attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 3:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 3:03 pm
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2024 1:15 am
Well of course I believe in science!
Then you believe in cause-and-effect.
Where did I state that I didn't - beyond causality forming from CHAOS? -- a period of no logic - no cause and effect.
Well, "chaos" isn't an explanation of anything. Somebody can't say "chaos
caused X." Chaos isn't just a state of disorder of things that already exist (that would be to jump past the whole question of how those "things" got to exist in the first place, which is the real question). Rather, if we suppose some state we call "chaos" before ANYTHING existed, then we have to say that chaos would mean a state of utter nothingness, and nothingness cannot "cause." Nobody ever says, "My car rusted, and
nothing was the cause of it." That's sort of the same thing as not to believe in causality at all.
But
something had to initiate the order we see in the universe, even presupposing a state of nothingness, of "chaos" before there was something. So we have to ask, "If there was an initial stage of chaos, then
what turned chaos into something?"
Whatever that "what" was, it's the First Cause in the causal chains that ensued, and which we so often observe today.
Immanuel Can wrote:attofishpi wrote:But there are situations within the physical universe where science (physics) as we understand it - break down.
That wouldn't change anything, so far as the argument goes. All the infinite-regress argument asks us to realize is that no causal chain can have infinitely-regressing starting points, so there must be a First Cause in every causal chain. It does not ask us to say more.
Sure. I am stating that NOTHING of any
intelligence could exist as a priori to causality.
Well, "intelligence" isn't a material property, but an immaterial attribute, like "consciousness" or "order." From a strictly human perspective only, we use those words to describe adjectivally various states we observe. But we didn't invent those concepts, but rather recognize and attribute them as properties to things we observe. But they are not made of materials, and thus to not "exist" in precisely the way that material things exist. They exist, so to speak, adjectivally, rather than nounally, as ascriptions, not descriptions.
So what is your reasoning that no intelligence could exist prior to causality? Because mathematically, we can deduce with great certainty that something
had to, because of the no-actual-infinite-regress insight. So what would that "thing" be, if not an intelligence?
I'm open to hearing what you think it would be.
Immanuel Can wrote:attofishpi wrote:You state that infinite regress is logically impossible and I agree. Even though we are on the same team when it comes to God, you believe God as the start point to causality. I think this is irrational in consideration of causality as God must be caused.
Actually, there are no Christians who believe in "caused gods."
Why are you insisting on using plural "GODS".
Then ignore the plural. I was only contrasting the pagan and Christian meanings of "god" as a word.
I am a Christian *that actually is in contact with God* and I believe that God formed from CHAOS - a place of no causality - randomness.
Oh. Well, if that's your answer, then you know there WAS an intelligence during the alleged chaos period. For God is intelligent.
GOD is a result of CHAOS - a place of NO causality.
The Christian perspective is that God is not "a result" of anything. God Himself is the origin of all things. He's the self-existent One, as above.