Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Oh well, another one bites the dust. I do agree that it is only necessary to re-post the part that is being addresses, and not the whole post. Often I will only quote the pertinent parts of a post and delete the rest if it does not pertain to my reply.

Yep. People do it to me all the time; and I never whine...if I need to correct their interpretation to reflect my intention, then I try to do that. He really had no grounds to be upset, and I think he really knew that.

The truth is that I think atto was getting concerned and just wanted to get us off the main topic and onto the "meta" disagreement over how one posts -- not at all relevant to the OP, but it's one way to get oneself "off the hook" when one has logically painted oneself into a corner. I couldn't see any place his argument could go from where he left it.

Anyway, could you go on with step 4 for those of us who are left, never mind those who can't, or won't, follow the argument. Remember some people are just here for the fight and it doesn't matter what they fight about.

thedoc wrote:Anyway, could you go on with step 4 for those of us who are left, never mind those who can't, or won't, follow the argument. Remember some people are just here for the fight and it doesn't matter what they fight about.

Oh sure.

Recap:

Step 1: There is no possibility of an actual infinite regress of causes. We can deduce this from mathematics and from empirical observation (entropy, the Red Shift Effect, etc.). This means that we know logically and deductively that the Earth HAD to have a beginning.

Step 2: That which has a beginning has a cause. The Earth had a beginning (step 1), therefore we know it had a cause.

Step 3: Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz): any proposed "cause" must be adequate to explain the "effect" attributed to it. (If something is inadequate to "cause" a second thing, it cannot be reasonable to say it DID cause that second thing.)

Step 4: What would be most adequate as an explanatory cause of the kind of universe in which we live? (Here we are thrown on empirical and inductive methodology, seeking the hypothesis that gives the best, most probable explanation.)

That's where atto bailed. But I'm still entertaining ideas. What is the most probable and sufficient cause for the universe as we observe it? I suppose the next point would be where people offer possible explanations, given our empirical observations of things like scientific laws, order, life, death, symbiosis, consciousness, morality, communication and so on, in an effort to day what the relevant data were. But I'll leave that to whomever cares to offer an observation.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
Step 1: There is no possibility of an actual infinite regress of causes. We can deduce this from mathematics and from empirical observation (entropy, the Red Shift Effect, etc.). ...

Nope, these just say that what we can see of the observable universe appears to have had a beginning but the theory is that it's not 'Space' that had a beginning but 'SpaceTime' however it is only of the observable universe and all it says is that Physics can't say anything about what went on before, if anything. IC's claim that there is no possibility from empirical observation is very strange given that elsewehere he has stated that such things cannot be 100%? He also appears to ignore that Aristotle is dead with respect to deducing things about reality and mathematics even more so as if this wasn't the case we'd not have physicists. An infinite regress of causes is no more or less possible than an uncaused cause and if IC says there can be an uncasused cause then it can be just as probable or not that the universe could be such a thing as it could be that there is an uncaused 'God'.

This means that we know logically and deductively that the Earth HAD to have a beginning.

We know the Earth had a beginning as we appear to understand planetary and stellar formation reasonably well now.

Step 2: That which has a beginning has a cause. The Earth had a beginning (step 1), therefore we know it had a cause.

But do we know the universe had a beginning? Given that we only know the light-cone(sphere) that we can detect, gravitational waves may cause us to revise this position.

On this point, does this mean that this 'God' had no beginning? If so then it doesn't exist.

Step 3: Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz): any proposed "cause" must be adequate to explain the "effect" attributed to it. (If something is inadequate to "cause" a second thing, it cannot be reasonable to say it DID cause that second thing.)

How is this 'God' adequate enough to cause all the things we so far can see?

Step 4: What would be most adequate as an explanatory cause of the kind of universe in which we live? (Here we are thrown on empirical and inductive methodology, seeking the hypothesis that gives the best, most probable explanation.)

Depends what he wants or means by an explanation? If you say 'God' did it you're not explaining much unless of course you then drape this 'God' with a whole chunk of attributes that you cannot possible know about. If you do do this then the safest explanation is that you have an agenda that you wish to foist upon others.

That's where atto bailed. But I'm still entertaining ideas. ...

No he isn't. He's clearly made his mind up.

What is the most probable and sufficient cause for the universe as we observe it? ...

No-one knows but with respect to the things it is made up of, Biology, Chemistry and Evolution appears to deal with living things, Chemistry, Physics and Geology the rest.

I suppose the next point would be where people offer possible explanations, given our empirical observations of things like scientific laws, order, life, death, symbiosis, consciousness, morality, communication and so on, in an effort to day what the relevant data were. But I'll leave that to whomever cares to offer an observation.

I think, given it's a philosophy forum, that we should listen to Kant and say bugger all.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Anyway, could you go on with step 4 for those of us who are left, never mind those who can't, or won't, follow the argument. Remember some people are just here for the fight and it doesn't matter what they fight about.

Oh sure.

Recap:

Step 1: There is no possibility of an actual infinite regress of causes..

Who created God?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who created God?

You believe in "created gods"? Are you a Roman? An ancient Greek?

As opposed to IC? An ancient Egyptian or Hebrew.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who created God?

You believe in "created gods"? Are you a Roman? An ancient Greek?

The question was who created God. Note God singular as in your God of the bible...that being very different from Gods plural as in the Roman, Greek, Egyptian and Hindu pantheons. Again you are nothing but a distortionist. Pity the poor slob of a God that's defended by the likes of you.

Why not attempt to answer the question intelligently which has been asked many times? Obviously it would be vastly hypothetical but at least may be more interesting and intelligent then your constant stream of stupid self-serving replies.

Dubious wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who created God?

You believe in "created gods"? Are you a Roman? An ancient Greek?

The question was who created God. Note God singular as in your God of the bible...that being very different from Gods plural as in the Roman, Greek, Egyptian and Hindu pantheons. Again you are nothing but a distortionist. Pity the poor slob of a God that's defended by the likes of you.

Why not attempt to answer the question intelligently which has been asked many times? Obviously it would be vastly hypothetical but at least may be more interesting and intelligent then your constant stream of stupid self-serving replies.

Why does God need to be created, that is just a human perspective and not necessarily one of the universe. The whole idea of everything having to be created by something else, is nonsense created by the human mind and not necessarily of the universe.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Oh well, another one bites the dust. I do agree that it is only necessary to re-post the part that is being addresses, and not the whole post. Often I will only quote the pertinent parts of a post and delete the rest if it does not pertain to my reply.

Yep. People do it to me all the time; and I never whine...if I need to correct their interpretation to reflect my intention, then I try to do that. He really had no grounds to be upset, and I think he really knew that.

The truth is that I think atto was getting concerned and just wanted to get us off the main topic and onto the "meta" disagreement over how one posts -- not at all relevant to the OP, but it's one way to get oneself "off the hook" when one has logically painted oneself into a corner. I couldn't see any place his argument could go from where he left it.

Sorry, was just progressively drunk until i couldn't read. ...was happy to pee in the corner.

Dubious wrote:Why not attempt to answer the question intelligently...

I was just pointing out that the question isn't intelligible. You can't ask "Who created the Supreme Being and First Cause of all things," anymore than you can ask, "Who squared the circle?" or "Who married the bachelor?"

"Created God" is an oxymoron, you see. The First Cause is, by definition, the Uncaused. You then can't ask, "Who caused the Uncaused?" That's just silly.

If one wants to ask the question seriously, one must not force upon it false terms that gratuitously contradict the very meaning of the central concept. If one does, and then if afterward the question cannot be coherently answered, then the fault then remains in the question, not the answer.

Ask a coherent question.

Immanuel Can wrote:

"Created God" is an oxymoron, you see. The First Cause is, by definition, the Uncaused. You then can't ask, "Who caused the Uncaused?"

I agree , and I cannot quite see how an adult can think of God as a being who like other beings is
bound by time and transience like we are, and like everything else is.

The cosmological argument fails to make sense because there is no singular first cause. "First" implies first in a series or sequence of events. An Original Being must necessarily be both the inside of existence itself with all its multifarious and chaotic causes and effects; and also a Truth which is "outside", "beyond", and "beneath" existence itself.

attofishpi wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Yep. People do it to me all the time; and I never whine...if I need to correct their interpretation to reflect my intention, then I try to do that. He really had no grounds to be upset, and I think he really knew that.

The truth is that I think atto was getting concerned and just wanted to get us off the main topic and onto the "meta" disagreement over how one posts -- not at all relevant to the OP, but it's one way to get oneself "off the hook" when one has logically painted oneself into a corner. I couldn't see any place his argument could go from where he left it.

Sorry, was just progressively drunk until i couldn't read. ...was happy to pee in the corner.

Don't know why i said sorry - you clearly dumped pertinent parts of my conversation to suit your own twisted ill guided ideas, you never had me even close to a corner.

Just to get kickin where we left off - and i was in the centre of the room..

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:No. I don't have any probability in your stage 1 argument toward there being a 'God'.

Do you mean, by that phrase, "I don't know what the actual probability is," or "I don't believe there's a probability at all"? Your wording reads either way there, so you'll have to clear it up for me.

Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

How so? Because there are things "outside the universe" that are still "real"?

Plausible; but what makes you think so?

No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe. All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...(see your stage 3) and ultimately if you are only relying on experience - experience is a result of the reality whether provided by a 'God' or not. It does not necessarily pertain to an entity that created our universe.
You state:-Stage 3 asks, given what we observe in the cosmos and the world around us, what is the most probable explanation for the existence of what we see? Does chance + time look like the most probable explanation, or does power + design look like the better explanation?

How can i see it other_wise? REAL_IT_Y can be provided by an A.I. that we have evolved within - or a reality with no intelligent backing as atheists see it. Take your pick.

Belinda wrote: The cosmological argument fails to make sense because there is no singular first cause.

Actually, this rejoinder would seem to be a product of a failure to grasp the solidity of the argument against infinite causal regress: nothing more. It's actually a scientific, mathematical and logical failure, not a failure of creed or belief.

What that argument definitely proves is that there HAS to be a First Cause. What that is, it does not say at the start. But it does establish the necessity of such beyond any reasonable doubt, by mathematics and logic, and without reference to any "faith" claim on anyone's side.

That should be good for anyone who understands stage 1 of the Cosmological Argument.

Atto:

I did reply to this message of yours. But perhaps quoting that response here would be helpful.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.

No problem.

But now you're saying you think there IS such a thing as an infinite causal regress? That's odd, because you had seemed alright with stage 1 before...

Well, could you explain how an infinite causal regress is possible, then?

You wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

But now you write:

attofishpi wrote:No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe.

So...in your view, the universe is not coextensive with "the real," but "the real" is that which "exists within the confines of a universe"? You're going to have to clear that up for me.

It looks very much like a self-contradiction.

All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...

Not at all. I have never referred to my experience in this argument so far. I premise nothing on it...not stage 1, nor stage 2, nor stage 3.

At stage 3, all I asked is what you thought was the most plausible explanation. I was waiting for your answer, not advancing a statement about my own experience. I didn't even tell you what I wanted you to conclude, and I definitely did not refer you to "my experience" in order to do so.

So I'm a bit surprised by your claim there. It's manifestly untrue. If I can read you charitably, it seems that you are (wrongly) anticipating what you expect my argument to be. Perhaps a little patience...?