*cuz I don't agree with you
should I pretend I do?
*cuz I don't agree with you
Since I'm one of them supernaturalists, I suppose that has me dancin' with the fairies, and if I'm dancin' with the fairies then lace is your down to earth type (and if that's the case, then there's a bigger gulf between us than I thought).RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:48 pmGood question. What do you think?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:45 pmIf you mean: do we agree that God is the unmoved mover?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 11:41 amWhere all the integers lead is uncaused cause . Do you and Immanuel agree?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 3:07 am Here's an experiment demonstrating it.
Get yourself a piece of paper.
On it, write "0"
But before you write "0", this experiment requires you first have to have already written "-1."
But before you write "-1", you have to already have written "-2".
And before that, you already have to have written "-3", "-4", "-5," and so on, back to infinity.
That models an infinite regress of causes, because each integer is a prerequisite for the next one, just like each cause in an infinite regress is the prerequisite of the effect associated with it.
So just sit down with some paper, and try to do it.
And then respond as soon as you've managed to write "0," or when you realize the truth: that there will never come a point when you can write even a single integer, let alone reach the "0" point (i.e. the present).
And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.
Yes (though we currently differ on His details).
When I was an atheist, I had no conception of an unmoved mover. I also didn't accept infinite regress. I figured there was a third option, though I had no clue as to what that coulda been.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:41 pmhenry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:45 pmIf you mean: do we agree that God is the unmoved mover?
Yes (though we currently differ on His details).
Well, that was not what I asked, but was probably my next question. Here is another question if you don't mind.
What is the difference between God and atheist versions of the unmoved mover?
Impossible, if the Material world is subject to cause-effect relations. And empirically, we can see it is. A cause-effect chain simply can never be eternal in the past.Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:11 amImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:48 am And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.
So the fact of the matter is that the material world never began, but always was.
there is no problem in a chain of cause-and-effect infinite in time, back to the past, and forward to the future. Since the days of Aristotle, it goes without saying (why reinvent the wheel).Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:52 pmImpossible, if the Material world is subject to cause-effect relations. And empirically, we can see it is. A cause-effect chain simply can never be eternal in the past.Janoah wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:11 amImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:48 am And just as you can never start writing, so too a universe can never begin if it requires an infinite chain of causes.
So the fact of the matter is that the material world never began, but always was.
The issue, if you will, the 'problem', to put it another way, is not to be solved through the notion of an infinite regress (a rational exercise) but in something different: that existence exists. That existence has no alternative. And since there is no alternative to existence -- that existence exists and that we are aware of it because we exist in it -- there is no need for a mental exercise of regressing infinitely -- to what exactly?henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:14 pmWhen I was an atheist, I had no conception of an unmoved mover. I also didn't accept infinite regress. I figured there was a third option, though I had no clue as to what that coulda been.
It seems to me fair to say that Christianity, except perhaps among its mystics (which are always problematic for its conventionalists), cannot really wonder at creation as the Vedic schools seem to be able to. I think this is because of the limitedness of the (Genesis) Creation Story. Within Judaism of course the Genesis story is expanded far far beyond its quotidian surface. But through an exegesis (really quite Gnostic) that verges into hyper-mysticism.sat (सत्): In Sanskrit sat means "being, existence", "real, actual", "true, good, right", or "that which really is, existence, essence, true being, really existent, good, true".
cit (चित्): means "consciousness".
ānanda (आनन्द): means "happiness, joy, bliss", "pure happiness, one of three attributes of Atman or Brahman in the Vedanta philosophy".
Well, "pessimism" there is a matter of perspective. If you mean that my view dooms efforts to ignore God and produce heaven-on-earth through the intrinsic goodness of mankind's heart, then yes, quite right. But if you mean, instead, is there a hope that we can be delivered from our suicidal self-improvement efforts and learn to value something truly positive and lasting, then my view is far more optimistic than the alternatives.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:46 pm But since the largest weight of your argument is through the understanding 'My Kingdom is not of this world", in essence your moral activity will take shape as a preparation for 'life beyond this life'. I regard that as a highly, if not intensely, problematic ideal...Therefore in a sense you encourage a pessimism and in this sense a hopelessness. Since nothing really can be built here, and in any case it will only amount to approximations, the Christian you define places all hopes in a 'world to come'.
Without Christ, that's quite true. They do not. Instead, preoccupied with this world and their diminishing opportunities in it, they begin to squabble over the crumbs of this life, to the detriment of what, according to Christian thought, actually matters and actually lasts.People do not really live in that way.
I agree in principle. But even if all this is true nevertheless people function in and through these conglomerations.Well, that's because all the above are mere collectives. It's only the individual who has a soul, or who can respond to moral imperatives, or to any vision of things as they do not now exist. Institutions, nations and states, along with "conglomerations" are not personal agents, and have no eyes, ears or consciences of their own at all. They are pushed around by "powers," but the forces of circumstance, or finances, or contingencies...with no ability, as collectives, to do anything at all about that.
Nobody's speaking of "ideal" persons. There is only one of those, and that is Christ.An idea[l] Christian exists as an ideal and, only in the case of (perhaps) saints and a few notable individuals has or can the ideal of Christianity be realized.
I don't see that this is true at all, unless by "building projects" we mean merely the treating of this world as the ultimate and the sort of vicious scrabbling for a humanly-created utopia that made the last century so bloody.So for anyone who participates in 'building projects' in this world ethical and moral compromises will have to be made. And when one does that one displays 'christianesqueness'.
No, not at all. In fact, one who believes in eternity has a very important perspective on this world...that it matters very much, since it is not only the gift of a gracious God (and as such, has to be held reverently and in stewardship under God, not recklessly and selfishly), but also because it is the "stage," so to speak, upon which God has Himself organized His plan of eternal salvation.The more involved in the world, the more that one deviates from the abstract ideal.
One should always ask forgiveness, of course. What's the alternative? To carry on as if one hasn't sinned, as if one has committed no fouls, and hope that nobody else will notice and that the lying about that to oneself will not make one's own soul shrivelled and black? Or is it better to deal with what one has done, honestly and frankly, and admit one's fault both to God and to those one has victimized, obtain forgiveness and proceed as a better person? Is not the answer obvious?In this sense, it seems to me, the Christian must continually ask for forgiveness for the sins that are inevitably committed.
This is only a metaphor. By "England," they mean "the people in power in the country." They cannot mean "the country itself." Countries are lumps of mud with grass and trees on them. They have no "interests" ever.Except that states function through their need, appetite, assertion of power, etc. Someone said "England has no friends it has interests".There's nothing "organic" about a "state." It's an abstraction, a collective, impersonal. We must not draw a false analogy between the state and the "imperative" of an organism for survival. States come and states go.
Karma depends on a couple of irrational beliefs, of course. One is the idea that the material world is eternal. Another is reincarnation, which is not at all a scientific postulate.I do not see it quite like that. Karma is another perceeptual means of seeing and understanding the consequences of the insoluble problem of incarnated, biological life. The Vaishnavas of India (worshippers of Vishnu of the Bhagavad-Gita) refer to our incarnated life as 'the material entanglement'. Once entangled every action that is taken can result in incurring a karmic debt that will further entangle one. It is a logical and indeed a sensible view, it seems to me.Karma is a problematic idea. Let's not invoke it here. It requires us to believe that the indifferent universe has some interest in balancing scales throughout reincarnation cycles. That's too much nonsense to swallow, I think.
Those that work within the notion of 'intelligent design' point out that the design they observe must have a transcendental origin, but no part of this necessarily bolsters the Christian view of what God is, or what God is not.
Yes, that is what Nietzsche meant. He did not mean he thought a real God had ever "lived." He just meant, "We, today, no longer believe in God."In this sense then to say *God has died* is to make an ironic statement that a god-concept has died.
Only for Nietzsche. But only because he chose to declare it so. For nobody else, really.And effectively that god-concept certainly did die.
No, I think he meant "dead." I don't think he wanted it preserved in any form.So it seems to me that the notion of God must be re-described and re-written. In any case this is what Nietzsche seemed to realize.
Well there you have it. Certainly not of this world and impossible in this world. If this is so it leaves *the world* to its own devices. Therefore, how can you (we) expect anyone to hold to the Christian ideal if in fact they seek to live life here?Right. No wonder, then, that Christ insisted, "My kingdom is not of this world."
Which do you mean? Are you thinking of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or Vietnam and Bay of Pigs? Or WW 1 and WW2? Or the Civil War and the War of 1812? I don't know that there's every been "a series of extremely good wars."I am interested in understanding the *unraveling of the United States* as a result of a series of extremely bad wars.
I hear your call for justice here. And yes, sooner or later, all debts must be paid. If not, there is no justice, and our longing for it is vain. Moreoever, if God allows injustice forever, then He also is not just. So one day, the matter must be settled.Karma is a way to see and define that connection. Not so much a general sinfulness but sinful activities of real consequence, brought about by *conglomerations of interests*, that empower a karmic hammer that comes down, surely and inevitably.
That's an interesting project. Go ahead, if you like.
So, when I've acknowledged we're in agreement, you disagree with me? Yep, that pretty much describes it.
Yes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.
Infinity by definition is a quality that cannot be reached, opposite to finite.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pmYes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.
Go and do the experiment if you doubt it.
Right. So there can never be a "starting point" in a causal chain that reaches back into the infinite. And that's certain, by definition of "infinite".bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 pmInfinity by definition is a quality that cannot be reached, opposite to finite.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pmYes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.
Go and do the experiment if you doubt it.
Yes, it is simple. Regress/infinity is not acceptable.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:24 pmRight. So there can never be a "starting point" in a causal chain that reaches back into the infinite. And that's certain, by definition of "infinite".bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 pmInfinity by definition is a quality that cannot be reached, opposite to finite.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:18 pm
Yes, there is. And I gave you a very straightfoward experiment to prove to yourself that there is. There is no such thing as a past-eternal chain of causes.
Go and do the experiment if you doubt it.
There it is, again.
It's actually a very simple concept.
the lesson here, folks, is when lace asks...