Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:10 pm ...countercases on small scales.

Let's see 'em.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:26 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:10 pm ...countercases on small scales.

Let's see 'em.

It's in the definiton of the law.
That's like saying: "yeah but show that gravity means that apples fall, I don't see the connection".

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:26 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:10 pm ...countercases on small scales.

Let's see 'em.

It's in the definiton of the law.

That isn't a "countercase."

Maybe you'll still provide one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:39 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:26 pm
Let's see 'em.

It's in the definiton of the law.

That isn't a "countercase."

Maybe you'll still provide one.

Any time entropy randomly decreases on small scales. Do you have no idea what the 2nd law is?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:39 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:35 pm
It's in the definiton of the law.

That isn't a "countercase."

Maybe you'll still provide one.

Any time entropy randomly decreases on small scales.

What "time" is that?

C'mon, Atla. If you actually have a countercase, you won't need to be vague. But if you don't, then ask yourself why you're so desperate to defend a theory, even against the entire flow of data...

I think we know the answer. You can see that entropy compels us to a logical conclusion you're eager not to reach. Nevertheless, the data are the data.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:46 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:39 pm
That isn't a "countercase."

Maybe you'll still provide one.

Any time entropy randomly decreases on small scales.

What "time" is that?

C'mon, Atla. If you actually have a countercase, you won't need to be vague. But if you don't, then ask yourself why you're so desperate to defend a theory, even against the entire flow of data...

I think we know the answer. You can see that entropy compels us to a logical conclusion you're eager not to reach. Nevertheless, the data are the data.

So you DON'T know what the 2nd law is. Then why are you speaking?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:46 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:41 pm
Any time entropy randomly decreases on small scales.

What "time" is that?

C'mon, Atla. If you actually have a countercase, you won't need to be vague. But if you don't, then ask yourself why you're so desperate to defend a theory, even against the entire flow of data...

I think we know the answer. You can see that entropy compels us to a logical conclusion you're eager not to reach. Nevertheless, the data are the data.

So you DON'T know what the 2nd law is.

Yes, I do. But I'm still waiting for the "countercases" you insisted exist...but apparently don't.

I guess the irony is that if we take a strong belief in "heat death" and an always increasing universal entropy, then all logic flies out the window. So then a logical argument like Kalam also flies out the window.

Beginning and heat death? Okay, but then anything goes, without God too.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:09 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:46 pm
What "time" is that?

C'mon, Atla. If you actually have a countercase, you won't need to be vague. But if you don't, then ask yourself why you're so desperate to defend a theory, even against the entire flow of data...

I think we know the answer. You can see that entropy compels us to a logical conclusion you're eager not to reach. Nevertheless, the data are the data.

So you DON'T know what the 2nd law is.

Yes, I do. But I'm still waiting for the "countercases" you insisted exist...but apparently don't.

Anyone who is familiar with the 2nd law knows about it. Just saying.

We don't need to agree to a particular name in order for us to both agree we are speaking of the same thing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:17 am I think we do. The characteristics of this "Mind" are exactly what is in question at the moment.

Indeed, the characteristics are in question. The label is not. If you think I am not talking about the same entity because I refer to It in a different ways which you do not agree with, why would you think I am referring to some other entity and make issue of that?

Well, yes, but that's not the point being made. It's not merely "neccessary to explanation." It's "necessary" in the philosophical sense that it could not have not existed.

As Stanford puts it, "It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings."

So the First Cause is not merely a convenient way of explaining something. Rather, when we say that the First Cause is a "necessary entity," we mean that it could not have failed to exist.

So are you claiming that a necessary being created an unnecessary Universe?

This is based upon the premise that "We" are identified as being "the human form" rather than "the consciousness experiencing the human form."

That's Pantheism. Pantheism has many conceptual and practical problems...one of which is the existence of the natural world, and another is its complete detachment from science.

It may be an aspect of Pantheist Philosophy, but there is no science I know of which shows the premise is right or wrong.

The subject of this thread is both the Nature of First Source (which has already been suggested and hasn't been seriously challenged) and whether that nature has to be (necessary) regarded as "supernatural" or not.

No, the subject is the Kalaam.

You are mistaken. Clearly the thread question is part of the thread subject.

The apparent "decay" of the functional forms have already been explained as the natural and purposeful result of the temporal thing which the First Cause will then have no mindful use for, as the universe has served the intended purpose it was created to serve.
Have you read all of my arguments in my posts?

I have. But I don't see evidence to back the statements.

Which statements are you referring to?

Lets focus on coming to agreement on these attributes of the Nature of The First Cause and see if we cannot determine from these whether it is necessary for us to think of IT as "supernatural".

It could not possibly be otherwise. If the "effect" we're trying to explain is "the existence of the universe," then any explanation is going to have to come, by definition, from above and beyond the universe itself. We can't possibly explain the existence of contingent things with reference to something contingent, or the existence of the natural world by something merely natural. To do so would commit us to an infinite causal regress, which is incoherent, and clearly cannot be the case, because of the causal chain.

You will have to flesh that argument out in order for it to make logical sense.

Why would a "merely natural" being with those attributes mentioned, have to be considered "supernatural" and why would what the being creates have to be considered "unnecessary"?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:11 pm I guess the irony is that if we take a strong belief in "heat death" and an always increasing universal entropy, then all logic flies out the window. So then a logical argument like Kalam also flies out the window.

Beginning and heat death? Okay, but then anything goes, without God too.

Let's assume the universe has always existed and will always exist.

This would of course invalidate the The Kalam Cosmological Argument - (with William Lane Craig commentary)

But it would not provide evidence that the Universe is Mindless...

You are at the surface rather than acknowledging the undercurrent.

We cannot (with human senses) see air, yet we know it is made matter.
We can see a limited range of light, and also know that light is made of matter.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 11:26 am
Is 'this' ACTUALLY ABSOLUTELY True, and thus IRREFUTABLE AS WELL?

Maybe.
What do you think the answer to your question is...

WHY are 'you' UNDER some sort of ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL that 'we' CAN IMAGINE, which has NO 'physical properties'?

Is that the impression you get re my argument?

I am not assuming or believing such at all. I am simply saying that my understanding of "non-physical" is that anything labelled as such, is telling me that such does not exist.

This is to do with my OP question re "Supernatural" as to "why" we have to include the concept (what we can imagine) of supernatural as "necessary".

My question is asking for a reasonable answer to be tabled re discussion. It is based in wanting logical answers about something which appears to be unnecessary re a Natural Universe and is asked from that perspective rather than from a perspective of belief or assumption.

The 'supernatural', by definition, does NOT and can NOT exist.

Is that your belief and assumption, or based in logic you have worked out and can show is the case?

Unless, OF COURSE, you could name ONE 'thing' which is NOT 'Natural', and SHOW or PROOF HOW.

Well I can name a "unicorn" as "not being natural to Earth"...even that it is imagined to "look like" a horse with a horn coming out from its forehead. It is easy enough to imagine such a being.
I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this natural universe.

I can name a "god" who "looks like" a human being but has wings which it can fly around "as not being natural to Earth"... It is easy enough to imagine such a being.
I cannot say that such an entity does not exist somewhere in this Natural Universe.

Indeed, even using the word "Natural" with the word "Universe" seems illogical if indeed, everything which does exist, is only this Universe.
(Even if said Universe was Mindful...The God which has always existed.)

I can imagine both a "Supernatural God" and a "Natural God" and therein "see" no difference.

The OP question is essentially asking for any reason as to why I should "see" a "Supernatural God" ("First Cause Mind et all" re the cosmology being examined) rather than simply "see" a Natural God in the evidence of The (Almighty) Universe Itself?

As to your question on my use of the word "vibrations", it is apparent that not only is every individual object in the Universe Unique, but every object also has its own "signature" frequency.
Thus, IF the universe is Mindful, it may be the case that the evidence for this is the Existence of the Universe itself and how it behaves and why "forms" form (it has something to do with the frequency of the vibrations).

We see evidence of this happening in observing the form Galaxies can be seen have take on.

The questions are - is this because of a mindful thing happening and if so, is it necessary to refer to that mindful thing as "supernatural"?

VVilliam wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 6:56 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:11 pm I guess the irony is that if we take a strong belief in "heat death" and an always increasing universal entropy, then all logic flies out the window. So then a logical argument like Kalam also flies out the window.

Beginning and heat death? Okay, but then anything goes, without God too.

Let's assume the universe has always existed and will always exist.

This would of course invalidate the The Kalam Cosmological Argument - (with William Lane Craig commentary)

But it would not provide evidence that the Universe is Mindless...

Which meaning of "mindless" do you mean?

Imo the Occam's razor view is that time is a finite circle, a finite closed loop (not eternal return), and the mental is the same as the material. So no God, no beginning and end, and in a sense "mindfull" and in another sense "mindless".

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:09 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:49 pm So you DON'T know what the 2nd law is.

Yes, I do. But I'm still waiting for the "countercases" you insisted exist...but apparently don't.

Anyone who is familiar...

So no, you haven't got even a single countercase.

That's exactly right.

VVilliam wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 6:17 pm

We don't need to agree to a particular name in order for us to both agree we are speaking of the same thing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:17 am I think we do. The characteristics of this "Mind" are exactly what is in question at the moment.

Indeed, the characteristics are in question. The label is not.

???? I can't even make sense of that rejoinder.

So are you claiming that a necessary being created an unnecessary Universe?

That surprises you?

It's the only logical possibility. We can see we have a contingent universe. That's not even in doubt. But we can also understand, via the Kalaam argument, that whatever created it cannot possibly be a contingent entity, but must be a necessary one.

This is based upon the premise that "We" are identified as being "the human form" rather than "the consciousness experiencing the human form."

That's Pantheism. Pantheism has many conceptual and practical problems...one of which is the existence of the natural world, and another is its complete detachment from science.

It may be an aspect of Pantheist Philosophy, but there is no science I know of which shows the premise is right or wrong.

Entropy. The Red Shift effect. There's two scientific findings that absolutely contradict it. And we could add the total absence of evidence for it, as well.

No, the subject is the Kalaam.

You are mistaken.

Look up. See the OP?

It could not possibly be otherwise. If the "effect" we're trying to explain is "the existence of the universe," then any explanation is going to have to come, by definition, from above and beyond the universe itself. We can't possibly explain the existence of contingent things with reference to something contingent, or the existence of the natural world by something merely natural. To do so would commit us to an infinite causal regress, which is incoherent, and clearly cannot be the case, because of the causal chain.

You will have to flesh that argument out in order for it to make logical sense.

Have you actually read the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, as developed by WLC? Or do you only know bits of the old Islamic version?

That's what it's actually about. Everything you need to know about that is in Dr. Craig's exposition. But how can we discuss an argument you haven't even read?