...numbnuts LoL — 3017amen

...and there's the abusive language.

I agree with the OP!

That's what happens when you troll threads my friend LoL

Oh, indeed. You are certain of it.

That's what happens when you troll threads my friend LoL — 3017amen

Hypocritical twaddle.

Yep, I spoke with God yesterday, and he told me that your level of ignorance is a little bit higher than mine. But I told him that I would pray for you.

You continue not to address the notion of causation.

You continue to provide support for my contention that the nominal topic - chains of causation - is a front for mere uncritical certainty in god.

Your behaviour here is far from exemplary; but it is typical of what passes for philosophical discussion among the more overt theists.

See if you can address my post, here. I have pointed out issues with both the logic and the psychology of the OP.

Demonstrate some intellectual capacity by addressing the issue.

I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen

Or is the whole of you argument "God did it"?

I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there?

Oooo look - I replied to before it was posted! SO much for cause and effect.... :grin:

is the whole of you argument "God did it"? — Banno

Is the whole of your argument God didn't do it?

Is the whole of your argument God didn't do it? — 3017amen

That's pathetic, even by the standards that Christians set in this forum.

Exactly. That's seemingly what Kenosha Kid is arguing LoL

No, he isn't. But in order to defend your faith, you are obliged to misrepresent his argument.

And you continue not to address mine, given here.

Display some intellectual honesty, for your god's sake.

With all due respect, your argument is not coherent. You may want to study, say, theoretical physics a bit more.

Otherwise, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, John Wheeler, are some a good resources there.

LOL

An appeal to authority. Dropping names without explaining were and how they might apply.

I suppose that in Christian circles, that's the ultimate argument. Or perhaps it is in the end their only argument.

The more you proceed in this fashion, the more you demonstrate the pathos of Christian pretences to rationality.

one of the great mysteries of life.
2h — A Seagull

Sure. No different than say, quantum mechanics, double-slits, and other observed phenomena... .

Well, that was pathetic. With defenders like @3017amen, @Devans99 is sure to prosper...

Causality appears to be a feature of time - everything in time appears to have a cause - so for something to be uncaused, it seems it would have to be external to time. — Devans99

Yes. As I reached adulthood, I became an Agnostic because I no longer believed the Bible was the inspired revelation of an omniscient deity. But I could never go all the way to Atheism, because I had no better explanation for the temporary existence of our contingent world. Augustine saw the logic of Aristotle's First Cause argument, but used it to defend his faith in the Christian Jehovah. My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time; which scientists called "The Singularity", and I call "G*D".

But if cause and effect hold universally there cannot be a first cause, because that first cause would, by definition, be outside of cause an effect, and so it's no longer universal. — Echarmion

The Cause of space-time is "first" in the sense of "ultimate", not merely the first of a series. Logically, the Creator of our evolving universe must be prior-to the big-bang emergence of space-time, hence Eternal, and external to the Physical universe, hence Metaphysical. Prior, not in time, but in logical order.

Ultimate : a final or fundamental fact or principle
Prior : existing or coming before in time, order, or importance

I imagine a wider universe somehow containing spacetime. Causality as we know it, dominates spacetime, but in the wider universe, causality as we know it may not apply, so an uncaused cause would be possible. — Devans99

Your "wider" universe is what scientists postulate as The Multiverse. My problem with that "more-of-the-same-forever" speculation is that it doesn't address the primary concern of philosophers today : how could Life & Mind arise by natural evolutionary processes? Atheists take it on faith, that physical Science will eventually answer "the hard question". But, I'm skeptical.

My alternative to the Turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse, is to assume that the potential for Conscious Beings must have been included in (programmed into) the original Singularity. As a Agnostic, I prefer not to speculate on an eternal regression of the "same-old-same-old", which doesn't provide any new information anyway. My theory says that Information itself (power to enform, to create) is the causal energy that powers the progression of evolution. It's "just a theory", but it explains more than the Multiverse theory.

Turtles : http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page41.html
Information : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

It - the first cause - has to be something real (physical) and permanent: — Devans99

In my worldview, the First Cause is not Real, but Ideal, Metaphysical, not Physical. And it's permanent in the sense of existing necessarily, outside of the space-time world it created.

Metaphysical : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Yes a fair point, I should clarify what I mean by God:
- not omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient
- capable of independent action
- inteligent
- able to create spacetime
- benevolent
- timeless
So not exactly the God of christianity! It could be flying spaghetti monster (within the above limitations). — Devans99

My Deist notion of G*D is all of the above, including "omnipresent". But, it's not an ancient anthro-morphic interventionist King in heaven, because we now know that our world is on automatic pilot --- it seems to be programmed with laws & constants & selection criteria to handle all contingencies via adaptation.

Since my abstract G*D is not a person, or a blob of "noodly appendages", it can be called by various names, depending on the context : Nature, Logos, Chaos, ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. It's the eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part, and, as the Creator of physical space-time, can be known by humans only by what it does, not what it is.

Any questions? :grin:

An appeal to authority. Dropping names without explaining were and how they might apply. — Banno

I suspect that Amen was assuming you'd Google those names if you were really interested (not just dismissive) in how their expert theories "might apply". But we can get into more detail here, if you want to know about some "authoritative" alternatives to Atheism, that don't depend on ancient scriptures. :nerd:

Having read much of their work, I felt no need to use Google. Perhaps my relying on primary sources rather than Wikipedia is a Boomer flaw.

I've set out various issues with the OP. If you think the authors named are relevant, then explain how.

Don't leave your argument dangling.

Is this similar to the you can disassemble a watch mechanism in its entirety where the smallest pieces are loose and seperate and place them all into a bag and there is no way if shaken, tossed, prodded, whatever a trillion trillion times it will ever form a watch mechanism argument?

My current position on the god-question is Deist, remaining Agnostic about any personal traits of the Creator of space & time; which scientists called "The Singularity", and I call "G*D". — Gnomon

Why adopt even this? The truth is simply that our knowledge is incomplete.

...how could Life & Mind arise by natural evolutionary processes? Atheists take it on faith, that physical Science will eventually answer "the hard question". But, I'm skeptical. — Gnomon

We don't know how mind arrises, but we do not therefore need to jump to a deity as an explanation. Your feeling the need for a conclusion may be a curious psychological fact about yourself, but others are comfortable admitting that they simply do not know. Using the word faith smells of what psychologists call transference - the feelings, desires, and expectations of one person are redirected and applied to another person - in this case are you transferring your need for an answer onto your postulated atheist?

No, it isn't. That's not how evolution works.

As usual, those who feel the need to defend the OP do so by changing the topic - to mind, or to evolution, or to authority - rather than addressing the replies presented by myself and others.

Everything in time appears to have a cause. — Devans99

What causes (e.g.) radioactive decay?

Entropy? I think. :grin:

Edit: The unsettling dynamic that an object at rest stays at rest unless an external force is applied. When that force is no longer present, the object gradually returns to it's natural state of inactivity. On a small scale the solid molecule when introduced to moisture becomes liquid and when introduced to heat becomes a gas, when the heat is gone it reverts to a liquid and when that moisture is gone it reverts back to a solid. On a larger scale they say the universe is headed for heat death for example.

Entropy is a stochastical description and not a causal relation or agent.

We can fill the argument out, I think.

The implication of the OP is that a rational person must accept a chain of cause and effect - that every event has a cause.

I showed above that this can neither be proven, nor disproven.

A possible reply is that even so, it is necessary in order to engage in rational discussion that one accept the so-called principle of causation.

What your example, radiation, and other examples from thermodynamics and quantum mechanics show is that there are ways of proceeding that do not presuppose causation.

Some defenders of causation might be tempted to suggest that, for example, there is a hidden cause for an atom fissioning now... but that misses the point. Science has proceeded without finding this hidden cause. Rational discussion proceeds without the principle of causation.

On occasions writers here have elevated the 'principle of causation' to the status of a law of thought - on a par with Identity, Non-contradiction and Excluded Middle. Of course, it isn't.

Saying the same thing over and over, coming to the same asinine conclusion over and over again, may be something or other, but it sure as hell ain't philosophy. If I seem harsh, it's only because one gets tired of banging one's head against the same wall of conventional, sclerotic thinking. — Gary M Washburn

:up:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must invent religion.