Question for BrianH

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

First of all, the law of cause and effect is what we observe in the physical universe which God created and thereby exhibited his own will and nature as creator. It is not evident in any form OUTSIDE or BEFORE the physical universe.

How do you know? Have you observed this phenomenon personally? Or has anyone?

Originally Posted by BrianH

God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator.

What I think you are trying to say is that you believe God is a law unto himself. And that he doesn't follow any rules or principles that exist independently of his first creating those rules or principles--as they simply don't exist.

So then you will probably say that God IS the very law and principle of Cause and Effect.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Secondly, if there was no physical universe, the laws that govern it would not only be impossible, but unnecessary. The laws of gravity, for example cannot even possibly exist apart from m***, space and time.

Actually, it is the "EFFECT" of gravity which cannot exist w/o m***, space, time, etc. The law exists whether or not you have the elements in place to implement the law. The existence of natural law is not dependent upon obeyers of that law to abide by it.

Otherwise, you could say that God is not God unless there are beings in existence who worship and acknowledge Him as such.

Your third point did not deserve consideration.

[BrianH]

How do you know? Have you observed this phenomenon personally? Or has anyone?

Is emperical observation the only means of achieving knowledge, Fig?

What I think you are trying to say is that you believe God is a law unto himself. And that he doesn't follow any rules or principles that exist independently of his first creating those rules or principles--as they simply don't exist.

So then you will probably say that God IS the very law and principle of Cause and Effect.

Straw man. No what I am saying is what I said: God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator. Being outside time and space before creating them, he is not bound by the laws of the physical universe IN time and space. That is the MORMON "God" who is the creature living in outer space, not the TRUE God.

Actually, it is the "EFFECT" of gravity which cannot exist w/o m***, space, time, etc. The law exists whether or not you have the elements in place to implement the law. The existence of natural law is not dependent upon obeyers of that law to abide by it.

Wrong agian. While indeed the effect of gravity cannot exist with no m*** or space or time, that is BECAUSE there can be no gravity. Now if you would like to contest that observation, all you have to do is explain how gravity can exist outside time and space and where there is no m***. Go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that the laws of gravity somehow exist where there is no physical reality. I can hardly wait.

Otherwise, you could say that God is not God unless there are beings in existence who worship and acknowledge Him as such.

No YOU could say that. I could not. YOU are the one who's whole religion is based on imagination, not me.

Your third point did not deserve consideration

Just keep running, Fig. It shows us that even YOU know you have no actual answers.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Is emperical observation the only means of achieving knowledge, Fig?

You tell me.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Straw man. No what I am saying is what I said: God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator. Being outside time and space before creating them, he is not bound by the laws of the physical universe IN time and space. That is the MORMON "God" who is the creature living in outer space, not the TRUE God.

Like I said. For you, God is therefore a law unto himself. Either that or God is lawless in his own realm.

And who says that the law of "Cause and Effect" is somehow bound to our physical existence, and reaches no where else? Is this in the Bible? Your word isn't good enough to go on.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Wrong agian. While indeed the effect of gravity cannot exist with no m*** or space or time, that is BECAUSE there can be no gravity.

But there CAN BE gravity as well as gravity's effect IF m*** is present.

The presence of the element does not determine the truth or existence of the principle. The principle and law exist independent of the elements affected by it.

So according to you, there is no law unless there are elements in existence to obey that law. That's a strawman if ever there was one. I'll even **** that one down, if it doesn't fall over on its own, first.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Now if you would like to contest that observation, all you have to do is explain how gravity can exist outside time and space and where there is no m***. Go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that the laws of gravity somehow exist where there is no physical reality. I can hardly wait.

The principle and law still exist but are simply inactive until you introduce the elements, the law and principle show themselves.

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes no sound because Brian did not hear it?

Maybe if you cover your eyes, Brian, then your mommy won't be able to see you.

[BrianH]

BH>>Is emperical observation the only means of achieving knowledge, Fig?

F>You tell me.

The answer is no. That is why your question was moot.

BH>>Straw man. No what I am saying is what I said: God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator. Being outside time and space before creating them, he is not bound by the laws of the physical universe IN time and space. That is the MORMON "God" who is the creature living in outer space, not the TRUE God.

F>Like I said. For you, God is therefore a law unto himself. Either that or God is lawless in his own realm.

No, not "for me". For real. The typical, LDS attempt to relativize even the most obvious truths is evdient in your rhetoric. You cannot deal with reality, Fig. And REALITY is pretty darn obvious right here. The LDS "God" is indeed subject to the laws of the physical universe. His very existence is dependent on the physical world. By contrast the God of the Bible CREATED the physical world and therefore cannot be dependent upon it for his existence. Since the God of the Bible says that he alone is the ONLY God there is, was or ever will be that meanst the Mormon God is imaginary, at best.

And who says that the law of "Cause and Effect" is somehow bound to our physical existence, and reaches no where else? Is this in the Bible? Your word isn't good enough to go on.

Show me evidence or a reason to think that the laws of cause and effect exist OUTSIDE physical reality.

BH>>Wrong agian. While indeed the effect of gravity cannot exist with no m*** or space or time, that is BECAUSE there can be no gravity.

F>But there CAN BE gravity as well as gravity's effect IF m*** is present.

Which is what I said and you denied and you are now admitting. Sheeesh, Fig. Try to keep up here will ya? Oh and BTW, for gravity to exist, there must ALSO be space and time. Gravity cannot exist without them. BY DEFINITION gravity is a property of the PHYSICAL universe Fig. It only effects PHYSICAL things (bodies of m***). The real God is not a THING subject to the law of gravity. Only the Mormon "God" is.

The presence of the element does not determine the truth or existence of the principle. The principle and law exist independent of the elements affected by it.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is GENERATED by m***, Fig. No m*** = no POSSIBILITY of gravity. No gravity means there are no laws of gravity because there is nothing for those laws to govern.

So according to you, there is no law unless there are elements in existence to obey that law. That's a strawman if ever there was one. I'll even **** that one down, if it doesn't fall over on its own, first.

First of all YOU are the one making the statement so if there is a straw man its YOURS. Secondly, unless you can provide me with a reason to think that the laws of gravity exist APART from the physical elements that CAUSE those laws to exist and even give them their purpose, you will have a point. Short of an explanation of how gravity operates WITHOUT any m*** or space or time, you will once again have only exhibited your ignoranc e.

BH>>Now if you would like to contest that observation, all you have to do is explain how gravity can exist outside time and space and where there is no m***. Go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that the laws of gravity somehow exist where there is no physical reality. I can hardly wait.

F>The principle and law still exist but are simply inactive until you introduce the elements, the law and principle show themselves.

That is not an explanation. Its just another empty ***ertion. Please back up your claims by EXPLAINING HOW gravity exists and operates outside the physical universe.

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes no sound because Brian did not hear it?

Irrelevant. Red herring.

Maybe if you cover your eyes, Brian, then your mommy won't be able to see you.

What's the matter Fig ...? Can't support your position again, so all you can do is exhibit your adolescent taunting?

Explain how gravity works outside of time and space, Fig.

Go ahead and dodge that AGAIN. I wanna see you DANCE, Mormon.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is GENERATED by m***, Fig. No m*** = no POSSIBILITY of gravity. No gravity means there are no laws of gravity because there is nothing for those laws to govern.

.

The law and principle of gravity is not invented or produced by the existence of m***. But the effect of that law and principle IS evidenced by the existence of m***.

See the difference yet?

Just like the law of cause and affect was not generated by a cause.

The physical world is patterned after the spiritual. The laws that act upon the physical elements are in place before the physical elements appear to be acted upon. The same is true with the spiritual world.

[BrianH]

Again it is evident that you have no idea what you are talking about. And when challenged to defend your claim, all you do is repeat it. You have failed three times now to explain your otherwise empty ***ertion. A cl*** in basic high school physics would have informed you that gravity does not exist without m*** and m*** only exists in space and time.

Were there no m***, no space no time, there would be no gravity and therefore no laws of gravity could be derived. At that point the "principle" of gravity could ONLY exist in in theory - not in reality.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Were there no m***, no space no time, there would be no gravity and therefore no laws of gravity could be derived. At that point the "principle" of gravity could ONLY exist in in theory - not in reality.

The principle of gravity exists before the elements are introduced. And whether it is in theory or not is irrelevant. It exists, and it is truth, and it is a real principle. You don't need to light a match to a gasoline spill to create the principle of cause and effect.

You only need to do that to observe effects of the principle that already is in place.

[BrianH]

The principle of gravity exists before the elements are introduced.

Just repeating your ***ertion over and over again does not amount to an explanation, Fig.

And whether it is in theory or not is irrelevant.

EXACTLY my point. Therefore your "theory" that gravity and its laws exist outside of physical reality is irrelevant.

It exists, and it is truth, and it is a real principle.

Prove it.

You don't need to light a match to a gasoline spill to create the principle of cause and effect.

Irrelevant.

You only need to do that to observe effects of the principle that already is in place.

I I know that you Mormons are somehow conditioned to think that just repeating somehting over and over again makes it true. The challenge before you is to SHOW me that the laws of gravity exist apart from gravity, Fig. Don't just repeat your claim, again SHOW ME why anyone should think your claim is TRUE.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

I I know that you Mormons are somehow conditioned to think that just repeating somehting over and over again makes it true. The challenge before you is to SHOW me that the laws of gravity exist apart from gravity, Fig. Don't just repeat your claim, again SHOW ME why anyone should think your claim is TRUE.

-BH

.

And the principle of gravity is not the CAUSE of gravity. The principle of gravity does not govern the CAUSE of gravity.

The "principle" and "law" of gravity governs the effects of gravity. And not the other way around.

The principle and laws of gravity were in place long before God set the sun and the earth and the moon into motion.

This all brings us back to the topic at hand. That the principle of "Cause and Effect" was in place well before the appearance of any effects.

Gotta hand it to you Brian. You are consistent. For you nothing even exists whether in principle, or in law, or in element until there is observable evidence.

[BrianH]

And the principle of gravity is not the CAUSE of gravity. The principle of gravity does not govern the CAUSE of gravity.

Again, exactly MY point! Glad you are continuing to come around.

The "principle" and "law" of gravity governs the effects of gravity. And not the other way around.

Wrong. If there was no gravity there could be no laws of gravity, Fig. Just ***erting the contrary does not explain your position. By contrast I need only point out the FACT that were there no m***, no time and no space, gravity would be impossible, it would not exist and therefore could not even possibly exert any of the force from which the laws of gravity are derived.

The principle and laws of gravity were in place long before God set the sun and the earth and the moon into motion.

But not before matter and time and space existed. Gravity is the RESULT of the effect that matter has on space. That effect is not limited to the earth and the moon.

This all brings us back to the topic at hand. That the principle of "Cause and Effect" was in place well before the appearance of any effects.

It brings us nowhere Fig. Look ...just ***erting your position is not an explanation of your position. Give me a REASON to think that the laws derived from the properties of the physical universe actually existed BEFORE the physical universe existed. Just repeating your claim over and over again only shows that you are not thinking.

Gotta hand it to you Brian. You are consistent. For you nothing even exists whether in principle, or in law, or in element until there is observable evidence.

Gotta hand it to you Fig. You are consistent. Apparently you can do is misrepresent what I am saying while consistently failing to support your own claims.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Give me a REASON to think that the laws derived from the properties of the physical universe actually existed BEFORE the physical universe existed. Just repeating your claim over and over again only shows that you are not thinking.

You actually need me to explain to you why the principle of cause and effect needed to be in place for God to cause any effects to take place?

How 'bout you explain to me how God could be the cause of a first effect if the principle and law of cause and effect did NOT exist.

[BrianH]

You actually need me to explain to you why the principle of cause and effect needed to be in place for God to cause any effects to take place?

Yes. That is your position here ...is it not? I am asking you AGAIN, to please explain WHY anyone should think your claim is true. Please do not pretend to explain it by just REPEATING it again. I already know what your claim is. I am asking you to explain why anyone should think it is actually correct.

How 'bout you explain to me how God could be the cause of a first effect if the principle and law of cause and effect did NOT exist.

I already did. Here, I will do it again. Let me explain it this way: This is like the Euthephro dilemma. Good is not "good" because God said it is, nor is it "good" because it is superior to God. The biblical reality is that goodness is in God's own nature and it begins with who God IS. In the same way, it is God's very nature to be orderly and order begins with God. Thus the entire creation reflects his nature and therefore abides by the laws he created. When God creates, he shows us who and what he is. The laws of nature (including cause and effect) only existed in the mind of God before he created them and are expressions of the mind of God after he created them. But those laws are only observable by creatures like us since they are derived from the FACTS of creation AFTER the creation of the universe (which includes creatures, BTW).

Now that I have answered your question twice, when are you gonna finally answer my question. YOU say that the laws governing the physical universe actually existed in the universe BEFORE the universe itself existed. Why should anyone think that?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

You actually need me to explain to you why the principle of cause and effect needed to be in place for God to cause any effects to take place?

Yes. That is your position here ...is it not? I am asking you AGAIN, to please explain WHY anyone should think your claim is true. Please do not pretend to explain it by just REPEATING it again. I already know what your claim is. I am asking you to explain why anyone should think it is actually correct.

When God says to the elements "do this" they obey. They do so in an orderly fashion not because they are puppets, but because the elements hear his voice and obey. The water and storm obeyed Jesus when it was stilled, or when he walked upon the water. It is by faith that Jesus walked on water and calmed the storm. It is also by faith that the worlds are created--because God says "do this" the cause... and the elements obey "the effect." If the elements were not to be affected by the cause, there would have been no creation, and nothing would exist. Some laws of obedience, God establishes for us. But some natural laws have been established for eternity. Even IF the law of cause and effect could have been first created by God, God would be using that very law to create that very law, which is a circular redundancy.

God knows these natural laws and abides by them, and that is what gives him is power. Jesus is the same. It is not a matter of a law being above God, it is a matter of God understanding the law, and higher laws still, until he knows them all, and has mastered them all.

It is like a caveman being shown electricity for the first time. The caveman gets down and begins to worship another man who understands that electricity. But that man is not a god, he is just one who understands the laws of electricity. There are higher laws than that which govern electricity--laws which you nor I know about. God knows them all and he can even overcome some lower laws if he wants by understanding higher laws.

Originally Posted by BrianH

I already did. Here, I will do it again. Let me explain it this way: This is like the Euthephro dilemma. Good is not "good" because God said it is, nor is it "good" because it is superior to God. The biblical reality is that goodness is in God's own nature and it begins with who God IS. In the same way, it is God's very nature to be orderly and order begins with God. Thus the entire creation reflects his nature and therefore abides by the laws he created. When God creates, he shows us who and what he is. The laws of nature (including cause and effect) only existed in the mind of God before he created them and are expressions of the mind of God after he created them. But those laws are only observable by creatures like us since they are derived from the FACTS of creation AFTER the creation of the universe (which includes creatures, BTW).

.

Thanks for explaining your point. I already wrote why I disagree.

[BrianH]

When God says to the elements "do this" they obey.They do so in an orderly fashion not because they are puppets, but because the elements hear his voice and obey.

So you think that elements are conscious beings??

God knows these natural laws and abides by them, and that is what gives him is power. Jesus is the same. It is not a matter of a law being above God, it is a matter of God understanding the law, and higher laws still, until he knows them all, and has mastered them all.

I agree that God knows the laws of nature. The Mormon "God" is indeed subject to laws that are higher than himself and which he had to learn about. The Mormon "God" is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible knows the laws, principles and forces of nature because he CREATED them. Col 2:16-17 is explicit on this simple matter:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Its your speculations vs. the word of God, Fig.

I have every reason to believe God and no reason to believe you.

-BH

.

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by BrianH

So you think that elements are conscious beings??
Col 2:16-17 is explicit on this simple matter:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Why when Paul said this does he only mention things that have no being? If he meant to say that God created man, why didn't he list that as well. Seems that if you examine this in context with the whole verse, then the omission of man and any other living thing becames a big hole in the argument that Paul meant to include man. Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing. Even though God did create them, it looks like if you use this to say that God created man, that is not what Paul was saying. Something to think about.

Marvin

[BrianH]

Why when Paul said this does he only mention things that have no being?

He says "all things were created by him" and explains that means all things in heaven and on earth, all visible and invisible things, all thrones and principlaities (authority and jurisdiction), all powers ...ALL THINGS were created by him and for him and he existed before "ALL THINGS" and it is by HIM that they all consist. What part of ALL THINGS do you not understand? How much more explicit does God need to be?

If he meant to say that God created man, why didn't he list that as well.

He did. All things means ALL things. And if you think he is lying for saying that God created man, go ahead and make your case.

Seems that if you examine this in context with the whole verse, then the omission of man and any other living thing becames a big hole in the argument that Paul meant to include man. Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing.

A "living thing" is a thing by definition, Marvin and living things would be included by anyone who knows how to read as a subset of the category of "things" and the Bible is explicit in tellin you in perfectly understandable and unequivocal terms that God created "ALL THINGS". Are men not on earth? Are they not visible?

Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing. Even though God did create them, it looks like if you use this to say that God created man, that is not what Paul was saying.

So you leap from "maybe" Paul didn't mean man or any living thing to "that is not what Paul was saying" in one sentence. That's quite a leap! Suppose you back up and actually show me why we should think that Paul was NOT talking about mankind. Your mere conjecture is insufficient as support for ITSELF.

Meanwhile, the context here is the book of Colosians in whcih Paul is writing to REFUTE the proto-gnosticism (YOUR theological ancestors) that was developing there at the time. The language he uses here is the same kind of language that the gnostics used to describe the hierarchies of deity and natural powers that they worshipped. That INCLUDED "Gods" and angels and men and natural forces.

When Paul says "ALL things", I see no reason to think he means "SOME things". Now ...if you would like to dispute that, suppose you begin by telling me what Paul SHOULD HAVE said in order to convey the idea of "ALL things" since the words "ALL things" seem indadequate to that task for you.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

So you think that elements are conscious beings??

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.

[BrianH]

BH>>So you think that elements are conscious beings??

F>Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.

Wow ...That's amazing. So then, are ALL (or most) Mormons pantheists or animists like you?

-BH

.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.

Jesus said.....

John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He simply has power over matter.

After all he created it from nothing by just speaking it into existence.

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Wow ...That's amazing. So then, are ALL (or most) Mormons pantheists or animists like you?

-BH

.

I'm neither of those.

But you can ask each Mormon you meet, if you like, what they believe.

Thanks.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.

Wow. You really are a pantheist of some kind to believe this utter nonsense, Fig.

So when in the Psalms it says, "The trees of the fields will clap their hands", the trees must have intelligence and "will" to applaud, huh?

[BrianH]

I'm neither of those.

You most certainly are IF you really believe that natural elements (like water) have an innate intelligence. And you just represented that you DO so believe.

I knew you guys were supers***ious, but this takes the cake!

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by BrianH

You most certainly are IF you really believe that natural elements (like water) have an innate intelligence.

--If such objects in nature have no intelligence, then how can you call LDS people "as dumb as a rock" ?

[BrianH]

--If such objects in nature have no intelligence, then how can you call LDS people "as dumb as a rock" ?

I didn't. But ...actually THINK about your question, Jeff ...does it not have as its premise that objects in nature have no intelligence? If I thought you Mormoids were dumb as a rock wouldn't that at least be consistent with that premise?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Wow. You really are a pantheist of some kind to believe this utter nonsense, Fig.

So when in the Psalms it says, "The trees of the fields will clap their hands", the trees must have intelligence and "will" to applaud, huh?

Yea. I believe the trees have intelligence. That one's even more obvious.

But I'm not a pantheist.

Thanks.