> "Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable." <
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 11 March 2012 3:27:33 PM

That is a word salad; a meaningless mix of words

Well, if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.

<<Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable.>>

Mmmm… quite.

Reminds me of Rockwell Automation’s Retro Encabulator… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuhYd9L_d7w

David,

I'm sorry, but you appear to have shot yourself in the foot, with an apparent admission of the existence of God - as illuminated in the following. (Of course it's probably unintentional, but reads of admission, of capitulation - or do you really mean to admit that God could exist, as a first cause?)

Martin Ibn Warriq posted:(Post P9, 3:27:33PM Sunday 11 March):
<Admit a God [First Cause], and you introduce among the subjects of your knowledge, a fact encompassing, closing in upon, absorbing every other fact conceivable.>

To which you countered: (Post P9, 4:43:13PM Sunday 11 March):
"The established existence of a first cause god does not change the nature of the universe so who cares."

And Then You Posted:(Post P9, 8:36:54AM Monday 12 March):
"I pointed out that the existence of a first cause god would not change the nature of the universe."

The latter post may be an attempt to undo the significance of the earlier ('would not' against 'does not'), but is still not an outright repudiation. This is a strange position for an avowed Atheist?

But of course you are very wrong in any event, for the 'established existence' of God as a first cause would indeed change everything - and you would have to be extraordinarily stubborn and bigoted to conclude otherwise.

Martin Ibn Warriq, you opened: (Post P8, 1:13;05PM Sunday 11 March):
"It is the astonishing self righteousness and intellectual arrogance of atheist secularists that is the real danger."

On reading the rest of your posts on this thread, it strikes me that your opening salvo bears striking resemblance to 'calling the kettle black' - leaving open the question of what is/are "the real danger(s)" on both sides of the argument.

Mind you, I tend to agree with your proposition that the existence of God as a first cause would have impact on all things, and all thinking. All the same, it behoves one to be Christian about the possibilities, to empathise and be tolerant. Enlightenment is an inner journey after all, and humility a virtue.

Saltpetre,

I’m not going to go into an exercise in semantics but if a first cause god was shown to exist it would have to be by some other mechanism than through the laws of nature which do not show one does.

Therefore, who cares if there is a first cause god or there is a natural cause as it is irrelevant to human affairs? This would be a deist type of god who set the wheels in motion and that is all.

Nothing can be implied from that except that the universe is unfair in both instances.

And no, I don’t think that a first cause god is the highest probability.

The only foot-shooting is in your mind.

David