Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Official RGT random **** thread Official RGT random **** thread

03-15-2021 , 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
I'm sure you've had the experience of having known something, yet at a given time not recollecting what you knew.
I reject your framing that we are talking about something known and then forgotten.
But regardless, at that "given time" not recollecting, do you know that something? Unless you change your definition of knowledge from JTB, it's STILL not knowledge, even if we're talking about something that was known and forgotten!

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. - Romans 1:18 (NKJV, emphasis added)

As I noted earlier, you can't suppress what you don't already possess.
I'm not concerned by what someone supposedly said to and about a group of Romans a couple of millennia ago. Regardless, was Paul even talking specifically about non-believers, or was he talking about all people of that particular time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Hope that helps a bit.
Not even a little bit.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-16-2021 , 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
Read like a string of non-sequiturs imo.
I found the passage rather profound. One man's treasure can be another man's trash.


Quote:
Kewl video. Of course, it doesn't even begin to refute the claim that "An effect can't be greater than its cause", but still a kewl video.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-16-2021 , 07:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
I reject your framing that we are talking about something known and then forgotten.
But regardless, at that "given time" not recollecting, do you know that something? Unless you change your definition of knowledge from JTB, it's STILL not knowledge, even if we're talking about something that was known and forgotten!
I'll put it this way: The self-professing unbeliever doesn't need to be taught that God exists, but rather he needs to be reminded that God exists. As I said, one can't suppress what one doesn't possess.

Quote:
I'm not concerned by what someone supposedly said to and about a group of Romans a couple of millennia ago. Regardless, was Paul even talking specifically about non-believers, or was he talking about all people of that particular time?
Since you aren't concerned about what was said, I shan't* be concerned about addressing what you said.

*Is shan't still a word?

Okie dokie.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-16-2021 , 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundGuy
I know, right? My morning briefing always starts with, "lagtight posted something stupid again".
My morning briefing always starts with the query, "Did RoundGuy got temp-banned again."
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-16-2021 , 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
My morning briefing always starts with the query, "Did RoundGuy got temp-banned again."
And my morning briefing always ends with the query: "Is I going to use proper grammar today?"
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-17-2021 , 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
I'll put it this way:
First, can you tell me whether or not you agree that it is incorrect to put it this way (which is what this line of questions was about):

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
...they are in rebellion against a God that they know exists...
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-17-2021 , 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Kewl video. Of course, it doesn't even begin to refute the claim that "An effect can't be greater than its cause", but still a kewl video.
The claim that was unsupported, btw.

Why would you think an effect can't be greater than its cause? What does 'greater' refer to? And while the domino video was a bit of fun, I'm curious why you think a smaller domino toppling over increasingly larger (you might even say 'greater') dominos, exponentially, isn't a demonstration of increasing effects?


Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
There must therefore be a First Cause of all things which has at the very least all the characteristics which are seen in the universe which has been produced by it.
This non-sequitur I'm quite sure is something you don't believe either, since the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Thus, the First Cause must have intelligence, because there are intelligent beings in the universe...
would lead to The First Cause must have a sinful nature, because there are beings with a sinful nature in the universe.

?
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-18-2021 , 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
The claim that was unsupported, btw.

Why would you think an effect can't be greater than its cause? What does 'greater' refer to? And while the domino video was a bit of fun, I'm curious why you think a smaller domino toppling over increasingly larger (you might even say 'greater') dominos, exponentially, isn't a demonstration of increasing effects?
The cause of the whole sequence was not the small domino. The cause of the sequence was a very intelligent guy who carefully designed and crafted dominos of varying sizes, and who arranged them in a very specific way for a specific purpose. And it was the force provided by the smart guy that led to the dominos falling. The dominos had no say in the matter.

The video was an excellent example of a cause being greater than the effect. In other words, it literally demonstrated the opposite of what you thought it did.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-18-2021 , 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
First, can you tell me whether or not you agree that it is incorrect to put it this way (which is what this line of questions was about):
I think it's fine.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-18-2021 , 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
This non-sequitur I'm quite sure is something you don't believe either, since the following:

would lead to The First Cause must have a sinful nature, because there are beings with a sinful nature in the universe.

?
That human beings have a "sin nature" (I put that in quotes because not every Christian theologian would express man's capacity to sin in those terms) does not logically entail that God must thereby have a sin nature, but rather that unregenerate human beings lack an attribute that God has, namely, holiness.

An effect can certainly lack certain attributes that the cause possesses.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-18-2021 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
I think it's fine.
Perhaps you could do me the favour of telling me in your words, why you think I have been saying it is incorrect (steelmanning), and tell me where you think I am wrong. Otherwise, we're both wasting each other's time if you're just going to ignore what I argued, which is what your brief reply indicates.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-18-2021 , 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
That human beings have a "sin nature" (I put that in quotes because not every Christian theologian would express man's capacity to sin in those terms) does not logically entail that God must thereby have a sin nature, but rather that unregenerate human beings lack an attribute that God has, namely, holiness.

An effect can certainly lack certain attributes that the cause possesses.
The text you quoted claims that "a First Cause of all things which has at the very least all the characteristics which are seen in the universe which has been produced by it".


Unless you think this is another piece of inerrant God-breathed text, I'm wondering why you're defending something you clearly don't accept, even going as far as performing semantic acrobatics instead. Perhaps 'green' does not exist as a characteristic, and should be described as the characteristic 'lack of red and blue'?







Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
The cause of the whole sequence was not the small domino. The cause of the sequence was a very intelligent guy who carefully designed and crafted dominos of varying sizes, and who arranged them in a very specific way for a specific purpose. And it was the force provided by the smart guy that led to the dominos falling. The dominos had no say in the matter.

The video was an excellent example of a cause being greater than the effect. In other words, it literally demonstrated the opposite of what you thought it did.
Please confirm: the cause in the domino's experiment was the guy who set it up.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-19-2021 , 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
The text you quoted claims that "a First Cause of all things which has at the very least all the characteristics which are seen in the universe which has been produced by it".


Unless you think this is another piece of inerrant God-breathed text, I'm wondering why you're defending something you clearly don't accept, even going as far as performing semantic acrobatics instead. Perhaps 'green' does not exist as a characteristic, and should be described as the characteristic 'lack of red and blue'?
Analogy:

A painter has the capacity to paint a picture from his pallet of, say, twenty colours. The painter doesn't have to use every color.

If light didn't exist, we would have no concept of darkness. Darkness is not an attribute of anything; it is the absense of an attribute of something.

If sound didn't exist, we would have no concept of silence. But that doesn't mean that silence "exists" as some entity.

God made humans with the capacity to sin. Sin is the absense of holiness. God is holy. The fact that man can sin does not mean the God has the property of sin. God gave man free will, which man can use for sin or holiness.

The Morris quote is consistent with all that.





Quote:
Please confirm: the cause in the domino's experiment was the guy who set it up.
Right. The "First Cause" (so to speak) of the experiment was the smart guy. He created the dominos to achieve an effect. That's why (in this case) the cause is greater than the effect.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-19-2021 , 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
Perhaps you could do me the favour of telling me in your words, why you think I have been saying it is incorrect (steelmanning), and tell me where you think I am wrong. Otherwise, we're both wasting each other's time if you're just going to ignore what I argued, which is what your brief reply indicates.
I made the following claim regarding professing atheists:

they are in rebellion against a God that they know exists.

I believe that your argument against my claim is basically that if a professing atheist really does know that God exists, then he wouldn't really be an atheist, since, by definition, an atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists. I believe you are suggesting that I am abusing both language and logic by claiming that an atheist knows that God exists.

Is the above an accurate account of your argument?
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-20-2021 , 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Analogy:

A painter has the capacity to paint a picture from his pallet of, say, twenty colours. The painter doesn't have to use every color.

If light didn't exist, we would have no concept of darkness. Darkness is not an attribute of anything; it is the absense of an attribute of something.

If sound didn't exist, we would have no concept of silence. But that doesn't mean that silence "exists" as some entity.
You're really saying that labels like 'dark' and 'quiet' (and let's add 'cold') are NOT characteristics?

If it's the middle of the night, far from civilization, somewhere in Siberia, you'd better not characterise this as dark, quiet, or cold.

This is silliness, or should I say the absence of being sensible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
God made humans with the capacity to sin. Sin is the absense of holiness. God is holy. The fact that man can sin does not mean the God has the property of sin. God gave man free will, which man can use for sin or holiness.

The Morris quote is consistent with all that.
Just make sure you're consistent with this position, that sin (or sinful nature) is NOT a characteristic of human beings, in all future endeavours.

This is moot of course, since there are countless characteristics that describe humans (or anything you consider created) but not to the God you believe in.
e.g. bipedal / warm-blooded / fallable / mortal / social-species
or solid, or liquid, or gaseous, or monochrome, or hairy, or smooth, or aromatic, or venomous, or evergreen, or nocturnal...etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Right. The "First Cause" (so to speak) of the experiment was the smart guy. He created the dominos to achieve an effect. That's why (in this case) the cause is greater than the effect.
I thought you might catch on to my point, but seems like you didn't, so here it is:

Why is the cause of the falling fourth domino the experimenter, and not the third domino?

You said it was because the experimenter was the cause of the sequence of events. But to use a phrase you're familiar with, according to your worldview the experimenter is not the cause, God is the cause, since God is the First Cause of ALL sequences of events.

Otherwise, you're arbitrarily picking one particular mid-point cause and proclaiming it to be the cause for the effects that follow, while rejecting other mid-point causes (the preceding dominoes) as being causes.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-20-2021 , 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
I made the following claim regarding professing atheists:

they are in rebellion against a God that they know exists.

I believe that your argument against my claim is basically that if a professing atheist really does know that God exists, then he wouldn't really be an atheist, since, by definition, an atheist is someone who does not believe that God exists. I believe you are suggesting that I am abusing both language and logic by claiming that an atheist knows that God exists.

Is the above an accurate account of your argument?
While you do often imply that atheists aren't really atheists when you repeat some of your favourite phrases, this is not part of my argument. In fact I think you've shown that you do realise atheists don't believe God exists when your posts are more candid (which just makes your "professing atheists" platitudes all the more annoying).

My argument is simply that using your definition for knowledge (JTB), there cannot be knowledge without belief, and since an atheist does not hold the required belief, it is false to say that an atheist knows that God's exists.

If you look back at your posts, you've tried to turn the state of non-belief into the state of belief, but if I do not hold the belief "God exists", it doesn't matter whether I used to believe it, temporarily stopped believing it, am 'suppressing' believing it because you think it should be obvious, or if I have never believed it. Until my state of mind changes to believing the proposition "God exists", it is incorrect to state that I know it, and definitely not 'fine'.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote
03-21-2021 , 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish
You're really saying that labels like 'dark' and 'quiet' (and let's add 'cold') are NOT characteristics?

If it's the middle of the night, far from civilization, somewhere in Siberia, you'd better not characterise this as dark, quiet, or cold.

This is silliness, or should I say the absence of being sensible.
"Dark" and "quiet" are indeed characteristics.

"Darkness" is a word that describes the characteristic of there being no light.

"Quiet" is a word that describes the characteristic of there being no sound.



Quote:
Just make sure you're consistent with this position, that sin (or sinful nature) is NOT a characteristic of human beings, in all future endeavours.

This is moot of course, since there are countless characteristics that describe humans (or anything you consider created) but not to the God you believe in.
e.g. bipedal / warm-blooded / fallable / mortal / social-species
or solid, or liquid, or gaseous, or monochrome, or hairy, or smooth, or aromatic, or venomous, or evergreen, or nocturnal...etc
I think I have been consistent in my belief that what God creates does not necessarily share a characteristic of God.

Quote:
I thought you might catch on to my point, but seems like you didn't, so here it is:

Why is the cause of the falling fourth domino the experimenter, and not the third domino?

You said it was because the experimenter was the cause of the sequence of events. But to use a phrase you're familiar with, according to your worldview the experimenter is not the cause, God is the cause, since God is the First Cause of ALL sequences of events.

Otherwise, you're arbitrarily picking one particular mid-point cause and proclaiming it to be the cause for the effects that follow, while rejecting other mid-point causes (the preceding dominoes) as being causes.
The ultimate cause of everything is God. After that, is a series of proximate causes for subsequent effects.

God created a smart person who used his brains to to create a really neato-torpedo domino effect.

The proximate cause of a given domino falling is the previous domino falling into it, knocking it over.
Official RGT random **** thread Quote

      
m