Religions > Atheism > Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... )
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
11 May 2004 10:20:13 PM |
| Object: |
Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
On Wednesday, 12 May 2004, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com>
wrote:
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Why? That is an invalid assumption.
First of all, how is an assumption "invalid"? Do you understand the
concept of validity? Arguments are valid or invalid; assertions are
neither valid nor invalid (though certain conditional propositions can
be scrutinized in terms of whether the antecedent implies the
consequent or not).
As for the basis of assumption two, it is based on the iron clad rule
that you cannot have an infinite regress (in any other subject of
academia, it is agreed that if a hypothesis can be shown to imply an
infinite regress, that hypothesis is thus refuted). Furthermore,
suppose the coming into existence of object X (this could be your
cofee table, you, me, my cat, the state of New York) was preceeded by
an infinite causal regress. Object X could only come into existence
after an infinite sequence of causes was completed, but an infinite
sequence of causes cannot be completed, thus object X would never come
into existence. Therefore, any object that exists does not exist at
the end of an infinite causal chain (i.e. it is not proceeded by an
infinite causal regress).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible. Consider a man who hits a billiard
ball with his stick, causing the billiard ball to hit a second
billiard ball. The second billiard ball was caused to go into motion
by a mechanical cause (the first billiard ball), which was in turn
caused to move by another mechanical cause (the pool stick), which in
turn was caused to move by a personal cause (the man). Think of the
difference between the two boiling down to an issue of possessing
volition. Imagine, conversely, the first billiard ball just getting up
and moving on its own - being the first cause in a chain of causes
that result in various other billiard balls moving. How could it get
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
<snip remainder of faulty argument>
With all due respect, you have failed to show that the argument is
faulty.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
12 May 2004 12:40:37 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405111920.4e9d5d7b@posting.google.com...
On Wednesday, 12 May 2004, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com>
wrote:
(snip)
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible. Consider a man who hits a billiard
ball with his stick, causing the billiard ball to hit a second
billiard ball. The second billiard ball was caused to go into motion
by a mechanical cause (the first billiard ball), which was in turn
caused to move by another mechanical cause (the pool stick), which in
turn was caused to move by a personal cause (the man).
Whoa! Why is the man classified as personal and not mechanical? Is not every
molecule of his brain acting according to physical laws as inviolate as the
billiard balls themselves?
Think of the
difference between the two boiling down to an issue of possessing
volition.
Don't you mean "magic"? What is this "volition" you're talking about? Do the
billiard balls have volition? Do the molecules of the man's brain have
volition? Where does this magical "volition" ***** come into the picture?
Imagine, conversely, the first billiard ball just getting up
and moving on its own - being the first cause in a chain of causes
that result in various other billiard balls moving. How could it get
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
The same way the insensate molecules of our brains operate. Mechanically.
(snip)
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
12 May 2004 12:07:53 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<e9ydneern9DTJDzd4p2dnA@io.com>...
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible. Consider a man who hits a billiard
ball with his stick, causing the billiard ball to hit a second
billiard ball. The second billiard ball was caused to go into motion
by a mechanical cause (the first billiard ball), which was in turn
caused to move by another mechanical cause (the pool stick), which in
turn was caused to move by a personal cause (the man).
Whoa! Why is the man classified as personal and not mechanical? Is not every
molecule of his brain acting according to physical laws as inviolate as the
billiard balls themselves?
Well, are you a hard determinist? If the man has no say in his
actions, no ability to make a decision of his own, then yes, he is a
mechanical agent, and we push the causal chain back. However, if there
is some semblance of volition or free decision making in the man, then
hard determinism is false, and he is, in some sense, a personal agent.
I myself do no ascribe to a hard determinist position.
Think of the
difference between the two boiling down to an issue of possessing
volition.
Don't you mean "magic"? What is this "volition" you're talking about? Do the
billiard balls have volition? Do the molecules of the man's brain have
volition? Where does this magical "volition" ***** come into the picture?
None of these objects/entities necessarily possess volition. However,
if one of these objects/entities is able to perform an action without
being caused to do so by any other causal agent, that implies volition
(the ability to move on one's own). It makes it a personal agent.
Imagine, conversely, the first billiard ball just getting up
and moving on its own - being the first cause in a chain of causes
that result in various other billiard balls moving. How could it get
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
The same way the insensate molecules of our brains operate. Mechanically.
Are you sayinf that the molecules of our brains operate uncaused? If
so, on what grounds do you assert this? If not, what made you think
this is relevant? The issue of volition and being personal comes up
when an entity moves without being caused to do so by some other
causal agent.
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&filter=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
12 May 2004 12:40:28 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120907.1ac1c69b@posting.google.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<e9ydneern9DTJDzd4p2dnA@io.com>...
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible. Consider a man who hits a billiard
ball with his stick, causing the billiard ball to hit a second
billiard ball. The second billiard ball was caused to go into motion
by a mechanical cause (the first billiard ball), which was in turn
caused to move by another mechanical cause (the pool stick), which in
turn was caused to move by a personal cause (the man).
Whoa! Why is the man classified as personal and not mechanical? Is not
every
molecule of his brain acting according to physical laws as inviolate as
the
billiard balls themselves?
Well, are you a hard determinist?
Can you provide an alternative? I can't see one.
If the man has no say in his
actions, no ability to make a decision of his own, then yes, he is a
mechanical agent, and we push the causal chain back. However, if there
is some semblance of volition or free decision making in the man, then
hard determinism is false, and he is, in some sense, a personal agent.
I myself do no ascribe to a hard determinist position.
Where does volition enter the picture? Since the molecules of my brain don't
have volition, then where does it come from?
Think of the
difference between the two boiling down to an issue of possessing
volition.
Don't you mean "magic"? What is this "volition" you're talking about? Do
the
billiard balls have volition? Do the molecules of the man's brain have
volition? Where does this magical "volition" ***** come into the picture?
None of these objects/entities necessarily possess volition. However,
if one of these objects/entities is able to perform an action without
being caused to do so by any other causal agent, that implies volition
(the ability to move on one's own). It makes it a personal agent.
"IF"? For there to be a personal agent, you have to SHOW that the
objects/entities actually DO perform an action without being caused to do so
by any other causal agent. You have not done so, so personal agents remain
speculative.
Imagine, conversely, the first billiard ball just getting up
and moving on its own - being the first cause in a chain of causes
that result in various other billiard balls moving. How could it get
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
The same way the insensate molecules of our brains operate.
Mechanically.
Are you sayinf that the molecules of our brains operate uncaused?
No. Their mechanical motions are just another causal link in an unbroken
chain leading back to the big bang.
If
so, on what grounds do you assert this? If not, what made you think
this is relevant? The issue of volition and being personal comes up
when an entity moves without being caused to do so by some other
causal agent.
And you have not demonstrated that such a thing is possible.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
11 May 2004 10:47:01 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405111920.4e9d5d7b@posting.google.com...
On Wednesday, 12 May 2004, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com>
wrote:
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Why? That is an invalid assumption.
First of all, how is an assumption "invalid"?
It hasn't been shown to be true.
There is no basis for it.
<snip>
As for the basis of assumption two, it is based on the iron clad rule
that you cannot have an infinite regress (in any other subject of
academia, it is agreed that if a hypothesis can be shown to imply an
infinite regress, that hypothesis is thus refuted).
Nonsense. Support that.
<snip>
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible.
Maybe in some context but not here.
You haven't even defined those terms.
<snip>
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
Which could easily be argued to be mechanical.
<snip remainder of faulty argument>
With all due respect, you have failed to show that the argument is
faulty.
To many it would have been immediately obvious.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
12 May 2004 11:51:18 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<V6hoc.15114$BG1.5856@twister.socal.rr.com>...
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Why? That is an invalid assumption.
First of all, how is an assumption "invalid"?
It hasn't been shown to be true.
There is no basis for it.
Assuming this accurately describes premise (2) above, that would mean
there is not good reason to accept it as true. It would not mean it is
"invalid". You need to brush up on your logic, and see that issues of
validity pertain to arguments, not propositions.
As for the basis of assumption two, it is based on the iron clad rule
that you cannot have an infinite regress (in any other subject of
academia, it is agreed that if a hypothesis can be shown to imply an
infinite regress, that hypothesis is thus refuted).
Nonsense. Support that.
What do you mean nonsense? Try plugging "infinite regress" into a
search engine. In any field, if a hypothesis can be shown to lead to
an infinite regress, that hypothesis is rejected on such grounds.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible.
Maybe in some context but not here.
You haven't even defined those terms.
I did define the terms, and you conveniently snipped the explanation.
Here it is again:
Consider a man who hits a billiard ball with his stick, causing the
billiard ball to hit a second billiard ball. The second billiard ball
was caused to go into motion by a mechanical cause (the first billiard
ball), which was in turn caused to move by another mechanical cause
(the pool stick), which in turn was caused to move by a personal cause
(the man). Think of the difference between the two boiling down to an
issue of possessing volition. Imagine, conversely, the first billiard
ball just getting up and moving on its own - being the first cause in
a chain of causes that result in various other billiard balls moving.
How could it get up and move on its own without being personal (i.e.
without being conscious, or possessing volition)?
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
Which could easily be argued to be mechanical.
How is that? How does a billiard ball get up and move on its own,
without any causal agents acting upon it, in a purely mechanical way?
I'd love to see you explain this. Do you understand basic mechanics?
Once again, the argument is as follows:
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
(6) A first cause cannot be mechanical.
(7) Therefore, a first cause is personal.
I await any response.
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&filter=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
12 May 2004 12:46:33 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120851.2b1ec668@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<V6hoc.15114$BG1.5856@twister.socal.rr.com>...
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Why? That is an invalid assumption.
First of all, how is an assumption "invalid"?
It hasn't been shown to be true.
There is no basis for it.
Assuming this accurately describes premise (2) above, that would mean
there is not good reason to accept it as true. It would not mean it is
"invalid". You need to brush up on your logic, and see that issues of
validity pertain to arguments, not propositions.
Oh, sorry. I didn't use the proper term from the field
of formal logic. Next time I'll just say, *****.
That should be clear.
As for the basis of assumption two, it is based on the iron clad rule
that you cannot have an infinite regress (in any other subject of
academia, it is agreed that if a hypothesis can be shown to imply an
infinite regress, that hypothesis is thus refuted).
Nonsense. Support that.
What do you mean nonsense? Try plugging "infinite regress" into a
search engine.
No. The burden of proof is on you.
In any field, if a hypothesis can be shown to lead to
an infinite regress, that hypothesis is rejected on such grounds.
The Oscillatory cosmological theory, that there is an
endless cycle of big bangs and big crunches, was popular
for many decades.
It was never rejected because of 'infinite regress' despite
containing that.
It was rejected when it was discovered that the expansion
of the universe is not slowing down.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible.
Maybe in some context but not here.
You haven't even defined those terms.
I did define the terms, and you conveniently snipped the explanation.
Here it is again:
Consider a man who hits a billiard ball with his stick, causing the
billiard ball to hit a second billiard ball. The second billiard ball
was caused to go into motion by a mechanical cause (the first billiard
ball), which was in turn caused to move by another mechanical cause
(the pool stick), which in turn was caused to move by a personal cause
(the man). Think of the difference between the two boiling down to an
issue of possessing volition. Imagine, conversely, the first billiard
ball just getting up and moving on its own - being the first cause in
a chain of causes that result in various other billiard balls moving.
How could it get up and move on its own without being personal (i.e.
without being conscious, or possessing volition)?
(That is rather fuzzy, anecdotal, and hardly rigorous.)
From that I get:
Machanical is the interaction
of physical object following the laws of nature.
Personal is volition and consciousness.
But volition and consciousness are the interaction
of physical objects, brain cells, ions, neurons,
and muscles, following the laws of nature.
'Personal' is 'mechanical'.
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
Which could easily be argued to be mechanical.
How is that? How does a billiard ball get up and move on its own,
without any causal agents acting upon it, in a purely mechanical way?
Do raindrops have volition?
I'd love to see you explain this.
See above.
Do you understand basic mechanics?
Much better than you.
<snip repeat of faulty argument.
The faulty portions under discussion continue
in line.>
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
12 May 2004 12:02:49 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405111920.4e9d5d7b@posting.google.com...
On Wednesday, 12 May 2004, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com>
wrote:
Nico, your argument his got to be the stupidest thing I have seen in quite
some time. The fact that you can't spot the obvious flaws in it reflects
badly on your intelligence.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Why? That is an invalid assumption.
First of all, how is an assumption "invalid"? Do you understand the
concept of validity? Arguments are valid or invalid; assertions are
neither valid nor invalid (though certain conditional propositions can
be scrutinized in terms of whether the antecedent implies the
consequent or not).
One definition of the word "invalid" is ""falsely based or reasoned;
faulty". (From the American Heritage Dictionary) Clearly this is a faulty
assumption (it's not true) so it's invalid.
As for the basis of assumption two, it is based on the iron clad rule
that you cannot have an infinite regress (in any other subject of
academia, it is agreed that if a hypothesis can be shown to imply an
infinite regress, that hypothesis is thus refuted).
Where did you hear this *****? It's not true at all.
Furthermore,
suppose the coming into existence of object X (this could be your
cofee table, you, me, my cat, the state of New York) was preceeded by
an infinite causal regress. Object X could only come into existence
after an infinite sequence of causes was completed, but an infinite
sequence of causes cannot be completed, thus object X would never come
into existence. Therefore, any object that exists does not exist at
the end of an infinite causal chain (i.e. it is not proceeded by an
infinite causal regress).
You're a fucking idiot. You don't have the slightest idea of the concept of
infinity. Consider a line that goes from 0 to infinity. It is infinitely
long. But so is the line from 0 to negative infinity. The zero is at one
end of the line (the only end) and it extends an infinite distance. You are
making a rather obvious mistake in your denial that the number zero does not
lie at the end of this infinite line.
Let me also give you a longer explanation because you are probably too
stupid to understand the above paragraph.
Suppose event X occurs at time zero which I arbitrarily set as the present
time. Events in the future have positive times. Events in the past have
negative times. You are making the mistake of taking an arbitrary event in
the past and using that as the start of your line in the future direction.
Obviously a line that goes between two finite points is not infinite, but
this is not the proper model to use. The proper model to use is a line from
zero to negative infinity.
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible. Consider a man who hits a billiard
ball with his stick, causing the billiard ball to hit a second
billiard ball. The second billiard ball was caused to go into motion
by a mechanical cause (the first billiard ball), which was in turn
caused to move by another mechanical cause (the pool stick), which in
turn was caused to move by a personal cause (the man). Think of the
difference between the two boiling down to an issue of possessing
volition. Imagine, conversely, the first billiard ball just getting up
and moving on its own - being the first cause in a chain of causes
that result in various other billiard balls moving. How could it get
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
This is an absurd and extremely ambiguous separation. In fact, it is
probably impossible to objectively classify all causes as one or the other.
There are probably other causes that may or may not overlap either of these
causes.
<snip remainder of faulty argument>
With all due respect, you have failed to show that the argument is
faulty.
With all due respect you're a fucking idiot. And I'm being kind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
12 May 2004 12:03:28 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<bvWdnXy5Jf2OLTzdRVn-jg@adelphia.com>...
Nico, your argument his got to be the stupidest thing I have seen in quite
some time.
We'll see.
The fact that you can't spot the obvious flaws in it reflects
badly on your intelligence.
Well, I can only benefit from these alleged flaws being pointed out to
me.
(1) A causal chain either stretches back infinitely or
it stretches back a finite distance.
(2) You cannot have an infinite causal regress (i.e. a
causal chain that stretches back infinitely).
Why? That is an invalid assumption.
First of all, how is an assumption "invalid"? Do you understand the
concept of validity? Arguments are valid or invalid; assertions are
neither valid nor invalid (though certain conditional propositions can
be scrutinized in terms of whether the antecedent implies the
consequent or not).
One definition of the word "invalid" is ""falsely based or reasoned;
faulty". (From the American Heritage Dictionary) Clearly this is a faulty
assumption (it's not true) so it's invalid.
How is it a faulty assumption? If you're positively asserting that it
is a faulty assumption, you should back that assertion up. As for my
support for premise (2), I gave it below.
As for the basis of assumption two, it is based on the iron clad rule
that you cannot have an infinite regress (in any other subject of
academia, it is agreed that if a hypothesis can be shown to imply an
infinite regress, that hypothesis is thus refuted).
Where did you hear this *****? It's not true at all.
Wow, you must be right considering the fact that you employed profane
language. Actually, in academia, this is an iron clad rule. If a
hypothesis is shown to lead to an infinite regress, the hypothesis is
rejected.
Furthermore,
suppose the coming into existence of object X (this could be your
cofee table, you, me, my cat, the state of New York) was preceeded by
an infinite causal regress. Object X could only come into existence
after an infinite sequence of causes was completed, but an infinite
sequence of causes cannot be completed, thus object X would never come
into existence. Therefore, any object that exists does not exist at
the end of an infinite causal chain (i.e. it is not proceeded by an
infinite causal regress).
You're a fucking idiot.
Oooh, good one. Maybe you can refute my argument further by saying
something nasty about my mother?
You don't have the slightest idea of the concept of
infinity. Consider a line that goes from 0 to infinity. It is infinitely
long. But so is the line from 0 to negative infinity. The zero is at one
end of the line (the only end) and it extends an infinite distance. You are
making a rather obvious mistake in your denial that the number zero does not
lie at the end of this infinite line.
This is a mathematical concept. That is not the same as an actual
infinitely long causal chain.
Let me also give you a longer explanation because you are probably too
stupid to understand the above paragraph.
Maybe!
Suppose event X occurs at time zero which I arbitrarily set as the present
time. Events in the future have positive times. Events in the past have
negative times. You are making the mistake of taking an arbitrary event in
the past and using that as the start of your line in the future direction.
Obviously a line that goes between two finite points is not infinite, but
this is not the proper model to use. The proper model to use is a line from
zero to negative infinity.
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
Let me make this nice and clear for you:
(a) If event X is preceded by an infinite causal regress,
event X will never occur.
(2) Therefore, if event X has occured, it was not preceeded
by an infinite causal regress.
This is a simple negation of the consequent, and the justification for
this position is given above. You have avoided this point, and opted
to offer ad hominems in stead.
(3) If you have a finite causal regress (i.e. a causal
chain that stretches back a finite distance),
there must be a first cause.
(4) Therefore, every causal chain has a first cause.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
Nonsensical. Baseless.
You might as well say, A first cause is either blue or fluffy.
It is not baseless in the least. The dichotomy between mechanical and
personal is perfectly sensible. Consider a man who hits a billiard
ball with his stick, causing the billiard ball to hit a second
billiard ball. The second billiard ball was caused to go into motion
by a mechanical cause (the first billiard ball), which was in turn
caused to move by another mechanical cause (the pool stick), which in
turn was caused to move by a personal cause (the man). Think of the
difference between the two boiling down to an issue of possessing
volition. Imagine, conversely, the first billiard ball just getting up
and moving on its own - being the first cause in a chain of causes
that result in various other billiard balls moving. How could it get
up and move on its own without being personal (i.e. without being
conscious, or possessing volition)?
This is an absurd and extremely ambiguous separation. In fact, it is
probably impossible to objectively classify all causes as one or the other.
There are probably other causes that may or may not overlap either of these
causes.
It is true that a given bifurcation is not necessarily true. However,
if you're claiming my bifurcation is false, you should be able to
state a third option. I notice you have no real response to the point
of how an object without any volition or consciousness can get up and
move on its own without being caused to do so by some other causal
agent.
With all due respect you're a fucking idiot.
That's mature.
And I'm being kind.
Well, gee, I'd hate to see what you're like when you're not being
kind.
-Nico Demusopelous
See my complete posting history in alt.atheism:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com&filter=0
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 12:04:54 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
You're arguing Zeno's Paradoxes. Science and philosophy have progressed
beyond them. Try this link:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zenoelea.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 12:25:41 PM |
|
|
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gho6iF364p5U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
You're arguing Zeno's Paradoxes. Science and philosophy have progressed
beyond them. Try this link:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zenoelea.htm
Isn't it different? Zeno described dividing a finite
line segment into infinitely smaller segments.
He didn't start with an infinite line.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 01:44:56 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:pcOoc.51825$BG1.48235@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gho6iF364p5U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
You're arguing Zeno's Paradoxes. Science and philosophy have progressed
beyond them. Try this link:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zenoelea.htm
Isn't it different? Zeno described dividing a finite
line segment into infinitely smaller segments.
He didn't start with an infinite line.
Same argument, different words. A finite line is still an infinite series
of points - we're still talking about traversing an infinity. Infinity is a
concept, not a number.
Whether time has a beginning or not, "now" is as real as it gets. If we
have a linear model of time extending both forward and backward infinitely,
"now" is always at some point on that line, progressing in the "future"
direction. If event X occurs at a future time, you can guarantee that it
will be reached. As soon as you define a point, it becomes either
achievable in the future, or an event of the past, depending on it's
relationship to "now", and "now" moves inexorably on converting future
events into past events.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 03:17:36 PM |
|
|
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2ghu25F35nggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:pcOoc.51825$BG1.48235@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gho6iF364p5U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be
completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X
did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
You're arguing Zeno's Paradoxes. Science and philosophy have
progressed
beyond them. Try this link:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zenoelea.htm
Isn't it different? Zeno described dividing a finite
line segment into infinitely smaller segments.
He didn't start with an infinite line.
Same argument, different words.
I'm not a mathematician but I still think it is different.
A finite line is still an infinite series
of points - we're still talking about traversing an infinity.
An infinity of points, not distance.
Zeno argued that you can't traverse a finite distance
in a finite time.
We know that is false (even though that distance
contains an infinite number of points).
We know that it is true that you can't traverse
an infinite distance in a finite time.
We could take something of a calculus view
of Zeno's fallacy.
He seems to incorrectly imply the rate of travel
is some constant or incorrectly small
rate of points per time, d(point)/dt.
Or he fails to recognize that dt approaches
zero as the number of points approaches
infinity.
The real rate is some constant dx/dt.
As you consider ever more closely
spaced points the dx per point decreases
but the dt decreases proportionally.
Breaking up a finite line segment into an
infinite number of (dimensionless) points does not make
the line segment longer and does not
make it infinite in length.
The Zeno fallacy doesn't come in to play
in considering infinite time before now.
That time would be infinite without arbitrarily
dividing it into an infinite number of dimensionless
items and fallaciously claiming that that made
it infinite.
Eternal time before now would already be infinite.
Infinity is a
concept, not a number.
Right. No physical thing has been measured
to be infinite. No physical thing can be measured
to be infinite. I don't know if a physical thing
can even be shown to be infinite.
Whether time has a beginning or not, "now" is as real as it gets.
I won't argue that. ;)
If we
have a linear model of time extending both forward and backward
infinitely,
"now" is always at some point on that line, progressing in the "future"
direction. If event X occurs at a future time, you can guarantee that it
will be reached. As soon as you define a point, it becomes either
achievable in the future, or an event of the past, depending on it's
relationship to "now", and "now" moves inexorably on converting future
events into past events.
Interesting. I believe that big bang theory
says either there was
actually no space/time before the big bang or nothing can
be known about before the big bang.
So either time did have a beginning or there is a
beginning to the time we are able to know anything
about.
I have heard one cosmological theory related to
m-theory that allows for an eternity before now
but I don't know the details and I'm not sure it
is well developed.
Over all, it seems reasonable to me to believe that there
was likely a real or effective beginning to time.
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 04:01:22 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:AJQoc.52322$BG1.44692@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2ghu25F35nggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:pcOoc.51825$BG1.48235@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gho6iF364p5U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in
message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain
stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be
completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X
did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am
not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
You're arguing Zeno's Paradoxes. Science and philosophy have
progressed
beyond them. Try this link:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zenoelea.htm
Isn't it different? Zeno described dividing a finite
line segment into infinitely smaller segments.
He didn't start with an infinite line.
Same argument, different words.
I'm not a mathematician but I still think it is different.
A finite line is still an infinite series
of points - we're still talking about traversing an infinity.
An infinity of points, not distance.
Zeno argued that you can't traverse a finite distance
in a finite time.
We know that is false (even though that distance
contains an infinite number of points).
We know that it is true that you can't traverse
an infinite distance in a finite time.
We could take something of a calculus view
of Zeno's fallacy.
He seems to incorrectly imply the rate of travel
is some constant or incorrectly small
rate of points per time, d(point)/dt.
Or he fails to recognize that dt approaches
zero as the number of points approaches
infinity.
The real rate is some constant dx/dt.
As you consider ever more closely
spaced points the dx per point decreases
but the dt decreases proportionally.
Breaking up a finite line segment into an
infinite number of (dimensionless) points does not make
the line segment longer and does not
make it infinite in length.
The Zeno fallacy doesn't come in to play
in considering infinite time before now.
That time would be infinite without arbitrarily
dividing it into an infinite number of dimensionless
items and fallaciously claiming that that made
it infinite.
Eternal time before now would already be infinite.
Infinity is a
concept, not a number.
Right. No physical thing has been measured
to be infinite. No physical thing can be measured
to be infinite. I don't know if a physical thing
can even be shown to be infinite.
I'm probably wrong saying that Nico's argument is the same as Zeno's, I've
often been wrong in the past, and I'm sure I will be in future. However,
it's a very similar argument. A point on a line doesn't cease to exist just
because the line happens to be infinite. Anything infinitely traversing
that line has either already passed that point, or is approaching it, and
will eventually reach it.
Whether time has a beginning or not, "now" is as real as it gets.
I won't argue that. ;)
If we
have a linear model of time extending both forward and backward
infinitely,
"now" is always at some point on that line, progressing in the "future"
direction. If event X occurs at a future time, you can guarantee that
it
will be reached. As soon as you define a point, it becomes either
achievable in the future, or an event of the past, depending on it's
relationship to "now", and "now" moves inexorably on converting future
events into past events.
Interesting. I believe that big bang theory
says either there was
actually no space/time before the big bang or nothing can
be known about before the big bang.
So either time did have a beginning or there is a
beginning to the time we are able to know anything
about.
Yes, from the latest I've read of big bang theory, both space and time were
created in that event. This would suggest that, if time is linear, it has a
definite starting point.
I have heard one cosmological theory related to
m-theory that allows for an eternity before now
but I don't know the details and I'm not sure it
is well developed.
Over all, it seems reasonable to me to believe that there
was likely a real or effective beginning to time.
I'm with you on that. Will there be an end, though? ;o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 11:34:37 PM |
|
|
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gi61vF35afjU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:AJQoc.52322$BG1.44692@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2ghu25F35nggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:pcOoc.51825$BG1.48235@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gho6iF364p5U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in
message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip for brevity>
Infinity is a
concept, not a number.
Right. No physical thing has been measured
to be infinite. No physical thing can be measured
to be infinite. I don't know if a physical thing
can even be shown to be infinite.
I'm probably wrong saying that Nico's argument is the same as Zeno's, I've
often been wrong in the past, and I'm sure I will be in future.
I've been wrong before.... once or twice. ;)
I probably will be wrong again.... someday. ;)
I might actually be wrong about this 'beginning of time'.
However,
it's a very similar argument.
Yes, it is.
A point on a line doesn't cease to exist just
because the line happens to be infinite.
Agreed.
Anything infinitely traversing
that line has either already passed that point, or is approaching it, and
will eventually reach it.
Not to belabor the point, but time is a real thing.
I don't think any real thing can be measured to be
infinite. The measurer would have to be infinite
and it would never be finished.
I don't know.
There is a Berkeley mathematician who appears
in a.a occasionally.
Maybe he will see this and have a comment.
Whether time has a beginning or not, "now" is as real as it gets.
I won't argue that. ;)
If we
have a linear model of time extending both forward and backward
infinitely,
"now" is always at some point on that line, progressing in the
"future"
direction. If event X occurs at a future time, you can guarantee that
it
will be reached. As soon as you define a point, it becomes either
achievable in the future, or an event of the past, depending on it's
relationship to "now", and "now" moves inexorably on converting future
events into past events.
Interesting. I believe that big bang theory
says either there was
actually no space/time before the big bang or nothing can
be known about before the big bang.
So either time did have a beginning or there is a
beginning to the time we are able to know anything
about.
Yes, from the latest I've read of big bang theory, both space and time
were
created in that event. This would suggest that, if time is linear, it has
a
definite starting point.
I think it is a pratical view for the present.
I have heard one cosmological theory related to
m-theory that allows for an eternity before now
but I don't know the details and I'm not sure it
is well developed.
Over all, it seems reasonable to me to believe that there
was likely a real or effective beginning to time.
I'm with you on that. Will there be an end, though? ;o)
Probably not in our time. ;)
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 02:24:41 PM |
|
|
In article <2ghu25F35nggU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:pcOoc.51825$BG1.48235@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gho6iF364p5U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
You're arguing Zeno's Paradoxes. Science and philosophy have progressed
beyond them. Try this link:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zenoelea.htm
Isn't it different? Zeno described dividing a finite
line segment into infinitely smaller segments.
He didn't start with an infinite line.
Same argument, different words. A finite line is still an infinite series
of points - we're still talking about traversing an infinity. Infinity is a
concept, not a number.
Whether time has a beginning or not, "now" is as real as it gets. If we
have a linear model of time extending both forward and backward infinitely,
"now" is always at some point on that line, progressing in the "future"
direction. If event X occurs at a future time, you can guarantee that it
will be reached. As soon as you define a point, it becomes either
achievable in the future, or an event of the past, depending on it's
relationship to "now", and "now" moves inexorably on converting future
events into past events.
Acccording to Relativity, "now" is purely local, as simultaneity of
events remote from one an other depends on the position and relative
motion of the observer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sara Brum" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 03:06:08 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-580D15.13244113052004@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <2ghu25F35nggU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:pcOoc.51825$BG1.48235@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.com> wrote in message
news:2gho6iF364p5U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in
message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain
stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be
completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X
did
occur, it was not at the end of an infinite causal regress. I am
not
arbitrarily setting some event in the past as the start.
You're arguing Zeno's Paradoxes. Science and philosophy have
progressed
beyond them. Try this link:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/z/zenoelea.htm
Isn't it different? Zeno described dividing a finite
line segment into infinitely smaller segments.
He didn't start with an infinite line.
Same argument, different words. A finite line is still an infinite
series
of points - we're still talking about traversing an infinity. Infinity
is a
concept, not a number.
Whether time has a beginning or not, "now" is as real as it gets. If we
have a linear model of time extending both forward and backward
infinitely,
"now" is always at some point on that line, progressing in the "future"
direction. If event X occurs at a future time, you can guarantee that
it
will be reached. As soon as you define a point, it becomes either
achievable in the future, or an event of the past, depending on it's
relationship to "now", and "now" moves inexorably on converting future
events into past events.
Acccording to Relativity, "now" is purely local, as simultaneity of
events remote from one an other depends on the position and relative
motion of the observer.
I'll freely admit to ignorance of the details of the ToR, so I'll take you
at your word for it. However, as we can't perceive "now" simultaneously
from two different relative perspectives, our infinite series of causal
events are either "now", past, or future relative to our local "now".
Of course, if Dr Lijun Wang has anything to shout about, thinking about
causality may cause a few more headaches than it does now. Does anyone know
if anything more has come of this:
http://www.electrogravityphysics.com/html/speed_of_light.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
13 May 2004 11:27:31 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405120903.62ea122c@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<bvWdnXy5Jf2OLTzdRVn-jg@adelphia.com>...
<snip>
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
Dude, that is not bad. Those two sentences are the
best argument you have made that there is a beginning,
that time does not go to minus infinity.
The subject is too metaphysical for me to accept as
absolutely true but I could certainly accept it for continuing
discussion.
<snip>
Let me make this nice and clear for you:
(a) If event X is preceded by an infinite causal regress,
event X will never occur.
(2) Therefore, if event X has occured, it was not preceeded
by an infinite causal regress.
I think it would be clearer if you replaced (a) with
the two sentences above.
<snip>
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
My challenge to that remains.
<snip>
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
14 May 2004 01:34:51 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<TlNoc.51822$BG1.4788@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Greetings Ron!
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
Dude, that is not bad. Those two sentences are the
best argument you have made that there is a beginning,
that time does not go to minus infinity.
The subject is too metaphysical for me to accept as
absolutely true but I could certainly accept it for continuing
discussion.
Thank you. I'm glad we're finally starting to find some common ground.
Now, this does not only have to do with the finitude of time. It is
also an argument for the finitude of a causal chain within time. The
argument seems to me to pretty clearly show that every causal chain
must be finite, or at least that anything that exists at the end of a
causal chain (such as you or me), exists at the end of a finite causal
chain. Which means there has to be a first cause in that chain. From
that we conclude that there is at least one (though not necessarily
one) causal agent that is ultimately responsible for the existence of
everything that exists at the end of a causal chain (though, I note
that it is not necessarily one, as there could be multiple exclusive
causal chains, which would mean exclusive first causes). Now the
question is with regard to whether a first cause
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
My challenge to that remains.
Okay, as you noted, the difference between mechanical and personal
boils down to volition and consciousness (like the difference between
a human being and a can opener). But you also wrote the following:
But volition and consciousness are the interaction
of physical objects, brain cells, ions, neurons,
and muscles, following the laws of nature.
'Personal' is 'mechanical'.
The objection I have here is that this is essentially a hard
determinist opinion. I generally steer clear of debates on hard
determinism, as I find them pointless. I reject hard determinism, and
I find it silly that a person would try to convince me to change my
position, since it is impossible to correctly choose to believe in
hard determinism. You can choose incorrectly to believe in hard
determinism, but you cannot correctly choose to do so. I don't have a
concrete argument for free will (the ability to choose) except for my
own personal experience. I see no more reason to deny the existence of
my ability to choose than to deny the existence of objective reality.
Furthermore, such a position as you are alluding to above would itself
seem to lead to an infinite regress, as it seems to presuppose that
some other agent has to necessarily cause you to move (i.e. no thing
can move on its own, purely of its own choice). However, if we have a
finite causal chain, the first cause, by definition, is not preceded
by any previous causal agents. How then, does that first cause move if
it does not possess some sense of volition? To think of a mechanical
first cause is as difficult for me to imagine as a billiard ball
getting up and moiving on its own for no reason whatsoever.
I look forward to your comments.
-Nico
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
14 May 2004 05:20:00 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405141034.702f185b@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<TlNoc.51822$BG1.4788@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Greetings Ron!
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
Dude, that is not bad. Those two sentences are the
best argument you have made that there is a beginning,
that time does not go to minus infinity.
The subject is too metaphysical for me to accept as
absolutely true but I could certainly accept it for continuing
discussion.
Thank you. I'm glad we're finally starting to find some common ground.
It's a rare warm feeling to have someone
in a.a agree with you, eh. ;) (Just being humorous.)
Now, this does not only have to do with the finitude of time. It is
also an argument for the finitude of a causal chain within time. The
argument seems to me to pretty clearly show that every causal chain
must be finite, or at least that anything that exists at the end of a
causal chain (such as you or me), exists at the end of a finite causal
chain. Which means there has to be a first cause in that chain. From
that we conclude that there is at least one (though not necessarily
one) causal agent that is ultimately responsible for the existence of
everything that exists at the end of a causal chain (though, I note
that it is not necessarily one, as there could be multiple exclusive
causal chains, which would mean exclusive first causes). Now the
question is with regard to whether a first cause
I can accept a first cause.
But I consider the universe to be the first cause.
I can't accept that it has any consciousness or
awareness.
(5) A first cause is either personal or mechanical.
My challenge to that remains.
Okay, as you noted, the difference between mechanical and personal
boils down to volition and consciousness (like the difference between
a human being and a can opener). But you also wrote the following:
But volition and consciousness are the interaction
of physical objects, brain cells, ions, neurons,
and muscles, following the laws of nature.
'Personal' is 'mechanical'.
The objection I have here is that this is essentially a hard
determinist opinion. I generally steer clear of debates on hard
determinism, as I find them pointless. I reject hard determinism, and
I find it silly that a person would try to convince me to change my
position, since it is impossible to correctly choose to believe in
hard determinism. You can choose incorrectly to believe in hard
determinism, but you cannot correctly choose to do so. I don't have a
concrete argument for free will (the ability to choose) except for my
own personal experience. I see no more reason to deny the existence of
my ability to choose than to deny the existence of objective reality.
I'm not really familiar with a formally defined philosophy
called 'determinism'.
Furthermore, such a position as you are alluding to above would itself
seem to lead to an infinite regress,
I don't see why.
as it seems to presuppose that
some other agent has to necessarily cause you to move
It is the energy that came about with the big bang
trickling down through me.
(i.e. no thing
can move on its own, purely of its own choice).
Do you remember my raindrop question?
However, if we have a
finite causal chain, the first cause, by definition, is not preceded
by any previous causal agents. How then, does that first cause move if
it does not possess some sense of volition?
Such a question would never occur to me.
What volition does a quasar have?
What volition does a raindrop have?
The only instances of 'volition' I see are in
living creatures that evolved out of the substance
of nature/the universe.
To think of a mechanical
first cause is as difficult for me to imagine as a billiard ball
getting up and moiving on its own for no reason whatsoever.
Raindrop?.... Hmm?...
--
Ron Baker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
14 May 2004 07:26:34 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 14 May 2004 11:34:51 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<TlNoc.51822$BG1.4788@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Greetings Ron!
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
Dude, that is not bad. Those two sentences are the
best argument you have made that there is a beginning,
that time does not go to minus infinity.
The subject is too metaphysical for me to accept as
absolutely true but I could certainly accept it for continuing
discussion.
Thank you. I'm glad we're finally starting to find some common ground.
Now, this does not only have to do with the finitude of time. It is
also an argument for the finitude of a causal chain within time.
Ah, but the universe is atemporal.
You should REALLY do some research into modern cosmology.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
10 Jun 2004 10:30:44 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<g6paa0hdfobc5c4f85jib70il2v2kbsjc4@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 14 May 2004 11:34:51 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<TlNoc.51822$BG1.4788@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Greetings Ron!
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
Dude, that is not bad. Those two sentences are the
best argument you have made that there is a beginning,
that time does not go to minus infinity.
The subject is too metaphysical for me to accept as
absolutely true but I could certainly accept it for continuing
discussion.
Thank you. I'm glad we're finally starting to find some common ground.
Now, this does not only have to do with the finitude of time. It is
also an argument for the finitude of a causal chain within time.
Ah, but the universe is atemporal.
Not the universe I live in; here events happen one after the other,
just as they happen in different places. I may not be able to
deductively prove that space and time are real, but that doesn't stop
me from believing that they exist.
Of course, you may not be referring to the observeable universe at
all, but to the alleged higher universe - the 'collection of
everything that exists' - that some here seem to believe in quite
fanatically. That may very well be both atemporal and aspatial, as
there's no evidence of it in space or time.
You should REALLY do some research into modern cosmology.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: first cause |
10 Jun 2004 12:19:43 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<g6paa0hdfobc5c4f85jib70il2v2kbsjc4@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 14 May 2004 11:34:51 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<TlNoc.51822$BG1.4788@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Greetings Ron!
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
Dude, that is not bad. Those two sentences are the
best argument you have made that there is a beginning,
that time does not go to minus infinity.
The subject is too metaphysical for me to accept as
absolutely true but I could certainly accept it for continuing
discussion.
Thank you. I'm glad we're finally starting to find some common ground.
Now, this does not only have to do with the finitude of time. It is
also an argument for the finitude of a causal chain within time.
Ah, but the universe is atemporal.
You should REALLY do some research into modern cosmology.
Don
Not the universe I live in; here events happen one after the other,
just as they happen in different places. I may not be able to
deductively prove that space and time are real, but that doesn't stop
me from believing that they exist.
Of course, you may not be referring to the observeable universe at
all, but to the alleged higher universe - the 'collection of
everything that exists' - that some here seem to believe in quite
fanatically. That may very well be both atemporal and aspatial, as
there's no evidence of it in space or time.
Bertrand Russell on why the theist argument there might be a God, the
hypothetical first cause, the hypothetical creator of the universe,
cannot have any validity:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: first cause |
10 Jun 2004 03:53:43 PM |
|
|
In article <PK0yc.13165$0y.5296@attbi_s03>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:<g6paa0hdfobc5c4f85jib70il2v2kbsjc4@4ax.com>...
In alt.atheism on 14 May 2004 11:34:51 -0700,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) let us all know
that:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<TlNoc.51822$BG1.4788@twister.socal.rr.com>...
Greetings Ron!
This totally ignores the point above. If the causal chain stretches
back infinitely, an infinite number of causal events must be completed
be for event X can occur. Becuase an actual infinite cannot be
traversed or completed, event X will never occur. Thus if event X did
Dude, that is not bad. Those two sentences are the
best argument you have made that there is a beginning,
that time does not go to minus infinity.
The subject is too metaphysical for me to accept as
absolutely true but I could certainly accept it for continuing
discussion.
Thank you. I'm glad we're finally starting to find some common ground.
Now, this does not only have to do with the finitude of time. It is
also an argument for the finitude of a causal chain within time.
Ah, but the universe is atemporal.
You should REALLY do some research into modern cosmology.
Don
Not the universe I live in; here events happen one after the other,
just as they happen in different places. I may not be able to
deductively prove that space and time are real, but that doesn't stop
me from believing that they exist.
Of course, you may not be referring to the observeable universe at
all, but to the alleged higher universe - the 'collection of
everything that exists' - that some here seem to believe in quite
fanatically. That may very well be both atemporal and aspatial, as
there's no evidence of it in space or time.
Bertrand Russell on why the theist argument there MIGHT be a God, the
hypothetical first cause, the hypothetical creator of the universe,
cannot have any validity:
Actually in the following, Russell only speaks against the argument that
there MUST be a first cause, and never speaks to the issue of whether
there MIGHT be one.
The flawed argument against "there Might be a first cause" is entirely
the invention of Dixit, AKA Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, and not at
all due to Russell. But read for yourself what RUSSELL says:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there MUST be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything MUST have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, again conflates "MIGHT" with "MUST" in
order to support his false claim that he KNOWs that gods are impossible.
While it may be true (there is no convincing evidence against it) it can
be no more that a presumption without convincing evidence, and such
evidence does not exist, however wildly Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
may wave his hands.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Dixit misrepresents my argument again! (was: A First Cause Argument for Don Kresch... ) |
14 May 2004 12:54:55 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:TlNoc | | | | |
