One piece, the Kalam

[Hieronymus]

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

Let's assume a physicl brain is a premise for hate.
That doesn't make hate itself a physical thing.
It has to do with morals and emotions.
Morals aren't physical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Idd. But probably in a different way then you like to conclude.

 

[Hieronymus]

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

What does that tell us?

That i have a hard time getting a point across.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Logic would suggest that this "first" causes would be the "first event" in the space-time continuum at T = 0. Since there is no logical "before" that point. But you seem to be trying to postulate an event before time itself existed. Which doesn't make sense.

Yet time exists, so what caused it to?

I can't make sense of this question.
To use your own terminology, the start of time itself would have to be the uncaused event, since "before time" seems a logical contradiction.

Yes, i see your point.
But the question remains what caused the sequences of events (over time) to start in the first place?

You see my point, but then just repeat your question wich disregards the point.

As Leibnitz pondered: Why is there something rather than nothing?

That's really a different question.
And to that one, I'll answer "i don't know, since is trying to find out".

 

[KCfromNC]

Agreed! So why did you cut out everything I said in my post?

I didn't.

 

[KCfromNC]

What word would you use to describe the thought that we all trust that there is truth that can clear up the confusing and contradictory information that is being thrown at us everyday?

Depends on what you mean by truth. From my point of view, the word for this thought is empiricism or naturalism, or maybe pragmatism, but I'm sure that's not what you're going for with this leading question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's assume a physicl brain is a premise for hate.

That's not an assumption. Hate, just like anger and alike, is an emotion. Emotions are produced by living brains.

That doesn't make hate itself a physical thing.

It's an emotion produced by a physical thing.

It has to do with morals and emotions.
Morals aren't physical.

They are the product of physical brains.
They disappear when the brain that produces them dies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That i have a hard time getting a point across.

*bzzzzzzt*

Nope.

 

[Hieronymus]

Guys, i give up.
Have a nice day, and we'll probably meet again here on CF.
Maybe even here in this topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't think point 1 is refutable, to be honest..

I do. It is quite easy. We've never observed something that begins to exist in the sense point 1 is using it. Sure, we've seen things here in the universe change forms, but never universes popping into existence out of nothing. Any claims about such a situation are therefore simply guesses. The guess here might be right, but I wouldn't base my entire worldview on it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I really don't know what your problem is.
You seem to feel it's necessary to complicate a simple concept.

Yeah, come on guys. It is just an argument about the nature of reality before the known universe existed. How hard can that be. We should just rely on our gut feelings about it and I'm sure everything will turn out fine.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yeah, come on guys. It is just an argument about the nature of reality before the known universe existed. How hard can that be. We should just rely on our gut feelings about it and I'm sure everything will turn out fine.

No sir, it's just about cause and effect.
Time purportedly had a beginning, so what caused it?

 

[Hieronymus]

I do. It is quite easy. We've never observed something that begins to exist in the sense point 1 is using it.

Then you seem to not understand the sense in which it is used.
We even looked it up in the dictionary.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Then perhaps you shouldn't be advocating for arguments which require a pretty concrete understanding of such a state.

 

[Hieronymus]

....and so i give up... (for now... well, i try to... )

 

[KCfromNC]

No sir, it's just about cause and effect.

So cause and effect aren't part of the nature of reality?

Time purportedly had a beginning, so what caused it?

Why assume anything did?

 

[Hieronymus]

So cause and effect aren't part of the nature of reality?

You think they're limited to it.
You think nothing caused natural reality.

Why assume anything did?

Because it's here.
Logic and reason.

 

[quatona]

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

Trying to make assertion about priniciples governing a state of affairs that you have no concept of isn´t confusing - it is confused.

 

[Hieronymus]

Didn't i just leave...?

 

[KCfromNC]

You think they're limited to it.
You think nothing caused natural reality.

Your mind reading skills need some work.

Because it's here.
Logic and reason.

About something that, in your words, we have no concept of. Sounds like a waste of time to me. Garbage in - garbage out and all that.