Then why are you contributing to the thread...out of boredom? LOL — 3017amen
Since you are not able to answer the question that speaks volumes already. If I was an atheist I wouldn't even be contributing to this thread because it would be meaningless. It seems obvious that any atheist who bothers to care, has no faith in their belief system. — 3017amen
not sure that suffices to make a reasonable inference, but I think I understand what you're saying and acknowledge its persuasiveness. I would say it's more an evocation than an inference; nothing magical, but like a great work of art, poem or music. Something evokes a kind of conclusion. — Ciceronianus the White
The fact that your mind automatically goes to labeling me "atheist" is yet another reason against you. If you're a teenager or young adult, then my apologies. I assume only older people post here. — Xtrix
I do not believe in random — Devans99
I don't call those answers. — Devans99
I cannot. — Devans99
Finite yet unbounded. Is that some sort of joke? — Devans99
Supertasks are obviously logically impossible — Devans99
Likewise my apologies if that label does not fit the bill. Actually there's probably a decent amount of atheists who are in-the-closet agnostic. — 3017amen
But much like the far right-wing extremist/fundamentalist, the stereotypical atheist comes across as angry and bitter. But let's not derail the thread. — 3017amen
Causation is matter/energy acting on matter/energy. So causation is just Newton's laws of motion. — Devans99
I'm neither -- just as I'm neither about ectoplasm. Until someone explains what it is, I can't be for it, against it, or agnostic about it. — Xtrix
1. Causation is matter acting on matter via Newton's laws of motion.
2. All action takes place subject to the speed of light limit, so the cause precedes the effect
3. All empirical evidence indicates that every effect has a cause (at least at macro level, probably at micro level too - I already explained how there is a cause for radioactive decay for example).
4. A cause can cause multiple effects. Each effect in its turn can cause multiple follow on effects
5. So by [4], causation must form a pyramid shape in time, the first cause being at the tip of the pyramid
6. Entropy increasing with time reenforces this view - as causes and effects multiply, things become less organised so entropy increases. — Devans99
If you look at the picture of the universe: — Devans99
You can see that it takes on the pyramid shape I was referring to - with the Big Bang - likely the start of time - being the first cause.
Nothing in science or philosophy is ultimately either falsifiable nor provable - all our deductions are based on axioms - and those axioms maybe true or false - so we can prove results only subject to our axioms being correct. — Devans99
I believe that the axiom: 'Everything in time has a cause' is a very strong axiom, one which we live our everyday lives according to. Hence I have a strong conviction that there is a timeless first cause, as this is deducible from the axiom. — Devans99
As I understand it, Information can be both permanent (eternal) and temporal (transitory). I illustrate that BothAnd notion by looking at Shannon's boiled-down basic Information, containing no specific meaning. It's defined as a string of 1s and 0s, something or nothing. I imagine that static dichotomy set in motion as an oscillation of spacetime (waveform) varying between [1] (maximum, and [-1] (minimum, with an average baseline of (0) no signal. Reality though, is a complex waveform, that contains the kind of Information that our senses interpret as Meaning (Mind, ideas), or as Thingness (physical objects).Certainly seems that information is fundamental. A key question is that is information transitory, permanent or a mixture of both? For anything to exist at all in the universe, it seems there must be permanent information associated with it - the first cause is permanent. What about spacetime though? Does it contain permanent information (eternalism) or transitory information (presentism)? It could also be something in-between like growing block theory - information is permanent once created. — Devans99
It's not their main concern, but it is certainly a factor. It's routinely invoked as a counter to 'fine-tuning'-style arguments by pop-sci figures.
We know you believe time must have a start, that you want time to have had a start. The problem is of course that the evidence and logic of the matter doesn't tell us firmly either way: again, hence scientific models of both varieties remaining viable.Time must have a start. The past is either a finite or infinite number of days long. If its infinite, then its longer than any finite number of days. But finite numbers go on forever, so that's impossible.
And therein lies the key- pop science figures and pop science journalism, which is always quick to sensationalize things or provide overly simplistic narratives. — Enai De A Lukal
the Copernican principle: the principle that we do not occupy a special or privileged place in the universe, that we assume everything about our position and situation to be as typical as is consistent with the available evidence. — Enai De A Lukal
Kant argues that, just as Copernicus moved from the supposition of heavenly bodies revolving around a stationary spectator to a moving spectator, so metaphysics, "proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary hypothesis", should move from assuming that "knowledge must conform to objects" to the supposition that "objects must conform to our [a priori] knowledge". — Wikipedia
Perhaps foremost amongst Wittgenstein's methods is the identification and rejection of metaphysical notions; those places where language spins freely, failing to engage with the world. — Banno
Wittgenstein points to the insufficiencies of metaphysics as a mode of discourse; he wants to get beyond it, though, not declare it 'otiose', as his positivist followers sought to do. And there's a world of difference. I take Wittgenstein's 'silence' to be apophatic. — Wayfarer
Another aspect worthy of admiration is his willingness to let the most important things go unsaid. — Banno
Can you give me a synopsis? — 3017amen
Why do you say that? — christian2017
This is an alternative way of looking at the same problem:
1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time
So there has to be one concrete reason (the first cause) outside time. That reason must be uncaused. — Devans99
Thats why I'm here - to get your thoughts on these ideas. — Devans99
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.