Help! (First Cause)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2016, 03:49 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 02:16 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  This kinda crap seeks to reduce god to axiomatic, which is ridiculous.
Define what you mean by god. Theistic arguments all set out to prove a god existence. And what existence is presumed to begin with?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 03:49 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 02:16 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  This kinda crap seeks to reduce god to axiomatic, which is ridiculous.
Define what you mean by god.

Not my job.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 03:59 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 02:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 02:05 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Take space for example. Space is invisible except by what we can see and measure in a space. The things in a space are not the space. Space is more than the things in space. Space, space-time is existence as we experience existence. Space exists. Space and existence can be understood as two different types of existence. In that space has an existence and that space is a type of existence.
Space isn't exactly invisible.
Space isn't a substance.

Space is a conceptual three dimensions. Much like the number 1 is a concept and a circle is a concept.
Thing is, these three dimensions don't really exist.

Take the moon for example. It's travelling in a straight line and yet it appears to orbit in an ellipse around the Earth and a near circle around the Sun and it's also rotating around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.

SpaceTime is a much better way at conceptualising the coordinates around us and the movement of things through those coordinates. Just as the moon's path "curves" without any forces being present as it travels near to the Earth, so does the path of massless light, just at a far less pronounced curve. The curvature is dependant on the speed of the object (amongst other things). The moon travels far more slowly than a particle of light.

Nothing travels faster than light and yet light curves through space in the presence of "gravity". All massive particles (as opposed to massless particles) cause gravity. The effects of gravity pervade all through space. But does gravity have effects (i.e is gravity a force?) or is gravity just a label we put onto the curvature of spacetime?

Anyway, what I am getting at is that space is merely a concept, it isn't an actual existent thing. The space concept is a simplification, a theoretical construct, its attributes are x, y and z coordinates. It does not have attributes of substance, colour, weight, shape, size.
When two objects occupy different coordinates, are tempted to say that there is "space" between those two objects as if space is a substance that fills all the coordinates between. This is loose talk though. There really is no such thing as Euclidian space except for in our conceptual views. There really is no such thing as an absolute x,y,z coordinate system except for in our conceptual views. Einstein has shown us that time and distance are relative not absolute.

Truth is supposedly absolute. Time and distance can hence not be termed as truth. Hence SpaceTime is not truth.
Space time is defined by matter. Without matter-energy how is space visible? It is not.
Arguing what truth is not does not define truth. Supposedly absolute. Either something is true or is not true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 05:32 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 03:59 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Space time is defined by matter. Without matter-energy how is space visible? It is not.
Arguing what truth is not does not define truth. Supposedly absolute. Either something is true or is not true.
Even with matter and energy space isn't visible. Space isn't a thing its a concept only.
Numbers aren't visible, circles aren't visible, souls are visible, the mind isn't visible. These are concepts only. Not actual physical things.

Science can prove that things aren't true. It cannot prove that things are true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Science can prove that things aren't true. It cannot prove that things are true.

Here be the crux of it.

Peter Slevon, to me the problem is that you will never be able to define "true" in terms of words - it's circular. The classic way to get around this is to leave the terms *undefined*, and merely define a set of axioms (statements taken as true without proof) involving your undefined terms, and rules for combining statements to derive other true statements. The problem is this makes for pretty maths but there's no reason to believe it applies to anything apart from pretty maths. You can't know for certain if the axioms are "true" meaning "valid in the real world", even if you define them as "self-evident truth".

You challenged me to define true. If you can say "existence is a self-evident truth" then I challenge you to define existence.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:59 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Space time is defined by matter. Without matter-energy how is space visible? It is not.
Arguing what truth is not does not define truth. Supposedly absolute. Either something is true or is not true.
Even with matter and energy space isn't visible. Space isn't a thing its a concept only.
Numbers aren't visible, circles aren't visible, souls are visible, the mind isn't visible. These are concepts only. Not actual physical things.

Science can prove that things aren't true. It cannot prove that things are true.

You are nuts. Space is physical reality defined by matter-energy in it. Since you are convinced that it only an abstract concept we are done here.
If you wise to contiune, provide the science that proves space is not a physical reality defined by matter-energy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 08:22 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 11:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Science can prove that things aren't true. It cannot prove that things are true.

Here be the crux of it.

Peter Slevon, to me the problem is that you will never be able to define "true" in terms of words - it's circular. The classic way to get around this is to leave the terms *undefined*, and merely define a set of axioms (statements taken as true without proof) involving your undefined terms, and rules for combining statements to derive other true statements. The problem is this makes for pretty maths but there's no reason to believe it applies to anything apart from pretty maths. You can't know for certain if the axioms are "true" meaning "valid in the real world", even if you define them as "self-evident truth".

You challenged me to define true. If you can say "existence is a self-evident truth" then I challenge you to define existence.
Do you want a whole dictioaary?
What do *you* mean by "truth." I mean by "truth" an unchanging reality. Do *we* need to define "reality?"
I was asking what you ment by "truth" because it was said, truth is "supposedly absolute."
What I mean by "existence" depends on context. Things that are real "exist," have being. Space-time is a type of existence. Things in space take up space, have space, but are not the space. Existence is like space, except space is in it, it being in existence as such, much the same way things are in space, have space and are not the space.
I at this point doubt that I am making any sense to you in this regard. You tell me how you understand what "existence" means in your view. And how you understand it to be different from what I, maybe poorly, explained.

I believe that there is an uncaused reality beyond our caused reality. Uncaused reality has no origin, and is self existent as such.

Now a first cause or no first cause is an different issue. A first uncaused cause is two things and something more and different than uncaused "existence."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-11-2016 03:51 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:49 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Define what you mean by god.

Not my job.
Oh, OK. You use terms which have no meaning to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 08:46 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(17-11-2016 08:30 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 03:51 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Not my job.
Oh, OK. You use terms which have no meaning to you.

My original comment was in reply to the frequent local contingency - aka Christian O^3 god - who is pretty much the most complicated imaginable.

Axiom, however, is rather opposite; for instance - A=A (axiom of identity) - which is pretty straightfoward. If A don't equal A, WTF am I saying? (Unless I'm Ray Comfort, of course; A=16i for that clown. Laugh out load )

The gears lock up for me when creator god tries to equal personal god; pretty much can only have one or the other. Wink

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 08:51 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(17-11-2016 08:22 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Do you want a whole dictioaary?
What do *you* mean by "truth." I mean by "truth" an unchanging reality. Do *we* need to define "reality?"

Truth is that which is in concordance with reality.

There is no unchanging reality. There is the reality that we can share and experience.

(17-11-2016 08:22 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  I was asking what you ment by "truth" because it was said, truth is "supposedly absolute."

Terms like "absolute truth" are problematic and loaded with baggage. I suppose you could say mathematics are absolute. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

Generally if someone reaches this point in arguing for a god, then they've lost.

(17-11-2016 08:22 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  What I mean by "existence" depends on context. Things that are real "exist," have being. Space-time is a type of existence. Things in space take up space, have space, but are not the space. Existence is like space, except space is in it, it being in existence as such, much the same way things are in space, have space and are not the space.

Existence consists of our universe, our reality that we experience through our senses. It is the physical universe. Once again, if a theist or deist reaches this level they are losing or have already lost.

(17-11-2016 08:22 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  I believe that there is an uncaused reality beyond our caused reality. Uncaused reality has no origin, and is self existent as such.

Prove it.

(17-11-2016 08:22 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Now a first cause or no first cause is an different issue. A first uncaused cause is two things and something more and different than uncaused "existence."

First Cause is understood to be the force that created our universe, our existence. Scientifically we understand that the Big Bang was the event that created our universe as we know it. However we do not know what caused the Big Bang. We also do not know what the conditions of existence were before the Big Bang.

If someone wants to postulate a sentient entity as the First Cause, then it is up to them to define that entity and offer proof of its existence.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: