Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming.

[Moral Orel]

If a belief is rational, it doesn't mean I possess a logical dialogue concerning that belief.

Actually, that's exactly what "rational" means.

What I believe can be rational on its own merits —not because I am rational.

You're confusing "rational" with "true". They aren't the same thing. You can believe a true thing and all the while you have no rational reason to believe it is true.

 

[durangodawood]

You have a point there, your last two paragraphs.

Funny to me is, the people, like my wife, who assume that if I am right I should be able to demonstrate how it is so. Many of us know the truth instinctively but can't explain why it is true. I would LIKE to, and wish I could explain, but so far, there are things I can't. But some of those things are necessarily beyond my comprehension, no matter how good my reasoning and how much data I acquire, like God's person.

So Ive explained why reason is ill equipped to deal with things like a realm that outside of time.

But is intuition really any better? What could possibly equip our intuition for providing reliable results about such far-out matters?

 

[QvQ]

Point is that the things you point to as "changing" are really just changing configurations of parts that might not be changing.

Posited: Everything is merely the same "particles rearranging themselves into different patterns. According to fixed laws except for chaos, random and entropy. The kaleidoscope of now.

Trouble for you is that if there is eternally existing stuff, we don't need a conscious mind, so the first cause need not be "God".

If all things are collections of "particles" we don't need a conscious mind. Why then did the laws of structure in the primordial ooze create from the same particles, rocks and amoeba? Amoeba does not follow rock in evolution or in physics. Amoeba should be another inanimate rock. There is a random, spontaneous generation of structural complexity beyond the laws of rock. Either all rocks, including amoeba are animate or all rocks, including amoeba are inanimate, being composed of inanimate particles operating by the same fixed laws.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually, that's exactly what "rational" means.

You're confusing "rational" with "true". They aren't the same thing. You can believe a true thing and all the while you have no rational reason to believe it is true.

I get your point, though no, that's not exactly what the dictionary uses to define "rational".

The fact I may be at some point unable to put together a cogent defense for something doesn't make the thing I believe irrational. It doesn't even make my belief irrational. Is that said any better?

 

[Mark Quayle]

So Ive explained why reason is ill equipped to deal with things like a realm that outside of time.

But is intuition really any better? What could possibly equip our intuition for providing reliable results about such far-out matters?

Good question, but our intuition keeps trying, anyway.

Reason does take us to cause-and-effect, specially useful in considerations of things outside of time. Some scientists and theists have been pretty adept at ignoring time sequence in pursing cause sequence. But I personally, though I don't know what else to do, don't think ignoring time sequence gives us the whole picture, either.

 

[Moral Orel]

The fact I may be at some point unable to put together a cogent defense for something doesn't make the thing I believe irrational. It doesn't even make my belief irrational. Is that said any better?

Well sure, "if at some point", like if you had a long night of drinking and can't string some complex thoughts together in that state, that's one thing. If you didn't arrive at the belief through a rational process, then no, you aren't being rational to believe it. If you only believe something because your intuition or your instinct told you so, then you really believe that thing for no reason.

We all do it, I'm not trying to single you out. All humans make assumptions and one of the most common assumptions is that our intuition is spot on. It isn't though.

I'd really like to see this discussion get back on track to the topic of the thread though. Hopefully you're still looking for a way to refute my infinite regress train. I don't see how. We can imagine an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter, so I see no logical impossibilities.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well sure, "if at some point", like if you had a long night of drinking and can't string some complex thoughts together in that state, that's one thing. If you didn't arrive at the belief through a rational process, then no, you aren't being rational to believe it. If you only believe something because your intuition or your instinct told you so, then you really believe that thing for no reason.

We all do it, I'm not trying to single you out. All humans make assumptions and one of the most common assumptions is that our intuition is spot on. It isn't though.

I'd really like to see this discussion get back on track to the topic of the thread though. Hopefully you're still looking for a way to refute my infinite regress train. I don't see how. We can imagine an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter, so I see no logical impossibilities.

Maybe I would have said it better, that a fact doesn't need me to consider it at all, for it to make sense. If it is a fact, it makes sense, whether anyone sees the sense of it or not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well sure, "if at some point", like if you had a long night of drinking and can't string some complex thoughts together in that state, that's one thing. If you didn't arrive at the belief through a rational process, then no, you aren't being rational to believe it. If you only believe something because your intuition or your instinct told you so, then you really believe that thing for no reason.

We all do it, I'm not trying to single you out. All humans make assumptions and one of the most common assumptions is that our intuition is spot on. It isn't though.

I'd really like to see this discussion get back on track to the topic of the thread though. Hopefully you're still looking for a way to refute my infinite regress train. I don't see how. We can imagine an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of matter, so I see no logical impossibilities.

As for your infinite regress train, and @Ken-1122 's multiple first causes, I would like to see you (or him) since you posited these notions, prove them possible. After all, isn't it easier to prove a positive than a negative?

I'm mean, it's not fair to just speak them into being, is it?

 

[Moral Orel]

As for your infinite regress train, and @Ken-1122 's multiple first causes, I would like to see you (or him) since you posited these notions, prove them possible. After all, isn't it easier to prove a positive than a negative?

I'm mean, it's not fair to just speak them into being, is it?

It's logically possible, that's all I have to show to prove your argument doesn't work. I described a situation with logically consistent components that don't logically contradict one another. I don't need to prove how things actually are in reality. For me to win, all we have to conclude is, "Well gee, I dunno then".

See, you already believe there's a God, so there is already a list of premises I can work with that I know you accept.

A thing can have an infinite access to matter/energy.
A thing can be eternal with no beginning or end.
A train is a thing.
A track is a thing.
A slope is a thing.

If such a train existed, then an infinite regress of events would also exist, ergo an infinite regress of events is not logically impossible. If a thing can be logically conceived, then it is logically possible. Your "first cause" argument requires it to be logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress of events.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why then did the laws of structure in the primordial ooze create from the same particles, rocks and amoeba?

Because different combinations of components produces different things. Oxygen and gold are very different things made from the same particles (protons, neutrons, electrons) too.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's logically possible, that's all I have to show to prove your argument doesn't work. I described a situation with logically consistent components that don't logically contradict one another. I don't need to prove how things actually are in reality. For me to win, all we have to conclude is, "Well gee, I dunno then".

Yes, but you haven't shown it is logically possible.

See, you already believe there's a God, so there is already a list of premises I can work with that I know you accept.

A thing can have an infinite access to matter/energy.
A thing can be eternal with no beginning or end.
A train is a thing.
A track is a thing.
A slope is a thing.

Hmmm, let's see:
D can have access to I
E can be J
A = F
B = G
C = H
F, G, H, D, and E are things. Therefore, A, B and C can be I and J.

Uh, sorry, no. That isn't logical, even if one could accept D and E as true. One thing does not equal another thing does not equal another thing does not equal a possibility does not equal another possibility.

But as to that:
WHAT thing can have an infinite access to matter/energy?
WHAT thing can be eternal with no beginning or end?
—Trains? Tracks? Slopes?
And HOW can they have infinite access to matter/energy, and HOW can they be eternal with no beginning or end?

If such a train existed, then an infinite regress of events would also exist, ergo an infinite regress of events is not logically impossible. If a thing can be logically conceived, then it is logically possible. Your "first cause" argument requires it to be logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress of events.

Such a train does not exist. But you haven't logically conceived it anyhow, so...

BTW, I'm talking about an infinite regress of causes, not simply of events, as such.

 

[Moral Orel]

Hmmm, let's see:
D can have access to I
E can be J
A = F
B = G
C = H
F, G, H, D, and E are things. Therefore, A, B and C can be I and J.

Uh, sorry, no. That isn't logical, even if one could accept D and E as true. One thing does not equal another thing does not equal another thing does not equal a possibility does not equal another possibility.

Uh, sorry, no. That wasn't an argument, it was a list of premises... like I said. Your choice of variables isn't even representative of what I've written.

If this response of yours is indicative of what future responses are going to look like, I'm not going to bother continuing a conversation with you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Uh, sorry, no. That wasn't an argument, it was a list of premises... like I said. Your choice of variables isn't even representative of what I've written.

If this response of yours is indicative of what future responses are going to look like, I'm not going to bother continuing a conversation with you.

Oh dear!

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh dear!

Okay, seeya.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why couldn't "self-existent" things interact with each other? I'm not seeing any relation between something not having a cause for it's existence, and being capable of interaction.

Two eternally existing particles bump into each other and bounce off in opposite directions. What's impossible about that?

'Self-existent' necessarily implies not being what it is as a result of anything else. Whatever is self-existent is not an effect of external causes. If it bumps into another, and bounces off into another direction, not only are both subject to external principles, but both are effects of the other.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

This is a well-reasoned and easy to follow description of the difference between God and everything else. It is a good introduction for, among many other subjects, the philosophical question of objective morality.

R.C. Sproul: Before the Beginning: The Aseity of God - Bing video

Edit: post #8 has a poor synopsis, for those who don't have the time or data limits or inclination.

I don't see any reasoning at all, just unargued assertions. He simply asserts that to have real being means to be unchanging. Why? because he rejects the identity of change. Is not the ability to change a part of an existent's identity? Blank out.

It's pure rationalism is what it is and it's special pleading. It also rests on stolen concepts. And, it's no surprise that he invokes Kant since Kant was also a subjectivist.

The fact that existence exists does not change. The things that exist change and they do so according to their nature because change is part of their identity. But I guess if you accept as true that water can turn into wine by means of essentially wishing by a ruling consciousness one would have to deny this fact.

What's missing here is a method for distinguishing this thing he calls God from something that is merely imaginary. I can say the same things that he is saying about his God in regards to anything I can imagine. I can assign any attributes or states or qualities to something I'm merely imagining. I can talk about the aseity of Sparky the Wonder Unicorn and I can say that Sparky is, everything else is becoming. I can also give Sparky, which is completely a product of my imagination, the attribute of necessity. Sparky the Unicorn is a necessary being who is the first cause and it just is and everything else is contingent. The problem is that imagination is not a means of discovering what exists.

As far as objective morality the notion of objective morality rests on the principle of objectivity which is the primacy of existence. The notion of God affirms the primacy of consciousness, which is a complete negation of objectivity. Mr. Sproul should learn that using concepts like "objectivity" while ignoring their genetic roots is fallacious.

The basis of objective morality is the axiom of identity and the primacy of existence. That is all one needs to ground morality objectively.

He would know this if he had any kind of theory of concepts but Christianity does not. Of course, he is speaking to the choir. Let him make this presentation to a room full of Objectivists

He clearly accepts the false dichotomy known as the necessary/contingent dichotomy which has its roots in a flawed theory of concepts. Does he understand this or does he just accept this dichotomy without questioning it?

When Apologists used to come to my home they would ask me -this is how childish their reasoning was-, to look at the trees and the clouds. Then they would ask me where I thought these things came from.

My answer: They came from existence. That would be the end of it because they were at least smart enough to know not to ask me where I thought existence came from. I'll give them that. Unfortunately, they don't come around anymore even though I've invited them to come back anytime they have more questions.

 

[QvQ]

The infinite regress is a chain with a beginning but no end. The train would have mass and energy subject to gravity. If the gravity necessary to maintain the structure of the "thing' were present, it would have to be measured in the correct density to maintain the structures. There would have to be bounds to confine the correct measure for the structure, train, slope. Boundaries and measures are by definition finite.
It is like a toy (gravity) ship (structure) in a bucket of water (mass/energy). Pour the water on the ground (infinite space), the ship sinks. Make the water solid (hyper density) such as ice, the ship stops. If the water was in infinite amount, the ship could have an entirely different structure. It would have to be the exact amount of mass/energy for that structure . To maintain the train in a gravitational field for eternity would require measures and boundaries. Eternity may be the field but the train is finite.

The field is infinite but the structure is finite. The energy and mass would keep expanding without boundaries and the result would be a vanishing mist of scattered particles, things only in the sense of 'exist." and eventually would lose even that cohesive edge within the field.

If the field were finite, then the train could not go on for eternity without hitting the wall.

No more Train (finito)

(I am jumping in without being conversant with all the arguments. I did not introduce "gravity" It was inherent, in fact necessary, in the "train analogy.")

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see any reasoning at all, just unargued assertions. He simply asserts that to have real being means to be unchanging. Why? because he rejects the identity of change. Is not the ability to change a part of an existent's identity? Blank out.

Sounds like you didn't listen to the video, but only read my poor synopsis. He defined what he meant by being, vs becoming. "Being" in that use, is a different kind of thing from everything else. Everything that exists has real being, but not being as he was referring to. Self-existent, not just existent.

I can talk about the aseity of Sparky the Wonder Unicorn and I can say that Sparky is, everything else is becoming. I can also give Sparky, which is completely a product of my imagination, the attribute of necessity. Sparky the Unicorn is a necessary being who is the first cause and it just is and everything else is contingent. The problem is that imagination is not a means of discovering what exists.

You apparently didn't hear him mention that God does not answer to form. Sparky does.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Sounds like you didn't listen to the video, but only read my poor synopsis. He defined what he meant by being, vs becoming. "Being" in that use, is a different kind of thing from everything else. Everything that exists has real being, but not being as he was referring to. Self-existent, not just existent.

I'm more than halfway through it but I've heard it all before. I don't accept his definitions. Axiomatic concepts can not be defined in terms of other concepts, they can only be defined ostensively and there is no warrant for dividing a fundamental concept the way he does. As I said, it's pure rationalism. By what means is he aware of this kind of being that is unlike everything else? Please answer this one question for me if nothing else. Is it some way other than imagining?

And by the way, existence as existence is self-existent and logically could not be otherwise. It's important to define what existence means. The concept existence subsumes everything that exists including everything that has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exist. This is because time and place are measurements that are despecified, like all other measurements, in the forming of an abstraction. This is why a theory of concepts is crucial.

You apparently didn't hear him mention that God does not answer to form. Sparky does.

One can assert this about anything one imagines. Sparky does not answer to form, whatever that is supposed to mean. Sparky is an absolute, uncaused, self-existent, unchanging, necessary being that is a different kind of being from every other kind.

 

[Moral Orel]

'Self-existent' necessarily implies not being what it is as a result of anything else. Whatever is self-existent is not an effect of external causes. If it bumps into another, and bounces off into another direction, not only are both subject to external principles, but both are effects of the other.

Nope. Only their location changed. Only their location is an effect. The particles remain the same particles. The particles themselves are not an effect and their existence is not impacted by the bump. Their existence remains unaltered even as their position in space is altered. The particles are what they are regardless of whether or not they ever touch another particle.