[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t deny that powerful delusions can’t have positive effects Tiribulus, and you’ve invested too much time and energy in it to admit that. Perhaps you’ll never be able to admit your self medicating with religion, but that’s not a problem as long as it keeps you safe.
Best of luck!
[/quote]Aw now ya went n used my whole name makin me feel all loved n everything and then this snarky remark about delusion and self medication. I am hurt. I like it better when you gimme something a bit more substantive from your self admittedly subjective epistemology/ontology. Seriously. You are occasionally nuzzling right up against the God you incessantly deny. This is seen all the time. Men sitting on God’s shoulders as they scream His non existence.
For the record, when I use the word substantive with regard to something you or someone else may say. That is intended sincerely unless otherwise noted. The fact that I see you all as fatally wrong should not be confused with my believing you stupid or irrelevant.
[/quote]
You think an uncaused cause exists because, inspite of us existing or not, certain truths will always exist?
[/quote]
I believe the uncaused-cause exists because it is logical. What you cannot argue is that the argument is flawed. The only thing you can argue is that the premises for said argument are incorrect. The only way you can refute the argument is to refute causation…You actually already know this on some level, it is why you argue randomness, or chaotic causeless events. The problem is there is no evidence or proof, there is only a possibility; a slim one at that. That is why arguing a slim possibility for which there is no evidence at all seems more implausible than arguing causation for which there is inevitably, something that must cause with out being caused, it’s the only possible solution. [/quote]
You look at the system from within the system without understanding the system, and then logically conclude that something that exists outside of the system created the system.
Not only that but from this something you derive the christian god.
In a nutshell.
We’ve been here before pat, and i still don’t see the logic [no surprises there!].[/quote]
Yes it is clear you don’t see the logic. I am not arguing a Christian God here, you are doing that. Further, we have been here before you must realize that I didn’t invent the argument.
Further, the argument is solid, you can’t knock holes in it and you know it. Which is why I suppose you dance around it. Something from something is more logical than something from nothing. Can you think of an instance where this is not true?
But again, don’t forget about the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. It’s more parsimonious to assert this, than to assert a highly complex superbeing has always existed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
But again, don’t forget about the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. It’s more parsimonious to assert this, than to assert a highly complex superbeing has always existed.[/quote]
I pointed out a ways back. Eternal in the time of the universe doesn’t exclude the possibility of a cause.
[quote]forlife wrote:
But again, don’t forget about the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. It’s more parsimonious to assert this, than to assert a highly complex superbeing has always existed.[/quote]
I pointed out a ways back. Eternal in the time of the universe doesn’t exclude the possibility of a cause.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
But again, don’t forget about the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. It’s more parsimonious to assert this, than to assert a highly complex superbeing has always existed.[/quote]
I pointed out a ways back. Eternal in the time of the universe doesn’t exclude the possibility of a cause.[/quote]
It excludes the possibility of a First Cause.[/quote]
No it doesn’t. By saying “first” you are denoting in the time scale of the universe. That doesn’t exclude a cause as a possibility.
[quote]forlife wrote:
There can’t be a “first” if matter and energy have always existed.[/quote]
A metal ring has no beginning or end, but one can still be created.[/quote]
You’re confusing circumference with creation. We’re talking about matter and energy having always existed, which precludes the possibility that matter and energy were created. Logically, it’s impossible for both to be true, since something cannot be created if it has always existed.
You’re confusing circumference with creation. We’re talking about matter and energy having always existed, which precludes the possibility that matter and energy were created. Logically, it’s impossible for both to be true, since something cannot be created if it has always existed.[/quote]
No. It is only impossible if you are applying the time laws of the universe to an initial cause.
You are trying to assign a date to a causal event for time. You can’t mark a date on the calendar for a “period” before time was created. If you could say before date x there was no time, then before date x wasn’t entirely outside of time.
Something creating time cannot be logically deduced by the rules of time.
[quote]forlife wrote:
But again, don’t forget about the possibility that matter and energy have always existed. It’s more parsimonious to assert this, than to assert a highly complex superbeing has always existed.[/quote]
I pointed out a ways back. Eternal in the time of the universe doesn’t exclude the possibility of a cause.[/quote]
It excludes the possibility of a First Cause.[/quote]
No its just you believe in an eternal universe and assigning it as the first cause, however from the properties we observe in this universe and especially the property of time as we experience it shows that this universe is not eternal and thus not the first cause.
