Curtis, 1.> > Your statements above states that you disagree with the first premise. If you're not disagreeing, what then is your position. I don't think you can straddle the fence on this one. > > > No, I do not accept the first premise.>
Thank you. Now we know where you stand. 2.> > B.> < 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.> > > > > Can you give us a specific example of what happens to you on a daily basis > > that describes the condition above? > > Sure. I sit down to write a song fearing that I will never write a song > again because I have no ideas. Then as I am noodling around on the guitar a > riff emerges and then words emerge that seem coherent enough to work with to > create a song. You wrote a song. The cause of the song is you since you created it. The tune and lyrics came from you. They did not come from nowhere. This example only supports the first premise of the KCA. So, effectively you have not provided adequate support for your disagreement with the first premise. JR > > > > > > > C.> < 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.> > > > > > > IMO, there is a close connection between the two fields of experience. > > We don't experience universal statements we infer them. > > > > > > > D.> < 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.> > > > > > > IMO, scientific evidence follows the laws of cause and effect. > > Not always. Scientists are well aware that simultaneity does not assure > causation. In fact not assuming that this intuitive principle is in play is > one of the most difficult things about doing good science. > > > > > > E.> But I could be wrong, what are you referring to?> > > > > We're still trying to understand what is your true position regarding the > > first premise. So far, you appear to vacillate on your position. > > Really? Here is an attempt to make it simple: no. > > My true position on the first principle is to NOT accept it as a first > principle that needs no proof. > > And because it is being used out of any context it carries the intellectual > precision of "blibity blab is always snickerdy nick but is NEVER bumbledy > bump." > > > > > > > > > > > > > F.> 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.> > > > > I'm not a philosophy major. But I have taken a few courses in philosophy > > while in college. I have a degree in accounting at a university here in > > San Francisco, CA. > > > > > > G.> 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.> > > > > > > > We're still waiting for your true position on the first premise of the KCA. > > > > 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. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
