Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith: "I'm having a little trouble parsing your sentences."

It sounded like Le Vautre was just disagreeing with Schopenhauer.

Le Vautre: "But I can't understand the second and third points, because Schopenhauer never said that."

Yes, they don't sound like statements a Buddhist would make, which he more or less was.

When Westerners become Buddhists, I always think they are still giving out Western philosophy but in Buddhist drag. I am rather disgusted by Western secular Buddhism. It ain't Buddhism.

[GaryLouisSmith]

There is no way to answer a critique of the cosmologial argument, since the argument itself has nothing to recommend it.
I'm not sure exactly what Shop said, but since the argument is;

"an argument for the existence of God which claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily."

It is inherently self refuting as contradictory.

I think the whole idea of causality is wrong. One thing, no matter what it is, cannot bring another thing into existence. There is no such thing as the causal nexus, no such thing as cause and effect.

[Felix]

"Are you taking the idealist's position that it is human perception that gives context and therefore the truth and reality of the world?"

Well, it certainly defines the context and orientation of Life but I wouldn't go so far as to say it defines reality itself. Reality is the playground we play in but it need not limit our creativity.

“Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality.” - Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

[GaryLouisSmith]

"Are you taking the idealist's position that it is human perception that gives context and therefore the truth and reality of the world?"

Well, it certainly defines the context and orientation of Life but I wouldn't go so far as to say it defines reality itself. Reality is the playground we play in but it need not limit our creativity.

“Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality.” - Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Yes, you are an idealist, a mind creating his world.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith: "There is no such thing as the causal nexus, no such thing as cause and effect."

So it's an illusion? Can we see through it?

[Sculptor1]

There is no way to answer a critique of the cosmologial argument, since the argument itself has nothing to recommend it.
I'm not sure exactly what Shop said, but since the argument is;

"an argument for the existence of God which claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence (i.e. are contingent), and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being which exists independently or necessarily."

It is inherently self refuting as contradictory.

I think the whole idea of causality is wrong. One thing, no matter what it is, cannot bring another thing into existence. There is no such thing as the causal nexus, no such thing as cause and effect.

How do you ever brush your teeth in the morning?

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think the whole idea of causality is wrong. One thing, no matter what it is, cannot bring another thing into existence. There is no such thing as the causal nexus, no such thing as cause and effect.

How do you ever brush your teeth in the morning?

I'm just following David Hume and he managed to brush his teeth.

[Sculptor1]

How do you ever brush your teeth in the morning?

I'm just following David Hume and he managed to brush his teeth.

Hume accepted cause and effect.
It was just the limits he examined..

[Sculptor1]

How do you ever brush your teeth in the morning?

I'm just following David Hume and he managed to brush his teeth.

Hume just questioned the naivete of easy attributions, and questioned that you could never know the causal chain to the nth degree.
Far from saying what you did that "cause and effect does not exist", Hume would have said nothing of the sort and spent much time investigation what cause and effect was.

In short the causes of a specific effect are multitudinous, involving a possibly inconceivable number of identifyable factors.