Physics of the Afterlife

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]pat wrote:
If something is not caused it came from nothing.[/quote]

Untrue. If something is not caused, it either came from nothing OR it
is the uncaused, necessary being referenced in the two conclusions of
the cosmological argument.

I’m contending that the uncaused, infinite series is the uncaused,
necessary being referenced in the cosmological argument. I’m not
contending that it came from nothing.

[quote]It’s circular. All you did was introduce another premise not a
conclusion. That’s a best case scenario…[/quote]

It’s not circular, because it is specifically concluded by the
cosmological argument that an uncaused, necessary being MUST exist. It
is perfectly consistent with this conclusion.

[quote]A being that must exist there for cannot not exist is an
infinite series?[/quote]

Yes. The infinite series is uncaused. It is a metaphysical
self-containing object that doesn’t depend on its contingent elements
in order to exist. Think of it as a metaphysical box that contains
every contingent element in the universe. Whether the elements exist
or not, the box is an uncaused non-contingent metaphysical container.

The infinite series contains causes and effects that extend
infinitely in both directions.

[quote]You want me to accept that a generic arbitrary infinite series
of nothing in particular is an alternate solution to the cosmological
argumnet?[/quote]

No. The cosmological argument DOES NOT SPECIFY WHAT THE NECESSARY
NON-CONTINGENT BEING ACTUALLY IS. IT ONLY STATES THAT THERE IS ONE.
What I’m arguing flows directly from the cosmological argument. You
believe the necessary being is a god; I believe the necessary being is
the non-contingent infinite series. Both conclusions are perfectly
compatible with the cosmological argument.

[quote]I never said “it must be a god” Go ahead. Look, show me
anything I have ever said in my 9600+ posts that says it must
be a god. You will never find it.[/quote]

Good. Then you believe the cosmological argument doesn’t REQUIRE that
the non-contingent being is a god. I’m glad you’re open to other
possibilities.

The cosmological argument comes to multiple conclusions (2 to be
precise). The last 2 statements that begin with “Therefore” are the 2
conclusions of the cosmological argument.

Of course, it doesn’t end there because we still have to figure out
what the non-contingent being actually is.

[quote]An infinite series is a finite amount of shit in an endless
cycle, otherwise its not a series, it’s just shit.[/quote]

Just because the individual variables in the series are finite doesn’t
mean they repeat in the same pattern over and over and over again.
They can interact in different ways over time, and they can evolve
over time. Just because they’re contingent doesn’t mean they’re
static. Information can become energy, which becomes an atom, which
becomes a molecule, which becomes energy, which becomes a whole new
element, which becomes…

[quote]You have to explain how something that exists, exists uncaused
with out being the uncause-caused.[/quote]

I don’t have to explain this, because that’s not what I’m claiming. My
argument is that it IS the uncaused-cause. The series itself, the
non-contingent metaphysical container, is uncaused, and it contains
the contingent elements with causes and effects that extend infinitely in both
directions.

Infinity is hard enough to grasp proactively; it’s even more elusive
when you think about retroactive infinity. Just because we can’t wrap
our brains around infinity doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

262

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
If something is not caused it came from nothing.

Untrue. If something is not caused, it either came from nothing OR it
is the uncaused, necessary being referenced in the two conclusions of
the cosmological argument.
[/quote]
It came from something or nothing.

This is almost physically painful…Infinite series of what? Turkeys? Fruit? John Travolta?

This is what I mean. Basic, rudimentary logic fail. First of all, I don’t know what you talking about. Second once you manage to state what the infinite series contains, you still can’t get that conclusion from those premises. It’s like saying Baseball is cool there for pigs are pink. There is nothing in the cosmological argument that breaks down to a number of things, it breaks down the one thing. An uncaused-cause by definition cannot be a series of, of what ever the hell your imagining the series contains.

Again, I need you to study some basic logic facts and fallacies. You moved from circular to non-sequiter. It’s a waste of time.
If you want to construct arguments full of fallacies and really believe them to be great and fantastic, that’s up to you. Quit wasting my time with this crap, because there is nothing about it that makes any sense.

A necessary contingent being exists, cannot exist, so it’s a infinite series of nothing in particular, just an infinite series of something. Hint: You conclusion can’t be a fucking adjective.

Again infinite series of what?
non-contingent metaphysical container? LOL! So an infinite series of [blank] sits in a non-contingent metaphysical container.
What’s the container made out of? What are the boundies? What does it contain?

Oh finally. That doesn’t work. You cannot reach a conclusion like that because it requires an infinite amount of premises to do it. Causal regress cannot go into infinity. It reduces to something or nothing, period. Infinite causal regression in a repeating sequence (which already makes no sense. How can you have a infinite causal chain in a series that repeats itself? You can’t.) Second, you cannot reduce to infinite, it plain doesn’t answer the question of “What causes it”. All that does is tell you something else about it, not how it came to be or where it came from or what causes it. Like I said all you have is another premise.

Uncaused-cause cannot be an infinite amount of causes repeating in a cycle. First you cannot have repeating cycle, if the amount of shit in the said series is infinite. That’s a definition of ‘series’ fail. So what you are looking for is a infinite causal succession. You cannot regress to this because it doesn’t regress. Second, you cannot attempt to prove this with using it’s own essence which makes it circular which brings us back to square one.

Ugh. No there is only one possibility. Necessary being, Uncaused-Cause, Prime mover, all different ways of saying the same thing. What you want to call it is up to you.

Sigh… No it comes to one conclusion, the second therefore is actually unnecessary. It just restates the fact that if something exists, it cannot, not exist. That’s all. That’s actually the first premise.

You can’t discuss what it is, unless you agree it exists. Otherwise discussing It’s nature is pointless.

Then it’s not a fucking series.

“Which becomes” not a series.

Do you want to pick non-sequiter (referring to the series part) or Circular reasoning, using the essence of something to describe itself. Or both, because infinite series just doesn’t resolve the problem.

There is something else your missing since your calling said ‘infinite series’ which you actually mean infinite causal succession. You can’t say the ‘infinite causal succession’ is an uncaused-cause because the causal succession can’t sit outside the causal chain. It’s part of it. By definition the Uncaused-cause must.

Speak for yourself, I get it, you don’t get how it does not work for this problem. Infinity is irrelevant to the problem as is time.

Like I said, you you want to believe that which is logically fallacious, is the end all be all of truth, got nuts. But you’ll never be right, being wrong no matter how many times you repeat the same thing… It’s not gong to suddenly be right one day.

I am wasting my time but:
Great video:

http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm

263

Ok, Pat, you’re wasting your time.

Your grasp of deductive logic is infinitely superior to mine.

/discussion

264

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What evidence do you have that suggests that human awareness/consciousness is not [totally] contingent on physical attributes?[/quote]
Being serious Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia [/quote]

The question of “why does consciousness exists?” is answered when we discover how it comes into existence.

I’ve no doubt that, in the near future, we will find out how the brain gives rise to consciousness. For the moment though, i can only answer the “why?” question with, “because it does.”[/quote]
Aw common the “because it does” answer is never acceptable when the theist uses it =).

Anyways I have an argument from impossibility you may find interesting.

  1. A material object cannot have phenomenal experiences.
  2. Humans have phenomenal experiences.
  3. Therefore humans are not a material object.

I will quantify by what I mean by phenomenal experience by giving examples. Experiencing blueness, feeling empathy, love, pain or in actuality think.

Even if we know so much about the brain that we are able to make computers with the computational ability of our brains I still maintain that they cannot experience anything just as the same reason as a loaf of bread can’t object to me eating it.

A few objections are that either everything including rocks have phenomenal experiences, or that the working of our parts causes an epiphenomenon(massive delusion where we think we experience phenomenal experiences when we really don’t and there is no such thing). I think both are highly unlikely.[/quote]

Yeah, we’re never all going to agree on cosmology/infinity.

I think the Phenomenal experience discussion could be interesting.

Logically I think the epiphenomenon objection is more concurrent with modern scientific understanding.

Anecedotal evidence from my own life experiences agrees with this.

It is very hard to trace any emotion or act of consciousness back to something that’s not physical/material.

I cannot think of any. Can anyone else?

[/quote]
You really think we are under a massive delusion that we are concision when we are really not?

I can give an example that will make you think, I can choose to influence my brain chemistry in a variety of ways by either choosing to think negatively or positively. The thought to chose to think negatively or positively is logically prior to the change in my brain chemistry.

If you say I was determined to come to that conclusion (in either choosing to think negatively or positively) based on my brain chemistry prior in time to my choosing, then this will also apply to you coming up with your conclusion and is a defeater for your position since it is rationally unafirmable.

265

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
First lets review the definitions.

Contingent being - a being that if it exists can not-exist.

Necessary being - a being that if it exists cannot not-exist.

Any being is either a contingent or necessary in its existence, there is no third option since one is the negation of the other due to the law of excluded middle. So a non-contingent being would be a necessary in his existence while a unnecessary being would be contingent in its existence.

In the argument I posted it follows from 5 and 6 therefore 7 a necessary being exists.

The argument

  1. A necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
  2. The existing necessary being could not-exist.

Results in a contradiction.[/quote]

Agreed.

My point is that the necessary being is the infinite series. Definitionally, if it exists, it cannot not-exist.
[/quote]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Alright I just posted this for reference again since I don’t think its on this page.

Now I know the argument I just referenced is from Aquinas but I want to talk about Leibniz a bit. To him one of the most important questions is why is there something rather than nothing at all. As he pondered this question he reasoned that the answer why there is something rather than nothing is not found in the world of contingent beings but rather in a necessary being.

Now the argument beings with a fact about the world mainly that its contingent. In fact we have come to agree that there is a set whose members are all contingent whether or not there is a finite or as I will concede for sake of argument even thought its absurd an actual infinite of contingent members. Now I hope I illustrate the reason why the set of all contingents is contingent irrespective of the members it contains. If a set is made up of all contingent members all the members could have failed to exist even simultaneously at once which makes the set contingent. Saying a contingent(a contingent in the set) exists because a contingent (the contingent set of an actual infinite of contingencies) is circular reasoning.

Now varying the number of contingents in a set still doesn’t answer why is there something rather than nothing because the set is contingent. A possible response is that there is no reason for why the set exist, it just exist inexplicably which one is arguing against the second premise. This is fine but then one would have to admit to being arbitrary in their use of the principle of sufficient reason taxicabing when one arrives at their destination whether at the set itself or the universe also know as the taxicab fallacy. Otherwise people use PSR everyday in life and is foundational in science without science would be unable to progress. The question is one willing to pay this price tag for avoiding the conclusion?

The only answer to “why is there something rather than nothing” is grounded in a necessary being which sits outside the contingent set of contingents and cannot be the contingent set of contingents as this is mutually exclusive. This being we call God.

I am on board with pat here that we can start talking about God once this has been settled otherwise discussion will go nowhere.[/quote]

Premise 7 violates PSR, but the argument requires it, so the exception is allowed.

The question here is not whether something can violate PSR, but what that something is.

You say it is a god.

I say it is a noncontingent infinite series.

The series is qualitatively different than the sum of its effects, just like god is qualitatively different from the sum of his effects. Both are uncaused causes.[/quote]
7 follows from the rest of the premises, 7 isn’t a violation of PSR because it does have an explanation for its existence.

That would be like me constructing an argument that the material cause of muffins is flour but you claiming since I only explained the material cause of muffins and not flour that my conclusion that flour is the material cause of muffins is a violation of PSR doesn’t follow from my argument.

Secondly I do not see how you reach the conclusion that the contingent set of contingents is non-contingent from the premises listed in the argument when I thought that I had showed sufficiently step by step twice why the necessary being is outside the contingent set of contingents due to all of the members having the ability to fail to exist simultaneously thus causing the set itself to fail to exist. Yet if the necessary being deduced from the premises to exist cannot not-exist while the contingents in the contingent set can not-exist it follows that the necessary being is outside the contingent set of contingents. Just because the argument deduces the existence of a necessary being doesn’t mean the contingent set of contingents can now be non-contingent, it still is what it is. Meaning that after we have deduced existence of the necessary being, the contingent set of contingents still has the properties it had in the premises. Meaning the necessary being would have existed whether or not he chose to create the contingent set of contingents.

If you want to say that a non-contingent contingent set of contingents is the explanation for all contingents you are going to have to construct a new argument which violates the law of non contradiction in the process.

I can see people attacking the premise 2 or premise 5 by saying that the negation of one of those premises is true even if a heavy price tag is to be paid in either committing the taxicab fallacy by admitting arbitrary use of PSR(which is foundational in science) using it in everyday life but taxicabing when one doesn’t like the implications of where this principle leads one to, or saying the fallacies of circular reasoning or begging the question work or aren’t fallacies.

A series is only series if it contains members, if it contains no members it isn’t a series at all, the series or set is contingent on its members, if the members fail to exist in this “metaphysical box” how can you say the series is the cause or explanation for the contingent members it is made of

This still doesn’t explain why something exist rather than nothing at if all the contingent members the “infinite series” can not-exist simultaneously causing the infinite series to not exist as well which shows its contingency on its members.

266

Can i boil this down to as far as i understand what the conflict is here?

By all means, correct me if i’m wrong:

All the universe is, is caused since everything in it must logically have been caused. The universe, by simply existing, can’t be uncaused.

Since you can’t regress infinitely, ultimately you must come to an end, e.i. beginning: the Uncaused Cause.

This uncaused cause is eternal, has always existed outside of time and space, is not caused and may, or may not be, the christian god.

Now, because we currently have no real scientific knowledge of the smallest part or the biggest circumference we can’t say, without a shadow of a doubt, that you can’t regress infinitely in a causal chain. Perhaps logic mandates it, but i’d like to see it proven before denouncing it.

Faith means nothing to me.

Both concepts, within the confines of what we currently know about the universe and reality, are equally valid until one or the other is proven wrong by observation and experiment. Or both are proven wrong ofcourse.

How am i doing so far?

267

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What evidence do you have that suggests that human awareness/consciousness is not [totally] contingent on physical attributes?[/quote]
Being serious Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia [/quote]

The question of “why does consciousness exists?” is answered when we discover how it comes into existence.

I’ve no doubt that, in the near future, we will find out how the brain gives rise to consciousness. For the moment though, i can only answer the “why?” question with, “because it does.”[/quote]
Aw common the “because it does” answer is never acceptable when the theist uses it =).

Anyways I have an argument from impossibility you may find interesting.

  1. A material object cannot have phenomenal experiences.
  2. Humans have phenomenal experiences.
  3. Therefore humans are not a material object.

I will quantify by what I mean by phenomenal experience by giving examples. Experiencing blueness, feeling empathy, love, pain or in actuality think.

Even if we know so much about the brain that we are able to make computers with the computational ability of our brains I still maintain that they cannot experience anything just as the same reason as a loaf of bread can’t object to me eating it.

A few objections are that either everything including rocks have phenomenal experiences, or that the working of our parts causes an epiphenomenon(massive delusion where we think we experience phenomenal experiences when we really don’t and there is no such thing). I think both are highly unlikely.[/quote]

Yeah, we’re never all going to agree on cosmology/infinity.

I think the Phenomenal experience discussion could be interesting.

Logically I think the epiphenomenon objection is more concurrent with modern scientific understanding.

Anecedotal evidence from my own life experiences agrees with this.

It is very hard to trace any emotion or act of consciousness back to something that’s not physical/material.

I cannot think of any. Can anyone else?

[/quote]
You really think we are under a massive delusion that we are concision when we are really not?

I can give an example that will make you think, I can choose to influence my brain chemistry in a variety of ways by either choosing to think negatively or positively. The thought to chose to think negatively or positively is logically prior to the change in my brain chemistry.

If you say I was determined to come to that conclusion (in either choosing to think negatively or positively) based on my brain chemistry prior in time to my choosing, then this will also apply to you coming up with your conclusion and is a defeater for your position since it is rationally unafirmable.[/quote]

Surely that logic can also apply to your brain chemistry before you came up with that argument.

For personal reasons I’d really like to think thought is not purely physical. But I dont think theres any compelling evidence either way.

268

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Can i boil this down to as far as i understand what the conflict is here?

By all means, correct me if i’m wrong:

All the universe is, is caused since everything in it must logically have been caused. The universe, by simply existing, can’t be uncaused.

Since you can’t regress infinitely, ultimately you must come to an end, e.i. beginning: the Uncaused Cause.

This uncaused cause is eternal, has always existed outside of time and space, is not caused and may, or may not be, the christian god.

Now, because we currently have no real scientific knowledge of the smallest part or the biggest circumference we can’t say, without a shadow of a doubt, that you can’t regress infinitely in a causal chain. Perhaps logic mandates it, but i’d like to see it proven before denouncing it.

Faith means nothing to me.

Both concepts, within the confines of what we currently know about the universe and reality, are equally valid until one or the other is proven wrong by observation and experiment. Or both are proven wrong ofcourse.

How am i doing so far?[/quote]

Almost, logic does denounce it, it’s because if you regress infinitely you end up having to use the essence of the thing itself in the regression and that is circular.
It becomes self evident if you actually try it in an exercise. Again, it’s not a problem of infinity, it’s a problem of reduction, eventually you run out of properties. I think it’s easier from the point of contingency. Each reason breaks down to an ever simpler reason until you get to the simplest reason.

You do have a good grasp of the argument. That’s why I kept saying that if you believe in infinite causal succession, don’t use cosmology. It’s not the argument for proving infinite causal regression. The premises of that argument don’t support that conclusion.
You are right, the conclusion does not support necessarily the God that we say is God. That’s a separate argument and it’s inferred not deduced…It’s a damn good inference but it’s still an inference.

[Edit] Religious faith means nothing to you. You believe in a whole host of things you can’t really prove or know.

269

Pat:

The essence of the uncaused cause motivates its existence. How is that different, and not circular?

In an infinite causal chain that exists without beginning and of itself, there is no end or beginning. There is no circle.

Such as?

270

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Pat:

The essence of the uncaused cause motivates its existence. How is that different, and not circular?
[/quote]
That’s not the argument.

How’d it get there?

[quote]

Such as?[/quote]

You’re own existence? You could very well just be a hallucination of mine creation. Like a dream that feels so real, you can’t know it’s a dream?
Or hell, just that the world will keep spinning. Just cause it’s doing it today, doesn’t mean it’s doing it tomorrow. You buy things with the faith that you will be able to recoup the money. Ever bought on credit? Act of faith. Faith that your currency won’t be meaningless like our is becoming. Faith that you won’t be killed in the next five minutes. Face it, all we have is faith. I choose to place mine in a trust worthy source. It works, but I could never prove that.

271

Just like your god, it always was/is.

We’ve been over this one, and i think it’s a bullshit argument. The other examples you give are equally bullshit.

That i can’t know that the world doesn’t stop spinning tomorrow doesn’t mean that i have faith it continues to spin tomorrow. I don’t operate that way.

272

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Just like your god, it always was/is.
[/quote]

That’s why the argument is circular, it has no conclusion. An infinite amount of premises can never have a conclusion drawn which makes it a faulty argument. It relies on itself to propagate it’s conclusion. The cosmological argument doesn’t attempt to explain the existence of the uncaused-cause, that’s a separate argument. Definitionally speaking an ‘infinite causal succession’ is not sufficient to explain it’s contingency. Just because it’s infinite, doesn’t mean it’s exists for no reason. I can think of one contingency are ready supposing it’s true. It’s exists to give us a physical place to exist, otherwise we couldn’t exist physically. That’s already one reason for it’s existence so it’s not non-contingent.
[/quote]

We’ve been over this one, and i think it’s a bullshit argument. The other examples you give are equally bullshit.

That i can’t know that the world doesn’t stop spinning tomorrow doesn’t mean that i have faith it continues to spin tomorrow. I don’t operate that way.[/quote]

It means exactly that. You have good reason to believe, based on past events, but you can’t know

Hume states that if you don’t know all the event’s in a thing’s existence you cannot know everything about that thing. In other words, just because you haven’t seen a pretty Vulture, doesn’t mean one does not exist. ~ That was a paraphrase.
You’d like Hume, he was an atheist, but he had great insight to causality. He was also pretty darn funny, and he painted himself into corners constantly…Why I liked him is because he would admit it. He was honest.

273

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Can i boil this down to as far as i understand what the conflict is here?

By all means, correct me if i’m wrong:

All the universe is, is caused since everything in it must logically have been caused. The universe, by simply existing, can’t be uncaused.

Since you can’t regress infinitely, ultimately you must come to an end, e.i. beginning: the Uncaused Cause.

This uncaused cause is eternal, has always existed outside of time and space, is not caused and may, or may not be, the christian god.

Now, because we currently have no real scientific knowledge of the smallest part or the biggest circumference we can’t say, without a shadow of a doubt, that you can’t regress infinitely in a causal chain. Perhaps logic mandates it, but i’d like to see it proven before denouncing it.

Faith means nothing to me.

Both concepts, within the confines of what we currently know about the universe and reality, are equally valid until one or the other is proven wrong by observation and experiment. Or both are proven wrong ofcourse.

How am i doing so far?[/quote]

Good summary. My argument is a tad more complicated than that because of the criticism that the causal chain itself must have a cause, but I think you captured the essence.

274

Okay, so the cosmological argument tries to explain the universe by pointing at an uncaused cause without offfering an explanation for the uncaused cause.

Is there a similar argument, like the cosmological argument, that tries to explain the uncaused cause?

And furthermore, if the mystery of existence is projected onto an uncaused cause without explaining this uncaused cause nothing has been solved, nor explained. The cosmological argument is not an answer or an explanation.

Pat, i don’t need faith. If the world stops spinning tomorrow we’d know soon enough, but besides that, why would i need faith for something that is explained scientifically and requires a cosmic cataclysm to occur?

It makes no sense.

275

Joab,

I was referring to the second premise, which defines a contingent
being as something that has a cause of or explanation for its
existence. By this definition, a necessary being cannot have a cause
of or explanation for its existence. You said the necessary being does
have an explanation for its existence…can you clarify?

On your second point, I wasn’t arguing for a contingent set of
contingents. My position was that it is a non-contingent set of
contingents.

Uncaused metaphysical series/sets/collections don’t depend on having
actual contingent components in order to exist. For example, take the
metaphysical collection we call a dozen. Let’s say I separate every
object in the universe, so that nothing was so proximally related to
any other 11 somethings that we could call it a dozen. There isn’t a
dozen of anything in the entire universe. And yet, the uncaused
metaphysical collection of 12 somethings that we call a dozen still
exists, despite there not being an actual dozen of anything at the
present time.

276

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Okay, so the cosmological argument tries to explain the universe by pointing at an uncaused cause without offfering an explanation for the uncaused cause.
[/quote]
No claim was made to that effect…It’s a different argument. Once you accept the conclusion as true, then you can discuss it’s nature. Otherwise, what’s the point of discussing it if you think either premises or conclusion is actually false?

It’s a different discussion. The cosmological argument gives some clues as to some things the Uncaused-cause, or Necessary Being is. But it’s purpose is to establish it’s existence, not describe it or explain it. It explains something else.

It’s not about the ‘mystery of it’s existence’ it’s simply not part of this argument. It’s a different topic.

[quote]
Pat, i don’t need faith. If the world stops spinning tomorrow we’d know soon enough, but besides that, why would i need faith for something that is explained scientifically and requires a cosmic cataclysm to occur?

It makes no sense.[/quote]

Bottom line, you can’t be certain about most things you assume to be true everyday. If you don’t want to call it faith, fine. It doesn’t change that reality.

277

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab,

I was referring to the second premise, which defines a contingent
being as something that has a cause of or explanation for its
existence. By this definition, a necessary being cannot have a cause
of or explanation for its existence. You said the necessary being does
have an explanation for its existence…can you clarify?

On your second point, I wasn’t arguing for a contingent set of
contingents. My position was that it is a non-contingent set of
contingents.

Uncaused metaphysical series/sets/collections don’t depend on having
actual contingent components in order to exist. For example, take the
metaphysical collection we call a dozen. Let’s say I separate every
object in the universe, so that nothing was so proximally related to
any other 11 somethings that we could call it a dozen. There isn’t a
dozen of anything in the entire universe. And yet, the uncaused
metaphysical collection of 12 somethings that we call a dozen still
exists, despite there not being an actual dozen of anything at the
present time.[/quote]

[EDIT] It was addressed to Joab, I will bow out and let him answer. My apologies.

278

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Joab,

I was referring to the second premise, which defines a contingent
being as something that has a cause of or explanation for its
existence. By this definition, a necessary being cannot have a cause
of or explanation for its existence. You said the necessary being does
have an explanation for its existence…can you clarify?

On your second point, I wasn’t arguing for a contingent set of
contingents. My position was that it is a non-contingent set of
contingents.

Uncaused metaphysical series/sets/collections don’t depend on having
actual contingent components in order to exist. For example, take the
metaphysical collection we call a dozen. Let’s say I separate every
object in the universe, so that nothing was so proximally related to
any other 11 somethings that we could call it a dozen. There isn’t a
dozen of anything in the entire universe. And yet, the uncaused
metaphysical collection of 12 somethings that we call a dozen still
exists, despite there not being an actual dozen of anything at the
present time.[/quote]

[EDIT] It was addressed to Joab, I will bow out and let him answer. My apologies.[/quote]

No problem, and just for the record I still like you :slight_smile: I just find it feels like hitting my head against a wall to discuss philosophy with you. I’m not as ignorant as you make me out to be; I just think we fundamentally disagree on some things. It’s all good, please don’t take it personally if I don’t discuss philosophy with you in the future. There are plenty of other topics to gnaw on.

279

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Okay, so the cosmological argument tries to explain the universe by pointing at an uncaused cause without offfering an explanation for the uncaused cause.
[/quote]
No claim was made to that effect…It’s a different argument. Once you accept the conclusion as true, then you can discuss it’s nature. Otherwise, what’s the point of discussing it if you think either premises or conclusion is actually false?

It’s a different discussion. The cosmological argument gives some clues as to some things the Uncaused-cause, or Necessary Being is. But it’s purpose is to establish it’s existence, not describe it or explain it. It explains something else.

It’s not about the ‘mystery of it’s existence’ it’s simply not part of this argument. It’s a different topic.

[quote]
Pat, i don’t need faith. If the world stops spinning tomorrow we’d know soon enough, but besides that, why would i need faith for something that is explained scientifically and requires a cosmic cataclysm to occur?

It makes no sense.[/quote]

Bottom line, you can’t be certain about most things you assume to be true everyday. If you don’t want to call it faith, fine. It doesn’t change that reality.[/quote]

I don’t believe you pat. You won’t try to seduce a girl if in the end you know you’re not going to have sex with her.

The argument was designed to lead a person to a conclusion and a subsequent belief. You can’t suddenly separate the two as if the conlusion and belief don’t matter.

I want to know your rationale for shifting the question of origin away from the universe and onto a deity, thereby excusing you from having to explain the deity because by definition a deity is inexplicable.

Wtf?

Eventhough i accept certain truths as fact despite a lack of knowledge on my part, that does not mean that the knowledge is unobtainable. I can educate myself and learn why a certain truth is a certain truth, and prove to myself the facts instead of merely accepting them.

You can’t do that with beliefs and god. No matter how hard you try you can’t prove the truth of your religious beliefs objectively.

280

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Okay, so the cosmological argument tries to explain the universe by pointing at an uncaused cause without offfering an explanation for the uncaused cause.
[/quote]
No claim was made to that effect…It’s a different argument. Once you accept the conclusion as true, then you can discuss it’s nature. Otherwise, what’s the point of discussing it if you think either premises or conclusion is actually false?

It’s a different discussion. The cosmological argument gives some clues as to some things the Uncaused-cause, or Necessary Being is. But it’s purpose is to establish it’s existence, not describe it or explain it. It explains something else.

It’s not about the ‘mystery of it’s existence’ it’s simply not part of this argument. It’s a different topic.

Well, that’s ductive logic…The argument doesn’t discuss the nature of the uncaused-cause. Now we can, but you have to at least pretend you agree with the conclusion of the cosmological argument. If your constantly badgering me about the conclusion of the cosmological argument, we can’t actually get to the nature of what the uncaused-cause is. That’s the problem…I can only get you so far, but if you don’t let go you can’t get further. I shifted nothing, you asked a question the cosmological argument doesn’t answer, that’s all.

I don’t need to prove religion objectively…You trust your government, your neighbor, your infrastructure, your barter system, your economy. Everyone of those things can fail you at any second. I have to put certain faith in those things to, but in the hierarchy I trust God more. It’s not my problem if you don’t I am just defending my beliefs and right now I am defending the cosmological argument which is deductive truth…Can’t get truthier than a deductive truth.