• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The causality argument is finally settled

Simple English I understand rather well. It's the convoluted and often mis-translated variation of English that YOU employ that causes me to doubt the nature of your question.

I'm discussing an entity which, alone, is responsible for the creation of another entity.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's easy - An amoeba. An amoeba, alone, creates another amoeba in a process called 'budding'.

Or is that far too shallow to qualify as an answer?

:D
 
<hr>
<blockquote>
Originally posted by lifegazer
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]
</blockquote>
<hr>

Singular causes working collectively as a "system" have "emergent properties." For instance, a wing or engine or seat does not fly by itself. However, when combined as part of an aircraft, the emergent property is flight. The effect (flying) can be deemed singular, but the causes are many - predominantly critical parts of the aircraft.

Consciousness is another, though far more complicated, example of an emergent property. (See "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio to learn more about the components of consciousness.)

What "causes" the "singular effects to act, collectively, as a singular mechanism" is the overall effect (emergent property) of the various laws of the universe. It is these laws which produce systems.

I believe this discussion may eventually lead to "what causes God to decide?" This is important because it is a key factor of intelligent creation and suggests that God is multi-faceted. In other words, God may not be a singular cause. He may be an emergent property of other facets of the universe.

So, if there is an absolute singular first cause, it likely predates God and is mechanistic - a law of force, orderly and systematic.
Or perhaps, God is "All in All?"
 
From Lifegazer:

*whisper*: You are aware of the fact, being an atheist and a materialist, that the existence of an absolute-cause is not in your best interests if you want to cling onto your beliefs, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Why? If there were an absolute cause how would you know it was intelligent? Would it even be knowable? How would it be knowable?
 
"Clock-without-a-maker"
"God-in-the-gaps"
"There-must-be-a-reason-and-a-purpose"

This is a resume of his proposal.
 
Well it seems that it took the creation of an entirely new post for LG to evade my question. I feel honored in a totaly nauseated sort of way. I also feel honored (in the same sense) that you've attributed to me an entire argument that I never made.

Anyhoo. I see that LG has made use of his propensity to totaly missuse and abuse the english language. By "mechinizm" I meant the method by which LG's god had illusions and feelings and thoughts. Some part of god must be changing inorder to facilitate or to have these things. This which would run contradictory to LG's idea that god is both homogenous and unchanging.

But anyhoo, to address LG's train wreck here. As far as we can decern or know, all concepts such as cause and effect as well as time and space ONLY apply to this universe or reality(as far as we know. we have yet to experiance or detect another universe to test this concept out). What was before the universe; what is after the universe; what is outside the universe; the cause of the univers are essentially (in relation to our present level of understanding) unanswerable and possibly meaninless (as far as "we" are concerned) questions. Our universe may have had no "cause" or at least anything that we would concieve as a "begining" because "cause and effect" is a "condition" of this universe. Cause and effect implies time. Again "time" is a "condition" of this universe. It may or may not apply at all. What was "before" this universe can be nothing more than a mathmatical construct (and ultimately inaccurate) because it can only be based on what we know about this universe, those concepts may or may not apply. Similarly God can only be a philosophical concept or construct (and ultimately inaccurate) because god can only be related and expressed in terms that apply to us and this universe. Again these concepts may or may not apply. At this point in our species mental development, we simply have no way of knowing. Our species' understanding and language (both gramatical and mathmatical) are not up to the task. Case in point; you attribute emotions and feelings and thought processes to god by assumption only. You have no reason to believe that god has emotions or feelings as we do. Your are relating to your god in the only way you know how. By using yourself as a refrence point.
What's my reasoning for this? When we try to address these questions about "god" or "universal origins" we eventualy end up with either a nonsensical conclusion or hit a informational wall. In other words our reasoning breaks down. Our noodles are not up to the task. We are kind of locked in a circle. We are trying to relate to our reality and ask the "big" questions in the only way we can; by using the only refrence point we know: ourselves. Unfortunately we are a part of this reality and our refrence points may or may not apply to those questions AND we have NO way of knowing either way. Science and philosophy both suffer from this particular draw back. Having said this, I prefer science because it tries to understand what we can know, meaning, understanding the only thing we can observe. It does not matter wether it actually exist or not. It's all we have.

But this not knowing is kind of liberating. You and You alone define your purpose and meaning. No gods with inscrutable plans to predetermin your porpose. Just you. All the universe is your play ground. No reason? No worry. The universe is just as beautiful wether it has a porpose or cause or reason or not.

Now does this mean we have to decended into the worst definitions of anarchy and that human existance has no meaning? Of course not, That's silly. Humans are a social species and we need each other to survive. That alone defines our morals and laws. Remember it was humans, not gods, that came up with laws. We haven't gotten it down perfect yet, but I got hope in our basic need for each other. And even though we have had backslides and bad patches, I feel we are slowly improving.
Now my advice for you Lifegazer is to quit with this nonsense about obsessing in finding the "absolute truth". At this point we are incapable of finding it. Our minds and understanding do not yet have the tools to do deal with it. I'm not say to stop thinking about it, every little step furthers our evolution.

Now go and find that girl and try give your life some porpose and meaning and make your personal world a better place. Live by example rather than by words. Words are cheap. We can all achieve unity with out a god by living by a simple principal; live and let live. Why should we? because we live comfortably by following it or we suffer by not. No god's wrath required. It just follows.
 
lifegazer said:
An Absolute Cause must exist.
Why?
... Because a mechanism of effects cannot be the cause of ALL "things" ad infinitum.
Why?
... Because such a position boils-down to this:-

(1) There are no absolute (singular) causes.
(2) There are only mechanistic (multiple) causes.
(3) Therefore, there are lots of singular effects but no singular causes.
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?

The whole "effects ad infinitum" house of cards comes toppling down with this question. Explanation:-

By default, if there are no singular (absolutely so) causes for any effects, then all effects must be viewed as a product of collective causes (a "mechanism"). By default, "a mechanism" is viewed as a collective whole, such as the brain or an engine or the atom, etc..
There is no "randomness" in the effects yielded by the mechanisms that we behold: they all produce ordered effects. Hence, the laws of physics and other science.

Therefore, we see that:-
Something singular forces singular effects to act, collectively, as singular mechanisms that yield consistently-predictable singular effects.

Thus, we see that there is a singular force in existence, which completely contradicts the argument for effects ad infinitum.

Behold, there is an Absolute cause.
Click to expand...

Lifegazer,

Why do believe there has to be an absolute cause?
 
lifegazer said:
I'm discussing an entity which, alone, is responsible for the creation of another entity.

*snip*
Click to expand...
A decaying isotope emitting a photon.

Hans
 
Awww.

From the thread title I thought this was going to be a discussion about reconciling faster than light travel with causality.

(loosely, one of the reasons FTL is thought to be impossible is that if person a is going faster than light, then there could exist person b who would observe an effect happening before a cause in person a's universe).
 
Re: Re: The causality argument is finally settled

Ratman_tf said:
Why address your point in blue if you're just going to ignore or insult anyone who does, LG?
Click to expand...

You don't remember being three years old and holding your breath till you turn blue to try to make your point? :D
 
RamblingOnwards said:
Awww.

From the thread title I thought this was going to be a discussion about reconciling faster than light travel with causality.

(loosely, one of the reasons FTL is thought to be impossible is that if person a is going faster than light, then there could exist person b who would observe an effect happening before a cause in person a's universe).
Click to expand...

This thread is deteriorating rapidly. Maybe we should take RamblingOnwards' suggestion and high-jack this thread and go Faster Than Light. ;)
 
Re: Re: The causality argument is finally settled

Maybe it's just me, but is an infinite chain of causation any stupider a concept than an infinite God? Doesn't that just shove the physics into a sort of God-physics? What has God been doing for the last infinite years before he created this universe?
 
Re: Re: Re: The causality argument is finally settled

Beerina said:
Maybe it's just me
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.
but is an infinite chain of causation any stupider a concept than an infinite God?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "an infinite God"? Infinite in what respect? An infinitely-large nose... or an infinitely-long beard... or what?
What has God been doing for the last infinite years before he created this universe?
Click to expand...
A year is the sensed time that it takes the sensed Earth to go around the sensed Sun.
There were no "years" before the creation of the sensed universe.

In fact, time is a sensed dimension, as are all the other dimensions that we sense. Like them, time - being related to the world that we sense - is seen to be an illusory dimension.

Time equates to change. God is not changed by the world that is created in God's perception.
 
Correa Neto said:
"Clock-without-a-maker"
"God-in-the-gaps"
"There-must-be-a-reason-and-a-purpose"

This is a resume of his proposal.
Click to expand...
Answer the [blue] question and stop ranting.
 
lifegazer said:
(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?
Click to expand...

You are assuming that such a thing as a "singular effect" exists. I've never seen a "singular" effect- there are always "side effects", so to speak. Can you give me an example?
 
Pardon me, but wasn't the Prime Mover proof of God's existence demonstrated to be logically invalid a few centuries ago? Is this argument in any way different than that old chestnut?
 
Re: Re: The causality argument is finally settled

Piscivore said:
You are assuming that such a thing as a "singular effect" exists. I've never seen a "singular" effect- there are always "side effects", so to speak. Can you give me an example?
Click to expand...
Gravity. One force powerful enough to produce a new effect from many effects.
 
Aoidoi said:
Pardon me, but wasn't the Prime Mover proof of God's existence demonstrated to be logically invalid a few centuries ago? Is this argument in any way different than that old chestnut?
Click to expand...
Actually, no it wasn't. Anyone want to argue that it was? Then go ahead.
 
Re: Re: Re: The causality argument is finally settled

lifegazer said:
Gravity. One force powerful enough to produce a new effect from many effects.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom