For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Then the only attribute we're debating at the moment is "First Cause." We'll talk about the rest later, when they come up naturally.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:21 pm Stop being absurd. The first thing to do is define the thing one it talking about, and that means describing its attributes.
No, God by your account IS the first cause, therefore define it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:43 pmThen the only attribute we're debating at the moment is "First Cause." We'll talk about the rest later, when they come up naturally.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:21 pm Stop being absurd. The first thing to do is define the thing one it talking about, and that means describing its attributes.
The uncaused cause. The prerequisite to everything. The eternal.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:45 pm No, God by your account IS the first cause, therefore define it.
1. The uncaused cause:- An incomprehensible statement.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:57 pmThe uncaused cause. The prerequisite to everything. The eternal.attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:45 pm No, God by your account IS the first cause, therefore define it.
Shouldn't be.
add "...to exist." Yes.2. The prerequisite to everything:- Something that was required to cause all else.
Yes. and in this case, we're particularly concerned with the "no beginning" part.3. The eternal:- An attribute of something that has no ending and no beginning.
We are not forced to do anything at allImmanuel Can wrote:
There is just no adequate explanation for the exact cause of the BB. What we do know though is that the BB had to
have a cause and that cause had to have a cause and that cause...and so on but not infinitely or the chain never starts
Somewhere we are forced to find a First Cause
How can a cause be uncaused ? By defining something as a cause it logically followsImmanuel Can wrote:
The uncaused cause
Well atto, they key thing is the "(that can be observed by all)". If you can gather a bunch of anomalies that everyone agrees on, yer laughing. You can all start trying to work out what it all means. The chances of everyone reaching the same solution are somewhere between nil and not much. In practise though, there would still be some people convinced that the anomalies are equipment failures who would keep trying to find the cock up until their funding ran out. Mind you, if climate change denial is your game, the oceans will boil away before that happens.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:42 pmYou may be able to help me here with my ignorance. If I have a 'bunch' of what I see as anomalies (that can be observed by all) beyond the possibility of natural causality, in other words, something that must be at the most fundamental point of reality where only these anomalies could have formed via an entity that has the ability to control reality at its most fundamental scale - that which constructs reality - would this be called 'evidence' of some sort of probability - or wot uwot!?
It's called 'life' mate.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:42 pmWhat would be the closest term scientifically of philosophically?
..or is there no such duck?
Look! You are doing it again. Despite me telling you that I don't care in which sense you are using the word 'exists'.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:13 pmNo, I'm not "preventing" you doing it. I'm just saying it's silly. And the reason is that God, by definition, even as only a concept, transcends the universe and does not "exist" in the contingent, material sense it does, but in a profounder sense, as necessary and timeless.
Sorry -- "logically compelled." Of course you're not physically "forced."surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:06 amWe are not forced to do anything at allSomewhere we are forced to find a First Cause
Absolutely there is. Mathematically, an infinite regress of causes is absolutely impossible. That's one heck of an obvious reason to favour some kind of First Cause explanation. In fact, you won't find a better one.There is no scientific reason whatsoever to favour a finite first cause over infinite regression
A thing that causes other things to happen, but which itself is not caused by something prior to it. It's actually a very straightforward concept to grasp.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:13 amHow can a cause be uncaused ?Immanuel Can wrote:
The uncaused cause
A "cause," by definition, is something that came before other things, not after. If "something else preceded it," that makes the thing in question an effect, not a cause.By defining something as a cause it logically follows
that something else must have preceded it
Necessary existence, self-existence.
Contingent existence, dependent existence.The universe exists in another sense.
You should. That's the source of the logical confusion you're having right now. Once you grasp it, you'll figure out why you've been drawn to an illogical conclusion. And until you do, you probably won't.I don't care about their differences...
The buck stops at the Self. All arises and passes within Self (not the body/mind ego).Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:27 pmNecessary existence, self-existence.
Contingent existence, dependent existence.The universe exists in another sense.
You should. That's the source of the logical confusion you're having right now. Once you grasp it, you'll figure out why you've been drawn to an illogical conclusion. And until you do, you probably won't.I don't care about their differences...
Who do you mean by "they," Belinda? I think I might agree with you, especially in view of the word "implicitly," but I can't quite tell what your sentence means, as you've put it.