One piece, the Kalam

[quatona]

It doesn't say physical.

It says "thing or person".

Example: "Hate causes war" Hate is not a physical thing.

Not covered by your definition, sorry.

 

[quatona]

No, that's logically impossible.

Give me your logical deduction.

 

[quatona]

A bakery is not a thing?

Ah, so you meant to say "a bakery" (the physical building?) when you said "bakery"?

 

[Hieronymus]

It says "thing or person".

Not covered by your definition, sorry.

Yes it is, because hate is something.

Please, take some time to think things over.
I prefer to be able to take you seriously, but you're clutching at straws here, it's embarrassing.

 

[Hieronymus]

Ah, so you meant to say "a bakery" when you said "bakery"?

You asked for one (1) word.

 

[quatona]

Yes it is, because hate is something.

It´s not "a thing". Shall we take a look at the intellectual pedestrian´s dictionary, again?

Please, take some time to think things over.
I prefer to be able to take you seriously, but you're clutching at straws here, it's embarrassing.

I´m just trying to show you that basing the consideration of existential questions about states unknown and unfathomable (like the absence of time) on common sense and rough and dirty dictionary definitions won´t get you anywhere. Things aren´t as simple as you make them out to be.
If you want to postulate a universal and extra-universal principle you have to be much more precise in your thinking. And precise thinking starts with precise terminology.

 

[quatona]

You asked for one (1) word.

Oh, I didn´t mean to restrict it to one word. I said one word would suffice.
So which is it - "bakery" or "a bakery"?

 

[Hieronymus]

What are you even asking..??

 

[Hieronymus]

It´s not "a thing"

It exists though
It's not nothing, it's something, it's some thing.

 

[quatona]

Btw., you said for something to be the cause it must exist "prior to" its effect. Which explicitly renders causality a principle depending on the existence of time (i.e. it loses its meaning when applied to a state without time).

 

[Hieronymus]

Btw., you said for something to be the cause it must exist "prior to" its effect. Which explicitly renders causality a principle depending on the existence of time (i.e. it loses its meaning when applied to a state without time).

It's the only way we can put it into words, because we have no concept of timelessness.
I agree it's confusing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How would you know?

Because I talk to theists and they tell me their "reasons" for belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since they're used as characters, to carry a meaning, they are characters, or at least used as such.

The characters represent the molecules.

Just like H2O represents a molecule.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly the same.

That makes no sense.
Causality implies a sequence of events.

There's no such thing as a sequence of events in the absence of time.
Just like there is no "distance" in the absence of space.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, weŕe trying to make sense of timelessness, but we fail..
non the less, as time is a property of the universe, what caused it?
What made it so? And why? (the latter is a different subject)

Some speak of "eternity past", which has the same problem i.m.o.
But this doesn't change the concept of cause and effect i.m.o.
What made time start?

I think this might be a good time to bring to your attention that causality is a phenomena of physics. Physics of the universe.

You are thus trying to use a property of the universe, to explain the universe.

You have a chicken and egg problem if you make this argument.

 

[Hieronymus]

The fact that you put reasons in quotes is telling...

 

[Hieronymus]

That makes no sense.
Causality implies a sequence of events.

Indeed it does.
We're all wondering what the original (first, primary) cause is.

There's no such thing as a sequence of events in the absence of time.

Yet time exists, so what caused it to?

Just like there is no "distance" in the absence of space.

Yes, i see your point.
But the question remains what caused the sequences of events (over time) to start in the first place?
As Leibnitz pondered: Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[Hieronymus]

I think this might be a good time to bring to your attention that causality is a phenomena of physics. Physics of the universe.

So what caused this? Why is it here?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes it is, because hate is something.

Yes, it is something. More specifically, it is a state of mind of a physical brain.

Please, take some time to think things over.

Says the person who insists on applying concepts that require time, to a state of timelessness.

I prefer to be able to take you seriously, but you're clutching at straws here, it's embarrassing.

No. He's leading a horse to water, but it refuses to drink.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's the only way we can put it into words, because we have no concept of timelessness.

Yet, that doesn't stop you from making claims about it, apparantly.

What does that tell us?