shimmyjimmy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2014, 04:36 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2014 04:40 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:10 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 04:10 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Do you assume causation for the existence of whatever created the universe?

Yes.

In essence then this leads to a type of homunculus argument and can never be answered. A homunculus argument is one which pushes away the need to answer a difficult question by coming up with less plausible explanation that is less well defined.

If we continue with a homunculus argument then the next question will be, what caused the existence of whatever it is that caused the existence of the universe? The question after this would be what caused the existence of whatever caused the existence of whatever caused the existence of the universe?

Therefore we need to tackle the whole subject in a different way by asking different questions or by making different assumptions from which to start with.

We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed within this universe so do we need to always assume causation?

Why do we think that the same rules applies within our universe to whatever, if anything, is outside of the universe? And if not then why do we have to assume causation?
Can there even be anything outside of the universe? What do we define as the universe?

I'm happy to admit that I don't know the answers to these questions. My point being though that we cannot rely on the assumption that there always needs to be causality to be correct. All this gives us is a gap in which we can place a god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
11-03-2014, 04:39 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:32 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 04:26 AM)donotwant Wrote:  Since the start of big bang everything that arise, arise naturally by natural forces acting on inanimate objects. Where do you see a need for a thinking agent?

Causation. Something must have caused the 'big bang' and thus causes those forces, supposedly with information in which to do so.

People thought same way about species and mountains until it turned out there was no mind necessary.

Do you think christianity is true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:42 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:39 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 04:32 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Causation. Something must have caused the 'big bang' and thus causes those forces, supposedly with information in which to do so.

People thought same way about species and mountains until it turned out there was no mind necessary.

Do you think christianity is true?

Like the biblical stories? Probably not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:44 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
So christianity is a lie?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:46 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:36 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why do we think that the same rules applies within our universe to whatever, if anything, is outside of the universe? And if not then why do we have to assume causation?

This is interesting. However, if the universe is energy, it must have had a cause of some sort. That is my assumption. I do not understand how this (supposed) cause works, but I assume it did work at one point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:46 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:44 AM)donotwant Wrote:  So christianity is a lie?

A lie, or a confusion. I dunno.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:48 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
Very good. So you still think a mind is necessary for creation of the universe?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:49 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:01 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  I assume causation.
No you assume more than that.. you assume that a God is the cause there is where i draw the line.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes IndianAtheist's post
11-03-2014, 04:54 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:49 AM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 04:01 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  I assume causation.
No you assume more than that.. you assume that a God is the cause there is where i draw the line.

I assume a cause, for which I refer to as 'God', merely for convenience of the term. I do assume that this 'cause' has some form of intelligence and information, whatever it may be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 04:56 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:46 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 04:36 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why do we think that the same rules applies within our universe to whatever, if anything, is outside of the universe? And if not then why do we have to assume causation?

This is interesting. However, if the universe is energy, it must have had a cause of some sort. That is my assumption. I do not understand how this (supposed) cause works, but I assume it did work at one point.


The original homunculus theory was solved by understanding the brain as a single system. It is also possible that we can understand the universe without having to resort to anything outside of it. The first assumption we should make, if we are going to make any, is that all the answers can be found within this universe. If not then we are effectively giving up trying to find answers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: