You haven't defended the assertion and special pleading I gave as an example when you asked me for one. Until you do so you do not get to move the goalposts. Can you defend the example I gave?
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.
You haven't defended the assertion and special pleading I gave as an example when you asked me for one. Until you do so you do not get to move the goalposts. Can you defend the example I gave?You said I used assertion and special pleading to support assertion and special pleading, no? It sounds to me there that you are calling the one post I used to support the previous post assertion and special pleading. Therefore the post I asked about is also what you called assertion and special pleading.
A lack of human scientific mind does not prevent anything from existing by itself, it will only prevent observation via human scientific minds.Perhaps a lack of a human scientific mind to observe them in the first place .. and thence describe them in consistently testable ways?
My conversation is not with Aliens, it's with people familiar with the evolution of human languageAll the meaning contained in your sentence there, can be traced to having come from the evolution of human language ... Otherwise, how else could anyone possibly understand the meaning of what you just said there in your sentences? Would aliens understand what you meant there?
Ignorance would surely result in the invention of a god to somehow defeat that ignorance.That seems reasonable for you to say. I don't deny that ignorance of any other choice seems to lead me to what you are calling special pleading, and perhaps it is
You can claim what you like, however that does not make you right. Contrary to your claim, the cosmological argument does not demonstrate logical necessity. I'm not sure if you are unaware of the various criticisms of it, or if you just choose to handwave them away. I suspect it's ignorance.I don't claim to prove First Cause. I do claim its logical necessity to explain existence.
Certainly, which does not prove the opposite --that the notion of First Cause is therefore invalid. Truth is truth, no matter who or how it is defined or supported. Truth exists independent of any remarking on the matter.Ignorance would surely result in the invention of a god to somehow defeat that ignorance.
Kindly restate it for me? I have lost track of to whom I said what, or who butted in at what point.You haven't defended the assertion and special pleading I gave as an example when you asked me for one. Until you do so you do not get to move the goalposts. Can you defend the example I gave?
You're claim OF A FIRST CAUSE is just something you need, nothing to do with realityCertainly, which does not prove the opposite --that the notion of First Cause is therefore invalid. Truth is truth, no matter who or how it is defined or supported. Truth exists independent of any remarking on the matter.
No, it's not my posit. I haven't posited anything in this discussion. I was merely encouraging you to define and use "cause" in a coherent manner. It would make it easier to understand your argument.I have been responding to many at once. Forgive me if I haven't taken the time to copy and paste all the posts in a sequential tree, to be able to see to whom I said what.
Meanwhile, mechanical fact, i.e. inanimate first cause, is your (unless you butted in on someone else's) posit. Can you back it up with more than mere assertion?
(Emphasis added.) This applies with especial strength to assertions that one has perceived a truth, but has no universally accessible evidence to support it. All that can then say with confidence of the assertion is that is an opinion that might, or might not, mirror some aspects of the truth.Certainly, which does not prove the opposite --that the notion of First Cause is therefore invalid. Truth is truth, no matter who or how it is defined or supported. Truth exists independent of any remarking on the matter.
if not omniscient, First Cause would have no authority over certain facts, i.e. subject to fact from outside itself. Thus not First Cause.
It will also prevent any meaning of the word 'existence' (and therefore your belief that things would still 'exist'). Where do you think that word got its meaning?A lack of human scientific mind does not prevent anything from existing by itself, it will only prevent observation via human scientific minds.
.. Inconsistent relative to your claimed above position.Ken-1122 said:My conversation is not with Aliens, it's with people familiar with the evolution of human language
'Physics' and 'logic' were invented by human minds. You appear to believe that they were sort of discovered floating around in space or something which itself, is only a belief you hold.You talk about facts as if they don't exist unless they are witnessed to have existed. The news doesn't happen if nobody reports it? The operational principles within existence and physics and logic simply do what they do --they need nobody to first develop them.
.. and that assumption is false where the concept can be shown as not being evident in nature (eg: the real butterfly effect in models of nature).I assume that cause and effect applies until demonstrated otherwise.
(Surprise surprise) .. that may as well be because the universe might not actually work that way in the first place!?Yttrium said:Every explanation has something weird and incomprehensible attached to it, so logic fails us. There are fundamental aspects of the universe we're still missing, as fundamental as cause and effect. Until we identify those fundamental aspects (hopefully without going insane in the process), we can't apply a good sequence of logic to the question of how everything came about.
Yet you seem to ignore the obvious .. that cause and effect (determinism) might actually be a product (a concept) of consciousness!Yttrium said:I certainly don't see how logic could lead one to the idea that a first cause would have to be omniscient. In fact, my first pass at logic on the situation led me to the conclusion that a first cause must be non-sentient, although I was working with the questionable assumption that consciousness itself must always be a sequence of cause and effect.
.. and that assumption is false where the concept can be shown as not being evident in nature (eg: the real butterfly effect in models of nature).
It cannot be a universal principle in nature when this happens and in fact, it isn't.
(Surprise surprise) .. that may as well be because the universe might not actually work that way in the first place!?
Yet you seem to ignore the obvious .. that cause and effect (determinism) might actually be a product (a concept) of consciousness!
This conversation is not about the word "existence" it is about that which exist. Matter and energy exists regardless of whether there are humans around to analyze, study, or apply their subjective meaning to it..It will also prevent any meaning of the word 'existence' (and therefore your belief that things would still 'exist'). Where do you think that word got its meaning?
If "fact" existed before a supposed "first cause", it is a principle from outside of that supposed "first cause"; therefore it is not first cause after all, but the principle of "fact" is first cause, unless something else caused the principle of "fact".And your proof of this is...?
'Physics' and 'logic' were invented by human minds. You appear to believe that they were sort of discovered floating around in space or something which itself, is only a belief you hold.
[QUOTE="Mark Quayle]I agree that the descriptions of principles have changed. So what? The principles have not changed. (Cause-and-effect can be witnessed but so far has not been defeated. All effects are caused. First Cause can therefore not be an effect. Call that special pleading --I don't mind).
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?