Well, logic and even common sense tell me immediately that this axiom can not be accurate - unless you think of causality as an everlasting circle (A->B->C....->A->B...).
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, logic and even common sense tell me immediately that this axiom can not be accurate - unless you think of causality as an everlasting circle (A->B->C....->A->B...).May be it's just me but it seems very obvious that the idea that all things are subject to causality is generally accepted as sound logic. I'm not trying to 'smuggle' some argument in below your radar... I'm appealing to common sense..
I for one do not believe that there is anything but reality. The question is very simple and clear. If semantics is the problem, I can express the question differently, but the question remains the same.
The laws of physics didn't exist until physics didJust out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?
The laws of physics didn't exist until physics did
The universe sort of stumbled along ok until then, and will just have to carry on some how after the last physicist is dead
Here's an easy one:
In what way does the universe exist if we do not?
Hmm. I detect a cop out here. I guess the above is easier than admitting you believe the laws of physics created themselves.
I wonder if it has occurred to you that your question implies an infinite regress of explanations? If some one entity is thought to determine the rules for other entities, then what is it that determines the "rules" of that master entity? And the master of that master entity? And so on, and so on?
I still struggle with the issue of "First Cause" myself. Do you think there is a possibility that some forces such as Physics are simply eternal?
Nicely stated. I'll try to expand it to see if I've understood it correctly."Physics" isn't a force, but a description of the behavior of entities at a simple level. But as long as there are entities there are behaviors, existence implying identity, and this might as well be considered eternal.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Quantum mechanics arrives, good point.Or maybe in other words, if we can give description to a property, or an event, and call it an effect, are we ever able to find with the same descriptive certainty it's cause?
Maybe your father didn´t have the intention you think he had, but rather tried to communicate that which children need to learn at a certain age (the age they tend to ask why questions ad infinitum): That there are instances where "why" questions are inadequate, that when asking "why" questions you tend to omit the sort of information you are looking for, that "why" questions are actually begging the question by assuming there is some sort of "because", whilst actually there needn´t be such.When I was a child, I would ask questions like "How come people speak other languages?" or "Why do birds fly and we don't?" and my father would invariably reply: "They just do." His response didn't answer the questions (which generally did have an answer even if he did not know them)- it was more a way of giving up without admitting ignorance. I feel more or less the same way about those who submit the same non-answer in response to the important questions of existence. Saying that the universe simply exists may be descriptively true, but it is not an answer to the question of why it does. If you do not have an answer for why the universe exists, at least have the dignity to say that you do not know- don't imagine that not having the answer is somehow an answer.
Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?
Hi Sojourner
The act of governing is to organize and control, presumably if 'reality' was not governed it would fall into a differing state.
What might this state be ?
And if god removed his government of reality and reality changed it's nature - who would be governing this new situation ?
I see your question as too undefined to be anything other than semantics.
Why? I see no logical justification for your suggestion learning the reason for something would "omit the information I am looking for", much less how saying that "there is no answer" and leaving it at that would somehow provide the missing data. If more information is needed to answer the question, supply the information. Incidentally, I don't think children should be discouraged from asking questions either. Do you have kids?Maybe your father didn´t have the intention you think he had, but rather tried to communicate that which children need to learn at a certain age (the age they tend to ask why questions ad infinitum): That there are instances where "why" questions are inadequate, that when asking "why" questions you tend to omit the sort of information you are looking for, that "why" questions are actually begging the question by assuming there is some sort of "because", whilst actually there needn´t be such.
If existence has any meaning at all, it applies to the universe. You can claim that it does not, but you'd be protesting something intrinsically obvious to most people so some sort of justification other than baseless skepticism would be advised.I have no clue by which process the universe came into existence, I don´t know whether it came into existence at all - I even doubt that "existence" is a meaningful term if used for the universe.
This is a classic theist to me. "If science hasn't found out *yet* how the universe cam into place, then my God must exist and it's better to have an answer than to not".Why? I see no logical justification for your suggestion learning the reason for something would "omit the information I am looking for", much less how saying that "there is no answer" and leaving it at that would somehow provide the missing data. If more information is needed to answer the question, supply the information. Incidentally, I don't think children should be discouraged from asking questions either. Do you have kids?
If existence has any meaning at all, it applies to the universe. You can claim that it does not, but you'd be protesting something intrinsically obvious to most people so some sort of justification other than baseless skepticism would be advised.
This has nothing to do with a God of the Gaps- My complaint here is about pretending that there is no gap. Who said anything about God existing? Do read before commenting, sometimes.This is a classic theist to me. "If science hasn't found out *yet* how the universe cam into place, then my God must exist and it's better to have an answer than to not".
Wouldn't that be nice? My objection is to those who refuse to accept that there is a question to answer, in the first place.Maybe someday, science will finally figure out the real way how the universe was created.
Maybe someday, science will finally figure out the real way how the universe was created.
No takers on this key point?But enter the much simpler realm of physics and causality itself generally disappears.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?