The conclusion: Free agent cannot be created/caused.
I think we are not caused as it is stated in OP.
The creator of everything excluding minds which are very essence of free agents. I am not sure if there is any God given the definition.
Yes.
The conclusion: Free agent cannot be created/caused.
I think we are not caused as it is stated in OP.
The creator of everything excluding minds which are very essence of free agents. I am not sure if there is any God given the definition.
Yes.
Thank you very much for answering all of my questions. Only on very rarest of occasions, in this forum, do My clarifying questions get answered. Receiving answers is very refreshing, so thank you again.
Yes but between an option you like and option you don’t like is a trivial choice.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:47 amThe point is that you normally choose the option you like unless you freely decide to do otherwise. You are caused to choose by option in the first case and you freely decide to do otherwise in the second case. You are free if you have the ability to freely decide.
You are very welcome.
No problem. I am open to discuss things.
We have always existed as mind, mind being the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause. We just have a chance to interact with material as a form of human being now.We have been other things in the past.
Let me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning. This applies to the act of creation of mind if such a thing is possible. God should have specific knowledge in order to create a mind. The first premise is in fact very general and the act of creation is one example of it.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm Your first premise 1) Causation requires knowledge, to me, did not make sense, and thus was incorrect. And, on first glance/reading of your explanation of this premise it seemed absurd. But on second glance/reading it is 'paradoxical', to me anyway. By the way a 'paradox', to me, is some thing that seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. I did not notice the truth in it the first time round.
I already explain what I think is true about our existence.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm How all of this now fits in with the opening post argument gave me great insight into how to express better, what it is that I want to express. However, you are saying that human beings, who are free agents, are not caused/created. If you can explain how human beings exist but are not caused/created, and it makes sense, then I will change my view. But, as I SEE things now 'human beings', who are free agents, were naturally caused/created by one thing.
To me reality is very simple. It has two ingredient: 1) Minds and 2) The stuff created by minds. The first thing is very essence of us. The second, we experience, we live within, and we communicate by it, etc.
The stuff that we experience is caused.
That is a little long. To me minds existed at the beginning. There was nothing but minds and time (time cannot be created, I have an argument for that). So the beginning started either as a result of a Mind wishing to creating the stuff or as a result of nothingness being unstable could turns into all possible things. The creation or the universe is eternal in the sense that its origin lays in infinite past since time cannot be created and it is eternal.
Thank you.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm Your definition of 'God', by the way, is probably the closest, and thus best, definition from ALL the definitions of what 'God' is, which I have seen anyway, to what 'God' actually IS. Besides your misuse of the word 'Mind', (Mind is singular, so no 's'), you are just about spot on with YOUR definition for God. YOUR definition is so very close to describing and showing WHAT 'God' really IS, and how 'God' really exists.
Yes, if you are caused to choose what you like if you pick it up.
Yes, but you have always ability to pick up what you don't like.
Yes, we are slave of our pleasures. Yet, we are free.
(1.) Religion: there are supernatural forces affecting the physical world. Examples: Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results.
When you use the word 'we' having always existed as 'mind', is that the collective 'we' as one, and that is also is the one Mind/Essence, right?
Fair enough, but that does not explain HOW human beings did come to exist, if they are not caused/created.
The word 'knowledge' is what did not make sense to me, in your argument, and of which seemed incorrect, the first time i read it. But as explained the second time i read it, i could see that what you said expressed a truth. To me, a 'paradox' is just some thing which SEEMS absurd or contradictory but which ACTUALLY does express a truth.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pmLet me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm Your first premise 1) Causation requires knowledge, to me, did not make sense, and thus was incorrect. And, on first glance/reading of your explanation of this premise it seemed absurd. But on second glance/reading it is 'paradoxical', to me anyway. By the way a 'paradox', to me, is some thing that seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. I did not notice the truth in it the first time round.
But such a thing could not be possible as you have already stated, 'We have always existed as mind'. If 'we' (when who/what the 'we' actually is revealed/known, then that makes understanding ALL of this much easier), but anyway, if 'we' have ALWAYS EXISTED as 'mind', then there is, obviously, NO creation of mind.
Again, how could God 'create' a 'mind', if 'mind' has ALWAYS existed?
I do not understand what you mean by 'the act of creation', nor that that act being 'one example of it'. What 'act of creation', and what is the 'it'?
When did you? I must of missed it.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pmI already explain what I think is true about our existence.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm How all of this now fits in with the opening post argument gave me great insight into how to express better, what it is that I want to express. However, you are saying that human beings, who are free agents, are not caused/created. If you can explain how human beings exist but are not caused/created, and it makes sense, then I will change my view. But, as I SEE things now 'human beings', who are free agents, were naturally caused/created by one thing.
How many 'minds' (with s) are there?
I do agree with you, up to a certain extent. But you will have to be able to answer the clarifying questions sufficiently and so show a uniformed picture. Answering the questions properly and correctly will show how this uniformed picture was formed. However, until then from what I see of Reality it is much simpler than how you are trying to explain it here. Although as I suggested previously you are far closer than any one else has been at understanding, and explaining this.
Are you able to explain who/what 'we' are/is?
I do not understand. What is a little long?
I would love to hear that argument, sometime.
This is all well and good. But it is contradictory to say, "minds existed at the 'beginning' ", and then say, "The creation or the universe is, 'eternal' ". If some thing has a beginning, then it obviously could not be eternal, and vice-versa, if some thing is eternal, then it obviously could not have a beginning.
Just a hint; one reason human beings have not yet unraveled the, so called, "mysteries" of the Universe, like what actually IS 'God' and so forth, yet, is because human beings think/believe that there are many "minds". Discovering and understanding what the one 'Mind' actually IS, and how It works, creates, and interacts in relation to, and with, the human brain, then the solution of HOW to solve ALL of those, past, "mysteries" starts being revealed,and becoming more obvious.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pmThank you.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm Your definition of 'God', by the way, is probably the closest, and thus best, definition from ALL the definitions of what 'God' is, which I have seen anyway, to what 'God' actually IS. Besides your misuse of the word 'Mind', (Mind is singular, so no 's'), you are just about spot on with YOUR definition for God. YOUR definition is so very close to describing and showing WHAT 'God' really IS, and how 'God' really exists.
-1- wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm(1.) Religion: there are supernatural forces affecting the physical world. Examples: Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results.
Science: Prayer's effect is random and statistically ineffectual. Nobody can move against laws of nature, such as defeating gravity by employing supernatural forces. Healing the blind with putting a hand over her eyes exists only in fairy tales.
(2.) Bullshit in religion: denial of the evolutionary process.
To you, could it be possible?
To you, could it be possible?
Does it state in religious text that the earth is not very nearly of a ball shape?
Well how could there not be an afterlife?
The nature of the, so called, 'afterlife' is extremely simple and easy to understand, and to KNOW.
Again, very simple and easy to understand, and KNOW.
From science explanation and understanding of how the; Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results, can happen, and will happen, will be very easily understood.
But i would have NEVER of had said that.
WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?
That was my mistake. I should have written minds instead of mind.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pmWhen you use the word 'we' having always existed as 'mind', is that the collective 'we' as one, and that is also is the one Mind/Essence, right?
After all, 'always existed' implies an eternalness to it. And, 'we', individual, human beings, have not always existed.
Or, are there many 'minds' that have always existed?
Yes.
We are separate minds.
Yes, that is completely another story. I believe that things have been evolving because of existence of minds.
Yes, the whole story is a little long.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm By the way, ALL of this can be fully explained and completely understood in a very easy and simple way. But i am just trying to work out why you are trying to argue the way you are, and all of the finer details, and how they relate to each other, within your argument.
Knowledge is what is derived from the relation between concepts. Knowledge is something encrypted in any statement: We have concepts, "it", "raining", "is" and sum of them "it is raining". We know something when it is said that "it is raining".Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pmThe word 'knowledge' is what did not make sense to me, in your argument, and of which seemed incorrect, the first time i read it. But as explained the second time i read it, i could see that what you said expressed a truth. To me, a 'paradox' is just some thing which SEEMS absurd or contradictory but which ACTUALLY does express a truth.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pmLet me give you a couple of examples to show what do I mean with the first premise. Think of a seed which turns into a tree. The causation is a at work at any moment of its development from one stage to another stage. Yet knowledge which is encrypted as DNA exists in the seed and it is necessary for the development of the seed. Now think of a cue ball which hits another ball. Again, the balls react upon collision based on their nature. Knowledge requires for causation since things should go somewhere, an end from a beginning.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm Your first premise 1) Causation requires knowledge, to me, did not make sense, and thus was incorrect. And, on first glance/reading of your explanation of this premise it seemed absurd. But on second glance/reading it is 'paradoxical', to me anyway. By the way a 'paradox', to me, is some thing that seems absurd or contradictory but expresses a truth. I did not notice the truth in it the first time round.
How do you define the word 'knowledge'?
Yes.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pm To me, i had previous seen 'knowledge' as some thing that was held within human brains and/or within human text and/or speech. So, your first premise; Causation requires knowledge did not make sense because causation was happening well before humans, and thus knowledge, came into existence. But on deeper reflection i remembered that there is a KNOWING held deep within every one. This KNOWING is the 'knowledge', which i think you are talking about here, that is inbuilt within dna, which causes all things to act and interact with each other. The resulted reaction, is creation. The reacting, of things together, is creating, or some times known as evolving, things, from a "beginning" to and "end".
Yes. Beginning and end define a step of causality.
I meant if mind is created then a knowledge related to such a act is required. I need to assume so and show that it leads to a contradiction. The opposite is then correct.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pmBut such a thing could not be possible as you have already stated, 'We have always existed as mind'. If 'we' (when who/what the 'we' actually is revealed/known, then that makes understanding ALL of this much easier), but anyway, if 'we' have ALWAYS EXISTED as 'mind', then there is, obviously, NO creation of mind.
Yes.
I meant, if creation of mind was possible then the appropriate knowledge is required. We assume this and see that this leads to a contradiction, basically premises (1) and (4) contradict each other. (4) is true therefore (1) is wrong.
I don't think if there is any contradiction in my understanding. This was just a misunderstanding.
Let's say the creation instead of act of creation. By it I meant the first premise.
I mentioned that we have always existed. That is another conclusion of the argument: We have always existed if we could not be created.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pmWhen did you? I must of missed it.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pmI already explain what I think is true about our existence.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm How all of this now fits in with the opening post argument gave me great insight into how to express better, what it is that I want to express. However, you are saying that human beings, who are free agents, are not caused/created. If you can explain how human beings exist but are not caused/created, and it makes sense, then I will change my view. But, as I SEE things now 'human beings', who are free agents, were naturally caused/created by one thing.
That we have always existed.
We have always existed therefore we were not created.
I guess infinite. I don't have any argument in favor of this claim though.
Another level of reality. I believe that reality has infinite levels. We just don't have access to higher level.
Thanks. There are several questions that I have no answer for them yet. I am however ready to explain things that I have understood the best I can.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:43 pmI do agree with you, up to a certain extent. But you will have to be able to answer the clarifying questions sufficiently and so show a uniformed picture. Answering the questions properly and correctly will show how this uniformed picture was formed. However, until then from what I see of Reality it is much simpler than how you are trying to explain it here. Although as I suggested previously you are far closer than any one else has been at understanding, and explaining this.
We are simply minds embedded inside the stuff.
The explainaing of how we come to be in here.
Beginning lies at eternal past. All mind existed at the beginning.
Here is the argument: Time is fundamental variable of any dynamical theory. This means that time cannot be an emergent property of any dynamical theory otherwise we are dealing with a contradiction. Therefore time cannot be created/emergent.
I mean that stuff didn't exist.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm So the beginning started either as a result of a Mind wishing to creating the stuff or as a result of nothingness being unstable could turns into all possible things.
Before you said, " 'minds' existed at the beginning", but now you are saying "the beginning started with 'a Mind' (or for some other reason). So, was there was one Mind, or, minds (with an s)?
There was either a Mind who created the stuff or the nothingness (no stuff) in presence of minds is unstable. We don't have any other option.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm A 'Mind', or 'minds', that always existed, without absolutely anything else existing, seems a bit far fetched. What seems more inconceivable that one "day" or at some point, this Mind or minds suddenly wished to create stuff. What also seems just as inconceivable is how 'nothingness' could become unstable, and then that turns into stuff.
What is that?
There is no contradiction in here if we can agree that the beginning lies at eternal past.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pmThis is all well and good. But it is contradictory to say, "minds existed at the 'beginning' ", and then say, "The creation or the universe is, 'eternal' ". If some thing has a beginning, then it obviously could not be eternal, and vice-versa, if some thing is eternal, then it obviously could not have a beginning.
All minds. Whatever number of minds exist now existed at the beginning.
I agree with you.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pmJust a hint; one reason human beings have not yet unraveled the, so called, "mysteries" of the Universe, like what actually IS 'God' and so forth, yet, is because human beings think/believe that there are many "minds". Discovering and understanding what the one 'Mind' actually IS, and how It works, creates, and interacts in relation to, and with, the human brain, then the solution of HOW to solve ALL of those, past, "mysteries" starts being revealed,and becoming more obvious.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:55 pmThank you.Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:52 pm Your definition of 'God', by the way, is probably the closest, and thus best, definition from ALL the definitions of what 'God' is, which I have seen anyway, to what 'God' actually IS. Besides your misuse of the word 'Mind', (Mind is singular, so no 's'), you are just about spot on with YOUR definition for God. YOUR definition is so very close to describing and showing WHAT 'God' really IS, and how 'God' really exists.
With this revealing knowledge, then comes the realization of how ALL of these answers are already KNOWN, but are, at the moment, to most human beings, just hidden. Part of this revealing knowledge contains HOW ALL of this 'knowledge' was being hidden, and more importantly, WHY it was being hidden, hitherto.
Structure causes freedom.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:46 am Here is the argument:
1) Causation requires knowledge
2) Knowledge is structured
3) Therefore any caused thing is structured
4) Anything which is structured cannot be free
5) Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free
The first premise is correct since causation always aim to an end.
The second premise is correct too because knowledge is about the relation between concepts.
Three is the result of one and two.
Four is correct too since the behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts.
Five follows from three and four.
I am not assuming anything in what you refer to as assumption. Plus, it's a mute point.Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:11 pm-1- wrote: ↑Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:19 pm(1.) Religion: there are supernatural forces affecting the physical world. Examples: Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results.
Science: Prayer's effect is random and statistically ineffectual. Nobody can move against laws of nature, such as defeating gravity by employing supernatural forces. Healing the blind with putting a hand over her eyes exists only in fairy tales.
(2.) Bullshit in religion: denial of the evolutionary process.
I have yet to see denial of the evolutionary process in religion. In fact in some religious texts it clearly, to me anyway, states the evolutionary process.
Your religion is different from other religions.
Are you saying that it is absolutely impossible for EVERY, and ALL, human being to be able to prophesize?
I am saying that according to science, it is not possible to prophecize without data and logic and reason. My opinion does not matter. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.
To you, could it be possible?
My stance is not indicative. It is immaterial. According to science, it is unacceptable, because there is no evidence of it, never has been. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.
To you, could it be possible?
My stance is not indicative. It is immaterial. According to science, it is unacceptable, because there is no evidence of it, never has been. You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.
Is there one that is truly religious or righteous?
It is not for me to say. The religious think that, the scientific community denies that.
You asked what differences there are between religion and science. This is one.Does it state in religious text that the earth is not very nearly of a ball shape?
Don't play dumb with me. Religious texts are not the entire body of religious beliefs.
Well how could there not be an afterlife?
There is either Life, which is eternal, or, there is life, with some thing after it.
You are playing dumb on purpose? "Afterlife" is not "after life". Get to know English, or rather, stop pretending that you don't know English.The nature of the, so called, 'afterlife' is extremely simple and easy to understand, and to KNOW.
Except on a scientific basis. There is no evidence of what happens to the human mind after the body dies. There is no knowledge, nothing of the sort. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not believe the dogmas on this.Again, very simple and easy to understand, and KNOW.
Except on a scientific basis. There is no evidence of what happens to the human mind after the body dies. There is no knowledge, nothing of the sort. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not believe the dogmas on this.
From science explanation and understanding of how the; Virgin birth; ascending to heaven; healing the blind with just putting the hand over her eyes; prayers being returned with positive results, can happen, and will happen, will be very easily understood.
Except on a scientific basis. Maybe you meant "church of science" when you used "science" in "From science explanation". There is no evidence of any of these ever happening, and there is evidence they are not possible to happen. For the religious, it is easy to "know" and understand. They believe anything, so why not dogmas on this.
Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. And, you obviously read, and read into, things differently than I do.
This claim by you is absolutely unscientific. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is knowable, and that humans can learn how it operates. That involves repeatability. If everyone interpreted data and relationships differently from everyone else, we would have no science. Your observation and claim is false.
But i would have NEVER of had said that.
Interesting English. Plus you don't undersand the nature of a conditional construct. I am not saying you ARE saying that; I am saying "IF" you said that; that is, in case you said that, but that does not carry the claim at all that you WOULD say that for sure.WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?
Human beings are caused because the law of cause and effect [ a physics law ] also applies to biological reproductionAge wrote:
Are human beings caused or not caused ?
What is YOUR definition of God ?
Are adult human beings free ?
Are you at all open to anything else? Or, is that how it IS?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:19 amHuman beings are caused because the law of cause and effect [ a physics law ] also applies to biological reproductionAge wrote:
Are human beings caused or not caused ?
What is YOUR definition of God ?
Are adult human beings free ?
I would define God as Existence per panentheism but only in an abstract sense since I do not actually believe in him
Human beings are not ABSOLUTELY free but are in a less limited sense where freedom is between actual possibilities
I am open to anything which could be true but what I have stated here is true for now at least if not always soAge wrote:
Are you at all open to anything else ? Or is that how it IS ?