↪god must be atheist Well reasoned counter arguments would be nice instead of waffle. — Devans99
But movement just becomes an illusion — Devans99
Terrapin Station, you can prove me wrong just naming one effect that has no cause, and just naming one cause that has no effect. — god must be atheist
"There can be phenomena without a cause" isn't at all inconsistent with "We never observe phenomena with no cause."If there can be one thing in some far-flung corner of the universe that occurs, just one time, with no cause, then "There can be phenomena without a cause" is true even though "We never observe phenomena with no cause" is also true. — Terrapin Station
In other words, phenomenally, something like a fly, say, moves across my field of vision. We can call that an "illusion." The illusion features movement, doesn't it? — Terrapin Station
So please show me this exception. I have nothing but asked of you for this, and now you lecture me on how one such instance invalidates determinism.
Be my guest. Invalidate determinism. I am all ears. Show me that example. — god must be atheist
If we switch to one spacial dimension only then on a 2D graph, this could be represented by a point (the stationary observer) and a line (the fly moving across space).
But the 2D graph is completely static. — Devans99
So please show me this exception. I have nothing but asked of you for this, and now you lecture me on how one such instance invalidates determinism.
Be my guest. Invalidate determinism. I am all ears. Show me that example.
— god must be atheist
You're not understanding me. What I was objecting to was something stated as a logical principle.
I'm avoiding a discussion of whether we experience causality and what does or doesn't count as an example because that's a different topic. — Terrapin Station
You raised an objection which you can't defend. — god must be atheist
The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof. — Terrapin Station
You raised an objection which you can't defend.
— god must be atheist
The defense of the objection is that there is no support of strong determinism as a logical principle. The relevance of talking about it as a logical principle is that that's what Devans99 is appealing to in his proof.
16 minutes ago — Terrapin Station
Sure there is support of determinism (there is no divisions between determinism such as "strong" "weak" etc; — god must be atheist
Have you considered a cyclical phasic universe? — Mark Dennis
Thesis: There belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary.
Anti-thesis: An absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world, nor does it exist outside the world as its cause.
I don't use the qualifiers as an endorsement. — Terrapin Station
If there were in reality weak determinism, then there would be weak Darwinism, weak Relativity Theories, weak Quantum Mechanics, weak arguments and weak minds. Oops, I got carried away. Going back to the stream of things; weak determinism would yield weak truths, weak logic, weak time measurements, weak classical physics, weak laws of thermodynamics, weak gravity. — god must be atheist
The idea is simply that there are different views, — Terrapin Station
And you seem to be quite happy and comfortable accepting that there are WRONG different views. I am not. — god must be atheist
Your argument is that if there's some F (some type of thing) with property φ, then all G, H, I etc.(all types of things) must have property φ? — Terrapin Station
Anyway, your view strikes me as having faith in (strong) determinism, but I'm not sure why you'd have such faith in it — Terrapin Station
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.