Why are atheists always demanding to reinvent the wheel?
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>the logic of sets. Here
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/44eef6778280022d
and here
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/f3c95df071fe683b
.
"Whispers in the Storm" alone even replied to it, and did not refute
it. It is the first necessary step towards establishing, via Reason,
God's Existence and some of His Necessary Properties. It establishes
His Existence beyond any reasonable doubt.
It would be good to be able to move on, as I have been attempting to
do, to establishing that the Necessary Existent must have the property
of Life. But it seems there is a continual obstacle that keeps coming
up. The more I want to invoke the Necessary Existent as in fact
necessary, in order that we may begin establishing some of its
necessary properties, the more it seems that more atheists keep popping
up saying they didn't accept the first step!
We are not going to be able to make any progress at all at this rate.
Those two threads are still active. Let someone give a coherent
refutation of the Necessary Existent, or let atheists in general admit
they are not interested in following Reason. Bare assertion that "the
Cosmological Argument has been many times refuted" does not wash. You
have to actually refute something for it to be refuted. At the very
least, you have to actually show someone else's refutation. Simply
saying, "oh, that's been proven false" is not a proof!
Before we can use the wheel we have to accept that wheels are possible.
Once the wheel has been shown possible and in fact invented, it does no
one any good to assert travel is impossible because there are no
wheels! But that is essentially what some atheists do when they
question what has already been established.
The Cosmological Proof of God has been established. It is at the links
given above, on this very forum. Let someone refute it if they can. Not
too much to ask, I think.
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
brushoff
<grgly@msn.com>
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Didn't we already agree that the thread in the link above only proves a
set of primery causes we defined as "G" and that there is still more
things to do in order to turn it into a proof of God?
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>What characteristics would G have to possess in order to be God?
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Joseph Geloso wrote:
> random wrote:
> > Didn't we already agree that the thread in the link above only proves a
> > set of primery causes we defined as "G" and that there is still more
> > things to do in order to turn it into a proof of God?
>
> What characteristics would G have to possess in order to be God?
First thing: he will need to be only one. A set of causes can mean a
god with several unknown factors besides him or several gods.
Second thing: Something like will or desire. Doesn't have to be exactly
these two, but I think you get the point.
The ability to choose can also enter in the second part or as a
seperate thing.
scooter
<kwills@mail.utexas.edu>You have not given any proof of anything. All your overly-wordy
argument for Cause and Effect has done is explain how all things
natural are contingent upon other things natural. In fact, your entire
explanation doesn't include a shred of anything that remotely resembles
a "god" as described in any religion. Furthermore, that doesn't mean
that I think it is Pantheism. Pantheism also requires a "god" or diety.
And finally, you have asserted that your "god" exists by progressively
reducing cause and effect backward in time. The major problem is that
every bit of evidence you use to support your assertion points to a
natural cause rather than a "supernatural" cause precisely because all
your "proofs", from the present to the beginning of the Cosmos, are
themselves natural.
Michael Ewart
<ewartmj@gmail.com>So as an atheist, you believe in an eternal, endless string of causes?
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
scooter
<kwills@mail.utexas.edu>No. As an atheist, I don't believe in "supernatural" beings or, as you
call them, "gods". That's all it means to be an atheist. Are there an
endless string of causes? I don't know the answer to that question and
niether does anyone else. What I would say is that time and space as we
know it began from the Big Bang. What caused the Big Bang is not known.
However, what Joseph has done here is make a case for a natural
explanation of the universe precisely because all of his evidences are
natural causes for explanation. Therefore, there is no reason to
believe that the "first cause" was not also a natural cause. In fact,
in supports that very notion. It is important to note that when we say
"first cause" we are referring to the inception of the Big Bang or the
beginning of time and space.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>> scooter wrote: "So as an atheist, you believe in an eternal, endless string of causes?"
> Such a view isn't incompatible with atheism or theism.
> -otherson
It wouldn't be incompatible with blind atheism or blind theism. It is
incompatible with logic and reason.
> ---------------------------------
> Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
> --0-126568987-1159623898=:41460
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Google-AttachSize: 4098
>
> <div>scooter wrote: "So as an atheist, you believe in an eternal, endless string of causes?"</div> <div>Such a view isn't incompatible with atheism or theism.</div> <div>-otherson<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Michael Ewart <ewa...@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR>scooter wrote:<BR>> Joseph Geloso wrote:<BR>> > I posted, not too long ago, my proof of the Cosmological Argument using<BR>> > the logic of sets. Here<BR>> ><BR>> > http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/44eef6778280022d<BR>> ><BR>> > and here<BR>> ><BR>> > http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/f3c95df071fe683b<BR>> > .<BR>> ><BR>> > "Whispers in the Storm" alone even replied to it, and did not refute<BR>> > it. It is the first necessary step towards establishing, via
> Reason,<BR>> > God's Existence and some of His Necessary Properties. It establishes<BR>> > His Existence beyond any reasonable doubt.<BR>> ><BR>> > It would be good to be able to move on, as I have been attempting to<BR>> > do, to establishing that the Necessary Existent must have the property<BR>> > of Life. But it seems there is a continual obstacle that keeps coming<BR>> > up. The more I want to invoke the Necessary Existent as in fact<BR>> > necessary, in order that we may begin establishing some of its<BR>> > necessary properties, the more it seems that more atheists keep popping<BR>> > up saying they didn't accept the first step!<BR>> ><BR>> > We are not going to be able to make any progress at all at this rate.<BR>> > Those two threads are still active. Let someone give a coherent<BR>> > refutation of the Necessary Existent, or let atheists in general admit<BR>> > they are not
> interested in following Reason. Bare assertion that "the<BR>> > Cosmological Argument has been many times refuted" does not wash. You<BR>> > have to actually refute something for it to be refuted. At the very<BR>> > least, you have to actually show someone else's refutation. Simply<BR>> > saying, "oh, that's been proven false" is not a proof!<BR>> ><BR>> > Before we can use the wheel we have to accept that wheels are possible.<BR>> > Once the wheel has been shown possible and in fact invented, it does no<BR>> > one any good to assert travel is impossible because there are no<BR>> > wheels! But that is essentially what some atheists do when they<BR>> > question what has already been established.<BR>> ><BR>> > The Cosmological Proof of God has been established. It is at the links<BR>> > given above, on this very forum. Let someone refute it if they can. Not<BR>> > too much to ask, I
> think.<BR>><BR>> You have not given any proof of anything. All your overly-wordy<BR>> argument for Cause and Effect has done is explain how all things<BR>> natural are contingent upon other things natural. In fact, your entire<BR>> explanation doesn't include a shred of anything that remotely resembles<BR>> a "god" as described in any religion. Furthermore, that doesn't mean<BR>> that I think it is Pantheism. Pantheism also requires a "god" or diety.<BR>><BR>><BR>> And finally, you have asserted that your "god" exists by progressively<BR>> reducing cause and effect backward in time. The major problem is that<BR>> every bit of evidence you use to support your assertion points to a<BR>> natural cause rather than a "supernatural" cause precisely because all<BR>> your "proofs", from the present to the beginning of the Cosmos, are<BR>> themselves natural.<BR><BR>So as an atheist, you believe in an eternal, endless string of
> causes?<BR><BR><BR> <hr size=1>Get your email and more, right on the <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42973/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview"> new Yahoo.com</a>
>
> --0-126568987-1159623898=:41460--
schelsullivan
<schelsullivan@gmail.com>be?" as if they can add weight the debate at hand. Theists often argue
that they know the answer to this question and attempt to us this as
evidence for god's existance.
IMHO This question is the MOST DIFFICULT AND PROFOUND QUESTION that
could be asked. We are very far from being able to answer this
question.
In fact theres is no way any of us can even know if this question CAN
be answered or not.(yet). So I thinks its unfair for theists or
atheists to use this question (and their supposed answers) as part of
the debate about gods' existances.
Schel
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>I think your second requirement will be covered if we can establish
that God is a Being. That will come later, I think. Your first
requirement appears to be where this debate is at right now.
G = the set of all Necessary Existents.
What might G be? Possibilities:
1. G = {God}.
2. G = {God, F}, where F is one or several factors, known or unknown to
us, outside of God.
3. G = F.
4. G = {God, D}, where D is one or several gods. (D for Deities.)
5. G = D.
Have I covered the possibilities?
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>You didn't read it very carefully. What I have established is that
there is a set G of Necessary Existents, and it is necessarily
nonempty.
> In fact, your entire
> explanation doesn't include a shred of anything that remotely resembles
> a "god" as described in any religion.
God is defined in Theology as the Necessary Existent or First Cause.
> Furthermore, that doesn't mean
> that I think it is Pantheism. Pantheism also requires a "god" or diety.
Not the Impersonalist variety of it, which usually goes by the name
Atheism.
>
>
> And finally, you have asserted that your "god" exists by progressively
> reducing cause and effect backward in time. The major problem is that
> every bit of evidence you use to support your assertion points to a
> natural cause rather than a "supernatural" cause precisely because all
> your "proofs", from the present to the beginning of the Cosmos, are
> themselves natural.
We can infer that some existent is absolutely necessary. That is
significant, because it disallows us to believe that the Universe is
contingent in all its parts.
What in Nature is absolutely necessary?
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Joseph Geloso wrote:
> random wrote:
> > Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > random wrote:
> > > > Didn't we already agree that the thread in the link above only proves a
> > > > set of primery causes we defined as "G" and that there is still more
> > > > things to do in order to turn it into a proof of God?
> > >
> > > What characteristics would G have to possess in order to be God?
> >
> > First thing: he will need to be only one. A set of causes can mean a
> > god with several unknown factors besides him or several gods.
> > Second thing: Something like will or desire. Doesn't have to be exactly
> > these two, but I think you get the point.
> > The ability to choose can also enter in the second part or as a
> > seperate thing.
>
> I think your second requirement will be covered if we can establish
> that God is a Being. That will come later, I think. Your first
> requirement appears to be where this debate is at right now.
>
Establishing God as a being will matter only if it's the only option
for G.
> G = the set of all Necessary Existents.
>
> What might G be? Possibilities:
>
> 1. G = {God}.
> 2. G = {God, F}, where F is one or several factors, known or unknown to
> us, outside of God.
> 3. G = F.
> 4. G = {God, D}, where D is one or several gods. (D for Deities.)
> 5. G = D.
>
> Have I covered the possibilities?
There is also {D, F}, but I guess neither of us are interested in this
option.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>No.
> I don't know the answer to that question and
> niether does anyone else.
Wrong. Anyone who thinks about it knows the answer, and the answer is
no.
> What I would say is that time and space as we
> know it began from the Big Bang.
That is your faith then.
> What caused the Big Bang is not known.
>
>
> However, what Joseph has done here is make a case for a natural
> explanation of the universe precisely because all of his evidences are
> natural causes for explanation. Therefore, there is no reason to
> believe that the "first cause" was not also a natural cause. In fact,
> in supports that very notion. It is important to note that when we say
> "first cause" we are referring to the inception of the Big Bang or the
> beginning of time and space.
That is not what I mean when I say First Cause. It is your religion to
believe in the Big Bang as the beginning of time and space. That's fine
and dandy for you as a religious person, but don't expect everyone else
to bow down to your god. Big Bang is a religious theory desgined to
dispense with the First Cause.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Rethinking about it, several options are impossibal by defenition of
"God".
For example, option 4 {God, D} ids impossible becasue if it is true,
then God is just another god among the other deities (since he didn't
create them and yet they exist) nd then it just turns back to option 5
{d}.
The option {D, F, God} turns to {D, F} for the same reason.
Another question is if {God, F} is also a contradiction by defenition
of God. Since you define God, I'll let you deside if it has a problem.
Also, G can be {} if the univers is eternal (not talking about the
known universe, i'm talking about 1 level higher then what we know).
Since you mentioned that God is infinite, there is no reason that the
universe can't be.
For the sake of argument, I'll drop the empty option, leaving us with:
{God}, {God, F} (if you have no problem with it), {D}, or {F}.
somebody
<stevegregson@hotmail.co.uk>> No rational person can remain unconvinced. You either exit the debate,
> having discarded rationality, or you agree, or you can refute it.
You don't exhaust all the options. You missed of course, 'phone a
friend',' ask the audience' or '50/50. '
Seriously though your claim that 'the cosmological proof of God has
been established' is a tad difficult to believe. After all, claims
such as these have been made since... well since long ago and to no
avail. But maybe, just maybe, you are the one in all of humanity,
who's genuinely constructed an argument that is undeniable proof of
God existence. Well, if that's the case then maybe you should post it
in another philosophy group that might have contributors with the
relevant expertise who'd happily look at your argument and no doubt
criticize as appropriate. Here are a few suggestions -
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.philosophy?lnk=sg
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.philosophy.misc?lnk=sg
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/fa.philos-l?lnk=sg
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Or for a self confessed panel of experts -
http://www.philosophypathways.com/questions/index.html
http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/
Perhaps you could get someone you've convinced in one of these groups
to put the argument into more reader friendly terms? Or maybe Random
could enlighten us when you've converted him?
somebody
<stevegregson@hotmail.co.uk>somebody wrote:
>
> Perhaps you could get someone you've convinced in one of these groups
> to put the argument into more reader friendly terms? Or maybe Random
> could enlighten us when you've converted him?
Or her?
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>No, I think we can add it to the list. Six options, then.
6. G = {D, F}.
Factors not gods might be, what? Laws or principles of some sort?
Pre-existing matter?
I submit that the three Metaphysical Axioms, Existence, Identity, and
Consciousness, must be present in some way in G. But I suspect you
might not agree that Consciousness is necessary.
A Necessary Existent necessarily exists. (G = G AND G != 0.) Since G =
G, G's identity as G also must exist. So we have established that G
contains the metaphysical axioms of existence and identity. The Eastern
view is that consciousness creates identity, that without words, there
would be no distinctions between this or that. But the Western view, at
least the Western Atheistic view, tends to attempt to explain
consciousness as an emergent process arising from matter.
Perhaps it would help if we could identify the things that are. I
submit the following list as exhaustive:
1. Matter
2. Energy
3. Awareness
4. Self
5. Love.
scooter
<kwills@mail.utexas.edu>You don't read very carefully. Thats what I just said. I agree there
are causal factors that must go back to a beginning the rest of the
world refers to as the Big Bang.---whether you like it or not.
>
> > In fact, your entire
> > explanation doesn't include a shred of anything that remotely resembles
> > a "god" as described in any religion.
>
> God is defined in Theology as the Necessary Existent or First Cause.
"God" is defined in theology for anything and everything. So, it
doesn't really matter. What matters is where you think causes for
natural phenomena that stretch back through the history of the universe
are now somehow arisen from "supernatural".
>
> > Furthermore, that doesn't mean
> > that I think it is Pantheism. Pantheism also requires a "god" or diety.
>
> Not the Impersonalist variety of it, which usually goes by the name
> Atheism.
Look up the word. It clearly states Patheism requires a "god". Atheism
is clearly defined as lacking in a "god". They do not coincide.
>
> >
> >
> > And finally, you have asserted that your "god" exists by progressively
> > reducing cause and effect backward in time. The major problem is that
> > every bit of evidence you use to support your assertion points to a
> > natural cause rather than a "supernatural" cause precisely because all
> > your "proofs", from the present to the beginning of the Cosmos, are
> > themselves natural.
>
> We can infer that some existent is absolutely necessary. That is
> significant, because it disallows us to believe that the Universe is
> contingent in all its parts.
And we can also infer that it was a natural existant as opposed to
"supernatural".
>
> What in Nature is absolutely necessary?
Light giving matter/baryonic matter.
scooter
<kwills@mail.utexas.edu>And you know this because?
>
> > I don't know the answer to that question and
> > niether does anyone else.
>
> Wrong. Anyone who thinks about it knows the answer, and the answer is
> no.
That is an answer but it certainly isn't an explanation.
>
> > What I would say is that time and space as we
> > know it began from the Big Bang.
>
> That is your faith then.
That is a scientific theory. Faith is proclaiming that there are
"neccessary existants" that have natural properties but were created by
a "supernatural" entity. But, what I find most interesting is that
while you believe that space is expanding you don't believe there was
a Big Bang. Its as if it is expanding for no particular reason.
>
> > What caused the Big Bang is not known.
> >
> >
> > However, what Joseph has done here is make a case for a natural
> > explanation of the universe precisely because all of his evidences are
> > natural causes for explanation. Therefore, there is no reason to
> > believe that the "first cause" was not also a natural cause. In fact,
> > in supports that very notion. It is important to note that when we say
> > "first cause" we are referring to the inception of the Big Bang or the
> > beginning of time and space.
>
> That is not what I mean when I say First Cause. It is your religion to
> believe in the Big Bang as the beginning of time and space. That's fine
> and dandy for you as a religious person, but don't expect everyone else
> to bow down to your god. Big Bang is a religious theory desgined to
> dispense with the First Cause.
Incoherent. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang. I accept it as the best
possible explanation to date as to how the Universe was formed. Its a
rather new theory. The theory was developed around the evidence. Its
alot different than say trying to create evidence to fit around a
faith.
I see. You are not a religious person. I can assure you there is
nothing religious about the Big Bang. It is really a very new idea and
has little tradition from which to work.
I think you revealed something quite obvious in your last sentence. You
whine that the "Big Bang is a religious theory designed to dispense
with the first cause". You're a paranoid. You think science is going to
kill your "god".
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Don't really understand what you want to do with this list, but it's
your proof, so feel free to continue.
As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal. If the UU goes backward
forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
the "root" cause.
Fot now, I'm willing to remove this option. BUT, if part of your
explenation will include the fact that God is eternal/infinite, you
will practicly force G={} back as a relevant option.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>I will not, until you either accept or reject my list, and if you
reject it, say why.
>
> As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
You have to define it before you can refer to it.
> If the UU goes backward
> forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> the "root" cause.
That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
> Fot now, I'm willing to remove this option. BUT, if part of your
> explenation will include the fact that God is eternal/infinite, you
> will practicly force G={} back as a relevant option.
Impossible. We must eliminate it now. The entire point of the argument
I made in the first place was to establish G != 0, or G != {}. If you
now want to backpedal and pretend we have so far established nothing,
what is the point of continuing?
It is just more of the atheist irrational demand that wheels do not yet
exist.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>What about henotheism?
>
> Another question is if {God, F} is also a contradiction by defenition
> of God. Since you define God, I'll let you deside if it has a problem.
But I do not define God, except as G. Only if G = 0 ( G = {} ) is there
no God. If G is nonempty, then that set _is_ God. We are now concerned
with what can be established by reason about the characteristics of
that set.
>
> Also, G can be {} if the univers is eternal (not talking about the
> known universe, i'm talking about 1 level higher then what we know).
Only moving the problem, not solving it.
> Since you mentioned that God is infinite, there is no reason that the
> universe can't be.
Pantheism.
>
> For the sake of argument, I'll drop the empty option, leaving us with:
> {God}, {God, F} (if you have no problem with it), {D}, or {F}.
I do not want you to do anything "for the sake of argument." This
argument is not for its own sake, but for the sake of establishing what
is true. Therefore is you accept anything "for now," "for the sake of
argument," you are irrationally demanding the right to reinvoke what
has already been rejected as illogical.
Typical atheist tactics.
Either accept what I say because it is true, or reject it because it is
false and say why. If you are unclear, we need to clear you up before
we can go on.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>I don't understand what I'm supposed to accept or reject in this list.
> >
> > As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> > as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
>
> What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
> You have to define it before you can refer to it.
>
We assume that something was before the known universe.
What we do not know, is if this something was the root cause/s ("G") or
just another step in the path. We also cannot know if that phase is
infinite or not.
> > If the UU goes backward
> > forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> > the "root" cause.
>
> That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
>
When agreed on the chain of causes leading to the group G, that was
under the assumption that there was a beginning.
If there is no beginning, it goes backwards for infinite time. and
infinite time isn't bound by the same rules that force G.
For example:
... G1 -> G2 -> G1 -> G2 -> G1....
If the time is infinite, you can ALWAYS make another step backward and
neither G1 nor G2 will be G.
> > Fot now, I'm willing to remove this option. BUT, if part of your
> > explenation will include the fact that God is eternal/infinite, you
> > will practicly force G={} back as a relevant option.
>
> Impossible. We must eliminate it now. The entire point of the argument
> I made in the first place was to establish G != 0, or G != {}. If you
> now want to backpedal and pretend we have so far established nothing,
> what is the point of continuing?
>
> It is just more of the atheist irrational demand that wheels do not yet
> exist.
As I said, I'm willing to remove this option, unless your explenation
will include something infinite.
If any of your arguments will include some infinite parameter, it will
be YOU and not me that will bring this option.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>1. Are all the things on the list real?
2. Is the list exhaustive of reality?
>
> > >
> > > As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> > > as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
> >
> > What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
> > You have to define it before you can refer to it.
> >
>
> We assume that something was before the known universe.
> What we do not know, is if this something was the root cause/s ("G") or
> just another step in the path. We also cannot know if that phase is
> infinite or not.
By definition, the set G includes all that is Necessary. G is not
"whatever preceded the known Universe," but "whatever exists
Necessarily."
>
> > > If the UU goes backward
> > > forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> > > the "root" cause.
> >
> > That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
> >
>
> When agreed on the chain of causes leading to the group G, that was
> under the assumption that there was a beginning.
Reason says so.
> If there is no beginning, it goes backwards for infinite time. and
> infinite time isn't bound by the same rules that force G.
> For example:
> ... G1 -> G2 -> G1 -> G2 -> G1....
"Drawing Hands" fallacy.
> If the time is infinite, you can ALWAYS make another step backward and
> neither G1 nor G2 will be G.
Impossible according to Reason. We can either accept the validity of
reason ir reject it. If you reject it, then you have simply proven that
your atheism is irrational. If you accept it, you agree to play by its
rules.
>
>
> > > Fot now, I'm willing to remove this option. BUT, if part of your
> > > explenation will include the fact that God is eternal/infinite, you
> > > will practicly force G={} back as a relevant option.
> >
> > Impossible. We must eliminate it now. The entire point of the argument
> > I made in the first place was to establish G != 0, or G != {}. If you
> > now want to backpedal and pretend we have so far established nothing,
> > what is the point of continuing?
> >
> > It is just more of the atheist irrational demand that wheels do not yet
> > exist.
>
> As I said, I'm willing to remove this option, unless your explenation
> will include something infinite.
God is Infinite. Where did you think we were going with this?
>
> If any of your arguments will include some infinite parameter, it will
> be YOU and not me that will bring this option.
God is Infinite, AND G != 0.
If you do not accept God, then you simply say that G may or may not be
infinite. You cannot logically say that IF G is Infinite THEN G is
empty. IF G is Infinite, then G is God. That might be valid, but to
insist that if G is God then G must be empty is an irrational prejudice
of atheism.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>"real" is a very problematic defenition.
1, 2 are real
The rest depend on human perception, they are subjective. They are real
for us, but do they exist outside our mind?
> >
> > > >
> > > > As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> > > > as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
> > >
> > > What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
> > > You have to define it before you can refer to it.
> > >
> >
> > We assume that something was before the known universe.
> > What we do not know, is if this something was the root cause/s ("G") or
> > just another step in the path. We also cannot know if that phase is
> > infinite or not.
>
> By definition, the set G includes all that is Necessary. G is not
> "whatever preceded the known Universe," but "whatever exists
> Necessarily."
>
I used the UU only to say something like "forget everything we know
about physics"
I do not want to mix between this theoretical discussion and physics.
Since no one can say for sure what came one step before the known
universe, moving one step backward doesn't change the defenition of
"G", but makes all the known physical rules void.
> >
> > > > If the UU goes backward
> > > > forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> > > > the "root" cause.
> > >
> > > That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
> > >
> >
> > When agreed on the chain of causes leading to the group G, that was
> > under the assumption that there was a beginning.
>
> Reason says so.
>
Reason and infinity aren't close friends.
> > If there is no beginning, it goes backwards for infinite time. and
> > infinite time isn't bound by the same rules that force G.
> > For example:
> > ... G1 -> G2 -> G1 -> G2 -> G1....
>
> "Drawing Hands" fallacy.
>
What's the "Drawing Hands" fallacy?
Also, take another example that can exist only in infinity:
...Gn+1 -> Gn -> Gn-1 ... -> G1 -> known universe.
Again, This defies reason as we know it, but infinity tends to do that
and that's exactly why I didn't want to include it as an option.
> > If the time is infinite, you can ALWAYS make another step backward and
> > neither G1 nor G2 will be G.
>
> Impossible according to Reason. We can either accept the validity of
> reason ir reject it. If you reject it, then you have simply proven that
> your atheism is irrational. If you accept it, you agree to play by its
> rules.
>
The rule that forces G!={} is finite time and number of causes.
By bringing infinity into the picture, the rules no longer apply.
> >
> >
> > > > Fot now, I'm willing to remove this option. BUT, if part of your
> > > > explenation will include the fact that God is eternal/infinite, you
> > > > will practicly force G={} back as a relevant option.
> > >
> > > Impossible. We must eliminate it now. The entire point of the argument
> > > I made in the first place was to establish G != 0, or G != {}. If you
> > > now want to backpedal and pretend we have so far established nothing,
> > > what is the point of continuing?
> > >
> > > It is just more of the atheist irrational demand that wheels do not yet
> > > exist.
> >
> > As I said, I'm willing to remove this option, unless your explenation
> > will include something infinite.
>
> God is Infinite. Where did you think we were going with this?
>
Infinite in what?
Time? Size? Power?
> >
> > If any of your arguments will include some infinite parameter, it will
> > be YOU and not me that will bring this option.
>
> God is Infinite, AND G != 0.
>
> If you do not accept God, then you simply say that G may or may not be
> infinite. You cannot logically say that IF G is Infinite THEN G is
> empty. IF G is Infinite, then G is God. That might be valid, but to
> insist that if G is God then G must be empty is an irrational prejudice
> of atheism.
If you say God is infinity, I'll reply by saying that the UU is
infinite bringing back the Gn+1 -> ... -> G1 option back.
G is a group that contains the root causes, if there is no beginning
(caused by defenition of infinity), there doesn't have to be any item
in G.
Now you see why I wanted to avoid this option?
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>Because an infinite causal regress makes no sense. I have elucidated
why in the posts linked above.
> >
> > > I don't know the answer to that question and
> > > niether does anyone else.
> >
> > Wrong. Anyone who thinks about it knows the answer, and the answer is
> > no.
>
> That is an answer but it certainly isn't an explanation.
My explanation has already been given. Didn't see your refutation of
it, though.
>
> >
> > > What I would say is that time and space as we
> > > know it began from the Big Bang.
> >
> > That is your faith then.
>
> That is a scientific theory.
And scientism is a faith.
> Faith is proclaiming that there are
> "neccessary existants" that have natural properties but were created by
> a "supernatural" entity.
I proclaimed no such thing. In fact, I assert that the Necessary
Existent is supernatural.
> But, what I find most interesting is that
> while you believe that space is expanding you don't believe there was
> a Big Bang. Its as if it is expanding for no particular reason.
It is expanding to counterbalance the effect of gravity. If space were
not expanding, everything would have long ago crashed into everything
else.
>
>
> >
> > > What caused the Big Bang is not known.
> > >
> > >
> > > However, what Joseph has done here is make a case for a natural
> > > explanation of the universe precisely because all of his evidences are
> > > natural causes for explanation. Therefore, there is no reason to
> > > believe that the "first cause" was not also a natural cause. In fact,
> > > in supports that very notion. It is important to note that when we say
> > > "first cause" we are referring to the inception of the Big Bang or the
> > > beginning of time and space.
> >
> > That is not what I mean when I say First Cause. It is your religion to
> > believe in the Big Bang as the beginning of time and space. That's fine
> > and dandy for you as a religious person, but don't expect everyone else
> > to bow down to your god. Big Bang is a religious theory desgined to
> > dispense with the First Cause.
>
>
> Incoherent. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang. I accept it as the best
> possible explanation to date as to how the Universe was formed.
You just like it because you think it makes sense, and you don't think
God makes sense.
> Its a
> rather new theory. The theory was developed around the evidence. Its
> alot different than say trying to create evidence to fit around a
> faith.
No one can "create evidence." The sole bit of evidence you have for the
Big Bang is Hubble's Law. Creating more evidence would be like, say,
inventing "dark matter" and "dark energy" to fill in the gaping holes
in the Big Bang Theory.
>
> I see. You are not a religious person.
Wrong.
> I can assure you there is
> nothing religious about the Big Bang. It is really a very new idea and
> has little tradition from which to work.
Atheism is a long-standing false tradition, which was largely
implausible to most thinking people until Big Bang was invented.
>
> I think you revealed something quite obvious in your last sentence. You
> whine that the "Big Bang is a religious theory designed to dispense
> with the first cause". You're a paranoid. You think science is going to
> kill your "god".
Hahaha. No. I think specious reasoning might kill the potential for
Devotion to God in some unstable people.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>Are our minds real?
You say "real" is problematic. Why?
>
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> > > > > as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
> > > >
> > > > What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
> > > > You have to define it before you can refer to it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We assume that something was before the known universe.
> > > What we do not know, is if this something was the root cause/s ("G") or
> > > just another step in the path. We also cannot know if that phase is
> > > infinite or not.
> >
> > By definition, the set G includes all that is Necessary. G is not
> > "whatever preceded the known Universe," but "whatever exists
> > Necessarily."
> >
>
> I used the UU only to say something like "forget everything we know
> about physics"
> I do not want to mix between this theoretical discussion and physics.
> Since no one can say for sure what came one step before the known
> universe, moving one step backward doesn't change the defenition of
> "G", but makes all the known physical rules void.
Why?
>
> > >
> > > > > If the UU goes backward
> > > > > forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> > > > > the "root" cause.
> > > >
> > > > That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When agreed on the chain of causes leading to the group G, that was
> > > under the assumption that there was a beginning.
> >
> > Reason says so.
> >
>
> Reason and infinity aren't close friends.
God is both reasonable and infinite. So, no, you are wrong. Reason and
Infinity are both attributes of the same Being.
>
> > > If there is no beginning, it goes backwards for infinite time. and
> > > infinite time isn't bound by the same rules that force G.
> > > For example:
> > > ... G1 -> G2 -> G1 -> G2 -> G1....
> >
> > "Drawing Hands" fallacy.
> >
>
> What's the "Drawing Hands" fallacy?
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?53953+0+0+ggescher
> Also, take another example that can exist only in infinity:
> ...Gn+1 -> Gn -> Gn-1 ... -> G1 -> known universe.
>
> Again, This defies reason as we know it,
Then out the window it goes. We are not interested in defying reason.
> but infinity tends to do that
> and that's exactly why I didn't want to include it as an option.
God is Infinite.
>
> > > If the time is infinite, you can ALWAYS make another step backward and
> > > neither G1 nor G2 will be G.
> >
> > Impossible according to Reason. We can either accept the validity of
> > reason ir reject it. If you reject it, then you have simply proven that
> > your atheism is irrational. If you accept it, you agree to play by its
> > rules.
> >
>
> The rule that forces G!={} is finite time and number of causes.
> By bringing infinity into the picture, the rules no longer apply.
Maybe you better define "infinity."
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Fot now, I'm willing to remove this option. BUT, if part of your
> > > > > explenation will include the fact that God is eternal/infinite, you
> > > > > will practicly force G={} back as a relevant option.
> > > >
> > > > Impossible. We must eliminate it now. The entire point of the argument
> > > > I made in the first place was to establish G != 0, or G != {}. If you
> > > > now want to backpedal and pretend we have so far established nothing,
> > > > what is the point of continuing?
> > > >
> > > > It is just more of the atheist irrational demand that wheels do not yet
> > > > exist.
> > >
> > > As I said, I'm willing to remove this option, unless your explenation
> > > will include something infinite.
> >
> > God is Infinite. Where did you think we were going with this?
> >
>
> Infinite in what?
All of His attributes.
> Time?
Infinite time means eternity. Yes, God is Eternal.
> Size?
God exists everywhere. I guess you could say He would be infinite in
size. Everything else that exists, exists in Him.
> Power?
Omnipotence means Infinite Power, yes.
>
> > >
> > > If any of your arguments will include some infinite parameter, it will
> > > be YOU and not me that will bring this option.
> >
> > God is Infinite, AND G != 0.
> >
> > If you do not accept God, then you simply say that G may or may not be
> > infinite. You cannot logically say that IF G is Infinite THEN G is
> > empty. IF G is Infinite, then G is God. That might be valid, but to
> > insist that if G is God then G must be empty is an irrational prejudice
> > of atheism.
>
> If you say God is infinity, I'll reply by saying that the UU is
> infinite bringing back the Gn+1 -> ... -> G1 option back.
You yourself asserted that is not reasonable.
> G is a group that contains the root causes,
- or a single First Cause -
> if there is no beginning
> (caused by defenition of infinity), there doesn't have to be any item
> in G.
>
> Now you see why I wanted to avoid this option?
It makes sense to avoid this option if the option makes no sense
whatsoever. That is my view on it. However, if you are going to insist
that the same explanation can be at the same time and in the same way
both reasonable and unreasonable, I do not think we have any common
ground for our discussion. You either respect Reason or you do not. You
can't have it both ways.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>> >
> > "real" is a very problematic defenition.
> > 1, 2 are real
> > The rest depend on human perception, they are subjective. They are real
> > for us, but do they exist outside our mind?
>
> Are our minds real?
>
> You say "real" is problematic. Why?
>
is an apple real? yes. Is the sweet taste of an apple real? also yes.
The problem is that the two questions don't use the same "real".
The apple is real, it is matter, atoms. The taste depends on something
else to become "real".
Love is an emotion, it is not "real" in the same sense that energy or
matter is real.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> > > > > > as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
> > > > > You have to define it before you can refer to it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > We assume that something was before the known universe.
> > > > What we do not know, is if this something was the root cause/s ("G") or
> > > > just another step in the path. We also cannot know if that phase is
> > > > infinite or not.
> > >
> > > By definition, the set G includes all that is Necessary. G is not
> > > "whatever preceded the known Universe," but "whatever exists
> > > Necessarily."
> > >
> >
> > I used the UU only to say something like "forget everything we know
> > about physics"
> > I do not want to mix between this theoretical discussion and physics.
> > Since no one can say for sure what came one step before the known
> > universe, moving one step backward doesn't change the defenition of
> > "G", but makes all the known physical rules void.
>
> Why?
>
Because we have no idea what happend before and what the UU looks like.
Do things in the UU act like things we know here? did gravity work the
same way?
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > If the UU goes backward
> > > > > > forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> > > > > > the "root" cause.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > When agreed on the chain of causes leading to the group G, that was
> > > > under the assumption that there was a beginning.
> > >
> > > Reason says so.
> > >
> >
> > Reason and infinity aren't close friends.
>
> God is both reasonable and infinite. So, no, you are wrong. Reason and
> Infinity are both attributes of the same Being.
>
Well, that is something you need to explain, and prove.
> >
> > > > If there is no beginning, it goes backwards for infinite time. and
> > > > infinite time isn't bound by the same rules that force G.
> > > > For example:
> > > > ... G1 -> G2 -> G1 -> G2 -> G1....
> > >
> > > "Drawing Hands" fallacy.
> > >
> >
> > What's the "Drawing Hands" fallacy?
>
> http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?53953+0+0+ggescher
>
> > Also, take another example that can exist only in infinity:
> > ...Gn+1 -> Gn -> Gn-1 ... -> G1 -> known universe.
> >
> > Again, This defies reason as we know it,
>
> Then out the window it goes. We are not interested in defying reason.
>
That defies the REASON WE KNOW.
Every bit or reason we have relies on the fact that everything starts
and ends. We have no past experience with infinity beyond theoretical
discussions or math.
When you put "infinity" as one of the attributes of the UU you change
the rules of reason as we know it (you placed it on God, I merely moved
it one step farward, if God is infinite God+any countable time =
infinity as well)
In infinite time, we are no longer bound by reason that limits us to a
finite number of steps.
> > but infinity tends to do that
> > and that's exactly why I didn't want to include it as an option.
>
> God is Infinite.
>
> >
> > > > If the time is infinite, you can ALWAYS make another step backward and
> > > > neither G1 nor G2 will be G.
> > >
> > > Impossible according to Reason. We can either accept the validity of
> > > reason ir reject it. If you reject it, then you have simply proven that
> > > your atheism is irrational. If you accept it, you agree to play by its
> > > rules.
> > >
> >
> > The rule that forces G!={} is finite time and number of causes.
> > By bringing infinity into the picture, the rules no longer apply.
>
> Maybe you better define "infinity."
>
When it comes to numbers, infinity is not just "a big number", it means
that no matter what constant number you take, infinity will always be
bigger.
When it comes to time, infinity time is more then ANY constant masured
time you can think of.
In infinite time, it is possible that there is only one event, but it
is also possible that there is an infinite number of constant-length
events.
Here is an example of the problem of a root cause in infinity:
in 321/5, there are three digits, the last one representing the
smallest part of the number is placed one digit after the dot (I'll
call it "the smallest digit" although I'm sure there's a better word
for it in english)
What's the smallest digit in 1/7?
Since it goes for infinity, there is no "smallest digit". No matter how
many you will calculate, you can always find more.
Since we cannot work like that, our way to calculate is to ignore all
digits beyond a certain point and turn things to something that we can
handle.
We're doing the same thing all our life, all our reason is based on the
non existence of infinite things in nature.
Not with our reasoning, which changes when we place "infinity".
> > G is a group that contains the root causes,
>
> - or a single First Cause -
>
Of course, otherwise I'd say "G is the oot cuases and |G|>1"
> > if there is no beginning
> > (caused by defenition of infinity), there doesn't have to be any item
> > in G.
> >
> > Now you see why I wanted to avoid this option?
>
> It makes sense to avoid this option if the option makes no sense
> whatsoever. That is my view on it. However, if you are going to insist
> that the same explanation can be at the same time and in the same way
> both reasonable and unreasonable, I do not think we have any common
> ground for our discussion. You either respect Reason or you do not. You
> can't have it both ways.
This reasoning is applied only when we work around something that
starts and ends. Putting infinity changes the rules of reasoning as we
know it.
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
scooter wrote: "So as an atheist, you believe in an eternal, endless string of causes?"Such a view isn't incompatible with atheism or theism.
-otherson
Michael Ewart wrote:
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
>
> --0-126568987-1159623898=:41460--
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2｢/min or less.
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>dispense with the First Cause."
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>> > >
> > > "real" is a very problematic defenition.
> > > 1, 2 are real
> > > The rest depend on human perception, they are subjective. They are real
> > > for us, but do they exist outside our mind?
> >
> > Are our minds real?
> >
> > You say "real" is problematic. Why?
> >
>
> is an apple real? yes. Is the sweet taste of an apple real? also yes.
> The problem is that the two questions don't use the same "real".
> The apple is real, it is matter, atoms. The taste depends on something
> else to become "real".
Right. Awareness. I say Awareness is also real. Do you disagree?
>
> Love is an emotion,
I am not talking about the emotions associated with love. Love is unity
of persons. Persons are Self (also real), except in the case of the
Trinity, where there are three Persons in One God. God is Love, and
except for God, each Self is one person.
> it is not "real" in the same sense that energy or
> matter is real.
If you do not accept the reality of Love, then you assign it to the
realm of human emotion. Then it is real but nondistinct from Awareness.
(Though usually in the case of emotions there is also an energetic
manifestation in the nervous system.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> > > > > > > as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
> > > > > > You have to define it before you can refer to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We assume that something was before the known universe.
> > > > > What we do not know, is if this something was the root cause/s ("G") or
> > > > > just another step in the path. We also cannot know if that phase is
> > > > > infinite or not.
> > > >
> > > > By definition, the set G includes all that is Necessary. G is not
> > > > "whatever preceded the known Universe," but "whatever exists
> > > > Necessarily."
> > > >
> > >
> > > I used the UU only to say something like "forget everything we know
> > > about physics"
> > > I do not want to mix between this theoretical discussion and physics.
> > > Since no one can say for sure what came one step before the known
> > > universe, moving one step backward doesn't change the defenition of
> > > "G", but makes all the known physical rules void.
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> Because we have no idea what happend before and what the UU looks like.
> Do things in the UU act like things we know here? did gravity work the
> same way?
Is UU part of U?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If the UU goes backward
> > > > > > > forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> > > > > > > the "root" cause.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When agreed on the chain of causes leading to the group G, that was
> > > > > under the assumption that there was a beginning.
> > > >
> > > > Reason says so.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reason and infinity aren't close friends.
> >
> > God is both reasonable and infinite. So, no, you are wrong. Reason and
> > Infinity are both attributes of the same Being.
> >
>
> Well, that is something you need to explain, and prove.
You are the one who said "reason and infinity aren't close friends." I
disagreed, and gave a counterexample. If now I have to prove God, then
you are going to have to wait, because we haven't got that far yet. You
want to complicate things by inventing "UU." Then define UU in terms of
U and G. Is UU <= U? Is UU = G? Is UU <= G? Or is UU just a red
herring?
>
> > >
> > > > > If there is no beginning, it goes backwards for infinite time. and
> > > > > infinite time isn't bound by the same rules that force G.
> > > > > For example:
> > > > > ... G1 -> G2 -> G1 -> G2 -> G1....
> > > >
> > > > "Drawing Hands" fallacy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's the "Drawing Hands" fallacy?
> >
> > http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?53953+0+0+ggescher
> >
> > > Also, take another example that can exist only in infinity:
> > > ...Gn+1 -> Gn -> Gn-1 ... -> G1 -> known universe.
> > >
> > > Again, This defies reason as we know it,
> >
> > Then out the window it goes. We are not interested in defying reason.
> >
>
> That defies the REASON WE KNOW.
We don't know any "reason we don't know."
> Every bit or reason we have relies on the fact that everything starts
> and ends. We have no past experience with infinity beyond theoretical
> discussions or math.
Not true. Some have experienced God.
> When you put "infinity" as one of the attributes of the UU
Is UU = G? If so, why did you need to invent a new term?
> you change
> the rules of reason as we know it
Impossible. I don't have that kind of power.
> (you placed it on God, I merely moved
> it one step farward, if God is infinite God+any countable time =
> infinity as well)
> In infinite time, we are no longer bound by reason that limits us to a
> finite number of steps.
I am not interested in any cockamamie theory that defies reason.
>
> > > but infinity tends to do that
> > > and that's exactly why I didn't want to include it as an option.
> >
> > God is Infinite.
> >
> > >
> > > > > If the time is infinite, you can ALWAYS make another step backward and
> > > > > neither G1 nor G2 will be G.
> > > >
> > > > Impossible according to Reason. We can either accept the validity of
> > > > reason ir reject it. If you reject it, then you have simply proven that
> > > > your atheism is irrational. If you accept it, you agree to play by its
> > > > rules.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The rule that forces G!={} is finite time and number of causes.
> > > By bringing infinity into the picture, the rules no longer apply.
> >
> > Maybe you better define "infinity."
> >
>
> When it comes to numbers, infinity is not just "a big number",
Infinity is _not at all_ "a big number."
> it means
> that no matter what constant number you take, infinity will always be
> bigger.
No. You are still thinking in terms of size. Infinity is not "big."
Infinity means literally "without bound." Any really big number is
still a bound.
> When it comes to time, infinity time is more then ANY constant masured
> time you can think of.
> In infinite time, it is possible that there is only one event, but it
> is also possible that there is an infinite number of constant-length
> events.
Incoherent. There is no such thing as an "infinite number of" anything.
You are still confusing infinity with "really huge number." Infinity is
not "the biggest number" or "the last number." There is no biggest
number, and there is no last number. The numbers go on forever, to
infinity, which means they increase without bound.
>
> Here is an example of the problem of a root cause in infinity:
> in 321/5, there are three digits, the last one representing the
> smallest part of the number is placed one digit after the dot (I'll
> call it "the smallest digit" although I'm sure there's a better word
> for it in english)
> What's the smallest digit in 1/7?
> Since it goes for infinity, there is no "smallest digit". No matter how
> many you will calculate, you can always find more.
> Since we cannot work like that, our way to calculate is to ignore all
> digits beyond a certain point and turn things to something that we can
> handle.
Your analogy is flawed. 1/7 names an exact quantity that is calculable
exactly. In a base seven number system, one divided by seven is written
as 0.1 . So the last significant digit is 1, in this case. In base
seven, it is three hundred twenty-one divided by five that goes into a
cycle of repeating digits. So the decimal expression of a rational
number (fraction) will be a repeating decimal in base ten if the
quantities have any other prime factors than 2 or 5. (2 * 5 = 10.)
>
> We're doing the same thing all our life, all our reason is based on the
> non existence of infinite things in nature.
If you say we cannot comprehend the Infinite, I would agree with you.
That is what is meant when it is said that we cannot comprehend God.
But 1/7 is not infinite in any sense of the word. Even pi is not
infinite. Though it is not calculable exactly (hence it is irrational),
nonetheless its value is known to lie somewhere between 3.14159 and
3.1416 .
If you want an expression of infinity in mathematics, it is always as a
limit. Specifically, it is the limit of the expression, 1/x as x
approaches zero. Infinity is NOT 1/0. Division by zero is not allowed,
so the expression 1/0 is actually meaningless. But
Infinity = lim 1/x, x -> 0.
You are inventing a new kind of reasoning? If UU is Infinite, then UU
is God, unqualifiedly. It seems if you invoke UU, you must admit God.
>
> > > G is a group that contains the root causes,
> >
> > - or a single First Cause -
> >
>
> Of course, otherwise I'd say "G is the oot cuases and |G|>1"
That made no sense. Say what you mean. Don't invent new symbols without
defining them.
>
> > > if there is no beginning
> > > (caused by defenition of infinity), there doesn't have to be any item
> > > in G.
> > >
> > > Now you see why I wanted to avoid this option?
> >
> > It makes sense to avoid this option if the option makes no sense
> > whatsoever. That is my view on it. However, if you are going to insist
> > that the same explanation can be at the same time and in the same way
> > both reasonable and unreasonable, I do not think we have any common
> > ground for our discussion. You either respect Reason or you do not. You
> > can't have it both ways.
>
> This reasoning is applied only when we work around something that
> starts and ends. Putting infinity changes the rules of reasoning as we
> know it.
If we have now reasoned to an Infinite as G, then G is God, since God
alone is Infinite.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>> > >
> > > "real" is a very problematic defenition.
> > > 1, 2 are real
> > > The rest depend on human perception, they are subjective. They are real
> > > for us, but do they exist outside our mind?
> >
> > Are our minds real?
> >
> > You say "real" is problematic. Why?
> >
>
> is an apple real? yes. Is the sweet taste of an apple real? also yes.
> The problem is that the two questions don't use the same "real".
> The apple is real, it is matter, atoms. The taste depends on something
> else to become "real".
Right. Awareness. I say Awareness is also real. Do you disagree?
>
> Love is an emotion,
I am not talking about the emotions associated with love. Love is unity
of persons. Persons are Self (also real), except in the case of the
Trinity, where there are three Persons in One God. God is Love, and
except for God, each Self is one person.
> it is not "real" in the same sense that energy or
> matter is real.
If you do not accept the reality of Love, then you assign it to the
realm of human emotion. Then it is real but nondistinct from Awareness.
(Though usually in the case of emotions there is also an energetic
manifestation in the nervous system.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for the G!={}, I just wanted to emphesize this is right only as long
> > > > > > > as the unknown universe (UU) is not eternal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is this new set, UU, that you are introducing to the discussion?
> > > > > > You have to define it before you can refer to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We assume that something was before the known universe.
> > > > > What we do not know, is if this something was the root cause/s ("G") or
> > > > > just another step in the path. We also cannot know if that phase is
> > > > > infinite or not.
> > > >
> > > > By definition, the set G includes all that is Necessary. G is not
> > > > "whatever preceded the known Universe," but "whatever exists
> > > > Necessarily."
> > > >
> > >
> > > I used the UU only to say something like "forget everything we know
> > > about physics"
> > > I do not want to mix between this theoretical discussion and physics.
> > > Since no one can say for sure what came one step before the known
> > > universe, moving one step backward doesn't change the defenition of
> > > "G", but makes all the known physical rules void.
> >
> > Why?
> >
>
> Because we have no idea what happend before and what the UU looks like.
> Do things in the UU act like things we know here? did gravity work the
> same way?
Is UU part of U?
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > If the UU goes backward
> > > > > > > forever, it might as well go forever in loop of causes, making no cause
> > > > > > > the "root" cause.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is patent nonsense, violating reason.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When agreed on the chain of causes leading to the group G, that was
> > > > > under the assumption that there was a beginning.
> > > >
> > > > Reason says so.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reason and infinity aren't close friends.
> >
> > God is both reasonable and infinite. So, no, you are wrong. Reason and
> > Infinity are both attributes of the same Being.
> >
>
> Well, that is something you need to explain, and prove.
You are the one who said "reason and infinity aren't close friends." I
disagreed, and gave a counterexample. If now I have to prove God, then
you are going to have to wait, because we haven't got that far yet. You
want to complicate things by inventing "UU." Then define UU in terms of
U and G. Is UU <= U? Is UU = G? Is UU <= G? Or is UU just a red
herring?
>
> > >
> > > > > If there is no beginning, it goes backwards for infinite time. and
> > > > > infinite time isn't bound by the same rules that force G.
> > > > > For example:
> > > > > ... G1 -> G2 -> G1 -> G2 -> G1....
> > > >
> > > > "Drawing Hands" fallacy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What's the "Drawing Hands" fallacy?
> >
> > http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?53953+0+0+ggescher
> >
> > > Also, take another example that can exist only in infinity:
> > > ...Gn+1 -> Gn -> Gn-1 ... -> G1 -> known universe.
> > >
> > > Again, This defies reason as we know it,
> >
> > Then out the window it goes. We are not interested in defying reason.
> >
>
> That defies the REASON WE KNOW.
We don't know any "reason we don't know."
> Every bit or reason we have relies on the fact that everything starts
> and ends. We have no past experience with infinity beyond theoretical
> discussions or math.
Not true. Some have experienced God.
> When you put "infinity" as one of the attributes of the UU
Is UU = G? If so, why did you need to invent a new term?
> you change
> the rules of reason as we know it
Impossible. I don't have that kind of power.
> (you placed it on God, I merely moved
> it one step farward, if God is infinite God+any countable time =
> infinity as well)
> In infinite time, we are no longer bound by reason that limits us to a
> finite number of steps.
I am not interested in any cockamamie theory that defies reason.
>
> > > but infinity tends to do that
> > > and that's exactly why I didn't want to include it as an option.
> >
> > God is Infinite.
> >
> > >
> > > > > If the time is infinite, you can ALWAYS make another step backward and
> > > > > neither G1 nor G2 will be G.
> > > >
> > > > Impossible according to Reason. We can either accept the validity of
> > > > reason ir reject it. If you reject it, then you have simply proven that
> > > > your atheism is irrational. If you accept it, you agree to play by its
> > > > rules.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The rule that forces G!={} is finite time and number of causes.
> > > By bringing infinity into the picture, the rules no longer apply.
> >
> > Maybe you better define "infinity."
> >
>
> When it comes to numbers, infinity is not just "a big number",
Infinity is _not at all_ "a big number."
> it means
> that no matter what constant number you take, infinity will always be
> bigger.
No. You are still thinking in terms of size. Infinity is not "big."
Infinity means literally "without bound." Any really big number is
still a bound.
> When it comes to time, infinity time is more then ANY constant masured
> time you can think of.
> In infinite time, it is possible that there is only one event, but it
> is also possible that there is an infinite number of constant-length
> events.
Incoherent. There is no such thing as an "infinite number of" anything.
You are still confusing infinity with "really huge number." Infinity is
not "the biggest number" or "the last number." There is no biggest
number, and there is no last number. The numbers go on forever, to
infinity, which means they increase without bound.
>
> Here is an example of the problem of a root cause in infinity:
> in 321/5, there are three digits, the last one representing the
> smallest part of the number is placed one digit after the dot (I'll
> call it "the smallest digit" although I'm sure there's a better word
> for it in english)
> What's the smallest digit in 1/7?
> Since it goes for infinity, there is no "smallest digit". No matter how
> many you will calculate, you can always find more.
> Since we cannot work like that, our way to calculate is to ignore all
> digits beyond a certain point and turn things to something that we can
> handle.
Your analogy is flawed. 1/7 names an exact quantity that is calculable
exactly. In a base seven number system, one divided by seven is written
as 0.1 . So the last significant digit is 1, in this case. In base
seven, it is three hundred twenty-one divided by five that goes into a
cycle of repeating digits. So the decimal expression of a rational
number (fraction) will be a repeating decimal in base ten if the
quantities have any other prime factors than 2 or 5. (2 * 5 = 10.)
>
> We're doing the same thing all our life, all our reason is based on the
> non existence of infinite things in nature.
If you say we cannot comprehend the Infinite, I would agree with you.
That is what is meant when it is said that we cannot comprehend God.
But 1/7 is not infinite in any sense of the word. Even pi is not
infinite. Though it is not calculable exactly (hence it is irrational),
nonetheless its value is known to lie somewhere between 3.14159 and
3.1416 .
If you want an expression of infinity in mathematics, it is always as a
limit. Specifically, it is the limit of the expression, 1/x as x
approaches zero. Infinity is NOT 1/0. Division by zero is not allowed,
so the expression 1/0 is actually meaningless. But
Infinity = lim 1/x, x -> 0.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
You are inventing a new kind of reasoning? If UU is Infinite, then UU
is God, unqualifiedly. It seems if you invoke UU, you must admit God.
>
> > > G is a group that contains the root causes,
> >
> > - or a single First Cause -
> >
>
> Of course, otherwise I'd say "G is the oot cuases and |G|>1"
That made no sense. Say what you mean. Don't invent new symbols without
defining them.
>
> > > if there is no beginning
> > > (caused by defenition of infinity), there doesn't have to be any item
> > > in G.
> > >
> > > Now you see why I wanted to avoid this option?
> >
> > It makes sense to avoid this option if the option makes no sense
> > whatsoever. That is my view on it. However, if you are going to insist
> > that the same explanation can be at the same time and in the same way
> > both reasonable and unreasonable, I do not think we have any common
> > ground for our discussion. You either respect Reason or you do not. You
> > can't have it both ways.
>
> This reasoning is applied only when we work around something that
> starts and ends. Putting infinity changes the rules of reasoning as we
> know it.
If we have now reasoned to an Infinite as G, then G is God, since God
alone is Infinite.
scooter
<kwills@mail.utexas.edu>Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No. As an atheist, I don't believe in "supernatural" beings or, as you
> > > > call them, "gods". That's all it means to be an atheist. Are there an
> > > > endless string of causes?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > And you know this because?
>
> Because an infinite causal regress makes no sense. I have elucidated
> why in the posts linked above.
You have elucidated nothing. On the contrary, you continually
contradict yourself and your "god". You have already stated that your
"god" is "infinite, eternal and omnipotent". In such a scenario, not
only can your "god" create such a infinite causal regress, but you
reject the possibility that he would or could. I.E. you reject the
"infinite powers" of your own "god". Unless of course you now contend
that either you have spoken with him about this subject or that you
withdraw the assertion that your "god" is "infinite, eternal and
omnipotent". So, which is it?
>
> > >
> > > > I don't know the answer to that question and
> > > > niether does anyone else.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Anyone who thinks about it knows the answer, and the answer is
> > > no.
> >
> > That is an answer but it certainly isn't an explanation.
>
> My explanation has already been given. Didn't see your refutation of
> it, though.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > What I would say is that time and space as we
> > > > know it began from the Big Bang.
> > >
> > > That is your faith then.
> >
> > That is a scientific theory.
>
> And scientism is a faith.
And, scientific theory has nothing to do with scientism.
>
> > Faith is proclaiming that there are
> > "neccessary existants" that have natural properties but were created by
> > a "supernatural" entity.
>
> I proclaimed no such thing. In fact, I assert that the Necessary
> Existent is supernatural.
Yes you do. But, all other "contingencies" are natural. The equation
does not add up. supernatural set "G" cannot be equal to a natural set
"U". In fact, you cannot even compare the two much less declare that
those natural existants are dependant upon a "supernatural" existant.
So, to say that one is -> or = to the other is ridiculous and beyond
the realm of reason. The sum of all things natural do not and are not
=< or > one thing "supernatural" because, to use a metaphor, they are
not all apples.
>
> > But, what I find most interesting is that
> > while you believe that space is expanding you don't believe there was
> > a Big Bang. Its as if it is expanding for no particular reason.
>
> It is expanding to counterbalance the effect of gravity. If space were
> not expanding, everything would have long ago crashed into everything
> else.
Then you won't mind explaining to us how the sun shines. Go ahead and
explain how the expansion of matter, as opposed to the inward pull of
gravity, creates nuclear fusion in stars.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > What caused the Big Bang is not known.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However, what Joseph has done here is make a case for a natural
> > > > explanation of the universe precisely because all of his evidences are
> > > > natural causes for explanation. Therefore, there is no reason to
> > > > believe that the "first cause" was not also a natural cause. In fact,
> > > > in supports that very notion. It is important to note that when we say
> > > > "first cause" we are referring to the inception of the Big Bang or the
> > > > beginning of time and space.
> > >
> > > That is not what I mean when I say First Cause. It is your religion to
> > > believe in the Big Bang as the beginning of time and space. That's fine
> > > and dandy for you as a religious person, but don't expect everyone else
> > > to bow down to your god. Big Bang is a religious theory desgined to
> > > dispense with the First Cause.
> >
> >
> > Incoherent. I don't "believe" in the Big Bang. I accept it as the best
> > possible explanation to date as to how the Universe was formed.
>
> You just like it because you think it makes sense, and you don't think
> God makes sense.
"God makes sense" but it is implausable.
>
> > Its a
> > rather new theory. The theory was developed around the evidence. Its
> > alot different than say trying to create evidence to fit around a
> > faith.
>
> No one can "create evidence." The sole bit of evidence you have for the
> Big Bang is Hubble's Law. Creating more evidence would be like, say,
> inventing "dark matter" and "dark energy" to fill in the gaping holes
> in the Big Bang Theory.
Wrong. We have CMB as well. Further, anytime you want to propose a
different explanation of why the Universe is expanding, have at it.
Dark matter isn't the creation of evidence. It is a label used to
describe the gravitational rotation curves of galaxies (an observation)
since it was determined that there simply wasn't enough visable matter
to account for them.
The same is true for dark energy. To account for non-linear
acceleration (an observation), there must be some other negative
pressure. Since it is not known what it is, it's called dark energy.
Now let's talk about what evidence or observations you have for a
"supernatural god". Any Hubble Laws? No? So, any observations
whatsoever? No? Then why do you insist that "god" exists?
>
> >
> > I see. You are not a religious person.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > I can assure you there is
> > nothing religious about the Big Bang. It is really a very new idea and
> > has little tradition from which to work.
>
> Atheism is a long-standing false tradition, which was largely
> implausible to most thinking people until Big Bang was invented.
Christianity is a long-standing tradition that has never been
plausable.
>
> >
> > I think you revealed something quite obvious in your last sentence. You
> > whine that the "Big Bang is a religious theory designed to dispense
> > with the first cause". You're a paranoid. You think science is going to
> > kill your "god".
>
> Hahaha. No. I think specious reasoning might kill the potential for
> Devotion to God in some unstable people.
Besides being specious, your assertion has little to do with your
paranoia.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>UU = "unknown universe". it is what the universe was one step before
what we know the universe is now.
G can still come before UU as a cause, just like it appeared before the
universe.
I only used it so we won't be bound to the things we know about the
known universe and turn the theoretical discussion into a physics
class. Since we're talking about what came before the universe anyway,
it doesn't change anything.
The only thing that changed is the possibility of infinity.
The universe as we know it started on a certain point, the UU is simply
unknown.
------
Infinity:
the entire cause and effect and the reasoning that there must be a
first cause(s) comes from the line of thought that there is something
in the beginning, that it can't just go on backward forever.
This reasoning is exactly oposite to the concept of infinity. In
infinite time, there is no beginning and there is nothing that forces
you to "start somewhere".
If the UU is infinite, there can be endless number of causes before the
unierse was created. Endless number of causes is the only wat to make G
an empty group.
-------
Love an awareness:
I'll try to explain again: Awareness exists, but not in the same way
that matter exists. Same thing goes for love.
Love is very real, but there are no "real" bonds that tie us to the
loved one, they exist only in our mind. The fact that it exists "only"
in our mind doesn't make it weak and I really don't underestimate love.
But it is not real in the same sense like matter or energy.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>> UU:
>
> UU = "unknown universe". it is what the universe was one step before
> what we know the universe is now.
You mean, like, five minutes ago?
Just kidding. But seriously, what do you mean? Where are you drawing
the line between U and UU?
> G can still come before UU as a cause, just like it appeared before the
> universe.
Then why is the distinction between UU and U necessary?
> I only used it so we won't be bound to the things we know about the
> known universe and turn the theoretical discussion into a physics
> class.
Are you making it an exercise in wild speculation?
> Since we're talking about what came before the universe anyway,
> it doesn't change anything.
If it doesn't change anything, what is it for?
>
> The only thing that changed is the possibility of infinity.
> The universe as we know it started on a certain point, the UU is simply
> unknown.
Kindly differentiate between UU and God.
>
> ------
>
> Infinity:
>
> the entire cause and effect and the reasoning that there must be a
> first cause(s) comes from the line of thought that there is something
> in the beginning, that it can't just go on backward forever.
> This reasoning is exactly oposite to the concept of infinity. In
> infinite time, there is no beginning and there is nothing that forces
> you to "start somewhere".
>
> If the UU is infinite, there can be endless number of causes before the
> unierse was created. Endless number of causes is the only wat to make G
> an empty group.
Anything both Substantial and Infinite must be God. Unless you have
some other definition of God that would work better?
>
> -------
>
> Love an awareness:
> I'll try to explain again: Awareness exists, but not in the same way
> that matter exists. Same thing goes for love.
I would say that matter and energy are markedly less substantial than
Love.
> Love is very real, but there are no "real" bonds that tie us to the
> loved one, they exist only in our mind.
Then you are saying love is a figment of our imaginations.
> The fact that it exists "only"
> in our mind doesn't make it weak and I really don't underestimate love.
That's good.
> But it is not real in the same sense like matter or energy.
Matter and energy are physical. Are you equating physical with real?
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Joseph Geloso wrote:
> random wrote:
> > UU:
> >
> > UU = "unknown universe". it is what the universe was one step before
> > what we know the universe is now.
>
> You mean, like, five minutes ago?
>
> Just kidding. But seriously, what do you mean? Where are you drawing
> the line between U and UU?
>
> > G can still come before UU as a cause, just like it appeared before the
> > universe.
>
> Then why is the distinction between UU and U necessary?
>
> > I only used it so we won't be bound to the things we know about the
> > known universe and turn the theoretical discussion into a physics
> > class.
>
> Are you making it an exercise in wild speculation?
>
> > Since we're talking about what came before the universe anyway,
> > it doesn't change anything.
>
> If it doesn't change anything, what is it for?
>
> >
> > The only thing that changed is the possibility of infinity.
> > The universe as we know it started on a certain point, the UU is simply
> > unknown.
>
> Kindly differentiate between UU and God.
Difference between the known univese and UU: We know there is some
starting point to the universe, but we don't know what came before.
UU is same as the universe, without any knowledge from physics.
The seperating line will be the big bang or any other theory for the
creation of what we call "the universe".
Difference between UU and God: God is just one option that that UU can
be.
It can also be any other item from the group G, it can simply be a step
before the known universe that something caused/created and it can also
be something that exists through eternity.
>
> >
> > ------
> >
> > Infinity:
> >
> > the entire cause and effect and the reasoning that there must be a
> > first cause(s) comes from the line of thought that there is something
> > in the beginning, that it can't just go on backward forever.
> > This reasoning is exactly oposite to the concept of infinity. In
> > infinite time, there is no beginning and there is nothing that forces
> > you to "start somewhere".
> >
> > If the UU is infinite, there can be endless number of causes before the
> > unierse was created. Endless number of causes is the only wat to make G
> > an empty group.
>
> Anything both Substantial and Infinite must be God. Unless you have
> some other definition of God that would work better?
>
As mentioned before, God is a specific item in group G.
I don't think it has to be infinite (unless the UU is infinite), but it
does still require things that seperate it between a physical law and a
deity, "Substantial and Infinite" don't include that.
> >
> > -------
> >
> > Love an awareness:
> > I'll try to explain again: Awareness exists, but not in the same way
> > that matter exists. Same thing goes for love.
>
> I would say that matter and energy are markedly less substantial than
> Love.
>
> > Love is very real, but there are no "real" bonds that tie us to the
> > loved one, they exist only in our mind.
>
> Then you are saying love is a figment of our imaginations.
>
Could be, but it doesn't make it any less real.
Same thing goes for awareness.
> > The fact that it exists "only"
> > in our mind doesn't make it weak and I really don't underestimate love.
>
> That's good.
>
> > But it is not real in the same sense like matter or energy.
>
> Matter and energy are physical. Are you equating physical with real?
That's why I said it's real, but not in the same way.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>Well, you don't, anyway.
> UU is same as the universe, without any knowledge from physics.
> The seperating line will be the big bang or any other theory for the
> creation of what we call "the universe".
Problematic. Big Bang is not creation, it is only transformation.
Unless you asserting something from nothing, which is irrational, Big
Bang - if it ever happened - was only the transformation of already
existing energy into a different form, the form that we see as the
World. Big Bang is no more a theory about the Origin of that energy
than Evolution is a theory about the Origin of life.
>
> Difference between UU and God: God is just one option that that UU can
> be.
Then UU is G, and it was not necessary to give it another name.
> It can also be any other item from the group G,
You know what is in G?
> it can simply be a step
> before the known universe that something caused/created and it can also
> be something that exists through eternity.
I am going to stop discussing UU with you, because it is a superfluous
entity. G covers everything you assert about UU.
>
> >
> > >
> > > ------
> > >
> > > Infinity:
> > >
> > > the entire cause and effect and the reasoning that there must be a
> > > first cause(s) comes from the line of thought that there is something
> > > in the beginning, that it can't just go on backward forever.
> > > This reasoning is exactly oposite to the concept of infinity. In
> > > infinite time, there is no beginning and there is nothing that forces
> > > you to "start somewhere".
> > >
> > > If the UU is infinite, there can be endless number of causes before the
> > > unierse was created. Endless number of causes is the only wat to make G
> > > an empty group.
> >
> > Anything both Substantial and Infinite must be God. Unless you have
> > some other definition of God that would work better?
> >
>
> As mentioned before, God is a specific item in group G.
Are you asserting the real existence of God?
> I don't think it has to be infinite (unless the UU is infinite), but it
> does still require things that seperate it between a physical law and a
> deity, "Substantial and Infinite" don't include that.
Let us posit G[0], G[1], G[2]. . .G[n], as far back as you want to go,
even though it makes literally no sense whatsoever. (If G[0] is
Necessary as defined, how does it have to depend on G[1]?)
In any case, this is covered by the Theology of the Trinity. Even
though the above explanation makes no sense, what _does_ make sense is
God from God - the Son from the Father. If you insist that something
came before G[0], then the whole series of G[n]. . .G[1] is the process
of begetting, whereby the Son is begotten of the Father eternally.
>
> > >
> > > -------
> > >
> > > Love an awareness:
> > > I'll try to explain again: Awareness exists, but not in the same way
> > > that matter exists. Same thing goes for love.
> >
> > I would say that matter and energy are markedly less substantial than
> > Love.
> >
> > > Love is very real, but there are no "real" bonds that tie us to the
> > > loved one, they exist only in our mind.
> >
> > Then you are saying love is a figment of our imaginations.
> >
>
> Could be, but it doesn't make it any less real.
> Same thing goes for awareness.
Awareness cannot be a figment of our imaginations. Awareness is
relative necessary for any imagining to be done in the first place.
>
> > > The fact that it exists "only"
> > > in our mind doesn't make it weak and I really don't underestimate love.
> >
> > That's good.
> >
> > > But it is not real in the same sense like matter or energy.
> >
> > Matter and energy are physical. Are you equating physical with real?
>
> That's why I said it's real, but not in the same way.
The physical, i.e. matter and energy, is only a subset of the real.
Awareness is real, and it is not somehow "less real" than matter and
energy just because it is not physical. Some say Awareness is _more_
real. I say they are both real, and I would say that the reality of
matter and energy is physical. I would reword
> > > But it is not real in the same sense like matter or energy.
as "But it is not physical like matter or energy."
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > UU is same as the universe, without any knowledge from physics.
> > The seperating line will be the big bang or any other theory for the
> > creation of what we call "the universe".
>
> Problematic. Big Bang is not creation, it is only transformation.
> Unless you asserting something from nothing, which is irrational, Big
> Bang - if it ever happened - was only the transformation of already
> existing energy into a different form, the form that we see as the
> World. Big Bang is no more a theory about the Origin of that energy
> than Evolution is a theory about the Origin of life.
>
That's exactly why I wanted to use UU.
The universe was transformed, so I call the state before the big bang
UU.
> >
> > Difference between UU and God: God is just one option that that UU can
> > be.
>
> Then UU is G, and it was not necessary to give it another name.
>
> > It can also be any other item from the group G,
>
> You know what is in G?
>
Group G is the set of first causes.
There can be several items in it, one item or in the case of infinite
time: no items at all.
> > it can simply be a step
> > before the known universe that something caused/created and it can also
> > be something that exists through eternity.
>
> I am going to stop discussing UU with you, because it is a superfluous
> entity. G covers everything you assert about UU.
>
No, for example: (G -> something -> something else -> another thing ->
the thing we now call the universe)
UU is "another thing", just one step before the known universe. It CAN
be G, but it can also be just another part of the chain.
If this discussion will not involve things like the big bang or
phisycs, then we can drop the UU and merge it with the universe. Only
thing is that THIS universe can be eternal.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ------
> > > >
> > > > Infinity:
> > > >
> > > > the entire cause and effect and the reasoning that there must be a
> > > > first cause(s) comes from the line of thought that there is something
> > > > in the beginning, that it can't just go on backward forever.
> > > > This reasoning is exactly oposite to the concept of infinity. In
> > > > infinite time, there is no beginning and there is nothing that forces
> > > > you to "start somewhere".
> > > >
> > > > If the UU is infinite, there can be endless number of causes before the
> > > > unierse was created. Endless number of causes is the only wat to make G
> > > > an empty group.
> > >
> > > Anything both Substantial and Infinite must be God. Unless you have
> > > some other definition of God that would work better?
> > >
> >
> > As mentioned before, God is a specific item in group G.
>
> Are you asserting the real existence of God?
>
G is the set of first causes, God is one possibility for this set.
If it will remain the only possibility, then God really exists.
If you're not proving a specific religion, proving that G={1 single
deity} as an only option is enough to prove God.
> > I don't think it has to be infinite (unless the UU is infinite), but it
> > does still require things that seperate it between a physical law and a
> > deity, "Substantial and Infinite" don't include that.
>
> Let us posit G[0], G[1], G[2]. . .G[n], as far back as you want to go,
> even though it makes literally no sense whatsoever. (If G[0] is
> Necessary as defined, how does it have to depend on G[1]?)
>
Sorry, used the wrong letter to describe the endless chain. I forgot we
usr G for something else.
> In any case, this is covered by the Theology of the Trinity. Even
> though the above explanation makes no sense, what _does_ make sense is
> God from God - the Son from the Father. If you insist that something
> came before G[0], then the whole series of G[n]. . .G[1] is the process
> of begetting, whereby the Son is begotten of the Father eternally.
>
Or it was a chain of endless causes and effects (can be true if we're
talking about infinity), or it can be a result of several gods, or a
result or one/several natural phisycal laws.
> > > > -------
> The physical, i.e. matter and energy, is only a subset of the real.
> Awareness is real, and it is not somehow "less real" than matter and
> energy just because it is not physical. Some say Awareness is _more_
> real. I say they are both real, and I would say that the reality of
> matter and energy is physical. I would reword
> > > > But it is not real in the same sense like matter or energy.
> as "But it is not physical like matter or energy."
I'm very tempted to say something like "yes, love and awareness are
real" just to see how you go from there.
Unfortunatly, They may be real, but they may also be illusional.
Awareness is real for me, but does it exist somewhere out in the
universe outside living things? I have no idea.
Same thing with love. It is a very powerful emotion, but is it more
then a result of emotions? I don't know.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > UU is same as the universe, without any knowledge from physics.
> > > The seperating line will be the big bang or any other theory for the
> > > creation of what we call "the universe".
> >
> > Problematic. Big Bang is not creation, it is only transformation.
> > Unless you asserting something from nothing, which is irrational, Big
> > Bang - if it ever happened - was only the transformation of already
> > existing energy into a different form, the form that we see as the
> > World. Big Bang is no more a theory about the Origin of that energy
> > than Evolution is a theory about the Origin of life.
> >
>
> That's exactly why I wanted to use UU.
> The universe was transformed, so I call the state before the big bang
> UU.
But:
1. If it was transformed, then what caused the transformation? (i.e.
what initiated the Big Bang?)
2. If what caused the transformation, along with whatever existed
before it, is Necessary in an absolute sense, then it is G. On the
other hand, if it is contingent, it is part of U but outside of G. In
either case, the invention of a new category is superfluous.
We don't really know what happened _after_ the Big Bang, nor do we know
with any certainty that the Big Bang ever happened. What we know is
that there is a Universe, which we have denoted U, and that some part
of it is absolutely Necessary, which we have denoted. In any case, UU
<= U, and possibly UU <= G or UU = G, or possibly not. It is unknown by
definition, but so are very many elements of U unknown to us. In fact,
all you have really done with UU is specify that we don't know
everything. But we do not need to know everything to know that in any
case, UU <= U, and whether UU = G or UU != G is fairly irrelevant. We
are not concerned with UU, we are concerned with U and G.
>
>
> > >
> > > Difference between UU and God: God is just one option that that UU can
> > > be.
> >
> > Then UU is G, and it was not necessary to give it another name.
> >
> > > It can also be any other item from the group G,
> >
> > You know what is in G?
> >
>
> Group G is the set of first causes.
Or the First Cause.
> There can be several items in it, one item or in the case of infinite
> time: no items at all.
Incoherent. More reinventing the wheel. I thought we had already
established the non-emptiness of G. If the Universe has existed for an
"infinite amount of time" (which definitely seems incoherent to me),
then it still is sustained by whatever is Necessary for it to exist at
all. The only differences would be that the dependency would then be
purely hierarchical as opposed to sequential, and the causality would
be continuous rather than temporal.
>
> > > it can simply be a step
> > > before the known universe that something caused/created and it can also
> > > be something that exists through eternity.
> >
> > I am going to stop discussing UU with you, because it is a superfluous
> > entity. G covers everything you assert about UU.
> >
>
> No, for example: (G -> something -> something else -> another thing ->
> the thing we now call the universe)
If "something" and "something else," etc., are not part of G, then they
are still part of U.
>
> UU is "another thing", just one step before the known universe. It CAN
> be G, but it can also be just another part of the chain.
It doesn't matter. Whatever you want to talk about is either Necessary
and thus part of G or contingent and thus part of U outside of G.
>
> If this discussion will not involve things like the big bang or
> phisycs, then we can drop the UU and merge it with the universe.
Even _if_ it involves things like that, which it doesn't have to, since
the results are exactly the same either way.
> Only
> thing is that THIS universe can be eternal.
How? Give a coherent account of an infinite series of definite events.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------
> > > > >
> > > > > Infinity:
> > > > >
> > > > > the entire cause and effect and the reasoning that there must be a
> > > > > first cause(s) comes from the line of thought that there is something
> > > > > in the beginning, that it can't just go on backward forever.
> > > > > This reasoning is exactly oposite to the concept of infinity. In
> > > > > infinite time, there is no beginning and there is nothing that forces
> > > > > you to "start somewhere".
> > > > >
> > > > > If the UU is infinite, there can be endless number of causes before the
> > > > > unierse was created. Endless number of causes is the only wat to make G
> > > > > an empty group.
> > > >
> > > > Anything both Substantial and Infinite must be God. Unless you have
> > > > some other definition of God that would work better?
> > > >
> > >
> > > As mentioned before, God is a specific item in group G.
> >
> > Are you asserting the real existence of God?
> >
>
> G is the set of first causes, God is one possibility for this set.
> If it will remain the only possibility, then God really exists.
>
> If you're not proving a specific religion, proving that G={1 single
> deity} as an only option is enough to prove God.
O.K. Consider the following: Suppose what preceded this Universe - now
I'm going to invoke UU after all that I said about it! - UU - is not a
single entity but a system of entities, for example Mount Olympus, and
the Titans, and the gods. There is a problem with this, because there
are legends connected with the gods wherein some do arise from others.
So this UU is still subject to the same kind of analysis to which U is
subject. Does the Mount Olympus system exist entirely of itself, or was
it created by a higher entity? Plotinus identified The One as God, from
within the system of Greek mythology. So there is precedent for saying
God produced UU in the first place, whatever it may be. Consider again,
the Vedic Vaishnavic idea of Krishnaloka. Krishnaloka is the spiritual
Planet where Krishna resides with all His pure unalloyed devotees. It
is thought to be the permanent abode of God and of all those fortunate
enough to be finished with the cycles of rebirth into the Material
World. But Krishnaloka itself, and all the living entities besides, are
ultimately thought to be emanations from Krishna. The Advaita Vedanta
school of Vedic though is Impersonal, thus they believe that Krishna
Himself emanated from the impersonal Brahman, while the Vaishnavas
maintain, that the Brahman emanated from Krishna. But either way, there
is still a single entity that is thought to be the source of
everything: either the Impersonal Brahman, or the Personal Krishna. In
the case of Greek mythology, everything is thought to have arisen from
primordial Chaos, but there is no mechanism elucidated as to "how"'
this supposedly took place. Since order does not arise from Chaos, the
Greek system seems incoherent. Of the two Vedic views, one would have
to ask what is the nature of the Impersonal Brahman. If it has the
nature of Chaos, then that view is incoherent for the same reason. But
if it has the nature of Order, then it is very similar to the other
view, that Krishna is the course of everything. But in the case of
Krishna, the order follows simply from the fact that Krishna is
conceptualized as a Person, and a Person contains within himself the
principle of Order. Impersonal Brahman is more problematic, but it is
still a single entity. Even our science attempts to unify everything
into a single coherent "Theory of Everything." Big Bang theory itself
is so attractive because it posits a solitary entity as Necessary:
Material Energy in this case. The Material Energy supposed to have been
present in the Singularity that supposedly preceded the Big Bang is not
really different from the Impersonal Brahman, and that singularity must
have contained the potential for life and consciousness to arise, since
evidently life and consciousness did arise.
So it seems that if we posit UU as a system of entities, then that
system itself yet stands in need of an explanation. On the other hand,
if UU is a single entity, then it seems that would fit your requirement
for it to be God, albeit it might be an Impersonal sort of God like the
Brahman of the Advaita Vedantists. If a system of entities, then it is
not different from the Universe we see, which is also a system of
entities, and thus UU dissolves into U and the whole thing stands in
need of an explanation; furthermore, the explanations that our reason
would seek would seek to unify the explanation as a single entity or
First Cause.
This is a significant fact about the way our reason works, and should
not be overlooked. Ockham's Razor is a principle that naturally appeals
to us because that is the way our reason tends. We tend to look for the
simplest and most elegant explanations rather than the more cumbersome
and cluttered ones. We tend to suspect cumbersome and cluttered
explanations as somehow missing the mark.
>
> > > I don't think it has to be infinite (unless the UU is infinite), but it
> > > does still require things that seperate it between a physical law and a
> > > deity, "Substantial and Infinite" don't include that.
> >
> > Let us posit G[0], G[1], G[2]. . .G[n], as far back as you want to go,
> > even though it makes literally no sense whatsoever. (If G[0] is
> > Necessary as defined, how does it have to depend on G[1]?)
> >
>
> Sorry, used the wrong letter to describe the endless chain. I forgot we
> usr G for something else.
>
> > In any case, this is covered by the Theology of the Trinity. Even
> > though the above explanation makes no sense, what _does_ make sense is
> > God from God - the Son from the Father. If you insist that something
> > came before G[0], then the whole series of G[n]. . .G[1] is the process
> > of begetting, whereby the Son is begotten of the Father eternally.
> >
>
> Or it was a chain of endless causes and effects (can be true if we're
> talking about infinity), or it can be a result of several gods, or a
> result or one/several natural phisycal laws.
We want to unify all physical laws into a "Theory of Everything," and
reason tells us that this ought to be possible, because in principle
the Universe is a Cosmos, not a Chaos. The "gods," also, all have their
origins in a single thing, even if that thing is irrationally called
Chaos. And an endless chain of causes and effects, I still take to be
incoherent - but even if that is the case, it would still be that not
every cause nor every effect is necessary, and there still would need
to be some necessary entity supported the whole system of causes and
effects, being as it would be a system composed of parts in
interrelation to one another.
>
> > > > > -------
>
> > The physical, i.e. matter and energy, is only a subset of the real.
> > Awareness is real, and it is not somehow "less real" than matter and
> > energy just because it is not physical. Some say Awareness is _more_
> > real. I say they are both real, and I would say that the reality of
> > matter and energy is physical. I would reword
> > > > > But it is not real in the same sense like matter or energy.
> > as "But it is not physical like matter or energy."
>
> I'm very tempted to say something like "yes, love and awareness are
> real" just to see how you go from there.
Go for it!!
> Unfortunatly, They may be real, but they may also be illusional.
Wouldn't life just suck if they were illusion? Maybe some people's love
is illusory, ad some people's love is genuine? Wouldn't it be up to the
individual to determine that by his motives and his actions? Do we not
control our own sincerity? And if a love is sincere, what more does it
need in order to be genuine?
>
> Awareness is real for me, but does it exist somewhere out in the
> universe outside living things? I have no idea.
> Same thing with love. It is a very powerful emotion, but is it more
> then a result of emotions? I don't know.
It may be that you might be required to take a risk in order to fully
manifest and appreciate love. The question then becomes, do you suppose
love is worth the risk?
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>incoherent - but even if that is the case, it would still be that not
every cause nor every effect is necessary, and there still would need
to be some necessary entity supported the whole system of causes and
effects, being as it would be a system composed of parts in
interrelation to one another."
Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>> Two comments from below sincerely interest me:
>
> {a} "If the Universe has existed for an 'infinite amount of time'
> (which definitely seems incoherent to me), then it still is sustained by
> whatever is Necessary for it to exist at all."
>
> and
>
> {b} "And an endless chain of causes and effects, I still take to be
> incoherent - but even if that is the case, it would still be that not
> every cause nor every effect is necessary, and there still would need
> to be some necessary entity supported the whole system of causes and
> effects, being as it would be a system composed of parts in
> interrelation to one another."
>
> I do not know if it follows from the hypothesis of a Universe existing infinitely in time the notion that this is incoherent (on what grounds?)
The incoherency of such a scheme does not follow from its hypothesis,
but from the fact that no hypothesis can be coherently formed with
regard to such an idea. We have, in mathematics, the concept of
Infinity, but it is not, in mathematics, ever regarded as a quantity.
Infinity is useful as a concept is at least two ways. One is,
mathematically as the theoretical limit of a function that increases
without bound. The other is as an attribute of God. Because we have a
word "infinity," sometimes we are deluded into thinking that we have a
grasp on the concept, and can use it outside the context of either
mathematics or theology proper. But I do not think we can. In
particular, I do not think it is coherent to name an "infinite number"
of finite things. There is no precedent for it in mathematics, since in
mathematics "infinite" and "number" are never used to describe the same
quantity. Quantity in mathematics is always named by number; Infinity
is only used to denote a limit. And there is no precedent for it in
theology proper, since God is One; there is no "infinite number of
gods."
The same principle applies to an "infinite number" of finite temporal
events. Just because we have the word "infinite," and it means
something, does not mean we can use it indiscriminately to apply to
whatever we like. Consider a chandelier (thanks to whoever came up with
this analogy, I don't remember where I encountered it but I did not
originate it) hanging by a chain. Each successive link in the chain is
supported by the one above it. No matter how long the chain is, it must
eventually terminate in a fixture attached to a ceiling of some kind,
or else the chandelier will not hang. To posit an "infinite number" of
links is to eliminate the fixture, and does not explain what keeps the
chandelier aloft.
> unless it is sustained by whatever is Necessary (big "n") for it to exist at all. Does this make sense? It is not impossible for all of Reality to be such that, since it exists in infinite time, it requires something necessary in order to sustain it. Hence:
>
> An endless chain of causes and effects is not incoherent either, nor must it be the case that some causes and effects are not necessary. Nor does it follow that there must be a necessary entity "being as it would be a system of parts in interrelation to one another."
An endless chain of causes and effects leaves our chandelier with no
support, since there is no fixture, no terminus of the chain, no first
link or first cause. Every cause and effect as absolutely necessary
means strict, pure determinism, which destroys both free-will and
quantum mechanics in one fell swoop. If there is no necessary entity,
then there is nothing at all, but since there is evidently something,
it follows that there is a necessary entity.
<snip>
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>word 'infinity,' sometimes we are deluded into thinking that we have a grasp on the concept, and can use it outside the context of either mathematics or theology proper," is to say that it is not possible to use it outside of mathematics and theology?
of finite things" is to say why not and by what criteria? None of this is incoherent and if it is why is that so?
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
Joseph Geloso
<josephfg@hotmail.com>> Fascinating but it still requires further analysis. I am not so sure the chandelier (sp?)
Yeah, that's how you spell it. . .
>analogy ought to really be in play here.
Why not?
> What is necessary for the universe to exist?
You want the straight answer? God.
> Is that a meaningful question?
Why wouldn't it be?
> Further, is it really true that "no hypothesis can be coherently formed with regard to such an idea"? And to say, "Because we have a
> word 'infinity,' sometimes we are deluded into thinking that we have a grasp on the concept, and can use it outside the context of either mathematics or theology proper," is to say that it is not possible to use it outside of mathematics and theology?
It is to say that it is not legitimate to extend the meaning of the
familiar term into realms where it would not apply. In particular, it
is not legitimate to say there is an infinite collection of finite
things.
> And to say, "I do not think it is coherent to name an "infinite number"
> of finite things" is to say why not and by what criteria? None of this is incoherent and if it is why is that so?
Define "infinite number," if you think it is coherent.
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>existing infinitely in time the notion that this is incoherent (on what
grounds?)
James Barlow wrote:
> Fascinating but it still requires further analysis. I am not so sure the chandelier (sp?)
Yeah, that's how you spell it. . .
>analogy ought to really be in play here.
Why not?
> What is necessary for the universe to exist?
You want the straight answer? God.
> Is that a meaningful question?
Why wouldn't it be?
> Further, is it really true that "no hypothesis can be coherently formed with regard to such an idea"? And to say, "Because we have a
> word 'infinity,' sometimes we are deluded into thinking that we have a grasp on the concept, and can use it outside the context of either mathematics or theology proper," is to say that it is not possible to use it outside of mathematics and theology?
It is to say that it is not legitimate to extend the meaning of the
familiar term into realms where it would not apply. In particular, it
is not legitimate to say there is an infinite collection of finite
things.
> And to say, "I do not think it is coherent to name an "infinite number"
> of finite things" is to say why not and by what criteria? None of this is incoherent and if it is why is that so?
Define "infinite number," if you think it is coherent.
> -o
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
James Barlow
<markettia@yahoo.com>
James Barlow wrote:
> Fascinating but it still requires further analysis. I am not so sure the chandelier (sp?)
Yeah, that's how you spell it. . .
>analogy ought to really be in play here.
Why not?
> What is necessary for the universe to exist?
You want the straight answer? God.
> Is that a meaningful question?
Why wouldn't it be?
> Further, is it really true that "no hypothesis can be coherently formed with regard to such an idea"? And to say, "Because we have a
> word 'infinity,' sometimes we are deluded into thinking that we have a grasp on the concept, and can use it outside the context of either mathematics or theology proper," is to say that it is not possible to use it outside of mathematics and theology?
It is to say that it is not legitimate to extend the meaning of the
familiar term into realms where it would not apply. In particular, it
is not legitimate to say there is an infinite collection of finite
things.
> And to say, "I do not think it is coherent to name an "infinite number"
> of finite things" is to say why not and by what criteria? None of this is incoherent and if it is why is that so?
Define "infinite number," if you think it is coherent.
> -o
>
scooter
<kwills@mail.utexas.edu>The word infinite refers to time. You can indeed have an infinite
number of temoral events that reside within the larger scope of Time.
That's because time does not stop for incremental temporal events such
as the Big Bang. Furthermore, since our concept of time shows it to be
one-directional in its motion (i.e it always moves foward) and is
infinite, it follows that the direction from whence it came must also
be infinite. Can there be an infinite number of cause and effect in our
Universe? Absolutly. Especially if the universe is cyclical. Meaning it
repeats the same processes over and over. Is that the way it is? I
dont know.
>
> > unless it is sustained by whatever is Necessary (big "n") for it to exist at all. Does this make sense? It is not impossible for all of Reality to be such that, since it exists in infinite time, it requires something necessary in order to sustain it. Hence:
> >
> > An endless chain of causes and effects is not incoherent either, nor must it be the case that some causes and effects are not necessary. Nor does it follow that there must be a necessary entity "being as it would be a system of parts in interrelation to one another."
>
> An endless chain of causes and effects leaves our chandelier with no
> support, since there is no fixture, no terminus of the chain, no first
> link or first cause. Every cause and effect as absolutely necessary
> means strict, pure determinism, which destroys both free-will and
> quantum mechanics in one fell swoop. If there is no necessary entity,
> then there is nothing at all, but since there is evidently something,
> it follows that there is a necessary entity.
The universe is not a chandelier hooked to the ceiling. However, if
you'd like to pursue this line of reasoning I do not object to this
either. It is as plausable as an infinite cyclical universe. If you
want to say there was a "first cause" I can accept that line of
thought. However, first cause is not going to be to the exclusivity of
some "god". Moreover, it does not follow that all cause and effect are
natural occurances but somehow you ascribe first cause as being
"supernatural". On what grounds do you make that connection? How is
that a coherent argument?