--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: > > Curtis, > > 1.> > So far, we have not gotten a definite answer from you if you agree with > the first premise or not. > > > > I'm gunna go with a no on this one because the universe itself is the most > > obvious example of something that we don't know if it has a cause. It also > > seems to be in contradiction with the conservation of matter and energy > > principle. The universe may have arisen out of a different form of matter > > state than we find today without cause other than the nature of the laws of > > matter unfolding. > > > > The first premise might sound OK to most people who didn't think about it > > very hard. Most things in our world do seem to be caused by something > > else. Until we get to matter and energy as a fundamental. Then our natural > > intuition leads us astray. Matter and energy do not have to have a cause, > > they may just be a primary principle in the world. The universe has begun > > to exist in its present form of matter at an historical point in time, but > > the matter it is made out of may have preceded it in a different form. > > > > < If we have a clear position from you with the first premise, then we can > > move on to the second premise.> > > > > > > I don't accept the first assertion so I don't see how moving on helps. But > > I am willing to hang if you can answer my objections to the first > > assertion. > > > > It sounds like you disagree with the first premise: "Whatever begins to > exist has a cause".
It really doesn't seem that you are reading what I am writing. < If so, how can anything or something come from nothing? > I don't know. This is yet another assertion that lacks any context. In my creative life this is exactly what happens on a daily basis. < It should be understood that common experience> This is the appeal that some of the promoters of the idea are pitching but it is simply not true. We are not discussing common experience here you are asserting universals. < and scientific evidence confirm the first premise.> No scientific evidence worthy of the name uses inductive logic in this manor. As far as I am aware this assertion is not only not a result of any "evidence" nor is it an axioum of first principles in any branch of science. But I could be wrong, what are you referring to? I don't know what you background is in philosophy John, but mine is meager. An undergraduate degree from some small college in the Midwest whose name eludes me at the moment but it begins with an N...no...wait it is an M, definitely and M. What is going on here is that an old school rationalist argument is being proposed based on an unproven assumption. This is not a self-evident first principle. It just sounds truthy to you. When people get serious about first principles to base an argument on they start with as Socrates did "all I know is that I know nothing at all" or Decarte's famous "I think therefore I am." These are self-evident principles that most people agree with. They are not scientific statements of truth and were not derived from experiment they are assertions like your first one. But they are not universals you notice, and they aren't chock full of assumptions about how the world works that science has not proven. > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can discuss the other two premises after this premise is resolved. > > > > > > > > > > JR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MY point was about your second premise. You > > > > > > > > > > have no way of knowing whether the universe > > > > > > > > > > was "created," in the sense that it didn't > > > > > > > > > > exist one moment and then existed the next. > > > > > > > > > > Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe > > > > > > > > > > that the universe was never created, that it > > > > > > > > > > has always been, is now, and always will be. > > > > > > > > > > There has never been a time when it was not. > > > > > > > > > > There will never be a time when it is not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the whole issue of "What was around > > > > > > > > > > before the First Creation that enabled Creation > > > > > > > > > > to happen?" is moot. Without the notion of a > > > > > > > > > > First Creation, this whole argument falls apart. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is that humans, out of their fear and > > > > > > > > > > lack of understanding of their own birth and > > > > > > > > > > death, project a similar birth and death onto > > > > > > > > > > the universe. The fact that they do so doesn't > > > > > > > > > > make it so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > C'mon, John...say it. I know you can. :-) IF > > > > > > > > > > the universe is eternal, and was never "created," > > > > > > > > > > then this whole argument is hooey. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb > > > > > > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This part of the discussion reminds me of the Kalam > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cosmological > > > > > > > > > > > > > Argument which goes like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a beginning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The universe began to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahem. Might I point out that point #2 is merely > > > > > > > > > > > > an assumption on your part, one caused by not > > > > > > > > > > > > being able to conceive of the universe as eternal > > > > > > > > > > > > and never-created? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the universe is eternal, point #2 is invalid, > > > > > > > > > > > > and thus point #3 is invalid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Puny humans, because they have a beginning and > > > > > > > > > > > > an end, find it difficult to conceive of anything > > > > > > > > > > > > that doesn't. Their lack of imagination, however, > > > > > > > > > > > > don't mean shit to the universe. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
