The First Cause

[elguanteloko]

Duh.

I already said I would take them on when I get a chance, but would someone please tell me why they are important to Mormon theology so at least I can gat a little worked up about this?

Weekends are terribly busy for me.

I had responded something to this but just saw you responded something else also. Ignore this one.

[elguanteloko]

You know what?

I am going to back off from this project, call it whatever you like.

It was getting too good to be true.

Fine with me, brother.

[Mordecai]

A "cause" is an explanation, not a thing.

It is a thing, since an explanation is a thing. Thing encompasses a great deal of... uh... things.

[Questing Beast]

But here's the deal. Your human brain organized all these ideas and though I don't doubt you are very smart, I think God is smarter.

I KNOW that "God" is smarter. We are mere manifestations, finite ones at that, of the WHOLE. But the fascinating concept of our relationship is that each sapient, sovereign, free will-possessing being, is directly, inseverably connected to "God": which theoretically places us in contact with the source of ALL knowledge (as Mahonrimoriancumr, Moses et al. the prophets who have received a full vision of all creation, have discovered); even of metaphysical contact with each other via that connection to each other THROUGH "God" (if such were ever deemed requisite).

So suppose God, who is smarter than you, already organized all this with his human brain, precisely as you conceive it. Suppose you are right, in other words

So if you can conceive this as an anthropomorphic being, why can't God do the same, and yet bring it into actuality?

No reason not to. Of course it could be possible, and it IS one of the myriad possibilities that we imagine, ergo it IS a reality within a context of Existence, i.e. has happened that way, somewhere, someTIME. But how do we separate out your hypothetical reality, from Joseph Smith's hypothetical reality, from Buddha's reality, from Jesus Christ's reality, from Muhammad's reality, from Luther's reality, from ad nauseam 7 billion realities coexisting on just this one insignificant planet? That's the problem: your reality does not dovetail with mine metaphysically, unless or until "God" routes yours and mine into contact via itself (or, if you prefer "himself" or "herself").

See I kind of agree with you- I have trouble understanding you because you don't use philosophical language for philosophical concepts- but I am catching your drift I think.

There are advantages in communication from shared, formalized training/education. I never received a lick of philosophy in school: not that it wasn't presented in public school as an introduction: just that I did not "receive" any of it then, because it bored me nigh unto death. As an adult I have naturally gravitated toward philosophy, as I have religious study (they are flip sides to the one coin). So any philosophy I have since inculcated has been through an osmosis of continuous, voluntary, tardy exposure. At this point, however, I am actually glad for my lack of formalized contamination: the concepts I have are as close to "original" as possible in this world, since I have (thus far) read so few philosophical treatises as to make me functionally illiterate in the genre: yet I have manifestly profound concepts percolating in my mind! How is this possible? I attribute it to a natural "talent" for spiritual, metaphysical things - or rather, a latent interest, even obsession, for this stuff. Years ago, the interests of this world paled, and I turned to religion (the religion of my fathers, naturally enough) and the entire subject of purpose and existence, etc., and that is what "survives" while all other things on this world continue to remain pale and without substance (yet pleasant enough distractions for the carnal mind, even if devoid of intensity).

In my opinion what you are not appreciating is the fact that your brain cannot conceive anything except what human brains can conceive. There is nothing outside the realm of what human brains can conceive that we can talk about or even say "exists"- because we- all of us from Einstein to some newborn baby- cannot know about it anyway.

This would true if "God" is not part of the mix. But as "God" causes all Existence in space-time, and as I have inseverable contact to "God", nothing is denied me as possible knowledge. I am not special as a homo sapien: I am talking about the core trait of our nature that each of us is "created" with. Of course I am "human", and my brain is genetically and biologically incapable of transcending my finiteness: unless of course "God" allows otherwise (which the scriptures say is not only possible but even requisite if any of us are to progress beyond the confines of this world).

So I would not limit what God can do because he is anthropomorphic- if you can conceive it, he can not only conceive it but bring it into existence, and probably has by organizing it in his brain/mind/whatever.

Yes, certainly: "God the Father" as witnessed by Joseph Smith in his theophany, was "God In Total" manifesting anthropomorphically. Jesus the Christ, same thing. But then we have Muhammad's "Gabriel" and an eternal procession of other incarnations of "God" according to the cultural expectations and will of "God" (I am deliberately leaving out the asserted fraudulent claims to theophany). Which of course brings us back to the fundamental conversion question for everyone: "Why should I believe in your god and religion above my own?"

I have no problem with the universe being "sapient" and unfolding itself in an organic way, but I don't see that as incompatible even with my own brain creating things.

Neither do I. But I also cannot say that THAT is the way it is to the exclusion of all other possibilities: in other words, such a concept of an eternal, never created universe is only one concept, and a rather puny one at that, compared to what my 'satiable imagination can continue to come up with! I have long since stopped being satisfied with finite concepts to explain existence, reality and "God".

As I grow- as all of us grow, our abilities to conceive things increase. Conceiving something is the process of mentally organizing it, of in a sense, mentally "creating" it.

Yes. And you could say I am cursed/blessed with the sapience to continually pursue such things. The first part of my adult questing was preparation to launch me. And here I am (there I go).

Suppose as God "grows" (eternal progression) as his very ability to organize mentally grows, just as it does for us, but his conceiving of something makes it "actual" for us. So in a sense HE - his ability to conceive- IS the "universe which is sapient".

Yes. And infinitely MORE than such a concept as well.

We create our own universes- just as you are creating yours mentally. You are organizing your perceptions of reality into a unified world view which is your creation

All I am saying is that when he does it, we call that "reality". When we do it it becomes our "subjective little world". When HE does it, it becomes the "objective world of science" we can all see feel and touch.

We share an empirical, singular reality "here and now". That much our five carnal senses tell us repeatedly and irrefutably. As I've said before, you have got to understand the empirical side we all share - the reality of the empirical - or else you'll "come a cropper". The little boy who thinks he's Superman and leaps in his costume from the bedroom window will crash just like Calvin (just like me). No amount of metaphysical "reality" (imagination) will transcend the empirical laws binding to this existence, this temporal/temporary existence we call "life". But as the metaphysical is dominant we deny termination with death: ergo we continue beyond it and this tells us "here and now" that we are in fact immortal beings. In the Church we seem fond of the phrase, "We are spiritual beings having a mortal experience." And this is manifestly true. But what the literal details of our spiritual reality are, for each of us, are the problematic part, when we start asserting what is "reality" in the realm of religion.

I maintain that ALL metaphysical reality remains separate from every other metaphysical reality: which means that each of us is a "religious" being and our personal religion is between only "God" and ourselves individually. That we "belong" to dogmatic, organized religions is the natural consequence of history: traditionally MOST people are born into a religious culture, and family, and therefore are raised within such a paradigm as we are becoming aware of our first conscious thoughts. And here we are. But are we supposed to remain as such? I say no. At some point we will strain against the bonds of dogmatic doctrines. Leaders will caution us against these feelings: both because they believe in "the adversary" tempting us to rebel and sin, and because a widespread departure from the religion is inimical to the purpose of leaders of the religion: so dissembling with the truth through fear-mongering keeps some people "in line" and grounded in the religion. This serves the purpose of preserving the religion's membership integrity. It also causes individuals to think for themselves and keep most or all of what they really believe to themselves, which is not a good thing but seems to be an inevitable thing. Actually this IS a good thing, just not for any dogmatic religious org that demands complete adherence to ONE WAY of looking at everything....

[LeSellers]

I put a hefty slice into my finger once with the top of a pineapple can...bled all over and on another occasion jammed a piece of wood about three times the thickness of a toothpick under my fingernail that was too soft for me to pull out and any pressure on it made me go woozy, had to go to the emergency room to numb the finger enough to cut the nail to get the wood out. Fingertips are very sensitive. Keep taking the pain medication as needed, it will heal faster than if you try and 'man it out'.

There is no temptation to "man it out", as you put it.

Your experiences underscore the old adage, given a choice, we'd all prefer our own troubles.

I've been told you're not a real carpenter until you're missing at least one fingertip or nail.

Then I qualify three or four times over.

Power tools are designed for dextrals. We sinistrals are at a severe disadvantage using them.

Again, thanx to all for your concern and prayers.

Lehi

[Questing Beast]

I have asked it before and now ask it again. Why is it necessary to have a first cause? To me the only way to have a first cause is to divide infinity into segments then those segments can have a first cause but in the infinite scheme of things ther is no first cause. It has always been and will always be.

I think you're just hung up on the term "first cause". There cannot be a FIRST anything unless there is more than one. So a better term for "God" would be "Necessary Cause". Existence is inarguable. Everything that causes other things must ultimately have a Cause. Going "back" far enough it all gets started up somehow. The "somehow" must be "God". It can't be anything else.

What/who "God" is remains unknown. We speculate endlessly upon the topic. But we are no more enlightened than the first philosophers or religionists were. And no new questions are asked now or at any other time than the first time the "first human" asked the terrible question: "Why do I exist instead of nothing?"...

[ERayR]

I think you're just hung up on the term "first cause". There cannot be a FIRST anything unless there is more than one. So a better term for "God" would be "Necessary Cause". Existence is inarguable.

According to Mormon theology God and man are of the same family but both are without begining or end. We only have changes on the way. As I said short pieces of eternity (infinity).

Everything that causes other things must ultimately have a Cause. Going "back" far enough it all gets started up somehow. The "somehow" must be "God". It can't be anything else.

All you have done is give me your opinion. Give me a reason why. As I understand it matter can not be created or destroyed it only changes form. (very simplified)

What/who "God" is remains unknown. We speculate endlessly upon the topic. But we are no more enlightened than the first philosophers or religionists were. And no new questions are asked now or at any other time than the first time the "first human" asked the terrible question: "Why do I exist instead of nothing?"...

We exist because we are. We always have been and always will be.

[elguanteloko]

According to Mormon theology God and man are of the same family but both are without begining or end. We only have changes on the way. As I said short pieces of eternity (infinity).

You have to understand, ERayR, that the God argued by "First Cause" proponents is NOT the God of Mormonism and can't be. The God of Mormonism is a being among beings while the God of the Kalam and Cosmological arguments isn't. It might be of profit for you to hear William Lane Craig in a debate (if you want the cheap route) or buy a serious book of Catholic or Protestant theology that treats of the nature of God to see the difference.

All you have done is give me your opinion. Give me a reason why. As I understand it matter can not be created or destroyed it only changes form. (very simplified)

...heard of the Big Bang? Again, take a look at WLC since he argues that God created the universe (this universe). Things that don't exist can't create themselves so they have to have a cause or a reason for their existence that isn't them. You can't have an infinite regression of causes because it makes no sense at all. Think of the "turtles all the way down" analogy. Imagine the flat earth is supported by a turtle and that turtle by another turtle and that second one by another one, etc. Where is the support? Makes no sense, really.

We exist because we are. We always have been and always will be.

Well, do you realize you ask of others what you don't give, namely, good reasons? You just state things like if they were self sufficient. "We exist because we are" is a useless tautology, man, come on! "We always have been and always will be"? Why?

[ERayR]

You have to understand, ERayR, that the God argued by "First Cause" proponents is NOT the God of Mormonism and can't be. The God of Mormonism is a being among beings while the God of the Kalam and Cosmological arguments isn't. It might be of profit for you to hear William Lane Craig in a debate (if you want the cheap route) or buy a serious book of Catholic or Protestant theology that treats of the nature of God to see the difference.

Since this is a Mormon Dialog & Discussion Board I chose to respond in terms of Mormon beliefs. While I have not put too much effort into these other theologies I am familiar with them.

...heard of the Big Bang? Again, take a look at WLC since he argues that God created the universe (this universe). Things that don't exist can't create themselves so they have to have a cause or a reason for their existence that isn't them. You can't have an infinite regression of causes because it makes no sense at all. Think of the "turtles all the way down" analogy. Imagine the flat earth is supported by a turtle and that turtle by another turtle and that second one by another one, etc. Where is the support? Makes no sense, really.

Again, while not being a physicist I am familiar enough to have been exposed the the laws of thermodynamics, the first of which is often expressed as "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms". Even the big bang does not change that.

Well, do you realize you ask of others what you don't give, namely, good reasons? You just state things like if they were self sufficient. "We exist because we are" is a useless tautology, man, come on! "We always have been and always will be"? Why?

Yes, it was on purpose. A simple demonstration.

[Questing Beast]

According to Mormon theology God and man are of the same family but both are without begining or end. We only have changes on the way. As I said short pieces of eternity (infinity).

Mormons ought not to take these words and redefine them. An "eternity" is endless. To say that it has some finite measurable span is inaccurate terminology.

All you have done is give me your opinion. Give me a reason why. As I understand it matter can not be created or destroyed it only changes form. (very simplified)

Quite simply, we cannot know why there is Existence instead of NOTHING. But the fact that Existence is inarguable makes sapience and purpose equally inarguable: we are, after all, engaged in arguing/debating/discussing Existence In The First Place. Here we are. Our physical senses are literally touching through this medium; and our skins are touching the very same atmosphere: the air surrounding this planet is so infinitesimally small compared to the theoretical infinity of the multiverse as to be a singular point of reference that c. 7 billion of us share at the same moment in space-time. Our shared sapience is very, very real today, via the instantaneous media of the Internet. If we are sapient and uncaused and eternal then so too is the "universe" of which we are a part. That we believe in "God" behind it all indicates that our sapience is also aware that we are finite, ignorant beings (no matter how immortal): we can conceive of a higher intelligence knowing ALL THINGS, ergo we conceive of "God". But if this "God" is in any way bereft of all knowledge, power and presence, then our imaginations have conceived of a being far beneath the ultimate concept for "God" of which we are capable. That is the beef I have with Joseph Smith's theology: he proposes that we should worship a far lesser being than I can conceive of.

In effect, God the Father is merely the "greatest" of our species. Somebody has to be the "greatest". It might as well be "He". Yet "He" is no different than I am. His mind is a product of the infinite presence, knowledge and power that is the Necessary Cause: i.e. the multiverse in total, or the Cause of its apparent Existence. That makes you and me "God" manifesting every bit as literally as God the Father is.

We exist because we are. We always have been and always will be.

Well, of course, but that begs the question as to how or why. You could ignore it, and just accept that you must be "God", as Bill Murray does in Groundhog Day....

[ERayR]

Mormons ought not to take these words and redefine them. An "eternity" is endless. To say that it has some finite measurable span is inaccurate terminology.

Exactly and so is matter which brings us to my point. The only way you can get first cause is to break eternity into smaller pieces.

Quite simply, we cannot know why there is Existence instead of NOTHING. But the fact that Existence is inarguable makes sapience and purpose equally inarguable: we are, after all, engaged in arguing/debating/discussing Existence In The First Place. Here we are. Our physical senses are literally touching through this medium; and our skins are touching the very same atmosphere: the air surrounding this planet is so infinitesimally small compared to the theoretical infinity of the multiverse as to be a singular point of reference that c. 7 billion of us share at the same moment in space-time. Our shared sapience is very, very real today, via the instantaneous media of the Internet. If we are sapient and uncaused and eternal then so too is the "universe" of which we are a part. That we believe in "God" behind it all indicates that our sapience is also aware that we are finite, ignorant beings (no matter how immortal): we can conceive of a higher intelligence knowing ALL THINGS, ergo we conceive of "God". But if this "God" is in any way bereft of all knowledge, power and presence, then our imaginations have conceived of a being far beneath the ultimate concept for "God" of which we are capable. That is the beef I have with Joseph Smith's theology: he proposes that we should worship a far lesser being than I can conceive of.

What makes a being who has all power and all glory greater than one who has all power and all glory and a family to share it with? Both have the power and glory. It seems to me the one who has a family gathered around him would have and be much more than the lone one.

In effect, God the Father is merely the "greatest" of our species. Somebody has to be the "greatest". It might as well be "He". Yet "He" is no different than I am. His mind is a product of the infinite presence, knowledge and power that is the Necessary Cause: i.e. the multiverse in total, or the Cause of its apparent Existence. That makes you and me "God" manifesting every bit as literally as God the Father is.

Well, of course, but that begs the question as to how or why. You could ignore it, and just accept that you must be "God", as Bill Murray does in Groundhog Day....

From your own statement above. "Quite simply, we cannot know why there is Existence instead of NOTHING" yet your finite thinking will not allow you to completly visualise the infinite. In the infinite realm there cannot be a how or a why, it just is. If there is no begining or ending there cannot be a how or why. Hows or whys can only be assigned to the changes between ends that do not exist.

[mfbukowski]

...heard of the Big Bang? Again, take a look at WLC since he argues that God created the universe (this universe). Things that don't exist can't create themselves so they have to have a cause or a reason for their existence that isn't them. You can't have an infinite regression of causes because it makes no sense at all. Think of the "turtles all the way down" analogy. Imagine the flat earth is supported by a turtle and that turtle by another turtle and that second one by another one, etc. Where is the support? Makes no sense, really.

Ever heard of the Big Crunch?

Some theorize that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then initiate another Big Bang, so in this way the universe would last forever, but would pass through phases of expansion (Big Bang) and contraction (Big Crunch)

That's what Buddhists and Hindus believe.

It IS turtles all the way down!

[mfbukowski]

What color is virtue?

Why is there something?

What is the purpose of nothing? (same thing)

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Because you can put words together, that doesn't mean they make sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Gilbert Ryle

The term "category-mistake" was introduced by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind (1949) to remove what he argued to be a confusion over the nature of mind born from Cartesian metaphysics. Ryle alleged that it was a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities.

Specifically, the phrase is introduced in chapter 1, section 2.[2] The first example he gives is of a visitor to Oxford. The visitor, upon viewing the colleges and library, reportedly inquired “But where is the University?"[3] The visitor's mistake is presuming that a University is part of the category "units of physical infrastructure" or some such thing, rather than the category "institutions", say, which are far more abstract and complex conglomerations of buildings, people, procedures, and so on.

Ryle's second example is of a child witnessing the march-past of a division. After having had battalions, batteries, squadrons, etc. pointed out, the child asks when is the division going to appear. 'The march-past was not a parade of battalions, batteries, squadrons and a division; it was a parade of the battalions, batteries and squadrons of a division.' (Ryle's italics)

His third example is of a foreigner being shown a cricket match. After being pointed out batsmen, bowlers and fielders, the foreigner asks: 'who is left to contribute the famous element of team-spirit?'

He goes on to argue that the Cartesian dualism of mind and body rests on a category-mistake.

This is similar to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness I referenced earlier.

[elguanteloko]

Ever heard of the Big Crunch?

My post was regarding the creation of matter and energy (non-universe period or periods, doesn't matter). With regard to a cyclical universe, this still wouldn't solve a thing for First Cause proponents since that is to push the question one more step. "What caused the cycle to begin?" "Why is there a cycle rather than nothing?" ..and on and on.

That's what Buddhists and Hindus believe.

good for them, I guess.

It IS turtles all the way down!

Again, this answer is useless for a First Cause proponent. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing.

[elguanteloko]

What color is virtue?

Why is there something?

What is the purpose of nothing? (same thing)

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Because you can put words together, that doesn't mean they make sense.

http://en.wikipedia....ategory_mistake

This is similar to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness I referenced earlier.

You can talk the talk but you haven't walked the walk "from truth to error", mf. WHY is this a category mistake? "Just because you can put words together, that doesn't mean they make sense." What else do we need? Reasons.

[ERayR]

My post was regarding the creation of matter and energy (non-universe period or periods, doesn't matter). With regard to a cyclical universe, this still wouldn't solve a thing for First Cause proponents since that is to push the question one more step. "What caused the cycle to begin?" "Why is there a cycle rather than nothing?" ..and on and on.

good for them, I guess.

Again, this answer is useless for a First Cause proponent. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing.

Perhaps first cause proponents should consider the infinity aspect. They might not be so hung up on first cause.

[elguanteloko]

Since this is a Mormon Dialog & Discussion Board I chose to respond in terms of Mormon beliefs. While I have not put too much effort into these other theologies I am familiar with them.

Whatever. Still, you are not justifying your thinking.

Again, while not being a physicist I am familiar enough to have been exposed the the laws of thermodynamics, the first of which is often expressed as "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms". Even the big bang does not change that.

Take the time to do some research on what the First Cause proponents are saying, brother.

Yes, it was on purpose. A simple demonstration.

So... you are not going to provide reasons, then?

[elguanteloko]

Perhaps first cause proponents should consider the infinity aspect. They might not be so hung up on first cause.

Again, they give reasons while you don't. Why should someone consider what you have to say when you give no reason at all?

"You know what? I think scientists should consider Zeus being the real cause of thunders by forces we don't yet understand." This sounds ridiculous for the same reasons considering an infinite regress seems ridiculous.

[mfbukowski]

You can talk the talk but you haven't walked the walk "from truth to error", mf. WHY is this a category mistake? "Just because you can put words together, that doesn't mean they make sense." What else do we need? Reasons.

You can't figure it out? The fact that you need reasons answers the question!

Asking "why" presumes there IS a "why"- a purpose for the universe. If there is no purpose, there is no "why". It just is.

So by even asking, you are presuming there IS a purpose. It's a question-begging definition which leads you to a category error. It's like "what color is virtue?" Just asking the question presumes there is an answer, which there isn't.

Gosh, that was hard.

Of course a Mormon like me should have answered "The Plan of Salvation" which would have been a better answer, but would not have been "philosophical"- it would have been in the wrong context/ language game.

To carry it further, the whole notion that the universe HAS a "purpose" could be said to be a human invention- and a feature of our limited ways of thinking, or something conditioned by language. If there were no humans there would be no "purposes" to invent/see/define/create- whatever word you like.

I think it is in fact a human invention. Of course the human(s) who invented it was/were God. Or you can make it singular if you like. It doesn't matter much for this universe.

[elguanteloko]

You can't figure it out? The fact that you need reasons answers the question!

..but then you go on and try to give an explanation. apparently not even yourself knows what you believe.

Asking "why" presumes there IS a "why"- a purpose for the universe. If there is no purpose, there is no "why". It just is.

I wasn't asking for the "purpose" of the universe. Things don't have purposes. I was asking for the "CAUSE" of the universe. Why is it there? What is it rather than not? If someone asked you, "why is your car parked there?" would you go on and tell them that it just is there? That's what you're doing, mf. If you were to answer that your car doesn't have a purpose... how more foolish would that be?!

So by even asking, you are presuming there IS a purpose. It's a question-begging definition which leads you to a category error. It's like "what color is virtue?" Just asking the question presumes there is an answer, which there isn't.

Gosh, that was hard.

Of course a Mormon like me should have answered "The Plan of Salvation" which would have been a better answer, but would not have been "philosophical"- it would have been in the wrong context/ language game.

To carry it further, the whole notion that the universe HAS a "purpose" could be said to be a human invention- and a feature of our limited ways of thinking, or something conditioned by language. If there were no humans there would be no "purposes" to invent/see/define/create- whatever word you like.

I think it is in fact a human invention. Of course the human(s) who invented it was/were God. Or you can make it singular if you like. It doesn't matter much for this universe.

Next time, mf, try to understand the question first. Again, I'm not talking about a "purpose" of the universe but a reason why things are in the first place

[mfbukowski]

Take the time to do some research on what the First Cause proponents are saying, brother.

So... you are not going to provide reasons, then?

Ok well I appreciate you providing this video instead of the Feser articles. I will be glad to take on this point of view since my little brain is not too taxed with Feser's terminology. I hate having to wade through that- but now I see the problem.

First let me say that I am definitely on the side of the guys getting laughed at in this video.

The good news is that if someone here as a LDS thinks they are defeated by the atheist position being ridiculed on the video think again. The fact that atheists take this position does not mean that THEY are right- or that they themselves do not misunderstand that indeed it needs to be a theist position.

What the atheists do not understand is the brilliance of the LDS position. They don't understand that since God is a man, one can take what they see as a "humanist/atheist" position and turn it into a perfect LDS position.

There is nothing to "fear" in the idea that human experience is all we can know, and that humans create reality WHEN GOD IS A HUMAN. In fact, what this does is turn 99% of atheist arguments on their head- I know because I was one.

I kept my philosophical positions intact and went from atheism to Mormonism with the simple revelation that God is Man/ Man is God. I essentially "worshiped" man by believing that we invented- and were- our own gods and what we found best in life were projections of our own evolved social values and that what we called "god" was really worshiping our own "best standards" and elevating them by imagination into positions of authority- that our "creation" of our personal/social worlds were in fact what we saw as god creating the world- those dumb religious people!

By an incredible spiritual experience, I saw that in fact I was right philosophically (of course you may and probably do differ with that one!)but what I did not understand that God WAS INDEED REAL and also WAS INDEED A MAN - so it turned on its head what I saw those "stupid religious people" saying. It turns out that they misunderstood the philosophy (in my opinion-) and went with all this "First Cause" stuff- which totally did not fit the idea that God is a Man.

So anyway, that is why I am here, and why I plan on taking this as far as I can.

So now, back to Craig!

Here is the whole problem imo with this whole point of view:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

It's a question-begging definition! It presumes that there are "Things" which "Begin to exist" from the way the question is phrased- just like the "what color is virtue" question.

It also presumes there are "things" which ARE "causes"- and that the "cause" of an event is just not an adequate explanation of a human-defined "purpose" of the event in a human context.

As I said earlier, every "cause" is nothing more or less an explanation which fits a given human-defined purpose in language- in communication- which fits a given purpose. To presume that every "Thing" has a "Cause" is like presuming that the world is made of billiard balls which are knocking into eachother- "causing" "Things" to knock into other things- etc.

In my way of thinking, all we can know is that we experience regularities in the universe- light enters our eyes, our brain forms a picture from that light, and by interacting with what our brain "sees" we can move "things" around (our perceptions of things) we can put things in our mouths, and keep living by eating them, we can throw things, sit on things, drive things and make complex machinery etc- but all we can know about those "things" is what our eyes and ears and taste buds and our fingers tell us about them.

It's things illusions we recall, we really don't know things at all.

All we can know is human experience. And no one can prove otherwise! Period. End of story. Make fun of "if a tree falls in the forest..." all you like, the reality is all we can know is human experience- and not just my experience- but the pool of human experience. Every scientific theory, every book written fiction or non fiction, every thought thought by anyone anywhere is based on human experience. We know Antarctica exists because someone went there and wrote a book, took a picture etc. But it is all part of human experience. No humans- no experience.

We can't know anything that someone has not experienced. And we can't know anything except what humans have said about their experiences. Language IS what we know- language doesn't mirror "what is" because all we can know is experience- if anything, language makes pictures of experiences- not about "What Is"

So for me, there are no "causes" there are "explanations" in a context.

The bridge collapsed. Why? (someone asks) In order to answer I need to know what context they want in their answer. If they are an engineer, I answer "When the bomb went off, the shrapnel cut the cables, and the bridge fell" He might protest: "But those cables were meant to withstand a force of xyz to the whatsis! That could not be the cause! Then the discussion continues from there- the engineer still does not have an "adequate explanation" and for him, does not know the "cause" yet.

Someone wondering why they are in traffic might ask- "Why is traffic so bad?" - "Because the bridge fell"- "Why did it fall?" Somebody blew it up!

The answer might be - "Oh c***!" I'm not getting home til midnight!" That much is an adequate "cause" for that individual to stop inquiry- he has the explanation he needs.

Someone else of an ecological bent may ask "Why did it collapse?" "Someone blew it up" "Oh my gosh- why would they do that?" "They were terrorists!" "What kind?" "They were ecologists and thought people should not be driving cars" Now comes a discussion of ecology

Psychological: Why did the terrorists do that? What was their motivation?

Bomb expert: What kind of device did they use? How did they trigger it?

The point is that we all see our own "causes" for what happened, because what we really want is an "adequate full explanation" to our own satisfaction.

What was the "cause" of Bin Laden getting killed? The bullet? The war? The towers falling? His one-time allegiance to the US causing resentment? His childhood? Many of us probably don't care and only notice it in passing because we have no choice. Others want to know every detail and can't get enough of it. Many who wanted every detail of the royal wedding may or may not care about Bin Laden or vice versa.

Different strokes for different folks- but that is what culture is. We all have input, we all create out little worlds out of it. There IS no one "cause" just as there is no one "adequate explanation" which fits every person or every situation.

[ERayR]

Whatever. Still, you are not justifying your thinking.

Nor are you. Am I required to justify and you are not?

Take the time to do some research on what the First Cause proponents are saying, brother.

Take some time to understand what I am saying. Infinity (eternity) has no first cause. Quessting Beast expressed it even if (s)he doesn't seem to understand what (s)he said: "Quite simply, we cannot know why there is Existence instead of NOTHING" Take some time to meditate on infinity.

So... you are not going to provide reasons, then?

Are you?

Take a minute and reread mfbukowski's post above. Read it until you understand it. Asking why presupposes ther is a why. Infinity presupposes there is no why. That it has always been and that it will always be is all the why you can ever get.

Now tell me why and convince me that there has to be a why (first cause).

[ERayR]

Whatever. Still, you are not justifying your thinking.

Nor are you. Am I required to justify and you are not?

Take the time to do some research on what the First Cause proponents are saying, brother.

Take some time to understand what I am saying. Infinity (eternity) has no first cause. Quessting Beast expressed it even if (s)he doesn't seem to understand what (s)he said: "Quite simply, we cannot know why there is Existence instead of NOTHING" Take some time to meditate on infinity.

So... you are not going to provide reasons, then?

Are you?

Take a minute and reread mfbukowski's post above. Read it until you understand it. Asking why presupposes ther is a why. Infinity presupposes there is no why. That it has always been and that it will always be is all the why you can ever get.

Now tell me why and convince me that there has to be a why (first cause).

[mfbukowski]

..but then you go on and try to give an explanation. apparently not even yourself knows what you believe.

I wasn't asking for the "purpose" of the universe. Things don't have purposes. I was asking for the "CAUSE" of the universe. Why is it there? What is it rather than not? If someone asked you, "why is your car parked there?" would you go on and tell them that it just is there? That's what you're doing, mf. If you were to answer that your car doesn't have a purpose... how more foolish would that be?!

Next time, mf, try to understand the question first. Again, I'm not talking about a "purpose" of the universe but a reason why things are in the first place

Ok I will make it simple.

There is no one answer. It depends on how you look at it.

You are like one of my kids- Daddy why is the sky blue?

(oxygen molecule explanation)

But why is the sky blue?

(water reflection explanation)

But why is the sky blue?

(definitional explanation- we define that color "blue")

But why is the sky blue daddy?

Because God made it that way. That one always shuts them up.

It's easy to ask the same question over and over.

[ERayR]

Again, they give reasons while you don't. Why should someone consider what you have to say when you give no reason at all?

How can you give reasons for something that can't be? Again I ask you to meditate on the concept of infinity. The concept of infinity leaves no room for a first anything and I believe is universally accepted as being real. It even has its own symbol.

"You know what? I think scientists should consider Zeus being the real cause of thunders by forces we don't yet understand." This sounds ridiculous for the same reasons considering an infinite regress seems ridiculous.

Except that an infinite regress is real. Refresh your mathmatical concepts.