Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You are the who got the uppercut. You are the one who is on the deck.

Really...but that can't be 'cause I'm the one preachin' the virtues of patience. You on the other hand...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Tell that to the people in the ER. And have patience while the doctors take their coffee break before attending to your bullet wound.

No, no, no, no...You see...you're so worldly-minded, you can think only in material. I'm thinking more in spiritual terms.

Next question:

Why must the prime mover/uncaused cause be a "who" and not a "what?"

Study the Anthropic Principle and then the answer will become self-evident to you.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, no, no, no...You see...you're so worldly-minded, you can think only in material. I'm thinking more in spiritual terms.

In other words you don't mind if the ER staff takes a coffee break instead of getting on with the business of saving your life since you believe in a glorious afterlife. Maybe you would prefer that the paramedics just let you lie there instead of taking you to the ER.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Study the Anthropic Principle and then the answer will become self-evident to you.

If you want to know about the anthropic principle I recommend chapter 4 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, chapter 4 of Faith vs. Fact by Jerry A. Coyne, and this link:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

All do an excellent job of debunking the so called fine tuning argument.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you lied a couple of weeks ago when you said the verse needed no interpretation. And yet...you think you have the kingdom of God "within you".

Well...then, I too have the kingdom within me and Mat 21:43 says that Christ took the kingdom away from the Jews and planned on giving it to another nation. So...go "syntax" that or interpret it or whatever.

There is no "lie" as you state on my part. My interpretation is in accordance with what was said by Jesus and backed up in the Gospel of Thomas as far as Jesus saying" the Kingdom is within".

Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said because he never said it. YOU CHANGED WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.

You change the syntax and then make an interpretation of the new phrase. I take the words without changing the syntax and then make an interpretation.

There is a BIG difference between interpreting what was said in a passage in the Bible and putting words in Jesus's mouth as you do.

But that doesn't surprise me because you have a habit of changing what people say and then accusing them of saying it.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Light

There is no "lie" as you state on my part. My interpretation is in accordance with what was said by Jesus and backed up in the Gospel of Thomas as far as Jesus saying" the Kingdom is within".

Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said because he never said it. YOU CHANGED WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.

You change the syntax and then make an interpretation of the new phrase. I take the words without changing the syntax and then make an interpretation.

There is a BIG difference between interpreting what was said in a passage in the Bible and putting words in Jesus's mouth as you do.

But that doesn't surprise me because you have a habit of changing what people say and then accusing them of saying it.

The unfortunate thing is that Jesus's teaching remains obscure even after 2,000+ years...because it survives only in disjointed fragments. As it now appears in the scriptures...Jesus says something, and he then contradicts himself soon thereafter.

Was he really the "Son of God"...or was he the "son of man"? Was he the "Way, the truth and the life"...or is the "Kingdom of God within us"? Should we really give up all our spare belongings...because "the rich cannot get to heaven"? Should we really "turn our backs to our dying loved-ones"...if we are to become true followers of his? "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you", he says at one point...and then he grabs a whip, and drives the merchants out of the temple. "I and the father are one", he famously said...and then he pleaded for mercy from his father before he was arrested...and accused him of "abandonment", as he was dying on the cross.

People "misinterpret" Jesus's teachings because the teachings LEND themselves to being misinterpreted. As it currently stands...it's hard to believe that these isolated fragments that are assigned to Jesus all came from the same person.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Tell that to the people in the ER. And have patience while the doctors take their coffee break before attending to your bullet wound.

Next question:

Why must the prime mover/uncaused cause be a "who" and not a "what?"

As the Actualizer/Mover of all potency in matter, The First Cause must contain (nothing can give what it does not have) all actuality and perfection (achieving the ends that a thing's nature allows) found in other things without their defects, limitations, or mobility. It would not contain anything described as having limitations or potential. If a word describes something without limitation or potential, it is attributed to the First Cause.

In Who Designed the Designer?, Michael Augros uses the examples of a cat (which contains actualities and perfections, but also limitations [mobility]). Therefore the First Cause is not a cat, and the word olfactory suggests being limited to smell, so it could not describe the First Cause.

Intelligent? If used as "capable of understanding and reasoning", it would not describe the First Cause, since that necessitates mobility (progressing from one understanding to another) and a brain (dimensional). Yet that is a description of human intelligence, rather than the word intelligence by itself. Were there a being that understood in perfect clarity, without deliberation or need for a brain, it could best be described as "intelligent".

Understanding would follow from similar deductions, as in knows all things independently of their physical presence or absence, knows the reality of things other than itself.

Intelligence is an actuality that the First Cause would not only cause, but possess in such a manner as to be described by it, without limitation. The natural world then, would be the product of understanding and intention, a "Who". The appearance of design found everywhere would be actual, reality, the truth about things.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

As the Actualizer/Mover of all potency in matter, The First Cause must contain ... all actuality and perfection ...

Define actuality. Define perfection.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... found in other things without their defects, ...

Define defect.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

... limitations, or mobility. It would not contain anything described as having limitations or potential.

The universe is finite, albeit very large (1.0E31 cubic light years). If there were a first cause it need not be unlimited in order to cause a limited, finite universe.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

If a word describes something without limitation or potential, it is attributed to the First Cause.

Example?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

There is no "lie" as you state on my part. My interpretation is in accordance with what was said by Jesus and backed up in the Gospel of Thomas as far as Jesus saying" the Kingdom is within".

Your interpretation has nothing to do with what Jesus said because he never said it. YOU CHANGED WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID.

You change the syntax and then make an interpretation of the new phrase. I take the words without changing the syntax and then make an interpretation.

There is a BIG difference between interpreting what was said in a passage in the Bible and putting words in Jesus's mouth as you do.

But that doesn't surprise me because you have a habit of changing what people say and then accusing them of saying it.

You have lied, sir. You said a few weeks ago in your 1781 that I am not interpreting anything. You are.

Now, you're telling me that you have been interpreting LK 17:21 and that syntax alone is sufficient to understand the passage. So, which is it, you deceiver: Are you interpreting the passage in its context or are using just syntax? But understand this: If you tell me that you're using syntax only, then I come right back with Mat 21:43 in which Jesus said that the kingdom would be taken away from the Jews. My passage renders your syntax, interpretation or whatever you think you used to make your conclusion about Lk 17:21 a moot point -- unless of course you're going to tell me that the Pharisees and Jesus' apostles weren't Jews.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

In other words you don't mind if the ER staff takes a coffee break instead of getting on with the business of saving your life since you believe in a glorious afterlife. Maybe you would prefer that the paramedics just let you lie there instead of taking you to the ER.

If you want to know about the anthropic principle I recommend chapter 4 of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, chapter 4 of Faith vs. Fact by Jerry A. Coyne, and this link:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

All do an excellent job of debunking the so called fine tuning argument.

The "anthropic coincidences" are facts. The "anthropic principle" is a speculative hypothesis to explain those facts.

Rational Wiki didn't quote Carr and Rees' other statement:

"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define actuality. Define perfection.
Define defect.
The universe is finite, albeit very large (1.0E31 cubic light years). If there were a first cause it need not be unlimited in order to cause a limited, finite universe.
Example?

Good luck, Doc. Get ready to take a ride on Actor's merry-go-round. You will never provide enough definitions to satisfy him.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good luck, Doc. Get ready to take a ride on Actor's merry-go-round. You will never provide enough definitions to satisfy him.

Handing off to someone else are you?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define actuality. Define perfection.
Define defect.
The universe is finite, albeit very large (1.0E31 cubic light years). If there were a first cause it need not be unlimited in order to cause a limited, finite universe.
Example?

Actuality- a realized state of being, e.g., the billiard ball is resting on the table. It has the potential to travel the pool table and rest in the pocket (by the Act of being struck).

Perfection- the state of being actual-- having no potential.

Defect- the absence of an actuality (e.g., sight) that could, but doesn't exist (because blindness) in certain places or things.

"Need not be unlimited"...The First Cause could not be subject to change (i.e., could not be matter itself, subject to space, time, dimension), else he (since I attribute intelligence- a "Who"- I utilize the common pronoun) would possess potentials in need of being actualized, and therefore not the First Cause. It does not follow that he could not cause change, i.e., create matter, a world.

"Example"?...

Though human "love" may require a specific object, "Love" implies no limitations in terms of degree or knowledge of an object to love, were there a being with the intelligence previously described.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

The "anthropic coincidences" are facts. The "anthropic principle" is a speculative hypothesis to explain those facts.

Rational Wiki didn't quote Carr and Rees' other statement:

"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life."

You are wasting your time. Actor in his willful ignorance of history thinks Dawkins' psuedo-science writings is going to do something empires, nations and liberal revolutions could not do.

Also, boxcar does not need the help of Latin Rite Catholics.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

Handing off to someone else are you?

I have no pretense of achieving anything beyond entertainment, like most of you, and perhaps strengthening my own beliefs by presenting them publicly once in a while, ala Frank Sheed in the early 20th century at Hyde Park.

I found anthropic coincidences to be somewhat less impactful for myself, rather than getting to intelligence via the act/potency deductions, for assigning a "Who" to the First Cause.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

You are wasting your time. Actor in his willful ignorance of history thinks Dawkins' psuedo-science writings is going to do something empires, nations and liberal revolutions could not do.

Also, boxcar does not need the help of Latin Rite Catholics.

I explain my motivations above.

I can document where Dawkins misunderstands the Quinque viæ from The God Delusion.

This Latin Rite Catholic isn't interested in helping Boxcar, though. Defining the NT canon, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, seems to be enough. Seriously? The individual Christian would have preserved Philemon?