The First Cause

[WalkerW]

I agree with you more than you think. I only steal a skeletal framework from Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics.

There is a lot I want to say to this. But not tonight. I have other duties to attend to. I'll come back to it though.

[elguanteloko]

I was responding to the video. That's why I mentioned it.

I am a Pragmatist. Pragmatists don't get along with logical positivists.

http://en.wikipedia....ts_and_theories

Underlining added

Sound familiar? That is exactly what I am arguing in this thread: the notion of "causality" is (quoting from above) "merely a nominal concept that was invented to help solve a specific problem."

Lack of understanding this, "causes metaphysical and conceptual confusion".

What the First Cause actually does is "project the products of extensive abstraction back onto experience." In other words, it abstracts "Causes" and then pretends that we actually experience "causes" when in fact what we experience is serial events, one after the other.

I suppose you will next tell me that I am wrong and do not know what Pragmatism is. You would be wrong.

Now I really am done.

I know you label yourself as a "pragmatist" and that's irrelevant for determining whether what you wrote is or isn't LP. Who cares if all the previous things you have thought about where coming from the pragmatist perspective? The point is THAT PART OF YOUR POST is definitely not coming from a pragmatist perspective. You seem more worried about using labels than about thinking seriously on the issues, if you ask me; a very unfortunate thing.

To clarify, the concept of cause helps us to explain things we see in the world but it is itself not seen in the world as a thing proper. There is no problem in that and a pragmatist shouldn't have to have a problem with that either. I'm not using the word "cause" as to imply we can find a physical thing to which this word points to; that's a caricature of what we mean by "cause" and it is a misunderstanding. Logic is also not a "thing" we find in the world but is a set of models we use to analyze it. Same with cause.Saying that we somehow have to find such a thing in experience is LP and ludicrous.

[elguanteloko]

I would agree with Pragmatists and Biocentrists (as per Lanza) and with that such things have no "reality" independent of human experience or humans in general. In other words such things exist "in our heads" and not "out there"

Inferences are not "independent of human experience or humans in general" but I hope you believe in them being justified. Scientific theories, universals, logic, etc are all things which we use and are not "out there" in the universe outside of human minds (or any other similarly rational being). Your view is LP all the way, brother! Keep calling yourself a pragmatist if you want but...

[mfbukowski]

Inferences are not "independent of human experience or humans in general" but I hope you believe in them being justified. Scientific theories, universals, logic, etc are all things which we use and are not "out there" in the universe outside of human minds (or any other similarly rational being). Your view is LP all the way, brother! Keep calling yourself a pragmatist if you want but...

Dream on.

[mfbukowski]

I agree with you more than you think. I only steal a skeletal framework from Thomist-Aristotelian metaphysics.

There is a lot I want to say to this. But not tonight. I have other duties to attend to. I'll come back to it though.

No hurry.

We all cobble these things together out of bits and pieces of this and that.

[Questing Beast]

...

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.

Wordy. I did read it all, though, this being "first thing in the morning" and I have not entered the "time crunch" yet. Lucky you.

This last paragraph is as those preceding: mixing up "cause" with "event". Events SEEM to be causes, but they merely come along in an endless string of "events" wrought by preceding events. Science looks upon an event and determines what "caused" it: this is necessarily the limited view and good only for explaining this singular event being researched. None of them singularly, or lined up chronologically in space-time, can possibly go back further than the BB. Beyond our recorded time everything becomes utterly theoretical anyway. We actually have very little that we can place into the category of "facts". Nevertheless, "cutting to the chase" question, "Why does the universe exist instead of nothing?" will always raise the fundamental question of "CAUSE". Everything deriving from CAUSE becomes an event, not a cause. The CAUSE of space-time and the matter inhabiting/defining it is CAUSED; the matter acting and being acted upon within space-time produces an endless series of events, all deriving from each other: the cosmic scaled and the infinitesimal.

By your saying "God is a man", all you have covenanted to do is worship the product of a series of events. You are not even remotely attempting to get back to the CAUSE of the events that define what space-time is. And I ask: "Why would you pray to (worship) an event?"

[ERayR]

Wordy. I did read it all, though, this being "first thing in the morning" and I have not entered the "time crunch" yet. Lucky you.

This last paragraph is as those preceding: mixing up "cause" with "event". Events SEEM to be causes, but they merely come along in an endless string of "events" wrought by preceding events. Science looks upon an event and determines what "caused" it: this is necessarily the limited view and good only for explaining this singular event being researched. None of them singularly, or lined up chronologically in space-time, can possibly go back further than the BB. Beyond our recorded time everything becomes utterly theoretical anyway. We actually have very little that we can place into the category of "facts". Nevertheless, "cutting to the chase" question, "Why does the universe exist instead of nothing?" will always raise the fundamental question of "CAUSE". Everything deriving from CAUSE becomes an event, not a cause. The CAUSE of space-time and the matter inhabiting/defining it is CAUSED; the matter acting and being acted upon within space-time produces an endless series of events, all deriving from each other: the cosmic scaled and the infinitesimal.

By your saying "God is a man", all you have covenanted to do is worship the product of a series of events. You are not even remotely attempting to get back to the CAUSE of the events that define what space-time is. And I ask: "Why would you pray to (worship) an event?"

My final post in this thread. You seem to be hung up on which is a cause and which is an event Mr eluganteloko is hung up on my ignorance and lack of understanding. In my limited mental capacity it seems plain to me that anything that is eternal, that had no beginning and will not end, that always have been and always will be is neither a cause or event. It just is. If one can backtrack forever and not find a time when it wasn't where is the event or cause? Instead of dismissing my ignorance educate me.

[mfbukowski]

My final post in this thread. You seem to be hung up on which is a cause and which is an event Mr eluganteloko is hung up on my ignorance and lack of understanding. In my limited mental capacity it seems plain to me that anything that is eternal, that had no beginning and will not end, that always have been and always will be is neither a cause or event. It just is. If one can backtrack forever and not find a time when it wasn't where is the event or cause? Instead of dismissing my ignorance educate me.

That's what E- whatever- does. It makes him feel better I guess. He does the same thing to everyone. Incidentally I like your posts, and agree with your point here.

[CV75]

"Why would you pray to (worship) an event?"

Do you mean, why would an event (noun) event (verb) (any preposition) an event (noun)?

[elguanteloko]

My final post in this thread. You seem to be hung up on which is a cause and which is an event Mr eluganteloko is hung up on my ignorance and lack of understanding. In my limited mental capacity it seems plain to me that anything that is eternal, that had no beginning and will not end, that always have been and always will be is neither a cause or event. It just is. If one can backtrack forever and not find a time when it wasn't where is the event or cause? Instead of dismissing my ignorance educate me.

You need to clarify to yourself several things which you clearly haven't. What is it that is eternal? My computer isn't eternal for sure. The parts that constitute me aren't eternal either (physically, at least). Something caused my parts to come together and form my body. That "Something" was in turned caused by something else. Is that clear to you?

[elguanteloko]

That's what E- whatever- does. It makes him feel better I guess. He does the same thing to everyone. Incidentally I like your posts, and agree with your point here.

I gave good reasons which you failed time and time again to address.Running away with "Dream on" isn't very smart.

[ERayR]

You need to clarify to yourself several things which you clearly haven't. What is it that is eternal? My computer isn't eternal for sure. The parts that constitute me aren't eternal either (physically, at least). Something caused my parts to come together and form my body. That "Something" was in turned caused by something else. Is that clear to you?

Given your explanation just asking for a first cause is not very smart. You should clarify what it is your asking for a first cause of. If you had read for comprehension you would know that I specified God and man. Post #57 According to Mormon theology God and man are of the same family but both are without begining or end.

[ERayR]

That's what E- whatever- does. It makes him feel better I guess. He does the same thing to everyone. Incidentally I like your posts, and agree with your point here.

Thanks

[elguanteloko]

Given your explanation just asking for a first cause is not very smart.

Since you couldn't get the idea of an actual infinity not being able to exist, I went back and I'm asking you a simple question to walk you through it. I'm NOT arguing for a first cause yet at all. Did you get what I said thus far or not?

You should clarify what it is your asking for a first cause of. If you had read for comprehension you would know that I specified God and man. Post #57 According to Mormon theology God and man are of the same family but both are without begining or end.

Again, I am asking you if you got the very simple post I wrote. We can move on if you get it but I just want to see if you understood it.

[mfbukowski]

I gave good reasons which you failed time and time again to address.Running away with "Dream on" isn't very smart.

That makes us even I guess.

[ERayR]

Since you couldn't get the idea of an actual infinity not being able to exist, I went back and I'm asking you a simple question to walk you through it. I'm NOT arguing for a first cause yet at all. Did you get what I said thus far or not?

Again, I am asking you if you got the very simple post I wrote. We can move on if you get it but I just want to see if you understood it.

I think I have found the problem. It is not that "an actual infinity not being able to exist". It is that your finite mind is not able to grasp the concept. Not to worry though you are not alone, many people are thus afflicted. Sorry come back when you actually can conceive the concept of infinity. Cheers

[elguanteloko]

I think I have found the problem. It is not that "an actual infinity not being able to exist". It is that your finite mind is not able to grasp the concept. Not to worry though you are not alone, many people are thus afflicted. Sorry come back when you actually can conceive the concept of infinity. Cheers

...I'm in the process of explaining you this stuff and you continue to evade what I posted.

Have a nice day, I guess. I'm not going to waste my time with someone so clearly unwilling to listen and answer simple question. A true dogmatist.

[elguanteloko]

That makes us even I guess.

I don't know what you're talking about. I've explained pretty much everything I've said. I explained why you naming this a simple play of words isn't solving or dissolving a thing. I explained why the stuff you said isn't pragmatist. I explained why you miss the point when you do.

It's kind of tiring to talk to intellectual children. Have a good one, mf.

[mfbukowski]

I explained why the stuff you said isn't pragmatist.

What would you know about that? And where was that supposedly?

[ERayR]

...I'm in the process of explaining you this stuff and you continue to evade what I posted.

Have a nice day, I guess. I'm not going to waste my time with someone so clearly unwilling to listen and answer simple question. A true dogmatist.

Insert Something about a pot and a kettle and the color black.

Holy infinity Batman, will it never end?

Not to worry Robin elguanteloko says it not real.

[Mordecai]

"Why does the universe exist instead of nothing?" will always raise the fundamental question of "CAUSE".

I was thinking that the better question might be, "Why does the universe exist as it does?" In other words, what is the cause of the universal constants? That is the biggest piece of evidence, I think, for the need to explain the universe via an intelligent cause.

[RhipSaw2]

Perhaps the BOM supports the Aristotelian concept of a first cause.

2Nephi 2:

And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

[14] And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

"Things to act" and "things to be acted upon" are phrases often associated with Aristotelian prime mover arguments.

[Mordecai]

"Things to act" and "things to be acted upon" are phrases often associated with Aristotelian prime mover arguments.

CFR (i.e call for references... board rules that you provide a source, should someone call for it), please. Thanks.

[Questing Beast]

My final post in this thread. You seem to be hung up on which is a cause and which is an event Mr eluganteloko is hung up on my ignorance and lack of understanding. In my limited mental capacity it seems plain to me that anything that is eternal, that had no beginning and will not end, that always have been and always will be is neither a cause or event. It just is. If one can backtrack forever and not find a time when it wasn't where is the event or cause? Instead of dismissing my ignorance educate me.

The opening of this post does not work with the last part. If you are "gone" then nothing said will "educate" or annoy. I was not dismissing you in the least.

Scientifically we must have causes in order to produce effects. This is probably as much a universal, replicable "law" of space-time as anything we can observe. The way we separate all of this "stuff" that we call the universe from the Necessary Cause is to allow that space-time is not all that there is to Existence In The First Place. There is a state where time does not exist. This is the Cause of space-time. We might as well call it "God". Clearly, an empirical universe can derive from "God", without the One Deity being required to have a Cause itself.

But if you prefer to look upon the universe as always existing (as I look upon the Necessary Cause as always existing), we are merely viewing Existence from separated, egocentric perspectives. I do not expect any two sapient beings in all of eternity to have exactly the same perspective on "God". So our not agreeing in detail, yet agreeing in essence, is just fine. We both accept that existence had no beginning and has no end. I do not see you denying "God" because everything observable is eternal....

[ERayR]

The opening of this post does not work with the last part. If you are "gone" then nothing said will "educate" or annoy. I was not dismissing you in the least.

Scientifically we must have causes in order to produce effects. This is probably as much a universal, replicable "law" of space-time as anything we can observe. The way we separate all of this "stuff" that we call the universe from the Necessary Cause is to allow that space-time is not all that there is to Existence In The First Place. There is a state where time does not exist. This is the Cause of space-time. We might as well call it "God". Clearly, an empirical universe can derive from "God", without the One Deity being required to have a Cause itself.

But if you prefer to look upon the universe as always existing (as I look upon the Necessary Cause as always existing), we are merely viewing Existence from separated, egocentric perspectives. I do not expect any two sapient beings in all of eternity to have exactly the same perspective on "God". So our not agreeing in detail, yet agreeing in essence, is just fine. We both accept that existence had no beginning and has no end. I do not see you denying "God" because everything observable is eternal....

A cogent reply. I can wholly agree an most of it. By what I am reading I thing we might diverge on the nature of God but then that's another discussion.