[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And where does “time” figure into all this? We do not yet understand “time”. There are many theories on the nature of time. Is it your position that “causation” stands independent of time? If so, explain.[/quote]
Causation can occur in or out of time, it is not bound by it. Time is actually a function of movement and change of physical objects. If nothing moves, there is no time, it everything moves at the speed of light, there is no time. Something can be dependent with out it occurring in temporal order.
All something has to do is exist and the principle of sufficient reason must apply or be proven why it does not. Physical objects do not apply for reasonless or random existence.[/quote]
Bohm has said that causality IS an empirical thing, that causality is a principal of different kinds of experience and which has never been contradicted in any observation or experiment. But it IS empirical. Give me an example of causality not experienced or observed by man.
[/quote]
You want scientific explanations? Or math, or theory or laws? All are contingent. Once passed a certain point in any regress no observation is possible.
EPR Paradox. It was actually observed around 1980, I believed.
I didn’t say everything moves at the speed of light, I said “if” everything moved at the spped of light in the known universe.
Time is a function of relative movement. Two things moving relative to each other, where one is moving at a different rate or direction than the other.
It seems reasonable that “time” started with the big bang, it’s possible to have existed before. It’s just unknown what was there, be it a singularity, or a pool of matter and anti matter. Cannot know, but it must have been acted on whether from a chain of events or a direct intervention.
An Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition be caused. There for ‘It’ could not be created. The necessary being must be true for all else to exist. An infinite regress is fallacious and circular. Says nothing about infinity, just you cannot regress infinitely. All we can deductively know about the uncaused-causer, is that it must be uncaused (sit out side the causal chain) and also cause. We cannot by deduction know anymore than that.
That does not say whether or not ‘it’ started a chain of events or if ‘it’ is actively involved, just that it must exist uncaused, and cause. That’s all it says.
Yes, they end up dividing by zero.
If the sufficient reason seems inapplicable, then reason from contingency can be used, it’s all still causality… It is disputed and will always be so. But it is not proven wrong. Nobody has ever been able to even remotely show a self-caused or self explanatory fact exists at all. They claim it’s only possible, but cannot explain how or what violates it.
[/quote]
I will return to this when I’m fresh. It’s late. [/quote]
I am going to collapse this in to one thread instead of many.
On existence, we cannot prove anything physical exists, only that something does. That’s where DesCarte came up with, ‘I think, therefore I am’ for which he was mostly right. Some degree of awareness does indeed evidence that something exists, now whether he possessed it or not.
The Cosmological argument is a fact until proven wrong, period. It is not a circular argument by any stretch, it is a perfectly simple argument that leads to a perfectly simple conclusion.
Is it disputed? Sure what isn’t? All things are disputed. string theory is disputed mightily and you give heavy value to it, but that does not make them wrong. We can prove via empiricism that causation does exist, even if we don’t understand the mechanism fully, what we have not been able to do, at all is prove any circumstance where it does not exist. We have evidence of one and zero for the other. The only thing that could remotely weaken it, is simply the possibility, something uncaused exists.
We can prove deductively that existence of any kind must have a contingency something on which it is based. Why? Because what does not exist is randomness, i.e. something from nothing. Not something from very little, or something we do not understand, nothing then something. Why? Because nothingness does not exists, literally. That’s what nothingness is, a complete absence of existence. Science and philosophy sometimes use the same words but they don’t mean the same things in context. ‘Nothing’ in science is a void, vacuums, empty space or, dark energy, quanteum mechanics, etc. In philosophy, those are ‘somethings’ . Scientist use ‘random’ to describe strange effects they did not count on, in philosophy it means something with out reason, basis, dependency, etc. which is not the same thing as not understood.
The argument requires the uncaused-cause to exist, it’s the only way to solve the problem. It’s very much a math problem. As stated before, math is nothing more than a deductive argument. So is this. That’s why it’s a deductive argument. The logical it self leads you where you cannot go, where your eye cannot see and where your experience cannot fathom. That’s why the Uncaused-causer cannot be caused. That’s why it must exist outside the causal chain, it is the only answer.
People not accepting the argument doesn’t make it wrong. The argument being in dispute does not make it wrong. Not believing it does not make it wrong. The only thing to do is to prove it wrong. That’s why I like it so much, it’s a bullet proof as arguments get.
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And where does “time” figure into all this? We do not yet understand “time”. There are many theories on the nature of time. Is it your position that “causation” stands independent of time? If so, explain.[/quote]
Causation can occur in or out of time, it is not bound by it. Time is actually a function of movement and change of physical objects. If nothing moves, there is no time, it everything moves at the speed of light, there is no time. Something can be dependent with out it occurring in temporal order.
All something has to do is exist and the principle of sufficient reason must apply or be proven why it does not. Physical objects do not apply for reasonless or random existence.[/quote]
Bohm has said that causality IS an empirical thing, that causality is a principal of different kinds of experience and which has never been contradicted in any observation or experiment. But it IS empirical. Give me an example of causality not experienced or observed by man.
[/quote]
You want scientific explanations? Or math, or theory or laws? All are contingent. Once passed a certain point in any regress no observation is possible.
EPR Paradox. It was actually observed around 1980, I believed.
I didn’t say everything moves at the speed of light, I said “if” everything moved at the spped of light in the known universe.
Time is a function of relative movement. Two things moving relative to each other, where one is moving at a different rate or direction than the other.
It seems reasonable that “time” started with the big bang, it’s possible to have existed before. It’s just unknown what was there, be it a singularity, or a pool of matter and anti matter. Cannot know, but it must have been acted on whether from a chain of events or a direct intervention.
An Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition be caused. There for ‘It’ could not be created. The necessary being must be true for all else to exist. An infinite regress is fallacious and circular. Says nothing about infinity, just you cannot regress infinitely. All we can deductively know about the uncaused-causer, is that it must be uncaused (sit out side the causal chain) and also cause. We cannot by deduction know anymore than that.
That does not say whether or not ‘it’ started a chain of events or if ‘it’ is actively involved, just that it must exist uncaused, and cause. That’s all it says.
Yes, they end up dividing by zero.
If the sufficient reason seems inapplicable, then reason from contingency can be used, it’s all still causality… It is disputed and will always be so. But it is not proven wrong. Nobody has ever been able to even remotely show a self-caused or self explanatory fact exists at all. They claim it’s only possible, but cannot explain how or what violates it.
[/quote]
I will return to this when I’m fresh. It’s late. [/quote]
I am going to collapse this in to one thread instead of many.
On existence, we cannot prove anything physical exists, only that something does. That’s where DesCarte came up with, ‘I think, therefore I am’ for which he was mostly right. Some degree of awareness does indeed evidence that something exists, now whether he possessed it or not.
The Cosmological argument is a fact until proven wrong, period. It is not a circular argument by any stretch, it is a perfectly simple argument that leads to a perfectly simple conclusion.
Is it disputed? Sure what isn’t? All things are disputed. string theory is disputed mightily and you give heavy value to it, but that does not make them wrong. We can prove via empiricism that causation does exist, even if we don’t understand the mechanism fully, what we have not been able to do, at all is prove any circumstance where it does not exist. We have evidence of one and zero for the other. The only thing that could remotely weaken it, is simply the possibility, something uncaused exists.
We can prove deductively that existence of any kind must have a contingency something on which it is based. Why? Because what does not exist is randomness, i.e. something from nothing. Not something from very little, or something we do not understand, nothing then something. Why? Because nothingness does not exists, literally. That’s what nothingness is, a complete absence of existence. Science and philosophy sometimes use the same words but they don’t mean the same things in context. ‘Nothing’ in science is a void, vacuums, empty space or, dark energy, quanteum mechanics, etc. In philosophy, those are ‘somethings’ . Scientist use ‘random’ to describe strange effects they did not count on, in philosophy it means something with out reason, basis, dependency, etc. which is not the same thing as not understood.
The argument requires the uncaused-cause to exist, it’s the only way to solve the problem. It’s very much a math problem. As stated before, math is nothing more than a deductive argument. So is this. That’s why it’s a deductive argument. The logical it self leads you where you cannot go, where your eye cannot see and where your experience cannot fathom. That’s why the Uncaused-causer cannot be caused. That’s why it must exist outside the causal chain, it is the only answer.
People not accepting the argument doesn’t make it wrong. The argument being in dispute does not make it wrong. Not believing it does not make it wrong. The only thing to do is to prove it wrong. That’s why I like it so much, it’s a bullet proof as arguments get.
[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]
Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?
Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.
Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.
You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.
And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
And where does “time” figure into all this? We do not yet understand “time”. There are many theories on the nature of time. Is it your position that “causation” stands independent of time? If so, explain.[/quote]
Causation can occur in or out of time, it is not bound by it. Time is actually a function of movement and change of physical objects. If nothing moves, there is no time, it everything moves at the speed of light, there is no time. Something can be dependent with out it occurring in temporal order.
All something has to do is exist and the principle of sufficient reason must apply or be proven why it does not. Physical objects do not apply for reasonless or random existence.[/quote]
Bohm has said that causality IS an empirical thing, that causality is a principal of different kinds of experience and which has never been contradicted in any observation or experiment. But it IS empirical. Give me an example of causality not experienced or observed by man.
[/quote]
You want scientific explanations? Or math, or theory or laws? All are contingent. Once passed a certain point in any regress no observation is possible.
EPR Paradox. It was actually observed around 1980, I believed.
I didn’t say everything moves at the speed of light, I said “if” everything moved at the spped of light in the known universe.
Time is a function of relative movement. Two things moving relative to each other, where one is moving at a different rate or direction than the other.
It seems reasonable that “time” started with the big bang, it’s possible to have existed before. It’s just unknown what was there, be it a singularity, or a pool of matter and anti matter. Cannot know, but it must have been acted on whether from a chain of events or a direct intervention.
An Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition be caused. There for ‘It’ could not be created. The necessary being must be true for all else to exist. An infinite regress is fallacious and circular. Says nothing about infinity, just you cannot regress infinitely. All we can deductively know about the uncaused-causer, is that it must be uncaused (sit out side the causal chain) and also cause. We cannot by deduction know anymore than that.
That does not say whether or not ‘it’ started a chain of events or if ‘it’ is actively involved, just that it must exist uncaused, and cause. That’s all it says.
Yes, they end up dividing by zero.
If the sufficient reason seems inapplicable, then reason from contingency can be used, it’s all still causality… It is disputed and will always be so. But it is not proven wrong. Nobody has ever been able to even remotely show a self-caused or self explanatory fact exists at all. They claim it’s only possible, but cannot explain how or what violates it.
[/quote]
I will return to this when I’m fresh. It’s late. [/quote]
I am going to collapse this in to one thread instead of many.
On existence, we cannot prove anything physical exists, only that something does. That’s where DesCarte came up with, ‘I think, therefore I am’ for which he was mostly right. Some degree of awareness does indeed evidence that something exists, now whether he possessed it or not.
[/quote]
I’m loathe to do quote and reply because when you try to respond it’s going to make things very messy. I don’t know if it’s possible to stick to one concept at a time and have this discussion. That said, of course “something exists”. My point all along is man, like our fictional 2d character in flatland, may perceive his existence in a limited sense (e.g., perceiving a circle instead of a sphere). In fact, I’m sure of it.
[quote]pat wrote:
The Cosmological argument is a fact until proven wrong, period. It is not a circular argument by any stretch, it is a perfectly simple argument that leads to a perfectly simple conclusion.
[/quote]
This is just terribly arrogant and the reason I took exception to your posts in the first place. The CA is no more fact. At best, it’s a logical thought experiment that starts with an unknown. We can’t make factual deductions from what we do not know. Causation exists on an empirical level, nothing more.
[quote]pat wrote:
Is it disputed? Sure what isn’t? All things are disputed.
[/quote]
“All things” are NOT disputed. That is intellectual dishonesty.
[quote]pat wrote:
string theory is disputed mightily and you give heavy value to it, but that does not make them wrong.
[/quote]
I don’t give “heavy value” to string theory. You’re building a strawman and let me stop you before you build its legs. I used string theory as an illustration of the properties of the universe that may exist beyond our simple perception. No more, no less. I later settled into the flatland thought experiment, which maybe was a better illustration.
[quote]pat wrote:
We can prove via empiricism that causation does exist, even if we don’t understand the mechanism fully, what we have not been able to do, at all is prove any circumstance where it does not exist. We have evidence of one and zero for the other. The only thing that could remotely weaken it, is simply the possibility, something uncaused exists.’
[/quote]
Well the above is a curious statement from you since a few replies ago you argued to me that causation is not empirically proven. I said empirical, you said no. That we have evidence for one, and zero for the other is an intellectual lie. We have plenty of evidence for the other, starting with radioactive decay, QM, the absence of a unified theory which in and of itself suggests that our present understanding of things is wrong, and the current theories we do have “evidence” for simply break down when applied to the big bang and other models. Finally, your very God argument has to rely that He is uncaused and He exists. You’re arguing in circles Pat.
[quote]pat wrote:
We can prove deductively that existence of any kind must have a contingency something on which it is based. Why? Because what does not exist is randomness, i.e. something from nothing. Not something from very little, or something we do not understand, nothing then something. Why? Because nothingness does not exists, literally. That’s what nothingness is, a complete absence of existence. Science and philosophy sometimes use the same words but they don’t mean the same things in context. ‘Nothing’ in science is a void, vacuums, empty space or, dark energy, quanteum mechanics, etc. In philosophy, those are ‘somethings’ . Scientist use ‘random’ to describe strange effects they did not count on, in philosophy it means something with out reason, basis, dependency, etc. which is not the same thing as not understood.
[/quote]
You’re forgetting the principal of “eternal”. “It” could have ALWAYS existed, in one form or another. Again, you’re arguing from our experience - everything we sense perceive and measure has a cause and effect. We sense and measure motion and this whole CA thought experiment is a product of the hard wiring of our experience. It has been said by brighter men than me that when discussing something like string theory for instance, we simply cannot “grok” it, it’s beyond our experience and beyond our “hard wiring”. We literally cannot imagine “eternal” - no beginning and no end, because we’re no more “hard wired” to perceive that than our 2d character can perceive the sphere. You speak of infinite regression and the “illogical” conclusion of such may just be due to our hard wiring. Infinite is used in math, we do not experience it and it’s not something we can wrap our mind around.
[quote]pat wrote:
The argument requires the uncaused-cause to exist, it’s the only way to solve the problem. It’s very much a math problem. As stated before, math is nothing more than a deductive argument. So is this. That’s why it’s a deductive argument. The logical it self leads you where you cannot go, where your eye cannot see and where your experience cannot fathom. That’s why the Uncaused-causer cannot be caused. That’s why it must exist outside the causal chain, it is the only answer.
[/quote]
You’re back to circular reasoning. The CA does lead to an uncaused-cause - you call it God. I agree that the logic leads you to where you cannot go, to where you cannot see - it’s exactly what I’ve been pointing out from the beginning - that the CA starts with our hard wired experience with the universe. I spent a paragraph above stating you cannot fathom “eternal” - no beginning and no end. An “uncaused-causer” is NOT the ONLY answer. Eternity is one.
[quote]pat wrote:
People not accepting the argument doesn’t make it wrong. The argument being in dispute does not make it wrong. Not believing it does not make it wrong. The only thing to do is to prove it wrong. That’s why I like it so much, it’s a bullet proof as arguments get.
[/quote]
I disagree. You cannot “prove” it right. I guess the opposition to it is as bullet proof as opposition gets? It’s a logical construct, nothing more. It’s only “bullet proof” is your starting point is a fact. Otherwise it’s no different than “all dogs have fleas. this is a dog. this dog has fleas”. If I’m wrong about all dogs having fleas, my conclusions are hardly “bullet proof” facts.
And before we get further confused, I’m not saying the CA is wrong either. I’m open to both, because right now, we do not know. But I do not accept the CA as “fact”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]
Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?
Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.
Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.
You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.
And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]
An infinitesimal chance? Why the need to exaggerate? There are theories now that seriously undermine it. Even big bang proponents are conceding the possibility of a universe antecedent to the big bang and so forth and so on.
The best we can say is that causation exists based on our observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Conversely, we KNOW the universe acts in ways we cannot directly observe. Pat, we don’t even have gravity figured out or time, how can you sit there and say a thought experiment (the CA) proves itself factual?
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]
Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?
Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.
Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.
You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.
And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]
And why would a guy like you be so dogmatically enamored with an argument that has “withstood the test of time” not out of any scientific proof, but from man’s ignorance of the cosmos around him? I can imagine early man constructing a similar argument that the eruptions of a volcano are a sign of God’s anger. I can imagine an early philosopher arguing that the foregoing has “stood the test of time”…right up to the point where we discover what makes volcanos truly erupt.
If man were not ignorant, the CA could be proven as fact.
If man were not ignorant, the CA could be disproved.
All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.
Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.[/quote]
The laws on which the universe functions have NOTHING to do with mathematics. Mathematics is an intellectual, abstract construct. The number two does not exist outside of our mind, and nor does any other mathematical relationship.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]
Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?
Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.
Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.
You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.
And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]
I have. Even some of the links you’ve provided discuss these criticisms at length, and they are more substantial and more extensive than just the idea that there could exist something that is noncontingent besides a god. Bodyguard has been discussing just one of these criticisms, which is that the whole idea of contingency is Newtonian, derived from our narrow experience, and may not reflect the complete universe. You may disagree, but it is a major criticism that a large number of philosophers and scientists accept as viable. There are many other criticisms beside that, and again the point is that we are nowhere near being able to conclude a particular theory must be true.
Your point on the laws of conservation applying only to isolated systems may well apply to causality as well.
So let’s talk about the ability of god to cause. This ability of god to cause is a contingent attribute. God depends on it in order to cause. Without it, god would not be god. Therefore, if you allow attributes to define contingency, god is as contingent as matter. He depends on those very attributes in order to exist, just like matter does.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]
Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?
Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.
Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.
You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.
And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]
An infinitesimal chance? Why the need to exaggerate? There are theories now that seriously undermine it. Even big bang proponents are conceding the possibility of a universe antecedent to the big bang and so forth and so on.
The best we can say is that causation exists based on our observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Conversely, we KNOW the universe acts in ways we cannot directly observe. Pat, we don’t even have gravity figured out or time, how can you sit there and say a thought experiment (the CA) proves itself factual?[/quote]
There are certainly interesting theories out there, feel free to bring one up to discuss.
I’m loathe to do quote and reply because when you try to respond it’s going to make things very messy. I don’t know if it’s possible to stick to one concept at a time and have this discussion. That said, of course “something exists”. My point all along is man, like our fictional 2d character in flatland, may perceive his existence in a limited sense (e.g., perceiving a circle instead of a sphere). In fact, I’m sure of it.
[quote]pat wrote:
The Cosmological argument is a fact until proven wrong, period. It is not a circular argument by any stretch, it is a perfectly simple argument that leads to a perfectly simple conclusion.
[/quote]
This is just terribly arrogant and the reason I took exception to your posts in the first place. The CA is no more fact. At best, it’s a logical thought experiment that starts with an unknown. We can’t make factual deductions from what we do not know. Causation exists on an empirical level, nothing more.
[quote]pat wrote:
Is it disputed? Sure what isn’t? All things are disputed.
[/quote]
“All things” are NOT disputed. That is intellectual dishonesty.
[quote]pat wrote:
string theory is disputed mightily and you give heavy value to it, but that does not make them wrong.
[/quote]
I don’t give “heavy value” to string theory. You’re building a strawman and let me stop you before you build its legs. I used string theory as an illustration of the properties of the universe that may exist beyond our simple perception. No more, no less. I later settled into the flatland thought experiment, which maybe was a better illustration.
[quote]pat wrote:
We can prove via empiricism that causation does exist, even if we don’t understand the mechanism fully, what we have not been able to do, at all is prove any circumstance where it does not exist. We have evidence of one and zero for the other. The only thing that could remotely weaken it, is simply the possibility, something uncaused exists.’
[/quote]
Well the above is a curious statement from you since a few replies ago you argued to me that causation is not empirically proven. I said empirical, you said no. That we have evidence for one, and zero for the other is an intellectual lie. We have plenty of evidence for the other, starting with radioactive decay, QM, the absence of a unified theory which in and of itself suggests that our present understanding of things is wrong, and the current theories we do have “evidence” for simply break down when applied to the big bang and other models. Finally, your very God argument has to rely that He is uncaused and He exists. You’re arguing in circles Pat.
[quote]pat wrote:
We can prove deductively that existence of any kind must have a contingency something on which it is based. Why? Because what does not exist is randomness, i.e. something from nothing. Not something from very little, or something we do not understand, nothing then something. Why? Because nothingness does not exists, literally. That’s what nothingness is, a complete absence of existence. Science and philosophy sometimes use the same words but they don’t mean the same things in context. ‘Nothing’ in science is a void, vacuums, empty space or, dark energy, quanteum mechanics, etc. In philosophy, those are ‘somethings’ . Scientist use ‘random’ to describe strange effects they did not count on, in philosophy it means something with out reason, basis, dependency, etc. which is not the same thing as not understood.
[/quote]
You’re forgetting the principal of “eternal”. “It” could have ALWAYS existed, in one form or another. Again, you’re arguing from our experience - everything we sense perceive and measure has a cause and effect. We sense and measure motion and this whole CA thought experiment is a product of the hard wiring of our experience. It has been said by brighter men than me that when discussing something like string theory for instance, we simply cannot “grok” it, it’s beyond our experience and beyond our “hard wiring”. We literally cannot imagine “eternal” - no beginning and no end, because we’re no more “hard wired” to perceive that than our 2d character can perceive the sphere. You speak of infinite regression and the “illogical” conclusion of such may just be due to our hard wiring. Infinite is used in math, we do not experience it and it’s not something we can wrap our mind around.
[quote]pat wrote:
The argument requires the uncaused-cause to exist, it’s the only way to solve the problem. It’s very much a math problem. As stated before, math is nothing more than a deductive argument. So is this. That’s why it’s a deductive argument. The logical it self leads you where you cannot go, where your eye cannot see and where your experience cannot fathom. That’s why the Uncaused-causer cannot be caused. That’s why it must exist outside the causal chain, it is the only answer.
[/quote]
You’re back to circular reasoning. The CA does lead to an uncaused-cause - you call it God. I agree that the logic leads you to where you cannot go, to where you cannot see - it’s exactly what I’ve been pointing out from the beginning - that the CA starts with our hard wired experience with the universe. I spent a paragraph above stating you cannot fathom “eternal” - no beginning and no end. An “uncaused-causer” is NOT the ONLY answer. Eternity is one.
[quote]pat wrote:
People not accepting the argument doesn’t make it wrong. The argument being in dispute does not make it wrong. Not believing it does not make it wrong. The only thing to do is to prove it wrong. That’s why I like it so much, it’s a bullet proof as arguments get.
[/quote]
I disagree. You cannot “prove” it right. I guess the opposition to it is as bullet proof as opposition gets? It’s a logical construct, nothing more. It’s only “bullet proof” is your starting point is a fact. Otherwise it’s no different than “all dogs have fleas. this is a dog. this dog has fleas”. If I’m wrong about all dogs having fleas, my conclusions are hardly “bullet proof” facts.
And before we get further confused, I’m not saying the CA is wrong either. I’m open to both, because right now, we do not know. But I do not accept the CA as “fact”.
Good discussion, I’m enjoying it. Thanks.
[/quote]
I cut this down for the sake of space.
From the top, I am not trying to entrap you with admitting existence, just is there or is there not something that exists? To paraphrase Kant, he said in a nutshell, that realty exists, but we may or may not know what it is.
When I said ‘All things’ I meant most scientific theories and philosophical arguments. So many things would be more appropriate to say.
Eternity does not matter, contingency does. All something has to do is exist and it is sufficient to ask why. It may start with something observable, but it does not end there it ends in a place that is insensible.
I carefully worded the reference to empiricism, because many agnostic/ athiests are empiricists. Now if you look at it through empirical means you can see evidence of causation, where you cannot see any evidence of randomness. That doesn’t speak to what causation is, just that something can be observed. Now that does not mean that what exactly causation is. All it means that causes necessitate their effects, that is not observable. But you can let go of a ball and it will fall every time, that is observable. Having an empirical component doesn’t make it an empirical argument, it’s more of an analogy to the point. However, the cosmological form, doesn’t require it though it can use it.
Here’s why it’s so solid:
Contingent things exist. An existence cannot be based on nothing therefore it must be based on something. Contingent necessities cannot regress infinitely, it either ends up circular, or goes into something or nothing. Since nothing cannot be the basis for something, something must be it’s basis. This ‘initial’ basis cannot be contingent upon anything thing else, lest it be just another contingent being.
It’s a lot words, but it does make sense. What it boils down to is that something came from something, or nothing. Nothing is incapable since nothing doesn’t exist. So it must be something not subject to everything else.
I do enjoy these discussions, feel free to put forth objections.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I have. Even some of the links you’ve provided discuss these criticisms at length, and they are more substantial and more extensive than just the idea that there could exist something that is noncontingent besides a god. Bodyguard has been discussing just one of these criticisms, which is that the whole idea of contingency is Newtonian, derived from our narrow experience, and may not reflect the complete universe. You may disagree, but it is a major criticism that a large number of philosophers and scientists accept as viable. There are many other criticisms beside that, and again the point is that we are nowhere near being able to conclude a particular theory must be true.
Your point on the laws of conservation applying only to isolated systems may well apply to causality as well.
So let’s talk about the ability of god to cause. This ability of god to cause is a contingent attribute. God depends on it in order to cause. Without it, god would not be god. Therefore, if you allow attributes to define contingency, god is as contingent as matter. He depends on those very attributes in order to exist, just like matter does.[/quote]
They are more extensive then simply attempting to prove the non-contingency of something other than the Necessary Being?
Ok, bring one up and let’s drill down on it and see what it says.
Originally, when Aristotle came up with it, it was Newtonian based, but Aquinas changed that with the argument from contingency. It actually doesn’t invalidate Aristotle’s original argument, it simply took time and matter out of the picture so that those could not be argued against. However, even if the original tenet is based on observation, where it leads is not, that why it’s deductive.
If you remove causation, you just have an uncaused thing, but nothing would be around to ask the questions on how they got there, because nothing, save for itself would exist.
All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.
Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.[/quote]
The laws on which the universe functions have NOTHING to do with mathematics. Mathematics is an intellectual, abstract construct. The number two does not exist outside of our mind, and nor does any other mathematical relationship.[/quote]
If the universe did not function on the basis of mathematical constructs, math could not be used to understand anything about them. That’s not the same as a planet sitting down and figuring out it’s own orbit, but it does so based on principals that we can understand using numbers. You are right though, it is abstract.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I have. Even some of the links you’ve provided discuss these criticisms at length, and they are more substantial and more extensive than just the idea that there could exist something that is noncontingent besides a god. Bodyguard has been discussing just one of these criticisms, which is that the whole idea of contingency is Newtonian, derived from our narrow experience, and may not reflect the complete universe. You may disagree, but it is a major criticism that a large number of philosophers and scientists accept as viable. There are many other criticisms beside that, and again the point is that we are nowhere near being able to conclude a particular theory must be true.
Your point on the laws of conservation applying only to isolated systems may well apply to causality as well.
So let’s talk about the ability of god to cause. This ability of god to cause is a contingent attribute. God depends on it in order to cause. Without it, god would not be god. Therefore, if you allow attributes to define contingency, god is as contingent as matter. He depends on those very attributes in order to exist, just like matter does.[/quote]
They are more extensive then simply attempting to prove the non-contingency of something other than the Necessary Being?
Ok, bring one up and let’s drill down on it and see what it says.
Originally, when Aristotle came up with it, it was Newtonian based, but Aquinas changed that with the argument from contingency. It actually doesn’t invalidate Aristotle’s original argument, it simply took time and matter out of the picture so that those could not be argued against. However, even if the original tenet is based on observation, where it leads is not, that why it’s deductive.
If you remove causation, you just have an uncaused thing, but nothing would be around to ask the questions on how they got there, because nothing, save for itself would exist.
Bring up some counter arguments…
[/quote]
I will, but first would like to hear your thoughts on my point that god is a contingent being since god has attributes, like the ability to cause, without which god wouldn’t exist.
All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.
Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.[/quote]
The laws on which the universe functions have NOTHING to do with mathematics. Mathematics is an intellectual, abstract construct. The number two does not exist outside of our mind, and nor does any other mathematical relationship.[/quote]
I agree 100%. Pat however would vehemently disagree.
All the laws by which the universe functions are based on math. If it were not everything would be random.
Now I want you to address my entire points. Not skip the hard questions and reask me questions. I am waiting for you to answer one.[/quote]
The laws on which the universe functions have NOTHING to do with mathematics. Mathematics is an intellectual, abstract construct. The number two does not exist outside of our mind, and nor does any other mathematical relationship.[/quote]
If the universe did not function on the basis of mathematical constructs, math could not be used to understand anything about them. That’s not the same as a planet sitting down and figuring out it’s own orbit, but it does so based on principals that we can understand using numbers. You are right though, it is abstract. [/quote]
The point I’m making is that what we call mathematics is like looking at a cloud and seeing a dog, or a cat, or a face. Mathematics is what we use to INTERPRET what we see. The fact that it describes what happens in the universe under certain conditions is not amazing at all. It HAS to describe it, because we deduced those mathematical relationships from the universe around us.
For example, why does 2+2=4? If you take two sets of two stones, it is no amazing property of the universe that putting them together gives you 4 stones. This is because BY OUR DEFINITION, four stones IS two sets of two stones. WE define the concept of four ourselves. Its a subtle point, but you can draw the same conclusions from the most complex mathematics, and when you do think of it like that, it is enough to drive you nuts.
The universe does its thing and we merely watch and interpret.
Albert Einstein - “as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.
BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god. >>>[/quote]Very VERY VERY GOOD!!! That’s exactly right. The God I worship is wholly, utterly and comprehensively UN-contingent. He exists, thinks, rules, reigns and decrees based upon absolutely nothing, NAH THEENG, save for His own infinitely perfect and mighty will. You have hit the nail exactly on the head here bub. Of course in your very next post you’ll completely betray the truth you have by the remaining image of God and His common grace here declared. You can’t help it. You have the form, but not the substance. Just like everybody else.
BodyGuard please observe. The God in whose hand is the whole of creation has provided a living object lesson whereby even the scorn of sinners is made to praise His glorious name. He’ll have no idea what I’m talking about, but I have a feeling that you and Jake might.
[/quote]
God loves us so much, he kills every single one of us.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s far from bullet proof, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much criticism of the cosmological argument in the scientific community.
Everything you’ve said about matter and energy being contingent applies identically to your definition of god. You dismiss the noncontingency of matter by saying it is dependent on its attributes for existence, while refusing to apply the same logic to god.
If matter is contingent on charge in order to exist, that is identical to god being contingent on omnipotence in order to exist. If matter didn’t have charge, it wouldn’t be matter. If god didn’t have omnipotence, he wouldn’t be god.
I’m just asking for consistency in your logic. I don’t think things are nearly as bulletproof as you claim. We know very, very, very little about the universe and are far from being able to claim any particular theory is bulletproof.[/quote]
Have you looked at any of the criticism seriously? All the criticism in sum is one thing, there may be an infinitesimal chance of something besides the Necessary being that may be non-contingent. Unfortunately, there is not an inkling, no reference or inference subjectively or deductively, of such a thing even possibly existing.
So just from an empirical point of view, what is more probable, that which has evidence of it’s existence, or that which has none?
Second, it’s not a scientific argument. It can use science, or not. It does not matter.
Matter/ energy may exist forever, but keep in mind that conservation laws only apply to isolated systems. The apparent flatness of this universe gives rise to the possibility that it’s an open system and conservation suffers.
You’re jumping ahead, we can only infer that said Necessary being is God. We can deduce the uncaused-cause. It is certainly plausible that, that which exists, uncaused and yet causes would likely have knowledge of it all, but you cannot deduce that. You can only deduce what is by definition true. The rest is inference.
And do you know of a consistently challenged argument that has withstood the test of time unrefuted? That alone doesn’t make it right, but it’s credibility damn sure goes up with each passing moment.[/quote]
An infinitesimal chance? Why the need to exaggerate? There are theories now that seriously undermine it. Even big bang proponents are conceding the possibility of a universe antecedent to the big bang and so forth and so on.
The best we can say is that causation exists based on our observations. Nothing more, nothing less. Conversely, we KNOW the universe acts in ways we cannot directly observe. Pat, we don’t even have gravity figured out or time, how can you sit there and say a thought experiment (the CA) proves itself factual?[/quote]
There are certainly interesting theories out there, feel free to bring one up to discuss.[/quote]
Well, “time” for one. We cannot have this discussion (or explore CA further) without the hard wired constructs of our experience with “time”. In other words, the CA discussion always involves time or, as you have also added, “outside of time.” Both are nonetheless concepts of “time” - something we do not understand. A little food for thought (light reading): http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
There are a couple of things there that are instructive. First, motion may not necessarily be “time” per se as you have alluded to. Time is just the physical construct of our experience by which we measure movement. If movement is not “time” as we understand it and as the CA attempts to deductively travel back to a “first cause” or an “uncaused cause”, we are simply left with a state of “being”. In a universe absent our concept and experience of time, there is no logical need for a “first cause” or any permutation of any cause. Again, we cannot even fathom that can we? We’re not hard wired for it. Everything we experience has a beginning and end. We cannot fathom eternal.
The very concept of “spacetime” suggest a static past/present/future. A block of time or existence. Time can also not travel backward, but that is exactly what the CA attempts to do by deductively suggesting a first cause - you’re attempting to travel back in time, which appears to be an impossibility based on our current understanding of time.
It’s late, I’m babbling. Good stuff though. Wish I could dedicate more time to its study.