Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:41 pmCan you provide any more information? Do you know at least what kind of cheese it was?

Sadly not, Gus. The original sample was eaten by a PhD candidate after a particularly exuberant pub crawl several years back. He now speaks four languages he was previously unfamiliar with.

Immanuel Can wrote:

"From nothing" really should be understood not to mean "by nothing," because God is not "nothing." But it should be understood to mean, "Not out of materials that were already present," because those materials themselves would simply take our theory back to the causal-regress problem. So that would be impossible.

An Uncaused Cause of some kind is undeniably at the root of a non-eternal, linear system of causes. We can't really escape that fact...at least, not if we understand the maths implicated. And undeniably, we are in just such a universe as that: one with linear time and causality in it.

I agree that God is uncaused cause and so forth much as IC says. No other theory of the existence of God makes sense . I think IC is saying that God's continuing act of creation includes that God also makes linear time and causality, but I'd rather attribute this capability to Adam who also named all the animals.

I myself don't believe in God as a Person. I believe in the Absolute as either 1. what nature does, or 2. what nature does plus all the things of nature. I can't commit to 1. or 2. I.e. I can't commit to pantheism or panentheism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:55 pm
Hence, the conclusion is undeniable: whatever exists now had to begin with a Cause that was itself not subject to linear time, causality, entropy or expansion. It had to be an uncaused Cause.

That's exactly what nonduality teaches. You know, that concept you said you don't believe is truth..

Make your mind up... ffs...

You like to call no thing a thing.

Whereas nonduality doesn't call no thing any thing. Reality doesn't need a body double. . or an actionman like you. There are only reactions known, because reality is one unitary action.

The actionman does not like being excluded from the limelight, and that is why you prefer to ignore me, because you hate not being the centre of attention don't you...but notice I never ignore your posts... why's that then?

It's because the absolute truth can easily put out the lie. That's why. You cannot argue with what is always and ever the absolute truth.

No claim, no blame, no fame.... if you say you know....you don't.

A true Christian gives up it's Jesus worshipping.

A true Christian has no need - it DOES NOT petition God, or Jesus.

The Book and it's Story are inseparably ONE

The writer of the Bible was referring to itself, in the knowledge that it was self-aware, which came the realisation of opposites, so the writer knew instantly that knowing opposites would spell trouble for this known entity.

That's why it had to write down some instructions to follow to keep the wayward mind, the knowing entity at ease.

Knowledge is a human made psyop...in order to keep some form of civilised order, to evade trouble. That's all. It's all a story told by no one, for no reason except to keep one in check...within the dream of illusory separation, in this conception, the written word.

Tell the absolute truth or shut up.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 8:44 pmWell, I think there's a lot to that critique. The West is indeed presently "eating its own flesh" by undermining all the fundamental values that made the West and "Modernity" possible in the first place.

It seems to me that if you recognize those *values* you are taking a step toward the assertion of something substantial within the culture that produced those values.

In a sense, yes. At minimum, one is admitting that "something good" was radiated by, or infused into the culture by, the substantial ideology in question. But that raises an important objection: where did that go?

If at least nomimal Christianity was so good for America, for example, why didn't it remain and continue to infuse morality into that culture? Why was it abandoned? Why didn't everybody just see how good it was, and stay with it?

Those are very troubling questions for anyone who is interested in a kind of "return" to the way things were. Something failed there: and we really need to know what it was.

I've thought about that a lot, of course. And I have some pretty clear ideas as to what happened. But one thing we can surely agree on: whatever caused it to happen, that "Judeo-Christian" past was not sufficiently durable. And if we just try to go back to it, we're very likely to experience the same cycle -- or a worse one -- again.

Right now, I'm reading J.P. Diggins on American Pragmatism. And he has a very interesting perspective. He claims, and I think with some justice, that justs as Toqueville had guessed would be the case, American social life has been actually more guided by pragmatics than by principle.

Pragmatism, you probably well know, is the belief that things like truth, ethics, value and so on are to be discovered not in looking back to some overarching principle, tradition, framework or other pre-existing structure, but are rather uncovered in the dynamic process of action, of "going forward," of experiencing not past experience (Dewey). And that makes some sense: America was, even before the Revolution, a project of leaving the ancient traditions of Europe and launching out into experiment, into innovation, exploration, something different. Why then would the American soul be drawn back to admiration of the moribund ways of Europe, it's traditions and institutions, it's ways of thinking and so on? What was the past, but a thing to be overcome and left behind? What way was there but forward, practically, looking to the future not the past?

America is, at a deep level, pragmatic. But Pragmatism has a dark side, as well. It tends to put action ahead of principle. And that means that pragmatic decisions tend to be less disciplined by moral qualms or a conservative caution about what is being lost, and instead governed by a forward-looking enthusiasm for what is yet-to-be-generated. However, in this bargain, telos is lost. Pragamatism can't really tell us what a human being is, what he/she is for, or what the ultimate meaning of his/her existence is. All that is supposed to be revealed by continued "experiencing"...

But it is not. And so Pragmatism launches people out into a speculative project of self-making, but without specifying any goal, purpose or rules beforehand. Absent any telos, any ultimate view of the good in advance, American social life offers goals instead like survival, acquisition, consumerism, comfort, expansion, and so on. Unfortunately for America, such proximal goals are far too tawrdry to fill the human soul: why should we go on -- for another day of life? for more possessions? for another meal? for 'bigger' everything? for yet another trip to the mall?

But the human soul is hungry and lonely. It deeply wants a worthy goal to pursue, and needs one in order to know how to organize itself, how to mark its progress and achievements, and to reassure itself of a meaningful and hopeful trajectory in life. Pragmatism cannot help with that: it denies, before it even starts, that such things are even available, and thus sets off in a random direction, dependent on shallow proximal "goods" and devoid of long vision.

When we consider things this way, we see that American conservatism actually laid the groundwork for American Leftism and radicalism to rise. Why? Because the Pragmatism underlying American social life left too many souls empty and hungry, and devoid of a meaningful telos. Absent a set of guiding principles from which to generate meaning, the Left has simply taken up Neo-Marxism, "social justice," BLM, CRT, and that whole package of ideological toxins -- because people must make their lives about something important, and Pragmatism just has nothing to offer in that regard.

So this gives context to what I say next, which is...

You seem often to argue for a more concentrated version of relationship -- to the divinity you define -- but do not seem to show interest in or appreciation for partial relationship or the attenuated relationship. I am more interested in partial relationship because that seems to me to be how most people actually live their lives, and even live their faith.

Diggins would say that you are right: most people do actually live their lives in this attenuated, partial way. Their faith is subordinated to their Pragmatism, when push comes to shove; and this means that Pragmatism, not principle, and certainly not any affinity with Christianity, ultimately makes all their important decisions for them. Nominally, they remain "Christian" but in truth, they are nothing of the kind.

Of such, the Bible says this: "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed." (Titus 1:16) Such are the ones that Christ calls "lukewarm," and whom He says, make Him wish to "spew them out of his mouth" because of their tepid, nauseating, pseudo-Christianity, as I said earlier.

Since they are nauseating to Christ Himself, shall we, in any actually truthful sense, call them "Christian"? Or shall we only keep using that word in order to remain polite and on their good side, though they are disowned by Christ Himself? How shall we arrange our language?

For my part, I will side with the Lord's assessment of their status. How can I do otherwise, and be truthful?

I would guess that there might be 10 or possibly 100 of the 'genuine Christians' that you define.

Oh, not at all. You would be very, very surprised, then.

There are literally billions. But they're not where you think they'd be, and not doing what you think they'd be doing. You might go looking for Christians in America, but you'd find far, far more in China and South Korea. And my definition for such is actually very expansive. I have already said that one will find real Christians among a wide range of denomimationalists, and even in the Catholic Church (though hardly in the leadership or clergy, of course). And I would also add to their number any simple soul who has understood even the basics of the love of God and His way of salvation, be they of any culture, age or background. All these, I would number among my brothers and sisters, and would regard none of them as second class -- though on some views, I might not be quite the same as them. We all come from somewhere, and knowledge is something one gets as one grows; it's not reasonable to imagine any of us is where we ought to be on that, so inclusiveness is warranted.

But not abandonment of Christ. That, no Christian can do. And if one's other ideas, be they secular, pragmatic, or culturally specific in some other form, are permitted to rule one's actions instead of Christ, then the name "Christian" comes open for debate, doesn't it?

But I for my own part cannot find such 'true Christians'.

Not surprising, if you're looking for them to be a cultural entity or an institutional arrangment. It's tempting to look there, because those things are so much easier to find than the quiet, devoted folks who just get about the daily task of obeying Christ. Such cultures and institutions produce documents, influence policies, get involved with secular conflicts, and so they strut across the public stage in such a way as they are easy to find, and end up in the history books, as well. But real Christians tend to be more quiet than that.

That being said, the influence of quiet, non-political, ordinary Christians has been massive in America. Their principles and values have tended, unannounced, often, to produce tectonic shifts in American social life. But it is not through the political wings like "The Moral Majority" or the "Focus on the Family" campaign that such deep shifts have come; they've come when a sizeable number of private citizens in America have been doing simply what Christ told them to do. That has had a very broad, chemical effect on public life in America...up to now, when it is diminishing very rapidly, alas.

All I see is people, in various times and in cultural-historical moments attempting to manifest something christianesque.

Right. Small "c" in "christianesque." Absolutely. That is the tip of the iceberg you're going to find easiest to see. The greater mass of Christianity is going to be below the surface of public, political and even cultural life. It's not going to be an easy subject for historical researchers, because it is diverse, personal, not deliberately political, devotional and diffused thoughout the society rather than lumped together in a convenient place.

There will never arise on this planet, it seems fair to say, a 'Christian culture' that you seem to define.

Well "Christian culture," you will note, is not my idea. Cultures are particular: it's Christianity that's universal. Its only particular "cultural" marking is its growth from Judaism; but once in the larger world, no particular culture owns it or can claim it. It is for all Gentiles and Jews alike. As Paul writes,

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:27-28)

In that sense, South Korean culture is no more "Christian" than American culture is. And Canadian or Australian culture are no more "Christian" than Nigerian or Colombian culture are. Culture is culture. Christ is Christ. And He rules over all cultures. They are free to have their particularity; but they are not free to abandon Christ in the doing of that, the way that America, lately, has progressively been doing.

Thus, if you want to see a Christian renaissance of sorts, a reviving of American or European culture, you're going to have to encourage people to be better Christians, and leave the cultural results to happen naturally, chemically, automatically, not deliberately or politically. That's how America and Europe gained their moral cohesion in the first place, and it's the only way they'll ever get it again.

Or to put it another way, "Postmodernism" is sometimes called "Late Modernism." And there is truth to both names. Something was terribly wrong with Modernity, and Postmodernism tries to pick out what that was, critique it, suspect it, and reject it. But in a very real sense, Postmodernism is insufficiently different from Modernity: it's really the fruit of the Modern "tree" rotting and falling off, at the end of the withering of Modernist optimisms, one might say. It's the "late" form of dysfunctional "Modernity."

And what, may I ask, do you propose as an alternative?

To go forward, not back. But to go forward on the right principles, not to go forward merely Pragmatically, since that will only continue to perpetuate the existential vacuum that causes the rise of things like Nazism, Communism, the postmodern Left, and so on.

...to imply that there is a complete, whole, embodied Christian person who stands on the proper and *true* ground must be proven by producing that person. And that person cannot be produced.

Well, then, good thing that nobody promised perfection from ordinary humans; they're pretty bad at delivering it.

Let's stop looking for perfection, and start looking to direction. America needs the right telos, the right goal, the right orientation-point for meaning. It lacks that right now. So does much of the rest of the world, actually.

My interpretation of what you attempt to represent and communicate here is the importance and the relevancy of an internal turning . . . toward and into that possibility of 'rebirth' and 'renewal' that you define as crucial.

Absolutely. Without the individual person turning to God for rebirth, there will be no rebirth at all...let alone a revival of culture or the production of a new and better culture. Ultimately, social regeneration depends utterly on personal reconstruction.

But I cannot see how any part of this could function in a larger social (or civilizational) context.

Well, as I suggested above, the only way Christianity ever "functioned" in a "civilizational context" was through the organic, chemical effect of a society having many genuine Christians working in it. Nominal "Christianity" only ever produced empires, violence, Inquisitions, tyranny, many lies and deceptions, and ultimately the same sorts of decline and decay to which all strictly-human empires eventually succumb. And the reason why this happened was not the failure of Christianity itself, but rather the failure of that political hierarchy, that culture or those people to behave and think as actual Christians.

But many of the philosophers that interest me do involve themselves in examining the 'liberal rot' and proposing ways to combat it. What other option is there? You could not ever ask anyone not to think in such terms, if indeed they were genuinely concerned about their milieu.

I agree. How could we not look at our present debacle and not say, "Something is terribly wrong here." And any person of goodwill and integrity is bound to ask also, "Is there no way we can prevent the things that are coming upon us all?" So thinking these things over...well, that just seems to me to be right.

The action that you propose, because it is literally impossible to attain, will result in no action that can be taken.

Did you know, before this message, what "action" I am advocating? Look again carefully, and you'll see that it's nothing "impossible" at all. It's totally "possible." Each individual can do his or her part by turning personally to Christ.

But is it probable that people will do it? No, I think it isn't. Still, since it is the only real solution there actually is, how would it help us all to abandon it and move on to more perfidious and unreasonable options? That would still seem to leave us with no hope.

One thing for sure: we aren't going to "save" America or Europe or anywhere else without a personal turning to Christ. The problem is inside us all; and until that problem is at least addressed instead of ignored, we can only expect regime after regime, empire after empire, rising and falling on the tides of human passions. Nothing more. History will continue as it has, in other words, but inevitably gradually worse because more global, more technological and more ambitious, as we're seeing today. The more power we have, the worse history we make, it seems.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:55 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 1:11 pm

What makes you think the universe had to come from somewhere?
The very idea is a contradiction.

Is the universe governed by cause and effect? If you believe it's not, then you can't believe in science at all, since science absolutely depends on it. Do you believe in entropy? Entropy must surely be out best-evidenced set of natural laws. Do you believe in mathematics? Mathematics apply everywhere in the universe, regardless of particulars. That's a powerful source of information and prediction. Do you believe in cosmology? Cosmology shows us that the universe is expanding, and thus is not past-eternal.

This response is not relavant.
Of course things are caused, and there are effects.
Of course there is such a thing as cosmology.
We are witness to expansion.

So if you believe in science and maths, then you are going to have to figure out that the universe could not have an infinite chain of prior causes. Such a chain, by definition of "eternal", has not commencement point. It never starts. So if this universe, linear, entropic, expanding, causal as it is, were also eternal, it would never have existed at all.

Hence, the conclusion is undeniable: whatever exists now had to begin with a Cause that was itself not subject to linear time, causality, entropy or expansion. It had to be an uncaused Cause.

You still have not answered the question.

I think I have. If I have not, perhaps it was just the wrong kind of question. You should perhaps say what you mean by "somewhere." I assumed you meant "some Uncaused-but-Real-Origin." Was I wrong?

If you believe everything has to have a cause then you have to find a cause for the cause.

I didn't say that "everything" has to have a cause.

God doesn't. And we can see that some kind of Uncaused Cause is inescapable. Even if you want to posit a non-personal one, like not-God-but-X, you're going to have to make a case for that X. Because one thing for sure: something uncaused started everything.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:17 pm
Of such, the Bible says this: "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed." (Titus 1:16)

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [/color](Gal. 3:27-28)

More distortion.

You cannot deny yourself, there is no known other self outside of your own direct knowing.
A true christian gives up the name tag, knowing it's just an avatar no one is wearing. We are all born absolutely naked.

No need to worship yourself and make church idols of yourself.

______________


The NONDUAL TEACHINGS of the Gospels of Thomas ...the nondual teachings that Immanuel Can does not believe is true.

(3) Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, ‘See, the kingdom is in the sky,’ then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.”

“When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty.”

(113) His disciples said to him, “When will the kingdom come?” <Jesus said,> “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘here it is’ or ‘there it is.’ Rather, the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.”

(50) Jesus said, “If they say to you, ‘Where did you come from?’ say to them, ‘We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.’ If they say to you, ‘Is it you?’ say, ‘We are its children, we are the elect of the living Father.’ If they ask you, ‘What is the sign of your Father in you?’ say to them, ‘It is movement and repose.'”

(2) Jesus said, “Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.”

(108) Jesus said, “He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.”

(77) Jesus said, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”

Conclusion: YOU ARE GOD.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:22 pm Because one thing for sure: something uncaused started everything.

Well at least you got that right.

Keep it simple, everything else needs to be flushed where it belongs, down the shitter.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:17 pm
Of such, the Bible says this: "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed." (Titus 1:16)

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [/color](Gal. 3:27-28)

More distortion.

It's pronounced, "quotation."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:39 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:17 pm
Of such, the Bible says this: "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed." (Titus 1:16)

"For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [/color](Gal. 3:27-28)

More distortion.

It's pronounced, "quotation."

I understand, so no need to fight with me, just say you agree with yourself, you do not have to make a drama out of this. By projecting that drama as my drama. Do you understand, or do you like to lord over the under stander. ?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:39 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:34 pm

More distortion.

It's pronounced, "quotation."

I understand, so no need to fight with me

No fight. I just find it amusing that even a direct quotation is mistaken for "spin."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:05 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:39 pm
It's pronounced, "quotation."

I understand, so no need to fight with me

No fight. I just find it amusing that even a direct quotation is mistaken for "spin."

The only spin is quoting yourself, which is history.

Every time there is a demand for knowledge, that is historic past tense, appearing to be present tense.

No thing ever lived in present tense, things are only known in past tense, which is a fiction.

No living thing has EVER SEEN a memory, except in this symbolic conception, aka concept, aka the written word.

No word without a screen to project it onto.

Without the mind as projection screen...where do you happen?

People take the word as literal live thing. . .that's the distortion.

That's why the saying goes, you cannot see God. You cannot speak of God...you can only be God.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:30 pm ...our nation is presently deeply involved in a crisis of identity and also one in relation to the question you asked What are we building?

(What sort of a nation is this? What are we working toward? Who are we as a people? What is our purpose? The questions go on ...)

And the crisis in which the US is embroiled -- which will not abate and will progressively get worse -- has implications for the larger *world order*.

Agreed.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:30 pmMy topic of interest is the populism -- manifestations of genuine, popular will -- that turn against an order that has been imposed.

Do you only see a certain element -- liberal or conservative -- as doing this? Or is it simply that liberals are turning against some types of order, while conservatives are turning against other types of order?

Which order is correct for all... and how is it accomplished in a way that satisfies different perspectives? What kind of progress is right for all, especially when some don't see it as progress and don't want it? What kind of conventions are right for all, especially when some see them as restrictive and backward?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:30 pmIt seems to me a sturdy *first principle* of contemporary analysis to state that the nation America seems to have hit a wall. And my sense is that within the nation the myriad individuals are living out an *identity crisis*.

Although I see what you're describing, I'm not so sure that it's not a natural process of evolution. Many people may have an "identity crisis" especially if the validity of their prior beliefs is shifting. It seems natural for humans to dig in deeper, become more rigid in their need to 'be right', and close their eyes/awareness to anything that doesn't support their identity -- as well as identifying someone/something to blame for natural evolution (which can be very messy).

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:30 pmAs the divisions grow more acute, it seems to me that the angst and hysteria similarly increase. In such a situation one has to seek out *islands* of what one hopes are sane identity -- activities and doings which fulfill. It is obvious that people require sane identifications -- wholesome identifications and tasks -- which help them make sense of life.

I can see that there appears to be people who are doing that -- perhaps as part of the clumsy process of re-defining themselves in a mixed-up reality. I can also see people that are NOT suffering from angst and hysteria, who are naturally gravitating to perspectives that make more sense to them.

I see what you see, but I don't define it in the same way, nor come to the same conclusions -- and this pretty much describes what happens amidst a vast range of human perspectives, yes? So how do we agree on a path forward?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:30 pmI think the *core material* or the *essential material* we have to deal with has already been laid down. For that reason I refer (with an intended chauvinism) to *our* Occidental Paideia. The stuff out of which hundreds of generations have done their building and creation work.

Can the "core material" be perceived and administered and maintained in various ways... or is there only one way?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:30 pm In my own case I have needed to limit myself and my focus into specific things, because every widening and ever expanding horizons cannot lead to a focus that enable empowerment.

Clearly, we have seen humans who can think way beyond commonly-perceived horizons -- that's how all of the major advances for our civilization have been made -- so there has been empowerment as a result of that for many. It's just hard and scary to fathom what's possible when we're unfamiliar with it. How can we imagine the speed and view of flying if we've only ever walked on the ground? And how can we understand how natural and possible it becomes after we discover how to do it?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:30 pm

Lacewing wrote:What if we ask: Why do we need to think we 'know' to the extent that we think we know? What is that about? Truly? Is it about building our identity and our purpose? Do we need that to feel validated? Do we need it to feel effective? Are we afraid or unsure how to function more freely in the world without our stories and validations? Maybe our capability has been limited/stunted by some previous generations? Can we imagine much more that humans might be capable of when they don't cling to archaic beliefs?

If you are to answer the questions you ask you will have to make specific decisions.

I do not seem to have the *problem* (?) that you seem to have with the issue of decisiveness, choice, focus and also the exclusion that this must necessarily entail. One has, eventually, to make choices and then live the resuts, and consequences, of those choices.

My only 'issue' is in being excessively limited or blinded due to limited awareness and skewed agendas. There is no issue for me in being decisive, and choosing, and focusing in my life. As we both seem to have expressed interest in: might we discuss/consider what's operating behind the scenes? Or do we think we already know what IS and SHOULD BE operating? If we think we know that, then everything we build on top of that is a product of that -- and how can there be real answers for all, if only from one perspective?

I'm not disagreeing with many of the things you see. We're just looking at them from different perspectives. Maybe that's where our conversation could step back to (if you are interested)... rather than starting further forward amidst conclusions that have been made from one perspective. Do you see what I mean? We could talk about the aspect of perspective -- its validity -- how it affects (expands/limits) everything -- and what might the implications, limitations, and potential of that be?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 5:22 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:55 pm

Is the universe governed by cause and effect? If you believe it's not, then you can't believe in science at all, since science absolutely depends on it. Do you believe in entropy? Entropy must surely be out best-evidenced set of natural laws. Do you believe in mathematics? Mathematics apply everywhere in the universe, regardless of particulars. That's a powerful source of information and prediction. Do you believe in cosmology? Cosmology shows us that the universe is expanding, and thus is not past-eternal.

This response is not relavant.
Of course things are caused, and there are effects.
Of course there is such a thing as cosmology.
We are witness to expansion.

So if you believe in science and maths, then you are going to have to figure out that the universe could not have an infinite chain of prior causes. Such a chain, by definition of "eternal", has not commencement point. It never starts. So if this universe, linear, entropic, expanding, causal as it is, were also eternal, it would never have existed at all.

Hence, the conclusion is undeniable: whatever exists now had to begin with a Cause that was itself not subject to linear time, causality, entropy or expansion. It had to be an uncaused Cause.

You still have not answered the question.

I think I have. If I have not, perhaps it was just the wrong kind of question. You should perhaps say what you mean by "somewhere." I assumed you meant "some Uncaused-but-Real-Origin." Was I wrong?

If you believe everything has to have a cause then you have to find a cause for the cause.

I didn't say that "everything" has to have a cause.

God doesn't. And we can see that some kind of Uncaused Cause is inescapable. Even if you want to posit a non-personal one, like not-God-but-X, you're going to have to make a case for that X. Because one thing for sure: something uncaused started everything.

Rubbish.
Special case exceptions and circular reasoning.
Run along now. Thanks for playing

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:38 pm Special case exceptions and circular reasoning.

None of the above. However, whole numbers and basic integers are hard for some people.

It's quite fine: I'm quite content to see you go. Bye.