Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:56 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:27 pm If first cause denotes something intentional as if its effect were innately predetermined, then there is no such thing as first cause. Nothing in physics allows for it or includes it. It is merely our shorthand for tracking or joining one concept to another.

As Bertrand Russell wrote already in 1912...

The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.” Causal laws, he claimed, “tend to be replaced by quite different laws as soon as a science is successful.”

The word "cause" often suggests the intentional act of a conscious agent. If you murder someone, you "cause" his death (although, of course, there are hundreds of other necessary conditions). Similarly, "cause" can mean a handle we can manipulate. Germs "cause" disease because we can avoid or kill them -- but we know that some people exposed to germs never sicken, while others do. For experimental scientists, the variable is the "cause", although other conditions may be necessary for the effect.

So "first cause" suggests the intentional act of a conscious agent, simply because that is how we use the word "cause". Otherwise, "first coincidence" would be more appropriate.

All that is true as I read it. But within nature itself, there is no such thing as a cause & effect paradigm responsible for having created anything. Nature doesn't operate according to any of our operational mental archetypes. What seems functionally logical to us will have little to no consequence of how nature derives its results.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:47 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:01 pm

Being sure about things seems to come remarkably easy to you.

When all the facts, including mathematics, are on one’s side, one is wise to base one’s conclusions on that, I would say.

When facts get in your way, you simply change the facts,

And yet…you’re the one who can’t do basic maths…or wants people to think you can’t. I don’t know if we can have a greater denial of facts than that.

But not all people operate that way: many prefer knee-jerk relativism…particularly when the factual winds blow strongly contrary. They just lapse into “well, nobody knows, and nobody can know,”

You mean me, don't you?

I didn’t put the shoe on that foot…but if you find it fits, you can put it on.

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:25 pmIf you don't believe me, I could always invite you not to tell me. Just ask.

You do you, guy.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 3:52 pm

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

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

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.

Oh, you think you're educating me? Everyone that has a different opinion to you, you apparently feel they need re-educating!

Theists come in all sorts of flavours actually - they don't all have to be the mindless sheep of a god(s).

NB: I am not stating GOD was CREATED. I am discussing my theory as to how IT formed.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote: 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.

Are you seriously suggesting that conscious minds do not exist within the bounds of the universe?

AGAIN: So where does your version of God exist?

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: 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 of course your only accepted definition of God is what that complies with your ""Christian"" definition - nobody else gets to define it in a more rational manner, even me a Christian with direct near daily interaction with this entity (no longer a mere theist)..

NB: I am not stating God was "created", I am stating that God formed/forged its intelligence possibly enduring great hardship - formed from chaos and disorder an intelligence - then proceeded to form our perceivable universe.

Immanuel Can wrote:But everybody worships something: and for each person, that’s the functional definition of his/her “god.”

The God I have ongoing interaction with could not give a flying F about being "worshipped" - it does appear to appreciate my appreciation and thanks for the creation - if that's worship, well fine.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

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?

Actually I believe everything should be the subject of human science/philosophical enquiry, God included. Why do you continually jump to ridiculous conclusions...as above in red. I know God to exist - I won't accept your account of it which is purely based on scripture mostly written by men of little comprehension.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

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?

GOT IT. (apart from the 'suddenly' & "immaterial" - nothing is immaterial having no substance)

Yet you want us to believe that an intelligence ALWAYS existed and then spoke the universe into existence - I assure you, most rational scientifically minded people would be more inclined to my theory than yours.

NB: I am not stating God was "created", I am stating that God formed/forged its intelligence possibly enduring great hardship - formed from chaos and disorder an intelligence - then proceeded to form our perceivable universe.

So you’re looking for a contingent, created “god,” by your own account. Again, ask the polytheists for that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

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?

Actually I believe everything should be the subject of human science/philosophical enquiry, God included.

Sorry, that’s just naive. The concept “God” as monotheists understand it, does not refer to anything less than the First Cause of all things.

Okay. Off you go. Believe what you want. It seems you prefer that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 11:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: Actually I believe everything should be the subject of human science/philosophical enquiry, God included.

Sorry, that’s just naive. The concept “God” as monotheists understand it, does not refer to anything less than the First Cause of all things.

Okay. Off you go. Believe what you want. It seems you prefer that.

No, naive is believing everything in the Bible is the literal word of God. To mindlessly believe that God would have used words to create the universe is bloody ridiculous.

I'm not going anywhere, so let's have it:

1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

2. Where does God exist in this universe?

3. Why did your version of God use words to create the universe?

4. Why does God inisist on faith rather than proving to all of "His" existence?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 5:02 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 2:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 1:52 am

Eternal in the past. Eternity has two “directions,” you know.

Of course. Like when a Christian believes they have received eternal life there is no beginning or ending.

“No beginning”? You’ll have to explain where you got that “theology.” Go ahead.

You posted the following in your responses to Gary:
"We know empirically, scientifically, that the universe is not eternal...Eternal in the past. Eternity has two 'directions,' you know."

Which seems to be a common Christian conception of "eternal". For example:
"The word eternal means "everlasting, having no beginning and no end."

From <https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-God.html> "


Which prompted my response:
"Of course. Like when a Christian believes they have received eternal life there is no beginning or ending."


Evidently "eternal" necessarily has "two directions": in the past and in the future. Except for when it doesn't like with "eternal life".

Over the years, Christianity has had a long track record of playing fast-and-loose with definitions:
"Repentance", "Righteousness", "Love", "Keep", "Perfect" and on and on and on...

Evidently, it's the only way to make many of their beliefs seem "reasonable" to themselves.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:40 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 7:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 12:27 am
It’s not possible to have an actual infinite regress of causes. Got it yet?

Yes, that is correct, I get it, in the sense that I am only known to myself as a relative finite contingent being, one who is born and will die, one who begins and ends. As a relative being, I have zero knowledge of actual 'infinite regress' of causes. In other words, that which is finite, can never know the infinite. It's the other way around. It's the infinite that knows the finite in this conception.

This is where the maths are so helpful. Mathematically, the idea of an “actual infinite regress of causes” can’t be rendered coherent or possible; so we’re quite safe in saying no such thing can be a correct description of the origins of the universe. Our difficulty in dealing with the infinite is no impediment to this mathematical realization.

Yes, I agree, it's all about the characters that are screaming at the top of their lungs, trying sometimes in vain, to show us something, something that is so obvious and with us always, here in blinding plain sight, all here right now, in the form of symbols, and numbers etc... and the truths and lies that they are capable of pointing out.
I am starting to grasp what you are pointing to, and mind you, I think you and I are talking about the same God, it's just that we both describe through our usage of different words, the same God, but in different ways, that can veil and maybe cloud what is actually being pointed to, almost to the point of seeming like we are not really listening or hearing properly. Then what happens is we are just left with what can only be described as an annoying befuddled mess, that we then try to clean up. Clarity requires lots of patience, especially for those who are genuinely willing to listen to what it is they are actually seeking, which is the truth.

And so it can get confusing as to what we are actually pointing to sometimes. That said, I feel like you and I are closing some gaps in our knowledge on the idea of God actually means.

This is cool. I might even say, I'm too cool for hell, and too hot for heaven.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:45 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 8:20 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 11:39 pmOkay. What makes that so “obvious” or so “manifest”?

Because it can be observed that the body knows how to function effectively. It has an intelligence all of its own. The human body for example has somehow, from scratch, has beautifully arranged itself to be a fully formed functioning self-aware, thinking living organism, capable of co-creating other mechanical and non-animate objects into existence. So that to me, is self-evident of an intelligence at work, perhaps beyond the reach of human comprehension, kind of like beating humans at their own game, so to speak. This evident intelligence seems to be beyond human intelligence, as human beings are contingent and limited relative appearances of the absolute knowledge sphere.

Yes, I’d agree. I think that’s the obvious supposition. Certainly we know of nothing unintelligent that’s capable of both being eternal and uncaused, and yet also being able to create — particularly the kinds of things we observe in the present. Not everybody is willing to concede that conclusion, but I think they’re fighting the obvious.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:49 pm
I’m not sure precisely how you are understanding that. As I see it, it’s about the relationship between us, God and ethics, not per se about the nature of God Himself. But maybe you’ll unpack that a bit, if you’re inclined.

By asking the question as to what is the nature of God, would demand an answer that is identical to a theological concept that refers to who and what God is….right?

If that is correct, then that must mean the answer to the question of what is the nature of God would have to be constructed of “thought” which would inform and become known as an answer to the thinker of such questions, exactly what the nature of God is….right?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:20 am I'm not going anywhere,

Probably true, but not in the way you imagine….

so let's have it:

Sure. Let’s.

1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

How does a causal chain get going without a First Cause? Whatever that “first cause” is, it’s either intelligent or not. And as you’ve admitted, the data overwhelmingly implies intelligence.

2. Where does God exist in this universe?

Do you know what “transcendent” means?

3. Why did your version of God use words to create the universe?

You should ask Him that. But my supposition would be that since information is at the basis of our universe, for example, in DNA, or in natural ‘laws,’ “word” refers to that data. So “speech” is a very appropriate metaphor.

4. Why does God inisist on faith rather than proving to all of "His" existence?

Again, you’d have to ask Him. I can only give you what I think, based on what is revealed in Scripture. But you don’t regard Scripture, so we are left without a source of information I can point to that you will accept. But I think the documents you reject are actually very informative on that.

One thing is abundantly obvious, however: that the actual, physical presence of God would be overwhelming in multiple ways. By not being physically manifest, God has opened up the possibility of choice — whether to believe and accept HIm, or not. In other words, He’s offered a chance for us to choose relationship…or to reject that relationship. And that suggests that our personal integrity, autonomy and choice are important to the Supreme Being. But again, you’d have to believe in the kind of God that is revealed in the Scriptures you reject.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 5:02 am

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2024 2:18 am

Of course. Like when a Christian believes they have received eternal life there is no beginning or ending.

“No beginning”? You’ll have to explain where you got that “theology.” Go ahead.

You posted the following in your responses to Gary:
"We know empirically, scientifically, that the universe is not eternal...Eternal in the past. Eternity has two 'directions,' you know."

Which seems to be a common Christian conception of "eternal". For example:
"The word eternal means "everlasting, having no beginning and no end."

This is why I used the term “infinite regress” (i.e. speaking of the past only), rather than “eternity,” which was introduced by my interlocutor, not by me. I’m not speaking of eternity, which would imply two ends of infinity, but rather of the idea of an infinite, causal past.

The future is different, of course…whereas we — collectively, so to speak — have been through the past, the future is yet to happen. What has been, we can estimate by the evidence. But there is no “evidence” from the future, so the “no actual infinite regress” point can’t tell us anything about the future. But it can tell us that the universe has not always existed.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:26 amClarity requires lots of patience, especially for those who are genuinely willing to listen to what it is they are actually seeking, which is the truth.

That’s a good point, I’d say. Unfortunately, people come to sites like this for multiple reasons, some of which are not reflective of this thought, I suspect. Some just come to argue speciously, some to self-present as gurus, some to gain the cap-and-badge of a “philosopher,” in their own minds, some to troll…and multiple other reasons. So “clarity” Isn’t always what they’re seeking.

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 10:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:49 pm
I’m not sure precisely how you are understanding that. As I see it, it’s about the relationship between us, God and ethics, not per se about the nature of God Himself. But maybe you’ll unpack that a bit, if you’re inclined.

By asking the question as to what is the nature of God, would demand an answer that is identical to a theological concept that refers to who and what God is….right?

Well, of course, a “theological concept” can be right or it can be wrong. But the purpose of theology is to get it right, if possible, ideally.

Human thinking, human conceptions, can be right or wrong. The good ones align with what turns out to be the truth; the bad ones don’t.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 2:21 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 1:20 am I'm not going anywhere,

Probably true, but not in the way you imagine….

HELL_O IC HELL_O

This is the destiny of one like me, one that has eaten of the Tree of Life & the Tree of Know_Ledge and been put to the TEST through the Almighty Reckoning where our faith in Christ ultimately leaves us to aforementioned destiny:--->

To BURN in HELL as the SUN of man, such that good unquestioning Christian sheep such as you can exist in HEAVE.N fed by all of our energy.

(not to exist with Christ and the sage brotherhood 'eternally' - no, not that )

Immanuel Can wrote:

atto wrote:1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

How does a causal chain get going without a First Cause? Whatever that “first cause” is, it’s either intelligent or not. And as you’ve admitted, the data overwhelmingly implies intelligence.

The question was for you to provide an answer, that's what questions were invented for. They're not supposed to provide an avenue to deflect when you don't have any clue of what you have been banging on about.

Again: 1. How does an intelligent being always exist, eternally?

Immanuel Can wrote:

atto wrote:2. Where does God exist in this universe?

Do you know what “transcendent” means?

Yes, it is used when someone hasn't got a clue what they have been banging on about.

Again:2. Where does God exist in this universe? ..have a best guess\theory - anything.

Immanuel Can wrote:

atto wrote:3. Why did your version of God use words to create the universe?

You should ask Him that. But my supposition would be that since information is at the basis of our universe, for example, in DNA, or in natural ‘laws,’ “word” refers to that data. So “speech” is a very appropriate metaphor.

I actually like that answer (I don't agree with it but it was an honest effort)..so much so that I feel compelled to ask another!

3b. Is the account of the Tree of Life and the Tree of KnowLedge a metaphor or something that actually happened literally with an Adam & Eve?

Immanuel Can wrote:

atto wrote:4. Why does God inisist on faith rather than proving to all of "His" existence?

Again, you’d have to ask Him. I can only give you what I think, based on what is revealed in Scripture. But you don’t regard Scripture, so we are left without a source of information I can point to that you will accept. But I think the documents you reject are actually very informative on that.

I don't reject scripture, I only reject the stuff that fails scrutiny. So certainly cite scripture, I'm genuinely interested in this question.

Immanuel Can wrote:One thing is abundantly obvious, however: that the actual, physical presence of God would be overwhelming in multiple ways. By not being physically manifest, God has opened up the possibility of choice — whether to believe and accept HIm, or not. In other words, He’s offered a chance for us to choose relationship…or to reject that relationship. And that suggests that our personal integrity, autonomy and choice are important to the Supreme Being. But again, you’d have to believe in the kind of God that is revealed in the Scriptures you reject.

What do you mean by that? Clearly I have rejected the bits that God expected me (using the intelligence gifted to me) to reject since I have (NOW) an extremely close bond\relationship with this Divine entity. My life has never been better and I am in awe of the perfection of this system we are able to contemplate. God\sage stated to me just two days ago - something relating to me and perfection (I wont bore you with the details) - you wouldn't believe it with all my cussing <-- still room for improvement - and certainly nobody on this site would consider me anything close to what a sage would consider a sage.