From my limited reading of the EPR paradox, far from being conclusive proof that contingency exists outside of time, the jury is still out. Wthin the Copenhagen interpretation, some believe there is no causal instantaneous effect. That is, it may be a problem with measurement and not with the system itself.
Furthermore, it doesn’t apply to our discussion because the measurement itself is time-bound. The effect can’t occur until the measurement occurs, which is different from arguing that two entities are mutually contingent when completely outside of time. It’s cool stuff, but we are still far from being able to draw any definite conclusions about contingency and causality.
I was actually talking about the non contingency of the chain itself. In other words, what if the links of the chain are contingent on each other, but the chain is infinite and non contingent? It’s very possible that the chain is non contingent, despite being comprised of contingent components.
No, the causality premise of the cosmological argument is inductive rather than deductive. From Wiki:
Therefore, we can’t conclude that causality is universal, just because we observe causality in our corner of the universe.
As I said, I’m not arguing the cosmological argument must be false, only that there isn’t anywhere near sufficient evidence to claim that it is likely to be true.[/quote]
Pat, not sure if you saw my post since you’ve argued a couple times since then that your conclusions on causality are deductive. According to Hume, they are actually inductive, which makes sense when you think about it. Deduction requires knowledge of the entire universe, and at best we can only induce based on observations in our little corner of the universe.
Tiribulus agrees witih me that you can’t find god through logic or evidence, but unfortunately he has no answer to which god one is supposed to find when you forego reason. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, men who surrender reason become the sport of every wind. Gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.[/quote]
Incorrect. Hume postulated a 3rd element of causation. He presumed that because things don’t turn out as you reliably think they should, that between a cause and an effect, there was third element whose job it was to gum up the works so to speak. It was an interesting exercise, but it was one Hume failed at. Don’t get me wrong, I love Hume, but he bombed this one. He never was able to prove in any way, shape or form, that there was this elusive ‘3rd element’. Humian philosophy is best regarded under empiricism.
He took science philosophies to a new level. His attempt to disprove causation failed though. Actually he didn’t try to disprove it, he was trying to say we didn’t understand it. Which is true to a point. We know that causes must necessitate their effects, but we don’t necessarily know which cause necessitated which effect.
If a billiard ball strikes another, one could say the strike moved the ball, but it could have been like magnetic charges pushing against one another.[/quote]
What we don’t know is that everything in the universe has a a cause. You are basing that assumption on inductive reasoning, which is inherently limited to what we can currently observe.
And that was my point in citing Hume. I wasn’t referencing his position on causation, only his observation that the cosmological position on causation is inductive rather than deductive.
How could it possibly be deductive, when there’s so much about the universe we don’t understand? You’ve said yourself that the laws may be different in certain situations, like the laws of conservation in a black hole environment. Clearly, we don’t know nearly enough to draw any deductive conclusions about the universe.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Except we don’t. We’ll stick with recognizing our common Father who actually is. I also want no faith or life other than what God in His perfect providence has given me which, glory be to His name, includes ready ubiquitous access to the conspicuously mass free scriptures.[/quote]
Okay, now that you’re done trying to sound smart can you write that in simple terms. Oh yeah, you might want to address who you’re speaking to and what you’re speaking about, you know don’t want to break 2 Corinthians’ commandment of simplicity.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Why is Aristotle’s 4th book of metaphysics an abomination in the sight of God? First, that’s not scriptural. So what about it was an abomination? >>>[/quote]Aristotle began with himself and then proceeded in attempting to demonstrate impersonal, hypothetical, amoral, logical abstractions as being ultimately responsible for the existence of man and everything else as well. That is idolatry according to Romans 1. However, it IS the logical conclusion of autonomous man. Self inflicted autonomy is the natural state of fallen man. Adam made that first autonomous decision, (I like my way better he said) and ever since it has been the intellectual component of the curse of death in sin. Man at that moment of spiritual death was given over to the futility of his own mind (Ephesians 4:17) hence every conversation I’ve witnessed since I’ve been here.
See Pat the problem we have is you keep demanding proof, by which you mean in accordance with the 4th book of Aristotle’s metaphysics, whether you realize it or not. You are saying prove to ME on MY self evident autonomous terms whatever it is you’re demanding proof for at that moment. Just like Aristotle and Aquinas did, but like Paul did not. Aristotle presumed to stand as judge over God and His creation by seeking Him on his own terms instead of God’s. The point isn’t whether the alleged law of non contradiction is true or not. The point is that it has no authentic power in the subjective vacuum of the mind of autonomous man. The law of non contradiction IS true if it is itself first intentionally subordinated to the mind of the God who is it’s author.
It’s also not a question of whether there will be contradiction in our understanding of reality. There will. Right in the face of the exalted law of non contradiction we have contradiction everywhere. Autonomous fallen man finds what appears to be contradiction in divine revelation and manipulates that revelation into line with his fallen understanding of the law of non contradiction. In other words, God cannot reveal what appears contradictory to ME. The truly Christian position says “Lord, reveal what you will and if there seems to be contradiction the problem must be on my end”.
The bottom line is that without comprehensive knowledge of EVERYTHING there can be no actual knowledge of ANYTHING because something we don’t know constantly threatens to introduce some component that is fatally destructive to all the rest. The eternal almighty triune God of the bible alone has that comprehensive knowledge and only self conscious recognition of His rightful place on the throne of one’s mind can bring true resolution to the law of non contradiction. The heart of faith embraces the fact that whatever appears contradictory to him is resolved in the unsearchable mind of the God to whom he has entrusted his very life.
Prove to me that a God who says Himself that He cannot change has become flesh and dwelt among us. Prove to me that Jesus of Nazareth was the second person of the Godhead. Prove to me that there is a Godhead at all consisting of The Father, His eternally begotten Son and the Holy Ghost proceeding from both. Neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. Prove to me any of a hundred incomprehensible divine truths using Aristotelean deduction. Do you believe that the God who in the beginning said “let there be light” and there was is happy with being represented as some impersonal abstract uncaused first cause? I do not believe that.
Romans 1:18-25 ESV[quote]18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19-For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20-For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21-For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22-Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24-Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25-because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.[/quote]
[/quote]
I am afraid you must have misinterpreted Romans, or somebody did. God respects and encourages the seeking of wisdom in all things. What Aristotle did was far from idolatry. Second, you realize he had very little knowledge of the Hebrews and God. He grew up in a polytheistic society.
To seek wisdom through God’s creation is not only ok, it’s necessary for if we did not we would never progress. You do not have to know everything to gain wisdom. But you must gain wisdom in order to honor God.
Truth’s are true whether they are in the bible or not. The Bible isn’t the ‘Great big book of everything with everything inside.’
Do I doubt the creation story in Genesis? No, but it’s not a literal account. I think we have established that you don’t take everything in the bible literally, or you would either be a Jew or a Catholic.
Keep in mind that this was written for a mostly illiterate rag-tag bunch of Hebrews who would just assume lay with a goat as a woman. You really cannot over complicate things for those folks. If you tried to explain ‘big bangs’ and elementary particles to them, they would look at you weird, leave and go back to screwing their goats. However, there are some interesting takes on Genesis, like six stages of creation, etc. Further, there are two creation stories in Genesis that do not necessarily say the same thing. Most folks miss that simple fact because the second one focuses more on first man and sin. But they are actually not the same. Third glaring issue is the ‘first day’, since God had not created anything yet technically there is no first day.
I cannot help to think that you were instructed rather than came up with the above on your own. It sounds to contrived, to instructed.
What you are confusing is the ‘wisdom’ of the wise i.e. arrogance of the lofty with true wisdom. They are not the same. True wisdom is of God and for God. Wisdom recognizes God in all things. To say the you cannot obtain truth through God’s creation, or through reason is folly.
Proverb 1:1-7
We are instructed as follows:
yes, if you call out for insight
and raise your voice for understanding,
[4] if you seek it like silver
and search for it as for hidden treasures,
[5] then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.
(Proverbs 2:3-5 ESV)
Now if wisdom and knowledge is of God and for God, then how can you call what God provided, idolatry and abomination. Faith and God’s creation are not mutually exclusive things. Further, in a world where there were many God’s, Aristotle by pure logic discovered one. To discover the one true God, by reason is an abomination?
What Aristotle did, he did not do on his own and is very significant. The God of the bible comes alive through reason and understanding of his creation and beyond.
Could I make arguments about God, Jesus, God incarnate through Aristotelian deduction? No. I can make pretty decent correlations and inferences, but not deduction. I could make a damn good argument that the Uncaused-cause is the same as God, but not by pure deduction. For that, I am missing way to many pieces. If I had all the pieces? Maybe, or somebody could, not necessarily me.
Bottom line God is not only revealed through divine scripture, he is revealed in creation itself and reason itself.
And yes, I demand proofs from men. Absolutely, I trust few implicitly.
Tiribulus agrees witih me that you can’t find god through logic or evidence, but unfortunately he has no answer to which god one is supposed to find when you forego reason. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, men who surrender reason become the sport of every wind. Gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.[/quote]
Yeah you can. All you got to do is look. If God only was evidenced in a book, I would be as agnostic as yourself. [/quote]
I’m looking, but am not seeing it. At best, I can say it’s theoretically possible there is a god or gods. I can’t rule out the possibility, but I also can’t conclude that it is true, or is even probable, based in our current understanding of the universe.
As I’ve said, we are only infants. I’m very suspicious of any definitive conclusions on the origin of the universe. I see it as a false confidence, based on what we want to be true rather than on what we actually know to be true.
From my limited reading of the EPR paradox, far from being conclusive proof that contingency exists outside of time, the jury is still out. Wthin the Copenhagen interpretation, some believe there is no causal instantaneous effect. That is, it may be a problem with measurement and not with the system itself.
Furthermore, it doesn’t apply to our discussion because the measurement itself is time-bound. The effect can’t occur until the measurement occurs, which is different from arguing that two entities are mutually contingent when completely outside of time. It’s cool stuff, but we are still far from being able to draw any definite conclusions about contingency and causality.
I was actually talking about the non contingency of the chain itself. In other words, what if the links of the chain are contingent on each other, but the chain is infinite and non contingent? It’s very possible that the chain is non contingent, despite being comprised of contingent components.
No, the causality premise of the cosmological argument is inductive rather than deductive. From Wiki:
Therefore, we can’t conclude that causality is universal, just because we observe causality in our corner of the universe.
As I said, I’m not arguing the cosmological argument must be false, only that there isn’t anywhere near sufficient evidence to claim that it is likely to be true.[/quote]
Pat, not sure if you saw my post since you’ve argued a couple times since then that your conclusions on causality are deductive. According to Hume, they are actually inductive, which makes sense when you think about it. Deduction requires knowledge of the entire universe, and at best we can only induce based on observations in our little corner of the universe.
Tiribulus agrees witih me that you can’t find god through logic or evidence, but unfortunately he has no answer to which god one is supposed to find when you forego reason. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, men who surrender reason become the sport of every wind. Gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.[/quote]
Incorrect. Hume postulated a 3rd element of causation. He presumed that because things don’t turn out as you reliably think they should, that between a cause and an effect, there was third element whose job it was to gum up the works so to speak. It was an interesting exercise, but it was one Hume failed at. Don’t get me wrong, I love Hume, but he bombed this one. He never was able to prove in any way, shape or form, that there was this elusive ‘3rd element’. Humian philosophy is best regarded under empiricism.
He took science philosophies to a new level. His attempt to disprove causation failed though. Actually he didn’t try to disprove it, he was trying to say we didn’t understand it. Which is true to a point. We know that causes must necessitate their effects, but we don’t necessarily know which cause necessitated which effect.
If a billiard ball strikes another, one could say the strike moved the ball, but it could have been like magnetic charges pushing against one another.[/quote]
What we don’t know is that everything in the universe has a a cause. You are basing that assumption on inductive reasoning, which is inherently limited to what we can currently observe.
And that was my point in citing Hume. I wasn’t referencing his position on causation, only his observation that the cosmological position on causation is inductive rather than deductive.
How could it possibly be deductive, when there’s so much about the universe we don’t understand? You’ve said yourself that the laws may be different in certain situations, like the laws of conservation in a black hole environment. Clearly, we don’t know nearly enough to draw any deductive conclusions about the universe.
[/quote]
If you go up a level, existence itself demands it. If it exists, there is a reason why. So, if ‘it’ exists, it exists because of something, or for some reason, unless you can make a sufficient argument that the question is irrelevant to said ‘thing’. Find the ‘thing’, I’ll concede. It’s a limitation of pure reason. If something isn’t caused, what is it about it, that makes it different from all else that exists. This all rolls back down to ‘something’ from ‘something’ or ‘something’ from ‘nothing’.
Hume was right in the realm of aposteriori arguments. This, again is applicable to science. HE really messed up the science world by saying that unless you can know all the past, present, and future of event ‘x’ you cannot know it’s absolutely true.
He believed in a third element of causation because there were always anomalies in scientific experiments. He also wanted desperately to explain away miracles, which I believe was the genesis of this thought as he was a staunch atheist and a staunch empiricist. But then he’d say stuff like this: “The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author”. He was a rather conflicted fellow. Never the less, Hume did introduce an interesting problem in to causation, basically, what we observe, may not be what is happening.
But again, he could never prove this ‘third element’ and therefore he could not reduce the metaphysical construct of causation down the the same level as empirical causal relations, like the stuff of science.
When I say that science is duly unreliable compared to a priori reasoning, it’s Hume from where I got it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Except we don’t. We’ll stick with recognizing our common Father who actually is. I also want no faith or life other than what God in His perfect providence has given me which, glory be to His name, includes ready ubiquitous access to the conspicuously mass free scriptures.[/quote]
But, that’s not what Chris was saying, he was saying if you want to live and be faithful like 1rst century Christians, which I have no heard you claim to want to do.
Tiribulus agrees witih me that you can’t find god through logic or evidence, but unfortunately he has no answer to which god one is supposed to find when you forego reason. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, men who surrender reason become the sport of every wind. Gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.[/quote]
Yeah you can. All you got to do is look. If God only was evidenced in a book, I would be as agnostic as yourself. [/quote]
I’m looking, but am not seeing it. At best, I can say it’s theoretically possible there is a god or gods. I can’t rule out the possibility, but I also can’t conclude that it is true, or is even probable, based in our current understanding of the universe.
As I’ve said, we are only infants. I’m very suspicious of any definitive conclusions on the origin of the universe. I see it as a false confidence, based on what we want to be true rather than on what we actually know to be true.[/quote]
It’s more than possible, it’s probable.
But look at it in terms of what it is, what is somethings true nature. I am sitting at a table, but the table is mostly space, and yet I do not fall through. Is it magnetically repulsive or some how physically. How can something apparently standing still be made up of septillians of highly energized moving particles. Why does it do that, how does it all work together.
Or you can take a couple hits of acid, smoke a spliff and contemplate. That will automate the process for you, you won’t have to put in much effort.
[quote]forlife wrote:
What?? You mean some truth can be found in all religions? How dare you think outside the black and white box! Unless you see things exactly as Tiribulus sees them, you are damned to suffer forever in hell.
[/quote]
Yes, truth can be found everywhere. In and out of religion. Don’t worry my faith has survived more than anything Tirib could ever throw at me. If you haven’t noticed, I have put more than a cursory amount of thought in to this. Everytime I have been proven wrong, I got more right. I have been proven wrong a lot.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Why is Aristotle’s 4th book of metaphysics an abomination in the sight of God? First, that’s not scriptural. So what about it was an abomination? >>>[/quote]Aristotle began with himself and then proceeded in attempting to demonstrate impersonal, hypothetical, amoral, logical abstractions as being ultimately responsible for the existence of man and everything else as well. That is idolatry according to Romans 1. However, it IS the logical conclusion of autonomous man. Self inflicted autonomy is the natural state of fallen man. Adam made that first autonomous decision, (I like my way better he said) and ever since it has been the intellectual component of the curse of death in sin. Man at that moment of spiritual death was given over to the futility of his own mind (Ephesians 4:17) hence every conversation I’ve witnessed since I’ve been here.
See Pat the problem we have is you keep demanding proof, by which you mean in accordance with the 4th book of Aristotle’s metaphysics, whether you realize it or not. You are saying prove to ME on MY self evident autonomous terms whatever it is you’re demanding proof for at that moment. Just like Aristotle and Aquinas did, but like Paul did not. Aristotle presumed to stand as judge over God and His creation by seeking Him on his own terms instead of God’s. The point isn’t whether the alleged law of non contradiction is true or not. The point is that it has no authentic power in the subjective vacuum of the mind of autonomous man. The law of non contradiction IS true if it is itself first intentionally subordinated to the mind of the God who is it’s author.
It’s also not a question of whether there will be contradiction in our understanding of reality. There will. Right in the face of the exalted law of non contradiction we have contradiction everywhere. Autonomous fallen man finds what appears to be contradiction in divine revelation and manipulates that revelation into line with his fallen understanding of the law of non contradiction. In other words, God cannot reveal what appears contradictory to ME. The truly Christian position says “Lord, reveal what you will and if there seems to be contradiction the problem must be on my end”.
The bottom line is that without comprehensive knowledge of EVERYTHING there can be no actual knowledge of ANYTHING because something we don’t know constantly threatens to introduce some component that is fatally destructive to all the rest. The eternal almighty triune God of the bible alone has that comprehensive knowledge and only self conscious recognition of His rightful place on the throne of one’s mind can bring true resolution to the law of non contradiction. The heart of faith embraces the fact that whatever appears contradictory to him is resolved in the unsearchable mind of the God to whom he has entrusted his very life.
Prove to me that a God who says Himself that He cannot change has become flesh and dwelt among us. Prove to me that Jesus of Nazareth was the second person of the Godhead. Prove to me that there is a Godhead at all consisting of The Father, His eternally begotten Son and the Holy Ghost proceeding from both. Neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. Prove to me any of a hundred incomprehensible divine truths using Aristotelean deduction. Do you believe that the God who in the beginning said “let there be light” and there was is happy with being represented as some impersonal abstract uncaused first cause? I do not believe that.
Romans 1:18-25 ESV[quote]18-For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19-For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20-For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21-For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22-Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23-and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24-Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25-because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.[/quote]
[/quote]
You’re a perfect illustration of what Thomas Jefferson warned against.
Anybody could take your identical approach, and reach totally contradictory conclusions. And millions do exactly that.
Artier all, when you throw logic, reason, and evidence out the window what is left? Raw emotion and subconscious confirmatory biases. Contradictions no longer matter. You’ve had an emotional experience, which trumps everything else.
Sorry dude, but your emotions don’t make your beliefs real. You can convince yourself that god has spoken to you, as I did for many years, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
But hey, if it makes you feel happy and at peace there’s something to be said for it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The very “perception” of causation, and the principles you assign to it are directly related to man’s experience with the universe as we know it. And we can all agree, WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIVERSE. If you do not know the universe, causation as you perceive it, is not necessarily required.
Your very own scriptures speak of “eternal” yet you cannot imagine it or accept it, because apparently Pat requires a cause, and if there is a cause, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, it was not eternal.
I’m open to the possibility that “it” was always here. I say “it” because we do not know the nature of this universe, if there is only one, if the universe is contained within something else, etc and so forth. [/quote]
Incorrect, you could have saved yourself the trouble if you read the link. It’s all addressed.
So, prove causation is not required. If you know I am wrong, then you should know this answer. If you are simply going to say we don’t know the universe, just don’t bother because it misses the point.[/quote]
I don’t have to read your assignment. I’m familiar with the arguments. YOU are not addressing or understanding MY point. The arguments contained on your page are STILL trapped in our perception of and experience with the universe.
So, prove causation is required. Go ahead, I’ll wait.[/quote]
So explaining to you that perception and experience is irrelevant simply doesn’t sink in? IT is irrelevant. It’s a deductive argument. Do you have any comprehension what the hell that means at all? Damn man, perception is absolutely irrelevant. If the universe did not exist, but something outside initial cause exists, then there is a reason why it exists, period. Maybe if I say ten times, it may penetrate your skull.
Perception is irrelevant to the argument.
For causation to be true, perceiving it would not matter.
Perceiving vs. not perceiving is irrelevant to the concept of causation.
Even if you cannot perceive causation, causation still exists.
If a bear shit in the woods, whether you perceive it or not, the bear still caused the shit.
If there was never a universe, never humans, never anything physical, causal properties would still exists.
If all the laws of physics happened in reverse, and nobody perceived it, causation would still be in play.
Perception of causation is not the same as causation itself therefore, perception is 100000000000000000000000000% irrelevant as to whether causation exists or not.
Whether you are alive or not, perception is does not matter as it pertains to causal relationships.
Not being able to see into other dimensions does not dismantle deductive truths. Deductive truths are what they are, period. There is nothing that can debunk it, if there is, it’s not true.
The principle of sufficient reason states that simply, no matter what it is, there is a sufficient reason for it’s existence.
or rather put:
The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.
or:
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Becoming
If a new state of one or several real objects appears, another state must have preceded it upon which the new state follows regularly.
Principle of Sufficient Reason of Knowing
If a judgment is to express a piece of knowledge, it must have a sufficient ground. By virtue of this quality, it receives the predicate true. Truth is therefore the reference of a judgment to something different therefrom.
Now this I cut and pasted from here:
Now with out saying you don’t know, prove it wrong.
Don’t say that ‘I’ don’t know, speak for yourself.
Quit telling me what I can and cannot know or think, because you don’t know what I know. If anybody has been condescending it’s been you somehow entering my brain and knowing what I know and don’t know? What I know, you don’t know is what I know. [/quote]
This is really exhausting. Your attempting to make your point with a hammer while not comprehending my point is senseless. You clearly do not get it. No matter how many times you jump up and down and yell, and post references.
You say “If the universe did not exist, but something outside initial cause exists, then there is a reason why it exists, period. Maybe if I say ten times, it may penetrate your skull.”
Your very perception of existence leads you to these conclusions. Can you perceive 11 dimensions? No. If there are in fact 11 dimensions, what makes you think you can make an argument - and any argument you make needs to be constructed from a human perspective and experience with his universe - for the origins of the universe, if there were any origins at all? So say it 20 times, it doesn’t make your point more valid.
You say “Perception is irrelevant to the argument.
For causation to be true, perceiving it would not matter.
Perceiving vs. not perceiving is irrelevant to the concept of causation.
Even if you cannot perceive causation, causation still exists.”
The only evidence for causation is our experience and perception of the universe in time. As we cannot perceive and experience 11 dimensions, causation may not even exist as it concerns the origins of the universe. You perceive causation. The universe at our perception is decidedly an illusion. The very concept of causation may very well be an illusion.
You say “If a bear shit in the woods, whether you perceive it or not, the bear still caused the shit.
If there was never a universe, never humans, never anything physical, causal properties would still exists.
If all the laws of physics happened in reverse, and nobody perceived it, causation would still be in play.
Perception of causation is not the same as causation itself therefore, perception is 100000000000000000000000000% irrelevant as to whether causation exists or not.”
Just about all the above is incorrect. Your perception of causation occurs in time. Causation as you understand and experience starts to break down at the quantum level. Perception IS the issue - because you perceive it actually exists and explains everything - and it does not. Period.
“Deductive truths”. Are you fucking kidding me? According to QM and string theory, the universe acts in ways we cannot possibly perceive. If you do not have all the information, or the correct information, how the fuck can you make make a deductive truth LOL? For a deductive argument to be sound, the premise has to be true. Well guess what? Your premise may very well be an illusion. Causation may very well be an illusion of Newtownian Physics - the world we perceive and see.
You’re quite impressed with yourself and quite impressed with giving fancy labels to your arguments and then parading them around here like they are irrefutable truths. Just because you can perceive causation as you experience it when I kick you square in your ass, does not mean those laws and physics apply to the hidden universe. The universe does not have to have a “why” - YOU want it to have a why b/c everything else in your perceived existence has a “why” and a beginning and an end.
These are not novel arguments and at the end of the day, you have an opinion - not fact. Stop jumping up and down screaming like you have a fact. [/quote]
You really cannot comprehend this stuff can you? Perception is irrelevant. This is a deductive argument. I didn’t invent it and it’s not “my” opinion it’s an opinion that I share.
This is not inferred and it is not limited to perception. It is the case until proven otherwise. Your inability to get it is does not invalidate it.
Do you have any ability to prove this wrong or are you going to continue wasting my time repeating the same stupidity over and over that “I don’t know and it’s my perception”.
Time is not relevant, perception is irrelevant to the argument, my history and mental limitations are irrelevant. Effects are necessitated by their causes, this cannot happened infinitely because an infinite regress necessarily begs the question. This happens in, or out of time, it happens in or out of perception. It is the way it is. You have to prove it wrong, not call me an idiot.
Either causation is a fact or it’s not. Prove it’s not if you don’t believe it. Don’t presume to tell me what I am applying to it. It is a purely logical argument. Which you cannot obviously prove wrong, so really, why do you bother? Telling me how stupid I am doesn’t invalidate causation. If I died tomorrow, you’d still be wrong.
The one page link, would have saved you from these foolish presumptions.[/quote]
First, you are truly an asshole. I’m calling you an asshole, not stupid.
I understand everything you fucking wrote and everything you fucking referenced.
We don’t yet understand how the universe behaves. We do not even understand time fully. We do not know if there is one or many universes. Our perception based on our experience in the universe is extremely limited. We know what “infinity” is, but we cannot experience it and our mind really has no reference for it.
In fact, many advanced TP math ends up with answers like “infinity” unless we play math tricks and modify the math. What we “see” and experience breaks down on the quantum level. We cannot even perceive or experience the way the universe acts.
Now, based on the illusion of that experience, we can make deductive and logical arguments that are irrefutable. And we’re going to make those arguments from the very limited perspective outlined above - with every single argument inextricably tied to our language and perception.
Yeah. Right.
If you cannot start with an absolute truth, you cannot make deductive or even logical arguments. You’re arguing the illusion of truth. Much the same way light gives objects color, what we “see” and “experience” - and therefore the entirety of our experience is an illusion. We know we experience what we believe to be causation. But there is no evidence that the universe was “caused”.
You’re being cute with the big bang. What happened prior to that? And prior to that? I asked you once is there an unbroken chain of causes going back to “infinity”? That would be “eternal” with no cause. You gave a one word answer instead of an answer.
You are stuck in the paradigm of our existence…you’re like the flatlander arguing incessantly that there is only 1 dimension and it must be so because he only perceives one dimension. He can make lovely deductive arguments supporting his position by the way. Meanwhile, we stand outside his dimension, shaking our heads, yet trapped in the same paradigm.
Sorry dude, but your emotions don’t make your beliefs real. You can convince yourself that god has spoken to you, as I did for many years, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
[/quote]
He probably was speaking to you, telling you NOT to do certain things. You just stopped listening.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< I am afraid you must have misinterpreted Romans >>>[/quote]Oh I am quite certain I did not, but I knew you’d say that. As usual we are talking right past each other on all the rest. More later.
We don’t yet understand how the universe behaves. We do not even understand time fully. We do not know if there is one or many universes. Our perception based on our experience in the universe is extremely limited. We know what “infinity” is, but we cannot experience it and our mind really has no reference for it.
In fact, many advanced TP math ends up with answers like “infinity” unless we play math tricks and modify the math. What we “see” and experience breaks down on the quantum level. We cannot even perceive or experience the way the universe acts.
Now, based on the illusion of that experience, we can make deductive and logical arguments that are irrefutable. And we’re going to make those arguments from the very limited perspective outlined above - with every single argument inextricably tied to our language and perception.
Yeah. Right.
If you cannot start with an absolute truth, you cannot make deductive or even logical arguments. You’re arguing the illusion of truth. Much the same way light gives objects color, what we “see” and “experience” - and therefore the entirety of our experience is an illusion. We know we experience what we believe to be causation. But there is no evidence that the universe was “caused”.
You’re being cute with the big bang. What happened prior to that? And prior to that? I asked you once is there an unbroken chain of causes going back to “infinity”? That would be “eternal” with no cause. You gave a one word answer instead of an answer.
You are stuck in the paradigm of our existence…you’re like the flatlander arguing incessantly that there is only 1 dimension and it must be so because he only perceives one dimension. He can make lovely deductive arguments supporting his position by the way. Meanwhile, we stand outside his dimension, shaking our heads, yet trapped in the same paradigm. [/quote]
Incorrect. Was is true is true no matter what. For instance, no dimention, paradigm, or alterante universe is going to make ‘2+2’ equal anything other than 4, period.
If you can prove deductive truths are only applicable to this universe, let’s here it. Saying it, doesn’t make is so.
It is your ‘logic’ or absence of that is failing. The fact that you cannot see that there are things beyond perception and experience is stunning. You are a broken record repeating the same fallacious garbage. Reason, like math can see beyond the world we know. After all, math is just reason.
If you go up a level, existence itself demands it. If it exists, there is a reason why. So, if ‘it’ exists, it exists because of something, or for some reason, unless you can make a sufficient argument that the question is irrelevant to said ‘thing’. Find the ‘thing’, I’ll concede. It’s a limitation of pure reason. If something isn’t caused, what is it about it, that makes it different from all else that exists. This all rolls back down to ‘something’ from ‘something’ or ‘something’ from ‘nothing’.
[/quote]
As an observer, you exist in time. There is no evidence the universe does. If everything is but matter on it’s way somewhere with no beginning and no end (including ourselves), there is no causation. You cannot wrap your mind around this because you’re tied up in the paradigm of YOUR experience with the universe - in time. It is “time” that demand causation - a beginning. Take “time” away, and everything just “is” - that everything, including you and me, is changing along the way does not necessarily mean there is a beginning and an end - just motion and change.
I was slow to get why you’re headstrong on this. In your mind, your stubborn hold of “causation” is evidence of your God and affirmation of your beliefs. Well, since they are your beliefs of faith, there isn’t much room to go anywhere there.
It’s quite amusing to watch Protestant, Catholic, et als. arguing about what the “truth” is. Was God such a terrible writer that “reasonable” minds could disagree on His word?
We don’t yet understand how the universe behaves. We do not even understand time fully. We do not know if there is one or many universes. Our perception based on our experience in the universe is extremely limited. We know what “infinity” is, but we cannot experience it and our mind really has no reference for it.
In fact, many advanced TP math ends up with answers like “infinity” unless we play math tricks and modify the math. What we “see” and experience breaks down on the quantum level. We cannot even perceive or experience the way the universe acts.
Now, based on the illusion of that experience, we can make deductive and logical arguments that are irrefutable. And we’re going to make those arguments from the very limited perspective outlined above - with every single argument inextricably tied to our language and perception.
Yeah. Right.
If you cannot start with an absolute truth, you cannot make deductive or even logical arguments. You’re arguing the illusion of truth. Much the same way light gives objects color, what we “see” and “experience” - and therefore the entirety of our experience is an illusion. We know we experience what we believe to be causation. But there is no evidence that the universe was “caused”.
You’re being cute with the big bang. What happened prior to that? And prior to that? I asked you once is there an unbroken chain of causes going back to “infinity”? That would be “eternal” with no cause. You gave a one word answer instead of an answer.
You are stuck in the paradigm of our existence…you’re like the flatlander arguing incessantly that there is only 1 dimension and it must be so because he only perceives one dimension. He can make lovely deductive arguments supporting his position by the way. Meanwhile, we stand outside his dimension, shaking our heads, yet trapped in the same paradigm. [/quote]
BTW, the logical fallacy in which you are mired in has a name:
argumentum ad ignorantiam
Look it up. You are also asserting things I did not say, or even allude to. That’s call projection, just because you don’t know things doesn’t mean I don’t. Just because you refuse to see outside you little tiny box doesn’t mean that I haven’t.
We don’t yet understand how the universe behaves. We do not even understand time fully. We do not know if there is one or many universes. Our perception based on our experience in the universe is extremely limited. We know what “infinity” is, but we cannot experience it and our mind really has no reference for it.
In fact, many advanced TP math ends up with answers like “infinity” unless we play math tricks and modify the math. What we “see” and experience breaks down on the quantum level. We cannot even perceive or experience the way the universe acts.
Now, based on the illusion of that experience, we can make deductive and logical arguments that are irrefutable. And we’re going to make those arguments from the very limited perspective outlined above - with every single argument inextricably tied to our language and perception.
Yeah. Right.
If you cannot start with an absolute truth, you cannot make deductive or even logical arguments. You’re arguing the illusion of truth. Much the same way light gives objects color, what we “see” and “experience” - and therefore the entirety of our experience is an illusion. We know we experience what we believe to be causation. But there is no evidence that the universe was “caused”.
You’re being cute with the big bang. What happened prior to that? And prior to that? I asked you once is there an unbroken chain of causes going back to “infinity”? That would be “eternal” with no cause. You gave a one word answer instead of an answer.
You are stuck in the paradigm of our existence…you’re like the flatlander arguing incessantly that there is only 1 dimension and it must be so because he only perceives one dimension. He can make lovely deductive arguments supporting his position by the way. Meanwhile, we stand outside his dimension, shaking our heads, yet trapped in the same paradigm. [/quote]
Incorrect. Was is true is true no matter what. For instance, no dimention, paradigm, or alterante universe is going to make ‘2+2’ equal anything other than 4, period.
If you can prove deductive truths are only applicable to this universe, let’s here it. Saying it, doesn’t make is so.
It is your ‘logic’ or absence of that is failing. The fact that you cannot see that there are things beyond perception and experience is stunning. You are a broken record repeating the same fallacious garbage. Reason, like math can see beyond the world we know. After all, math is just reason.[/quote]
First, you don’t know what’s true. We can stop right there. You only know what you experience. And by now, we all know that what we perceive and experience is a far cry from the manner in which we are beginning to believe the universe behaves.
We don’t yet understand how the universe behaves. We do not even understand time fully. We do not know if there is one or many universes. Our perception based on our experience in the universe is extremely limited. We know what “infinity” is, but we cannot experience it and our mind really has no reference for it.
In fact, many advanced TP math ends up with answers like “infinity” unless we play math tricks and modify the math. What we “see” and experience breaks down on the quantum level. We cannot even perceive or experience the way the universe acts.
Now, based on the illusion of that experience, we can make deductive and logical arguments that are irrefutable. And we’re going to make those arguments from the very limited perspective outlined above - with every single argument inextricably tied to our language and perception.
Yeah. Right.
If you cannot start with an absolute truth, you cannot make deductive or even logical arguments. You’re arguing the illusion of truth. Much the same way light gives objects color, what we “see” and “experience” - and therefore the entirety of our experience is an illusion. We know we experience what we believe to be causation. But there is no evidence that the universe was “caused”.
You’re being cute with the big bang. What happened prior to that? And prior to that? I asked you once is there an unbroken chain of causes going back to “infinity”? That would be “eternal” with no cause. You gave a one word answer instead of an answer.
You are stuck in the paradigm of our existence…you’re like the flatlander arguing incessantly that there is only 1 dimension and it must be so because he only perceives one dimension. He can make lovely deductive arguments supporting his position by the way. Meanwhile, we stand outside his dimension, shaking our heads, yet trapped in the same paradigm. [/quote]
BTW, the logical fallacy in which you are mired in has a name:
argumentum ad ignorantiam
Look it up. You are also asserting things I did not say, or even allude to. That’s call projection, just because you don’t know things doesn’t mean I don’t. Just because you refuse to see outside you little tiny box doesn’t mean that I haven’t.[/quote]
LOL with the labels again. Giving it a label is only impressive to the ignorant.
Anyway, you’re the one ranting and raving and stuck in a box. You have incomplete and imperfect information (the laws of the universe) and you think you can make logical deductive arguments from incomplete and imperfect information. Who is in the box?
If you go up a level, existence itself demands it. If it exists, there is a reason why. So, if ‘it’ exists, it exists because of something, or for some reason, unless you can make a sufficient argument that the question is irrelevant to said ‘thing’. Find the ‘thing’, I’ll concede. It’s a limitation of pure reason. If something isn’t caused, what is it about it, that makes it different from all else that exists. This all rolls back down to ‘something’ from ‘something’ or ‘something’ from ‘nothing’.
[/quote]
As an observer, you exist in time. There is no evidence the universe does. If everything is but matter on it’s way somewhere with no beginning and no end (including ourselves), there is no causation. You cannot wrap your mind around this because you’re tied up in the paradigm of YOUR experience with the universe - in time. It is “time” that demand causation - a beginning. Take “time” away, and everything just “is” - that everything, including you and me, is changing along the way does not necessarily mean there is a beginning and an end - just motion and change.
I was slow to get why you’re headstrong on this. In your mind, your stubborn hold of “causation” is evidence of your God and affirmation of your beliefs. Well, since they are your beliefs of faith, there isn’t much room to go anywhere there.
It’s quite amusing to watch Protestant, Catholic, et als. arguing about what the “truth” is. Was God such a terrible writer that “reasonable” minds could disagree on His word? [/quote]
I am head strong because your flat wrong. I am not going to concede anything because you have no demonstrative knowledge of the subject. If you did, you would cease with your ridiculous assertions that this is based on experience, paradigms or what not. Time is not relevant to causation and causes do not have to necessarily precede their effects. They can but they do not have to. This is not an observation of the physical universe. Don’t trust me, go look it up for yourself.
It’s quite amusing to watch you continue to make a fool of yourself over a topic you know nothing about…
No causation? So everything happens randomly for no reason at all? Yeah, that works.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< You’re a perfect illustration of what Thomas Jefferson warned against. >>>[/quote]I am?!?!?!? How heartbreaking. And you’re exactly what Paul warned against in Romans 1. Guess who I’d rather be? Repent, forsake your self worshiping autonomy and live. I would rejoice at having you as my brother as well.