Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]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 relat ...[text shortened]... o you think talk of cause actually breaks down into (if not down to talk of events)?[/b]

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.===========lemon-----------------------------

This is normally true. A cause is actually an event really and all we do is pick out two events from a chain of events and say one is the cause (because it comes before) and the other an event (or effect because it comes after) . However, this is not the same with a brute fact because a brute fact (like God say) is not in the middle of a chain of events but at the START of all events. Thus God by definition is not just any old cause and your catagorisation of "causal relata" does not apply.

God (if he exists) is the cause of all events and without Him nothing would ever have happened.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is normally true. A cause is actually an event really and all we do is pick out two events from a chain of events and say one is the cause (because it comes before) and the other an event (or effect because it comes after) . However, this is not the same with a brute fact because a brute fact (like God say) is not in the middle of a chain of event ...[text shortened]... efinition is not just any old cause and your catagorisation of "causal relata" does not apply.

The question then is whether such causes that are not events can actually exist. I think LemonJello was arguing that they cannot.
Also you are probably ignoring the laws of physics which have a continuous effect on a causal chain but are neither cause nor effect.

God (if he exists) is the cause of all events and without Him nothing would ever have happened.
Or looked at another way, without everything, God would not exist.
There is a relationship between cause and effect, but I find it unreasonable to assign either extra importance.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The question then is whether such causes that are not events can actually exist. I think LemonJello was arguing that they cannot.
Also you are probably ignoring the laws of physics which have a continuous effect on a causal chain but are neither cause nor effect.

[b]God (if he exists) is the cause of all events and without Him nothing would ever have ...[text shortened]... tionship between cause and effect, but I find it unreasonable to assign either extra importance.

Or looked at another way, without everything, God would not exist.
There is a relationship between cause and effect, but I find it unreasonable to assign either extra importance.

------whitey--------------------------------

So both are reliant on each other then? Let's say this is true , that God and the Universe are both interdependant.

How would that state of affairs come about? Would they be eternally interdependent or would one have existed first? Maybe they both appeared out of nothing simultaneously? Either way you still have a brute fact on your hands of some sort and since no explanation can be logically forthcoming it's also a mystery.

Originally posted by knightmeister
How would that state of affairs come about?

Be careful not to attribute too much of an external time line to the situation.

Would they be eternally interdependent or would one have existed first?
Whichever is earlier on the time line is irrelevant. The brute fact of their existence covers the entirety of all the interdependent parts, no part is superior.

Maybe they both appeared out of nothing simultaneously?
External timeline again plus your old 'nothing' concept.

Either way you still have a brute fact on your hands of some sort and since no explanation can be logically forthcoming it's also a mystery.
I think we are all agreed that existence is ultimately a brute fact. I and others would not call it a mystery but whether that is merely our different understanding of the words common use or whether it reflects a difference in how fascinated by the conclusion we are I don't know.

You are yet to tell us why you are so fascinated by the existence of brute facts and what you think might follow from that conclusion.

Originally posted by knightmeister
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.===========lemon-----------------------------

This is normally true. A cause is actually an event really and all we do is pick out two events from a chain of events and s ...[text shortened]... od (if he exists) is the cause of all events and without Him nothing would ever have happened.

However, this is not the same with a brute fact because a brute fact (like God say)

🙄 Your views make less and less sense as we go. So now God is also a fact (in addition to his being an agent and a cause)? Nonsense; you cannot have it so many ways, and you need to start respecting notional distinctions. An agent (as in one who acts) is not a fact, so you need to abandon one or the other or both. The following is a very simple argument to show that God cannot be both an agent and a fact. A fact is something that is the case. So, now, suppose God, the agent, is a fact. Then I could state "It is the case that God" (or simply just state "God" ), and I would thereby have uttered a true statement about the world. But this is absurd. So God is not both an agent and a fact.

Basically, you cannot be this sloppy and get away with it. You cannot argue that there exists some brute fact and call it 'God'; and then go on to pretend that this is the same 'God' who is putatively an agent who, for example, has mentality and a will and carries out creative acts and interacts with his creation and makes judgments, etc, etc, and all the other baggage that goes along with common theistic interpretation. That is nonsense: facts do not operate as agents.

Thus God by definition is not just any old cause and your catagorisation of "causal relata" does not apply.

No. The subject of causal relata is perfectly applicable. It doesn't matter if God is putatively a "first cause" or a middle cause or a whatever cause: you still maintain that there are causal relata in the role of cause and effect; and you maintain that God is the cause. My question to you is the same and you haven't addressed it: how does it make sense to say God, an agent, is a cause? What sorts of things can be causes, and how would God, an agent, qualify?

God (if he exists) is the cause of all events and without Him nothing would ever have happened.

Your just stating this over and over doesn't give me any more reasons to accept it.

I consider your views more or less complete nonsense that just clutter up the world unnecessarily. You have some vague notion of 'mystery' related to brute aspects of the real in your head and you sort of just sloppily associate this with 'God'. At the same time you are committed to the agency of 'God' as a personal being under common theistic interpretation. I have no idea how any of this is supposed to be consistent. We agree substantively insofar as we agree that there probably exists at least one brute fact. Beyond that, I think you are just full of it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]However, this is not the same with a brute fact because a brute fact (like God say)

🙄 Your views make less and less sense as we go. So now God is also a fact (in addition to his being an agent and a cause)? Nonsense; you cannot have it so many ways, and you need to start respecting notional distinctions. An agent (as in one who acts) is not ...[text shortened]... sts at least one brute fact. Beyond that, I think you are just full of it.[/b]

Basically, you cannot be this sloppy and get away with it.----------------------------------lemon--------------------

I will admit that I don't use precise terms in the same way you do. I do use terms creatively. Equally I find your terminology over complex and intellectualised . I also find you tend to get immersed in small details (intentionally?) at the expense of the bigger picture.

The whole point of this thread is that as we trace things back (or forward) along causal chains we logically come up against a problem and it's a philosophical certainty.

The causal chains can either go on forever or they stop at some "thing" that is not dependent on anything else. Existence (ie all that is or can ever be) exists and no-one can say why existence exists without refering to some other cause or reason for it to exist.

Explanations and reasons break down and we reach a point where we can no longer ask "why?". Instead , we have reached what I shall creatively label "brute fact ground zero".

Therefore , some things (God , the universe , quantum events from "nothing" whatever.....) just ARE and are thus inexplicable mysteries that cannot be solved or explained.

For all your terminology this basically simple and logical idea just seems to elude you. I don't really understand why such a simple and logical idea should be so objectionable to you and your colleagues. To me it's just self evident and has been since I was about 9.

Hammy tries his hardest to avoid seeing that "brute fact ground zero" is inexplicable. Whitey tries to reel the whole thing in and contain it and make it finite and "bounded", You on the other hand go nit picking through terms and language , losing yourself in intellectual cul-de-sacs whilst the whole deal passes you by.

Meanwhile that which logically cannot be explained rationally just IS . It's a mystery really......

Originally posted by knightmeister
Basically, you cannot be this sloppy and get away with it.----------------------------------lemon--------------------

I will admit that I don't use precise terms in the same way you do. I do use terms creatively. Equally I find your terminology over complex and intellectualised . I also find you tend to get immersed in small details (intentionally?) logically cannot be explained rationally just IS . It's a mystery really......

Like I said: we agree substantively insofar (and I think only insofar) as we both think at least some brute fact exists.

Now, regardless of what sort of "feelings" you think I should have toward such a realization, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that you are in no position to make any real justified demands on me in that regard. Often, what I take as descriptive facts just get the "cool assent" of my intellect, and you're just going to have to live with that. And I'd rather drink vomit than listen to you drone on in your smug way about how we all need to get our "hearts in the right place" to understand all your grand insights into existence. Go sell that brand of crazy somewhere else.

By the way, have you come up yet with some specific examples of implications about how I should view life that follow from the above mentioned realization? What are all these implications you kept talking about?

Sorry that you think I place too many intellectual demands on the discussion, but I am interested in arguments that actually make some sense in clear terms. You may continue to claim that you have the big picture understood, but that is simply not the impression I get from your actual arguments. Particularly confusing for me is the way you tend to go back and forth between your "brute fact ground zero" and notions like (1) common interpretations of the theistic God (as in some agent and personal creator) or (2) ideas like uncaused caused or first cause or (3) vague notions like 'ultimate truth', etc; since I think there is absolutely nothing in your arguments that actually establishes such connections. Must just be me knightmeister!

Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion quite a bit, but I think I will take leave of it now. Thank you for the discussion.

EDIT: And this discussion has also reminded me what a profound waste of time it often can be to ponder the principle of sufficient reason. At any rate, you are simply wrong that it is a "philosophical certainty" that the PSR is false** -- although I tend to think strong versions of the PSR likely are false. And I maintain I see no mystery: supposing the PSR is false, it is only natural that at least some fact(s) are without explanation. Of course I would fully expect many to see this as "unsatisfactory" on some level.

--
**At least, I think this is what your claim there amounts to.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Like I said: we agree substantively insofar (and I think only insofar) as we both think at least some brute fact exists.

Now, regardless of what sort of "feelings" you think I should have toward such a realization, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that you are in no position to make any real justified demands on me in that regard. Oft ...[text shortened]... me level.

--
**At least, I think this is what your claim there amounts to.

Sorry that you think I place too many intellectual demands on the discussion, but I am interested in arguments that actually make some sense in clear terms.
--------------------------lemon------------------------------

But don't you ged it? When we logically ponder existence we get round to the "brute fact" realisation. A brute fact cannot be explained or understood and no "clear sense" can be made of it because all that can be said is that it IS.

In short , your reasoning will always be frustrated because you are looking for some "clear sense" that just isn't there. The only rational thing to do is recognise the limitations of rationality and embrace the mystery.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Sorry that you think I place too many intellectual demands on the discussion, but I am interested in arguments that actually make some sense in clear terms.
--------------------------lemon------------------------------

But don't you ged it? When we logically ponder existence we get round to the "brute fact" realisation. A brute fact cannot be expla ational thing to do is recognise the limitations of rationality and embrace the mystery.

Goo. I already agreed with you several times that we come round to the existence of some brute fact.

Now, listen very carefully to the following because I am tired of wasting time on you: I didn't say that I was interested in making sense of this brute fact or that such an ill-fated project was the source of my confusion or frustration; rather, the source of my confusion and frustration is your arguments, which make no sense. You're the one telling us that such a brute fact has all these implications for how we view 'life' and the world, yet your arguments demonstrate nothing of the sort. You're the one trying to tie in this brute fact with all these other concepts that putatively do make sense of our world, but again your arguments establish nothing of the sort. You're the one who seems to be lost in some ill-fated project of trying to personalize and anthropomorphize the "brute fact ground zero". You should probably just keep silent where you are not in any position to make justified claims.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Goo. I already agreed with you several times that we come round to the existence of some brute fact.

Now, listen very carefully to the following because I am tired of wasting time on you: I didn't say that I was interested in making sense of this brute fact or that such an ill-fated project was the source of my confusion or frustration; rather, the ...[text shortened]... ld probably just keep silent where you are not in any position to make justified claims.

Why do you expect my argument to make "clear sense" if I am making an argument for mystery? What does "clear sense" mean in this context? How can one logically prove mystery? You can only appreciate that there is a point in existence where all rationality and explanations break down. I have brought you like a horse to the water but you won't drink because you cannot see the water. Your mind is too pre-programmed to look for "clear sense" to see the mystery of it all.

Despite what you say you have little to no chance of making any "clear sense" out of "brute fact ground zero" nor can you explain it in any way. It just IS , and that's the mystery - we can never say why it "IS".


You seem to agree that.....

a) brute fact ground zero is logically a certainty

BUT reject the idea that a) is a mystery.

To me something that cannot be made sense of or explained rationally has to have at least some element of mystery to it. I don't understand why this simple liddle ol idea is so offensive to your intellect. No , I correct myself I do understand actually , it's becasue you have invested too much into your intellect, so that when you reach the point where you have to let go of it - you cannot. You don't know where to turn.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why do you expect my argument to make "clear sense" if I am making an argument for mystery? What does "clear sense" mean in this context? How can one logically prove mystery? You can only appreciate that there is a point in existence where all rationality and explanations break down. I have brought you like a horse to the water but you won't drink beca oint where you have to let go of it - you cannot. You don't know where to turn.

….Why do you expect my argument to make "clear sense" if I am making an argument for mystery?
.…

That’s an illogical statement. Just because the subject matter is about something that is without explanation doesn’t mean any argument about it must make no sense.
There should be nothing stopping you talking about a mystery (not that there is any here) with total clarity by defining in detail what exactly is the mystery and exactly why it should be regarded a mystery etc.

….How can one logically prove mystery?
..…

Are you asking LemonJello here how a mystery can be proven to BE a mystery or are you asking LemonJello here how an explanation FOR the mystery can be proven?
-I assume you mean the former? -if so, it can be proven to BE a mystery by logical argument by giving a logical argument for the hypothesis that there must be an unknown explanation associated with it (something you have so far failed to do).

…a) brute fact ground zero is logically a certainty

BUT reject the idea that a) is a mystery.
.…

If it is logically certain that there is at least one brute fact then THAT logically certainty means that mere fact that it can be logically deduced there is at least one brute fact is NOT a mystery BECAUSE it is a fact deducible by logic.

…it's because you have invested too much into your intellect, so that when you reach the point where you have to let go of IT - you cannot.
..… (my emphasis)

Oh that’s really great! What you mean by “IT” above is “your intellect“ so your suggestion of “you have to let go of IT” means you are now telling us we should sometimes stop using our intellect 😛 -so do you practice what you preach here? -I mean, would you claim to have stopped using your intellect here in these posts?
-if so, what have you used in the place of your intellect? Mindless meaningless rhetoric?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why do you expect my argument to make "clear sense" if I am making an argument for mystery? What does "clear sense" mean in this context? How can one logically prove mystery? You can only appreciate that there is a point in existence where all rationality and explanations break down. I have brought you like a horse to the water but you won't drink beca ...[text shortened]... oint where you have to let go of it - you cannot. You don't know where to turn.

You seem to agree that.....

a) brute fact ground zero is logically a certainty

Try paying attention for once. No, I don't agree that it is a 'certainty'. I said that I agree that it is likely that at least one brute fact exists.

BUT reject the idea that a) is a mystery.

Yes, I reject your application of 'mystery'.

No , I correct myself I do understand actually , it's becasue you have invested too much into your intellect, so that when you reach the point where you have to let go of it - you cannot. You don't know where to turn.

Well, you've really got me pegged.🙄

Try reading through my posts again. I've tried to explain myself several times. At this point, I don't consider it my problem if you cannot understand what I wrote.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Why do you expect my argument to make "clear sense" if I am making an argument for mystery?
.…

That’s an illogical statement. Just because the subject matter is about something that is without explanation doesn’t mean any argument about it must make no sense.
There should be nothing stopping you talking about a mystery (not that there ...[text shortened]... s?
-if so, what have you used in the place of your intellect? Mindless meaningless rhetoric?[/b]

If it is logically certain that there is at least one brute fact then THAT logically certainty means that mere fact that it can be logically deduced there is at least one brute fact is NOT a mystery BECAUSE it is a fact deducible by [WORD TOO LONG]

When are you going to get this? I have never said that the fact that such a brute fact must logically exist is a mystery. I have said that the brute fact ITSELF is a mystery because it cannot be explained or understood.

Explaining the FACT that something must exist , is NOT the sane as explaining the thing itself. One can explain the logical neccessity of such a fact but that does not explain how it came to be it ONLY explains how you came to your conclusion.

You have consistently misundertood this subtle point. Let me re-state it clearly.

JUST BECAUSE IT'S LOGICAL THAT SOMETHING MUST EXIST DOESN'T PROVE THAT THE THING ITSELF MUST BE LOGICALLY EXPLICABLE OR UNDERSTOOD.

THE FACT THAT WE CAN LOGICALLY DEDUCE THE EXISTENCE OF BRUTE FACT X SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER BRUTE FACT X ITSELF IS A MYSTERY OR NOT.

Basically , the route by which we arrive at the knowledge of something has no connnection which the quality of the thing itself. A scientific discovery discovered by chance DOES NOT mean that what has been discovered is a chance random phenomenon.

Let's say you logically deduce that God exists , would that preclude God from being mysterious or impossible to explain?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If it is logically certain that there is at least one brute fact then THAT logically certainty means that mere fact that it can be logically deduced there is at least one brute fact is NOT a mystery BECAUSE it is a fact deducible by logic---------------------------------------------------------------------hammy------------------------------------------ uce that God exists , would that preclude God from being mysterious or impossible to explain?

Oh yes -I forgot you said that;

….THE FACT THAT WE CAN LOGICALLY DEDUCE THE EXISTENCE OF BRUTE FACT X SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER BRUTE FACT X ITSELF IS A MYSTERY OR NOT.

.…

So we are back to this semantics yet again -most people would say that, in everyday English, that if there is no unknown explanation there to discover then that means there is no mystery -and before you quote to me the dictionary definition of “mystery” (again), the people that made that definition had, not surprisingly, not taken into account of the specific context of brute facts -would you deny this? -I mean, they cannot be expected to take into account literally everything.
If they had, they would have probably made a small side note explaining why they don’t think this applies to brute facts.

Why do you find it a “mystery” if there is no unknown explanation there to discover?
-and, before you answer “because there is no explanation”, in this case there would be neither a known NOR unknown explanation -i.e. no known or unknown explanation period -so if there is no unknown explanation there to discover, what is it you feel is mysteries about it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Oh yes -I forgot you said that;

[b]….THE FACT THAT WE CAN LOGICALLY DEDUCE THE EXISTENCE OF BRUTE FACT X SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER BRUTE FACT X ITSELF IS A MYSTERY OR NOT.

.…

So we are back to this semantics yet again -most people would say that, in everyday English, that if there is no unknown explanation there to discover then that ...[text shortened]... if there is no unknown explanation there to discover, what is it you feel is mysteries about it?[/b]

So we are back to this semantics yet again -most people would say that, in everyday English, that if there is no unknown explanation there to discover then that means there is no mystery

----------hammy-------------

You make me laugh! I can't let you get away with that can I?

Look at your sentence and you will see it's you that is playing semantics. You have over complicated the sentence and used a double negative to try and distract from the meaning of the sentence

"if there is no unknown explanation there to discover then that means there is no mystery" -----hammy

Could be much more simply translated as " if there is no possible way of explaining something then it is a mystery"

Not only is there "no unknown" explanation but also "no known" explanation and "no possible" chance of one either.

Mystery can mean that there is something there to discover and it's unknown , it can also mean that something is impossible to explain. It can mean all sorts of things.

The fact that we can logically deduce that this state of affairs exists , does not mean that the thing itself is logically explicable.

Take any brute fact you like and I can challenge you to explain why it is the way it is. You have no hope of explaining it. You cannot . It's logically impossible to explain a brute fact. It just is what it is. The laws of physics are just the way they are because....erhem....they ARE! We don't know why they are.....that's the mystery.

It occurrs to me that something that at least has the possibility of being explained is less of a mystery than something that cannot ever be explained. We might say that currently dark matter is a mystery that we have a decent chance of solving or explaining one day and you would have no problem with this. BUT If the laws of physics are a brute fact then we have no hope of ever discovering why they are the way they are. Thus they are even more mysterious than dark matter.