America simply cannot keep losing children to maniacs armed with assault weapons.
They have to do something drastic and new and permanent!
They have to face the illegitimate power the gun lobby has.
Is it not the case that per head of population there are more guns in Canada.
Why do they not have as many difficulties with guns as America does?
Surely Americans must look at western Europe and see that a gun-totting citizenry is not the way to go.

Why should one discuss a non-existent. — val p miranda

Theists do that all the time. :smile:
But as you don't declare yourself a theist or a panpsychist and I am an atheist, I think it's time to say thanks for sharing your viewpoints with me on the origin story. I don't think we can take our interesting exchange any further as I don't think either of us will gain much more of value than we have already.

Remember: existence can only be material or not material. — val p miranda

But what for you would be an example of a non-material existence? I take it you are not referring to massless existence such as energy or one of the energy-based lifeforms conjectured in sci-fi stories.
So what else can you be conceptualising in your head which is not in line with or at least strongly related to, a theistic/supernatural claim for the origin story of our Universe?
Do you think there is a panpsychist element to your viewpoint on the origin story in a similar vein to that held by @Jackson?

You're quite challenging and that is good. — val p miranda

Thank you for your magnanimity. My intention is not to discomfort you, just to dialogue with your viewpoints.

You seem to be 'cherry picking' to suit your own personal musings on the origin story whilst ignoring certain inconsistencies that you should not ignore imo.

You choose one synonym from a list of synonyms, ALL of which are synonymous with the term immaterial. You conveniently ignore the synonym 'supernatural,' Do you ignore it because it is evidence against your suggestion that you can use the term 'Immaterial' to suggest something 'natural'?

it is a Kantian transcendental since space is absolute, necessary and universal as I view it. — val p miranda

Yet you just responded to @Gregory with:

Kant and Berkeley fought a material world. My immaterial space should not be associated with their world. — val p miranda

The immaterial is transparent as is current space; there is no blockage. Existence can only be material and not material; the material did not create itself. More later after your response. — val p miranda

In what way is current space transparent? I see the spacial volume in the room I am in while typing this text! If dark energy is correct then the vacuum of space produces energy. There is no example of an area of space studied by science where absolutely no activity has been encountered. Space/the void/the vacuum is absolutely broiling with quantum activity.

I think you are just 'battling' with the 'something cannot come from nothing' concept.
Have you read Laurence Krauss' book 'A Universe from nothing?'
Is there nothing in discussions like:




Which sate's your need to struggle/battle with the 'something from nothing' concept?

Just like that! Rabbit out of hat. No further explanation needed, or worth pursuing. Move along. — Wayfarer

Aw! don't be a spoilsport Wayfarer. I like to follow the white rabbit and find out where it goes.
I have enjoyed exchanging with @val p miranda so far.

I prefer the original.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a biblical concept spoken by Jesus in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12; it is commonly referred to as the "Golden Rule."

Not every word or phrase in the bible is total BS. Only most of it.
For me, the golden rule is a humanist fundamental. Something every human should strive towards, except of course when it is used by the masochist or the masochistic rapist who might and have used the phrase in a warped ironic sense, to justify their behavior.

You need to offer more on your concept of 'immaterial space'. Your descriptions of it so far don't offer much. In what way is your immaterial space, natural. Especially considering the word is described as
referring to something of 'no importance' or, philosophically, as:

spiritual, rather than physical.
"we have immaterial souls"
synonyms:
intangible · incorporeal · not material · bodiless · unembodied · disembodied · impalpable · ethereal · unsubstantial · insubstantial · airy · aerial · spiritual · ghostly · spectral · wraithlike · transcendental · unearthly · supernatural · discarnate · disincarnate · unbodied · phantasmal · phantasmic

It has more importance in cosmology, I think, as the Newtonian laws and concept of gravity can be fully demonstrated as being correct to a high level of accuracy in the macro universe and gravity's role in the subatomic universe is also well understood in relation to the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces yet Quantum Mechanics and gravity seem to be incoherent, in that they won't 'stick' together, they are not cohesive. We need a quantum theory of gravity and we don't have one.

Years ago I talked to a priest about a religious issue. His only response was that my problem was being Protestant. I had to be Catholic. Helped me decide to drop Christianity altogethere — Jackson

Sounds about par for the course. Your response was the best response imo. :clap:
I never seem to run out of examples of nefarious theists and their nefarious deeds when theists claim that atheists cannot be moral individuals and want to act like animals in the jungle. :lol:

Yeah, they have even learned to shout from the pulpit as 'not god told me to' but god commanded me to and now he commands you to....
I caught an excerpt from an evanHELLical style TV channel recently and they were on 'fundraising' mode.
I could not believe the performance, they even brought in speaking in tongues.
It was a shocking litany of hard-sell tactics. At one point a vile preacher suggested that if people were struggling to decide between buying 'necessaries for themselves' or contributing to 'gods holy cause,' they must contribute to god almighty because that can help save their very soul!'
Utter nefarious b*******!

Yes. Probably why there are so many comic book superhero movies — Jackson

Well some of the early gods have actually become comic-based superheros, such as Thor and the rest are based on classical or biblical characters such as Hercules...Samson....Goliath....being represented by characters like the hulk or the thing in the fantastic 4.
These fables do nonetheless certainly offer a nice easy way to make a good living for those who claim to speak in gods name, such as popes, priests, ministers, imams, rabbi's etc

How does God protect against primal fears? — Jarjar

Because god is promoted as a superhero who cares about you and will look after you if you comply with its dictates.

Who is hillary? — Jarjar

A polytheist.

Are these what you mean by rationale and logic behind theism? Protections of primal fears? — Jarjar

You sound familiar!

How does God protect against primal fears? — Jarjar

Ask a theist, perhaps @hillary.

What then are the rationale and logic behind theism? What's the rationale behind the divine spark, so to speak? — Jarjar

No rationale at all, just manifestations of wishful protections against primal fears.

:smile: Cudos for choosing a star wars handle and one of the most controversial characters amongst the star wars fans. Was that why you chose it?

The bible is the best-selling fiction novel ever! — Jarjar

I tend to agree with this. If they serialised it and stayed true to its content (especially the old testament), it would be far more disturbing that Games of Thrones ever was. This god character in the old testament is far nastier than most other characters I have read about in ancient or modern storytelling.

Still, how can we ever be sure of the non-existence of God?
One might lay the burden of proof on the faithfully, but what if their default state is Gid+Universe. Why should they prove something in the first place? Does the atheist have to prove the non existence of God? Which would be rather difficult though. How you proof something doesn't exist? — Jarjar

As an athiest, I cannot disprove the existence of god. Perhaps science will keep advancing the evidence against its existence, that's good enough for me because unless their god has the ability and the balls to show up and explain itself, theism is unlikely to produce any valid evidence in the future.
I think the burden of proof lies with theists as atheists have nothing to prove because to me, an atheist is just someone who says to all theists, I don't believe you, where is your proof?

Meantime, I for one, can match the vigour, conviction, determination, level of insistence and certainly the logic and rationale employed by theism, even the more energetic evanhellical versions.
I think that its their numbers that are reducing, especially amongst those who are getting increased access to personal education.
Global theism has been losing its power to influence and/or terrorise uneducated masses of people since the invention of the concept of education for all.

Sorry, I was just exercising my Cartesian doubt. It's fun to exercise the mind with such philosophical extremes. — Merkwurdichliebe

Especially after 10 good measures of a good peaty Scottish single malt such as Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Caol Ila, Ileach etc.

Movement is dependent on the concept of extension, and it requires the notion of duration to make it so. The big question is whether we apprehend these concepts from our experience, or project them onto our experience? Do we discover or create? Or if its a synthesis, what is the dynamic? — Merkwurdichliebe

But if extension and duration are not real then the only alternative is unreal or an emulation/simulation.
Are you just asking the question 'is the universe a simulation,' which if true means Descartes was wrong and we don't need to even consider solipsism. I don't think those who are simulated can ever find out the dynamic or the reasons/justifications of the simulators. This is similar to the theistic claim that we cannot know the mind of god but it also contradicts the Greek's assertion of cosmos or that the universe is knowable. Its also of course possible that we are the victims of nefarious powerful beings who have duped us into living as emulations/simulations (matrix movie-style)!
I don't see much difference between the plausibility of the tale told under the movie tile matrix and the tale told under the theistic titles 'bible,' 'quran,' 'torah,' 'bhagavad gita.' or 'fairy tales by Hans CHRISTIAN Anderson.'

DOES THE IMMATERIAL EXIST? The whole post depends on the answer to that question. — val p miranda

For you, is this the same question as, 'does the supernatural exist?' and 'does god exist?'

Can I scratch an annoying itch as well? based on your use of 'uncaused cause.' @jamal already raised a valid objection to my claim that it is a nonsense term but I would like to put it another way.
I can envisage an outcome having a cause.
I can even (if I suspend my critical and rational thinking) envisage a posit such as god or a 'first cause' or 'prime mover/agent' which is eternal and had no cause, so it is uncaused. But under what logic can you combine these two terms into uncaused cause? I don't understand why a bad phrase coined by a confused theist (only my opinion) such as Thomas Aquinas should still have any credence today.
Many terms used by people in the past were poorly formed by today's standards.
I feel a similar way, but perhaps not as intensely, towards your Aristotelian 'efficient cause' term.
I am not pushing a major gripe here, I am just trying to scratch an itch as I explained.

Space is a fascinating concept. It definitely exists in our minds — Merkwurdichliebe

What do you move in, if not space?

Was there a singularity? Science is not able to proceed beyond the big bang — val p miranda

Singularity is just a label for a collection of attributes such as infinite density, infinite energy concentration, unknown dimensionality/shape, defies the word 'size' etc but it's what the universe is posited as coming from. Did you mean to say that science is ONLY ABLE to proceed beyond the big band? We know absolutely nothing about what created the singularity or 'before' the big bang except for hypotheses such as the multiverse, the cyclic Universe, eternal inflation etc

On nothing. To me it so simple. Nothing is a concept with no existence; nothing does not exist. One should not put much stock in non-existence — val p miranda

You made that clear in your OP.
Humans cannot perceive the concept of 'nothing' but that alone is not proof that it does not and cannot exist.
Roger Penrose discusses the demise of our own Universe due to entropy. In the final stages, we are left with a Universe that has expanse, no mass, energy only. This would not match the concept of nothing, but Penrose then makes an excellent conceptual jump imo.
He posits that at that point, the term 'big' has no intrinsic meaning and it is equivalent to the term small or sizeless.
Under these conditions, time, maybe reset to 0 and all of the energy concentrate left in the Universe can be a singularity and cause a new big bang, or a new Universe to begin. He and his team believe they have found 6 'Hawking points,' which are areas of different temperatures within the cosmic microwave background radiation which are a result of a previous Universe cycle.
He has published papers that show that the evidence to back this up is very strong and he is still waiting for an adequate response from the current cosmology community.

I suggested that you read my post on The Origin of the Universe. — val p miranda

I had read your OP when you first posted this thread. You use the label 'immaterial space,' and suggest it became 'actual space,' or I assume 'material space.' You then talked about Aristotelian and Kantian viewpoints in this area and make final comments such as:

. Perhaps, God is the first existant,

space is not empirical. What, then, is space? Is it a perception, a field, a bending and stretching existent, an immaterial existent or something else? — val p miranda

Would you not agree that you are simply musing about what the truth of the origin story really is.
That's fine, as that's what we are all doing on this thread. But for me, your musings dont offer any progression as they are too general and lack details. For example.

You don't clearly define that which you label immaterial space. (Probably because no one can!) Is this a void that contains energy only?
If it's not physical, do you merely mean it has no mass or it is not what we would label 'natural' so it is unnatural, supernatural, metaphysical (in that it is beyond or before/after physics?

You give no indication of the process involved in immaterial space becoming actual space. You suggest it might be the big bang but then how did immaterial space produce the singularity?

What do you mean by 'space is not empirical?' do you mean we cannot find out what space IS by empirical means?
Space is not a perception! unless you think that our Universe is a simulation. Space exists.
A field exists, space can actually bend and expand based on the 'empirical evidence' we have.
So you are simply asking questions and probing the validity of current thinking regarding the origin story, as we all are, but the question remains, are we making any relevant progress? or are we merely just confirming our own current viewpoints to each other and confirming the fact that the final current truth for all of us is that none of us knows/can demonstrate what the origin story ACTUALLY IS, especially the theists. I say that, merely because I think science is the only practice that might actually make some real progress, in the future, on this fundamental question

In a way, yes. It isn't that one couldn't prove that a God existed through evidence, but that the existence of the universe does not necessitate that the origin be a God — Philosophim

I completely agree! and it would be so easy for an omnipotent entity to settle the evidence need that human science requires, so the fact it hasn't done so points toward its nonexistence.

No, none. Causality is a very useful and easy to prove concept — Philosophim

Yes I agree but only after the moment of the 'singularity,' does causality have any meaning if there was no 'before,' no before time=0. I don't think it does, unless you start to posit something like the cyclical/bounce/oscillating Universe, as suggested by Roger Penrose et al and if you do that then any first cause may be pushed back forever. If that has value then each pushback reduces the relevance of any first cause to THIS UNIVERSE and the lifeforms in it.
Does it then not become valid to suggest that enough pushbacks and this first cause becomes as significant as that of some mindless spark that has no existence or significance at all to our current universe? For me, it would be like asking, 'in what ways does the singularity of the big bang affect my everyday life as a human? Should I worship the singularity? Does it have presence and influence today? Does it have willpower and does it have a code of life that it wants me to follow? Will it judge my life and does it have the power to decide if I will still exist after I die? Should I thank it for providing my food?'

It is impossible that the universe exists without a first uncaused cause. — val p miranda

Well, I would ask you two questions based on what you have typed above.
1. Do you think the reason that anything exists rather than nothing must follow the current notions of what humans consider impossible?

2. Could you or I come up with a 'first cause,' which is not god as described or conceived by any human ever?

How can QM start the universe if the principle from nothing comes nothing is valid? — val p miranda

Ok, but we have to establish what nothing is. The best effort cosmologists can come up with is along the lines of Laurence Krauss and his statement of 'an absence of something.' In other words, there is no satisfactory description of nothing. Humans have quite powerful imaginations yet no matter how much we demand a perception of nothing, the best our imagination can come up with is a black space, and we know 'black' and 'space' are something, not nothing.
It is simply beyond current human ability to perceive nothing so how can we explain something coming from it? For me, this proves that any god posit is particularly OF THIS GAP, and is therefore a meaningless suggestion.

Comb your f****** hair BOJO you look like a clown! Ken Dodd (if he were still alive) would complain you are trying to steal his act. Now shove that tickling stick right up your....... and RESIGN!
Oh! :naughty: My conscience is expressing its true feelings again.

Ha! And what part of me wasn't 'being'. — Varde

I'm glad you agree, your annoyance and my reaction to @skydark......unsurprisingly human.

Physicality and intelligence are coexistent, neither came before the other — Jackson

Ok, thanks for the exchange about our origin of the Universe viewpoints.

I walk to the drugstore to buy allergy medicine. Walking is the efficient cause. Needing relief from allergies is the final cause — Jackson

Ok, a clear example, and i get the distinction you are making but in analysing that scenario a little deeper, it seems to me that there are other events to consider, there are two possibilities:
1. I have a prescription or I am low or have ran out of allergy medicine and I need more.
2. I am suffering an allergic reaction and I need allergy medicine.

One of these initial conditions 'caused' you to 'cause' your legs to walk to the drugstore.
Was that FIRST cause another example of 'an efficient cause,' the realisation that you needed allergy medicine. So the condition occurred before the reaction to it.
So in your panpsychist viewpoint did spacetime come before the universal conscience or after it or at the same time?

Bar the usual TPF soap opera occurrence, this thread has been a victory — Varde

I will react to characters like @skydark when I think it is required.
I understand that you might be annoyed by such exchanges but it is part of being human imo and it's a necessary part as far as I am concerned.

Will so. :up: — skyblack

bye bye twinkle!

No. Final cause does not act — Jackson

Does not or cannot? is choice invloved?

See how easy you are? — skyblack

Ok, you don't have to keep demonstrating how delusional you are, you have provided me with adequate evidence. Keep trying to find a light to help you with your dark sky. :sparkle:

None
— Jackson

:grin: Ok, we will drop that one then, unless you want to breath new air into it. — universeness

I see you do:
Excuse my lack of knowledge of philosophical academia:
I picked the following from the link you provided:

"The place where the archer moves the projectile was at the start of the flight, and while the projectile sailed through the air, no discernible efficient cause acts on it."

But we now fully understand the motion of an arrow fired by an archer and there certainly is discernable cause acting upon it, such as wind resistance, rain hitting the arrow in flight, and gravity
Or is this example just suggesting that no 'thought' was acting upon the arrow, guiding its flight path.
Not the archers thought or gods thought. The theists would of course suggest that god could influence the flight of the arrow if it wanted to.

The final cause acts, but it acts according to the mode of final causality, as an end or good that induces the efficient cause to act.
This suggests to me that Aristotelian thought suggests that the arrow's path can be altered if this 'efficient cause' has the intent to make it so.

It can not have come into existence without an efficient cause (since that would violate the law of causality, one of the basic laws of thought).
Well, that's the whole issue we are discussing, whether or not there is a law of causality that cannot be violated when considering the origin story of our uinverse.

All efficient causes are produced by the will of a mind or spirit (mind or spirit being that which thinks, wills, and perceives).
But is this your variant of panpsychism that there already exists a Universal mind or conscience and it is not an emergent reality that might become true in the very distant future due to networking transhumans or networking lifeforms from all over the universe?

he was just explaining intelligence of the universe — Jackson

Ah, is your viewpoint panpsychist or cosmopsychist?

None — Jackson

:grin: Ok, we will drop that one then, unless you want to breath new air into it.

You are an easy one. — skyblack

Unfortunately for your mommy, you are not!

Efficient cause means how something is caused or changed, especially by an agent — Jackson

I cant find examples of that contextual use of the word 'efficient.'

A quick google search offers:

efficiency(of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
"more efficient processing of information"
synonyms:
well organized · methodical · systematic · structured · well planned · [more]
preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
"an energy-efficient heating system"
(of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way.
"an efficient administrator"
synonyms:
well organized · methodical · systematic · structured · well planned · [more]

Which of these would best illustrate your use of 'efficient?'

Aristotle's god is a principle, not personality. So, no, I never believed in God in any Christian sense — Jackson

Ok so you reject all current 'religious' descriptions of god, yes?
But was Aristotle's description not based on an apriori metaphysical viewpoint and as this requires no empirical evidence at all and is only based on human belief, I don't see how Aristotle's description has any more value than belief in any story based on human musings on the supernatural from El and Baal to the Christian god, the Hindu Gods or even @hillary's god for every species that ever existed.
Can you accept god as a 'principle' in the absence of any empirical evidence at all?

Efficient cause. — Jackson

Why efficient? Do you mean that there are other ways to achieve the same result which would be successful but less efficient?

If you say God caused the physical universe, that would be an efficient cause — Jackson

Did you mean 'efficient' or 'sufficient.' I take it you meant sufficient and in that case, yes, it could be. Science has yet to and may never be able to disprove the god posit.

Then you would look at God as needing to be caused as well. — Jackson

Yes, unless you are willing to accept such (imo) very dubious (in the best case scenario) as uncaused cause for the specially pleaded case of god.

I think Aristotle solves the problem by making the physical world always existing and 'God' (Prime Mover) also uncaused and co-existing — Jackson

But surely, if god co-exists with the Universe then, as humans who ask questions, we must ask what gods function is in the same way we strive to understand how the Universe works.
Are you happy with any current description or evidence available that attempts to explain the role god played and now plays in this Universe?

I see you need to run to mommy for a reassuring hug. Run little boy, run to your mommy.
Your sky is quite dark isn't it!

But can you give me an example that demonstrates it's not a self-contradicting statement?

These are important issues when it comes to the theistic arguments which support the first cause god posit.

Sean Carrol makes the point that objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity do not need a cause to keep moving. Others counter with, but this is about a sustaining cause not an initial cause.

I realise, you are just discussing the term uncaused cause from the standpoint of logic and contradiction but I think it does fail in that aspect as well. Which rule in propositional logic validates uncaused cause?