What is your god like? (16 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hist

Hist

Founder of Hism
#1,601
Jan 18, 2009
11,603
#1,601
Deneb said:
too much a priori a posteriori amalgam your logic is flawed and your approach superficial
Click to expand...
Please explain... in simple terms as i am not an expert of formal logic.
I've read this after seeing your post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

but i still don't get your point exactly.. so i'll use the terms as far as wikipedia explained them.

my argument was that we know causality exists in our universe through Posteriori... i. e. induction. We have no priori nor posteriori knowledge of its existence "outside or before the universe" if not no knowledge that such things as the "outside" even exists at all. Hence an argument from causality is not justified.

However, i tried to assume (for the sake of arguing) that causality does exist in the "outer universe" and concluded that if it does (in the same manner it does in the real world) then whatever occupies that "outer universe" needs a cause too.
If a super natural realm exists yet still has causality(the same as in the natural) then every thing over there needs a cause too, the same way everything here needs a cause. and following this absurd line of argument we would create a series of super duper universes until infinity.

Bare in mind that my real argument is only the first part.. the second argument is just me playing along the line of reasoning juverev started.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
GordoDeCentral

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
#1,604
Apr 14, 2005
70,778
#1,604
snake_midget said:
Please explain... in simple terms as i am not an expert of formal logic.
I've read this after seeing your post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

but i still don't get your point exactly.. so i'll use the terms as far as wikipedia explained them.

my argument was that we know causality exists in our universe through Posteriori... i. e. induction. We have no priori nor posteriori knowledge of its existence "outside or before the universe" if not no knowledge that such things as the "outside" even exists at all. Hence an argument from causality is not justified.

However, i tried to assume (for the sake of arguing) that causality does exist in the "outer universe" and concluded that if it does (in the same manner it does in the real world) then whatever occupies that "outer universe" needs a cause too.
If a super natural realm exists yet still has causality(the same as in the natural) then every thing over there needs a cause too, the same way everything here needs a cause. and following this absurd line of argument we would create a series of super duper universes until infinity.

Bare in mind that my real argument is only the first part.. the second argument is just me playing along the line of reasoning juverev started.
Click to expand...

which is equally valid, if only for bias and we do have posteriori knowledge of such things because we exist! read up on kant he shows all this quite effectively
 
Hist

Hist

Founder of Hism
#1,605
Jan 18, 2009
11,603
#1,605
Deneb said:
which is equally valid, if only for bias and we do have posteriori knowledge of such things because we exist! read up on kant he shows all this quite effectively
Click to expand...
I haven't read Kant.. I've only had him explained to me every now and then so please help me out.

Your claim that we have posteriori knowledge about what exactly? the real world or the super duper fantastic realm? or we don't?

I don't see how posteriori knowledge about a supernatural realm can be attained without experiencing it.

I think I am misunderstanding you again :)
 
rounder

rounder

Blindman
#1,607
Jun 13, 2007
7,233
#1,607
snake_midget said:
Please explain... in simple terms as i am not an expert of formal logic.
I've read this after seeing your post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

but i still don't get your point exactly.. so i'll use the terms as far as wikipedia explained them.

my argument was that we know causality exists in our universe through Posteriori... i. e. induction. We have no priori nor posteriori knowledge of its existence "outside or before the universe" if not no knowledge that such things as the "outside" even exists at all. Hence an argument from causality is not justified.

However, i tried to assume (for the sake of arguing) that causality does exist in the "outer universe" and concluded that if it does (in the same manner it does in the real world) then whatever occupies that "outer universe" needs a cause too.
If a super natural realm exists yet still has causality(the same as in the natural) then every thing over there needs a cause too, the same way everything here needs a cause. and following this absurd line of argument we would create a series of super duper universes until infinity.

Bare in mind that my real argument is only the first part.. the second argument is just me playing along the line of reasoning juverev started.
Click to expand...
I think I've explained this before, but here goes. Right, so you're sayng that if everything needed a cause, then God needed a cause too, yes? I'll give you a reason for why that is incorrect.

1) All finite objects require a cause. God is by definition infinite. He is supernatural. The natural is bound by the limits of time and space. God is beyond natural. He is beyond space and time, He is timeless,spaceless. I know it's difficult to grasp but we have good reason to believe this. Since there must have been an external, personal cause for the universe and that cause cannot be natural, that cause must be supernatural. It cannot be natural because nothing in nature is 'outside' of time. And if it is supernatural, then it is God.

To sum it up. The principle of causality applies to the natural world, not God. God was uncaused but can freely choose to cause.

There is a second reason. If you required a cause for the cause for the cause et.. this would result in an infinite regress of causes. I will explain it more later but it seems self-explanatory to me and very logical. Think of any situation with causes and effects. You will see why your objection is logically invalid.
 
Hist

Hist

Founder of Hism
#1,610
Jan 18, 2009
11,603
#1,610
Juve Revolution said:
To sum it up. The principle of causality applies to the natural world, not God. God was uncaused but can freely choose to cause.
Click to expand...
This is the last time i am pointing this out. :sergio:
Does causality precede the universe or not?

If yes, then the universe must have a cause but so does everything else in that Alternative preceding universe including God if he lives there.

If not, then our universe does not have a cause.


Can we actually know for sure if causality precedes the existence of the universe?
NO we cannot know whether it does or does not. We only can have knowledge about what we experience so we do know causality exists inside THIS universe.. we cannot say the same about other universes.


:flag1:
 
rounder

rounder

Blindman
#1,614
Jun 13, 2007
7,233
#1,614
snake_midget said:
This is the last time i am pointing this out. :sergio:
Does causality precede the universe or not?

If yes, then the universe must have a cause but so does everything else in that Alternative preceding universe including God if he lives there.

If not, then our universe does not have a cause.


Can we actually know for sure if causality precedes the existence of the universe?
NO we cannot know whether it does or does not. We only can have knowledge about what we experience so we do know causality exists inside THIS universe.. we cannot say the same about other universes.


:flag1:
Click to expand...


Throw your concept of God out for one second. Any depiction of God that has ever been presented to you by the external world, throw it out now! And for the last time, I will try to make myself as clear as possible.

The Big Bang required a cause. Since this cause would have to be supernatural, this cause would be God. Who/What is God? I don't know. God is a concept we invented for a superindending, supernatural, all-powerful, spaceless, timeless, limitless, infinite being. This being is most rational explanation for the Big Bang since the beggining of the universe required a force/cause outside the realms of space and time. Why does God not require a cause?

Because God is infinite. So what? Well, think about it for a second. If something is infinite, meaning it had no beggining and will have no end, could it possibly require a cause? In fact, if it did have a cause, it wouldn't be infinite. Why? Because that would mean that something pre-existed God. Nothing can pre-exist an 'infinite' being thus God could not have been caused.

My entire argument builds on the assumption that God is infinite. You will not see the logic behind the argument unless you follow this concept. I hope I've made things clear enough.

Martin said:
No it's not lol. JuveRev has the magic ability to block out any earlier conclusions and proceed as if nothing happened.
Click to expand...

You believe in magic?

The irony...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 16)