Are you happy with any current description or evidence available that attempts to explain the role god played and now plays in this Universe? — universeness
Efficient cause. — Jackson
Why efficient? Do you mean that there are other ways to achieve the same result which would be successful but less efficient? — universeness
Aristotle's god is a principle, not personality. So, no, I never believed in God in any Christian sense — Jackson
Can you accept god as a 'principle' in the absence of any empirical evidence at all? — universeness
Efficient cause means how something is caused or changed, especially by an agent — Jackson
Ah, is your viewpoint panpsychist or cosmopsychist? — universeness
None
— Jackson
:grin: Ok, we will drop that one then, unless you want to breath new air into it. — universeness
But is this your variant of panpsychism that there already exists a Universal mind or conscience and it is not an emergent reality that might become true in the very distant future — universeness
The final cause acts, but it acts according to the mode of final causality, as an end or good that induces the efficient cause to act.
This suggests to me that Aristotelian thought suggests that the arrow's path can be altered if this 'efficient cause' has the intent to make it so. — universeness
Does not or cannot? is choice invloved? — universeness
I walk to the drugstore to buy allergy medicine. Walking is the efficient cause. Needing relief from allergies is the final cause — Jackson
universal conscience — universeness
Ok, a clear example, and i get the distinction you are making but in analysing that scenario a little deeper, it seems to me that there are other events to consider, there are two possibilities:
1. I have a prescription or I am low or have ran out of allergy medicine and I need more.
2. I am suffering an allergic reaction and I need allergy medicine. — universeness
So in your panpsychist viewpoint did spacetime come before the universal conscience or after it or at the same time? — universeness
Physicality and intelligence are coexistent, neither came before the other — Jackson
Your answer to my last question was no so I assume you are confirming that in your opinion, if there ever was a first cause, it may well have no significance at all, to our current Universe and therefore the theists are wasting their energy when the show deference to the god posit? Do you agree? — universeness
I would aslo like to ask, after your 19 page thread and the comments the contributors made,
did you have any doubts about the 'causality' route as being absolutely fundamental to the question of origin of the Universe? — universeness
I tend to concur with the viewpoint that 'existence' does not require a cause. — universeness
It is impossible that the universe exists without a first uncaused cause. — val p miranda
How can QM start the universe if the principle from nothing comes nothing is valid? — val p miranda
The first uncaused cause was immaterial space. — val p miranda
In a way, yes. It isn't that one couldn't prove that a God existed through evidence, but that the existence of the universe does not necessitate that the origin be a God — Philosophim
No, none. Causality is a very useful and easy to prove concept — Philosophim
I suggested that you read my post on The Origin of the Universe. — val p miranda
. Perhaps, God is the first existant,
space is not empirical. What, then, is space? Is it a perception, a field, a bending and stretching existent, an immaterial existent or something else? — val p miranda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.