Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Atla]

No, I don't understand the difference. That's part of what I've been asking you(?)

Please share those differences if you are able.

Yeah right, people aren't that stupid. Anyway here's a lottery example, you are playing the lottery, you have a 1 in 1000 chance of winning.

1. You don't believe that you will win next week, but you don't exclude the possibility.
2. You know it for a fact that you won't win next week.

But if you really don't see a difference then I don't know what to say.

[3017Metaphysician]

Now you've flip-flopped, again. Before you said you didn't have a belief, now you're implying (the dictionary meaning) that your belief is based on a God that doesn't exist?

Where was God mentioned in "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything"?

We can keep playing, it's ok:

God is mentioned in the definition of Atheism, no?

Yes, which is relevant to "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything" how? You can't hold a line of thought which you yourself started?

To help assist you, please think carefully to the propositions/definitions before responding :

You are an Atheist who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

You believe that cause and effect lacks common sense (your quote, it's: "inherently illogical").

To help further with the definition:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

[Atla]

Where was God mentioned in "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything"?

We can keep playing, it's ok:

God is mentioned in the definition of Atheism, no?

Yes, which is relevant to "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything" how? You can't hold a line of thought which you yourself started?

To help assist you, please think carefully to the propositions/definitions before responding :

You are an Atheist who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

You believe that cause and effect lacks common sense (your quote, it's: "inherently illogical").

To help further with the definition:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

No, for the nth time: I said cause and effect AS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD is inherently illogical. Which I then explained in more detail.

[3017Metaphysician]

We can keep playing, it's ok:

God is mentioned in the definition of Atheism, no?

Yes, which is relevant to "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything" how? You can't hold a line of thought which you yourself started?

To help assist you, please think carefully to the propositions/definitions before responding :

You are an Atheist who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

You believe that cause and effect lacks common sense (your quote, it's: "inherently illogical").

To help further with the definition:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

No, for the nth time: I said cause and effect AS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD is inherently illogical. Which I then explained in more detail.

Please provide a level of detail that is cogent/coherent, explaining how cause and effect is "normally" as well as universally understood..

[Atla]

Yes, which is relevant to "most atheists don't think that there isn't anything" how? You can't hold a line of thought which you yourself started?

To help assist you, please think carefully to the propositions/definitions before responding :

You are an Atheist who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

You believe that cause and effect lacks common sense (your quote, it's: "inherently illogical").

To help further with the definition:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

No, for the nth time: I said cause and effect AS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD is inherently illogical. Which I then explained in more detail.

Please provide a level of detail that is cogent/coherent, explaining how cause and effect is "normally" as well as universally understood..

Again? There is cause and effect, but not how you imagine it.

We divide the indivisible universe into separate things. We now believe that there are all these separate objects.

We also divide the indivisible universe in time, into moments that follow in linear succession. We now believe that we literally have a universal flow of time from the past towards the future.

Now that we have these two inherently illogical ideas, we can come up with an inherently illogical version of cause and effect. There are separate things causing other separate things, while we are moving forward in time.

And then the theist has a genius insight: but wait, if we go back all the way, there had to be a first cause, no? After all we have an absolute flow of time from past towards future. Oh I know.. the first cause was God!

Give me a break..

[3017Metaphysician]

To help assist you, please think carefully to the propositions/definitions before responding :

You are an Atheist who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

You believe that cause and effect lacks common sense (your quote, it's: "inherently illogical").

To help further with the definition:

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

No, for the nth time: I said cause and effect AS NORMALLY UNDERSTOOD is inherently illogical. Which I then explained in more detail.

Please provide a level of detail that is cogent/coherent, explaining how cause and effect is "normally" as well as universally understood..

Again? There is cause and effect, but not how you imagine it.

We divide the indivisible universe into separate things. We now believe that there are all these separate objects.

We also divide the indivisible universe in time, into moments that follow in linear succession. We now believe that we literally have a universal flow of time from the past towards the future.

Now that we have these two inherently illogical ideas, we can come up with an inherently illogical version of cause and effect. There are separate things causing other separate things, while we are moving forward in time.

And then the theist has a genius insight: but wait, if we go back all the way, there had to be a first cause, no? After all we have an absolute flow of time from past towards future. Oh I know.. the first cause was God!

Give me a break..

Oh my, what is illogical about that? What are "inherently illogical ideas"? Please provide more detail (I'll keep that as a sort of subject-line so we don't loose sight of that question). RE: inherently illogical ideas. And you can explain when ever you are ready.

Anyway, please don't take this the wrong way, it's as if you know nothing about the basics. You seem to be inferring some sort of mind-body problem, not sure. Let's start with the basics, shall we? Then we'll get back to "things" that you might think are illogical, your Atheism belief, and so forth.

Generally speaking, cause and effect means that things happen because something prompted them to happen. A cause is why something happens. In a cause and effect relationship, one or more things happen as a result of something else. A cause is a catalyst, a motive, or an action that brings about a reaction—or reactions. A cause instigates an effect. An effect is a condition, occurrence, or result generated by one or more causes. Effects are outcomes.

Before we get to science/physics, so far, do we have agreement?

[Atla]

Oh my, what is illogical about that? What are "inherently illogical ideas"? Please provide more detail (I'll keep that as a sort of subject-line so we don't loose sight of that question). RE: inherently illogical ideas. And you can explain when ever you are ready.

Anyway, please don't take this the wrong way, it's as if you know nothing about the basics. You seem to be inferring some sort of mind-body problem, not sure. Let's start with the basics, shall we? Then we'll get back to "things" that you might think are illogical, your Atheism belief, and so forth.

Generally speaking, cause and effect means that things happen because something prompted them to happen. A cause is why something happens. In a cause and effect relationship, one or more things happen as a result of something else. A cause is a catalyst, a motive, or an action that brings about a reaction—or reactions. A cause instigates an effect. An effect is a condition, occurrence, or result generated by one or more causes. Effects are outcomes.

Before we get to science/physics, so far, do we have agreement?

Okay, let's see how far we get with this neat Kantian/Newtonian understanding of the "basics". I agree that what you wrote is how cause and effect is normally used, carry on.

[3017Metaphysician]

Oh my, what is illogical about that? What are "inherently illogical ideas"? Please provide more detail (I'll keep that as a sort of subject-line so we don't loose sight of that question). RE: inherently illogical ideas. And you can explain when ever you are ready.

Anyway, please don't take this the wrong way, it's as if you know nothing about the basics. You seem to be inferring some sort of mind-body problem, not sure. Let's start with the basics, shall we? Then we'll get back to "things" that you might think are illogical, your Atheism belief, and so forth.

Generally speaking, cause and effect means that things happen because something prompted them to happen. A cause is why something happens. In a cause and effect relationship, one or more things happen as a result of something else. A cause is a catalyst, a motive, or an action that brings about a reaction—or reactions. A cause instigates an effect. An effect is a condition, occurrence, or result generated by one or more causes. Effects are outcomes.

Before we get to science/physics, so far, do we have agreement?

Okay, let's see how far we get with this neat Kantian/Newtonian understanding of the "basics". I agree that what you wrote is how cause and effect is normally used, carry on.

Great! Now, explain why you think you agree with me that cause and effect, in and of itself, is...well, logical? You said it wasn't. Think carefully before you answer. We are only talking the basic's here of the logic behind most all causes and effects.

In short, explain how that is illogical.

[Atla]

Oh my, what is illogical about that? What are "inherently illogical ideas"? Please provide more detail (I'll keep that as a sort of subject-line so we don't loose sight of that question). RE: inherently illogical ideas. And you can explain when ever you are ready.

Anyway, please don't take this the wrong way, it's as if you know nothing about the basics. You seem to be inferring some sort of mind-body problem, not sure. Let's start with the basics, shall we? Then we'll get back to "things" that you might think are illogical, your Atheism belief, and so forth.

Generally speaking, cause and effect means that things happen because something prompted them to happen. A cause is why something happens. In a cause and effect relationship, one or more things happen as a result of something else. A cause is a catalyst, a motive, or an action that brings about a reaction—or reactions. A cause instigates an effect. An effect is a condition, occurrence, or result generated by one or more causes. Effects are outcomes.

Before we get to science/physics, so far, do we have agreement?

Okay, let's see how far we get with this neat Kantian/Newtonian understanding of the "basics". I agree that what you wrote is how cause and effect is normally used, carry on.

Great! Now, explain why you think you agree with me that cause and effect, in and of itself, is...well, logical? You said it wasn't. Think carefully before you answer. We are only talking the basic's here of the logic behind most all causes and effects.

In short, explain how that is illogical.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. I said:

Cause and effect in and of itself can be seen as logical, but your treatment of it isn't.

[psyreporter]

Generally speaking, cause and effect means that things happen because something prompted them to happen. A cause is why something happens. In a cause and effect relationship, one or more things happen as a result of something else. A cause is a catalyst, a motive, or an action that brings about a reaction—or reactions. A cause instigates an effect. An effect is a condition, occurrence, or result generated by one or more causes. Effects are outcomes.

Before we get to science/physics, so far, do we have agreement?

What would be the ground for any certainty in what you have described? The assertion is based on the idea that facts have a certain qualitative nature that makes them different from propositional truths which is a questionable idea.

There is evidence that consciousness can exert a physical effect backwards in time - on physical 'reality' in the past. How would that relate to causality when effects as they had 'appear' to be, prove to have been (able to been) otherwise?

Scientists introduce new cosmic connectivity: Quantum pigeonhole paradox
"With the new kind of quantum linkages which we have introduced, the particles don't have to interact in the past. In fact, they have no idea that the other particle even existed," said Jeff Tollaksen, Director of the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University.

Aharonov found that Nature gains something very beautiful and exciting with this indeterminism: the present is not only affected by the past but it is also affected by the future. That is, the future (also known as post-selection) can come back to the present (like in the movie "Back to the Future").
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132526.htm

[3017Metaphysician]

Oh my, what is illogical about that? What are "inherently illogical ideas"? Please provide more detail (I'll keep that as a sort of subject-line so we don't loose sight of that question). RE: inherently illogical ideas. And you can explain when ever you are ready.

Anyway, please don't take this the wrong way, it's as if you know nothing about the basics. You seem to be inferring some sort of mind-body problem, not sure. Let's start with the basics, shall we? Then we'll get back to "things" that you might think are illogical, your Atheism belief, and so forth.

Generally speaking, cause and effect means that things happen because something prompted them to happen. A cause is why something happens. In a cause and effect relationship, one or more things happen as a result of something else. A cause is a catalyst, a motive, or an action that brings about a reaction—or reactions. A cause instigates an effect. An effect is a condition, occurrence, or result generated by one or more causes. Effects are outcomes.

Before we get to science/physics, so far, do we have agreement?

Okay, let's see how far we get with this neat Kantian/Newtonian understanding of the "basics". I agree that what you wrote is how cause and effect is normally used, carry on.

Great! Now, explain why you think you agree with me that cause and effect, in and of itself, is...well, logical? You said it wasn't. Think carefully before you answer. We are only talking the basic's here of the logic behind most all causes and effects.

In short, explain how that is illogical.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. I said:

Cause and effect in and of itself can be seen as logical, but your treatment of it isn't.

....are you ok? Dude, we may have to abort the mission there... . No comprende. Debes loqui linguam alienam.

[Atla]

Okay, let's see how far we get with this neat Kantian/Newtonian understanding of the "basics". I agree that what you wrote is how cause and effect is normally used, carry on.

Great! Now, explain why you think you agree with me that cause and effect, in and of itself, is...well, logical? You said it wasn't. Think carefully before you answer. We are only talking the basic's here of the logic behind most all causes and effects.

In short, explain how that is illogical.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. I said:

Cause and effect in and of itself can be seen as logical, but your treatment of it isn't.

....are you ok? Dude, we may have to abort the mission there... . No comprende. Debes loqui linguam alienam.

I think you might have some wires crossed, can't follow even the simplest of sentences.

[Pattern-chaser]

Great! Now, explain why you think you agree with me that cause and effect, in and of itself, is...well, logical? You said it wasn't. Think carefully before you answer. We are only talking the basic's here of the logic behind most all causes and effects.

In short, explain how that is illogical.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. I said:

Cause and effect in and of itself can be seen as logical, but your treatment of it isn't.

....are you ok? Dude, we may have to abort the mission there... . No comprende. Debes loqui linguam alienam.

I think you might have some wires crossed, can't follow even the simplest of sentences.

I find it difficult to communicate with someone whose text (very) often assumes they are the teacher, and I am a student, helpless without guidance, and desperate for it. It just gets my back up. I know I should be more mature about it...

[3017Metaphysician]

Generally speaking, cause and effect means that things happen because something prompted them to happen. A cause is why something happens. In a cause and effect relationship, one or more things happen as a result of something else. A cause is a catalyst, a motive, or an action that brings about a reaction—or reactions. A cause instigates an effect. An effect is a condition, occurrence, or result generated by one or more causes. Effects are outcomes.

Before we get to science/physics, so far, do we have agreement?

What would be the ground for any certainty in what you have described? The assertion is based on the idea that facts have a certain qualitative nature that makes them different from propositional truths which is a questionable idea.

There is evidence that consciousness can exert a physical effect backwards in time - on physical 'reality' in the past. How would that relate to causality when effects as they had 'appear' to be, prove to have been (able to been) otherwise?

Scientists introduce new cosmic connectivity: Quantum pigeonhole paradox
"With the new kind of quantum linkages which we have introduced, the particles don't have to interact in the past. In fact, they have no idea that the other particle even existed," said Jeff Tollaksen, Director of the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University.

Aharonov found that Nature gains something very beautiful and exciting with this indeterminism: the present is not only affected by the past but it is also affected by the future. That is, the future (also known as post-selection) can come back to the present (like in the movie "Back to the Future").
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 132526.htm

PR!


Thank you for the question. The ground would be the cognitive need for curiosity, or the metaphysical Will to be. A fixed, intrinsic or innate need, a priori. Of course, the qualitative features of self-consciousness allows for things like curiosity as well as things like intuition to manifest. And it does so through the cognitive process of the intellect. Meaning, in this context, consider the logic of causation as a means to an end. In pure reason or logic, if the end goal is to have some level of "certainty", it is not those exclusive 'qualitive' features that will get us there. The complimentary feature to 'quality' then, would be of 'quantity'. As an example, the infamous synthetic a priori cosmological argument would rear its metaphorical head:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

In consciousness, from a physical/meta-physical vantage point, we have both quantity and quality (of the foregoing cognitive process) working for us, respectively. The quantity is the object, the quality is the subject. The trick is to transcend both the subject-object dichotomy to effect some level of "certainty". Kind of like the ToE where QM and relativity can be integrated and resolved (?).


With respect to backward causation, yes, I'm familiar with that phenomenon. At it's core, it does not only imply a logically structured determined universe of cause and effect and its related laws, but more specifically an indetermined one suggesting through analogy that both free-will and determinism can co-exist (compatibilism). Of course, there is some debate over such an inference... .

Nonetheless, you raise a very intriguing possibility. One way to envision this, could be the ability to step outside the block universe model of spacetime... . Is the quantum pigeon hole reminiscent of the Hawking informational paradox?

[3017Metaphysician]

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. I said:

Cause and effect in and of itself can be seen as logical, but your treatment of it isn't.

....are you ok? Dude, we may have to abort the mission there... . No comprende. Debes loqui linguam alienam.

I think you might have some wires crossed, can't follow even the simplest of sentences.

I find it difficult to communicate with someone whose text (very) often assumes they are the teacher, and I am a student, helpless without guidance, and desperate for it. It just gets my back up. I know I should be more mature about it...

PC!

Love you brother, but don't let things (emotions) get the best of you. If you took the time to study the argument, and where it was going, I think you would conclude that either the student is in need of some remedial homework, or is not serious in his approach to discourse. Cause and effect, as I generally described, is a "logical" process. Pretty basic stuff.

Think of it this way, I suppose the game that's being played is like the rule difference's between high school and the NFL.