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.
If Causality is temporally bound then it provides a way for God to create OUR space and time dimensions.
Though actually you have not proven that causality cannot occur in timelessness.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
According to Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History, the majority of cosmologists agree that at time=0 NOTHING existed. No mass, space or time.
eud: I'm unable to look at the Nov 2007 issue at Natural History's site. Do you have a title for the article I can search on?
But again your mind is not part of your arm. So my statement stands that the cause was not part of the effect.ed: No, your mind was the cause, you willed to break your arm.
eud: I agree that my mind was the cause, but my mind is a function of my brain, so my brain was also the cause. Mental causes are also physical causes. Modern science doesn't show any sharp dualistic difference between the mind and the brain.
ed: The real YOU resides in your mind not your arm. So again the cause was not part of the effect.
eud: I can find other examples. If I choose to stoke a certain emotion in myself, whether love, hate, fear, kindness, or whatever, my mind is the cause of something that has a mental effect. The cause is part of the effect.
ed: The burden is on you to prove that the universe is not an effect even though it has all the characteristics of being one.
eud: That burden isn't on me. You are claiming that the universe is an effect. All I have to do is show that it doesn't necessarily have to be, and I have spoken at length about this. I don't have to prove that the universe isn't an effect in order to show how your argument isn't as secure as you think. You don't have to agree with me, of course, but I've accepted the only burden that I have needed to so far.
ed: Post 116.
eud: Do you mean this quote: "It is also possible that the universe is uncaused, and that causes are only internal to the universe."
*scratches head*
It's exactly as I have been saying. I didn't suggest that the universe is the cause of its own existence. I suggested that it is uncaused. Any causes are only internal to the universe, such as me writing this post. I didn't say that the universe had created/caused/explains itself.
Maybe I didn't give enough context, but when I suggest that the universe is uncaused, I really do mean that the universe is uncaused, not that it caused itself.
True, but throughout the history of science as I demonstrated earlier when encountering unknowns utilizing logic almost always produces the answer.ed: Given that so far it has always worked in science, it is irrational and unscientific to abandon logic with ANY unknown.
eud: Science =/= logic. Science involves logic, to be sure, but simply offering logical arguments is not science.
No, I am telling you to read the study I posted.
. Most scientists agree as demonstrated by Dr. Goldsmith and some of the others I cited that it is an effect. Now of course, most don't think that that cause is God. The majority view is that it was caused by a quantum fluctuation. But that cannot be correct, because quantum events require an interval of time to occur but at time=0 there was no time for it occur.
He was responding to a letter in the Letters section. You may have to look in their archived entire issues to find it.
Most scientists agree as demonstrated by Dr. Goldsmith and some of the others I cited that it is an effect.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the second paragraph sums it up best: David H. Wolpert, a physics-trained computer scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center, has chimed in with his version of a knowledge limit. Because of it, he concludes, the universe lies beyond the grasp of any intellect, no matter how powerful, that could exist within the universe.
eud: All that means is that using formal mathematics there are limits to what can be proved and known about physics. That's it. That's all. There is no reason to think that there is any existence beyond the physical universe.
This is an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one. It's an issue of knowledge and its limits.
ed: The key points are "no intellect WITHIN the universe" and "cannot learn by experiment or predict with computation". But if we use logical reasoning without restraining ourselves to just natural explanations, we can avoid the problem of self-reference that GIT shows limits our understanding.
eud: Alternatively, we can use logic in ways that don't involve formal mathematical systems. We can make different sorts of judgments. However, nothing in GIT means that we can successfully use logic about "non-natural explanations" to correctly explain anything.
Yes, we would have the same problem in the "super" natural world also. That would become our work after we leave this universe at death just as the bible seems to predict.ed: No, the universe is a system and GIT shows that if we bring in data from outside the system then those problems can be solved and the knowledge can be gained.
eud; It doesn't show that as far as I know. Indeed, any extra data (if it even exists) would have its own limitations. IOWs, you'd have the same GIT problem all over again. You would still not be able to prove certain things using the formal math.
I have to get to work now. More later.
No, Stanley Jaki and Jones and Wilson, in "An Incomplete Education" say that it does apply to cosmology and the metaphysical. "the application of the GIT to cosmology shows that a disproof of the contingency of the universe is impossible. The mental road to the extracosmic Absolute remains therefore fully open." Read "The Absolute Beneath the Relative." in the Intercollegiate Review 1985.
Fraid so, see above.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not saying that they are necessarily two totally separate entities. The mind needs the brain to interact with the physical world.
tm: These two sentences contradict eachother. Your second sentence implies the exact opposite of the first sentence.
If "x needs y", then X and Y are two seperate things.
ed: The mind has some connection to the brain but it is not totally tied to the physical
tm: How so?
ed: The mind can operate according to the laws of logic
tm: What does that mean?
If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.ed: , the brain like any physical entity can only operate according to the laws of physics
tm: On that, we agree.
ed: Also the placebo effect is evidence that the mind is not totally tied to the physical.
tm: How so?
ed: Also, NDEs and if transgenderism is real then it is also evidence for this.
tm: There are perfectly sound neuroscientific explanations for phenomena like NDE's, out-of-body experiences etc. These days, through neuroscience we can even trigger such experiences on demand in subjects.
See above.ed: In addition, a purely physical mind is self refuting.
tm: How so?
The mind can weigh arguments and evidence and make logical conclusion based on the premises of those arguments evidence.
But if the mind is purely physically based then its conclusions are based on the ratio of chemical reagents in the brain just like any chemical reaction and not on the weighing of arguments.
If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.
Because that means that a nonphysical treatment can cure a physical entity.
Not all NDEs. There are cases where the person gained knowledge that they could not have by natural physical means. For example a woman discovered that there was a specific shoe on the roof of a hospital that she was in, and yet she physically never went on the roof.
And if transgenderism is real then there are male minds in female brains and bodies and vice versa. Apparently totally unaffected by being in physically female body.
What I meant is that they cannot reach full function without each other, IOW they are not completely independent of each other.
The mind can weigh arguments and evidence and make logical conclusion based on the premises of those arguments evidence. But if the mind is purely physically based then its conclusions are based on the ratio of chemical reagents in the brain just like any chemical reaction and not on the weighing of arguments.
If you believe the mind is purely physical based then your view is self refuting as shown above.
Because that means that a nonphysical treatment can cure a physical entity.
Not all NDEs. There are cases where the person gained knowledge that they could not have by natural physical means. For example a woman discovered that there was a specific shoe on the roof of a hospital that she was in, and yet she physically never went on the roof
And if transgenderism is real then there are male minds in female brains and bodies and vice versa.
See above.
Yes, it does explain the limitations of mathematical proofs using algorithms. However, that doesn't help your argument as much as you seem to think. Simply explaining those problems doesn't create any solutions.
Not necessarily. Showing that there are limits to mathematical proofs regarding physics does not show that all mathematical proofs regarding physics are suddenly possible when introducing "non-natural" information. One can speculate along those lines, but it becomes a matter of wishful thinking, as I said.
One major hurdle is epistemological. Can one really combine natural and non-natural premises into a single logical/mathematical system in a way that is philosophically justified? It is not clear that the answer is "yes".
It's not enough to have a mathematical system. One needs to have a mathematical system that is epistemologically justified, and that justification in physics relies at least to some extent on empiricism. If there are no empirical reasons to think that one isn't creating an arbitrary math, no knowledge is gained. Adding "non-natural" data to the math is a dubious exercise.
eud: There are scientists who believe in something supernatural or divine, and yet are employed.
Yes, a large number reject it for more personal reasons such as not wanting to be held accountable for how they spend their time and their sex lives.eud: Of the rest, there are far better reasons to reject the supernatural than mere employment issues.
No, it is actually an argument from knowledge, we know that effects require causes.eud: It doesn't mean that we can, either. That is just the Argument from Ignorance, which is pretty much what your entire arguments rests on.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Ask me a question about anything you don't understand and I will be happy to explain it to you.@Ed1wolf
Nothing what you said make any sense and just makes it more confusing then necessarily.
Yes, a large number reject it for more personal reasons such as not wanting to be held accountable for how they spend their time and their sex lives.
No, it is actually an argument from knowledge, we know that effects require causes.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because there is strong evidence that the mind can operate according to the laws of logic, physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics. IOW if the mind is entirely physical then all your conclusions are just based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain not on the weighing of evidence and argument.
tm: This makes no sense at all.
The brain is what you do your thinking with.
"weighing of evidence and argument" clearly is underpinned by physical processes in the physical brain.
ed: Your entire argument is self refuted if the mind is purely physical.
tm: It is not.
ed: Your conclusion is just based on the ratio of chemical reagents in your brain, NOT on the consideration and weighing of evidence and argument.
tm: False.
The physical processes in the brain are the physical underpinnings of how you weigh evidence and argument.
But your arm can't reason so there is no problem there. We are talking about logical reasoning compared to chemical reactions.tm: Just like how the molecular sturcture and contractions of your biceps are the physical underpinnings of how you lift your arm.
No, if the mind is purely physically based then it is just chemical reactions, right?
And Chemistry 101 tells us that the product of a chemical reaction is determined by ratio of the reagents in the reaction. Therefore, the mind cannot actually weigh arguments or evidence, it is just an illusion of the predetermined chemical processes.
Yes, because your belief in a physical mind is just based on the chemical makeup of your brain and not based on any consideration of evidence but rather predetermined at birth by your brain chemistry.
How does a chemical reaction produce a product WITHOUT being based on the ratio of the reagents in the reaction?
But your arm can't reason so there is no problem there. We are talking about logical reasoning compared to chemical reactions.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because there is strong evidence that the mind can operate according to the laws of logic, physical entities only operate according to the laws of physics.
eud: That makes no sense to me whatsoever in terms of your position. I thought it was your position that the "laws of logic" apply to the natural universe. In post 121, you had claimed that "causality is a law of logic".
No, we are talking about the basic laws of chemistry. We know from Chemistry 101 that the products of chemical reactions are determined by the ratio of the reagents. So if the mind is entirely physical then its conclusions are based on those reactions, which cannot weigh evidence and arguments.ed: IOW if the mind is entirely physical then all your conclusions are just based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain not on the weighing of evidence and argument.
eud: I have no reason to think that a biochemical brain can't weigh evidence and argument. A brain isn't just a soup in which only some "ratio of chemicals" matters in the same way that a "ratio of meat to vegetables" matters in a can of soup at the supermarket. Brains are quite a bit more complex than that.
Huh? The whole field of Cosmogony is based on that assumption.Source? And I don't mean a source for cosmologists who believe that the universe started with a Big Bang. I mean for that part in bold above.
I have never heard cosmologists talk about how "the universe has all the characteristics of an effect", as if that was some big issue in cosmology. That seems to be your claim, and of course that of some Christian apologists.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Most all cosmologists that engage in the study of cosmogony believe it is an effect.I can't find it.
I can't read Dr. Goldsmith's own words on the subject in context, so I'm left without any way to continue with that line of conversation.
eudaimonia,
Mark
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?