The Cosmological Argument

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:58 am

Fixed Cross wrote:What I'm saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.

== The Situation, the distribution of potentials and their affects.
.. your only true God.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:22 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:What I'm saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.

== The Situation, the distribution of potentials and their affects.
.. your only true God.

That is what it is in general, but "in the beginning", the original cause must be somewhat of a self-cause, as in ''by its own principles it can not not exist.''
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:58 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:"in the beginning", the original cause must be somewhat of a self-cause, as in ''by its own principles it can not not exist.''

Well, I like that way of saying it. 8)

The confusion is with the notion that there was a "time" when absolutely nothing existed and then the universe began. That is an invalid thought. But in the chain of reasoning, there is a beginning wherein a fundamental principle brings about all else. That fundamental principle is what was called "God" by those above the masses in their understanding. The masses anthropomorphize, not the more educated.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:33 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Helandhigh - in both cases, self-caused and uncaused, it must be eternal. Time is after all also part of it.
What's certainly caused is its structure. The cause of this is implicit in its nature, what it is.

What I'm saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.
That is highly counterintuitive, but the only logical option.


I disagree that it is the only logical option, in fact I would suggest the only logical option is its antithesis.

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:What I'm saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.

== The Situation, the distribution of potentials and their affects.
.. your only true God.


Alahu akbar.

"Consider for example the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer: "Allah-o-Akbar". What does that mean? There can be no doubt that the second word of the declaration likens the character of Allah to a matrix which contains all and gives existence to the infinite, to space, to time, to the Universe, to all active and passive forces imaginable, to life and to the soul."


Aga Khan. ;)

the only true God if there indeed is one ontologically or it is necessary by etiology is reason and logic, anything higher than that is clearly beyond reason, beyond comprehension, ineffable, unreasonable, or unimportant, nay inconsequential, nay pointless. Pick an adjective it is clearly the sum of that.

Still ignorance is bliss, which is why so many chose to devolve responsibility to their imaginary friends. O:)

"I refuse to countenance that God has given us the faculty of reason only to forgo it's use."

Some guy.

"Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science."

The same guy who was probably referring if indirectly to the intellectually lazy, the ignorant, the indolent, the obtuse, the maladroit aka those who need to worship ononism.
Last edited by Helandhighwater on Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby James S Saint » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:43 pm

"Allah" merely means "the sum of all spirit" also known as "Elohim" == "everything happening" = "The Situation".
Also known as "the Holy Spirit" (aka "the whole of all spirit/behavior" = "The Situation")
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:47 pm

James S Saint wrote:"Allah" merely means "the sum of all spirit" also known as "Elohim" == "everything happening" = "The Situation".
Also known as "the Holy Spirit" (aka "the whole of all spirit/behavior" = "The Situation")


יהוה it means God James, who has infinite names, one who is, most of whose names are ineffable, commonly pronounced adonai, yahweh or Elohim etc.

Regardless what it means is there is no God but God, Alahu akbar.
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:20 pm

Helandhighwater wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Helandhigh - in both cases, self-caused and uncaused, it must be eternal. Time is after all also part of it.
What's certainly caused is its structure. The cause of this is implicit in its nature, what it is.

What I'm saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.
That is highly counterintuitive, but the only logical option.


I disagree that it is the only logical option, in fact I would suggest the only logical option is its antithesis.

Most would.

But I think I arrived at the position that the fact that it exists is due to what it is through valid logic.

I could also simply say that it could only exist as what it is and not in any other way, but that would not clarify the finite regression of causality.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:24 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Helandhigh - in both cases, self-caused and uncaused, it must be eternal. Time is after all also part of it.
What's certainly caused is its structure. The cause of this is implicit in its nature, what it is.

What I'm saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.
That is highly counterintuitive, but the only logical option.


I disagree that it is the only logical option, in fact I would suggest the only logical option is its antithesis.

Most would.

But I think I arrived at the position that the fact that it exists is due to what it is through valid logic.

I could also simply say that it could only exist as what it is and not in any other way, but that would not clarify the finite regression of causality.


But I think I arrived at the position that the fact that it exists is due to what it is through valid logic.


Tautology.

infinite regression arguments are ultimately self integrating, as well as being dogmatic, quo vadis?

Ontolgy of ontology of ontology ad nausem. Or to put it simply my logic is an axiom on which my logical conjecture is judged and found guilty.
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:35 pm

Re examine the argument I made yesterday. It's not tautological, it reduces the question to the most limited form.

At worst, the question of origin/causation itself is tautological and I exposed that fact.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:39 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Re examine the argument I made yesterday. It's not tautological, it reduces the question to the most limited form.


Is it more logical today or something, does logic have a half life now?

The most simplest form of plutonium is hydrogen, I doubt though appealing to the half life of matter is going to win me any awards. Any more than reducing something to nothing is likely to make more sense given enough time. Something doesn't become less meaningful over time. ;)

Existence exists because it exists. Profound it is not.

At worst, the question of origin itself is tautological and I exposed that fact.


At best the question of origin itself is tautological and you exposed that axiom, philosophy! it's like just that obvious. Teleos by tautology. ;)
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Helandhighwater wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Re examine the argument I made yesterday. It's not tautological, it reduces the question to the most limited form.


Is it more logical today or something, does logic have a half life now?

The most simplest form of plutonium is hydrogen, I doubt though appealing to the half life of matter is going to win me any awards. Any more than reducing something to nothing is likely to make more sense given enough time. Something doesn't become less meaningful over time. ;)

I didnt see you address the logic at all. I just figured you didnt know I was referring to what I said yesterday.
If you want to refute what I said you'll have to actually know what I said and work with that.

At worst, the question of origin itself is tautological and I exposed that fact.


At best the question of origin itself is tautological and you exposed that axiom, philosophy! it's like just that obvious. ;)

Dude, I am just resolving the threads topic. It wasn't me who put it forward in the first place.
I agree that it's obvious, if you have a capacity for abstract thought and can see through terms to what the terms mean and when they mean it.

Thats not a common capacity at all, and in this thread some will interpret words as if "common english" was what was being spoken before the universe existed and by the absolute validity of which the universe was caused.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Fri Nov 29, 2013 4:53 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:What I'm saying is that that it is is caused by what it is.

== The Situation, the distribution of potentials and their affects.
.. your only true God.

That is what it is in general, but "in the beginning", the original cause must be somewhat of a self-cause, as in ''by its own principles it can not not exist.''


You said it exists because by its own principles it cannot not exist. If that is not a tautology what is it, it's certainly logically paradoxical (so by the law of opposites which I just made up conveniently enough) does that make it objectively true? ;)

Hence what I refer you to what I said in response to what you said, which you disagreed with. Hence this discussion which I can reliably be sure you also disagree with for the same initial reasons you disagreed with the original original, as I said ontology of ontology of ontology ad nauseum, I said that you can check. :P

One thing we can be sure of though (ironically) is it whatever it is, is not caused by what it isn't...
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:05 pm

Helandhighwater wrote:You said it exists because by its own principles it cannot not exist. If that is not a tautology what is it, it's certainly logically paradoxical (so by the law of opposites which I just made up conveniently enough) does that make it objectively true? ;)

Read what came before it. What I wrote yesterday.

This can not turn into a logical discourse if you jump in in the middle.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:07 pm

Helandhighwater wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:It can either be uncaused or self-caused.


Or it can be eternal, in which case a cause is irrelevant.

Ill just pick it up here.
If it is eternal a cause is not irrelevant. It still needs a cause but an ongoing one.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:09 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:In this case "self caused" would mean "caused by a part of itself".
The cause must be the part before which no other part exists.

Can you agree to this?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:09 pm

In other words, its cause is the only part of it which is eternally the same.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
BTL
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:53 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:In other words, its cause is the only part of it which is eternally the same.




Which is a direct contradiction of your assertion that it exists because it cant not exist. Which leads me to conclude that it not existing is not an axiom or a starting point from which I can induce existence and vice a versa nor is it necessary to the eternal nor does it have to remain consistent or be included, integral or conducive to be so, nor is a position you postulated with the statement of logic or its inference contingent on that or anything else in that post as aforementioned. Existence is not a priori and its not not a priori or is it. ;)
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:58 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:It can either be uncaused or self-caused.


Or it can be eternal, in which case a cause is irrelevant.

Ill just pick it up here.
If it is eternal a cause is not irrelevant. It still needs a cause but an ongoing one.


If it is eternal then a cause is relevant, if its not it's not. Seems pretty airtight to me.

a cause of a cause caused by an infinite regression of causes leads to an infinite regression paradox then. If it's not eternal it needs a cause so logically if it is eternal it does not need a cause, if it has a cause it's eternal if it doesn't it isn't, you see where this goes...
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Uccisore » Sun Dec 01, 2013 2:39 am

von Rivers wrote:I think the most shameful thing about his article was that he spent 100% of it supporting P2 ("The universe began to exist"), by pretending that he was a scientist, (because half his support for it was scientific). He's not a scientist, and he's not qualified to report on the state of the art in scientific research. The shameful part was that he had almost nothing to say about P1. Unfortunately, P1 is the problem. The other half of his support for P2 was about infinite regress stuff. I don't remember finding it at all convincing.


Yep. Saying general things about science is him speaking out of his element in a Dawkins kind of way. The infinite regress stuff is him actually speaking about his own work that he's done- most of his serious philosophical work has been on apologetics, the infinite, and time.

If an eternal God is not objectionable, would an eternal universe be?


Depends on if you're willing to break your own rule and start talking about The Universe as a single thing, and not as a set of things. I thought we weren't doing that. If the universe is a set of things, then a bunch of those things causing each other in some sort of regress- finite or infinite. If you think an infinite one is acceptable, then ok. If not, you need an uncaused cause to get the ball rolling. Whether you call that uncaused cause a part of the universe, or external to the universe is just semantic, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby wendy52 » Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:52 am

Uccisore wrote:
von Rivers wrote:I think the most shameful thing about his article was that he spent 100% of it supporting P2 ("The universe began to exist"), by pretending that he was a scientist, (because half his support for it was scientific). He's not a scientist, and he's not qualified to report on the state of the art in scientific research. The shameful part was that he had almost nothing to say about P1. Unfortunately, P1 is the problem. The other half of his support for P2 was about infinite regress stuff. I don't remember finding it at all convincing.


Yep. Saying general things about science is him speaking out of his element in a Dawkins kind of way. The infinite regress stuff is him actually speaking about his own work that he's done- most of his serious philosophical work has been on apologetics, the infinite, and time.

If an eternal God is not objectionable, would an eternal universe be?


Depends on if you're willing to break your own rule and start talking about The Universe as a single thing, and not as a set of things. I thought we weren't doing that. If the universe is a set of things, then a bunch of those things causing each other in some sort of regress- finite or infinite. If you think an infinite one is acceptable, then ok. If not, you need an uncaused cause to get the ball rolling. Whether you call that uncaused cause a part of the universe, or external to the universe is just semantic, right?



Eternal only belongs to the higher existent state being light. Creation is in the materialized state and that is aging and dying, so it has been leaving from the moment it was created, it is not moving into creation it is leaving it.
wendy52
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:05 am

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:53 am

wendy52 wrote:

Eternal only belongs to the higher existent state being light. Creation is in the materialized state and that is aging and dying, so it has been leaving from the moment it was created, it is not moving into creation it is leaving it.


Hold on there's a your mum joke in there somewhere...
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby wendy52 » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:10 am

Helandhighwater wrote:
wendy52 wrote:

Eternal only belongs to the higher existent state being light. Creation is in the materialized state and that is aging and dying, so it has been leaving from the moment it was created, it is not moving into creation it is leaving it.


Hold on there's a your mum joke in there somewhere...

The argument is not personal, but you always seem to try to make it personal...what is your problem?

Everything is created because it is actualized, you cannot study a pre created state because it already exists. If it did not exist then what are you theorizing about...something that does not exist....you already tell yourself that it does not exist.....what is wrong with your brain?
wendy52
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:05 am

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:33 am

wendy52 wrote:
Helandhighwater wrote:
wendy52 wrote:

Eternal only belongs to the higher existent state being light. Creation is in the materialized state and that is aging and dying, so it has been leaving from the moment it was created, it is not moving into creation it is leaving it.


Hold on there's a your mum joke in there somewhere...

The argument is not personal, but you always seem to try to make it personal...what is your problem?

Everything is created because it is actualized, you cannot study a pre created state because it already exists. If it did not exist then what are you theorizing about...something that does not exist....you already tell yourself that it does not exist.....what is wrong with your brain?


That's what she said, see told you.
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby von Rivers » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:21 pm

Why are you trolling, flaming, flooding, and derailing so hard all of the sudden?
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: The Cosmological Argument

Postby Helandhighwater » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:27 pm

von Rivers wrote:Why are you trolling, flaming, flooding, and derailing so hard all of the sudden?


Because of your mum? :oops:
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users