The causality argument is finally settled

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The causality argument is finally settled

I'm sorry- from what "many effects" does gravity "produce a new effect"?

And I asked for a "singular effect", not a singular cause- because you said there weren't any of those...

You ne to re-read this thread because it's clear to me that you don't know what I said or what the real issue is here.
In brief:-
The [blue] question is the key to this thread -
Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

Why is it the key?
... Because the effects ad infinitum argument depends upon the non-existence of any absolutely-singular cause for any proceeding effect or effects.

I am arguing the case that there is evidence of singular-cause.

 

[Piscivore]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The causality argument is finally settled

You ne to re-read this thread because it's clear to me that you don't know what I said or what the real issue is here.
In brief:-
The [blue] question is the key to this thread -
Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

Why is it the key?
... Because the effects ad infinitum argument depends upon the non-existence of any absolutely-singular cause for any proceeding effect or effects.

I am arguing the case that there is evidence of singular-cause.

So is gravity a singular cause or singular effect? If it is a cause, then please give me an example of a singular effect.

 

[Z]

But isn't one of the current theories that gravity is an effect of the combination of the unified weak/strong/e-m/gravitic force and the mass of an object? Ergo, a combined, mechanistic cause??

 

[Anders]

But isn't one of the current theories that gravity is an effect of the combination of the unified weak/strong/e-m/gravitic force and the mass of an object? Ergo, a combined, mechanistic cause??

Nope, the theory is that in the beginning, a few mikroseconds (please correct me on the timescale) after the big bang, all the forces was one force. After some milliseconds they started to divied in to the forces we know and love today.

BTW, The prime mover theme was tried by Thomas Aquina a long long time ago, didn't impress many people then, same thing now.

 

[Robin]

From Anders:
BTW, The prime mover theme was tried by Thomas Aquina a long long time ago, didn't impress many people then, same thing now.

And didn't he get it in turn from Aristotle?

 

[JAK]

An Absolute Cause must exist.
...
Here's the crunch:-
(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

I previously presented "emergent properties" as "what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism."

Did I miss your response, LG?

 

[Correa Neto]

Answer the [blue] question and stop ranting.

I already have, as well as many other people here and in many other places have. You, however, have chosen to ignore (or not been able to understand).

BTW, that was not a rant. That was a brief resume of what your phylosophy is.

There is no clock. You (and other people as well) can not -or don´t want to- accept that the universe and we are the outcome of random procceses. So you see the outcome of countless random iteractions as a mechanism -the clock. And every clock, according to your reasoning, must have a maker.

You and many people have difficulties with a scenario where the universe does not exists for us, but where we are merely a random and unimportant effect of it.

Not to mention that beliving that we are something else than this makes thrse people and you feel more important. Funny, eh? You say you want to terminate our ego, but actually its YOUR ego who needs to be comforted. And how conforting it is to belive that there is a reason, that all injustices and suffering in the world are not for nothing. You desperately need to belive that there is a purpose, there is a reason an there will be a reward.

For the universe, it does not matter if we exist or not. It existed before us and will continue to exist after us. Get used to this.

edited for the spelling mistakes I found

 

[Robin]

What is everybody's problem?

If you can't provide a satisfactory answer to a poorly worded, imprecise question then God must exist.

That seems quite clear to me. Pretty much the modus operandi for all religions really.

 

[lifegazer]

I already have, as well as many other people here and in many other places have.

That's a lie. I doubt that the [blue] question has ever even been asked before I asked it.

BTW, that was not a rant. That was a brief resume of what your phylosophy is.

That was a brief resume of what you want my philosophy to be.

There is no clock.

What are you talking about? Point to the post where I mention a clock.

You (and other people as well) can not -or don´t want to- accept that the universe and we are the outcome of random procceses.

That's irrelevant. Let's stick to the reason provided for the conclusion.

So you see the outcome of countless random iteractions as a mechanism -the clock. And every clock, according to your reasoning, must have a maker.

All things in sensed awareness interact with one another according to the laws of physics. The predictability of sensed-things is not in doubt. That there are four forces responsible for these interactions is common knowledge. Two, arguably three of those forces, have already been unified. At present, science is seeking to unite all four forces into one unified theory of everything.
So, even science believes that there is probably only one diversifying force.
Also, string-theory is a theory which seeks to unify all matter into one essential body.

You and many people have difficulties with a scenario where the universe does not exists for us, but where we are merely a random and unimportant effect of it.

Tell the members of this forum why this has any relevance to the reason provided.

Not to mention that beliving that we are something else than this makes thrse people and you feel more important. Funny, eh? You say you want to terminate our ego, but actually its YOUR ego who needs to be comforted.

Tell the members of this forum why this has any relevance to the reason provided.

And how conforting it is to belive that there is a reason, that all injustices and suffering in the world are not for nothing. You desperately need to belive that there is a purpose, there is a reason an there will be a reward.

Tell the members of this forum why this has any relevance to the reason provided.

For the universe, it does not matter if we exist or not. It existed before us and will continue to exist after us. Get used to this.

Great speech. Ultimately irrelevant, disregarding the content of this thread. Just atheist propoganda.

Don't bother posting again unless you have something relevant to say.

 

[Anathema]

Don't bother posting again unless you have something relevant to say.

And you could do us all a favor by adhering to the same rule. Prat.

 

[lifegazer]

And you could do us all a favor by adhering to the same rule. Prat.

I started the thread. My OP dictates the course of the conversation.
I ask a question... you're supposed to answer it.
Otherwise, don't waste my time.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wow, how nice and educated! That was a fantastic argument, a winner, I must say.

That's a lie. I doubt that the [blue] question has ever even been asked before I asked it.

It´s not a lie. You want it to be a lie. Your doubt exists just because you stick to the sets of religious postulates you created.

That was a brief resume of what you want my philosophy to be.

No. There you will find the three pillars of your faith.

What are you talking about? Point to the post where I mention a clock

Great. A philosopher who can´t understand an analogy. Not to mention that this particular one never cared to study philosophy, even at the most basic levels, otherwise you would have understood the citation.

You (and other people as well) can not -or don´t want to- accept that the universe and we are the outcome of random procceses.

That's irrelevant. Let's stick to the reason provided for the conclusion.

No its not. Its the main reason why you belive in god and tries desperately to defend your position. That´s why you refuse to think and consider about the overwhelming arguments against the existance of god. And also on how weak are your "unrefutable" arguments.

So you see the outcome of countless random iteractions as a mechanism -the clock. And every clock, according to your reasoning, must have a maker.

All things in sensed awareness interact with one another according to the laws of physics. The predictability of sensed-things is not in doubt. That there are four forces responsible for these interactions is common knowledge. Two, arguably three of those forces, have already been unified. At present, science is seeking to unite all four forces into one unified theory of everything.
So, even science believes that there is probably only one diversifying force.
Also, string-theory is a theory which seeks to unify all matter into one essential body.

You have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about. The unification of forces have nothing to do with any of the concepts of god. Neither it will bring any purpose, meaning or will to the countless random iteractions that generate the universe and we. Not to mention that saying that a give theory seeks something is a far cry from to say it achieves, and its even more far away to interpret a set of equations that govern a given number of phenomena as the product of some hidden intelligence. The old clock-without-a-maker and the god-in-the-gaps lines.

You and many people have difficulties with a scenario where the universe does not exists for us, but where we are merely a random and unimportant effect of it.

Tell the members of this forum why this has any relevance to the reason provided.

They are all intelligent enough to understand whats the relevance. You have the need to be special. Its the main reason why you belive in god and created your set of religious rules.

Not to mention that beliving that we are something else than this makes thrse people and you feel more important. Funny, eh? You say you want to terminate our ego, but actually its YOUR ego who needs to be comforted.

Tell the members of this forum why this has any relevance to the reason provided.

They are all intelligent enough to understand whats the relevance. You have the need to be special. Therefore your bloated ego came out with the (not exactly original) ideas that you are god and managed to obtain a fantastic insight. Its the main reason why you belive in god and created your set of religious rules.

And how conforting it is to belive that there is a reason, that all injustices and suffering in the world are not for nothing. You desperately need to belive that there is a purpose, there is a reason an there will be a reward.

Tell the members of this forum why this has any relevance to the reason provided.

They are all intelligent enough to understand whats the relevance. You have the need to be special. Its the main reason why you belive in god and created your set of religious rules.

For the universe, it does not matter if we exist or not. It existed before us and will continue to exist after us. Get used to this.

Great speech. Ultimately irrelevant, disregarding the content of this thread. Just atheist propoganda.

Thanks for recognizing the greatness of my speech. It is not irrelevant, however. Science left little if any space for god. The gaps where she/she/it is supposed to hide are becoming constantly smaller. Your posts are nothing but empty theistic propaganda.

Don't bother posting again unless you have something relevant to say.

Funny. I was thinking about saying the same to you!

 

[uruk]

What the hell, I'll try another stab at that dense wall.

(4) Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect?

First I'll say that this still doesn't answer my question to you concerning "mechinizims which allows an unchanging god to have experiances". But anyway....
I still don't know what definition of "singular" you are using but I'll assume you mean "absolute" or possibly "first" or "initial".
So I am guessing your asking the question: If the universe is a "mechinizim" with no begining or creator. How did it get there in the first place?
Well the short and honest answer is: we don't know yet.
First, the universe is not a "mechinizim" in the sense of a machine. It has rules and laws. things that seem to have a predictable outcome. But that is only in a large scale or in an aggregate (statistical) fashion. Our understanding breaks down the closer we look at it.

Concepts such as "cause and effect" or "before" and "a begining" apply only to this universe or rather to our understanding of this universe. When we look at the extreme ends of the universe such as the sub atomic or the speed of light, or the universal scale, we find that concepts such as "cause and effect" and the "direction of time" and even "time" itself begin to get hazy or not so certain. (See Plank scale, virtual particle pair production, Cassimier effect, quantum jump, Hawking radiation...etc). As bright as we may seem to be, there is still so much that we are discovering that is difficult to get our collective noodles around.

like I said in a previous post, our existance may not have a "begining" or at least in any way that we may comprehend (at our present level of understanding).
That's why the "turtles-all-the-way-down" wall we are hitting seems so counter-intuitive or absurd. There is something there that is still just beyond our present level of comprehension. Some people(like you) prefer to call it god.

I prefer to say the truth; We just don't know yet.

 

[lifegazer]

So I am guessing your asking the question: If the universe is a "mechinizim" with no begining or creator. How did it get there in the first place?

We have a universe where each current state is dependent upon a previous state. That is why science can predict future states of that universe.
Now, the effects ad infinitum argument seeks to negate the existence of a singular cause for the universe. So, any current "thing" or system is explained not by any singular cause, but by a multiplicity of causes.
Now:
Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect (or system)?

This question demonstrates the nonsensity espoused by the proponent of an effects ad infinitum argument, for if you think about the question carefully, you'll understand that it is not "things" which cause the future states of the universe, but the forces which bind those "things" into systems or mechanisms. Moreover, it is these forces which are responsible for changing the state of those "things" into future effects.

The effects ad infinitum argument is rubbish. The cause of all change is the forces in the universe - not the "things" (effects) which constitute that universe.

Note:-
The forces of nature are unchanging. For example, gravity is gravity is gravity. In other words, time does not affect gravity... but gravity does effect time.
Understand?

The effects ad infinitum argument is absolute BS because nowhere in that argument is there a recognition of these facts:-
(1) Effects ("things") cause nothing.
(2) The true cause of change is the instigator of the unchanging forces that exist in our universe.

Now, when one of you people actually demonstrate a sincerity to discuss these points, I shall proceed.

 

[richardm]

And didn't he get it in turn from Aristotle?

Yes - Aristotle thought that any body's natural state was to be at rest, ergo there must be something that gets it moving in the first place - a prime mover is needed.

Problem is that Newton rather knocked a hole in that by demonstrating that particles will keep doing what they're doing until some external force acts upon them; they might just as well be moving as staying still. Einstein further smashed Aristotle's milk crate by showing that there is no such thing as absolute motion anyway, so the basic premise - that things will be at rest and only move when the prime mover kicks them off - is faulty before we've even got started.

Of course, the fundamental problem with the argument is that it's bloody stupid.

You assert that everything must have a cause. But then you can't have an infinite string of things happening, so something must have been that first cause.

What is the first cause you settle on? Some incredibly complex, powerful and intelligent being. Which does not have a cause. So, you immediately sink your own argument that "Everything must have a cause".

 

[lifegazer]

You assert that everything must have a cause. But then you can't have an infinite string of things happening, so something must have been that first cause.

Correction: Every effect must have a cause.

What is the first cause you settle on? Some incredibly complex, powerful and intelligent being. Which does not have a cause. So, you immediately sink your own argument that "Everything must have a cause".

A primal-cause is not an effect.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Correction: Every effect must have a cause.

Semantically correct. However, every event must not have a cause.

A primal-cause is not an effect.

Semantically correct. And uninteresting.

Hans

 

[H'ethetheth]

We have a universe where each current state is dependent upon a previous state. That is why science can predict future states of that universe.
Now, the effects ad infinitum argument seeks to negate the existence of a singular cause for the universe. So, any current "thing" or system is explained not by any singular cause, but by a multiplicity of causes.
Now:
Given that there are no singular causes, what causes singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism in the production of a proceeding effect (or system)?

This question demonstrates the nonsensity espoused by the proponent of an effects ad infinitum argument, for if you think about the question carefully, you'll understand that it is not "things" which cause the future states of the universe, but the forces which bind those "things" into systems or mechanisms. Moreover, it is these forces which are responsible for changing the state of those "things" into future effects.

The effects ad infinitum argument is rubbish. The cause of all change is the forces in the universe - not the "things" (effects) which constitute that universe.

By this, you are ignoring the fact that was pointed out to you (as far as I know) by MRC_Hans and Correa Neto. We are not living in a strictly causal universe. The universe is not like a clock, it's not strictly deterministic. You have to get down to the level of quantum mechanics observe this. For instance, physics cannot predict where an individual photon appears on a screen, only the chance that it will appear at a certain spot. There no reason why it should go hither and not thither, only a chance that it will appear here or there.
So there might be an ultimate cause for the universe, which in itself is acausal, but it's not necessarily intelligent. Acausal things happen all the time, but they even out on the larger scale to yield fairly dependable consistency, because the cance that things behave outrageously is outrageously small.

 

[lifegazer]

We are not living in a strictly causal universe. The universe is not like a clock, it's not strictly deterministic. You have to get down to the level of quantum mechanics observe this. For instance, physics cannot predict where an individual photon appears on a screen, only the chance that it will appear at a certain spot.

Once again, you fail to understand that we can only sense the appearance of specific entities in sensed spacetime.

It does not matter whether we can predict the exact location of a sensed-photon in sensed-spacetime. Why? Because what does matter is that we can say, with absolute certainty, that:-
The appearance of any sensed-thing within awareness has a definite cause (there is no acausality of sensed-things), because we know that the sensations (which facilitate the appearance of all sensed-things) must have a cause themselves.

The bottom-line is that the SENSED universe is completely and utterly determined to exist as it appears within awareness.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Once again, you fail to understand that we can only sense the appearance of specific entities in sensed spacetime.

Everytime someone objects you tell them this. Yet this is one of the few points where nobody disagrees with you. Let me assure you, I understand this. The next time you think I do not understand this, read my post again and keep in mind that I do understand this, then formulate a response.

It does not matter whether we can predict the exact location of a sensed-photon in sensed-spacetime. Why? Because what does matter is that we can say, with absolute certainty, that:-
The appearance of any sensed-thing within awareness has a definite cause (there is no acausality of sensed-things), because we know that the sensations (which facilitate the appearance of all sensed-things) must have a cause themselves.

Yes, sensations are caused, and the cause of senations may also be caused, etc. Untill somewhere you must end up with acausal events. There is no necessity for these acausal events to be intelligent. That's the point.
You claim there is one ultimate intelligent causer of everything because nothing "just happens". We're telling you: Lots of things just happen, you just can't notice this untill you do the right experiments. This is the basis of your latest argument, and it's as shaky as the one before.

The bottom-line is that the SENSED universe is completely and utterly determined to exist as it appears within awareness.

Is this a remark about determinism? I hope not. If it is, look it up.