MAKESHIFTWINGS POSTS #192

It's not logic, but reason and right reason from which I make my argument for the existence of God as Maker of all Creation.

God the First Cause...right reasoning asserts every effect has a cause.

Primary, secondary and extended effects relate back to the First Cause.

Fire, energy, Mist, Time, Force, Matter, or a tree branch, and you and me are all effects of one First Cause.

The universe or Cosmos presupposes a cause a Being necessarily outside the thing produced. All creation stands in contrast to the Cause of its production; one produced; the other unproduced. This uncreated Cause, this Being having no cause, no beginning...Christians call God.

The Eternal Creator is necessarily sovereign Lord and Master over all created things and beings. Since no thing possesses a quality not found in its cause, the supreme qualities in nature are the manifestations of the qualities of the Creator of nature.

Order, beauty and harmony in nature evidences design, intention and intelligence of God.

So, God is the Supreme Self Existent Spirit who designed, created and rules the universe and all that's in it. God is Eternal, Unchangeable and Omnipresent.

Right reason sustains belief in God. By logically going from effect to cause, the human mind finally comes to the first Cause--God. The unchanging phenomena of the material universe is a single great effect which must have emanated from an efficient cause, an uncaused Cause.

The universe can only be seen, intellectually, by being placed in contrast to that which does not change, it's Cause. We know rationally that this First Cause is not merely equal but superior to all the effects which flow from all natural causes taken together. The First and Ultimate Cause must have personality, intelligence and free will since we ourselves whom God created have intelligence and free will. While this First Cause is responsible for our existence, He is not the cause of our free will acts.

You'll never hear from me that Our Lord God is magic....mystery yes, but not total mystery for He's given us enough knowledge of Himself to live a remarkable life to run the race and travel to the edge of the world and beyond off into the darkness.

This is where we begin to live, to really live through the eyes of God. We begin to understand that we weren't made to pave out life behind the walls of nature, but to walk through this life into the arms of God on a raod that nature could never build. In our life we must face a hard rock of reality, a truth that does not bend to whims or fantasy.

How about this:

• Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
• The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause.
• God does not have a beginning, therefore god does not need a cause.

While God has not perhaps, “Imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God”, for some people have quite obviously no idea of God, and some worse than none, he has left us with a great witness to his existence in the form of our own existence: so long as we have our selves, and know we have our selves, we also know that there is a God.  I think it is beyond explaining our knowledge of self-existence.  I will leave it with Descartes’ famous phrase, “cogito, ergo sum”, meaning “I think, therefore, I am.”  If someone truly claims to be unsure of his own existence (I say “claims”, because this is really impossible), I have little to say to him until hunger or some other of his appetites convinces him otherwise.  Further, we know intuitively that nothing can no more produce something than it can be congruent to a right angle.  Without accepting this, no theorem of Euclid (or for that matter of Gauss, since he seems to be more correct than Euclid), can stand.  We therefore see that Something has existed from eternity, as all things which were not existent from eternity began, and in order to have begun, they need a begin-ner.  Further, because everything that is in those things which have not been around forever are derived from that Thing which has, It is the source of all powers, and therefore, all-powerful.  The idea that senseless matter could produce thought is absurd, and those atheists who claim to still believe in free will are really just ignoring the obvious outcomes of their own ideas, so we know that whatever this “Thing” is which is eternal, is also a thinking, knowing being.  Further, all things having come from Him, this “Thing” must know all that there is to know about them, and thus is omniscient.  So to sum up, “If we suppose that nothing is first or eternal, matter can never begin to be.  If we suppose motionless matter to be first or eternal, motion can never begin to be.  If we suppose matter and motion to be first or eternal, thought can never begin to be.” –John Locke

^^^  Not necessarily true.  But it's just stating a premise, so as far as logic goes, it's fine.

^^^ Would be true if the first one is true, so this line is ok.

^^^ Doesn't work for two reasons.  First the logic problem:  "All A are B" does not imply "All not A are all not B"  In other words, "Everything that is a bird must have wings" does not imply "Bats aren't birds, so bats don't need to have wings".

The second issue is that "God does not have a beginning" isn't necessarily true, especially since it's allegedly impossible to know anything at all about God.  I'd maybe say this is its own internal contradiction; "It's impossible to know with certainty anything about God" and "We know with certainty that God didn't have a beginning".

I didn't read everything, way too many pages, and I'm not worried about what the conversation turned into. I' not trying to prove or disprove God. If this has already been said sorry. I'm just adressing the OP.

If you take the perspective of pagan religions with tons of gods and godesses that represent different parts of nature you are right.

With today's monotheistic religions that isn't true. In today's world science has replaced those pagan religions of trying to explain how things work, while Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. are trying to explain why things work. So science asks, "What are the processes?" Today's monnotheistic religions ask, "Why are there processes?" In language it is a relatively minor difference, but it converts into a huge difference when you delve deeper into each side.

Actually, my logic was this:

A implies B

Not A

Therefore, (B or not B )

I was trying to say "not B" is possible; I was not asserting that "not B" is the only logical conclusion.

Hence I used the wording "god does not need a cause" rather than "god does not have a cause."

English can be a pretty tricky language .

Not necessarily, but it's implied by most Christian beliefs. I was assuming it.

I would disagree with people who make such allegations.

. . . anyways, enough for tonight I suppose. I'm going to bed.

Whence do you take that? Because I said that it got colder for the last two years???

I am sick and tired of people who treat me as their intellectual inferiors just because I happen to disagree with them.

The truth is that scientists disagree about the causes of global warming. The fact that you tend to ignore one side of the issue doesn't make you exactly brilliant when it comes to understanding the science behind global warming. But it gives you a feeling of superiority over those who read more, I am sure.

And if you had read more about the Kyoto treaty you would know that my criticisms are valid. It does indeed allow the worst offenders to pollute as much as they want. Plus it uses a baseline that is of extremely questionable value. 1990 was just after the collapse of the Soviet Union and communist eastern Europe, which did not have laws to protect the environment.

Hence Kyoto divides the world into three groups. The first group includes the western countries (the US, Australia, France etc.). They are expected to curb emissions to a level derived from a year in which they already polluted less than everybody else (relative to productivity). The second group are the eastern countries (Russia, Poland, Germany since it includes East Germany). They are expected to curb emissions to a level derived from a year in which they had no limits on pollution and polluted A LOT more per head and productivity than western countries. And the third group are the so-called developing countries, who pollute the most (per head and productivity) and are not expected to change anything.

And the country that is hurt most is Japan, as Japan was the most efficient country in 1990 and is now being punished for that with a demand to curb emissions to a much lower level (per head and productivity) than any other country.

It's unfair and it doesn't do anything for the environment.

And guess what, the eastern European country's reduction of emissions was solely due to the collapse of their wasteful communist industrial system. In order to reach the target of the treaty, all they had to do was run their economy in an environment-friendlier way, like the US already did.

So even if global warming is happening, and even if it is a problem, and even if humanity causes it, the Kyoto treaty still does nothing to help. It only punished those who care about the environment before 1990.

What I would like to see is a treaty that sets targets per head (of people living in industrialised areas). The most efficient countries should not be punished and the most wasteful countries and the countries who keep most of their population in poverty should not be rewarded. THAT would help the environment. But that's not what the Global Warming crowd advocate and that's not what they want to hear.

But if you tell the Global Warming crowd about these problems, all they do is shout slogans about the terrible ignorance of everyone who disagrees with them. You guys are useless when it comes to protecting the environment. (Do you own a car? I don't.)

Lulapilgrim posts:

God is the Supreme Being who alone exists of Himself and is Infinite in all His perfections. God had no beginnning...He always was, He is and He always will be. God created the universe and all that is in it out of nothing, by His word. According to Genesis, God spoke and matter was created.

Lula posts:

Where did you get that it's impossible to know anything about God? Look around, is it not the eager promise of spring where you are? The minute details of nature's organization should stagger our minds and give us just a glimpse into Divine Wisdom. How about the sparkle in a child's innocent eyes or life itself? Each thing has a distinct truth to tell about its Maker.

Isn't there some fire within us that makes us seek and search further and further the whole of truth--Infinite Truth? What is impossible to human powers is accessible to us by Divine gifts. No one need be ignorant of ALmighty God. Truth can come to our mind even truth too big for us can still be ours on the Word of God Himself.

To the degree that we welcome God on earth, our minds shall penetrate the depths of God in Heaven. It is the divine virtue of faith that gives us so many of the truths about God that can be had only from God Himself. Genesis tells us that we are made in His image and likeness...imagine that! But htis image in us is not in the body, but in our soul; a spiritual substance endued with understanding (intellect) and free will.

In this life we can talk about God becasue we can know Him, albeit only in a very limited way. We have a name that is all that needs be said. God told us Himself that He is the "I AM WHO AM"... a Self-Existent, Spiritual Being, the Causeless Cause, and the Make of the made.

Of this, we speak truth about an artist, don't we becasue we know his works even though we' ve never seen the man. It's true we can get a glimpse of Divine things for St.Paul says, "oh, the depths of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God."  

Jesus Christ is God Incarnate and He came and told us a thing or two. Check out what He did and what He said and you will begin to know God.  Jesus said with Divine consiseness, "Before Abraham was, I AM".

Anyway, for me there is such a comfort and joy and appreciation in getting to know God...It is a constant comfort to know that God reaches "even to the division of the soul and the spirit of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; neither is there any creature invisible to His sight."

Sorry to ramble on!

No, because you said that maybe global warming isn't even real.  Actually, you keep switching between "Of course global warming is real, but it's not man-made" and "Maybe global warming's not even happening".

I don't think you're intellectually inferior, I just think you're wrong.  If anything, I don't think it's your intelligence that is stopping you from looking into the facts, it's more that you don't want to have to admit that you might be mistaken or that the Republicans are lying to you, and you're willing to avoid reading any information from any real sources so that you don't have to think about it.  This is understandable - I don't like to admit that I'm wrong, or that the Democrats are lying to me, but both happen, more often than I'd like.  Still, in this case, it would have to be the entire accredited scientific community of the world that is lying, and I just don't find that likely, especially since the evidence they've presented is much more factual than anything on conspiracy websites.

But that isn't the truth.  The scientific community, as a whole, completely supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.  EVERY legitimate scientific body.  Every one.  That's a lot.  INIDIVIDUAL scientists claim that they don't, but these people are a tiny minority (less than 1%), not climatologists, do not publish legitimate research, and refuse to have their "data" reviewed by neutral parties.  Most of them are also well-known Republican shills who have been caught trying to publish false data for their employer's benefit many times in the past.

What?  You think I'm ignoring you?  I answered every question you had, posted multiple links for you, and even did the research on all of your sources.  I've read everything you've mentioned so far.  I'm certainly not ignoring the right-wing side of the issue; I know it very well.  YOU seem to be the one ignoring the issue, since you apparently didn't read any of the things I posted that refute you, you still don't admit that global warming is real despite everyone (INCLUDING all the right-wing conspiracy sites these days) admit that global warming is at least real.  The conspiracy sites still say it's not man-made, but even they have switched over to saying it's real.

I'd say we should just agree to disagree about that.  Kyoto is a political issue, and at least makes sense to disagree over.  But like I said, you need to be able to separate Kyoto (a political treaty composed by politicians), and global warming (a factual thing, which has been proven by a vast community of scientisits from all over the political spectrum - Republicans, Democrats, and people from all the different nations of the world, with their own politics and beliefs).

Well, the greatest polluter per head is the U.S., not China.  You even said you knew that yourself earlier: China just edged out the U.S. in total pollution, but their population is so much larger that they have a much lower pollution per capita ratio.  So if you want something that only hurts China but helps the U.S., you should reword it.

And the reason the global warming community wouldn't want to hear the part about punishing countries with the highest poverty rates is because all of those countries hardly release any carbon emissions at all - most of them do not have factories or power plants.  I don't really see what punishing them is going to do... their lives are pretty shitty already.

Have I shouted any slogans in this entire thread?  I'm pretty sure I mostly pointed out the scientific facts of the situation and posted links.  I don't think I said anything about terrible ignorance, but I could be wrong.  And no, I don't own a car.

 LULAPILGRIM POSTS

One religion can't be as good as another becasue there is only one truth...and it is certain that God the Supreme truth could not have revealed contradictory teachings. Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true becasue we happen to believe them. Truth is consistent. If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. And if I am right, then you haven't got the truth.  

So from that, we can only conclude that in that list of yours above, there is only one true religion and all the rest are false religion.

And that's where the distinction lies in doing what you suggest above...especially for the person who is seeking Truth Who is God Himself...All of these can't be true so why pick up a Qur'an or study Shinto if neither of these is the one religion that God revealed?

Sheer nonsense and an outright lie. Please provide such proof. As a person of science myself I know this is simply not true and was written by someone who knows nothing at all about science. Are you an idiot or a liar? Do tell.

The basis of science is "I don't know". To claim "proof" that a something such as God doesn't exist would require an amazing amount of "proof".

I agree completely, and infact I would go so far to say that science has credited religion more than atheism.

All you did was ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominen, and poisoning the well.  By the way, those aren't compliments those are fallacies.

Those supercomputers that are being used are doing the worst case situation.  I probably should remind you of what Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, said about the credibility of those generated computer models.  I could easily say that a few of your organizations are liberial think-tanks, but I won't because that DOESN'T DISCREDIT SOMEONE'S CLAIM 100% of the time.  NASA climate data has had several errors/mistakes a la 1934 was the hottest year in U.S.

I'll supply more peer-reviewed journals as well since you have a love feitish for them.  Don't get me wrong I enjoy reading them but they are not infalliable.  As you stated with an ad hominen about Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, if what you typed is true, his article did get published in a peer-reviewed journal (Energy and Environment), so you have a conundrum here.  Also, there have been investigations/lawsuits to several peer-review for being overly bias so just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean its infallable. 

Your comment about someone not getting something published the first time is highly illogical.  Obviously, you've never sent something in to a journal.  Research doesn't always get in on the first try.  Even though you don't know who the author (s)(this is pertaining to the whole review process that a papers goes through. After being reviewed by peers the editor has the final say) are usually you've read enough of the materials from (in that field) that journal that you can tell who the authors are (we each have our own writing styles) or just use a little detective work, so with that tidbit of knowledge one does have the opportunity to be biased or some people have a very competitive nature which they'll disregard the research.  In Academia, most professors/researches have to have so many articles published in X amount of time and on top of that some universities want you to have it published in some of the more 'prestigous' journals.

With that said here you go some more journals:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28u12g2617j5021/?p=730c2f15f6a74e579386e4a91b32f300&pi=0&hl=u

They found that global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years and “The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7233/abs/nature07770.html

Here the evidence supports a scenario in which thresholds of meltwater from Northern ice sheets are periodically passed and the large dilution of the high latitude waters dilutes the salty surface waters of the Atlantic conveyer circulation, effectively and rapidly switching it off for a period. The high Northern latitudes cool abruptly while the reduced transfer of heat to the high Northern latitudes results in warming of the Southern oceans. In other words this is not a global warming phenomenon but is a massive and rapid change in the heat distribution of the Earth. The hemispheres respond in antiphase with a see-saw redistribution of heat due to large and rapid changes in ocean currents.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

"“According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex." One can be lead to postulate that the same thing is happening on mars.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030207.shtml

The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4048902

"Recent results have indicated strong correlations between climate parameters and solar activity. Upper troposphere and stratosphere temperatures have been found to vary in phase with the 10- to 12-year solar activity cycle. On a longer time scale, the global temperature, particularly the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature, has been found to be nearly perfectly correlated with the long-term variation of solar activity."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007P&SS...55..158R

This article was a fantastically interesting read because they used tree rings and they believe that the impact is from sollar activity and there's a cycle! Yet another articles says the earth's climate goes in a cycle!

You brought up mars here's neptune for you (we are not causing the situation on mars with what you stated about mars again  shows that its has to do with the sun/solar system) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

"If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment."  The fact with mars leads me to believe that it has something to do with the solar system.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1961JGR....66..273S

This one found that there was a correlation of carbon-14 and sunspots. " Change in carbon-14 activity during these periods was inverse to change in solar activity in 22 of 24 instances (P.001)."  I'm not sure if you've  done any research/submitted an article you want a p to be that small that's an EXCELLENT finding.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997AdSpR..20..913F

A good read once again!

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Dr. Spencer was a former NASA scientist.  "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent,At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade."

Here is another article by Dr. Spencer, except this one isn't peer-reviewed (wah wah waa) http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/ "Three IPCC climate models, recent NASA Aqua satellite data, and a simple 3-layer climate model are used together to demonstrate that the IPCC climate models are far too sensitive, resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions" He actually gives his email address at the bottom if you want to challenge him.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

The rate of world sea level rise was greater during the first half of the 20th Century than during the second half.  I thought the glaciers were melting at a exceptionally high rate? Wait hmmmm what's going on? Oh its a political ploy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1529

Speaking of how Greenland and Artic are melting so fast let's take a look at that.  Here they did and they  found that "the ice mass imbalance currently contributes about 0.35 mm/year to world average sea-level rise (a rate of about 1.4 inches per century)."  1.4 inches a century!!  Better roll them there pants up the flood is coming!!

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007EO180001.shtml

"The link between the frequency of tropical cyclones [hurricanes] and anthropogenic global warming has become an emerging focus. However, an analysis of the data shows that improved monitoring in recent years is responsible for most, if not all, of the observed trend in increasing frequency of tropical cyclones"  They're saying that its due to the increased monitoring of hurricanes!  SO IT IS MANMADE!

I could go on... I would greatly appreciate it if you stop espousing "EVERY legitimate scientific body.  Every one.  That's a lot.  INIDIVIDUAL scientists claim that they don't, but these people are a tiny minority (less than 1%)" unless you're going to back that up with a fact. Because all it does is make you look like a lepton.  Less than 1%.  Now if p<.001 is true then that would be an outstanding amazling correlation.  I've posted articles upon articles at first and all you did was adhominim them.  Then you stated you only wanted peer-reviewed (which I did give you some) and how I wasn't backing up what I said.  And Its just a right-wing nut jobs of the republician party.  Most of those people that I gave you teach at Ivy league schools and having gone to an Ivy League schools the right-wingers that teach there are few and far-between. This of course is not an exhaustive study done on my part.

I am basically through with this palaver.

Yes, I agree....this is nonsense...but then again I can almost understand because there is pseudo science out there masquerading as true science.

OVERSEER POSTS:

Excellent point.

Science deals with observed facts, with things that exist in creation, and not with their ultimate origin. There are 2 exceptions,,the science of theology, the highest science, which treats of God, His nature, attributes and laws, and philosophy which deals with the general laws that furnish the rational explanation of things, as well as their ultimate causes.

Yet, the scientific discoveries lead more and more to the realization of the existence of a Creative Power, the First Cause.

Scientific research, for example in the area of the mysterious atoms and genetics keep continually adding to the number of mysteries in creation which can only be accounted for by belief in Almighty God.