Philosophy Now Forum

Actually, the term, "first cause", doesn't mean much without an explanation of what a first cause is.

That's like sayin' the term, gravity, doesn't mean much without an explanation of what gravity is.

Please, tell me what gravity is or I shall refuse to believe in it.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:12 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:03 pm

You have completely misquoted me as if I am u and vice versa above - it's a bit of a mess. Do you want to edit correct it so that I know what to address and I am not quoted as talking nonsense (U)?

In fact, I used the quote feature PN has. And I simply asked you if what you seemed to say was what you intended to say. If you call your own words “misquoted,” I can only suppose that you didn’t manage to say what you intended to say. In which case, feel free to reword.

If there is anything worse than an idiot, it is an arrogant idiot. LOOK AT THE PRIOR POST YOU MADE ADDRESSING ME - YOU QUOTED ME - AS YOUR WORDS - AND YOUR WORDS AS MY WORDS - are you blind? --- A total misquote FFS.

Ah, I see what has your panties in a bunch. It’s very simple, really: I only neglected to delete the headers in correct order, with the result that the ascriptions reversed. Still, there was no “misquotation,” only an inadvertent “misascription,” which you could have easily recognized, I suppose.

Still, I heartily apologize for the misascription. But the quotation was direct, and as such, contained no effort to mislead.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:20 pm

Actually, the term, "first cause", doesn't mean much without an explanation of what a first cause is.

That's like sayin' the term, gravity, doesn't mean much without an explanation of what gravity is.

I have direct experience of gravity, henry, but first causes are something I've never encountered before.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 2:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:36 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 5:54 amThe 1. & 2. are very different I thought that would be obvious.

You on point 1. has a fully capable God intelligence that speaks words to form the universe. This theory of yours begs the question, what formed God and this still fails with an infinite regression, unless it formed from chaos.

Actuallly, it does not “beg” that question. If you understand Theism, you would know that no Theist supposes God is a created being.

Don't dictate to me what mere theists believe.

I’m informing you. There’s no “dictating.” If you’re not inclined to be informed, remain misinformed.

You state that the universe is EVERYTHING all encompassing, nothing exists outside of the "uni"verse and that the universe is not eternal.

No, what I “state” is that EVERYTHING MATERIAL is included in the word “universe.” I don’t add that there’s nothing that’s both real and not composed of materials. And it’s fairly easy to demonstrate the truth of that claim: things like rationality, mind, emotions, identity, self, consciousness, morality, logic and mathematics are, in their essence, immaterial realities upon which all of us rely every day.

The “universe” is the totality of material reality. It’s not the only reality there is.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:My point 2. is suggesting God gradually formed intelligence from the chaotic soup of near maximum entropy of energy.

So you believe in a created “god”?

Then you have two problems: one is that whatever you’re believing in is not, by definition,

Who gets to define GOD?

Everybody does. Some define HIm correctly, as He is, and some define Him partially, as some aspects of HIm are, and God HImself defines His totality. But everybody worships something: and for each person, that’s the functional definition of his/her “god.” So we all “define God.” And could we not, we could not be having this debate at all: for even to say “God is the undefinable” is to impose a personal definition on God.

your version of God is implausible,

Apparently, you have no idea what that is. You suppose it’s anthropomorphic and created. So whatever you’re trying to criticize, you’re just shooting very wide of the target.

Immanuel Can wrote:“God,” but some “caused” being, a lesser being with a prior cause:

A lesser being than what? The being that you assumed was God, a being beyond any scientific plausibility!!?

So you believe that God should be a subject of human science, and if He refused to confine himself to your graduated cylinder or Vernier callipers, then you won’t allow Him to exist? That seems more than a little presumptuous, but it does explain why you’d have to think that things like self, morality, consciousness, etc. would also have to be nothing but materials — even though human science struggles with them, too…

Immanuel Can wrote:..but if that’s the case, then the second problem follows it, namely, that you now would have to answer what caused your god to exist, which you say is “chaos.”

No I said it formed FROM chaos,

Oh. So now you want us to believe that a completely random, immaterial and disorganized state, chaos, somehow suddenly generated God HImself, who then created the universe?

And they say that religiousness requires faith. They’ve got nothing on the faith it takes to believe that.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:44 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:20 pm

Actually, the term, "first cause", doesn't mean much without an explanation of what a first cause is.

That's like sayin' the term, gravity, doesn't mean much without an explanation of what gravity is.

I have direct experience of gravity, henry, but first causes are something I've never encountered before.

Someone blind from birth has never encountered red. I can understand how such a person could doubt the existence of red, but their doubt has no bearing on red's existence.

Anyway: the question stands...

Please, tell me what gravity is or I shall refuse to believe in it.

Better still: explain red so a blind man can understand.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:05 pm Actually, the term, "first cause", doesn't mean much without an explanation of what a first cause is. Obviously, nothing causes a first cause, but does anything precede it, or is it the first thing to be? And if nothing did come before the first cause, does that mean it has always existed, or did it start to exist at some point without anything having come before it?

I see you’re struggling with the words “first” and “cause.” First means there is none prior, and first cause means that nothing caused that first Entity. So the ensuing questions fail to make any reference to the proposed concept.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:53 pm

Anyway: the question stands...

Please, tell me what gravity is or I shall refuse to believe in it.

I never asked you to believe in gravity, henry, so convincing you it exists isn't my responsibility.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:55 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:05 pm Actually, the term, "first cause", doesn't mean much without an explanation of what a first cause is. Obviously, nothing causes a first cause, but does anything precede it, or is it the first thing to be? And if nothing did come before the first cause, does that mean it has always existed, or did it start to exist at some point without anything having come before it?

First means there is none prior,

But the term is fist cause, which only eliminates other causes from coming before. I doesn't eliminate things that are not causes.

and first cause means that nothing caused that first Entity.

Does that mean it came into existence without being caused, or that it didn't come into existence, because it was always there?

U don't actually experience a thing called 'gravity'. What u experience is the effects (motion of objects) of a process we can only describe as a tendency for objects to attract (pull) other objects toward them. It's a mysterious 'force', but only a material force nonetheless, only a physical activity.

So without reading the thread, I'm guessing Amos Moses is challenging one Harbal on the basis that: if gravity can only be inferred and not experienced, first causes, and therefore 'god', can also be inferred.

No... the circumstances are different. There is nothing in the universe that demands a meaning or purpose for its existence by an intelligent design argument in order to be described and made sense of (i didn't say 'explained' to avoid an induction fallacy; metaphysical explanations like 'god did it' do not belong in the scienziz).

However, u can produce intelligent design hypotheses if u want, but u don't have to to to make sense of anything.

Gravity, on the other hand, as mysterious as it may be, is proven through its direct observable effects.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:03 pmI never asked you to believe in gravity, henry, so convincing you it exists isn't my responsibility.

True, but not the point.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:55 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:05 pm Actually, the term, "first cause", doesn't mean much without an explanation of what a first cause is. Obviously, nothing causes a first cause, but does anything precede it, or is it the first thing to be? And if nothing did come before the first cause, does that mean it has always existed, or did it start to exist at some point without anything having come before it?

First means there is none prior,

But the term is fist cause, which only eliminates other causes from coming before. I doesn't eliminate things that are not causes.

Well, that’s not technically correct, but let’s suppose it is. Understood rightly, “First Cause” must be taken in the Biblical sense of “I AM,” meaning, “the sole self-existent Entity, and ultimate cause of everything,” but let’s forget that for a minute.

If those alleged prior “things” are not causally related to the existence of God or the universe, then their existence would be immaterial to the matter of why other things exist. They’re not “causes,” you say: so they also aren’t the explanation of anything.

and first cause means that nothing caused that first Entity.

Does that mean it came into existence without being caused, or that it didn't come into existence, because it was always there?

It can only mean the second. The first suggestion doesn’t even make sense.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:26 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:03 pmI never asked you to believe in gravity, henry, so convincing you it exists isn't my responsibility.

True, but not the point.

It is very much the point, henry. If I posted assertions about gravity, it would be reasonable to ask me to explain. Likewise, when someone makes claims about "first causes", it is perfectly legitimate to ask questions of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:47 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:14 pm
Does that mean it came into existence without being caused, or that it didn't come into existence, because it was always there?

It can only mean the second. The first suggestion doesn’t even make sense.

Okay, so it is possible for something to have always existed, then?

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 4:56 pmIt is very much the point, henry.

Not mine.

Wahchout, IC. Harbal is setting up an old atheist trick where if he can get u to admit that something can exist that has always existed and didn't have a cause, he can then aks u why the universe, tripleverse, multiverse or whatever u wanna call it, can't be just such a thing that can exist forever without having a cause.