PROOF OF GOD? PRIME MOVER

[Jack Duggan]

PRIME MOVER


Cause and effect. It is firmly held by science and logic that each effect that we witness must have a cause. Every plant, every animal and every microorganism lives, functions, evolves and dies as an effect of outside causes or forces. Because of this there is an overall logic to the function and interaction of every living thing on this planet. Except one.

Human beings alone perform unselfish acts such as giving sustenance to others outside their families. It is clearly illogical to survival to deprive oneself of food and property when nothing is gained to enhance one’s own security. Animals do not operate in this manner because they would not survive if they shared food and protection outside their immediate bloodlines. Lions repeatedly chase away all animals from their food except other lions within their own pride.

What places humans in the singular position of self-denial for the benefit of strangers, which is alien to all other species on this planet? Most people say it’s because of the superiority of human intelligence. If that is true, then why do animals of relatively higher intelligence such as apes that have amazing social skills, such as using sign language to tell lies to handlers to escape blame, still not display the smallest concern for the welfare of co-species outside their immediate group?

If intelligence were the key, selfish sharing would occur in all planetary species in direct proportion to their level of intellectual development. This is certainly the logical extension, but such is not the case.

Humans, unlike animals, think and perform in the abstract, consider realms of possible consequences to past, present and future actions, and perceive past the concrete into a further dimension. This dimension can be initially described as something above immediate reality and beyond the five senses with which both man and animal survive. Many call this non-physical dimension “spiritual� because it exists in no palpable form. Humans therefore operate in a ‘spiritual’ dimension that other species do not. Where did this trait originate?

The studies of Charles Darwin and resultant science observe that every living thing evolves and changes solely because of forces that are external to and outside of the organism. Organisms change because of their environment. All of science agrees that only external physical forces can cause physical changes in every animate and inanimate unit in the known universe, down to the smallest subatomic particle. Since this is universal cause and effect, what outside force could impart a non-physical or spiritual change in an organism that would make it be able to perceive non-physical dimensions? It follows that only an outside spiritual force could impart a spiritual evolvement in an organism, causing the once-animal to perceive abstract concepts like social law, philosophy and time itself. This abstract conceptualizing is what makes human beings distinct, and they are all spiritual qualities.

As far back as can be traced, all primitive human groups are known participants in non-corporeal, spiritual beliefs and rites. This signifies their uniqueness among all other species in our environment. In contrast many modern ‘educated’ people who are insulated by the luxury of technology from the real world, behave quite differently by either ignoring or denying spiritual entities and beliefs. They see no conflict with their ancestors nor the irony that they employ their abstract spiritual abilities to deny the existence of their abstract spiritual abilities. They call spiritual aspects by other terms in the name of science, specifically because science has failed to test and measure within the five senses that which exists outside the five senses. This is why aboriginal groups view non-believing civilized people as the true ‘primitives.’

Spiritual beliefs are founded in a strictly human abstract call, “faith.� Faith is defined as a belief in something that cannot be proven within the five senses, but can, however, perhaps be proven with the intangible function of logic. Anyone who has the capacity to understand the basis of Darwinism must also accept this:

It is an inarguable scientific absolute that only external force can cause change; thus mankind, which alone possesses an abstract spiritual construct, may only have been changed by an outside spiritual force.

Mankind has most often referred to this outside spiritual force as “God.� Those who choose not to believe in God still believe in other spiritual qualities such as love, ethics and even happiness. They do not see that the mere ideation of these abstracts points to their origin outside of known physical forces that could never have caused them.

There are historical records that support the existence of a prime-mover spiritual force called God. In Judeo-Christian scripture there are experiences that, when taken as a whole, are evidential. Most interesting is that God created man “...in the image and likeness of God.� This doesn't mean that man looks like God physically (how can a body look like a spirit that has no body?) but that we became homo sapiens, setting us apart from all other earthly creatures through the gift of abstract spiritual perception which, until this bestowal, only God Himself had. This gift caused us to be changed utterly. We no longer existed in just the physical world, but partly in the spiritual as well. All other hominids not receiving this endowment eventually became extinct because they were unable to conceptualize technical achievements in food gathering and in tactics necessary to successfully compete with Cro Magnons who had the new abstract dimension infused.

No matter what individual perception of the abstract prime mover, or God, it is logically inescapable that it is only from a spiritual entity that we could have derived our spiritual abilities.

As only a physical force can induce a physical change, only a spiritual force, a spiritual prime mover, could have induced our spiritual change.


Jack Duggan © 2003
jxduggan@optonline.net

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan

Human beings alone perform unselfish acts such as giving sustenance to others outside their families.
Do a google on "vampire bats" and "regurgitation" real quick and get back to me.

[Robin]

Hi, Jack, welcome to the fray. Just a couple of points:

Human beings alone perform unselfish acts such as giving sustenance to others outside their families.
What is your source for this? Does it never happen that animals 'adopt' young animals from other families, or even outside their species?

Moreover we know that dogs perform unselfish acts for humans who are clearly outside their own bloodlines. It is quite possible that other animals do this too. What is the advantage for a dog that it will lay down it's life for a human? We will probably never really know the answer to that, but I do not know that anybody has ever put it down to a Dog God.

It is not hard to imagine that empathy is an attribute that could have had evolutionary advantages especially in a species such ourselves who depend on societal structures to survive.

[Robin]

Good call from Marquis de Carabas.

A quick search in Google also pointed up that meerkats often help to raise young that they are not related to (http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/aaas/2002-04-05-coop-behavior.htm). Quote:
To begin with, kin selection does not explain why some helpers are not related to the offspring they care for. According to Clutton-Brock, previous studies show that "unrelated helpers invest as heavily in raising young as do close relatives."

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan
Spiritual beliefs are founded in a strictly human abstract call, “faith.� Faith is defined as a belief in something that cannot be proven within the five senses, but can, however, perhaps be proven with the intangible function of logic. Anyone who has the capacity to understand the basis of Darwinism must also accept this:

It is an inarguable scientific absolute that only external force can cause change; thus mankind, which alone possesses an abstract spiritual construct, may only have been changed by an outside spiritual force.
No.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Jack,

A few points related to your exaltation of the selflessness of humans:

First, it is not entirely clear to me that we are selfless in any absolute sense. In fact, it would seem we have an almost tacit acceptance that humanity is not, as a rule, unselfish. Consider that most pleas made to a person to elicit sympathy and aid include a stress on how little it will cost to help. You can feed starving children the world over for "the price of a cup of coffee a day." The homeless approach and ask for loose change, or maybe "a coupla bucks." If it were thought that we were such a magnaminous bunch, why the emphasis on how small the cost?

It is surely true that there are examples of people aiding others to the extreme detriment of themselves, but these cases seem to be in the minority. How many times have you read a story of a man going bankrupt donating to charity?

Now, on the question of our relative selflessness versus the rest of the animal kingdom, I remain unconvinced. But we may leave that aside and take it as given that we are far and away more benevolent than any other species. Even if this is true, it is not inexplicable.

A creature will be more prone to commit selfless acts when they come at low cost, as I stated above. The tool natural selection has left us for the cost-benefit analysis is the brain, of course. The human brain, as you acknowledge, is far more complex than most of the rest of the brains on this dirtball, consisting of more connectivity of neurons.

It is this connectivity that allows for the impressive processing powers of the human brain. Because we have a brain that is able to store and process more data, we can suss out for ourselves many hypotheticals for any given action. This allows us to reach conclusions such as "Giving this man a dollar will not cause me to starve." We have a memory of how much money we have, knowledge of how much money we need, and the processing power to make the determination of what can be, for lack of a better term, wasted.

Consider, however, less complex brains like those possessed by most of the fauna of earth. It may not be possible for them to handle such calculations, and even if so, their knowledge of relevant data might be severely limited. Consequently, natural selection is going to force the hands of the less complex-minded.

Without the capacity to make such decisions as we, natural selection is going to favour those creatures which err on the side of caution--i.e. the creatures who are less prone to give away much.

Of course, with such things as reciprocal altruism floating around, not every creature evolves into a selfish bastard, but it is easy to see why a less complex brain would tend more towards selfishness.

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

I also must call into question your assertion that the ability of humans to contemplate the future in an abstract way equates to a spiritual nature. Contemplating the future, in its simplest form is merely an "if, then" proposition. If I give this man $5, then...what? Then I will have to stop at the ATM to grab some more if I want to buy lunch at the cafeteria. Where is the spirituality in that line of thought?

The original framing of the "If..." is brought about in response to physical stimuli. Light rays entered my eyes, signals were directed to my brain, giving me the impression that a "man" was standing before me. Air vibrated along my ear canal, more signals were sent, which I interpreted as a request for money.

Now, what to do with a request for money? More signals are sent, and my memory kicks in, recalling how much dosh is in my wallet, how much is in my bank account, perhaps I'll remember a time I was broke and somebody slipped me a fiver, or perhaps I'll remember one time giving a guy a fiver only to see him buy some MD 20/20.

Whatever details my memory brings up will be sent as signals (again), will interact with other signals about my mood, my habits, my dispositions, and what havce you, and a decision will be reached. This decision will just be more signals--telling my hand to reach into my pocket and produce a fiver, or telling my feet to hustle on by.

Now, chances are you and I agree that the above is a largely accurate (though by no means precise) summation of the series of events that occur within the brain from the moment of request to the moment of response. Where in that chain is the spirituality? (I might also ask where the free will is, but I'm not that mean.)

[neutrino_cannon]

Optus (opta?) es Duggan, fruaris foro.

Cause and effect. It is firmly held by science and logic that each effect that we witness must have a cause.

No degree of plasticity of the imagination could describe me as an expert on such matters, but I suggest that quantum physics allows for some fudging of that principle.

Every plant, every animal and every microorganism lives, functions, evolves and dies as an effect of outside causes or forces. Because of this there is an overall logic to the function and interaction of every living thing on this planet. Except one.

In the Darwinian sense of the word, an organism does not evolve. Populations thereof do evolve as the result of differential reproductive success at the hands of pressures exerted upon uneven phenotypes, often resulting in some degree of logic in organism behavior and design, but this is by no means a law. Explain to me, for example, why the human urethra is routed through the prostate gland or why there are goats that faint in front of predators.

Human beings alone perform unselfish acts such as giving sustenance to others outside their families.

As demonstrated above, this isn’t quite true, unless you very loosely define family, which then explains the whole business. Populations evolve, not individual organisms, ergo species with a high incidence of altruistic behavior would possibly gain an advantage, which would lead to the retention of the behavior.

It is clearly illogical to survival to deprive oneself of food and property when nothing is gained to enhance one’s own security. Animals do not operate in this manner because they would not survive if they shared food and protection outside their immediate bloodlines. Lions repeatedly chase away all animals from their food except other lions within their own pride.

Herd animals warn the entire herd when predators are attacking. Why not just signal the immediate family to allow them to escape whilst all the potential competitors are devoured? Clearly certain circumstances favor the benefit of the entire social group rather than just the immediate family, quite contrary to your assertions, but generally within the principle of “animal� pragmatism. Altruism really isn’t altruism, in humans or animals. Kind acts exist for the end of furthering oneself one way or another.

What places humans in the singular position of self-denial for the benefit of strangers, which is alien to all other species on this planet? Most people say it’s because of the superiority of human intelligence. If that is true, then why do animals of relatively higher intelligence such as apes that have amazing social skills, such as using sign language to tell lies to handlers to escape blame, still not display the smallest concern for the welfare of co-species outside their immediate group?

I would not so disparage the reciprocal social skills of primates (http://brembs.net/ipd/primats.html), and I would furthermore cite gray whale mating behavior (or maybe it’s one of the rorquals, whichever one does that kinky underwater menage a trois) as another example of altruism in relatively intelligent animals.

If intelligence were the key, selfish sharing would occur in all planetary species in direct proportion to their level of intellectual development. This is certainly the logical extension, but such is not the case.

This may be the case, and untestable pending the invention of the objective scale of intelligence.

Humans, unlike animals, think and perform in the abstract, consider realms of possible consequences to past, present and future actions, and perceive past the concrete into a further dimension.

And how, pray tell, do you know that other species are incapable of this feat? For starters, a testable definition of “concrete into a further dimension� would be mighty handy.

This dimension can be initially described as something above immediate reality and beyond the five senses with which both man and animal survive. Many call this non-physical dimension “spiritual� because it exists in no palpable form. Humans therefore operate in a ‘spiritual’ dimension that other species do not. Where did this trait originate?

How exactly is this demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt?

The studies of Charles Darwin and resultant science observe that every living thing evolves and changes solely because of forces that are external to and outside of the organism. Organisms change because of their environment. All of science agrees that only external physical forces can cause physical changes in every animate and inanimate unit in the known universe, down to the smallest subatomic particle. Since this is universal cause and effect, what outside force could impart a non-physical or spiritual change in an organism that would make it be able to perceive non-physical dimensions?

I recap thus far: Only humans display altruism, and because altruistic behavior is not consistent with intelligence, human altruism must hail from parts unknown.

I refute this claim based on demonstrated examples of animal altruism, which are wholly compatible with evolutionary expectations based on the sub optimality of organisms due to limitations in evolution, as well as potential benefits of so called altruism.

Furthermore, the spiritual realm to which you refer is by no means universal. My hallucinations, for example, are demonstratably not shared by the person next to me. I’m not transcending into an incorporeal dimension, that would just be my neurons firing somewhat otherwise than they usually do. Experiments with assorted forms of brain scanning, as well as those which show the individual and unconnected nature of spiritual events, demonstrate to my satisfaction that Spirituality, for all its tangibility, is an entirely materialistic event.

It follows that only an outside spiritual force could impart a spiritual evolvement in an organism, causing the once-animal to perceive abstract concepts like social law, philosophy and time itself. This abstract conceptualizing is what makes human beings distinct, and they are all spiritual qualities.

To quote pater_cannon “we’re just the same bunch of monkeys with different toys�. Aside from it being impossible at current to determine whether animals do indeed experience spiritual events, there is no need to ascribe any outside force to human experienced ones. The human mind is a good 200cc’s bigger than the next closest primates, and in terms of brain to body weight ratios, very little even comes close. Organization obviously has a lot to do with it as well, and we’ve got that in spades. That leaves plenty of spare neurons to make interesting things happen, though most of it comes right back to game theory.

As far back as can be traced, all primitive human groups are known participants in non-corporeal, spiritual beliefs and rites. This signifies their uniqueness among all other species in our environment. In contrast many modern ‘educated’ people who are insulated by the luxury of technology from the real world, behave quite differently by either ignoring or denying spiritual entities and beliefs.

Being that the human condition is defined by a certain brain capacity, this surprises me in no way whatsoever. I would also suggest that the degree to which organized religion thrives in the first world also suggests that your second conclusion is flawed.

They see no conflict with their ancestors nor the irony that they employ their abstract spiritual abilities to deny the existence of their abstract spiritual abilities. They call spiritual aspects by other terms in the name of science, specifically because science has failed to test and measure within the five senses that which exists outside the five senses. This is why aboriginal groups view non-believing civilized people as the true ‘primitives.’

If by “that which exists outside the five senses� you are referring to the paranormal, then yes, so far science (holy reification fallacy Batman!) has failed to test it. Just as it has failed to test the cusorial efficiency of unicorns.

On the other hand, things like mass spectrometers, seismometers, radar, metal detectors and PH paper can all test and detect things, such as they are, well beyond the range of human senses.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan
Cause and effect. It is firmly held by science and logic that each effect that we witness must have a cause.You're about 75 to 100 years out of date on this one, I'm afraid. While this is true on a macroscopic scale, on a very, very small scale quantum mechanics comes into play and we begin to see not "cause and effect" but rather "probability of effect", which means that occasionally we see an effect without a cause. On this scale, matter and energy do, indeed, appear from nowhere and disappear to nowhere. "Cause and effect" cannot be relied upon as a universally true principle.
Human beings alone perform unselfish acts such as giving sustenance to others outside their families. It is clearly illogical to survival to deprive oneself of food and property when nothing is gained to enhance one’s own security. Animals do not operate in this manner because they would not survive if they shared food and protection outside their immediate bloodlines. Lions repeatedly chase away all animals from their food except other lions within their own pride.There is a type of bird (I forget what off the top of my head) that will lay it's eggs in other birds' nests. When it hatches, the "adoptive" birds take care of the chick as if it were their own. I'm sure there are other such examples.

I'd really be more careful of such widely ranging blanket statements.
If that is true, then why do animals of relatively higher intelligence such as apes that have amazing social skills, such as using sign language to tell lies to handlers to escape blame, still not display the smallest concern for the welfare of co-species outside their immediate group?Again, zoology is not really my thing, but I believe I heard that there are primates in captivity that will adopt pets like kittens and take care of them. I'll have to ask a friend of mine who works in evolutionary psychology.
The studies of Charles Darwin and resultant science observe that every living thing evolves and changes solely because of forces that are external to and outside of the organism. Organisms change because of their environment. No. Darwin found that organisms mutate change randomly. If that change turns out to be beneficial within their environment determines whether or not they survive.
All of science agrees that only external physical forces can cause physical changes in every animate and inanimate unit in the known universe, down to the smallest subatomic particle. *sigh* I'm curious if you could tell me what external physical force causes various atoms to decay. Radioactive isotopes decay at a predictible rate, but the act itself is spontaneous.
Since this is universal cause and effect, what outside force could impart a non-physical or spiritual change in an organism that would make it be able to perceive non-physical dimensions? It follows that only an outside spiritual force could impart a spiritual evolvement in an organism, causing the once-animal to perceive abstract concepts like social law, philosophy and time itself. This abstract conceptualizing is what makes human beings distinct, and they are all spiritual qualities.

As far back as can be traced, all primitive human groups are known participants in non-corporeal, spiritual beliefs and rites. This signifies their uniqueness among all other species in our environment. In contrast many modern ‘educated’ people who are insulated by the luxury of technology from the real world, behave quite differently by either ignoring or denying spiritual entities and beliefs. They see no conflict with their ancestors nor the irony that they employ their abstract spiritual abilities to deny the existence of their abstract spiritual abilities. They call spiritual aspects by other terms in the name of science, specifically because science has failed to test and measure within the five senses that which exists outside the five senses. This is why aboriginal groups view non-believing civilized people as the true ‘primitives.’You are forgetting the role of psychology and human fear of the unknown in humanity's social development. To put it in an overly simplified way: Humans fear what they don't know or understand. In the distant past, humans had no way of understanding the phenomena around them (i.e. lightening, fire, rain, etc.). Since incorrect understanding is more comforting than no understanding (and having no way to determine incorrect and correct theories), made up stories based on what they knew in order to attempt to understand what was going on.

Spirituality may be the effect of some outside force, or it could simply be the product of a complex species that makes its survival in this world by understanding.
It is an inarguable scientific absolute that only external force can cause change; thus mankind, which alone possesses an abstract spiritual construct, may only have been changed by an outside spiritual force.Whoa. There are no such things as "inarguable scientific absolutes", let alone that "only external force can cause change" is even true much less an "inarguable scientific absolute".

I think you need to revisit your argumentative assumptions.

[Skeptical Greg]

Hit and run ?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Hit and run ?
Well, to be fair, he posted 9 hours ago, perhaps right before he went to bed. It might be a little to early to assume he's not coming back to defend.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Well, to be fair, he posted 9 hours ago, perhaps right before he went to bed. It might be a little to early to assume he's not coming back to defend. I agree.. Sorry if I was a bit premature.

O.K., I'll play..


As only a physical force can induce a physical change, only a spiritual force, a spiritual prime mover, could have induced our spiritual change. Explain what a spiritual force is. It would seem that your entire premiss is based on the existance of such a force.

P.S.

Oh, yeah. About the ' prime mover ' thing. If you insist that " it is firmly held by science and logic that each effect that we witness must have a cause", then God must have a cause also. What would that be?

P.P.S.S

You might want to re-visit the definition of ' proof '.. I don't think it has anything to do with " I have decided..... "..

[Ossai]

Jack Duggan
Since this is universal cause and effect, what outside force could impart a non-physical or spiritual change in an organism that would make it be able to perceive non-physical dimensions? What non-physical dimensions? You’re going to have to explain what you mean by this. Are you claiming that people can sense, for lack of a better term, heaven/hell/Earth 2?

It follows that only an outside spiritual force could impart a spiritual evolvement in an organism, causing the once-animal to perceive abstract concepts like social law, philosophy and time itself. This abstract conceptualizing is what makes human beings distinct, and they are all spiritual qualities.
Spiritual evolution – pure assumption on your part. Group dynamics and evolution nicely explain social interaction, no need to bring a spirit into it.

They see no conflict with their ancestors nor the irony that they employ their abstract spiritual abilities to deny the existence of their abstract spiritual abilities. Again, what abstract spiritual abilities? You declaring a perfectly mundane thing like culture to be spiritual does not make it so.

Anyone who has the capacity to understand the basis of Darwinism must also accept this: The theory of evolution is based on empirical observation and evidence

Ossai

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Upchurch

I'd really be more careful of such widely ranging blanket statements.
Again, zoology is not really my thing, but I believe I heard that there are primates in captivity that will adopt pets like kittens and take care of them. I'll have to ask a friend of mine who works in evolutionary psychology.

Koko the signing gorilla, adopted several kittens, carried them around on her back, groomed them, tried to nurse them, etc. Perhaps she even grieved when her first kitten, All Ball, got out of the cage and was struck by a car and killed.

Here's some pictures of Koko and her kittens

http://www.gorilla.org/kidsclub/pictures/koko_kittens.html

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Upchurch

-snip-
There is a type of bird (I forget what off the top of my head) that will lay it's eggs in other birds' nests. When it hatches, the "adoptive" birds take care of the chick as if it were their own.
-snip-

Sounds like the "Cuckoo" to me.

But, IIRC, it is a bit more unpleasant than that. The Cuckoo chick grows faster than the natural chicks of the parent. It slowly starves them of food and pushes them out of the nest so that it gets all the food.

[Ladewig]

A quick USENET search showed that David J Schummer posted this article in 1997:

PRIME MOVER

by Joe Hunt, copyright 1993, A.R.R.

_ Cause and effect. It is firmly held by science and logic
that each effect that we witness must have a cause. Every
animal, every plant and every microorganism lives, functions,
evolves and dies as an effect to outside causes or forces.
Because of this, there is an overall logic to the functions
and interactions of every living thing on our planet. Except
one. ....

Yet you claim a copyright on the exact same text.
Are you Joe Hunt?
Did Joe sell you the copyright?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan

Human beings alone perform unselfish acts such as giving sustenance to others outside their families. It is clearly illogical to survival to deprive oneself of food and property when nothing is gained to enhance one’s own security. Animals do not operate in this manner because they would not survive if they shared food and protection outside their immediate bloodlines.

Others have shown that unselfish behavior is not limited to humans, but even if it were limited to humans; wouldn't it be simpler to assume that Ayn Rand's Objectivism is correct and that such behavior is the result of mental illness rather than "multiplying entities unnecessarily" with the introduction of God?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan
PRIME MOVER

Cause and effect. It is firmly held by science and logic that each effect that we witness must have a cause. Every plant, every animal and every microorganism lives, functions, evolves and dies as an effect of outside causes or forces. Because of this there is an overall logic to the function and interaction of every living thing on this planet. Except one. In other words it's not possible to have something come from nothing, correct? In which case there must have been an original "something," by which all "other things" derive their origin ...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Just a hit and run, I bet he/she will never reply :p

"prime mover"...

Yeah... right, as others have pointed out, "cause and effect" is an old theory, read something about quantum mechanics, then come, if you want, with another argument.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Just a hit and run, I bet he/she will never reply :p
I'd bet you're right now, especially considering Ladewig's revelation. Credit to Diogenes for calling it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Oh, yeah. About the ' prime mover ' thing. If you insist that " it is firmly held by science and logic that each effect that we witness must have a cause", then God must have a cause also. What would that be? All except for one little problem called infinite regression.

[Upchurch]

Thanks to Lisa and Stitch for covering my research lazy backside.

To put on my mod hat for a second, Jack, you are apparently in violation of Rule 4 of the Membership Agreement. Please properly credit the quote in your post and provide a link to your source, if possible.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Just a hit and run, I bet he/she will never reply :p

"prime mover"...

Yeah... right, as others have pointed out, "cause and effect" is an old theory, read something about quantum mechanics, then come, if you want, with another argument. Ah, but what is it -- i.e., an original something perhaps ;) -- that drives quantum mechanics?

[Terry]

Originally posted by Stitch
Sounds like the "Cuckoo" to me.


Yeah, that's the canonical example. But cuckoos aren't the only nest parasites, and not all members of the cuckoo family are nest parasites.


--Terry.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ah, but what -- i.e., an original something perhaps ;) -- that drives quantum mechanics?
Quantum mechanics are driven by their desire to repair quantum automobiles.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ah, but what is it -- i.e., an original something perhaps ;) -- that drives quantum mechanics? Why must there be something? And if there is something that drives QM, what drives that?

If you're looking for a prime mover, what's wrong with it being a quantum fluctuation? Not subjectively purposeful enough for you?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
All except for one little problem called infinite regression. And that is supposed to be a problem for me, rather than people who claim:


" Everything must have a cause ... Uhhhh, except God . "

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes
And that is supposed to be a problem for me, rather than people who claim:

" Everything must have a cause ... Uhhhh, except God . " How can you experience frivolity without gravity? Might I suggest that the answer is dualistic? In that it's not either or, but both?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Why must there be something? And if there is something that drives QM, what drives that?

If you're looking for a prime mover, what's wrong with it being a quantum fluctuation? Not subjectively purposeful enough for you? Why are "we" even here? :con2:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why are "we" even here? :con2: No reason.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Diogenes
No reason. No reason to discuss quantum mechanics then is there? ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No reason to discuss quantum mechanics then is there? ;) Actually, no reason to discuss purposeful creation. Or, perhaps, no reason to discuss the reason of quantum fluctuations.

Does man have to have a universal purpose? If so, why?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No reason to discuss quantum mechanics then is there? ;)

Individuals have reasons, why the universe should have them? from our small window to the universe (our senses and instruments) there are some aspects of it that are explained by "cause and effect" but also others that need another kind of description (like quantum mechanics).

A "prime cause" is not only absurd, it is not necessary at all.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, no reason to discuss purposeful creation. Or, perhaps, no reason to discuss the reason of quantum fluctuations.

Does man have to have a universal purpose? If so, why? Because the Universe does exist, man exists within that Universe and, derives purpose from his existence therein. Sounds universal enough to me. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Individuals have reasons, why the universe should have them? from our small window to the universe (our senses and instruments) there are some aspects of it that are explained by "cause and effect" but also others that need another kind of description (like quantum mechanics).

A "prime cause" is not only absurd, it is not necessary at all. Why ask why? ... Or, anything at all? Certainly if this Universe was not founded upon anything solid, how could there be anything solid upon which to receive it? ... i.e., the nature of its foundation.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because the Universe does exist, man exists within that Universe and, derives purpose from his existence therein. Sounds universal enough to me. ;) Well, then you have pretty low standards.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why ask why? ... Or, anything at all? Certainly if this Universe was not founded upon anything solid, how could there be anything solid upon which to receive it? ... i.e., the nature of its foundation.

This sounds almost biblical. The "foundation"? how about rules, some known and some unknown? I dont understand why do you need an underlying "reason" for those rules? Have you heard about anthropomorphism?

Hey, in the end, not even humans have "reasons", but thats another kind of discussion :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
A "prime cause" is not only absurd, it is not necessary at all. Any less absurd than infinite regression? No.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, then you have pretty low standards. Speak for yourself. I'm not the one who claims for a fact that the Universe came from nothing.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
This sounds almost biblical. The "foundation"? how about rules, some known and some unknown? I dont understand why do you need an underlying "reason" for those rules? Have you heard about anthropomorphism?

Hey, in the end, not even humans have "reasons", but thats another kind of discussion :p Yes, but what you're telling me is that there's really no point in trying to make any sense out of all of this. So, why do you do it? Is there some point to our holding this discussion?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but what you're telling me is that there's really no point in trying to make any sense out of all of this. So, why do you do it? Is there some point to our holding this discussion?

Yes, that a "prime cause" is an oversimplification of a non existing problem. I already explained it (as others), but you didnt read it, or maybe, you are not ready for the answer. :p

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Speak for yourself. I'm not the one who claims for a fact that the Universe came from nothing. Last I saw, you were in fact the *only* one making that strawman claim. Please do not insist we speak for ourselves at the same time you put words in our mouths.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Speak for yourself. I'm not the one who claims for a fact that the Universe came from nothing. You are the one who thinks that just because something is in the universe and believes it should have a purpose, it must have a universal purpose. That's a low standard for "universal".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Originally posted by Jack Duggan:
"Cause and effect. It is firmly held by science and logic that each effect that we witness must have a cause."

You're about 75 to 100 years out of date on this one, I'm afraid. While this is true on a macroscopic scale, on a very, very small scale quantum mechanics comes into play and we begin to see not "cause and effect" but rather "probability of effect", which means that occasionally we see an effect without a cause.


It amazes me that you continue to parrot this mantra when it's a total crock.
The truth is that on a "very very small scale", we perceive (sense) phenomena within the awareness of space & time. Now it is true that within perceived space & time, we cannot predict where these phenomena will always occur, but your mantra only has any merit if you can show this forum that our SENSATIONS have no cause.
So do it.

Also, we don't observe the "probability of effect" - we observe the probability of order. I.e., there is a probability that some of these phenomena will occur in predictable localities of perceived space and perceived time.
Finally, the unpredictability of a phenomena does not mean that said phenomena is "without a cause".

Your reasoning on this issue is continually poor. The fact that you fail to understand why doesn't do your standing here any favours.

[Marquis de Carabas]

LG's right. Upchurch is in continuous danger of making that one final post that pushes us all over the edge and makes us laugh him our of the Forum. :rolleyes:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
LG's right. Upchurch is in continuous danger of making that one final post that pushes us all over the edge and makes us laugh him our of the Forum. :rolleyes:
Birds of a feather...

If he's wrong then he's wrong. Put your tongue away.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Birds of a feather...

If he's wrong then he's wrong. Put your tongue away. It's true. If I'm wrong, then I am wrong. However, under the base assumptions of your philosophy, you cannot prove that I am wrong. Until then, "put your tongue away."

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Birds of a feather...

If he's wrong then he's wrong. Put your tongue away.
Show him to be so, and I may just.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It's true. If I'm wrong, then I am wrong. However, under the base assumptions of your philosophy, you cannot prove that I am wrong. Until then, "put your tongue away."
My explanation for why your mantra is wrong was clear to understand. If you have a problem with that explanation, then you should address it.
Until you do, every time I see you repeat that naive crock of an excuse for reason, I shall give it the same treatment.

There's absolutely nil rational justification for parroting that disordered phenomena perceived within awareness are "without cause".
I've seen you post this rubbish on numerous occasions. Think twice before doing it any more.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan
PRIME MOVER

. . .

It follows that only an outside spiritual force could impart a spiritual evolvement in an organism, causing the once-animal to perceive abstract concepts like social law, philosophy and time itself. This abstract conceptualizing is what makes human beings distinct, and they are all spiritual qualities.

. . .

Jack Duggan © 2003
jxduggan@optonline.net

What is a "spiritual force"? What is "spiritual evolvement"? What are "spiritual qualities"?

If I understand your statements I think you mean intellectual, not spiritual for the quotation I took from your post. That seems to fit closer to a literal meaning, but even that does not quite fit.

But then maybe I do not understand what you mean Jack.

[Upchurch]

Lifegazer, this is the wrong thread to discuss your dream world fantasy. The opening post made assumptions based on the poster's misunderstanding of scientific finding and methodology. (or rather the guy he apparently took the post from.) My responses were within that context.

If you want to discuss your stuff, I suggest you start a new thread or, hey, address the multitude of replies in your old threads that you've ignored. If you don't want people to hijack your threads, don't hijack other people's threads.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Lifegazer, this is the wrong thread to discuss your dream world fantasy. The opening post made assumptions based on the poster's misunderstanding of scientific finding and methodology. (or rather the guy he apparently took the post from.) My responses were within that context.

If you want to discuss your stuff, I suggest you start a new thread or, hey, address the multitude of replies in your old threads that you've ignored. If you don't want people to hijack your threads, don't hijack other people's threads.
More nonsense.
The thread is about causality... and your response to Jack was that we now have proof that some things happen "without cause".

That is, without doubt, the biggest load of nonsense that science has ever given to the mind of mankind. And it's all due to that "out there" bias I keep telling you about.

I'm not hijacking nothing. Am I only allowed to post within the threads I start?!
You know that 'causality' has always been a passion of mine. That's why I'm posting.

You're teetering upchurch. If you had any grace you'd either jump or concede.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The thread is about causality... and your response to Jack was that we now have proof that some things happen "without cause".

No, what he said was:
"Cause and effect" cannot be relied upon as a universally true principle.
I have made a similar point to you on a number of occasions, coming not from a scientific but from a logical point of view. Not everything can have a cause - it does not make sense.

Now you (and whoever it was who wrote the OP) have concluded that this means a prime mover, but that is going well beyond what can be concluded from the evidence and reasoning at hand.

Cause and effect is simply not a reliable basis for reaching absolute conclusions.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
Not everything can have a cause - it does not make sense.

Agreed. But there's a big difference between saying Something is without cause as opposed to something occured from [and even within] nothing.

If the existence of something is without cause, then I would argue that - logically - that thing had always existed... since logically, nothing can come into existence from or within 'nothing'.

Upchurch's so-called "evidence of acausal events" to counter such reason is a total crock, as explained.
If you want to defend Upchurch's reasoning on his behalf, then address the posts I made to him.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If the existence of something is without cause, then I would argue that - logically - that thing had always existed... since logically, nothing can come into existence from or within 'nothing'.Then you either don't understand how logic works (which you don't) and/or haven't been paying attention (which you haven't).
Upchurch's so-called "evidence of acausal events" to counter such reason is a total crock, as explained.An explination is not proof, but then, we've already established that you don't understand how logic works, haven't we?

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Upchurch's so-called "evidence of acausal events" to counter such reason is a total crock, as explained.
If you want to defend Upchurch's reasoning on his behalf, then address the posts I made to him.

LG

It is demonstrable (I can even show you in a fairly simple experiment) that particles can appear from nowhere. I wouldn't say they are uncaused though: there is obviously a mathematical/theoretical reason why in general they do this. However, for each specific instance, there is no one cause. Even in your own philosophy, you disregard the cause of your God. It is just taken for granted. Yet you will not let the same arguments apply to the fabric of reality.

Google Casimir effect, and come back with questions.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Agreed. But there's a big difference between saying Something is without cause as opposed to something occured from [and even within] nothing.
I agree there is a difference and as I have said before, we can probably argue that there is at least one thing without a distinct cause. So at least one thing is 'acausal'. That is the limit of what we can glean from logic. Logic cannot tell us that it 'always existed' or that it 'came from nothing'.
If the existence of something is without cause, then I would argue that - logically - that thing had always existed... since logically, nothing can come into existence from or within 'nothing'.
But you have never stated the logic behind this, just made the assertion.
Upchurch's so-called "evidence of acausal events" to counter such reason is a total crock, as explained.
I don't have the science to judge this one way or the other, but I am willing to accept it as a possibility.

I don't even know what it means to say something has 'always existed'. It can only mean 'exists outside of time' and while I do not reject that 'outside of time' may be possible I don't think that any of us can claim to have even the faintest understanding of what it would mean.
If you want to defend Upchurch's reasoning on his behalf, then address the posts I made to him.
He defends his own reasoning better than I ever could.

[c4ts]

Uhhhh, the prime mover can't be intelligent. Aristotle says it's halfway between thought and no thought.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Gestahl
It is demonstrable (I can even show you in a fairly simple experiment) that particles can appear from nowhere.

Sir, if you have read my posts to Upchurch, then you should have already anticipated my response to this: you can *only* demonstrate that the perception (sensation) of a phenomenon is disorderly (unpredictable - with regards where a perceived phenomenon will occur within perceived space & time). That is all you can demonstrate.
... This doesn't mean that you can demonstrate that any perceived phenomenon can appear from nowhere or nothing.
... That's the logic of it squire. Truthfully.
As I said to Upchurch, to give credibility to your assertion requires that you [rationally] prove that either your sensations are without cause - (or that there is an "out there").
Philosophically/rationally, you can do neither. Conclusion: the assertion is [philosophically] absurd. End of story.

Even in your own philosophy, you disregard the cause of your God. It is just taken for granted. Yet you will not let the same arguments apply to the fabric of reality.

In my philosophy, 'God' has always existed, the same now as ever It was. However, that argument cannot be applied to an ever-changing and divided existence.

Google Casimir effect, and come back with questions.
It's irrelevant squire. All it proves is that within perceived space & time, phenomenon occur - the cause of which cannot be SENSED.

... To argue that the imposition of a sensation is "without cause" because you cannot sense what caused the imposition of that sensation, is - with all due respect - dumb. I use that word - not to insult you - but to highlight the ludicrousness of that argument.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
So at least one thing is 'acausal'. That is the limit of what we can glean from logic. Logic cannot tell us that it 'always existed' or that it 'came from nothing'.

If one thing at least is acausal, then logic can also tell us that it did not proceed from or within 'absolute nothingness'. Therefore, logic can also tell us that existence is eternal - i.e., there has always been Something.

I don't have the science to judge this one way or the other, but I am willing to accept it as a possibility.

Science PERCEIVES the order that is present within awareness. Science can never ever tell us that something perceived within awareness is "without cause", because whenever science makes such a claim, science is actually stating that the sensations themselves (of the things you perceive) are without cause. Do you understand this? You should do, by now.

I don't even know what it means to say something has 'always existed'. It can only mean 'exists outside of time' and while I do not reject that 'outside of time' may be possible I don't think that any of us can claim to have even the faintest understanding of what it would mean.

Time equates to changing/transforming existence. To say that "something exists outside time" is merely to say that something exists regardless of change/transformation. I.e., Something must exist prior to transformation (time) = existence precedes time.

He defends his own reasoning better than I ever could.
Does he? Did you see him address my posts to him, other than to think of reasons to evade the reasoning therein?
He's a crockmeister. See through him or be like him.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[quote]Time equates to changing/transforming existence. To say that "something exists outside time" is merely to say that something exists regardless of change/transformation. I.e., Something must exist prior to transformation (time) = existence precedes time.
The word 'precedes' presupposes the concept of time. So something cannot 'precede' time. If there is anything outside of time (and we do not yet have any good reason to suppose there is) then it's relationship to anything in the observable universe (whether or not the observable universe is an illusion created by ourselves) would be different to anything we can possibly understand.

That is the whole problem - you have decided that space and time are illusions, but you have not properly thought it through. You are still tied to temporal concepts like 'prior to' and 'precedes'. If there is no time then there is no 'prior' and no 'precedes'. You have to adjust your language accordingly. For example why do you refer to a 'primal' (ie first) cause? If there is no time then there is no 'first' anything.

And if there is no 'prior' or 'precedes' except in illusion, how is it possible to say that anything 'caused' anything else? No time, no causation. In fact no time implies no change or transformation. Without time each state of reality must be coexistent with any other state of reality.

Have you understood this? You should by now.

[P.S.A.]

Does he? Did you see him address my posts to him, other than to think of reasons to evade the reasoning therein?
He's a crockmeister. See through him or be like him.

No Lifegazer, everyone sees through YOU.

Are you really so mentally ill that you don't think anyone can remember the endless threads you've abandoned? The endless errors and flawed thoughts you've scattered around like so much used confetti at someone else's wedding? The endless threats and personal abuse you've spewed like the poisoness hateful fiend you are? Do you really think nuerotically attacking Upchurch will persuade anyone of your own Godliness? Just in case anyone has any doubts about whether Lifegazer is worth paying attention to;

1.) The evidence of his effects upon those who hear him. Hint: It's entirely negative.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55458&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

2.) Lifegazer insults and threatens people, then lies about what he's claimed, and then runs from the thread when I collect numerous examples of his lies.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870862611#post1870862611


And as for Iacchus... He's a fibber too. But have you read his "book"? He's also a loony. Sorry, I meant to say "Ahhh, but don't you think that the universal wibble quack honk :)"

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"put your tongue away."

If I had a nickle for every time a girl said that to me

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan
No matter what individual perception of the abstract prime mover, or God, it is logically inescapable that it is only from a spiritual entity that we could have derived our spiritual abilities. Hi Jack,

Welcome to the jungle. There are a few problem with your premises that others have pointed out. I hope you respond. I'm interested in your argument. I think you need to clean it up a bit.

Human beings alone perform unselfish acts such as giving sustenance to others outside their families. It is clearly illogical to survival to deprive oneself of food and property when nothing is gained to enhance one’s own security. Society benifits when we act unselfishly to help others.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Science PERCEIVES the order that is present within awareness. Science can never ever tell us that something perceived within awareness is "without cause", because whenever science makes such a claim, science is actually stating that the sensations themselves (of the things you perceive) are without cause. Do you understand this? You should do, by now.

First answer this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55573) , please, then you will be in a better position to argue. Thanks:

1) Your concept, "internal" implies the external. It is not difficult to conclude that it is the external reality. (hint: dont talk about "internal" if you dont want this conclusion to appear)

2) Your concept "observe" implies that something is being observed. This "something" is other than the observer. No matter what you believe, this dichotomy makes clear that "the observed" could be defined as the objective world. (hint: avoid dichotomies learning the correct meaning of the concepts involved in your arguments)

3) The "internal observation" is performed by (and in) "our own being". You often uses tautologies as if they were logical arguments. (hint: circular reasoning may sound complex and may appear "right" to you, but in reality is just confusing you, try to avoid it)

[SezMe]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're teetering upchurch. If you had any grace you'd either jump or concede.
Uppy, I'm sorry to hear about the teetering. Engineers have done wonders with that tower in Pisa...can we do anything to help out? :p

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Robin
The word 'precedes' presupposes the concept of time. So something cannot 'precede' time.

Time = change.
What you're saying here is that Something cannot precede time, yet that is clearly incorrect since Something must exist that can proceed to change.

For example why do you refer to a 'primal' (ie first) cause? If there is no time then there is no 'first' anything.

'Time' is a concept gleaned through the awareness of ever-changing sensations, not to mention thoughts & feelings. That is exactly where it comes from. So, the world of sensation, thought & feeling, is constantly changing.
The actual/real cause of sensation, thought & feeling, cannot be sensed. After all, sensations [of things] are mere abstract representations of things - illusions. Hence, there is no reality to be perceived = you cannot sense the actual/real cause of your sensations.
This means that the actual/real cause of your sensations exists beyond the world of sensation = exists beyond 'time' as we know it.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The actual/real cause of sensation, thought & feeling, cannot be sensed. ...wow. I can't believe it took you this long to finally realize this. This is exactly what I was trying to point out to you in the Upchurch's Question thread. "Internal" sensations like thoughts and feelings are just as unreliable as "external" sensations, yet you consider internal sensations refletive of a something genuine while external sensations are not.

If only you could piece your scattered thoughts into a single consistant and coherent concept, you'd be making some progress rather than running around in circles chasing your own tail.

I'm impressed, lifegazer. Once again, you've finally learned something despite yourself.

[Ossai]

lifegazer
There's absolutely nil rational justification for parroting that disordered phenomena perceived within awareness are "without cause".
I've seen you post this rubbish on numerous occasions. Think twice before doing it any more. *cough* *cough* If you’re so sure of your theory, publish it – along with the math to back it up. Oh wait, you can’t back it up.

Ossai

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"The actual/real cause of sensation, thought & feeling, cannot be sensed."

...wow. I can't believe it took you this long to finally realize this. This is exactly what I was trying to point out to you in the Upchurch's Question thread.

So? That we cannot sense the cause of a sensation doesn't mean that there isn't a cause of that sensation. In fact, quite the contrary - which is why that nonsense you've been spouting about "We know that some things happen without a cause", needs to disappear from philosophical discussions pertaining to causality. It is absolutely untrue - and science too should immediately cease from brainwashing people with such lies.

"Internal" sensations like thoughts and feelings are just as unreliable as "external" sensations, yet you consider internal sensations refletive of a something genuine while external sensations are not.

What does this mean? What do you mean by "unreliable"?
The internal sensations are imposed upon awareness to give the appearance of a world full of divided 'things'.

If only you could piece your scattered thoughts into a single consistant and coherent concept, you'd be making some progress rather than running around in circles chasing your own tail.

It's you who needs to get your head together, not me. You can start by accepting that the perception of acausal phenomena is impossible.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ossai
*cough* *cough* If you’re so sure of your theory, publish it – along with the math to back it up. Oh wait, you can’t back it up.

Math? Theories? You're in the wrong room mate.

Indeed there is absolutely nil rational justification for parroting that disordered phenomena perceived within awareness are "without cause".
You don't prove this with math; you prove it via rational contemplation of the fact that everything we perceive
emanates from the sensations that are experienced by whatever it is that we are.
... So, to state that there are perceived things which occur within awareness that are without cause is to state that the sensations are without cause. Which is a joke of a statement.

Any physicist who teaches our kids that perceived phenomenon are without cause should be locked up for brainwashing our kids with absolute lies.
If you refuse to acknowledge this, then that's your problem. How anyone can lie to themselves about something such as this is beyond my comprehension. I suspect it has something to do with either a fear or a distaste for God. A desire to preserve the status quo of one's own cherished ego and life. But it certainly has nothing to do with rationale.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Indeed there is absolutely nil rational justification for parroting that disordered phenomena perceived within awareness are "without cause".uh-huh. In your dream world, what's God's cause again?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... the fact that everything we perceive
emanates from the sensations that are experienced by whatever it is that we are.
... So, to state that there are perceived things which occur within awareness that are without cause is to state that the sensations are without cause. Which is a joke of a statement.


How long are you planning to IGNORE my direct questions regarding your statements??????????

Lets see:

"everything we perceive comes from the sensations that are experienced"

1) Again, circular reasoning. You think you say something, when you dont.

2) The sensations are already perceptions, you try to "separate" them in order to have an artificial dichotomy. Worst of all, is that this arbitrarian dichotomy makes you imply that there is "the observer" and "the observed", so you create your own trap! yes, as "the observed" is other than "the observer" it is, arguably, external to he/she!

3) "Cause and Effect" is an anthropomorphic concept. It was useful for a while, but it doesnt have meaning in the quantum world explanations. And yes, I consider quantum mechanics a better theory about the world than yours, any day of the week.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jack Duggan
PRIME MOVER
Just to reiterate the OP topic, the Prime Mover argument is predicated on the assumption that universe works paradoxically on both (1) a exclusivly cause-and-effect principle and (2) an idea that causes cannot be extrapolated on back through time indefinitely.

I say "paradoxically" because (2), which implies a first mover, indicates that there must be something that does not, itself, have a cause. This directly conflicts (1) which says that all phenomenon have a cause, which necessarily includes a theoretical "first" mover. If one argues that the cause-and-effect principle is applicable to all things except the first mover, then we have entered the realm of a special pleading argument. This can only be justified by sufficently demonstrating why a first mover is significantly unique that it is exempt from the cause-and-effect principle.

So, (1) and (2) are in direct conflict, meaning that they cannot both be true. In other words, if there exists a first mover, the universe does not hold to a exclusively cause-and-effect priciple. If the universe holds to an exclusively cause-and-effect principle, there can be no first mover.

And to satisfy lifegazer's need for attention, this is not dependant upon any perceived world observation and is equally applicable to any God's hyper-reality.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Lets make it more evident:

1) Everything have a cause

2) There cant be infinite regressions

Both are mutually exclusive.

[uruk]

It's irrelevant squire. All it proves is that within perceived space & time, phenomenon occur - the cause of which cannot be SENSED. By your philosophy anything that cannot fall within our awarness does not exist. If a cause cannot be percieved, then by your philosophy it does not exist.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by uruk
By your philosophy anything that cannot fall within our awarness does not exist. If a cause cannot be percieved, then by your philosophy it does not exist.

Beat me to it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
By your philosophy anything that cannot fall within our awarness does not exist. If a cause cannot be percieved, then by your philosophy it does not exist.
This is incorrect. In my philosophy, the only existing ~thing~ is the entity whose awareness is the 'receptacle' of experience.

Many people mock my philosophy without understanding it. Which kinda makes a mockery of these anti-lifegazer polls that serve to denounce said philosophy. Doesn't it PSA?

[Z]

Originally posted by lifegazer
This is incorrect. In my philosophy, the only existing ~thing~ is the entity whose awareness is the 'receptacle' of experience.

Many people mock my philosophy without understanding it. Which kinda makes a mockery of these anti-lifegazer polls that serve to denounce said philosophy. Doesn't it PSA?

Not really. Your philosophy is utterly illogical and heavily inconsistant with observable data, internally inconsistant, and based entirely upon a single philosophical realization padded heavily in numerous assumptions and false conclusions based on failed logic.

Plus, you get nothing out of it. No miracles; no bread; no peace of mind; no converts.

No, Dar, your philosophy makes a mockery out of you.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Many people mock my philosophy without understanding it. Perhaps, but there are also those of us who mock it because we understand it better than you do beause we have the advantage of not being personally invested in it. If you cannot even acknowledge the possibility that your philosophy might be wrong, you are really only an unquestioning, faithful theist.

[uruk]

This is incorrect. In my philosophy, the only existing ~thing~ is the entity whose awareness is the 'receptacle' of experience. Your missing the point (probably willfully).
Your constanly crowing that nothing exists beyond our awarness.
You stated that:All it proves is that within perceived space & time, phenomenon occur - the cause of which cannot be SENSED.

You said that it has been proven that phenomenon occur that has causes that we cannot sense (refering to gestahl's post).
But you also say that nothing beyond our perception exists.
You even goad us to prove that somthing exists beyond our awarness of it. (BTW you just claim there's proof)

So, by your claims, If phenomena occur by causes that we are not able to percieve (meaning that the cause is beyond our perception) then the cause for the phenomena does not exist. The cause is outside or beyond our awarness.
Many people mock my philosophy without understanding it. Which kinda makes a mockery of these anti-lifegazer polls that serve to denounce said philosophy. Doesn't it PSA? I'd say that you don't understand your philosophy at all either.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So, (1) and (2) are in direct conflict, meaning that they cannot both be true. In other words, if there exists a first mover, the universe does not hold to a exclusively cause-and-effect priciple. Why is that so hard to grasp?

If the universe holds to an exclusively cause-and-effect principle, there can be no first mover. And, in effect everything stems from nothing.

[uruk]

Plus, you get nothing out of it. No miracles; no bread; no peace of mind; no converts.
Not to mention a way over due proof of god's existance

I don't think the plagerized "PRIME MOVER" post counts. It's not very good nor is it LG's post. (unless Jack Duggan is LG's sock puppet)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why is that so hard to grasp?Ya got me. But people still put forth this prime mover argument so here we are.
And, in effect everything stems from nothing. Well, that doesn't really follow from the line you quoted, does it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Not really. Your philosophy is utterly illogical and heavily inconsistant with observable data,

What a joker. There's not a single jot of observable data which can prove that what you are perceiving exists beyond your awareness. So stop telling porkies to this forum.

internally inconsistant, and based entirely upon a single philosophical realization padded heavily in numerous assumptions

List these assumptions or shut up.

Plus, you get nothing out of it. No miracles; no bread; no peace of mind; no converts.

You have no idea what I get out of it or what I may eventually get out of it.

No, Dar, your philosophy makes a mockery out of you.
Sure. Like I'm downhearted that somebody like you belittles me.

[uruk]

What a joker. There's not a single jot of observable data which can prove that what you are perceiving exists beyond your awareness. So stop telling porkies to this forum. Didn't You said a few posts back that there are causes for phenomena that we cannot sense?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I say "paradoxically" because (2), which implies a first mover, indicates that there must be something that does not, itself, have a cause. This directly conflicts (1) which says that all phenomenon have a cause, which necessarily includes a theoretical "first" mover. If one argues that the cause-and-effect principle is applicable to all things except the first mover, then we have entered the realm of a special pleading argument. This can only be justified by sufficently demonstrating why a first mover is significantly unique that it is exempt from the cause-and-effect principle.

No "special pleading" is required.
The prime mover argument merely states that all effects must have a cause. Since the prime mover is not an effect, then the statement does not apply to 'it'.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
Didn't You said a few posts back that there are causes for phenomena that we cannot sense?
What?
We cannot sense the actual cause of the sensations, but this is irrelevant with regards what I said to dragon-features - who claims that my philosophy is inconsistent with observable data, thereby hinting that data pertaining to the perceived world somehow speaks of a real world existing beyond the perception of it. Which is a crock.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No "special pleading" is required.
The prime mover argument merely states that all effects must have a cause. Since the prime mover is not an effect, then the statement does not apply to 'it'.

The prime movers existence would be an effect. Of course there is no proof of a "Prime mover� so without evidence it is only a belief. I do respect you believe it, will you be proving this existence?

[uruk]

We cannot sense the actual cause of the sensations, but this is irrelevant with regards what I said to dragon-features - who claims that my philosophy You said:There's not a single jot of observable data which can prove that what you are perceiving exists beyond your awareness. In which you imply that there is is no "out there". That there is nothing beyond what we percieve. What we are percieving does not actually exists external to our internal awarness or mental image. (i.e. no actual spacial universe. It's all in our head)
You then post this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's irrelevant squire. All it proves is that within perceived space & time, phenomenon occur - the cause of which cannot be SENSED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That there are phenomena that occur within our percieved space/time (perception) that cannot be sensed (or outside our awarness).

One post contradicts the other. There are things beyond our awarness that are the cause for the phenomena within our awarness. That implies that there is an "out there". But you imply in the other post that there is no "out there".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ya got me. But people still put forth this prime mover argument so here we are.

Well, that doesn't really follow from the line you quoted, does it. How so? If everything has a cause, then everything must have a beginning. In which case there must ultimately be only one (traceable) beginning. So, what are we left to conclude except that something can come from nothing ... either that or, the "original cause" has always existed.

[uruk]

How so? If everything has a cause, then everything must have a beginning. In which case there must ultimately be only one (traceable) beginning. So, what are we left to conclude except that something can come from nothing ... either that or, the "original cause" has always existed. Your talking from conditions that exist in our universe on a macro scale. Things like cause and effect, beginning and ending are not so solid on the quantum level.

on the quantum level, "something" can come from "nothing" as we understand the practical concept of nothing (not the abstract concept of nothing). Things like Casimir effect, virtual particle pair production and spontaneous particle decay suggest this.

[Upchurch]

Upchurch: If the universe holds to an exclusively cause-and-effect principle, there can be no first mover.

Iacchus: And, in effect everything stems from nothing.

U: Well, that doesn't really follow from the line you quoted, does it.
Originally posted by Iacchus
How so? If everything has a cause, then everything must have a beginning.No, if the universe holds an exclusively cause-and-effect principle, there can be no beginning. A beginning would indicate an effect without a cause. The cause and effect chain must necessarily go back in time forever.
In which case there must ultimately be only one (traceable) beginning. So, what are we left to conclude except that something can come from nothingThat would be the "Prime Mover exists and the universe is not exclusively cause-and-effect" option.
... either that or, the "original cause" has always existed.That would not negate the necessity of the universe being not strictly cause-and-effect since there exists at least one thing that has no cause.

Which, of course, begs the question, if there is one, why not more?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How so? If everything has a cause, then everything must have a beginning. In which case there must ultimately be only one (traceable) beginning. So, what are we left to conclude except that something can come from nothing ... either that or, the "original cause" has always existed.


Wait you said "If everything has a cause, then everything must have a beginning."

if everything has a beginning then your "original cause" needs a "original cause".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

can anyone read? Im guessing I do not receive answers from lifegazer because he cant read my posts, and that lacchus has not read my "micro argument" regarding the logical impossibility of "prime cause". :(

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
can anyone read? Im guessing I do not receive answers from lifegazer because he cant read my posts, and that lacchus has not read my "micro argument" regarding the logical impossibility of "prime cause". :(

Bodhi Dharma Zen did you say something?

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Time = change.
What you're saying here is that Something cannot precede time, yet that is clearly incorrect since Something must exist that can proceed to change.
It just proves my point, you have not thought it through. If "something" can precede time, then clearly "something else" can precede the "something".

On the other hand if you are saying that A preceded B but nothing can precede A, then you are saying in effect that A came from nothing and agreeing with Upchurch. But you want it both ways, you want God to be the 'first' thing, but then to say that God 'always' existed. I have already pointed out that you just have not thought through what you mean by 'always', which is a temporal concept.
'Time' is a concept gleaned through the awareness of ever-changing sensations, not to mention thoughts & feelings. That is exactly where it comes from.
This is just an assumption on your part, but it does not really matter. Either way if anything can change (even if you term the change 'illusion') and God is everything then God can change and by any definition God is subject to time (in some sense) and not eternal.
The actual/real cause of sensation, thought & feeling, cannot be sensed.
Think about it - what is a sensation? It is an effect that proceeds from some cause. So what you are saying is that you cannot sense the thing you are sensing.

When I experience a sensation I know that I am sensing some real thing. Now whether that thing is part of a membrane flapping about in 11 dimensional spacetime or strings wiggling about in 10 dimensions or thoughts in the mind of God or something else entirely is something that we cannot actually decide on the information present.

But philosophically the distinction is not so very important, the basis for any God speculation is whether or not existence has an overarching intelligence and purpose.

To link back to the OP (even though it was a plagiarised hit and run), it does not really matter if you term something 'physical' or 'spiritual', I have yet to meet a physicist that believed the term 'physical' actually meant anything. Do the things we value in life come from some overarching intelligence? We have no evidence for this. It seems to me that if something could create a universe (or the illusion of a universe) then it could transmit knowledge of itself to the consciousness that is "me". If there is an overarching intelligence and it has not transmitted this knowledge to me then there is probably some reason.

[Robin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
No "special pleading" is required.
The prime mover argument merely states that all effects must have a cause. Since the prime mover is not an effect, then the statement does not apply to 'it'.
Again the statement that all effects must have a cause is like saying that all husbands must be married. It is simply a trivial redefinition of the word. You might equally say that all effects are effects, or that everything that has a cause has a cause.

Logically there is at least one thing that is not an effect, so "cause/effect" is not a sound basis for any reasoning.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
can anyone read? Im guessing I do not receive answers from lifegazer because he cant read my posts, and that lacchus has not read my "micro argument" regarding the logical impossibility of "prime cause". :(
I can assure you I am reading the excellent points you make. I don't comment because you usually make them so well as not to require comment. I think that lifegazer does not answer because he has no answers.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nice to know Im not invisible! :p

[RandFan]

Jack? JaaaAAck... helooOoOOO.....

Did I miss something folks? Where is Jack?

[Kopji]

It is firmly held by science and logic...

Is any argument that starts with those words worth a Tinker's damn?

We don't understand so there must be a God behind it.
That rascal.
Got it.
Thanks for playing.

[Kopji]

I have a question keeping me up. Maybe one of the philosophy guys can help.

The notion of a "prime mover" implies the mover was not caused, or it would be an effect. Fine. Why not just call the Prime Mover an 'effect without a cause'?

Oh! It's because the we've defined an "effect" as always being the result of a cause.

So to prove God exists, there must be at least one effect without a cause, but let's call that one a Prime Mover so we can show it's God.

[Beleth]

Thank you, Jack Duggan, for giving this board quite possibly the highest response-to-post ratio of any single poster!

Each post of yours now has generated over 100 replies! That's a lot of entertainment you have provided us from so little effort on your part! Doubly so since your OP was a cut-and-paste from somewhere else!


Again, thank you, and bravo!

[Kopji]

it was just a troll kind of day

[Ossai]

lifegazer
Indeed there is absolutely nil rational justification for parroting that disordered phenomena perceived within awareness are "without cause". I didn’t ask for ‘rational’ I ask for proof of the mathematical variety.

You don't prove this with math; you prove it via rational contemplation of the fact that everything we perceive
emanates from the sensations that are experienced by whatever it is that we are.. Oh, I see you can’t prove it.

Bodhi Dharma Zen
3) "Cause and Effect" is an anthropomorphic concept. It was useful for a while, but it doesnt have meaning in the quantum world explanations. And yes, I consider quantum mechanics a better theory about the world than yours, any day of the week. Gasp, math again! Quantum theory can be and is mathematically expressed. :clap:

lifegazer
Many people mock my philosophy without understanding it. Just like your Proof of God. Oops, you don’t have a proof of god, my bad.

Ossai

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No, if the universe holds an exclusively cause-and-effect principle, there can be no beginning. A beginning would indicate an effect without a cause. The cause and effect chain must necessarily go back in time forever.Yet that would imply a Universe with multiple origins, which clearly goes against the Big Bang theory. Unless of course these multiple origins included "the whole" of something else.

Which, of course, begs the question, if there is one, why not more? If there is not more than one of what? God? And why cannot God be viewed as the essence or, fabric by which all things become manifest? In which case it doesn't matter whether there are one, or there are many, so long as it's understood what it means in essence. Of course in essence there is only one reality, so, why couldn't that be applied to a single God?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet that would imply a Universe with multiple origins, which clearly goes against the Big Bang theory. Unless of course these multiple origins included "the whole" of something else. No, you don't understand. A cause and effect chain that goes back forever has no origin. "Origin", which is the base word of "originate", inidcates that something has a beginning. In this case, we're talking about the uncaused effect, which specifically violates the cause-and-effect principle. If all effects, phenomena, whatever must have a cause, then there cannot be an origin, a beginning, a starting point. It must go back in time forever.

I have no idea how you made the leap to multiple origins, which merely violates cause-and-effect all the more.

edited to add: Incidently, the Big Bang theory (nor physics in general) does not claim a strict adherence to a the cause-and-effect principle. Therefore it is not surprising that time going back forever is inconsistant with the Big Bang theory.
If there is not more than one of what? God?No, you are assuming that an un-caused effect must necessarily be "God". I was asking that if there can be one un-caused effect, why not others? Specifically, I'm thinking of acausal quantum phenomena, of which has been seen to occur many, many times and is at the core of current Big Bang thoery.
And why cannot God be viewed as the essence or, fabric by which all things become manifest? It could, but why? The more you try to fit God to concepts derived from science, the more you re-define "God" until the word does not resemble it's original meaning. Eventually, you will reach the point where "God" means the same thing as "science". Not that "science" as any of the aspects the original definition of "God", but "God" has been tweaked to an absurd level as to no longer resemble God. It's like calling an apple an "orange".

So, why cannot God be viewed as the fabric by which all things manifest? Because we already have a word for that. It's called spacetime. If you want to call spacetime "God", feel free, but it is still just spacetime. Calling it "God" does not make spacetime intellegent. It does not make spacetime suddenly have a will or intent. It's just sticking a new label on it that has a lot of emotional and cultural baggage.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No, you don't understand. A cause and effect chain that goes back forever has no origin. "Origin", which is the base word of "originate", inidcates that something has a beginning. In this case, we're talking about the uncaused effect, which specifically violates the cause-and-effect principle. If all effects, phenomena, whatever must have a cause, then there cannot be an origin, a beginning, a starting point. It must go back in time forever.You don't believe that there was a Big Bang?

I have no idea how you made the leap to multiple origins, which merely violates cause-and-effect all the more.Are you at all familiar with the dominoe theory? Where the whole series or, chain of events, begins with the fall of the first dominoe? Or, look what happens when you throw a rock in a pond. There is only one entry point for the rock (cause), yet its effects reverberate throughout the whole pond.

No, you are assuming that an un-caused effect must necessarily be "God".Am I? And this is based upon your assumption of what?

I was asking that if there can be one un-caused effect, why not others? Specifically, I'm thinking of acausal quantum phenomena, of which has been seen to occur many, many times and is at the core of current Big Bang thoery.And how do we know that this isn't merely evidence of God's free will?

It could, but why?It could, but doesn't mean it should? Why?

The more you try to fit God to concepts derived from science, the more you re-define "God" until the word does not resemble it's original meaning. Eventually, you will reach the point where "God" means the same thing as "science". Not that "science" as any of the aspects the original definition of "God", but "God" has been tweaked to an absurd level as to no longer resemble God. It's like calling an apple an "orange". And are we to take it that God is an entity derived purely from our superstitions? So, God initially appeared before a primitive mindset (since that's all there was) but, does that mean our ideas of God can't evolve as well?

So, why cannot God be viewed as the fabric by which all things manifest? Because we already have a word for that. It's called spacetime.No, God would be that which is infinite and stands outside of spacetime, hence Eternal.

If you want to call spacetime "God", feel free, but it is still just spacetime. Calling it "God" does not make spacetime intellegent. It does not make spacetime suddenly have a will or intent. It's just sticking a new label on it that has a lot of emotional and cultural baggage. No, the Universe is but a subset of God, not the other way around.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You don't believe that there was a Big Bang?

Are you at all familiar with the dominoe theory? Where the whole series or, chain of events, begins with the fall of the first dominoe? Or, look what happens when you throw a rock in a pond. There is only one entry point for the rock (cause), yet its effects reverberate throughout the whole pond.

Am I? And this is based upon your assumption of what?

And how do we know that this isn't merely evidence of God's free will?

It could, but doesn't mean it should? Why?

And are we to take it that God is an entity derived purely from our superstitions? So, God initially appeared before a primitive mindset (since that's all there was) but, does that mean our ideas of God can't evolve as well?

No, God would be that which is infinite and stands outside of spacetime, hence Eternal.

No, the Universe is but a subset of God, not the other way around.


You don't believe that there was a Big Bang?

Energy, matter neither created nor destroyed, simply raising ( coming together) and falling ( death and decay) to again appear in a new form. Big Bang= death new universe =coming together again.

An endless dance, rolling phenomena.

Why do you believe this is not the case? We can prove the universe, we can prove impermanence, prove Energy, matter neither created nor destroyed just always-changing form.

Yet you refuse to believe there is not a God something you can not prove.

And are we to take it that God is an entity derived purely from our superstitions?

That is what the evidence points towards

So, God initially appeared before a primitive mindset (since that's all there was) but, does that mean our ideas of God can't evolve as well?

Being the God was a concept in a fearful mind looking to explain why there is for instance thunder, yes the concept can evolve and does. People come to see it is unsupported myth and not required much like the appendix.

No, God would be that which is infinite and stands outside of spacetime, hence Eternal.

Proof?

Please demonstrate to us just what is “outside of spacetime� prove this realm of existence then explain who created that realm of existence so your God could stand there?

No, the Universe is but a subset of God, not the other way around

Any proof or shall we just take your word for it?

Fact= the Universe
God= Belief

[Iacchus]

Proof? And what you fail to realize is that the proof is not of this world. The proof is in the afterlife, which does exist.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Proof? And what you fail to realize is that the proof is not of this world. The proof is in the afterlife, which does exist.

Proof please?

Starting to hold breath in 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1...GO

[uruk]

The proof is in the afterlife, which does exist.
What is your proof that the afterlife exists? Care to share?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You don't believe that there was a Big Bang?What? No. I don't believe in strict cause-and-effect.
Are you at all familiar with the dominoe theory? Where the whole series or, chain of events, begins with the fall of the first dominoe?You still don't understand. If every effect has a cause, then there can be no first dominoe because something must have knocked it over. And whatever knocked it over must also have a cause and so on. Strict cause-and-effect means that there can be no first cause.
Am I? And this is based upon your assumption of what?I was responding to your guess that the un-caused effect was God. This is your assumption. My assumption is that you meant what you said. Was I incorrect?
And how do we know that this isn't merely evidence of God's free will?We cannot. Neither can we know that this is merely evidence of Santa Claus's free will? The Easter Bunny's? The Invisible Pink Unicorn's?

Should we assume all of these are valid? If not, why not?
It could, but doesn't mean it should? Why?The rest of my previous post addressed this very question.
And are we to take it that God is an entity derived purely from our superstitions? So, God initially appeared before a primitive mindset (since that's all there was) but, does that mean our ideas of God can't evolve as well?

No, God would be that which is infinite and stands outside of spacetime, hence Eternal.

No, the Universe is but a subset of God, not the other way around. As Pahansiri pointed out, this is all speculation on your part. Regardless, the point of this particular thread is that of the Prime Mover argument for God which fails on two points: (1) there is no strict cause-and-effect relationship for all phenomena and (2) there are other possible first movers besides God, specifically acausal phenomena that we can actually detect as opposed to God who we cannot.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What? No. I don't believe in strict cause-and-effect.In other words you believe that something can come from nothing. If not, then what else are you saying?

You still don't understand. If every effect has a cause, then there can be no first dominoe because something must have knocked it over. And whatever knocked it over must also have a cause and so on. Strict cause-and-effect means that there can be no first cause. And, is it entirely possible that the cause exists in another dimenision? One that exists outside of time and space perhaps? For example, consider the holodeck of a dimension which exists between our ears (particularly when we dream), it certainly cannot be pinpointed within the dimensions of time and space can it?

I was responding to your guess that the un-caused effect was God. This is your assumption. My assumption is that you meant what you said. Was I incorrect?You are assuming, like you, that I am merely assuming the position of God.

We cannot. Neither can we know that this is merely evidence of Santa Claus's free will? The Easter Bunny's? The Invisible Pink Unicorn's?And this of course is merely contingent upon your assumption that God doesn't exsit ... or, that we can't know He exists.

Should we assume all of these are valid? If not, why not?It's not necessary for me to assume. Why should I ask the same of you?

As Pahansiri pointed out, this is all speculation on your part.No, this is merely Pahansiri's speculation about whether I may be speculating or not. And for some reason he hasn't quite figured that out either ...

Regardless, the point of this particular thread is that of the Prime Mover argument for God which fails on two points: (1) there is no strict cause-and-effect relationship for all phenomena and (2) there are other possible first movers besides God, specifically acausal phenomena that we can actually detect as opposed to God who we cannot. Yes, I agree. There is no such thing as something which can come from nothing, unless that something has always been.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus


No, this is merely Pahansiri's speculation about whether I may be speculating or not. And for some reason he hasn't quite figured that out either ...



Because you have offered no proof , facts, logical conclusion and by such there is no reason to believe it is any more then speculation on your part.

And for some reason you "hasn't" quite figured that out either ...;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Because you have offered no proof , facts, logical conclusion and by such there is no reason to believe it is any more then speculation on your part.Believe what you wish.

And for some reason you "hasn't" quite figured that out either ...;) Yep, if you can't validate what I say is false, then how can you validate what you say is true? Sounds to me like the whole thing is purely a matter of belief. Of course I'm the one who claims he can validate it, yet I can't prove it. Hmm ... ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
In other words you believe that something can come from nothing.That's a gross over-simplification, but yes.
And, is it entirely possible that the cause exists in another dimenision? One that exists outside of time and space perhaps? For example, consider the holodeck of a dimension which exists between our ears (particularly when we dream), it certainly cannot be pinpointed within the dimensions of time and space can it?What does it matter if it comes from another dimension? Even if it did, if there is a strict cause-and-effect principle then that effect must still have a cause.

...oh. Wait. The holodeck comment just made something occur to me. Are you thinking that "dimensions" are places outside of our universe like what is depicted in science fiction? Do you know that is the "fiction" part? If you are claiming that there are extra-universe dimensions, you've got a hefty amount to prove before we even get to the prime mover argument.
You are assuming, like you, that I am merely assuming the position of God.Actually, you are assuming God, as God is an unfalsifiable claim, but whatever.
And this of course is merely contingent upon your assumption that God doesn't exsit ... or, that we can't know He exists.Oh? We can know God exists? You can provide evidence? Or are you talking about your faith?
Yes, I agree. There is no such thing as something which can come from nothing, unless that something has always been. Not only is there such a thing as something which can come from nothing, but there is sound mathematical theory and physical evidence for its existance. One such phenomenon is quantum fluctuation which is results in Hawking Radiation.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Believe what you wish.

Yep, if you can't validate what I say is false, then how can you validate what you say is true? Sounds to me like the whole thing is purely a matter of belief. Of course I'm the one who claims he can validate it, yet I can't prove it. Hmm ... ;)

Believe what you wish.

Translation, you have no proof and you believe it is my fault you don’t…lol

Yep, if you can't validate what I say is false, then how can you validate what you say is true?

Silly boy, you demand you have the truth and we, wrong. By such the burden of proof is on you not me. Are you new to this?

Fact is I and other has shot down most of what you have said, remember?


Sounds to me like the whole thing is purely a matter of belief.

yes, and I respect you believe in God and that you do so free of any proof, I respect that. I do not see evidence of a God or Gods so will hold out a belief in such until I see clear evidence.


Of course I'm the one who claims he can validate it, yet I can't prove it. Hmm ...

And??

I would again ask you how your dreams, or “experience� is valid and the dreams and “experience� of others that conflict with yours are not. But I know, you don’t answer questions.

Such is blind faith
;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Translation, you have no proof and you believe it is my fault you don’t…lolThese are your words, not mine and, are proof of what you believe. So why is it that I don't believe you? Because I am willfully ignorant ... of what you believe? Hmm ...

Silly boy, you demand you have the truth and we, wrong. By such the burden of proof is on you not me. Are you new to this?Do you see me pointing a gun at anybody's head? Or, passing the kool-aid around?

Fact is I and other has shot down most of what you have said, remember?I understand this is what you believe. But what you have to understand is that our beliefs originate from within our minds.

yes, and I respect you believe in God and that you do so free of any proof, I respect that. I do not see evidence of a God or Gods so will hold out a belief in such until I see clear evidence.You accuse me of believing in something blindly, which is an outright lie. But, since it can't be proven, at least in the here and now, why should it matter, right?

And??

I would again ask you how your dreams, or “experience� is valid and the dreams and “experience� of others that conflict with yours are not. But I know, you don’t answer questions.

Such is blind faith
;) And am I take it this is your expert opininon? ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you see me pointing a gun at anybody's head? Or, passing the kool-aid around?So you're suggesting that we should just ignore you when you make your varous innuendos or claims that you don't back up? If so, why do you bother posting?
But what you have to understand is that our beliefs originate from within our minds.This, for example, is demonstrably false. What do you see as a proper response to this statement? Since you are not "pointing a gun to anyone's head", would you prefer we just roll our eyes and go on with the discussion as if you hadn't said something that was incorrect?

[P.S.A.]

Do you see me pointing a gun at anybody's head?

I seem to recall that you said if someone was creeping around your back door at night you WOULD point a gun at their head. Of course, that was probably just another half baked metaphor of yours which fell flat on it's face... as was this one. But keep trying, and maybe one day you'll persuade someone of the worth of your Church.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
These are your words, not mine and, are proof of what you believe. So why is it that I don't believe you? Because I am willfully ignorant ... of what you believe? Hmm ...

Do you see me pointing a gun at anybody's head? Or, passing the kool-aid around?

I understand this is what you believe. But what you have to understand is that our beliefs originate from within our minds.

You accuse me of believing in something blindly, which is an outright lie. But, since it can't be proven, at least in the here and now, why should it matter, right?

And am I take it this is your expert opininon? ;)

These are your words, not mine and, are proof of what you believe. So why is it that I don't believe you? Because I am willfully ignorant ... of what you believe? Hmm ...

1-I believe you say it is a fact that there is a God and we who do not believe it are wrong and lost. I use your statements and post to support this belief. So with the facts I come to the logical conclusion you say that there is a God and we who do not believe it are wrong and lost.

2-I believe you after demanding God is a fact and having been asked over and over to offer proof of this have offered none. I use your statements and post to support this belief. So with the facts I come to the logical conclusion you say that there is a God but can not or will not offer any facts, proof or logical conclusion.

Do you see me pointing a gun at anybody's head? Or, passing the kool-aid around?

1- No just demanding we are lost fools for not blindly believing what you say is fact. You have no power to make anyone believe anything, as I am sure you know.
2- I sadly “fear� you have already bought the kool-aid.

I understand this is what you believe. But what you have to understand is that our beliefs originate from within our minds.

My friend I am Buddhist I understand the origin of phenomena.

But as to my statement Fact is I and other has shot down most of what you have said, remember?

I base this on the facts found in these many pages.

You accuse me of believing in something blindly, which is an outright lie.

Prove it…


But, since it can't be proven, at least in the here and now, why should it matter, right?

Wrong, as all who read my post with an open mind I respect what you believe and what others do, as do I respect you. YOU choose to tell others that are wrong and lost and blind for not simply believing what you say just because you say it. Right?

[Iacchus]

Well, it's too bad I have to go to work. But I'll make it as simple for you folks as I can. Either God exists or He doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween. So you can speculate all you want, but that still doesn't change things any. So whatever you believe is exactly what it is ... your beliefs.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, it's too bad I have to go to work. But I'll make it as simple for you folks as I can. Either God exists or He doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween. So you can speculate all you want, but that still doesn't change things any. So whatever you believe is exactly what it is ... your beliefs.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, it's too bad I have to go to work.


OH darn, that darn work if it were not for you having to go to work today you would have gladly given us the proof or God from day one you started posting here years ago. This day of work April 28th 2005 was all that stopped you from giving us the proof we asked for from day one of your first post some 2 years ago…

:dl:


But I'll make it as simple for you folks as I can.

To make it simple would to be just stop dancing and give the proof.

[/quote]Either God exists or He doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween. [/quote]


Either pink unicorns exists or unicorns doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween.


The evidence for both are about equal.


So you can speculate all you want, but that still doesn't change things any. So whatever you believe is exactly what it is ... your beliefs.

I can not speak for the others, just myself. I believe based on all available data there is no evidence of a God or 2 or a million but there may be.


I believe based on all available data there is no evidence you can support what you believe or will try.


Have a nice day of work and be well my friend.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
I seem to recall that you said if someone was creeping around your back door at night you WOULD point a gun at their head. Of course, that was probably just another half baked metaphor of yours which fell flat on it's face... as was this one. But keep trying, and maybe one day you'll persuade someone of the worth of your Church. And once again, taken entirely out of context.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Either pink unicorns exists or unicorns doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween.

The evidence for both are about equal.Hey, just imagine that you were never here. It would be sort of like you were dead huh? So, does that constitute you as an imaginary being as well? Yep, afraid so. :D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, just imagine that you were never here. It would be sort of like you were dead huh? So, does that constitute you as an imaginary being as well? Yep, afraid so. :D

Originally posted by Iacchus at 04-28-2005 04:34 PM--Well, it's too bad I have to go to work.


then Originally posted by Iacchus at 04-28-2005 04:58 PM --Hey, just imagine that you were never here. It would be sort of like you were dead huh? So, does that constitute you as an imaginary being as well? Yep, afraid so.


Hey what about work?? They call a snow day? Or did you fib?

Well being you are still here ( for some reason) now you can prove God, because eit was “only� because you had to go to “work� wink wink that you did not before. SO let er rip, lay it on us…


AS to your post Originally posted by Iacchus at 04-28-2005 04:58 PM --Hey, just imagine that you were never here. It would be sort of like you were dead huh? .

No I am sure Oregon is not that boring.


So, does that constitute you as an imaginary being as well? Yep, afraid so.

Define “you/me/I�.
;)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Lifegazer and Iacchus:

A lovely quote of a book about Nasrudin, I think it will be interesting for you both:

Cause and effect

WHAT IS Fate?� the Mulla Nasrudin was once asked by a scholar. “An endless succession of intertwined events, each influencing the other,� he replied. The scholar raised a sceptical eyebrow: “I can’t accept that. I believe in cause and effect.� “Very well,� said the Mulla and drew his attention to a procession of people, leading a man to be hanged. “Is that man going to die because someone gave him the money that let him buy the knife he used for murder, or because someone saw him do it, or because nobody stopped him?�




;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Lifegazer and Iacchus:

A lovely quote of a book about Nasrudin, I think it will be interesting for you both:

;) Yes, but what would have been the point it we hadn't all evolved from the same single celled animals? Life would certainly be less intriguing don't you think?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Define “you/me/I�.
;)
Well, let's just say your imagination is all you've got. For surely if there is no awareness of who you are after you die, how can you imagine possessing anything? In other words you only imagined that you were real. Therefore, are you willing to admit that you don't exist or, that our imagination is indeed the very basis we have for accepting anything?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Therefore, are you willing to admit that you don't exist or, that our imagination is indeed the very basis we have for accepting anything?

Lets try again, Define “you/me/I/self"

[Ossai]

Iacchus
Either God exists or He doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween. Damn the goddess is going to be upset you said that. What is she supposed to tell all the little godlings running around as well?

Goddess: Sorry sons and daughters, but all you have done and inspired is for naught since Iacchus has declared you don’t exist.

Ossai

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Ossai
Iacchus
Damn the goddess is going to be upset you said that. What is she supposed to tell all the little godlings running around as well?

Goddess: Sorry sons and daughters, but all you have done and inspired is for naught since Iacchus has declared you don’t exist.

Ossai
i also declare that they don't exist. poor little godlings, destroyed before they even had a chance to make life miserable for us mortals.

[Pahansiri]

Good morning
Iacchus I hope you had a great day at work yesterday.


Yesterday at 04:58 PM you posted the following Well, it's too bad I have to go to work. But I'll make it as simple for you folks as I can. Either God exists or He doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween.

I see you are on line now and have hours before it will again be 04:58 PM, so may I ask that you use this time to provide the proof you “ would have� if you did not have to go to work yesterday?
:th:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Either God exists or He doesn't exist, and there can be no inbetween. So you can speculate all you want, but that still doesn't change things any. So whatever you believe is exactly what it is ... your beliefs. Ah, yes. Why is it that theists feel the need to try to discredit science by bringing everyone down to the same level of faith? *shrug* Odd commentary on the stature of faith...

God may or may not exist. But that really isn't the point of this thread, now is it? The point of this thread whether or not the Prime Mover argument is proof of God. As we've seen over the previous three pages, it is not proof that God exists. This should not be confused as proof that God does not exist, it just doesn't prove God's existance.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ossai
Iacchus
Damn the goddess is going to be upset you said that. What is she supposed to tell all the little godlings running around as well?

Goddess: Sorry sons and daughters, but all you have done and inspired is for naught since Iacchus has declared you don’t exist.

Ossai Believe what you will, until you die that is, for then you can believe no more ... Or, can you? So, what's the point in looking for God, or invisible pink fairies or, any other of these other "mythological beings?" We need look no further than ourselves. We are all myths in the making! :D

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
We need look no further than ourselves. :D

SEE we can agree on something!!:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, yes. Why is it that theists feel the need to try to discredit science by bringing everyone down to the same level of faith? *shrug* Odd commentary on the stature of faith...Why? Because your imagination is all you've got. :D

God may or may not exist. But that really isn't the point of this thread, now is it? The point of this thread whether or not the Prime Mover argument is proof of God. As we've seen over the previous three pages, it is not proof that God exists. This should not be confused as proof that God does not exist, it just doesn't prove God's existance. Yet if we were somehow able to prove God exists (hmm ...), this would no doubt be one of the forerunning arguments. Certainly it does not lend anything towards the contrary.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
SEE we can agree on something!!:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: I would be inclined to agree with you, however, my "imagination" tells me this is not all there is.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yet if we were somehow able to prove God exists (hmm ...), this would no doubt be one of the forerunning arguments.
No. There is a difference between the soundness of an argument and the veracity of its conclusion. Even were God's existence proven tomorrow, the Prime Mover argument would continue to be invalid, and, as such, irrelevant.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
No. There is a difference between the soundness of an argument and the veracity of its conclusion. Even were God's existence proven tomorrow, the Prime Mover argument would continue to be invalid, and, as such, irrelevant. What are you talking about? There can only be one cause for all that there is.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you talking about? There can only be one cause for all that there is.
What I am talking about is the invalidity of the Prime Mover argument (see the last few pages for a recap). Whether the conclusion (God exists) is true or false changes nothing about the soundness of the argument. It would not, therefore, be "one of the forerunning arguments." It would just be another example of bad logic.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And once again, taken entirely out of context.

Bearing in mind that a number of posters asked you what you thought you were saying with that statement, including asking whether you were threatening them, and you steadfastly refused (or simply couldn't) describe any further what it was you actually meant, it's entirely possible that you DID mean what I said. Or maybe not... you have a lot of difficulty understanding the real world in any logical way, don't you? That was the thread where you linked to your book, remember, and asked if I'd read it...? Without the slightest awareness of how reading your words in their clearest form discreditted your claims.

Why not read it for yourself, loon-watchers; Try this page for a start...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0401.html

Disjointed thinking, ridiculous self absorbtion and pathetic numerology, neurotic obsession with women (see if you can find the part elsewhere in the book where he talks with pride about hurting one)... it's all there, all incoherantly written and ridiculously honk. No wonder you don't like to debate clearly with anyone; when you can see your arguments clearly, they are plainly the work of a loony. That most of the non-spam comments in your Guestbook are written by yourself trying to attract hits to your own homepage was equally amusing too.

Still, I do agree with you on one thing. Belief is all you have. That's you personally... not the rest of us, we have rather more, which we can replicate for the use of others.... We call it Science, and that exists whether you choose to link it numerically to some obscure erotic need or not.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why? Because your imagination is all you've got. :DSo you say. Why should I believe that?
Yet if we were somehow able to prove God exists (hmm ...), this would no doubt be one of the forerunning arguments. Certainly it does not lend anything towards the contrary. Boy, you're just not getting this, are you? No, it would not be a leading argument because it is inconclusive. "If we we were to somehow able to prove God exists," that "somehow" would be the argument. Unfortunately, to date, there has been no "somehow".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Why not read it for yourself, loon-watchers; Try this page for a start...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0401.html

Disjointed thinking, ridiculous self absorbtion and pathetic numerology, neurotic obsession with women (see if you can find the part elsewhere in the book where he talks with pride about hurting one)... it's all there, all incoherantly written and ridiculously honk. No wonder you don't like to debate clearly with anyone; when you can see your arguments clearly, they are plainly the work of a loony. That most of the non-spam comments in your Guestbook are written by yourself trying to attract hits to your own homepage was equally amusing too.Ah, I can see that I've got you hooked. It's too bad I'm not looking for fanatics.

Still, I do agree with you on one thing. Belief is all you have. That's you personally... not the rest of us, we have rather more, which we can replicate for the use of others.... We call it Science, and that exists whether you choose to link it numerically to some obscure erotic need or not. Call it what you will, it's still a matter of belief.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Boy, you're just not getting this, are you? No, it would not be a leading argument because it is inconclusive. "If we we were to somehow able to prove God exists," that "somehow" would be the argument. Unfortunately, to date, there has been no "somehow". What's inconclusive? Whether or not something can come from nothing? I don't agree.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's inconclusive? Whether or not something can come from nothing? I don't agree.
Then give us your sound argument, complete with valid reasoning, that leads to your conclusion.

ETA: ...and if you could start from true--at the least, accepted--premises, that would be peachy.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's inconclusive? Whether or not something can come from nothing? I don't agree. You don't understand. Nor are you likely to any time soon, given your avoidance of the scientific literature that applies to any of your dearly-held beliefs.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I would be inclined to agree with you, however, my "imagination" tells me this is not all there is.

my "imagination" at differing times in my life "tells" me many things, it is always changing, not the same as a child not the same near death, that is why"imagination" also is not self. It too is illusion.

[P.S.A.]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ah, I can see that I've got you hooked. It's too bad I'm not looking for fanatics.

Ahh yes, the repeat of the innuendo about being obsessed again, but this time with you instead of Lifegazer Except, ahah ha ha... Remember when I timed myself to show just how long it took me to disprove the slander you tried to push about stalking Lifegazer? Look, I can do it again, if you like... but I'm too lazy to find my stop watch, so just assume a sub 10 second effort to find this link;

http://www.emints.org/ethemes/resources/S00001258.shtml

That's something they teach in school, by the way, a little skill I learnt years ago.

Call it what you will, it's still a matter of belief. [/B]

Ok, I call it "not a matter of belief, and can be scientifically proven to be so". It's only a matter of belief because you have difficulty stepping outside your own mind and all your own prejudices.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What are you talking about? There can only be one cause for all that there is.

Got Proof?

Read your statment and see how without logic it is. If there can be only one cause for all that there is then the one cause was the cause of the cause?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's inconclusive? Whether or not something can come from nothing? I don't agree.

You believe God came from nothing... I have to ask again, do you know what you believe?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
You don't understand. Nor are you likely to any time soon, given your avoidance of the scientific literature that applies to any of your dearly-held beliefs. Science? Science is all of the mind ... otherwise how else did it get here?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
You believe God came from nothing... I have to ask again, do you know what you believe? No, I believe God has always existed.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Ok, I call it "not a matter of belief, and can be scientifically proven to be so". It's only a matter of belief because you have difficulty stepping outside your own mind and all your own prejudices. What, and are you saying you are not prejudiced by those events which occur immediately within your vicinity? LOL!

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I believe God has always existed.

I know you believe that ( funny you said you knew it), I respect you believ that.

Can you prove it?

Why can a unknown, a belief always have existed but not a known?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Iacchus:

No, I believe God has always existed.

So you're saying that not everything needs a Cause.

And I'm betting you don't see the implications of that.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Garrette
So you're saying that not everything needs a Cause.

And I'm betting you don't see the implications of that. Yes, I would suggest that everything which exists in the material sense needs a cause. However, I did not say that everything needs a cause.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I know you believe that ( funny you said you knew it), I respect you believ that.

Can you prove it?

Why can a unknown, a belief always have existed but not a known? So, what do you know about death, aside from the fact that you believe you will no longer exist?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Then give us your sound argument, complete with valid reasoning, that leads to your conclusion.

ETA: ...and if you could start from true--at the least, accepted--premises, that would be peachy.
la dee da dee da

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, what do you know about death, aside from the fact that you believe you will no longer exist?

1- what do you “know�
2- I am as I have told you many times Buddhist and believe that mind is as energy and simply changes form after death of the body.
3- Mark Bertrand/ Pahansiri will no longer exist after death unless you can prove it /I will.

Your clinging, grasping to a self/an illusion is causing you suffering. Relax and live life, be happy, help others there is nothing to fear as fear is also illusion.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, I would suggest that everything which exists in the material sense needs a cause. However, I did not say that everything needs a cause.

Does the mind exists in the material sense? No so by your own words it does not need a cause..;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's inconclusive? Whether or not something can come from nothing? I don't agree. :rolleyes: No, it can not conclusively determine that God exists.

What it can do, if true, is determine that a prime mover exists. However this argument does not require that such a prime mover is necessarily God as opposed to other acausal phenomena.

The problem with the unbroken cause-and-effect chain idea is that it does not match up with observable reality. If you want to argue that observable reality is illusionary in some way, then there is no reason to believe that cause-and-effect actually occurs at all given that we base the idea from observation.

[uruk]

So, what do you know about death, aside from the fact that you believe you will no longer exist? What do all those corpses in caskets believe. How about the ashes in urns?

[Garrette]

Originally posted by lacchus:

Yes, I would suggest that everything which exists in the material sense needs a cause. However, I did not say that everything needs a cause.

Got it. So you have arbitrarily decided what needs a cause and what doesn't.

What needs a cause? What lacchus wants to have a cause

Wnat does not need a cause? What lacchus doesn't want to have a cause


And you consider this as logically defensible.

[Chaos Trigger]

Might sound strange, but let me propose that the tiny point from which the universe originated, was a zero point having the energy of a becoming speed from an imploding inverse situation. The universe is expanding and I read about that it is occurring at an increasing speed. This is hard to explain. If there is an anti to matter and perhaps even more, would we see that as the complement of the universe? The front of the universe being attracted by an anti-dot, i.e. what we perceive in our state of being as the complement but which for an anti situation is only a dot?

And may it be not a cyclical event then, with no beginning and no end as we search for?

[Chaos Trigger]

The tendency of the primary posting was that there would be an increase in empathy, now also stretching toward other species. I fully agree with that.

Man and dolphin get on with each other very well despite the fact that there is no proven natural need for that. Just seems that dolphins by their intelligence, do have their own variant of antropomorphology. The awareness that other beings also have the same kind of actions, reactions, and eyes, nose and mouth.

To judge by intelligence if we are superior is not a criterium I can fully agree with. We cannot fly, we cannot crush coconuts with our teeth, we are several times weaker than apes, cannot climb trees as well, we are weaklings only matching apes by our intelligence creating weapons from outside our body, and being aware of a larger group by abstract things like coins depicting monarchs, and TV screens showing a scope far beyond our natural ones. This is what abstract thinking has in unique features. Unlike dolphins, our hands can make tools. It is a combination which made us win the battle for our position at the food chain. The preserved knowledge, everything depends on preservation of knowledge to understand what we are and where we are compared to the rest of nature, in terms of this battle.

Now we start thinking that we have won it, now that we have spare time enough thanks to technology, and a lot of access to information in a free world (thanks to abstract thinking as well) we are confronted with "what are we doing here". No time and effort consuming battles against the hardships of nature, wild animals, low gains from day long labour, and no fighting off despotic expansionists (in the case of Europe), it's all won. And now we start to become politically correct, haah!! It's denying the hardship of our past lives to bash them down as being brutal crusaders, and relentless imperialists. It's so easy to say that nowadays.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by uruk
What do all those corpses in caskets believe. How about the ashes in urns? What is a corpse without the spirit which inhabits it? Is it the corpse that believes or, the spirit that believes?

[Z]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is a corpse without the spirit which inhabits it? Is it the corpse that believes or, the spirit that believes?

Neither. Only a living thing can believe. Period.

So, once the life is gone, there is no belief left.

Lovely, huh?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What is a corpse without the spirit which inhabits it? Is it the corpse that believes or, the spirit that believes?

Have you read Voltaire? Just curious.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Neither. Only a living thing can believe. Period.

So, once the life is gone, there is no belief left.

Lovely, huh? Clearly there is no life in a dead corpse, and there is no belief either. So, where did that belief go? Was it ever here? You can't prove it to that which only believed it was here can you?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Have you read Voltaire? Just curious. I understand that he experimented with electricity, but that's about it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I understand that he experimented with electricity, but that's about it. Not that funny. Nice try though.

"Volt" was named after Alessandro Volta

Voltaire was a philosopher. Of course you knew that didn't you?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by RandFan

Voltaire was a philosopher. Of course you knew that didn't you?
of course he did;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not that funny. Nice try though.

"Volt" was named after Alessandro Volta

Voltaire was a philosopher. Of course you knew that didn't you? Well, it goes to show you how much I know about Voltaire then. And no, I wasn't trying to be funny. Albeit I have heard of the name Voltaire before. While I think that it's because at one time philosophy and science were so closely related, that I no doubt confused the two.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, it goes to show you how much I know about Voltaire then. And no, I wasn't trying to be funny. Albeit I have heard of the name Voltaire before. While I think that it's because at one time philosophy and science were so closely related, that I no doubt confused the two. I think you would find his ideas on religion and religious conventions interesting to say the least. Let me suggest The Portable Voltaire (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140150412/qid=1114903447/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8514719-8218424)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RandFan
I think you would find his ideas on religion and religious conventions interesting to say the least. Let me suggest The Portable Voltaire (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140150412/qid=1114903447/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-8514719-8218424) It sounds like a lot to digest. Thanks for the input anyway.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
It sounds like a lot to digest. Thanks for the input anyway. You're right. Enlightenment can be hard. You should probably just stick to reading Jack Chick tracks. They're simple and they don't require any real thinking.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RandFan
You're right. Enlightenment can be hard. You should probably just stick to reading Jack Chick tracks. They're simple and they don't require any real thinking. Yes, I continue to hear of Jack Chick on these boards, and I really do understand what you're implying here, yet I don't know much more about Jack Chick than Voltaire I'm afraid. That doesn't mean I don't know anything, however. I do know that I'm alive, that I'm aware, and I exist in the present moment ... which, is the only means we have of knowing anything, if you think about it? ;)

[Iacchus]

The only requirement to learning is that we live our lives, and understanding what it means to live.

[uruk]

What is a corpse without the spirit which inhabits it? Is it the corpse that believes or, the spirit that believes?
Where is "the spirit" to begin with? Can you show me exactly where it resides?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by uruk
Where is "the spirit" to begin with? Can you show me exactly where it resides?

:) This, lacchus, is what Voltaire did, long time ago, he asked the right questions.

[nabiscothejerd]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only requirement to learning is that we live our lives, and understanding what it means to live.

The requirement to learning in not that we believe but that we question everything. We live our lives for pleasure and for sacriface. Your quote did nothing but try to make believing look a lot more smart than it is

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by nabiscothejerd
The requirement to learning in not that we believe but that we question everything. However, we only retain those things which are closest to us. In which respect Joseph Campbell says, "Follow your bliss."