[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]
I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.
[/quote]
Actually, if dope helps you realize that, then smoke up. As hokey as it sounds there are some legitimate problems brought up by such dope clouded revelations. The problem we have is that we are locked in perception, because we cannot escape it, there is very little we can prove. We can only prove that which is not limited by perception. Facts that are absolute despite your perception of them. That excludes the physical world from ever being proven beyond a high, high probability.
Therefore, to transcend physical existence, by logic. Deductive logic, specifically. Things that are true by definition, not because of a correlation of agreed upon perception. Like math for example. 2+2=4 by definition. No possible worlds, no laws of physics or nature can ever change that fact, it’s true by definition. These are the only things we can prove, the rest may be likely, but not absolute.
Knowing what you can and cannot prove, makes a huge difference in understanding reality. [/quote]
I agree with a lot–maybe most–of this post and the problem with being locked into perception through physical senses. I think where I disagree is the ultimate usefulness of proof by definitions as a be-all, end-all. The same “uncaused-cause” problem you attribute to atheists and bash as “circular” reasoning also applies to theists and “God.” You then just claim “by definition” God is an “uncaused caused” and that this somehow solves the problem. Math and definitions can only get you so far, at some point physics/reality has to come into it and just defining things in a way that gets you where you want to go isn’t enough. [/quote]
I didn’t say it’s the end all be all. Since you can prove actually very little deductively, if you only move on absolutes, you won’t do much. A posteriori logic is very useful and it’s the realm we live in, so we have to accept highest probabilities to function day to day.
And the conclusion derived by Cosmology is not circular, if it were that would have been mentioned centuries ago. It’s not circular at all.
What you are not understanding is that the Uncaused-cause conclusion is the solution for the specific problem of causal regression without circular reasoning. The whole point is to avoid the problem in the first place.
What you are making the assumption, is that the premise is the Uncaused-cause, and the argument is that it exists, because it does. That’s not what’s happening. It’s a totally different question. And you have to deal with it by definition first.
You cannot ask what caused the Uncaused-cause because the question is nonsensical to begin with. It’s like asking what color is the blue sky? It’s uncaused, hence it cannot be caused, even by itself.
So it’s true by definition, that an Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. So throw the question out.
There is a second part, just like in math, logic has functions, and just like math that which is the conclusion, or the answer to the math problem, functions in the reverse.
You want 2 sets of 2 things you have to start with 4. You want caused particulars you must start with something that causes and was not caused. It’s simple as pi.[/quote]
I think its quite possible I don’t completely understand your argument. For now, though, I tend to think I just disagree with it, as least as to the circular reasoning part. Unless maybe I’m hung up on your definition of “god.” If god just means “matter” or “energy” or that “thing or combination of things” that have always existed–or exists outside of our universe or limited understanding of time–then maybe were are on close to the same page. But if “god” means something akin to a Christian god that is all knowing and all powerful and created man in his image as a moral agent, then I am pretty sure I disagree with this line of reasoning as proof of god. [/quote]
Well, you kind of put the cart before the horse. Yes, we have a preconceived notion of God. In our world that’s unavoidable, but you have to put that shit out of your head for rational discussion and follow the evidence where it leads without application of preconceived notions.
First you start with premises, you have ‘existence’, you have causation, and you have regression. That leads you to a logical conclusion. The only possible logical conclusion is that something exists that must cause, but itself not be caused.
People also have an issue with eternity, but we deal with the eternal all the time. Only physical matter/ energy is subject to time. The things that control it, the ‘rules’ the hierarchy of existence are by necessity eternal, i.e. unaffected by time.
For instance, the laws of physics is metaphysical. They control the physical, but exist independently of the physical. The physical cannot break the ‘rules’, but the rules exist outside of time. In other words, they are always true whether or not something that is subject to those rules exists or not.
The physical cannot exist without the rules, but the rules can exist without the physical. You can have rules for a skating rink that doesn’t exist. The rules exist, but the rink does not, if the rink should exist, then the rules apply to it. If it does not, then the rules still exist, they just aren’t applied.
