The First Cause

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I'm sorry, where does 'namely god' come from? Even ignoring any arguments against theism, (theism as in the philosophy and not as solely a belief in 'God'😉 no have no reason to name this 'being' god. You don't know it is a being, that its aware, that it has any sence of morality or that it cares or knows about your existance. This argument has no real b ...[text shortened]... ps we won't. Assuming the existance of god is just as useless as any guess work.

I agree with every word here,

How do we know that this being outside the universe is GOD , and is not just energy of some form?

We know if this being contacted us telling us he exists.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Why does every one who don't belive in GOD assume that the GOD some believe in is part of the universe and try to apply the rules, laws , and end even human morals onto him?

Why does everyone who believes in God assume that you can just invent a plain of existance with no evidence and create a new set of rules to try and explain the ones we have in this plain of existance? Your still jsut making things up. But we could make anything up and it won't just becoem true.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The refutation of the Aquinas argument is hardly an exercise in advanced philosophy. Seriously. Do you think that the premises are true, and the the conclusion follows necessarily from them?

I don't defend the argument itself, I just don't like your style of saying it has problems. Instead of discussing it as you already started to do, so someone like me who didn't read the books try to understand, you just said closed the door in my face with your post.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Why does everyone who believes in God assume that you can just invent a plain of existance with no evidence and create a new set of rules to try and explain the ones we have in this plain of existance? Your still jsut making things up. But we could make anything up and it won't just becoem true.

We don't make things up. It is the result of the inifinte regression.

And we don't define any other domain of existance. I can't do that, because I have no logical for it. All what I can say is that the cause of a thing can't be part of that thing.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I agree with every word here,

How do we know that this being outside the universe is GOD , and is not just energy of some form?

We know if this being contacted us telling us he exists.

Right, but now you are moving from theism to religion which hasn't even got a srap of logic behind it. Remember, God contanted us through Mohamed, but for some reason that I can't understand we just ignore what he said then. And some times the person who contacts us is completly different. Sometimes there are more then one. How does this make any sence?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, then (2) does not follow from (1), since the universe is not part of the universe.

I can't see the relation. I will think about it.

Originally posted by ahosyney
We don't make things up. It is the result of the inifinte regression.

And we don't define any other domain of existance. I can't do that, because I have no logical for it. All what I can say is that the cause of a thing can't be part of that thing.

Saying God created the universe is making things up because then you are applying a personality to something that we could never hope to understand even if it existed. you make it a person even though you accept it could be energy.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I don't defend the argument itself, I just don't your style of saying it has problems. Instead of discussing it as you already started to do, so someone like me who didn't read the books try to understand, you just said closed the door in my face with your post.

If you are genuinely interested in my tutelage, then I am willing to walk you through whatever it is that you need to learn in order to understand that the argument is unsound. However, in exchange, you must be willing to tolerate my style and keep a humble attitude, being grateful rather than scornful that I have invested the effort in "reading the books."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
If you are genuinely interested in my tutelage, then I am willing to walk you through whatever it is that you need to learn in order to understand that the argument is unsound. However, in exchange, you must be willing to tolerate my style and keep a humble attitude, being grateful rather than scornful that I have invested in the effort in "reading the books."

Thank you for the offer, of course I like to learn, that is my job.

I didn't read much in Pholosphy but I have some thoughts. I studied what you can call Islamic pholosphy, but long time ago.

--------------

However, in exchange, you must be willing to tolerate my style and keep a humble attitude, being grateful rather than scornful that I have invested in the effort in "reading the books."

I do understand that, no problem, but I have a problem here, I don't understand most of you common language expressions you use. So it is hard to follow that.
------------------------------

Originally posted by epiphinehas
If the universe can differ from itself in any way (evolve), then it cannot be self-existent. Only an immutable being can be self-existent. Why? Because change implies incompleteness. A self-existent reality is by definition complete in and of itself. Therefore, since the universe evolves, it cannot be self-existent.

Sorry, i don't have time to address your whole post, but i've seen you use this argument before and i have thoughts so forgive me for only taking you up on this...

You are assuming that the Universe was created in an instant? It was not! It is still being created now. You mentioned infinty. Infinity is 'the largest number you can have +1' ...ad infinitum. Well, the Universe is doing just that. It is adding 1, then it adds 1, then it adds 1, etc.... This 'self existent Universe' that you mentioned. What exactly is that? It sounds like some sort of definition to me. If i know one thing about definitions, its that they define things from other things (by definition). By what else should we define the Universe by? If the Universe is a natural progression going on into infinity, what else could possibly define it better than itself? I don't really know what you mean by self existent, but the Universe is the closest thing i've come across that comes close to fitting that description...

EDIT: Actually, i think i might understand what you are talking about. Perhaps you are talking about something that Can exist without a cause? Help me out here...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, then (2) does not follow from (1), since the universe is not part of the universe.

The Universe is all the parts of the Universe.

I agree that Aquinas' argument was not entirely logical, but he had the right idea.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Right, but now you are moving from theism to religion which hasn't even got a srap of logic behind it. Remember, God contanted us through Mohamed, but for some reason that I can't understand we just ignore what he said then. And some times the person who contacts us is completly different. Sometimes there are more then one. How does this make any sence?

Right, but now you are moving from theism to religion which hasn't even got a srap of logic behind it.

I believe that logic can't say that there is GOD as Quran say. If I can do that without Quran then there is no need for it.

Logic can lead to only one thing:

"There is some being that is the soure of this existance. And his existance is controlled with rules, and laws of our existance"

My be you don't agree with this, but that is at least what mind tells me.

------------------------------

So to identify this existance the only way is that he contact us, which I believe is through the prophets:

No back to your questions:

but for some reason that I can't understand we just ignore what he said then, And some times the person who contacts us is completly different. Sometimes there are more then one. How does this make any sence?

I don't understand what is the problem of that. If this being is GOD, he will always contact us in each generation and in each period of time. So of course there will be many messangers and different peoples.

Why did some ignore them? Different reasons, power, money , sex, and may be I can say devil.

Tell me if that is clear...

Originally posted by ahosyney
Thank you for the offer, of course I like to learn, that is my job.

[/b]Ok, let us proceed simply. You tell me whenever I use a term that you do not fully understand.

A sound argument is one that meets these criteria:
1) All of its premises are true.
2) Its conclusion can be derived from its premises using rules of logical deduction.

So, let us think about the Aquinas argument. Do you suppose that its first premise is true? Do you suppose that it is even meaningful; that is, what do you suppose its propositional content is, what exactly is it claiming to be the case?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Ok, let us proceed simply. You tell me whenever I use a term that you do not fully understand.

A sound argument is one that meets these criteria:
1) All of its premises are true
2) Its conclusion can be derived from its premises using rules of logical deduction.

So, let us think about the Aquinas argument. Do you suppose that its first premise is true?[/b]

Do you suppose that its first premise is true?

Actually I have been in a long debate about this first premise with twhitehead, in this thread:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=71519

I think it is true , but he don't.

So if you don't have the same idea like twhitehead then we can continue.

Originally posted by ahosyney

I think it is true.

Let us then explore what exactly you think it asserts.

Propositionally, it is of the form:

For all x, where x is in the domain of "things," x has the property of "being caused".

In order for the proposition to be true, it must first be meaningful, which means that the domain of "things" must be specified. What do you understand to be included in and excluded from the domain in question? That is, to what sort of stuff can the term "thing" refer?