Bart Ehrman Blog Readers Forum

A A A
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Min search length: 3 characters / Max search length: 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_TopicIcon
Time is order
Avatar
janmaru

208 Posts
(Offline)
1
March 23, 2021 - 8:48 am

I don’t like answers. They are too definite to me. But this debate highlights a very simple idea: causation is time, time is causation. If something is defined in the field of space, is also related to time (velocity and space), so causation is just order. Time is order.
Jeffery Jay Lowder uses a penetrant argument: if someone is causing something, that something must be prior to him. There is a distance between assuming something and explaining it.
I think all debate is worth for this shot.

 

Avatar
Stephen
4488 Posts
(Online)
2
March 25, 2021 - 2:53 pm

Jeepers.  Watching this video is like reading one of those old Classics Illustrated comic book versions of some famous piece of literature.  It’s ok for the junior high school book report if you can’t manage to read the original book but after you dumb it down and leave so much out it’s best function is as toilet paper.  Ok I’m an elitist – so sue me.

I have to confess I’ve never understood why a Christian theist would resort to so-called “Fine Tuning” arguments that would seem to completely undercut their viewpoint.  By definition the Christian God is responsible not only for the creation of the universe and life in that universe, but also for the conditions under which a universe and life in it can be created.  Whence comes “constraints”?  Are we supposed to be impressed because God tied one hand behind his back?   Nothing seems more redolent of naturalism that constraints.  Not enough radiation and life is impossible.  To  much radiation and life is destroyed.   That is what you expect in a naturalistic universe.  Not a God who constrains himself and offers that as evidence of his existence.

Avatar
janmaru

208 Posts
(Offline)
3
March 27, 2021 - 3:31 pm

I would go a little further. Since we witness life, then this universe should be fine-tuned to permit it. I feel it’s a recursive argument. No matter how it is its causation, it’s just as it is.
To demonstrate that a different value for the universal constraints that we observe in the universe would not allow other forms of “life” is just wishful thinking. How would you define life in a different context?

Forum Timezone: America/Indiana/Indianapolis
All RSSShow Stats
Administrators:
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
Top Posters:
Steefen: 7640
Stephen: 4488
Porphyry: 1834
godspell: 1827
DavidFord: 1323
brenmcg: 1184
BJH1960: 1148
Colin Milton: 1142
JAS: 948
Jarek: 936
Newest Members:
jim2day
mgrandy64
jeffweng
Dmanny1204
Bercan
abreupedro
muk977
george3
Karrar21
Jeannie.INGRAHAM
Forum Stats:
Groups: 2
Forums: 13
Topics: 2597
Posts: 45749

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 65
Members: 65739
Moderators: 0
Admins: 4
Most Users Ever Online: 3559
Currently Online: Judith, Stephen
Guest(s) 9
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)