The causality approach (2 Viewers)

Jun 26, 2007
2,706
#42
We come to know natural laws, like everything, through induction. And in practice causality is always true and this makes us project it as a Law that applies to everything. My argument was that we cannot know how the world started except by either breaking our beloved law or by inventing a concept that is higher than the laws of causality.
Fundamentally we agree, but we just formulate it differently, because we define some concepts differently. I'd rather say that "we cannot know how the universe started, period". Because we can only fundamentally describe something in terms of causality, and this 'most fundamental mechanism' that caused our universe, is by definition acausal, and therefore incomprehensible for us.


I was also showing that theists believe in their suggestion even though the answer should be "we cannot know" while atheists believe that whatever the solution is, it is not the theistic one and they too should say "we cannot know"
so Yes we are in agreement.
Yeah this is exactly what I've been trying to tell atheists for a long time. It's merely a belief system too, and therefore isn't any better than believing that there is a creator. One suggests something, the other rejects everything.

P.S.: I'm glad we're finally discussing all this without referring to religion, because I don't care about discussing it at a religious level at all.
 
Dec 26, 2004
10,624
#43
@ Martin

First logically speaking God can never show himself to anyone in the chessboard unless he do it in the form of something IN the chessboard itself (unless he want to brake the rules of the chessboard he created and he WILL one day;)).

God translated Quran to Mohammed through an Angel named (جبريل) piece by piece, Quran pretty much summed everything God wanted to explain to humanity (ethics, principles, moral, rules....).

This is what he did, as short as possible.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
#44
@ Martin

First logically speaking God can never show himself to anyone in the chessboard unless he do it in the form of something IN the chessboard itself (unless he want to brake the rules of the chessboard he created and he WILL one day;)).

God translated Quran to Mohammed through an Angel named (جبريل) piece by piece, Quran pretty much summed everything God wanted to explain to humanity (ethics, principles, moral, rules....).

This is what he did, as short as possible.
So this angel, was that also a supernatural being? Angels are not found in the natural world, right?
 
OP
Hist

Hist

Founder of Hism
Jan 18, 2009
11,400
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #47
    Fundamentally we agree, but we just formulate it differently, because we define some concepts differently. I'd rather say that "we cannot know how the universe started, period". Because we can only fundamentally describe something in terms of causality, and this 'most fundamental mechanism' that caused our universe, is by definition acausal, and therefore incomprehensible for us.




    Yeah this is exactly what I've been trying to tell atheists for a long time. It's merely a belief system too, and therefore isn't any better than believing that there is a creator. One suggests something, the other rejects everything.

    P.S.: I'm glad we're finally discussing all this without referring to religion, because I don't care about discussing it at a religious level at all.
    I think we totally agree not just fundamentally :)
    So this angel, was that also a supernatural being? Angels are not found in the natural world, right?
    Yes. How do we arrive at their existence? i have no clue beyond scripture... they don't even fill holes. This is part of religion.

    P.S.: I'm glad we're finally discussing all this without referring to religion, because I don't care about discussing it at a religious level at all.
    too late, they already started :oops:
     
    OP
    Hist

    Hist

    Founder of Hism
    Jan 18, 2009
    11,400
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #48
    So it's not an angel, it's light? What kind of light? How does the light communicate with Mohammed?
    dogma is unexplainable by definition : SUPERNATURAL
    don't try to make sense of it. Just believe it or don't
     

    Martin

    Senior Member
    Dec 31, 2000
    56,913
    #51
    I don't know what kind of light it is but what difference that would make?

    How does it communicate? By speaking.

    I think already know what is your next question.

    How can light speak?
    Correct. But actually I could ask this too: How do you know light is an angel? How do you know what an angel even is if you can't see it?
     
    OP
    Hist

    Hist

    Founder of Hism
    Jan 18, 2009
    11,400
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #52
    I don't know what kind of light it is but what difference that would make?

    How does it communicate? By speaking.

    I think already know what is your next question.

    How can light speak?
    I have something to say here but I'll just see what will happen with you guys.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    38,189
    #54
    This IS what I believe, you are in no position to tell me what I have to believe or not... so FUCK OFF please.
    Yes, I am. It's not about believing whether or not it was possible, you actually agreed with me that it was. It's about believing whether or not he did lie.
     
    Dec 26, 2004
    10,624
    #57
    Yes, I am. It's not about believing whether or not it was possible, you actually agreed with me that it was. It's about believing whether or not he did lie.
    IMO

    Possibilty of Mohammed telling truth = TRUE.

    Possibilty of Mohammed lying = FALSE.

    So basically yes there is a possibility of Mohammed lying IMO and it is FALSE.


    Why do you always avoid the education question BTW?
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    38,189
    #58
    Would you believe anyone else who told you a similar story today? One of your friends? Would you take him seriously?
    That's not a fair question, Martin. We find it ridiculous, because we see Muhammad from a certain perspective. You see, we don't care about other believers. Whether or not they believe holds no relevance to us. In the eyes of a muslim (or a christian) the fact that many people believe is extremely relevant. They think that because many people believe it to be true, it must be. There must have been something about Muhammad that made people believe.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    38,189
    #59
    IMO

    Possibilty of Mohammed telling truth = TRUE.

    Possibilty of Mohammed lying = FALSE.

    So basically yes there is a possibility of Mohammed lying IMO and it is FALSE.


    Why do you always avoid the education question BTW?
    I'm in law school you moron. I hold a bachelor's degree in history and speak four languages. What's the problem? You think I don't have enough education?

    And you're wrong, again. It's semantics here.

    There is a possibility, but it didn't happen according to you. That doesn't mean the possibility is not there. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)