Apr 16, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Thetanager wrote:

Apr 16, 2012 -- 5:05PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

You don't see what I am getting at?

I'm not arguing against a "uncaused cause" persay for the eventual reduction of the line of logic. I am saying that we do not know that it is this universe. We cannot say that an uncaused cause caused this universe, or that what did cause this universe was uncaused. We do not know if this is the first universe, 17th universe, 500th universe, or 200 trillionth universe.

But that is the whole point of my argument...an uncaused cause at the eventual reduction of the line of logic, whether this is the only universe or the 200 trillionth one. I don't see the point in speculating about possible previous universes. Even if they exist, the argument doesn't change, there is only more steps in the middle of the line of logic. The first cause of existence as we see it in the evidence (our own existence) must be an uncaused cause, given the four options you mention. Unknown possible previous universes is not evidence, but mere speculation and their possible existence does not counter my argument if that speculation just happens to fit reality.

You don't see the point in speculating about possible previous universes, but are willing to speculate about this one? 

We are actually almost in agreement here.  I just take it one step further.  I don't see the point in speculating about the origin of this universe.  Whether the first universe, or the 200 trillionth universe,we can't know.  Is the universe caused by an uncaused cause?  Is it caused by natural events?  We don't know.  We must judge the universe as an isolated event, just as we must judge an individual coin flip as an isolated event, but that doesn't mean that it was special.  When not knowing the origin, we have no way of determining that it is unique. 

Apr 16, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Thetanager wrote:

That is what I mean in saying the "known" universe, what we can observe and know about the universe right now, not speculations about a possible multi-verse, alien life forms and all that.  I'm going on the evidence we can see before us, not speculations.

How much of the universe do you feel we know well enough to make judgements off? 

Apr 16, 2012 -- 5:05PM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Could a horse be anything other than a horse?

Of course not. But I'm missing the counter-ness of this to my argument for a distinction of essence/existence.

Because, if "that it is" and "what it is" are different ideas, a horse could be other than a horse.  If they are intertwinned, and one cannot exist without the other, a horse can not be anything other than a horse. 

Forgive me for barging in, but I don't even understand the need for a first cause of the Universe. Why does it matter?

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:49AM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Apr 17, 2012 -- 10:39AM, mainecaptain wrote:

Forgive me for barging in, but I don't even understand the need for a first cause of the Universe. Why does it matter?

As in, affecting us and our daily life?  Not at all. 

That is my feeling as well. Please don't get me wrong. I find science fascinating. And I love astronomy. And from that stand point I would not mind knowing how it all began. But from a theological one, it really does not matter to me.

This endless hunger monotheists, and Christians in particular seem to have about their first "uncaused cause" makes no sense, unless their faith depends on such.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 9:46AM, allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

What is your default state?

I guess I've had enough scientific training that I automatically assume the null hypothesis until proven otherwise. The null hypothesis is always that there is no relationship between the groups compared.

There is no reason to think they are the same, and one can trace the origins of the belief that they are the same. I paraphrased this in an earlier post. As long as there is no reason to think that they are the same, there is no reason to believe that they are.

Why should we have a default state? Isn't that just making an assumption? Wouldn't your logic here also work for the other side? There is no reason to think they are different (you are only defaulting to just assuming they are). As long as there is no reason to think that they are different, there is no reason to believe that they are.

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Thetanager wrote:

Nor does it matter for my argument. I should not have talked about it as the cause of this universe, since you've been talking about possible other universes that we can't rule out. The uncaused cause I'm logically arguing to is the cause of whatever exists (if that is just our universe, that is what I'm talking about...if there was a previous universe, that universe is what I am talking about and so on).

Then one must wonder, really, how far is it relevant?  Pretty much what I was getting at in a previous post.  At some point, as the scope increases, it becomes irrelevant. 

In my book, what really concerns us, instead of if there was a first cause for the universe, is the immediate area.  The solar system.  Nam, et all, have a pretty good case.  Lets face it, we're relying on extrapolation from a few things that really don't make sense to us any other way.  Not a good thing to base an argument off of.  My beliefs, and I hope your beliefs have a basis other than that.  By Loki's goat tether, we're both theists and we can't gather enough agreement between each other to form a coherent argument. 

No, by reducing the argument as far out as we are, it becomes inconsequential.  Who cares who, or even if something created the universe.  My concern is more local, and brother, local is a whole different ball of wax. 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Thetanager wrote:

I think you are right in our agreement on the "known" and "observable" terms we are using about the universe. But, I think we should make judgments off of whatever info we have...not the info we don't have. If all we know is the piece of sand, then we should judge it likely that there are no ants. Once new info comes in, we adjust that claim. There is no reason to adjust the claim before the new info comes in. Now, I do agree with acknowledging that our knowledge is limited. What we know can be tempered by our limitations, but we shouldn't be paralyzed by it.

Ah, but if we say there are no ants, based off of the one little grain of sand that we know of, we are as much making a judgement from ignorance as if we said that we know there are ants out there, we just have to look for them.  What we should be is knowledgeable of our own ignorance, and not say whether there are ants or not. 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Thetanager wrote:

First, what would it be, if not a horse?

A dog, a potato, a desk, a vending machine, anything.  If that it is a horse, and what is a horse are separate concepts, anything can be what a horse is, and a horse can be what anything else is. 

Apr 17, 2012 -- 11:33PM, Thetanager wrote:

Second, these concepts can exist without the other (that is my argument, that is what it means for them to be distinct).  I can think of "horse-ness" without having an actual living horse in front of me.  I can think of existence without any notion of "horse-ness."  But that doesn't mean these are just in my head, for they come out of observing a real thing (they are aspects of that reality).  The realit(ies) these concepts come from require both aspects to "intertwine" or there is no real existing thing of which I can then conceptualize.

And we are back to the tree falling in the forest.  If there is no one to perceive the horse-ness, does it really exist?