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

Mmmm, let's see, I agree with Devon here ( I can add at least a dozen or so existential and/or metaphysical phenomena if that helps you):

1. The argument from causality is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
2. The fact that time has a start is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
3. The Big Bang sure looks like it was caused by something intelligent
4. The fact the universe is not in equilibrium implies a permanent, intelligent, presence
5. The fine tuning argument is strongly suggestive that intelligence is behind the universe.

So what can a betting man do?

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.

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.

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

An event is not an effect. We are talking about cause and effect here.

Really? Please share your thoughts on the differences between our perceptions of the world, and what the world really is? — 3017amen

Our perceptions of the world are probably similar. But you apparently take that as how the world is, whereas I remind myself that my perceptions of the world are nor more nor less than my perceptions of the world.

An event is not an effect. We are talking about cause and effect here. — Devans99

So things happen that are not caused, yes?

So things happen that are not caused, yes? — tim wood

No. The cause of the movement past the balls was the cue hitting the (now) moving ball.

An effect is some force applying to matter/energy. An event is a spacetime co-ordinate.

In general an event is not an effect.

In general an event is not an effect. — Devans99

So an event is not something that happens? You need to pay attention to the words because you're still not getting it. E.g., I drive down the street past your house. Passing you house on the street is an event. Question: what caused that event?

If you want to limit your observation to just those occurrences where there seems to be a C followed by an E, then please qualify your argument. And the right way to do that is to make clear what you mean by cause and effect - not so easy!

And what does it mean to say, "in general"? Does that mean sometimes so, sometimes not so?

So an event is not something that happens? — tim wood

Events happen but they are not an effects (they might be coincidental with effects, but generally they are not).

An effect is matter/energy interacting with matter/energy.

Take a null sort of universe for example - no matter/energy but 4d spacetime. Its full of events yet there are no effects.

Why adopt even this? — Banno

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.

So, I suppose you could say that my curiosity goes beyond the empirical limits of the scientific method. But it is not satisfied by the pre-scientific "revelations" of Religion. Consequently, I began with a cutting-edge insight of Quantum theory --- that all is Information --- and proceeded to develop my own personal worldview; which explains, to my satisfaction, how and why the world is the way it is. Moreover, as (non-theistic) philosopher Robert Wright concluded in The Evolution of God, "The beauty of the Logos was that you didn't have to take anyone's word for it". The evidence (information) is inherent in the physical world all around us, and the Logos conclusion is completely logical.

But, if your curiosity is content with a materialistic model of a world with a mysterious inexplicable elliptical beginning . . . . then that's OK with me [see Dawkins quote]. :cool:

Logos : the divine algorithm
___Robert Wright

Logos : A principle originating in classical Greek thought which refers to a universal divine reason, immanent in nature, yet transcending all oppositions and imperfections in the cosmos and humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html

Secular Deism : 3- Absolutely. I’ve seen no evidence that Atheism, Deism and Agnosticism are against each other in anyway. Those who ascribed to these defined beliefs may disagree on some minor specifics about the likeliness of a creator, but that’s about it.
https://www.richarddawkins.net/2013/11/atheism-deism-and-agnosticism-should-have-the-same-goal-secularism/

An effect is matter/energy interacting with matter/energy. — Devans99

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?

This nevertheless means that cause and effect isn't universal. I was really just pointing out that logical contradiction. — Echarmion

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:

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

1. The interaction of the match on the matchbox causes friction - the effect is combustion.
2. The interaction of the match on the fuse causes combustion of the fuse.
3. The combustion of the fuse ignites the explosive, causing an explosion.

Causality is quite complex I think: there are macro-level and micro-level causes and effects. Some effects are instantaneous whereas others have a prolonged duration.

But causality is always matter/energy acting on matter/energy - fundamentally a very scientific principle.

Sounds like a sensible position. I would say I am agnostic-deist but strongly leaning towards deism. — Devans99

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.

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

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:

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

...and so your perceptions of the world are based upon conscious existence, right?. How are they similar, in what way? For instance, similar, in that consciousness emerged from chaos?

I remain open-minded but agnostic about anything super-natural. — Gnomon

What is nature though? Is it the stuff in spacetime? Then anything beyond might class as super-natural.

Its interesting to think that we are aware of one possible reality; that of spacetime. We have no idea how many other forms of reality could be out there - things completely different from spacetime that are no time and no distance from our universe.

So super-natural I agree we cannot rule out.

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

I can't disprove the existence of a multiverse. It might exist. There is no compelling evidence for or against a multiverse. It is a unscientific concept - how are we meant to collect empirical evidence for something causally disconnected from our universe?

If there is a multiverse, my guess is it all supports life and was all caused somehow by the timeless first cause.

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.

HEADLINE: God's existence proven once and for all, on the PhilosophyForum.com, by a guy named "Devans".

Good grief.

And your counter argument?

How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence?

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

Yes, there must be something self-powered, IE intelligent in the universe. If you look at all natural systems that are purely composed of dumb objects, then they always end up in equilibrium (even orbits decay). For a system to stay out of equilibrium permanently as our universe has, it must have some element of self-power - self-determination - something intelligent must have permanent existence. But nothing permanent can exist in time.

So this argument based on equilibrium also points to a timeless first cause.

Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity.

Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity. — 3017amen

I have never made my mind up on panentheism. A simplistic way of looking at it: In the beginning there was:

1. God. He made the universe from part of his own substance.
2. God and some stuff. He made the universe from stuff.

I have no evidence either way so it seems like 50%/50% for/against panentheism

Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity. — 3017amen

Folding timelessness and temporality into one entity is quite a trick - can you expand?

Timelessness is where I am stuck. The only sort of change we are aware of is within spacetime. But spacetime having a start implies timelessness and also implies a cause of the start of time. But how can something be caused by something external to time? - Without time, how can change take place?

So it seems timelessness must be able to somehow allow change. Some type of change that is not the usual type that we are used to within spacetime.

So timelessness seems to be a logical requirement, but what exactly could it be?

It has puzzled philosophers for 1000s of years. The best description I heard was 'the eternal now' - imagine all of the events in your life somehow experienced in one go.

:roll: :yawn:

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.

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

You have to put yourself in the mind of Thomas - this was before the discovery of biological evolution and they still thought the earth was the centre of the universe. I think he made very reasonable conclusions with the amount of evidence he was working with.

Have you ever heard the term 'dipolar' God? Theoretical physicist Davies argues that in his book the Mind of God. It combines logical necessity with contingency. An unchanging timeless being (required for the notion of what caused the Big Bang/what was God doing prior to it) combined with openness and freedom of say, QM or quantum physics (double slit experiment, etc.).

It's not the same as complete chaos. It provides for structured randomness in nature, along with the logical necessity of physical existence. It is intriguing when analogized with Wheeler's game of 20-questions. It seems to imply a participatory anthropic universe (PAP/intelligence) based on our asking the right questions. Kind of like the cosmological computer brain. Depending on what questions we Google, we will only get that which we ask.

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

:up:

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

:100:

Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'. — Devans99

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?

And your counter argument? — 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:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. — duly Hitchslaps Devon99

How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence?

I take it there is some sort of acquiescence by silence?

Or, since you couldn't provide an answer, you got nothing? Gee, well, something exists!! LOL