason not to: it is their dharma (their "duty") to suffer what they suffer -- why would you interfere with their dharma, and thus deprive them of the karma of fulfilling their role, and plausibly set them back on the wheel of samara ("suffering")? What kind of an evil person does that make you, and what does it do to your karma?

These things are all a part of the same worldview. And I suggest that as an alternative, its' seriously problematic. If Christ's advice, "by their fruits you shall know them," what have the "fruits" of Hinduism proved to be?
Those that work within the notion of 'intelligent design' point out that the design they observe must have a transcendental origin, but no part of this necessarily bolsters the Christian view of what God is, or what God is not.

Well, this is a mistake the detractors of apologetics sometimes make. They want to argue against some element of the Chrisitan apologetic because, as they say, no single part of that apologetic accounts for the whole of the Christian picture of God. But that's really a silly objection, on their part: would we fault chemistry for not having an answer to a problem in physics, or fault biology for not having a solution to a purely chemical reaction? Of course not: we recognize that different parts of science deal with different particular issues of the much larger problem of how the material world happens to operate. And if there's no answer to why objects of different weights fall at the same speed in biology, we don't say, "Well, that proves that all science is bunk." We look to the particular proof in question for the particulars of what it shows...and we do not demand it show everything, all at once.

In a similar way, the causal regress argument proves, as you say, the necessity of an Uncaused Cause. It does not go into the details of what this Uncaused Cause is. The right argument to go into next is to ask, "Is this Uncaused Cause more plausibly intelligent or unintelligent?" And for that, one would have to move from pure mathematics to the empiirical world, and look at what the nature of existence is. But then, in a similar way, even if we conclude that there is an Uncaused Cause (mathematical proof), and it's a Personal Cause (empirical observation), we still haven't addressed the next question, "What kind of a 'Person' is the Uncaused Cause," so we need an additional argument to deal with that. And that's why Christian apologetics does not use one, single argument to do everything -- rather, it has a system of arugments comprised of rational arguments for different aspects of the total inquiry.
In this sense then to say *God has died* is to make an ironic statement that a god-concept has died.
Yes, that is what Nietzsche meant. He did not mean he thought a real God had ever "lived." He just meant, "We, today, no longer believe in God."
And effectively that god-concept certainly did die.
Only for Nietzsche. But only because he chose to declare it so. For nobody else, really.

The rest of the Western world was to go on proclaiming itself "Christian" for much of the ensuing century. And real Christians continued to believe as they always had, of course. So we must ask what really "died," beyond Nietzsche's own perspective. And I think he still had a sort of point: it's that under Modernity, too many people were simply becoming merely nominally "Christian," and weren't real Christians at all. Their practices no longer really alligned with what one would expect from somebody who truly believed in the God of the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, to use Nietzsche's expression. The West was becoming hypocritical. And it was only a matter of time, therefore, until all the prophecies of Nietzsche's madman fell upon the West. For nominalism is not enough to sustain society.
So it seems to me that the notion of God must be re-described and re-written. In any case this is what Nietzsche seemed to realize.
No, I think he meant "dead." I don't think he wanted it preserved in any form.
Right. No wonder, then, that Christ insisted, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Well there you have it. Certainly not of this world and impossible in this world. If this is so it leaves *the world* to its own devices. Therefore, how can you (we) expect anyone to hold to the Christian ideal if in fact they seek to live life here?

I've addressed that above, I think. It's wrong to assume that Christians simply want to abandon the world. They cannot, and for Christian reasons, must not: but they also must not treat this passing world as ultimate, or fight like fury to get their slice of this temporary scene. It's God, not man, who will set all to right; but meanwhile, man must be responsible to that same God for how he treats this place -- and his fellow man.

You've wondered how "christianesqueness" turns out to be good for civilization: this is how. But it's actually not the "-esque" part that's of any use in that.
I am interested in understanding the *unraveling of the United States* as a result of a series of extremely bad wars.
Which do you mean? Are you thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Vietnam and Bay of Pigs? Or WW 1 and WW2? Or the Civil War and the War of 1812? I don't know that there's every been "a series of extremely good wars."
Karma is a way to see and define that connection. Not so much a general sinfulness but sinful activities of real consequence, brought about by *conglomerations of interests*, that empower a karmic hammer that comes down, surely and inevitably.
I hear your call for justice here. And yes, sooner or later, all debts must be paid. If not, there is no justice, and our longing for it is vain. Moreoever, if God allows injustice forever, then He also is not just. So one day, the matter must be settled.

But karma offers no actual hope for that. Karma is part of the "eternal" wheel of samsara: it never quits. So bad things will keep happening, forever and forever; in Hinduism, your only hope is that you become "enlightened" and so personally escape the wheel; but the wheel itself keeps on turning, with future generations as new grist to its mill. And in that way, karma means not "ultimate justice" but rather "eternal injustice." The wheel does not end.

Real justice can only come with a singular judgment. At some point, all debts must be righteously settled, and all prices paid, and all the tipped scales of this life put back in place. Only an ultimate God of justice can do that. And, of course, He will.

My encouragement, as a Christian, is for everybody to be on the right side of that judgment when it comes. God has made that possible: but men, in their freedom and will, have been given to decide on what side of the scales they end up. So I would encourage the wise choice, really. That's all.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:33 pm Comparing religious sects is interesting and you may like to start a new discussion so we can all compare the relative merits of different religious sects.
That's an interesting project. Go ahead, if you like.

I've had a look, myself. But if there's something new to come out of a discussion like that, I'm in.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Lacewing »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:49 pm
Lacewing wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:51 am We just have different viewpoints and methods. I've acknowledged the things I agree with you on -- but *you seem less inclined to do so, instead arguing or presenting your 'more accurate answer'?
*cuz I don't agree with you

should I pretend I do?
So, when I've acknowledged we're in agreement, you disagree with me? Yep, that pretty much describes it. :lol:

Meanwhile, you accuse me of 'focusing on divisions and not noticing cooperation'. Notice how your earlier response appears to describe yourself...

I asked you: "What do you think I don't see, Henry?"

You started out by projecting your idea of WHY onto me: "I think you're so caught up in broadening and detaching". Yet, I think and speak of connecting and connection between all things, NOT 'detaching'. Recognizing connection requires broadening one's perspective beyond oneself. Disagreeing with your particularly skewed views is not a sign of ME detaching. 8)

Then you say: "you don't see that most folks do quite well cooperatin' (even when they have radically different views)" -- which I have no idea why you'd say about me, as I don't think or say things like that. It sounds more like the things you say. Ah, wait, unless this is a very personal statement about how you think I see YOU. Well, face it, Henry... you do not present yourself on this forum as a very cooperative kind of person. You may be very nice in helping stranded motorists -- but we all do nice things for others. Cooperation is surely more than that.

Then you claim you know ''the essential problem': "I think you don't see the essential problem (which isn't narrow perspective or attachment to specific notions) is the perpetual conflict between free men and slavers". Is it not possible, Henry, that the "perpetual conflict between free men and slavers" (as you put it), could be (in part) tied to narrow perspectives and attachment to specific notions?

Then you accuse me of this: "You focus on all the wrong divisions (which aren't divisions at all but only differences) and ignore the one true division."
Again, the first part of this sentence sounds like you, and then you accuse me of ignoring 'the one true division' which is obviously something you believe in -- while, I don't believe there are any divisions at all except those crafted by men.

In response to RC's 'down to earth vs. away with the fairies' remark, you said: "Since I'm one of them supernaturalists, I suppose that has me dancin' with the fairies, and if I'm dancin' with the fairies then lace is your down to earth type (and if that's the case, then there's a bigger gulf between us than I thought)." Which is, again, your view of division, despite you projecting that I'm the one who focuses on division.

I speak of the value of broadening one's view and understanding (horrors!), and of the connection throughout all of life (sacrilegious!), and of the limitations we impose on ourselves and others that prevent us from recognizing and experiencing greater capability (no, couldn't be!). I suggest that the human tendency to want to claim to 'know the best or most ultimate answers and truths', drives one to falsely ignore all to the contrary, and seems geared toward serving oneself and one's ego. (Outrageous?)

Why wouldn't a person consider that there is always more than what they can/might imagine/see/think? What is so outrageous about that? Isn't it more outrageous to insist that there is only one way or one answer for anything? Isn't there value in questioning why anyone would insist on such a thing... when it's clear that a lot of potentials are in place, and they work? If a viewpoint doesn't include a broader perspective, who is it serving, and what might that drive that person to do? Are these not reasonable points and questions?
Last edited by Lacewing on Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Janoah wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:12 pm ...there is no problem in a chain of cause-and-effect infinite in time, back to the past, and forward to the future.
Yes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.

Go and do the experiment if you doubt it.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pm
Janoah wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:12 pm ...there is no problem in a chain of cause-and-effect infinite in time, back to the past, and forward to the future.
Yes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.

Go and do the experiment if you doubt it.
Infinity by definition is a quality that cannot be reached, opposite to finite.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pm
Janoah wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:12 pm ...there is no problem in a chain of cause-and-effect infinite in time, back to the past, and forward to the future.
Yes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.

Go and do the experiment if you doubt it.
Infinity by definition is a quality that cannot be reached, opposite to finite.
Right. So there can never be a "starting point" in a causal chain that reaches back into the infinite. And that's certain, by definition of "infinite".

There it is, again.

It's actually a very simple concept.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by bahman »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:24 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pm
Yes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.

Go and do the experiment if you doubt it.
Infinity by definition is a quality that cannot be reached, opposite to finite.
Right. So there can never be a "starting point" in a causal chain that reaches back into the infinite. And that's certain, by definition of "infinite".

There it is, again.

It's actually a very simple concept.
Yes, it is simple. Regress/infinity is not acceptable.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: Christianity

Post by henry quirk »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:12 pm...
the lesson here, folks, is when lace asks...

What do you think I don't see?

...don't answer (unless, of course, you wanna be subjected to her penny-ante analysis [and roundabout self-congrats])

just steer clear...go around...avoid at all costs...let that grape die on the vine
Post Reply