[quote]Makavali wrote:
Nothing exists without a cause![/quote]
No, nothing that came into existence can exist without a cause. God never began to exist, nice try though.
[quote]
God is uncaused!
The universe can’t be uncaused!
I don’t see the logical misstep here!
Loud noises![/quote]
As I already pointed out, the scientific evidence such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows thatt the universe can’t be uncaused or is caused as if it was infinitely recessed back in time it would be soup.
[quote]pat wrote:
Sufficient reason and or dependence are not. You seem to have 2 dimensional grasp of causation.[/quote]
That’s rich coming from someone who thinks that because nothing can exist without a cause, something that exists without a cause must exist.[/quote]
Dear Jesus (pun intended) thank you for putting that in simple terms. If that doesn’t make you question this fairy tale, nothing will. [/quote]
Except both of you are missing that the argument isn’t just that nothing can exist without a cause, it is that which came into existence cannot exist without a cause. God not coming into existence but being eternal would dictate that he doesn’t have a cause.
the problem is not the “survival tool” part. It’s the “nothing more” part.
And as long as you don’t understand why i refuse reductionnism, this discussion is pointless.
It’s not that i don’t want to answer. I just can’t.
You came here trying to dismiss religion, saying that it’s not an end in itself but a mere tool used for some external reasons. That’s functionnal reductionnism.
I tried, repeatedly, to show you why this approach is epistemologically incorrect. And, as a matter of fact, no serious researcher (believer or not) in the fields of anthropology, ethnology or history of religion will adopt it anymore. Marxist fossils excepted.
if you really want to understand religion and explain the existence of religious behaviors, you can’t deny its spiritual dimension.
the spiritual dimension of religion is religion’s core specificity. Each and every theory that will explain religion from the outside, and try to reduce it to external factors will miss the dimension. and will ultimately explain nothing.
the “hints” i gave you were not chosen arbitrarily.
A ritual is, by nature, an economically irrationnal act. An “useless” act. You can not explains it by “survival necessity”. And when a ritual become a mere cultural habit, it’s not a religious ritual anymore. So this explanation won’t do it either.
To understand why strange people do these strange things we call a ritual, you would have to actually try to understand them, without ridiculizing them.
Do it, and then we could talk.
[/quote]
My take on a ritual is it is an activity which has been reinforced through positive associations ie bodily pleasure (relaxation), bonding (sexual/food/celebration rituals), health benefits (such as drugs taken for spiritual experiences that actually kill and rid the body of worms and food preparations), and so on. The interaction of these practices make it more likely that a particular population will survive in a particular place and time.
Also, the above doesn’t prevent one from understanding the person behind the rituals. The oppposite is true. If you can imagine the benefits of doing something, you are far less likely to consider a person ridiculous for doing it.
Also, saying that religion exists because it benefits a population isn’t reductionism. Reductionism would be saying that religion exists because of all of its tiny parts, without explaining the sum of them. I’m pretty much saying the opposite of that: that the tiny parts exist because of the whole population.
Seeing how many misconceptions of the cosmological argument are in this thread I thought to post a disscussion that me and pat had with forlife on the cosmological arugment that was actually pretty good. Its only six pages of discussion and starts at page 6 of the thread Physics of the Afterlife linked here.
It’s not that i don’t want to answer. I just can’t.
You came here trying to dismiss religion, saying that it’s not an end in itself but a mere tool used for some external reasons. That’s functionnal reductionnism.
I tried, repeatedly, to show you why this approach is epistemologically incorrect. And, as a matter of fact, no serious researcher (believer or not) in the fields of anthropology, ethnology or history of religion will adopt it anymore. Marxist fossils excepted.
if you really want to understand religion and explain the existence of religious behaviors, you can’t deny its spiritual dimension.
the spiritual dimension of religion is religion’s core specificity. Each and every theory that will explain religion from the outside, and try to reduce it to external factors will miss the dimension. and will ultimately explain nothing.
the “hints” i gave you were not chosen arbitrarily.
A ritual is, by nature, an economically irrationnal act. An “useless” act. You can not explains it by “survival necessity”. And when a ritual become a mere cultural habit, it’s not a religious ritual anymore. So this explanation won’t do it either.
To understand why strange people do these strange things we call a ritual, you would have to actually try to understand them, without ridiculizing them.
Do it, and then we could talk.
[/quote]
As a kid I once buried a dead bird, made it a pretty grave and mourned its passing. I got really upset when another kid destroyed the grave.
We perform rituals because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel special. We like to feel special instead of inconsequential or irrelevant.
But that’s precisely what we are on a cosmic scale: irrelevant.
I could give you some elements of answer here. But i won’t.
whichever answer i would give you, you will say “see, it helped our ancestors to survive. It’s nothing more than a survival tool”. Implying that we got better tools now, and don’t need this primitive one anymore.
the problem is not the “survival tool” part. It’s the “nothing more” part.
And as long as you don’t understand why i refuse reductionnism, this discussion is pointless.
i already give you some hints.
the “real question” is : what’s a ritual ? What do we really do when we sacralize something ?
[/quote]
I’d like to hear your thoughts. I know exactly how powerful ritual is. I’m interested to know your thoughts.
[quote]groo wrote:
If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god).[/quote]
It’s called an uncaused cause because on that which is brought into existence needs a cause. God being eternal was never brought into existence so he does not need a cause.
This isn’t possible, 1) 2nd law of thermodynamics, 2) the universe shows that a personal and not a blind force created it.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Point 1 would perhaps apply to THIS Universe, if this universe is in fact ever proven to be a closed system. As discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, there may be multiple universes, or universes popping from previous ones, and so forth. The case for an eternal cosmos is growing.
Number 2, please provide the scientific reference that concludes the universe was created by a personal force.
[quote]pat wrote:
Sufficient reason and or dependence are not. You seem to have 2 dimensional grasp of causation.[/quote]
That’s rich coming from someone who thinks that because nothing can exist without a cause, something that exists without a cause must exist.[/quote]
Dear Jesus (pun intended) thank you for putting that in simple terms. If that doesn’t make you question this fairy tale, nothing will. [/quote]
Except both of you are missing that the argument isn’t just that nothing can exist without a cause, it is that which came into existence cannot exist without a cause. God not coming into existence but being eternal would dictate that he doesn’t have a cause. :)[/quote]
No. YOu’re missing my argument which has been, all along, the possibility, which is growing, that the cosmos is eternal. No beginning, no end, always existed.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Seeing how many misconceptions of the cosmological argument are in this thread I thought to post a disscussion that me and pat had with forlife on the cosmological arugment that was actually pretty good. Its only six pages of discussion and starts at page 6 of the thread Physics of the Afterlife linked here.
there is no misunderstanding of the CA here. it’s an exercise in logic, not fact. “prove it wrong” it’s supporters (here) scream. Prove the basic premise upon which it relies right I reply. It’s a thought exercise…no more, no less.
Instead of being dismissive, just post what you think someone’s misconceptions are. No one wants to filter thru another forum discussion of the CA. If you really want to read a good discussion about the CA, find one among physicists who can discuss it without the burden of religious bias.
[quote]pat wrote:
Sufficient reason and or dependence are not. You seem to have 2 dimensional grasp of causation.[/quote]
That’s rich coming from someone who thinks that because nothing can exist without a cause, something that exists without a cause must exist.[/quote]
Dear Jesus (pun intended) thank you for putting that in simple terms. If that doesn’t make you question this fairy tale, nothing will. [/quote]
Except both of you are missing that the argument isn’t just that nothing can exist without a cause, it is that which came into existence cannot exist without a cause. God not coming into existence but being eternal would dictate that he doesn’t have a cause. :)[/quote]
No. YOu’re missing my argument which has been, all along, the possibility, which is growing, that the cosmos is eternal. No beginning, no end, always existed.
[/quote]
From the point of contingency, it doesn’t fucking matter if it’s eternal. It’s still dependent, it’s an inescapable problem. Eternal universe is not sufficient to ascribe it’s existence to itself. That’s circular and therefore false.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
there is no misunderstanding of the CA here.
[/quote]
Yeah it is, a grotesque misunderstanding. If you don’t understand why eternity and indeed time itself is irrelevant to the issue, you don’t get it.
[quote]groo wrote:
If there is a cause for everything then what caused the first cause (god).[/quote]
It’s called an uncaused cause because on that which is brought into existence needs a cause. God being eternal was never brought into existence so he does not need a cause.
This isn’t possible, 1) 2nd law of thermodynamics, 2) the universe shows that a personal and not a blind force created it.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Point 1 would perhaps apply to THIS Universe, if this universe is in fact ever proven to be a closed system. As discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, there may be multiple universes, or universes popping from previous ones, and so forth. The case for an eternal cosmos is growing.
Number 2, please provide the scientific reference that concludes the universe was created by a personal force. [/quote]
Actually the case for an eternal cosmos is on the retreat…There’s a tiny problem that there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for it. It’s only possible in concept.
You’re still missing the point by a mile as to why this doesn’t matter.
As a kid I once buried a dead bird, made it a pretty grave and mourned its passing. I got really upset when another kid destroyed the grave.
We perform rituals because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel special. We like to feel special instead of inconsequential or irrelevant.
But that’s precisely what we are on a cosmic scale: irrelevant.
[/quote]
This does get more closely to the heart of the matter which Kam is discussing. Ritual isn’t exclusive to religion, our lives are full of them most of the time we are duly unaware we are even doing them.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Seeing how many misconceptions of the cosmological argument are in this thread I thought to post a disscussion that me and pat had with forlife on the cosmological arugment that was actually pretty good. Its only six pages of discussion and starts at page 6 of the thread Physics of the Afterlife linked here.
It’s not that i don’t want to answer. I just can’t.
You came here trying to dismiss religion, saying that it’s not an end in itself but a mere tool used for some external reasons. That’s functionnal reductionnism.
I tried, repeatedly, to show you why this approach is epistemologically incorrect. And, as a matter of fact, no serious researcher (believer or not) in the fields of anthropology, ethnology or history of religion will adopt it anymore. Marxist fossils excepted.
if you really want to understand religion and explain the existence of religious behaviors, you can’t deny its spiritual dimension.
the spiritual dimension of religion is religion’s core specificity. Each and every theory that will explain religion from the outside, and try to reduce it to external factors will miss the dimension. and will ultimately explain nothing.
the “hints” i gave you were not chosen arbitrarily.
A ritual is, by nature, an economically irrationnal act. An “useless” act. You can not explains it by “survival necessity”. And when a ritual become a mere cultural habit, it’s not a religious ritual anymore. So this explanation won’t do it either.
To understand why strange people do these strange things we call a ritual, you would have to actually try to understand them, without ridiculizing them.
Do it, and then we could talk.
[/quote]
As a kid I once buried a dead bird, made it a pretty grave and mourned its passing. I got really upset when another kid destroyed the grave.
We perform rituals because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel special. We like to feel special instead of inconsequential or irrelevant.
But that’s precisely what we are on a cosmic scale: irrelevant.
[/quote]
On the more pessimistic side of the scale, what happens if someone truly feels irrevelant? What is the worst, behavior-wise, that could happen?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
there is no misunderstanding of the CA here.
[/quote]
Yeah it is, a grotesque misunderstanding. If you don’t understand why eternity and indeed time itself is irrelevant to the issue, you don’t get it. [/quote]
You are still pulling out the same logical misstep. If God can exist without cause, then the universe can too. If God can “be” without coming into existence, the same applies for the universe. The universe is directly observable by everyone. God is not. You have inserted God into the equation from your own bias, instead of shearing the equation down to its simplest form.
Instead of perverting the scientific method by starting with a conclusion and ignoring anything that refutes said conclusion, do it properly and accept the outcome.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
there is no misunderstanding of the CA here.
[/quote]
Yeah it is, a grotesque misunderstanding. If you don’t understand why eternity and indeed time itself is irrelevant to the issue, you don’t get it. [/quote]
You are still pulling out the same logical misstep. If God can exist without cause, then the universe can too. If God can “be” without coming into existence, the same applies for the universe. The universe is directly observable by everyone. God is not. You have inserted God into the equation from your own bias, instead of shearing the equation down to its simplest form.
Instead of perverting the scientific method by starting with a conclusion and ignoring anything that refutes said conclusion, do it properly and accept the outcome.[/quote]
Incorrect. You committing a fundamental misunderstanding. Your logic is:
If A can B, and C share a property with A then likewise it can ‘B’.
This is not the case. The way the argument form exists, there is no way that more than a single thing can be uncaused. It’s simply definitionally impossible. The argument does not speak to how an uncaused-cause can exist or why, it only posits that it must exist. Further, where your having issues, is that you are defining what it is that exists and why which by default makes it contingent. If you want to deal with actualities then we can take it even a step further and say that ‘something’ exists. Because of the limitations of epistemology and paradigm, we can simultaneously understand something about ‘it’s’ nature, but we cannot definitively prove it. So what you are left with is, dependent existence, and independent existence and a reason why both are what they are.
Even if the universe did not exist, the cosmological form would still be true. Existence, is what matters, not necessarily what it is that exists. Understanding existence is the key to understanding this argument. BUT existence isn’t obvious nor it is what it appears to be.
I am actually glad you are participating Mak, despite the fact that you are often a tool, your not stupid.
