Help! (First Cause)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(17-11-2016 08:46 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 08:30 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  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
fair enough. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(17-11-2016 07:50 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  
(16-11-2016 05:32 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
They once thought that Space consisted of an ether. They created some tests, performed them, and found no ether.
If you think Space is an existent thing, then what is it that you think space is made of?
I don't want to know what it contains, we know it has inside of it, matter and energy and energy fields and quantum fluctuation. But was is space itself? It's not really a container, it has no boundaries, it has no substance. It is merely a concept, the idea of a theoretical 3 dimensions. If we combine time to that concept then we have space time and we can define rules to that i.e. Fermions cannot share the same space time but bosons can.

Do you understand the difference between concepts and physical reality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(17-11-2016 08:51 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(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.
How does reality change? How can one be sure that shared experiences are really the same if reality changes?


Quote:
(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.
What do you mean '"Absolute truth" is problematic? What do you mean as to the "baggage?"
Quote: I suppose you could say mathematics are absolute. Beyond that, I'm not sure.
So what are you saying, you are not sure of regarding knowing truth?

Quote:Generally if someone reaches this point in arguing for a god, then they've lost.
OK. Can you specify that theist point of argument? And how ia that theist argument a loosing argument from its start?

I am contending by trying to provied a proof for God's "existence," all such arguments are already lost since an "existence" is in evidence and an "uncaused" existence does not need any kind of God.
Quote:
(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.
Explain what you mean by "reaches this level?" And how has the theist already lost in your view?
Quote:
(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.
The proof is a tautology. Nothingness never existed, therefore existence always existed. Hince the uncaused existence.

Quote:
(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.
An infinite regress of causes has no first cause. Having an uncause cause in an uncaused existence. Where is a god needed? All theistic arguments for God presume existence in trying to provide proof for said God's existence. What is uncaused needs no kind of god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2016, 12:43 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(17-11-2016 12:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-11-2016 07:50 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  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.
They once thought that Space consisted of an ether. They created some tests, performed them, and found no ether.
If you think Space is an existent thing, then what is it that you think space is made of?
I don't want to know what it contains, we know it has inside of it, matter and energy and energy fields and quantum fluctuation. But was is space itself? It's not really a container, it has no boundaries, it has no substance. It is merely a concept, the idea of a theoretical 3 dimensions. If we combine time to that concept then we have space time and we can define rules to that i.e. Fermions cannot share the same space time but bosons can.

Do you understand the difference between concepts and physical reality?
Yes. Do you or do you not agree, not all concepts are reality let alone physical reality? But reality and physical reality can be explained in terms of concepts. There is the view point, the condept that there is only physical reality to reality. In which reality and physical reality means the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(24-11-2016 12:43 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Do you or do you not agree, not all concepts are reality let alone physical reality?
Concepts are just concepts, they are a simplified way to describe or explore things. They let us ignore the noise of other attributes and let us focus on on a subset of aspects.

Sometimes a concept is useful, like the shape of a circle combined with the concept of the number pi. We can apply these concepts to work out the area of a circle with radius r, or the volume of a sphere with radius r. So from this we could get a close approximation to the surface area of a planet or the volume that the planet might have. These concepts can be used as tools to help us better understand existent things.

We also have concepts such as the soul which, depending on how you look at it could be used to encapsulate certain aspects of a person (another concept) perhaps their personality. When someone says that Jane has an old soul we might take it to mean that she is wiser than her age would suggest. Although this concept has no underlying physical reality, we still might be able to make use of it.

There are also concepts which are completely useless, like the concept of a god, but which many people take to be something profound to them.

(24-11-2016 12:43 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  But reality and physical reality can be explained in terms of concepts.
Concepts are tools , some of which can help us model our observations of reality.

Fundamental particles are existent reality (perhaps), depends if you go to the quantum level and realise that particles are just energy field vibrations and are perceived as a quantum superposition or collapsed into a single eigenstate. Anyway, we take certain things to have a materialistic existence.

So, lets say we have one particle, unless we ascribe some three dimensional size to that particle we don't really have the concept of "space" yet. Space just being a conceptual three dimensional measurement rather than an actual existent thing (e.g. a particle).

If we have two particles and those two particles are fermions then they cannot occupy the same place and time (a.k.a. SpaceTime) so the concept of Space and Time now become relevant. There must be a separation of SpaceTime between these two particles.

Since Space and Time are relative to the observer, we cannot say in an absolute sense how much space or how much time separates these two particles. Given the uncertainty principle we cannot even say exactly where a single particle is.

So why is there "space" (distance) between fermions? Answer: because there has to be, its a rule of the universe.

On the flipside of this, it takes energy to separate particles. Separation is recognised as potential energy. We cannot create energy, so that energy must be transformed from somewhere (perhaps kinetic energy, hence as objects separate, they decelerate, this is what we perceive as gravity).

Anyway, our understanding of space is just our way to describe two objects in relation to each other, Space is not some thing that objects travel through, space is not a thing at all. It is not a container, it is not a highway. It's just a concept that we use to help us consider or understand some relationship between existent things.

If we didn't have existent things, we would have no need for the concept of space, it would not be an understandable concept. You would not say that we have empty space, that phrase would not make any sense.

(24-11-2016 12:43 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  There is the view point, the condept that there is only physical reality to reality. In which reality and physical reality means the same thing.
Yes, and taking this viewpoint we cannot say that space exists because it isn't a physical thing. The space concept is very important, but Space isn't an actual physical thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2016, 08:54 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(24-11-2016 02:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  <snip>
(24-11-2016 12:43 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  There is the view point, the condept that there is only physical reality to reality. In which reality and physical reality means the same thing.
Yes, and taking this viewpoint we cannot say that space exists because it isn't a physical thing. The space concept is very important, but Space isn't an actual physical thing.
Do you actually hold the view that space is only concept and not a physical thing? Distance is a physical thing, is it not? The Sun is 8 light minutes away. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.537 million light years away. [Not just distance but in the past. Hince space-time.]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: