Originally posted by knightmeister
There's only one big bang isn't there? The known universe seems to work in a way where all events seem to be traceable to one known brute fact - the big bang. The theme of lots of things being derived from one thing is a basic pattern.

I couldn't care less about the Big Bang. I'm asking about your initial argument -- the one the purports to show that existence is a mystery. Where does it support the notion that there exists one [/i]and only one[/i] brute fact?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I couldn't care less about the Big Bang. I'm asking about your initial argument -- the one the purports to show that existence is a mystery. Where does it support the notion that there exists one [/i]and only one[/i] brute fact?

Why does it matter anyway. One brute fact or many? They would still be inexplicable and impossible to account for. It would be impossible to say "the reason these/this brute fact/s exist is because....x y z "

They would just "BE".

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I said uncaused CAUSE , not event. God to me is the uncaused cause of existence , but he is not an event - events have causes. A self sustaining independent entity does not "happen" like an event does - it just IS.

I have never said that there must be at least one uncaused "event".

I need more clarification on your distinction between cause ...[text shortened]... se?

-------
**For example, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/[/b]

Basically , to me an event is a "reaction" that is dependent on some other cause. Of course the cause might actually be an event , in which case we would trace back further until we find the first cause. We keep going until we can go no further.

We reach the point where what we are left with would be a brute fact. A brute fact would not be an "event" or reaction to somthing else becasue there is nothing else. God is that point where we can go no further in this process. It makes sense to describe God as the ultimate Uncaused Cause of all events , but not to call him an event himself. You might say that actually God did not technically "cause2 the universe to exist and instead it wasn't God but his "power" or something that caused it. But this is just pedantry.

If I make a clay pot it would be silly to claim that I was not the cause of that pot but infact it was my hand that caused it to be. 🙄

Originally posted by knightmeister
Basically , to me an event is a "reaction" that is dependent on some other cause. Of course the cause might actually be an event , in which case we would trace back further until we find the first cause. We keep going until we can go no further.

But your choice of tracing backwards is merely due to your bias due to the illusion of time. You could just as easily trace forwards.

We reach the point where what we are left with would be a brute fact.
I am not sure that that is physically possible. I find it more plausible that the brute fact is not a cause but rather something in a different category such as existence itself or the laws of physics. If you trace the path of a ball on a pool table you will not find a cause effect chain that terminates in the existence of the pool table or the laws of physics that make it move.


God is that point where we can go no further in this process. It makes sense to describe God as the ultimate Uncaused Cause of all events , but not to call him an event himself.
Do you mean a part of God, or is God an unchanging entity? If he is unchanging, how does he cause things?

If I make a clay pot it would be silly to claim that I was not the cause of that pot but infact it was my hand that caused it to be. 🙄
Or maybe the pot was what caused you to make it. We do not know which is the primary entity you or the pot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your choice of tracing backwards is merely due to your bias due to the illusion of time. You could just as easily trace forwards.

[b]We reach the point where what we are left with would be a brute fact.
I am not sure that that is physically possible. I find it more plausible that the brute fact is not a cause but rather something in a differen ...[text shortened]... e pot was what caused you to make it. We do not know which is the primary entity you or the pot.[/b]

But your choice of tracing backwards is merely due to your bias due to the illusion of time. You could just as easily trace forwards.
------whitey-------------------

I did not say anything about tracing back in "time". I meant tracing back in causal chains. If tracing back means going forward in time to find the original cause then so be it. You don't really understand what I am saying.

It 's actually about events being dependent on other causes and causality. If causality happens from the future to the past it's doesn't matter because the relationship is still causal and one can "trace back" (philosophically) to imagine a brute fact uncaused cause for all causes.

The only other logical option is infinite causal chains which is suggestive of eternity anyway because there's no beginning to it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your choice of tracing backwards is merely due to your bias due to the illusion of time. You could just as easily trace forwards.

[b]We reach the point where what we are left with would be a brute fact.
I am not sure that that is physically possible. I find it more plausible that the brute fact is not a cause but rather something in a differen ...[text shortened]... e pot was what caused you to make it. We do not know which is the primary entity you or the pot.[/b]

find it more plausible that the brute fact is not a cause but rather something in a different category such as existence itself or the laws of physics.
----------------------------whitey-------------------------

Fair enough , but the laws of physics would still be a brute fact. They would have a certain quality about them. No-one would be able to explain why the laws of physics were the way they were . It would be inexplicable. They would just "BE" .....a bit of a mystery really.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your choice of tracing backwards is merely due to your bias due to the illusion of time. You could just as easily trace forwards.

[b]We reach the point where what we are left with would be a brute fact.
I am not sure that that is physically possible. I find it more plausible that the brute fact is not a cause but rather something in a differen ...[text shortened]... e pot was what caused you to make it. We do not know which is the primary entity you or the pot.[/b]

Do you mean a part of God, or is God an unchanging entity? If he is unchanging, how does he cause things?
-------whitey----------------------

How am I supposed to know. It's all a mystery really.....

My guess is he has unlimited power to initiate things but as to how he does it....I mean ....does he have fingers or something?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I couldn't care less about the Big Bang. I'm asking about your initial argument -- the one the purports to show that existence is a mystery. Where does it support the notion that there exists one [/i]and only one[/i] brute fact?

I couldn't care less about the Big Bang.
----lemon-------------------

That's a shame .....you wouldn't be here without it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But your choice of tracing backwards is merely due to your bias due to the illusion of time. You could just as easily trace forwards.

[b]We reach the point where what we are left with would be a brute fact.
I am not sure that that is physically possible. I find it more plausible that the brute fact is not a cause but rather something in a differen ...[text shortened]... e pot was what caused you to make it. We do not know which is the primary entity you or the pot.[/b]

If you trace the path of a ball on a pool table you will not find a cause effect chain that terminates in the existence of the pool table or the laws of physics that make it move.
------------------------whitey-------------------

But you could make a decent stab (with the right information and a computer the size of andromeda) at tracing what caused the pool ball to move right from the cue to the arm of the player , all the way back through his birth , the evolution of humanity , life on earth , the formation of our sun , supernovas, the early universe etc etc to the big bang yes?

Without the big bang the pool ball cannot move or even exist. The big bang could be the brute fact of existence , or whatever caused the big bang. Or whatever caused the cause of the big bang. Or whatever caused the cause of the cause of the big bang (x10000000000) . Where does it stop? Or does it? That's the mystery.......

Originally posted by knightmeister
But you could make a decent stab (with the right information and a computer the size of andromeda) at tracing what caused the pool ball to move right from the cue to the arm of the player , all the way back through his birth , the evolution of humanity , life on earth , the formation of our sun , supernovas, the early universe etc etc to the big bang yes?

No. The biggest super computer in the world cant even find the cause of a dice landing on a given number.

Without the big bang the pool ball cannot move or even exist. The big bang could be the brute fact of existence , or whatever caused the big bang. Or whatever caused the cause of the big bang. Or whatever caused the cause of the cause of the big bang (x10000000000) . Where does it stop? Or does it? That's the mystery.......
If time is continuous then it doesn't stop. The brute fact then is that time and the laws of physics exist - though the motion of objects may also be impacted by brute facts.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why does it matter anyway. One brute fact or many? They would still be inexplicable and impossible to account for. It would be impossible to say "the reason these/this brute fact/s exist is because....x y z "

They would just "BE".

Why does it matter anyway. One brute fact or many?

Are you forgetting the implications of your own assertions and definitions? It matters to your position on 'ultimate truth' because, as I already explained to you, your own definition of 'ultimate truth' entails one and only one brute fact. If this isn't what you intend to convey, you better get a new definition.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Basically , to me an event is a "reaction" that is dependent on some other cause. Of course the cause might actually be an event , in which case we would trace back further until we find the first cause. We keep going until we can go no further.

We reach the point where what we are left with would be a brute fact. A brute fact would not be an "even ot the cause of that pot but infact it was my hand that caused it to be. 🙄

It makes sense to describe God as the ultimate Uncaused Cause of all events

How does that make sense? I cannot understand what the actual substance of your claim even is. Again, let me try to repeat my concern and maybe this time you will understand what my concern actually is. My concern is that it is considered standard to view causal relata in the following way: events cause events***. That is, both the cause and the effect are in the category of event. Under this view, causes are events (not agents). For instance, sure we could loosely say something like "knightmeister caused event E" or "knightmeister was the cause". But I always interpret these as a type of shorthand: what actually caused event E was not knightmeister properly speaking but rather an event that involved knightmeister in some substantial way.

, but not to call him an event himself.

I know it doesn't make any sense to call any agent himself (let alone a particular agent, God) an event. But then, again, how does it make any sense to call an agent a cause? Again, your intepretation of causal relata is that causes are not (or at least are not always) events. So what type of things are causes? And why should we think an agent, such as God, could qualify as a cause himself?

I am skeptical you can answer such questions in any coherent way.

You might say that actually God did not technically "cause2 the universe to exist and instead it wasn't God but his "power" or something that caused it. But this is just pedantry.

Nope, this is an important, material point. But I think you still don't get it. Strictly speaking, I think "His power" can no more be a cause than He can. This is of course a debatable topic, and I am just looking for some discussion here. The relevant questions would be, what sort of things are causes; and how could something like an agent (or his power) qualify as such a sort of thing?

-----------
***Of course, there are important non-standard views, too. Some of those are touched on in the link I provided earlier.

EDIT: Maybe you do just mean God is a cause in a loose sense similar to the loose sense I described above. My question for you would still be, what do you think talk of cause actually breaks down into (if not down to talk of events)?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I couldn't care less about the Big Bang.
----lemon-------------------

That's a shame .....you wouldn't be here without it.

😴

Try actually preserving the context of what I said.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I did not say anything about tracing back in "time". I meant tracing back in causal chains. If tracing back means going forward in time to find the original cause then so be it. You don't really understand what I am saying.

But what if the future is infinite? What then? That destroys your whole 'big bang' piece of the argument.

It 's actually about events being dependent on other causes and causality.
They are related. Event tightly related. But I dispute the fact that one is more important than the other. The whole system either is or isn't. You cannot have a cause without an event so the cause is as dependent on the event as the event is on the cause. Labeling something the 'primary cause' is uncalled for. There is no one cause or event that is the brute fact.

The only other logical option is infinite causal chains which is suggestive of eternity anyway because there's no beginning to it.
I have no problem with eternity. In fact I think it is almost a necessary property of the universe. However I disagree with you on what possible eternities there may be. For me eternity simply means continuous which in mathematics does not exclude boundedness.

Originally posted by LemonJello
😴

Try actually preserving the context of what I said.

Try having a sense of humour....😀