— creativesoul

Creative soul...

...I do not do "believing."

If that bothers you...deal with it.

You will never hear me say, "I 'believe' anything."

If you are asking me if I make guesses, estimates, suppositions, or the like...I do. But I always specify that I am guessing, estimating, supposing...

...I never hide what I am doing by saying, "I believe any of those things."

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


So, you know that but you do not believe that? — creativesoul

That is correct. I do not do "believing."

S
10k
↪Frank Apisa
You don't do discussion, so you have some nerve to lecture others in this regard or to invite them to discuss matters, giving them false hope. Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record. — S

Then stop doing it.

I don't.

creativesoul
4.8k

I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


Do you believe that? — creativesoul

No I do not. I do not do "believing."

I KNOW that...not "believe" it.

S
10k

I will continue to say it until you get it...

...or stop asserting things that defy it. — Frank Apisa


I will just continue to disregard what you mindlessly repeat, occasionally calling you out for it. — S

If only!

But you are not disregarding it at all.

You are regarding it quite seriously.

Okay...so we keep discussing it whenever you make one of your unsustainable assertions.

Pattern-chaser
1k

Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa


Well yes, it is, in practice. We use guesswork to get past the fact that the things we know are so few. The "feelings" you mention are guesswork, and we have no alternative but to guess, or to proceed with no answer at all. — Pattern-chaser

I have no problem with that...and I agree.

I call my feelings..."feelings." I call my guesses..."guesses."

The reason I do is because that is what they are.

People who call their feelings or guesses...KNOWING...are doing an injustice to reasonable, serious discussion.

Shamshir
123

unless one can establish something as possible...it is, at a minimum, POSSIBLE. — Frank Apisa

Woah. — Shamshir

Not sure if you are disagreeing or not.

It is as true as 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10.

S
10k

As for the rest I guess I need to go back through and see what was said. — christian2017


You should have done that to begin with. I don't know why people bother to quote other people if they don't address anything in the quote. It was crystal clear that I was objecting to his mindless and unhelpful repetition, a problem that he is known for, and for which he is perhaps the worst offender. The first thing he said in reply to me was literally a copy and paste of what he said previously. — S

I will continue to say it until you get it...

...or stop asserting things that defy it.

I noted that there is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible.

I am correct in that.

You want to assert one of your pieces of nonsense...mostly because you want to call other people "fools."

You seem to be the fool.

christian2017
188

I have no interest in your senseless repetitions. If I were a moderator I would have been taking action against them long ago. — S


All Frank Apisa said was that there are basically mathematical principles that no one can argue with.

If i say truth is not equal to A (hypothetical situation) then it would follow from the information given that any other variable other than A is a possibility.

"if something is not impossible then there is a chance it can happen even if it is unlikely.

This is basic math. — christian2017

Thank you, C.

As you noted, the only point I was making was that unless one can establish something as possible...it is, at a minimum, POSSIBLE.

It does not mean it is likely. It is possible.

In any case, the likelihood of most of the things being discussed here cannot be determined.

S has trouble getting that.

S
10k
↪Frank Apisa
I have no interest in your senseless repetitions. If I were a moderator I would have begun to take action against them long ago. You sound like someone who has brain damage. — S

What you really do not like, S...is being shown how wrong-headed so many of your comments are.

Tough.

S
10k



Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible. — Frank Apisa


Of course there is such a thing, and establishment is irrelevant except in relation to a demonstration. — S

Unless one establishes that "X" is impossible...by definition it is possible.

If you cannot see that...that is your problem...and the problem with your argument.

That doesn't determine whether or not something is impossible, it only shows it. — S

That sounds like something written by a not especially bright 5 year old.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about.

ssu
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa

The floor is yours, Frank A.
2 hours ago
Reply
Options — ssu

Thanks.

I've had my say.

S
10k

The notion of any post death existence is generally scoffed at by Western materialist types, but is it really so absurd? — Inyenzi


Yes, because there isn't a shred of credible evidence in its favour. Only fools take seriously such presumed possibilities. It falls under the same group as a million and one other such presumed possibilities. Why spend your time on this particular one, as opposed to, say, one involving spaghetti? — S

There is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible.

Could be!

Anything is possible...except stuff that has been established as impossible.

But if whatever comes next is as unavailable to us...as whatever may have come before...

...it really amounts to a big "so what?...right?

Wow!

Amazing the shit we get all testy about and worked-up over.

Time for TRUE INTELLIGENCE (not "artificial" intelligence) to come along and rid this planet of its worse virus.

Relativist
544
↪Frank Apisa
Frank - Terminology aside, your views seem pretty reasonable to me. I only brought up the standard terminology to explain how I had interpreted your comments. I wasn't trying to tell you what you "believe" or "know" or whatever words you care to use. — Relativist

Thank you, Relativist.

I tend to over-react to people disputing (or if I think they are disputing)...

a) that I am NOT an atheist

b) that I do NOT do "believing"

c) that I am NOT a Democrat (although I champion a progressive agenda.)

Without re-reading my remarks, I probably went over the line in some of my responses to you on the "believing" issue.

Relativist
543
↪Frank Apisa
Frank - It's not bullshit, as this shows:

" The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[5] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. "

I'm not the semantics police. Feel free to use words however you like, but try not to get mad when this leads to misinterpretation.
14 hours ago
Reply
Options — Relativist

C'mon, Relativist.

You quote one ancient philosopher from a Wikipedia comment...and expect that to be definitive.

And from an opening remark that begins with:

"Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning. "

I DO NOT DO BELIEVING...which no matter what Plato or anyone else says. "Believing is the act of a person saying, "I believe...(x)..."

I DO NOT DO THAT.

If I suppose (x)...I say, "I suppose (x).

If I guess (x)...I say, "I guess (x).

If I estimate, propose, think, assume (x)...I say, I estimate or propose or think or assume (x).

I never say that I "believe" (x). So let's get off you telling me that I must "believe" something in order to write what I wrote...and to which you took exception.

I am telling you that I do not do "believing."

I wish more people would do the same. We would stop all this "I believe (in) God"; "I believe there are no gods" and crap like that, which, in a philosophical setting and discussion, should more properly and truthfully, be stated, "I guess or suppose there is a God" or "I guess or suppose there are no gods."

Now, with as much respect as I can show at this moment, let us please move on with the discussion, because I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

Relativist
542

Not 'self-contradictory" at all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.

I KNOW IT. — Frank Apisa

Strictly speaking in philosophical terms, knowledge = a belief that is true, justified, and (somehow) avoids Gettier conditions. So in order to KNOW F, you must BELIEVE F. — Relativist

Bullshit!

In any case, I am totally willing to change F to "I suppose F to be true." Or "I guess F to be true." Or "I estimate F to be true." I "suppose" F to be true.

Whatever makes you happy.

BUT...I do not do "believing"...because I also estimate, guess, suppose, think, feel...that striking "believe" and "belief" from the lexicon would make planet Earth a more enjoyable place on which to exist. It would eliminate lots of contentious misunderstandings of what is being said in conversations where those words are used.

Said again: I do not do "believing."

I think you are being reasonable, Orcestra.

At some point, every cat lover realizes that "the time has come"...and does what has to be done.

Tears come to my eyes as I write these words...in remembrance of the several times I've had to make that trip to the Vet with a pet cat.

Right now we have three...two who get along very well and one (an outdoor cat who decided we were going to give him a permanent home) who gets a bit feisty.

Hope that day for all three is far, far into the future.

Relativist
540

I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.

Zero, nil, none, zip. — Frank Apisa

Self contradiction:
Statement F: "I, for one, do not do any 'believing' at all."

Therefore you don't believe statement F. — Relativist

Not 'self-contradictory" at all.

I DO NOT BELIEVE statement F.

I KNOW IT.

Why do you consider that extreme?

There are a variety of epistemological approaches for justifying belief. The most stringent is to believe only that which can be logically proven. If you can apply it consistently, it's valid - but I'm skeptical anyone can apply it consistently. — Relativeist

I have no idea of what in hell you are trying to sell here...but I am not buying.

A belief, in the context of "do gods exist or not"...is nothing but a blind guess.

No need to justify a blind guess.

One might want to think about why one is disguising a blind guess by calling it a "belief"...but it doesn't much matter.

Do you NOT believe you are alive and have to do various things to stay that way? (eat, breath,...). — Relativeist

No...I KNOW I am alive and that I have to eat, breathe, etc. in order to stay alive.

Do you not make choices, and when doing so - do you not sometimes base it on expected outcomes (i.e. outcomes you believe will occur)?

I "expect" lots of things...I "guess" lots of things...I "estimate" lots of things...I "suppose" lots of things.

When I do, I say that I expect, guess, estimate, suppose...those things. I do not disguise the fact that I am expecting, guessing, estimating, or supposing...by calling any of those things "believing."

As I said...I do not do "believing."

Not at all.

Relativist
538

Does it? :chin: Empirical evidence supports causality in some (many/most) instances. But mostly we do not look for or consider empirical evidence. We just adopt causality as an axiom. Does the "success of science" offer useful evidence? I can't see that it does. And should we accept that causality is true, just because science is successful? I can't see why. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, the success of science offers useful evidence. For the practical purpose of advancing science, causality should be assumed. That doesn't prove brute facts impossible, so you can justifiably be agnostic to their existence - as long as you are consistent in your preferred epistemology. Are you agnostic to all things that are unproven? That's pretty extreme skepticism, which (if applied consistently) means you can actually believe very little. — Relativist

I, for one, do not do any "believing" at all.

Zero, nil, none, zip.

Why do you consider that extreme?

Relativist
534

Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...

...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...

...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."

It is nonsense.

No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap. — Frank Apisa

Yes, and that's why I actually pointed to the semantics. Cause/effect are semantically inseparable, but that does not entail that everything that exists has been caused (=is an effect). IMO the interesting question is: are brute facts possible? — Relativist

We are of one mind in the cause/effect; creation/creator semantic issue.

That last part I'd have to think about a long time...and I doubt I could come up with a strong conviction for my inclination. My inclination is that "brute facts" are possible. Whether humans can figure out what is a fact and what is not...is the question that initially intrudes for me.

Some things simply ARE. Whether we humans know they ARE or not...does not impact on whether they ARE or not...or at least, I do not think it does. (It may.)

Pattern-chaser
1k
↪Relativist
I'm merely curious about a long-accepted axiom. In recent years, I've read of causeless effects, and effects that chronologically precede their causes. I wonder if the axiom is still 'safe' for use? Is it always the case that an effect has - and maybe must have - a cause? — Pattern-chaser

Perhaps every "effect" has a cause...

...but to suppose (for instance) that "the universe" is an effect just so one can presuppose a "cause" for it...

...is like calling the universe "creation" in order to suppose a "creator."

It is nonsense.

No need for anyone to ensnare him/herself into that trap.

whollyrolling
390
↪Frank Apisa


It's actually a rationalized dismissal of the alleged relevance to my existence of sunlight being blown out of proportion 15,000 years ago.

Why are you compelled to throw your belief system and accompanying semantics around as though it's impossible to imagine that someone could excuse themselves from the ancient sun worship dinner table and go out for an I don't believe anything you're saying to me leisurely Sunday drive?

Your opinion doesn't determine my stance on cosmic anomalies. — whollyrolling

I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing."



You can dismiss anything you want.

I have no problem with you having no "belief" in any gods. I have no "beliefs" in any gods myself.

But as I said, anyone asserting "there are no gods"...is asserting a blind guess.

If you have a problem with that...let's discuss it.

whollyrolling
388
↪Frank Apisa


I'm not blind, and I'm not guessing. Guessing is when you say "hey, there's a thing that no one can see let's try to imagine what it might look like, I think it probably acts like this, etc". You're the one preaching belligerently and with prejudice against what you seem to perceive as "my kind".

You are presently doing everything you're accusing "modern atheists" of doing, literally all of your accusations can be attributed to you and your argument.

And hold on...you don't think belief has anything to do with a thread that is centred on a divide between those who "believe in gods" and those who "don't believe in gods"? Really?

I mean...really? — whollyrolling

Use a quote...and argue against that, rather than this nonsense of characterizing what has been said and then mocking your characterization.

Yes...really.

Saying, "I am an atheist" is not guessing.

Saying, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...IS a guess...a blind guess.

That seems to bother you.

Great!

That is the idea of repeating it.

— whollyrolling

All this "belief" crap in a discussion of whether or not any gods exist...is nothing but blind guesswork.

There is no effort or work involved in simply saying, "I 'believe' a GOD exists"...or for that matter, "I 'believe' there are no gods."

If you want to blindly guess either way...do it, but spare the bullshit that it is anything more than a blind guess. And that "faith" that you talked about is simply insisting that the blind guess is correct.

And we are not talking 3000 years ago.

I defy you to find a dictionary published before 1950...that does not have the definition of atheist as "someone who denies the existence of God (or, a god.)

Get off it.

Modern atheists do want to define anyone who does not have a belief that at least one god exists.

That is a hijacking.

whollyrolling
382
↪Frank Apisa


Well I guess I have to call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Straight out of the gate, you call bullshit, and then you back pedal.

Atheism is a descriptor--yes, it describes an absence of belief in gods, full stop. That its definition and context arise from "to not believe in gods" is as accurate a description of it as can be accomplished. I'm not making a suggestion, all I have to do is read words in a book called "the dictionary"--words which leave no room for interpretation or expansion.

The only motive I can see to avoid using such a descriptor is if someone lives among others who fasten extrapolations and embellishments to the meanings of words in order to focus large groups of people under a singular narrow lens. I would say descriptors are relatively important. For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation.

It's probably best to avoid moving semantic goal posts in order to make an irrational statement based on how something affects someone emotionally in a context of rational discourse. There are times I think to myself about a definition, "this could use a few adjustments", but then I realize I'm reading an excerpt from the Oxford dictionary, and the definition has been changed by someone who has emotional and political reasons for altering the meaning of something that was perfectly fine for the previous seventy years before they formed an opinion about it.

What's nonsense is that atheism has a rather elaborate philosophy and accompanying personality profile attached to it by non-atheists who then presume to tell an theist what they believe and do not believe.

My belief system doesn't entail someone else projecting their belief system onto me. — whollyrolling

Thank you for sharing your thoughts...and now I must call bullshit on your call of bullshit on my earlier call of bullshit on your nonsense.

The idea of "atheism" meaning without a belief in any gods is derived from the mistaken notion that the word come from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) = without a belief in a god.

But that nonsense is out the door, since any etymological search shows that "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism...so it could not have derived that way.

Modern atheists have hijacked the "I have no belief in a god" so that they can inflate their ranks with the more intelligent and honest "agnostics." And it allows atheists to pretend they have no "beliefs"...when in fact, every person I've ever known who uses the word...does "believe" that there are no gods...or who "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I'm not projecting anything on to you. I am calling you on your bullshit.

S
10k

For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that. — Frank Apisa


It's the exact opposite of an aid. It's a problematic assumption, a hindrance. — S

No it isn't a hinderance...it is, as I said, an aid.

I do not rant. — Frank Apisa


I don't think anyone else sees it that way. You come across as ranting. — S

I do not rant...and for pig-headed people, I feel it is necessary to repeat things.

You are, in my opinion, pig-headed...so I repeat for you.

I often repeat things... — Frank Apisa


That's a massive understatement. — S

As I said...it often is necessary.

as you do...and as many others do. — Frank Apisa


To no where near the extent that you do. You and creativesoul are by far the worst on the forum for this, and Devans99 is in the same boat, for sure. — S

It is not surprising that you think that. But your opinions are so poor...it doesn't make sense to give them too much weight.

Anything else I can help you with? — Frank Apisa


Milk, two sugars. Thanks.

Sorta funny. But don't give up your day job. I liked Dingo-Jones' retort better.

If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic." — Frank Apisa


If you genuinely didn't care about such descriptors, then you wouldn't get so worked up about being called an atheist rather than an agnostic... — S

Is there a particular philosophical perspective you have just invented to make this so?

And...what the hell makes you think that because I do not like to use a personal descriptor...means I do not care about such descriptors.

For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that.

...and you wouldn't rant about it on here as you are wont to do. — S

I do not rant. I often repeat things...as you do...and as many others do.

But you are not like me at all in this respect. You care a great deal about something I consider to be too insignificant to get worked up about.

I see. BUT...if I've accidentally lead you to suppose I give a rat's ass whether you care about it or not...or whether you and I are alike in any respect...

...please be dissuaded of that notion. I am not even remotely concerned about that.

Anything else I can help you with?

Atheism is to not believe in gods, there's no other stipulation. — whollyrolling

I just gotta call bullshit on this.

I understand where you are coming from...and I acknowledge your right to do so, but I consider it as wrongheaded as these people who think Uri Geller can bend spoons with his mind.

First of all..."atheism" is a descriptor. Some people use it...some do not.

But to suggest that it arises out of "to not 'believe' in gods' is nonsense.

I DO NOT "believe" that any gods exist. That simply is not a "belief" of mine.

But I am NOT an atheist.

If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic."

Not everyone who lacks a "belief" that gods exist choose to use the descriptor "atheist."

There is no requirement that one do so...and, it seem apparent to anyone giving it open-minded consideration, that the ONLY people who do use "atheist" as a descriptor do it because of a "belief" either that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I lack a "belief" that any gods exist.

I lack a "belief" that no gods exist.

I lack a "belief" that is it more likely that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that at least one god exists.

The notion that atheism is a result of a lack of "belief" that any gods exist is nonsense.

Jake
1.4k

What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world. — Frank Apisa


What we listen to is typically the noise going round and round in our brains. That is, the symbolic world. And that's where the God debate is looking for God, in the symbolic world. We already know that the idea of God exists, so why are we still looking in the symbolic realm? — Jake

PERHAPS "the real world" is just the noise in MY head.

No way I can know that is not the way things are.

If there is a "you" out there discussing this with "me"...how do you KNOW that all that noise in YOUR head is not the real world.

In any case, the comment I took issue with, Jake, was:

"We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world."

All this stuff I see with my eyes; and hear with my ears; and feel with my fingers; and taste with my taste buds...MAY BE the real world.

I personally would not bet on it...but it may be.

Right?

EnPassant
136

Uri Geller has been debunked on several occasions. — whollyrolling


Yes, that's true apparently. But the experiments were done under strict conditions and Geller is not the only one who could do these things. It comes to mind that Geller may have been able to do this but he lost his ability and started faking out of vanity. Otherwise we must call the author of the book a liar and I don't think he is. — EnPassant

Geller is a stage magician...and not an especially good one.

His tricks can be done by most amateur magicians.

Not sure about that book author...but he is all wet about Geller.

We are rarely really looking or listening to the real world. — Jake

You know that...how?

What we "look at and listen to" MAY be the real world.

Instead we are typically so very busy thinking and talking about the real world, something else entirely. — Jake

Not sure what you were trying to say there.

If our approach is to be reality based we might remember the the overwhelming vast majority of reality is.... nothing.

Perhaps. But perhaps not.

Smoke lots of pot.

You won't feel any less pain...

...but you will enjoy it.

whollyrolling
354
↪EnPassant


Uri Geller has been debunked on several occasions. No one can bend things with their mind, and there were no "strict lab conditions" except those of excluding skeptics and marketing the man as a "real psychic" using cheap parlour tricks to try to maintain his reputation under harsh scrutiny--let's return to the "real" world, shall we? — whollyrolling

Absolutely correct, Wholly.

I used to do Uri Geller TRICKS as a bartender. His tricks are not considered particularly sophisticated among the magician crowd.

That there are still people who think he can do that crap is incredible.

Daniel Cox
151
↪Frank Apisa
"Uncaused cause" is an argument put forward by naturalists because that's what they feel they can tackle.

"Miracles are things inspiring awe and wonder, so not all miracles violate the laws of nature. Some conform to the uniform way things work. Some do not. God is self-explaining, but not self causing. Causes make what was only potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and was never merely potential and so needs no prior cause. Peace, Dennis

I agree that many miracles are consistent with the order of nature. Some are not. God is self-explaining, not self causing. Causes make what was potential be actual. God is always fully actual, and so was never potential and in need of being actualized. Peace, Dennis"

Dfpolis is a contributor here.

Try to tackle this. — Daniel Cox

God Who?

Devans99
1.7k

Tell me something about this entity you call "God." — Frank Apisa


Timeless

Just As St Thomas Aquinas claimed, the first cause must be timeless.

Powerful But Not Omnipotent

Creation of the universe requires considerable power but not omnipotence. Could God create a copy of himself? By doing so, he would cease to be omnipotent, so effectively God cannot be omnipotent.

Intelligent But Not Omniscient

The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Also, the prime mover argument: something has to move by its own accord. Is autonomous movement possible without intelligence? Automatons require an intelligent agent to create them. To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation, IE intelligence.

But to know everything, you first must know yourself. That requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. For example, say a particle has 4 attributes (mass, charge, position, momentum) then (at least) 4 analog bits (=4 particles) are required to encode that knowledge. So God cannot be omniscient.

Benevolent But not Omnibenevolent

Even God cannot know if there is another greater god than him in existence somewhere. Even if you grant God omniscience, a future greater god is possible (or we could all gang up on God). If God ever meets a greater god/force, the outcome is as follows:

- Greater god is evil, our god is good, our god is punished.
- Greater god is evil, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is evil, our god is punished.
- Greater god is good, our god is good, our god rewarded.

The only satisfactory outcome is if our god is Good. God was intelligent enough to create the universe so he will have worked out the above and hence will be good.

Omnibenevolent would require infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. So this is impossible.

Sexless

Referring to God as ‘Him’ is the judaic tradition. But of course ‘he’ cannot be the product of bisexual reproduction.

Not Omnipresent

Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light. This means they are casually disconnected from each other (can have no effect on each other - not in each other’s future light cones). To class as one being, all parts of the being must be causally connected, so God cannot be omnipresent.

Not Infinite

Infinite implies unmeasurable. But a being can always measure itself - it is called self-awareness. So God cannot be infinite.

Non-Material / Extra dimensional

Spacetime started 14 billion years ago. The first cause must be from beyond spacetime. We know the first cause cannot exist in any sort of time (because that leads to an infinite regress). A key question is, can space exist without time? IE can 3D exist without the 4th dimension? A similar question is can 2D exist without the 3rd dimension? If length is 0, then width and breath disappear also. So space cannot exist without time (in our universe anyway). So the first cause might be ‘spaceless’ too. That might mean the first cause is not subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

A non-material or extra dimensional first cause would be able to cause the Big Bang without destroying itself. — Devans99

But...what size tee shirts?

Like XXXXXXXXXXXL?

And now the aim of this thread is to attempt to make a model of this suffering, how it comes about, what makes it disappear, so we can better prevent it and better help those who suffer get better. — leo

You seem to want to eliminate the single easiest way to end the suffering...allow the individual to commit suicide.

Why?

Suffering happens. If a person wants to end the suffering...allow that to happen. Facilitate it.

This thing we humans call "the universe" has existed for over 13 billion years. If a giant asteroid were to impact the Earth and tear it to pieces so that the planet and everything on it ceased to exist...it would be a nothing burger in the grand scheme of things.

— Devans99

Tell me something about this entity you call "God."

Janus
7k

I would add: I doubt anyone else knows either. — Frank Apisa


But despite your propensity to doubt that anyone else knows you should say, in strict accordance with your own philosophy:

I do not know. Nor do I see any way to determine if it is more likely "Yes than no" or more likely "No than yes." — Frank Apisa


since you only have a sample size of one who doesn't know to judge from. — Janus

I am being consistent.

I DO NOT KNOW if every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen\.

There is no way to KNOW it. One would have to show that every effect, everywhere in the universe, has had a "cause" (including any possible gods) in order to KNOW that.

Otherwise IT IS AT LEAST POSSIBLE that there could be an effect without a cause. (Which is what I said.)

I did not say that nobody else knows...I merely said I had a doubt that anyone else does.

Anyone with a functioning brain would have that same doubt.

Are you saying you do not?