Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

Rest assured, IC will ignore anything that he would find inconvenient to acknowledge.

And who can blame him when undisciplined atheists insists on diversions where there is any fuzzy logic.

thedoc wrote: In this case a vacuum does not refer to the usual concept of a vacuum, but to "nothing" As in a complete emptiness,

Wow! Just imagine the suction on that.

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote: In this case a vacuum does not refer to the usual concept of a vacuum, but to "nothing" As in a complete emptiness,

Wow! Just imagine the suction on that.

It is not suction though is it - its air pressure pushing in where the internal matter has been removed (lowering the internal pressure). (it does matter Harbal)

attofishpi wrote: It is not suction though is it - its air pressure pushing in where the internal matter has been removed (lowering the internal pressure). (it does matter Harbal)

Yes but we non pedants just call it suction.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's still your problem, always will be. You are just too blinkered to see it.
You cannot end a problem with a phrase.

Do you have anything actually relevant to say? No? Okay. Bye.

I shall not bother hereafter.

That's one problem ended.

Translation; bury your head in the sand, and nothing appears problematic.

Harbal wrote:

attofishpi wrote: It is not suction though is it - its air pressure pushing in where the internal matter has been removed (lowering the internal pressure). (it does matter Harbal)

Yes but we non pedants just call it suction.

Actually you were right in the first instance by dick definition.

attofishpi wrote:I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

No fear there as apparently I'm going to burn in eternal hell-fire for speaking ill of his 'God' and he doesn't want to be guilty of association. That and that wild horses couldn't stop him rehashing an argument that has been had and done in philosophy over two hundred years ago.

Arising_uk wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I hope IC can just ignore you for the time being so we can get on with stages 2 and 3..

No fear there as apparently I'm going to burn in eternal hell-fire for speaking ill of his 'God' and he doesn't want to be guilty of association. That and that wild horses couldn't stop him rehashing an argument that has been had and done in philosophy over two hundred years ago.

Na shit. Are you telling me its not the next Prometheus movie, but some black and white flick and not even with sound.

attofishpi wrote:Na shit. Are you telling me its not the next Prometheus movie, but some black and white flick and not even with sound.

Nope, I'm telling you that he is saying nothing that hasn't already been said and discussed in philosophy already but this time around he's not open to even discussing the critiques.

Harbal wrote: You must have a reason for asking me about these various varieties of Universe but I can't imagine what it is. Are you confusing me with someone else? Would you mind expatiating?

Oh, I'm sorry...I assumed you were asking out of knowledge or interest. I imagined you might have heard of these things, and maybe even thought about them. But no?

Mea culpa.

thedoc wrote:The universe itself is seen as uncaused.

Well, just like it's possible to write the phrase "infinite regress of causes," but not possible to have one, or just as its possible to write the word "unicorn," and yet for none to exist, it's possible to write the concept "self-causing universe"...but given what science requires in order to speak coherently about something, what is the actual coherence or likelihood of such an idea existing in reality?

We would need to estimate that in order to know whether or not those words represented any object worthy of our trust or account of history worthy of credence. But I wonder, how does one estimate that?

What do you think?

Immanuel Can wrote: Oh, I'm sorry...

That's okay.

I assumed you were asking out of knowledge or interest.

No, I'm afraid not.

I imagined you might have heard of these things, and maybe even thought about them.

No and no.

But no?

Yes, that's what I just said: no.

Me a culpa.

Me too.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:The universe itself is seen as uncaused.

Well, just like it's possible to write the phrase "infinite regress of causes," but not possible to have one, or just as its possible to write the word "unicorn," and yet for none to exist, it's possible to write the concept "self-causing universe"...but given what science requires in order to speak coherently about something, what is the actual coherence or likelihood of such an idea existing in reality?

We would need to estimate that in order to know whether or not those words represented any object worthy of our trust or account of history worthy of credence. But I wonder, how does one estimate that?

What do you think?

He won't know that until you tell him.

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.

If anyone who agrees that this argument is sound and/or valid, then could they please show me how it is?

Premise: If such a chain (of casual links) were infinite, then there would be no initial event to precipitate the rest of the chain.

Premise: That indispensable event (the initial event) would never have itself taken place.

Premise: for when we went looking for it we'd simply be lost in the infinite regresses of the causal sequence.

Premise: nothing would ever exist

Conclusion: An infinite regresses of causal relations cannot exist.

To Me,
The first premise is obvious, for example IF some kind of chain linked together was infinite, then there would be no initial event, no beginning, nor no statrt. So I can agree with that.

But I wonder how in the second premise we have already arrived at the conclusion? How did we already arrive at there being an absolutely necessary event, being the first or initial event, link, cause, or effect here?

Why in the third premise are we looking for an initial event? Was there a presumed or presupposed initial event before we went looking? Also I, for one, certainly do not get lost looking along the infinite regress of causal sequences. I will either see an infinite regress or will come to and see an initial event. I have yet to come to and see an initial event, but I can promise you what I have found and seen is an infinite regression of events, with the result being obvious.

If, and when, you get lost looking for an infinite regression of events, then how do you arrive at the conclusion that nothing would ever exist? May I suggest instead of looking FOR an infinite regression of events and instead look ALONG a regress of events, and then report back to us with your findings.

To Me it looks plainly obvious that you are only looking for and thus only seeing what suits in with, fits, and supports what you previously believe is true.

To summarize: YOU have established what YOU can by "logic" and "maths" see: namely, that an infinite regress of causal relations could not exist, which is all well and good. But what you have established does NOT mean it is factual nor true.

By the way what you have really established here is more proof and evidence that beliefs, themselves, can decieve a person into seeing and finding anything that they want to see and find. If you go looking for some thing in particular, then you can find it. It just depends on how determined you are, and with a belief as strong as the one you have, then that will drive you to look for absolutely any thing to support it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:The universe itself is seen as uncaused.

Well, just like it's possible to write the phrase "infinite regress of causes," but not possible to have one, or just as its possible to write the word "unicorn," and yet for none to exist, it's possible to write the concept "self-causing universe"...but given what science requires in order to speak coherently about something, what is the actual coherence or likelihood of such an idea existing in reality?

We would need to estimate that in order to know whether or not those words represented any object worthy of our trust or account of history worthy of credence. But I wonder, how does one estimate that?

What do you think?

Usually scientists and the average person will believe that the universe will follow the principles that humans accept and understand, but that is not necessarily true. That the universe is uncaused does not fit with the everyday experience of humans, but there is really no reason that the universe will always fit with human expectations. The universe being uncaused would be outside normal human expectations, but that is not a limiting factor.