traders who are deeply religious

[stu]

Quote from trainr:

... which is to say you cannot refute it. At least, you haven't done so.

You could at least try, eh?

All you have to do, if you're up to the challenge, is prove that the domain of effects a) is always a function of cause, or b) is never a function of cause.

I seriously doubt you can do it. But, hey, give it a whirl.

If you can't prove one of the two, my original statement stands.

Should you want your statements to stand, it may be advisable not to knock them down as you try to keep them upright.

You demonstrated that to decide what exists, requires you put the onus imperatively on what exists. Then you destroyed your own statement ( in the same sentence no less), by arguing the onus must be on proving what does not exist.


You also stated ... "all effects have causes except the ultimate cause." ...
So far your next statement largely says, effects have causes - but an ultimate cause doesn't have a cause .

Now not only has your previous statement contradicted itself, that one doesn't make sense


Then you go on on to your "cause and effect challenge" above, which is no longer to do with onus or what exists. It is to do with whether two things which you have already taken to exist (cause and effect) are - or are not - a function of each other.

I don't think your confusions are helping your statements or your arguments any.

 

[trainr]

Quote from stu:
You demonstrated that to decide what exists, requires you put the onus imperatively on what exists. Then you destroyed your own statement (in the same sentence no less), by arguing the onus must be on proving what does not exist.

It appears you didn’t really read my post.

You also stated ... "all effects have causes except the ultimate cause." ...
So far your next statement largely says, effects have causes - but an ultimate cause doesn't have a cause.

Very, very simple logic that you’re missing.

In your rush to trot out the old arguments about tautologies, you’re missing the fact that I’m not trying to prove anything, only show that you can’t rule out the existence of a cause-less cause.

Again, for the purpose of clarity, the goal was to show that a cause-less cause cannot be ruled out, try as you might. While that doesn’t prove God’s existence, it leaves open the possibility, unless you can prove what I said cannot: a) all effects have causes, or b) no effects have causes. Can you prove either of these statements true?

If not, validity stands.

 

[trainr]

Quote from Anti-Madder:

Ok, trainr. So if you multiply a given mass by the square of the speed of light, you could say that you, "did the math" that equates energy and mass. But what you really did was perform simple multiplication.

I never said I had performed any sort of complex math on the topic. I said I had “done the math.” Due to your own communication skills you felt that implied something else and attacked it. All I did was plug the knowns into an existing formula, and I never claimed otherwise. Nor did I say that I did it to “equate energy with mass,” to use your words. For you to attack it as if I had is strange, at best, and has implications of its own, at worst.

Actually, the more I read your posts, the more I see a disconnect between what I’m saying and what you’re responding. Part of that may be due to the weaknesses of written communications in general, so I don’t hold you entirely responsible, although I am disappointed.

Einstein did the math that led to that astounding formula so the rest of us can drop our numbers into his equation and then all we have to do is perform grammar school arithmetic to find the result.

I never considered that you were boasting that you were able to perform multiplication and division. Which college teaches that?

You lost me. My only reference to college was in response to your requirement that I need to know physics.

You previously dazzled with your supposed outstanding knowledge of physics, but somehow I’m the one who is boasting.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: “That’s the sort of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.”

It was just my misunderstanding of what sort of accomplishments bring you pride. So, now that I understand, I want you to know that I believe you did real good on your arithmetic.

I can’t say the same for your communication skills.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from trainr:

It appears you didn’t really read my post. Very, very simple logic that you’re missing.

In your rush to trot out the old arguments about tautologies, you’re missing the fact that I’m not trying to prove anything, only show that you can’t rule out the existence of a cause-less cause.

Again, for the purpose of clarity, the goal was to show that a cause-less cause cannot be ruled out, try as you might. While that doesn’t prove God’s existence, it leaves open the possibility, unless you can prove what I said cannot: a) all effects have causes, or b) no effects have causes. Can you prove either of these statements true?

If not, validity stands.

Your post was not directed at me, and I will certainly not engage you in a debate on a topic that neither of us knows anything about. However, kindly permit me an observation. It seems that you are going to great lengths with what appears to be a dilettante's grasp of quantum physics to show that we cannot rule out the "possibility" of God's existence. With that in mind, would it provide you with any comfort if we were all to declare that, in the abstract of course, anything is..."possible?"

 

[trainr]

Quote from Thunderdog:

would it provide you with any comfort if we were all to declare that, in the abstract of course, anything is..."possible?"

Fine. (How many of you ARE there in this "we"?)

I prefer substance, unlikely as it is to be found.

The original post was declaring all arguments-from-cause to be -- I inferred -- tautological, or circular. Similar to the belief that evolutionary speciation occurred by random processes: "all life that exists evolved from a complete previous life form. How do we know? Because it exists."

I was pointing out that the argument-from-cause isn't required to be a tautology, as long as you can't disprove "All causes have a cause except an ultimate cause."

When you say that anything is possible -- in the abstract -- you're saying the imagination can create anything. Abstraction is a separation from something, and I assume you mean abstract as separate from reality, which puts it in the realm of imagination. So, no, I don't agree that it is only possible in the imagination.

I mean it is possible in the here and now. In the concrete, not the abstract.

If you can explain why hundreds of people, who knew from their non-abstract reality, that Jesus was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic, chose to willingly die rather than renounce that knowledge, I'll accept that this is not a proof of God.

But, your "proof" has to conclude these were ordinary people, or show some evidence they were aberrant.

The common argument is, "They were deluded. How do we know? Because they believed him." That of course, is a tautology. A real one.

So, you claim to have non-empty posts.

I'm open to being shown.

 

[stu]

Quote from trainr:

It appears you didn’t really read my post. Very, very simple logic that you’re missing.

I read your post and from your remarks above, it is obvious you have made yet another statement which you cannot support.

Quote from trainr:


In your rush to trot out the old arguments about tautologies, you’re missing the fact that I’m not trying to prove anything, only show that you can’t rule out the existence of a cause-less cause.

Again, for the purpose of clarity, the goal was to show that a cause-less cause cannot be ruled out, try as you might. While that doesn’t prove God’s existence, it leaves open the possibility, unless you can prove what I said cannot: a) all effects have causes, or b) no effects have causes. Can you prove either of these statements true?

If not, validity stands.

I have not been trying to rule a causless cause in or out. So far you have been trying to rule one in .
Your statement confirms so ... "all effects have causes except the ultimate cause.".

I think it is you who is missing the facts here. When by your statements you say that "you can’t rule out the existence of a cause-less cause.", then equally you cannot either rule one in. Your statement missed the very, very simple logic which you say was missing.

You have already made clear the onus is on proving what does exist, not on having to prove something doesn't.

The universe, you have confirmed, obviously does exist. So now by using your own statements, you can't rule the universe out as being "the ultimate cause", try as you might.

You have ruled it in as far as having existence goes, which is also where you demonstrated the onus is. You have not demonstrated nor made clear God exists, as you have made clear "you I and the universe" exists. However I expect you will eventually not let your own statements deter you from contradicting yourself on that one.

For those reasons and ones you have and probably will continue to ignore, your statements remain invalid .

 

[trainr]

Quote from stu:

I read your post and from your remarks above, it is obvious you have made yet another statement which you cannot support.

I have not been trying to rule a causless cause in or out. So far you have been trying to rule one in .
Your statement confirms so ... "all effects have causes except the ultimate cause.".

I think it is you who is missing the facts here. When by your statements you say that "you can’t rule out the existence of a cause-less cause.", then equally you cannot either rule one in.

... which is what I was saying.

 

[stu]

Quote from trainr:

... which is what I was saying.

uh uh

Quote from trainr:

I was pointing out that the argument-from-cause isn't required to be a tautology, as long as you can't disprove "All causes have a cause except an ultimate cause."

The tautology which you describe would be caused by your statement above, simply because of this statement below, which makes it redundant ....

I was pointing out that the argument-from-cause isn't required to be a tautology, as long as you can prove "All causes have a cause except an ultimate cause."


You have demonstrated how the onus is on proving what does exist, not what doesn't.. The universe exists, you said so. So then you would also have to prove an "ultimate cause". at least as well as you have "you I and the universe" exists.

How come you want to prove what doesn't exist when it's a question of "ultimate cause" , but prove what does exist when it's a question of "you I and the universe" ?

 

[trainr]

Quote from stu:

uh uh

The tautology which you describe would be caused by your statement above, simply because of this statement below, which makes it redundant ....

I was pointing out that the argument-from-cause isn't required to be a tautology, as long as you can prove "All causes have a cause except an ultimate cause."

as long as you can't disprove "All causes have a cause except an ultimate cause."
is what I actually said.

 

[trader28]

Quote from trainr:

as long as you can't disprove "All causes have a cause except an ultimate cause."
is what I actually said. [/B]

That is actually an occult belief... and a buddhist belief... and quite a few others.... none of them resemble the christian god at all