argument for universal causation.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 08:05 pm
@bees,
Right. All that's necessary is internal potential. There is NO evidence anywhere in this universe that we can see, hear, smell, touch, or taste of external agency or force that comes from outside the limits of this universe. Nothing at all. All the different fantasies and flights of logic we have about the products of this universe -- eg superheroes, aliens, etc -- are MORE grounded in our real experience than the proposition that there is an external causal force outside the universe, however "logical" it seems at first blush.

And again, you go down a slippery reductio ad absurdum once you go there. Well, if X applied force F, then what created X? And what created that which created X which applied force F to create our universe? It's like the computer getting frozen in a loop.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 04:27 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Right. All that's necessary is internal potential. There is NO evidence anywhere in this universe that we can see, hear, smell, touch, or taste of external agency or force that comes from outside the limits of this universe. Nothing at all. All the different fantasies and flights of logic we have about the products of this universe -- eg superheroes, aliens, etc -- are MORE grounded in our real experience than the proposition that there is an external causal force outside the universe, however "logical" it seems at first blush.

And again, you go down a slippery reductio ad absurdum once you go there. Well, if X applied force F, then what created X? And what created that which created X which applied force F to create our universe? It's like the computer getting frozen in a loop.


Ahh I see,you could go on forever and ever asking what caused the universe then what caused that and so on and so on,im beginning to understand and coming to the conclusion that the universe is just 'is'.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 05:20 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Ahh I see,you could go on forever and ever asking what caused the universe then what caused that and so on and so on,im beginning to understand and coming to the conclusion that the universe is just 'is'.

Yes: Cause is an Axiom... Existence is an axiom... We can not prove these axioms, but as with all axioms, we can support them..
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 05:32 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Right. All that's necessary is internal potential. There is NO evidence anywhere in this universe that we can see, hear, smell, touch, or taste of external agency or force that comes from outside the limits of this universe. Nothing at all. All the different fantasies and flights of logic we have about the products of this universe -- eg superheroes, aliens, etc -- are MORE grounded in our real experience than the proposition that there is an external causal force outside the universe, however "logical" it seems at first blush.

And again, you go down a slippery reductio ad absurdum once you go there. Well, if X applied force F, then what created X? And what created that which created X which applied force F to create our universe? It's like the computer getting frozen in a loop.

The universe is the evidence of a force external to the universe, as both matter and motion (energy)... But what we can know of such a presumed power from our perspective is nil... If we can judge ourselves we have to do so upon the facts we know rather than the mysteries we can discover...Can we know??? Certainly, within certain contexts, and not as an absolute... Can we be good??? Certainly, within contexts, and not as an absolute... Reason as a tool in our bag of tricks need cause and effect as a referent to all that occurs...Beyond our lives, before or after, we have to realize that such reference points are meaningless... Cause and effect gives logic within the context of our lives, and that is the only place we actually need it...
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 05:42 am
@bees,
The cause of itself is itself.

Aedes wrote:
No, there did NOT have to be a force "upon" it. This is not logically necessary.



Your assertion that there did not have to be an action to have a reaction is what is illogical Aedes.

There must have been a force because we have the results of such a force which we know as existence.

What you are saying is akin to walking into a garden and seeing all the beautiful plants and saying that there did not have to be some force which started them growing.

Aedes wrote:
Right. All that's necessary is internal potential. There is NO evidence anywhere in this universe that we can see, hear, smell, touch, or taste of external agency or force that comes from outside the limits of this universe. Nothing at all. All the different fantasies and flights of logic we have about the products of this universe -- eg superheroes, aliens, etc -- are MORE grounded in our real experience than the proposition that there is an external causal force outside the universe, however "logical" it seems at first blush.

And again, you go down a slippery reductio ad absurdum once you go there. Well, if X applied force F, then what created X? And what created that which created X which applied force F to create our universe? It's like the computer getting frozen in a loop.



I hope you are not taking my replies as insults Aedes, I am just trying to respond with my thoughts on what you say.

What you say here seems to me to be like one standing in a closet without the ability to see the house on the other side of the door, and declaring that there must not be anything on the other side of the door simply because you cannot see it. And yet, you have the walls and structure of the closet which imply that there should be something on the other side of them, if not at least the other side of the same wall that you are seing the inside of.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 06:15 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
The cause of itself is itself.

I am that I am....
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 10:17 am
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
Your assertion that there did not have to be an action to have a reaction is what is illogical Aedes.
It's only illogical if you're operating under the assumption that all of existence is a reaction. I'm not.

There is no basis to regard the totality of existence as a reaction to something beyond the totality of existence. That seems illogical to me...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 02:55 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
Something cannot be put into motion without cause.

Without cause everything would be in a state of inexistence.

Existence alone is the effect of cause.


Not according the Newton's First Law of Motion. It is rest that requires an explanation, not motion.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 03:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Not according the Newton's First Law of Motion. It is rest that requires an explanation, not motion.
Hmmm. An object at rest stays at rest. An object in motion stays in motion.

This is a statement about inertia. Change is extrinsically imposed.

But Newton was observing "things". He was not observing everything. We have no way of applying his postulates to the totality of the universe.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 03:32 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Hmmm. An object at rest stays at rest. An object in motion stays in motion.

This is a statement about inertia. Change is extrinsically imposed.

But Newton was observing "things". He was not observing everything. We have no way of applying his postulates to the totality of the universe.


True. But so far, so good. We are talking about causation, after all. And, Newton tells us that our bet information is that motion requires a cause, but rest does not. It is, of course, possible that this is not true throughout the universe, but it is also possible that it is true throughout the universe. And so far, that is what our evidence tells us. Therefore, we are not certain it is true, everywhere, but, then, we have no reason to think it isn't.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 04:52 pm
@bees,
my brain needs a rest!
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 04:57 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
my brain needs a rest!


Never!

You must achieve a state of consistent contemplation, where everything, EVERYTHING is constantly analyzed, considered, reconsidered. Never stopping to rest, driving yourself almost psychotic!!!



That is why you joined this forum... right? Very Happy
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 06:39 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;53373 wrote:
it is also possible that it is true throughout the universe. And so far, that is what our evidence tells us. Therefore, we are not certain it is true, everywhere, but, then, we have no reason to think it isn't.
Throughout the universe is one thing. The universe as a whole is something else. Something within the universe can be acted on by some other agent within the universe. But the issue in this thread is whether or not by any logic we can talk about an agent external to the universe.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 08:05 pm
@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder wrote:
my brain needs a rest!

The rest needs your brain...
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 08:14 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Throughout the universe is one thing. The universe as a whole is something else. Something within the universe can be acted on by some other agent within the universe. But the issue in this thread is whether or not by any logic we can talk about an agent external to the universe.

Finally the man of my provocation arrives who has seen the universe as a whole with his mighty eye....

The universe is never the universe, but the universe and beyond... The Greeks were correct to call the ceiling of stars the firmament...It is the result of power... Okay; what is the next rational question when you do not have enough information to ask any question??
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 05:46 am
@bees,
Isn't the universe defined (conceptually) by its totality? It's not defined as a discrete thing within something else. Does the concept of universe allow for a beyond?
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 06:28 am
@bees,
The beyond is as much a part of the universe as everything that is not beyond.

What we call beyond is merely that part of the universe which we do not understand because we have not seen it or experienced its reality.

Just like the closet door scenario I spoke of earlier, the beyond is simply the room on the other side of the wall.

A place does not have other places within it. It is simply a place. When we divide it into other places we do not divide the actual place anymore than we actually draw lines on the world when we place border lines on a map.

Just like the undiscovered countries of a few hundred years ago, that which is beyond is a mystery only because we are not familiar with it. Lack of familiarity does not make it a non reality.

Whether at rest or in motion the mysterious is not defined by its state of being. It will be defined by the actuality of what it is. And that can only happen when its truth is discovered.

Incomprehension of the Mystery, the Force, God, Creation or whatever else you want to call it, is not its definition. It is only incomprehensible because we are unable, not because it indefinable.

Anything at rest can be moved when a force is acted upon it. Well, there is this huge woman that lives next door but thats another dilemma;

The point is that what we call the universe is not the box that holds our galaxy, it is the place we call the home of existence which contains everything that is. There are no borders except in our own minds. There is no definition except in our imaginations. There is no alteration except in its own motion. We do have the ability to move it by acting upon it, every time we breathe, every time we move.

The universe is our existence. We take part in it. We know the parts we have experienced. There is much that we know absolutely nothing about.

The grain of beach sand knows nothing of the ocean depths, and yet the ocean depths are well known to the whale. The whale's unknown is the jungle it cannot perceive.

Like the whale looking to the land from the water's surface, we gaze into the night sky in awe. What is out there is real, but what we see are little lights in the sky. We look at the lights and wonder, but we forget to look at the blackness in which they lay and wonder about that. The whale sees the tree tops and cannot know about the soil that gives them life. We see the treetops in space and ignorantly overlook the soil of the universe.

That black backdrop that the stars are painted on is something as well. Its more than mere space. Space is not a void of nothingness. Space is a thing as much as everything that exists within it. That blackness is what we should really be looking at, and not the stars. When we can learn to do that we will gain a far greater understanding of creation and life, and the Force responsible for it all.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 06:28 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Throughout the universe is one thing. The universe as a whole is something else. Something within the universe can be acted on by some other agent within the universe. But the issue in this thread is whether or not by any logic we can talk about an agent external to the universe.


I did not know that was the issue of this thread. I thought it was about universal causation.
 
Pathfinder
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 06:36 am
@bees,
what is more of a priority to universal causation than the elements of the universe itself?
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 10:31 am
@Aedes,
Aedes wrote:
Isn't the universe defined (conceptually) by its totality? It's not defined as a discrete thing within something else. Does the concept of universe allow for a beyond?

As an infinite it is all beyond and nothing descrete... Universe is just a word..God is just a word. Existence is just a word..We can point at it but not conceive of it objectively...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 02/24/2020 at 01:55:31