[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Your logic has failed flatlander. [/quote]
Ok, smarty pants, explain to me how the mathmatical equation ‘2+2=4’ would not be true in another universe, especially since it does not exist physically? This ought to be good.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Logic fail:
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?[/quote]
You are. You are trying to tell me I am wrong because of perception about something you don’t even know about. The ‘label’ is your argument. It’s a fallacy which if you knew anything at all about logic, invalidates it completely.
This thread is gold compared to the first one.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
This thread is gold compared to the first one.[/quote]
Seems this is just as worthless as the first one.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,
- 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]
When you talk about going up a level, you are using inductive, not deductive, reasoning. My point was that your assumptions around causality are inherently inductive, and not deductive. As such, they are limited to the very narrow slice of the universe that we can currently observe. Because of that, we can’t draw any reliable conclusions about what is probable and what is not.
I realize you disagree with Hume on some points, but he was correct about the comoslogical causality premise being inductive rather than deductive.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
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]
Because it’s inductive, you don’t have enough information to conclude it’s probable.
Even if we knew causality was universal, which we don’t, there are many equally viable options for the uncaused cause. As I said earlier, one option would be that the chain itself is the uncaused cause. That’s totally different from saying a god started everything, but it is at least equally viable.
Also, think about what you’re really arguing with regard to causality. You’re actually talking about causal interaction, rather than causal creation. In fact, we don’t have a single known example of causal creation. We have never once seen something created out of nothing. Inductively, ex nihilo creation is impossible. If that is true, the only remaining possibility is that elemental matter and energy have always existed, and are uncaused. And that is exactly what the laws of conservation assert.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
No doubt you would, since the more people there are who share your emotionally driven convictions, the more easily you can rationalize having those convictions, in contrast to logic, evidence, and reason.
Your beliefs are based on emotion and nothing more.
[quote]forlife wrote:
… who share your emotionally driven convictions, the more easily you can rationalize .[/quote]
Oh the irony…
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,
- 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]
When you talk about going up a level, you are using inductive, not deductive, reasoning. My point was that your assumptions around causality are inherently inductive, and not deductive. As such, they are limited to the very narrow slice of the universe that we can currently observe. Because of that, we can’t draw any reliable conclusions about what is probable and what is not.
I realize you disagree with Hume on some points, but he was correct about the comoslogical causality premise being inductive rather than deductive.[/quote]
No he wasn’t. There is a school of thought that wants to move it that way but it isn’t so. It’s a closed system, you cannot really add or subtract anything from the argument or it totally fails. If you mix a base with an acid and it does not react it does not mean that bases do not that bases don’t react with acids. Inductive reasoning would mean that cosmology would could still be true even if one thing did not fit. It would be exactely like saying ‘2+2=3’ one time but it still equals 4 most of the time. It’s not true. Hume knew that if he could could make causal relationships correlational, it’s gone. Refuted arguments are not remembered. If you make causation inferred you have two problems, you can either destroy causation or you can make it where even if you find an anomaly, it’s is still possible. The style of the argument and what it is arguing does not rely on any inferred logic. This is based on pure rationalism. Even if nothing physical existed, it would still be true.
Again, the basis be hind Hume’s inference was his elusive ‘3rd causal element’. This is the one Humian argument that failed and is widely refuted.
If you don’t believe me, look it up.
More on it here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Not that you’ll read it, but so you know I am not making this up.
Existence must necessarily be caused. It doesn’t matter what it is that exists it requires a reason for being there. That’s not a correlational statement, that is a deductive statement. If it’s inferred you must find me something uncaused first.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
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]
Because it’s inductive, you don’t have enough information to conclude it’s probable.
Even if we knew causality was universal, which we don’t, there are many equally viable options for the uncaused cause. As I said earlier, one option would be that the chain itself is the uncaused cause. That’s totally different from saying a god started everything, but it is at least equally viable.
Also, think about what you’re really arguing with regard to causality. You’re actually talking about causal interaction, rather than causal creation. In fact, we don’t have a single known example of causal creation. We have never once seen something created out of nothing. Inductively, ex nihilo creation is impossible. If that is true, the only remaining possibility is that elemental matter and energy have always existed, and are uncaused. And that is exactly what the laws of conservation assert.
[/quote]
The causal chain not being able to exist in an infinite regress demands that something outside the causal chain to set it into motion. Note how not correlational that is, it must and is necessary. Existence itself requires it.
When speaking of higher level, I am talking about climbing the levels in ‘forms’. It’s simply a categorization or a hierarchy.
And for the last time, “time” isn’t relevant to it. If matter and energy have always existed they are still dependent, they are governed and they are not causal with being acted upon first.
Again, feel free to look it up yourself.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
This thread is gold compared to the first one.[/quote]
Seems this is just as worthless as the first one.[/quote]
But good old fashion fun, but yeah, over all worthless. Nobody is going come out different or enlightened or better on the other side.
Pat,
Hume distinctly argued that the causality premise of the cosmological argument is inductive. Again:
You keep saying existence must be caused, without proving it. You can only induce that premise based on what we currently know about existence.
Furthermore, even if you limit your logic to induction, the laws of conservation are very clear that existence is not and never was caused. You’re confusing interaction with existence. Our best induction based on current evidence is that nothing was created, since ex nihilo violates the laws of conservation. And you can’t deduce anything because you don’t have enough context and understanding of the universe to remotely justify doing so.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
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]
Because it’s inductive, you don’t have enough information to conclude it’s probable.
Even if we knew causality was universal, which we don’t, there are many equally viable options for the uncaused cause. As I said earlier, one option would be that the chain itself is the uncaused cause. That’s totally different from saying a god started everything, but it is at least equally viable.
Also, think about what you’re really arguing with regard to causality. You’re actually talking about causal interaction, rather than causal creation. In fact, we don’t have a single known example of causal creation. We have never once seen something created out of nothing. Inductively, ex nihilo creation is impossible. If that is true, the only remaining possibility is that elemental matter and energy have always existed, and are uncaused. And that is exactly what the laws of conservation assert.
[/quote]
The causal chain not being able to exist in an infinite regress demands that something outside the causal chain to set it into motion. Note how not correlational that is, it must and is necessary. Existence itself requires it.
When speaking of higher level, I am talking about climbing the levels in ‘forms’. It’s simply a categorization or a hierarchy.
And for the last time, “time” isn’t relevant to it. If matter and energy have always existed they are still dependent, they are governed and they are not causal with being acted upon first.
Again, feel free to look it up yourself.[/quote]
Nobody said the causal chain exists in an infinite regress. Philosophers have argued that the causal chain itself is uncaused. You’re confusing it with time, not me. I can provide a quote if you’re not understanding what I’m saying.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,
Hume distinctly argued that the causality premise of the cosmological argument is inductive. Again:
You keep saying existence must be caused, without proving it. You can only induce that premise based on what we currently know about existence.
Furthermore, even if you limit your logic to induction, the laws of conservation are very clear that existence is not and never was caused. You’re confusing interaction with existence. Our best induction based on current evidence is that nothing was created, since ex nihilo violates the laws of conservation. And you can’t deduce anything because you don’t have enough context and understanding of the universe to remotely justify doing so.[/quote]
The laws of conservation do not speak to causality at all. They state the behavior of matter and energy, nothing more.
I am not confusing interaction with existence. That which exists interacts. The argument is deductive because it requires it’s premises and it requires it’s conclusion. This necessary requirement makes it deductive not inductive. Where Hume was right, that we cannot recognize what the actual cause and it’s resultant effect is. Now looking at causation more closely what we see is that all the causation is, is a modification, in event form. Why? because of what something is.
Now Leibniz postulated the ‘Principle of Sufficient Reason’ which states, if it exists, it exists for a reason. With it he was able to posit ‘relationalism with respect to space and time’, sound familiar? Keep in mind we’re talking about the 17th century here. He also theorized ‘monads’. Indivisible elementary particles that occupy every little bit of apparent space in the universe.
The criticism of Leibniz is that his principles applies to truths rather than objects. That’s just dandy for me, because that’s what I am after.
Anyhow, if it exists it exists for a reason and must have an explanation unless it can be reasonably argued the question does not apply. Matter and energy do not fit this criteria. They have necessary properties that if they were absent, the would not be what they are, they are governed by ‘laws’, in other words the properties they contain do not allow them to behave any different or be any different than they are. Therefore they cannot cause and yet be uncaused, they do not sit outside the causal chain.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]Your assignment for tonight is to ask God with an honest, open heart and mind to show you just how soundly you made my point with this statement right here. You will not see it otherwise. [quote]pat wrote:If I had all the pieces? Maybe, or somebody could, not necessarily me. >>>[/quote]Who?[quote]pat wrote:Bottom line God is not only revealed through divine scripture, he is revealed in creation itself and reason itself. >>>[/quote]Look Chris. LOOOOOK!!! AGAIN!!! Lemme ask a favor. How bout if you two put your heads together and pretend you’re me trying to convince Pat that you believe this:[quote]The triune God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Peter, Paul, James and John is known by all men in absolutely and comprehensively every last notion and fact of existence, actual and possible, I agree.[/quote] Which I said… TO PAT… yesterday, for the one thousandth time and here he is AGAIN… chiding me for refusing to recognize God’s general revelation in everything that is. Even though I have made the strongest affirmations of exactly that over and over and over again. Would you and Pat be so very kind as to compose for me a statement that will properly convey this conviction? Clearly I am not possessed of sufficient command of the language to do so myself.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< 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. >>>[/quote]I promise you every last syllable you ever read from me will be written entirely unaided by me unless I specify otherwise by quoting someone else. Having said that? Cults are spawned when people come up with stuff on their own. I will never EVER believe or post anything unique to me. My own personally styled articulation? Every time. My own content? Never.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Your logic has failed flatlander. [/quote]
Ok, smarty pants, explain to me how the mathematical equation ‘2+2=4’ would not be true in another universe, especially since it does not exist physically? This ought to be good.[/quote]
2 + 2 is 4 because we can perceive the numbers. They are squarely within our perception and experience.
The physics of the universe are NOT within your perception or experience. Period. You do not know by what laws the universe operates. You experience TIME, the universe may not. In fact, the human mind is ill-equipped to even imagine “eternal” or “infinity” because or our time trap and experience. Infinity to a human is no more than a mathematical principle.
You’re stuck on “causation”. Causation is inextricably linked to “time”. You are trapped in time. The universe may not be. Your viewpoint is classic anthropocentrism. You think because humans experience time, then everything experiences time. You cannot imagine a universe without it.
What if matter in one form or another always existed, but simply is always going somewhere, and always changing and the big bang you theorize started all this is just one manifestation of existing energy on it’s way somewhere, changing. If there is no beginning, and no end, there is no “time”. YOU measure time because you experience it in this lifetime - but you are no more than stardust, matter on it’s way somewhere, and soon to become something else.
When we fully understand “time”, and we do not, then you can tell me all about causation. But right now, the only causation you can tell me about is based upon your experiences here on earth with newtonian physics and your wristwatch.
Your question above is invalid.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Logic fail:
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?[/quote]
You are. You are trying to tell me I am wrong because of perception about something you don’t even know about. The ‘label’ is your argument. It’s a fallacy which if you knew anything at all about logic, invalidates it completely.[/quote]
Right. Because starting with an unknown and making “logical deductions” from it are valid. So, you know all the laws of the universe? You have discovered the unified theory of everything? Do tell sir. Do tell.
And, I didn’t tell you that you’re wrong. I told you I disagree with you. I read your references. I still disagree with you. And there is plenty of dissent to your references. They are not facts.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat,
- 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]
When you talk about going up a level, you are using inductive, not deductive, reasoning. My point was that your assumptions around causality are inherently inductive, and not deductive. As such, they are limited to the very narrow slice of the universe that we can currently observe. Because of that, we can’t draw any reliable conclusions about what is probable and what is not.
I realize you disagree with Hume on some points, but he was correct about the comoslogical causality premise being inductive rather than deductive.[/quote]
No he wasn’t. There is a school of thought that wants to move it that way but it isn’t so. It’s a closed system, you cannot really add or subtract anything from the argument or it totally fails. If you mix a base with an acid and it does not react it does not mean that bases do not that bases don’t react with acids. Inductive reasoning would mean that cosmology would could still be true even if one thing did not fit. It would be exactely like saying ‘2+2=3’ one time but it still equals 4 most of the time. It’s not true. Hume knew that if he could could make causal relationships correlational, it’s gone. Refuted arguments are not remembered. If you make causation inferred you have two problems, you can either destroy causation or you can make it where even if you find an anomaly, it’s is still possible. The style of the argument and what it is arguing does not rely on any inferred logic. This is based on pure rationalism. Even if nothing physical existed, it would still be true.
Again, the basis be hind Hume’s inference was his elusive ‘3rd causal element’. This is the one Humian argument that failed and is widely refuted.
If you don’t believe me, look it up.
More on it here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Not that you’ll read it, but so you know I am not making this up.
Existence must necessarily be caused. It doesn’t matter what it is that exists it requires a reason for being there. That’s not a correlational statement, that is a deductive statement. If it’s inferred you must find me something uncaused first.
[/quote]
EXISTENCE AS YOU KNOW IT MUST BE CAUSED. PERIOD. WE CAN SAY NO MORE.
And if we accept your conclusions about causation, then what caused the God you have faith in?
What is more likely? That something sprang forth from nothing? Or that it was always here, in one form or another? The former requires causation. The latter does not. And the latter is certainly beyond human comprehension.
Was God uncaused?