Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

ken wrote:

thedoc wrote: Since it seems that you have already made your mind up, why are you reading this thread?

Why does it seem to you that I have already arrived at a conclusion? What do you presume that conclusion to be?

I am reading this thread to learn how to communicate better with people who have strongly held beliefs and who are not open to evidence and proof.

Why are you reading this thread?

In previous posts you have clearly stated your position that the Universe is infinite in extent and duration, and you have stated that you do not believe that God exists. If you don't actually believe these things, why did you post them?

I have NEVER clearly stated either of things. In fact I have clearly stated the opposite. I really wish human beings would hear and read the actual words that I say and write.

Remember it is you who has beliefs, not I. And, so that it becomes more known and understood, it is those beliefs that is stopping you from hearing and seeing what it is that I am actually saying and writing.

ken wrote: I have NEVER clearly stated either of things. In fact I have clearly stated the opposite.

Thankyou, I understand now, you're not here for a civil discussion, you're here for a fight, sorry but you will have to look elsewhere for that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote: You said you do not decieve and people of your "kind' have no such incentive,

Not quite my wording,

What do you mean,"Not quite your wording?" It was exactly your wording. You wrote,

Immanuel Can wrote:I said I don't, and people of my kind have no such incentive, and Locke made the same case.

That was in relation to deceiving. So what I said stands. All religious human beings, (you know the ones, those ones of your "kind"), have all been deceiving each other, although unintentionally. And, whilst you all maintain your beliefs you all will keep deceiving each other, and thus yourselves.

Immanuel Can wrote: but essentially, I'm trying to tell what I know the truth to be; and people like me have no incentive to use deception, for it is counterproductive to their spiritual aims and defeats their purposes right at the start if they resort to it. And John Locke said exactly the same thing.

Is what you believe true, right and correct because it is true, right and correct or just because some person with name john locke said so?

You can not see the deception because it is within your belief. The actual belief itself covers up the deception, and prevents one from seeing the actual truth.

Immanuel Can wrote:

so that infers religious people do not deceive.

No, it implies nothing of the kind, once you understand I could not care less about defending "religious" people. The Hindus, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Zoroastrians, the Animists, Roman Catholics and the Mormons, and even the Atheists...all will have to defend themselves if they want to. I have no stake and no interest in doing so. If they have able advocates, I welcome their input. If they do not, I cannot do their job for them.

Why do you always go off topic? You said christian people have no incentive to deceive. Christian people are religious people. Either you are saying all religious people have no incentive to deceive or only all the christian people have no incentive to deceive.

You said you do not deceive and people of your "kind" have no incentive to deceive? What "kind" of person are you?

Immanuel Can wrote:

I have also already explained how you have been decieved all your life by religious people.

Yeah, see, you've never met me, so this isn't exactly the most incisive comment anyone has ever made...

What do you mean I have not met you? Are we not talking together? If we are, then I have obviously met you. And from those meetings that I have had with you, and from overhearing what you have been saying to others, it is plainly obvious that you have been decieved all your life, and now you are carrying on that tradition of deception to others.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I have already explained how your argument does not add up.

Then for you, the argument is done. Nothing more can be said.

Obviously nothing more can be said from your part because you are unable to refute what I have said in relation to your argument being invalid and unsound.

thedoc wrote: I am reading this thread to read IC's presentation of the Cosmological Argument.

Then for your sake, I'll move forward again.

To summarize: we have established what we can by logic and maths: namely, that infinite regresses of causal relations cannot exist. If such a chain were infinite, then there would be no initial event to precipitate the rest of the chain. That indispensable event would never have itself taken place; for when we went looking for it we'd simply be lost in the infinite regresses of the causal sequence, and nothing would ever exist.

Meanwhile, entropy gives us another problem, because it's causal, empirically measurable and readily observable. We already know where science tells us it's eventually taking us: to the universal and final condition known as "heat death," with the universe in an eternal condition of equal distribution of mass and energy, with no possibility of any future reactions between any particles. And if we paired this verifiable, measurable observation with the hypothesis that the universe is already infinitely old, then it would dictate that the universe would right now be in heat death, and that it would have already been so for an infinite period of time.

But this is clearly not so, as we can clearly observe. The universe does exist, and is not in a state of heat death. So again, we have to be convinced that the universe must have had an initial causal event, at some time in the recent past -- "recent" that is, on the cosmic scale, not as we mere mortals reckon "recent."

In other words, we now know for certain the universe must have had an uncaused cause. That is, whatever commenced the chain of causality cannot itself be a member of the chain, because then it would need a prior cause, and infinite regress would ensue -- but we've already established that an infinite regressive chain of causes has no starting point, and so cannot come about. So we have to be looking for an uncaused cause of some kind.

And it doesn't matter a jot if one is a Theist or a Materialist Atheist. If we can do the logic here, then we both know there's just no other option. So we can continue to argue about what the precise nature or identity of that uncaused cause might be, but we cannot any longer argue about its necessity: we both know that there has to have been an uncaused cause of some kind.

Stage 2 of the argument is simply this: what are the candidates for an uncaused cause of the universe? We're past wondering if that's what we need; we now know we do. We just have to start thinking about what an uncaused cause would look like.

We discuss that, then look to stage 3.

Immanuel Can wrote: what are the candidates for an uncaused cause of the universe? We're past wondering if that's what we need; we now know we do. We just have to start thinking about what an uncaused cause would look like.

Well if it doesn't end up looking like God I'll eat my hat, even though I would have to go and buy one especially for the occasion.

thedoc wrote:

ken wrote: I have NEVER clearly stated either of things. In fact I have clearly stated the opposite.

Thankyou, I understand now, you're not here for a civil discussion, you're here for a fight, sorry but you will have to look elsewhere for that.

What do you mean I am here for a fight?

When have I ever not wanted a peacefull discussion.

You alleged I clearly said some things. I totally dispute this. If what you said was true, then you could clearly go back and copy and paste. Your response here, however, is more than enough proof of what is actually taking place here.

That is immanuel can attempted to make an argument, which I have proven is invalid, unsound, and illogical. You and immanuel can do not like that. But instead of trying to show how my proof is wrong you two just continually try to dismiss what I say.

While you are outright dismissing what I say you are not even reading the words that I have actually been writing. If either of you had read what I write, then you would have noticed that I said I can prove with evidence HOW an uncause cause, sometimes known as God, creates ALL things. But you two are so blinded by your distorted beliefs that you actually see, think and believe, I am saying the opposite.

Yours and immanuel can's views here of what you think I am writing is absolutely brlliant prove and evidence of just how powerful and deceiving beliefs van actually be. Future generations will be very grateful for your unintentional assistance here.

If you care to go back you will clearly see what I actually have clearly stated.

Harbal wrote: Well if it doesn't end up looking like God I'll eat my hat, even though I would have to go and buy one especially for the occasion.

That's actually quite astute. I believe it will. But it would be too easy a win for me to jump to that without us (as my old maths teacher loved to put it) "showing our work." So at this moment, we aren't there, and meanwhile I'm perfectly happy to entertain all options for an uncaused cause that anyone can advance.

May I recommend something in a fedora? Bowlers can be a bit chewy.

Immanuel Can wrote: I'm perfectly happy to entertain all options for an uncaused cause that anyone can advance.

My position on that is: Don't know, don't care.

May I recommend something in a fedora? Bowlers can be a bit chewy.

Anything other than a flat cap would seem pretentious, given my social and geographical position, not that I'm expecting it to be on the menu.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote: I am reading this thread to read IC's presentation of the Cosmological Argument.

Then for your sake, I'll move forward again.

To summarize: we have established what we can by logic and maths: namely, that infinite regresses of causal relations cannot exist. If such a chain were infinite, then there would be no initial event to precipitate the rest of the chain. That indispensable event would never have itself taken place; for when we went looking for it we'd simply be lost in the infinite regresses of the causal sequence, and nothing would ever exist.

Meanwhile, entropy gives us another problem, because it's causal, empirically measurable and readily observable. We already know where science tells us it's eventually taking us: to the universal and final condition known as "heat death," with the universe in an eternal condition of equal distribution of mass and energy, with no possibility of any future reactions between any particles. And if we paired this verifiable, measurable observation with the hypothesis that the universe is already infinitely old, then it would dictate that the universe would right now be in heat death, and that it would have already been so for an infinite period of time.

But this is clearly not so, as we can clearly observe. The universe does exist, and is not in a state of heat death. So again, we have to be convinced that the universe must have had an initial causal event, at some time in the recent past -- "recent" that is, on the cosmic scale, not as we mere mortals reckon "recent."

In other words, we now know for certain the universe must have had an uncaused cause. That is, whatever commenced the chain of causality cannot itself be a member of the chain, because then it would need a prior cause, and infinite regress would ensue -- but we've already established that an infinite regressive chain of causes has no starting point, and so cannot come about. So we have to be looking for an uncaused cause of some kind.

And it doesn't matter a jot if one is a Theist or a Materialist Atheist. If we can do the logic here, then we both know there's just no other option. So we can continue to argue about what the precise nature or identity of that uncaused cause might be, but we cannot any longer argue about its necessity: we both know that there has to have been an uncaused cause of some kind.

Stage 2 of the argument is simply this: what are the candidates for an uncaused cause of the universe? We're past wondering if that's what we need; we now know we do. We just have to start thinking about what an uncaused cause would look like.

We discuss that, then look to stage 3.

How can stage 2 of YOUR argument involve asking us a question? I do not know what your argument is going to be so I do not have a clue what YOUR uncaused cause is going to look like.

Put forward stage 2 of your argument so that we can take a look at it. After that then we can move on to stage 3 of your argument.

Immanuel Can wrote: Stage 2 of the argument is simply this: what are the candidates for an uncaused cause of the universe? We're past wondering if that's what we need; we now know we do. We just have to start thinking about what an uncaused cause would look like.

We discuss that, then look to stage 3.

It would seem that there are several possibilities, it has been suggested that the Universe might have just started by itself, vacuum genesis is one of those candidates. Another possibility is that God (of some sort) started it. Some might claim that God needed to have a cause, but that is just limiting God to man's limits and also claiming that God exists in time as man does. There is no reason to believe that God exists within mans limits or that time passes the same for God as it does for man, or even that time passes for God. One suggestion is that this universe is just one of a cycle, but that leads to an infinite regression and that has been ruled out, or it just moves the uncaused cause back to the first universe that existed, and we are still looking for the answer. I believe there are several versions of vacuum genesis but they all come down to the same answer in the end.

ken wrote: If either of you had read what I write, then you would have noticed that I said I can prove with evidence HOW an uncause cause, sometimes known as God, creates ALL things.

If you have such proof than present it, don't just say that you have it, that is an empty claim without the actual proof.

ken wrote:How can stage 2 of YOUR argument involve asking us a question?

Because I would like to know what other people think.

I do not know what your argument is going to be so I do not have a clue what YOUR uncaused cause is going to look like.

You don't even really believe in stage 1. You only granted it as a gesture, but you've made it very explicit you don't actually believe it. So I can't do anything for you, anymore than one can build a house without a foundation.

Can't help you. Sorry.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:How can stage 2 of YOUR argument involve asking us a question?

Because I would like to know what other people think.

I do not know what your argument is going to be so I do not have a clue what YOUR uncaused cause is going to look like.

You don't even really believe in stage 1. You only granted it as a gesture, but you've made it very explicit you don't actually believe it. So I can't do anything for you, anymore than one can build a house without a foundation.

Can't help you. Sorry.

But you can build an airplane that will fly.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote: I am reading this thread to read IC's presentation of the Cosmological Argument.

Then for your sake, I'll move forward again.

To summarize: we have established what we can by logic and maths: namely, that infinite regresses of causal relations cannot exist. If such a chain were infinite, then there would be no initial event to precipitate the rest of the chain. That indispensable event would never have itself taken place; for when we went looking for it we'd simply be lost in the infinite regresses of the causal sequence, and nothing would ever exist.

Meanwhile, entropy gives us another problem, because it's causal, empirically measurable and readily observable. We already know where science tells us it's eventually taking us: to the universal and final condition known as "heat death," with the universe in an eternal condition of equal distribution of mass and energy, with no possibility of any future reactions between any particles. And if we paired this verifiable, measurable observation with the hypothesis that the universe is already infinitely old, then it would dictate that the universe would right now be in heat death, and that it would have already been so for an infinite period of time.

But this is clearly not so, as we can clearly observe. The universe does exist, and is not in a state of heat death. So again, we have to be convinced that the universe must have had an initial causal event, at some time in the recent past -- "recent" that is, on the cosmic scale, not as we mere mortals reckon "recent."

In other words, we now know for certain the universe must have had an uncaused cause. That is, whatever commenced the chain of causality cannot itself be a member of the chain, because then it would need a prior cause, and infinite regress would ensue -- but we've already established that an infinite regressive chain of causes has no starting point, and so cannot come about. So we have to be looking for an uncaused cause of some kind.

And it doesn't matter a jot if one is a Theist or a Materialist Atheist. If we can do the logic here, then we both know there's just no other option. So we can continue to argue about what the precise nature or identity of that uncaused cause might be, but we cannot any longer argue about its necessity: we both know that there has to have been an uncaused cause of some kind.

Stage 2 of the argument is simply this: what are the candidates for an uncaused cause of the universe? We're past wondering if that's what we need; we now know we do. We just have to start thinking about what an uncaused cause would look like.

We discuss that, then look to stage 3.

An excellent post. Looking forward to the next stage...the other day when i was posing in this thread i did question what the primordial event could be...chaos, dark energy\matter things that i admittedly have no real understanding of.

Immanuel Can wrote:To summarize: we have established what we can by logic and maths: namely, that infinite regresses of causal relations cannot exist. If such a chain were infinite, then there would be no initial event to precipitate the rest of the chain. That indispensable event would never have itself taken place; for when we went looking for it we'd simply be lost in the infinite regresses of the causal sequence, and nothing would ever exist. ...

Er!? No, IC has 'established' this in his own mind because he already believes in his 'God' but for those interested in Philosophy you can read Hume(atheist), Kant(theist) and Russell(atheist) for why this is not convincing logically and wtf upon this forum for why mathematically he's talking nonsense about Mathematics and uwot for why he's talking nonsense about Physics.

Meanwhile, entropy gives us another problem, because it's causal, empirically measurable and readily observable. We already know where science tells us it's eventually taking us: to the universal and final condition known as "heat death," with the universe in an eternal condition of equal distribution of mass and energy, with no possibility of any future reactions between any particles. And if we paired this verifiable, measurable observation with the hypothesis that the universe is already infinitely old, then it would dictate that the universe would right now be in heat death, and that it would have already been so for an infinite period of time.

Or we could assume, as he is doing with the idea that this is the 'Universe', and think that maybe it's a 'galaxy universe' that we live in, takes your pick according to your beliefs, as he does with his religious one. He appears to ignore that Aristotle is dead.

But this is clearly not so, as we can clearly observe. The universe does exist, and is not in a state of heat death. So again, we have to be convinced that the universe must have had an initial causal event, at some time in the recent past -- "recent" that is, on the cosmic scale, not as we mere mortals reckon "recent." ...

See above, he's just picking and choosing what suits him from Physics and is of the mistaken belief that logical metaphysics works, whereas in Philosophy we long ago got disabused of this notion by the natural philosophers. You could also see Hume and Russell about why the idea of causation is not enough of a ground for what he wants to claim for the existence of his 'uncaused cause'(his 'God'). Even more ironically is that if his 'God' can interact with this world(something I presume he wishes) then all Physics goes out of the window.

In other words, we now know for certain the universe must have had an uncaused cause. That is, whatever commenced the chain of causality cannot itself be a member of the chain, because then it would need a prior cause, and infinite regress would ensue -- but we've already established that an infinite regressive chain of causes has no starting point, and so cannot come about. So we have to be looking for an uncaused cause of some kind. ...

And yet he refuses to consider that his 'uncaused cause'(see Hume and Russell) could just well be the universe?

And it doesn't matter a jot if one is a Theist or a Materialist Atheist. If we can do the logic here, then we both know there's just no other option. So we can continue to argue about what the precise nature or identity of that uncaused cause might be, but we cannot any longer argue about its necessity: we both know that there has to have been an uncaused cause of some kind.

Which logically could just be the universe itself with no need of a 'God' to predate it?

There is also the issue that just because we note that there is cause within the universe it's an assumption that the universe also has to have one.

Stage 2 of the argument is simply this: what are the candidates for an uncaused cause of the universe? We're past wondering if that's what we need; we now know we do. We just have to start thinking about what an uncaused cause would look like.

Really!? Pray tell how one is to do such a thing as one of the greatest philosophers, Kant(theist), couldn't do it and in fact claimed this logically impossible so what make him think he can and just titling oneself as such is not the biscuit.

We discuss that, then look to stage 3.

Look forward to it. Let's hope it's not as poor as this effort.