This thread isn't a poll/vote, so we kind of expect a bit more than just "I agree".
You agreeing doesn't make it so. — jorndoe
YOU. SIMPLY. DON"T. GET. IT. The question concerned the "event" of one ball passing other balls. AND. NOTHING. ELSE. Sorry about the all-caps, but perhaps that will prod you to actually reading the question and trying to understand the question — tim wood
Really? Please share your thoughts on the differences between our perceptions of the world, and what the world really is? — 3017amen
In general an event is not an effect. — Devans99
So an event is not something that happens? — tim wood
I adopted the Deist/Logos worldview simply because the Materialist ethos does not even address the fundamental philosophical question : Why? It tells us How the world evolves, but leaves us with the impression of a completely random meaningless process. Yet, Science would not be possible if there was no meaningful Order to the world. The creator or organizer (First Cause) of the logical process of evolution (physical causation) is a valid rational question. And the emergence of Mind from Matter is still the "hard problem" that some materialists dismiss as a non-scientific disputation. But it is, and always has been, a philosophical question.Why adopt even this? — Banno
I agreed that the First Cause is not "universal", in the sense of limited to the known universe. I was just pointing out that the Logos is ubiquitous, comprehensive, omnipresent, and eternal. So it's not a logical contradiction, but merely a semantic distinction. :joke:This nevertheless means that cause and effect isn't universal. I was really just pointing out that logical contradiction. — Echarmion
Focus on this. Where exactly is the cause? I buy some dynamite to blast an old tree stump out of the ground: the dynamite works. What caused it to explode? — tim wood
Unfortunately, the term "Deist" has gained some debatable baggage over the years, from its origin as simple (pre-big-bang) acknowledgement that the world had a beginning, a creation moment, hence a creator. So, I no longer emphasize that term, and instead call my worldview Enformationism, which is merely a theory of how the world evolved after the creation. I remain open-minded but agnostic about anything super-natural.Sounds like a sensible position. I would say I am agnostic-deist but strongly leaning towards deism. — Devans99
I was merely noting that your brief description could be interpreted as a reference to the Multiverse. I didn't think you intended it that way. :smile:By a wider universe outside spacetime, I do not mean a multiverse. I mean something timeless - it has permanent existence - it was never created - it will never be destroyed. This timeless thing is then the root cause of everything in existence. So it is not turtles all the way down - the buck stops with the timeless first cause. — Devans99
Our perceptions of the world are probably similar — tim wood
I remind myself that my perceptions of the world are nor more nor less than my perceptions of the world. — tim wood
I remain open-minded but agnostic about anything super-natural. — Gnomon
I was merely noting that your brief description could be interpreted as a reference to the Multiverse. I didn't think you intended it that way. :smile: — Gnomon
We could also add St Thomas Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. He assumed in his argument that the axiom: ‘can’t get something from nothing’ holds - an assumption that is supported by the law of conservation of energy.
This assumption leads to the conclusion that something must have permanent existence, IE if the universe was ever in a state of nothingness, then ‘can’t get something from nothing’ implies it would still be in a state of nothingness today - so something must have permanent existence. But time has a start so nothing can exist permanently in time, so the rejection of creation ex nilhilo leads us to the same conclusion - something timeless and permanent must exist outside of spacetime. — Devans99
Yep, agreed. I do agree with Aquinas on his cosmological argument. Another way of saying that is that nothing can move by itself since it has to be moved by something else. So it's either turtle power, or something more intelligent. — 3017amen
Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity. — 3017amen
Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity. — 3017amen
Yep, agreed. I do agree with Aquinas on his cosmological argument. Another way of saying that is that nothing can move by itself since it has to be moved by something else. So it's either turtle power, or something more intelligent. — 3017amen
Aquinas ended each of his arguments with variations of, "And this we all call God."
If he had ended his arguments logically...he would have written, "And this we all accept as an unknown."
The "This we all call God" was gratuitous, self-serving, and frankly, silly — Frank Apisa
:up:Aquinas ended each of his arguments with variations of, "And this we all call God."
If he had ended his arguments logically...he would have written, "And this we all accept as an unknown." — Frank Apisa
:100:I do not think anyone here begrudges you [Devans99] any belief you happen to believe in, but you have been offering them as substantive for really a long time across many threads in what amounts to a long-term one-note samba of nonsense. — tim wood
Either you don't know that you don't know (Dunning-Kruger effect) or you know you don't know and lack the integrity, or honesty, to admit it; so which is it, Devans?Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'. — Devans99
You've not made a sound, or evidentiary, argument for the 'existence of g/G' yet (as tim wood, Banno, I et al have established), which brings Hitchens' Razor comes to mind:And your counter argument? — Devans99
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. — duly Hitchslaps Devon99
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.