astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Just that according to this reasoning, God exists, so therefore must have a cause as well. So what's the cause of God then? If you start from the first two statements, the third automatically follows, obviously, but then those first two statements are not exactly trivial, a they? Anyway, I was on my way to bed and now I'm distracted by the cosmological argument of the existence of God Exactly. Aquinas would say however that since this first cause is NECESSARY, it is NECESSARY for it to have certain properties or it wouldn't fit the bill. It HAS to be an uncaused first cause or it wouldn't be a first cause. If I'm staying up the night before this essay, I'm dragging everyone else down with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Thinking like this is an artificial construct due to the way the human mind works, pre-programmed to see patterns in everything. We look at things "logically" but who is to say this is the correct view? Maybe things just "are", and can't be regressed because there is no origin. As would say David Hume - we create patterns of causation because it comforts us. Yes, 'things just are' would be a lovely conclusion but this unfortunately is a philosophy essay. There is no easy way out. (I will thank you when I get an A. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerMoment1608 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 - Everything that exists has a cause But that's just a assertion. Why should everything that exists should have a cause? I would rather say that most things are just randomly there. And only because we "use" some of them they "get" a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 As would say David Hume - we create patterns of causation because it comforts us.Also 'things just are' would be a lovely conclusion but this unfortunately is a philosophy essay. (I will thank you when I get an A. ) But isn't "things just are" a philosophical viewpoint too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 This reminds me of my days studying sociology and arguments about whether the act of observation affected the people being observed so that you could never see "true" behaviour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 But that's just a assertion. Why should everything that exists should have a cause? I would rather say that most things are just randomly there. And only because we "use" some of them they "get" a cause. Aquinas would argue that literally everything we can observe has a cause. It is difficult to find exception to this. (unless we go into quantum mechanics where there are observed particles with no apparent cause - which are good basis for indeed rejecting this argument). But isn't "things just are" a philosophical viewpoint too? Yes I suppose so, and I agree with you. But I won't get 30 marks out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 This reminds me of my days studying sociology and arguments about whether the act of observation affected the people being observed so that you could never see "true" behaviour God feel self conscious so hides when we watch for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokesignal Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Aquinas would argue that literally everything we can observe has a cause. It is difficult to find exception to this. (unless we go into quantum mechanics where there are observed particles with no apparent cause - which are good basis for indeed rejecting this argument). I actually started a post about quantum fluctuations, but then decided that physicists should never throw physics arguments against philosophers, certainly not when theology is involved. It never ends seems to end well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerMoment1608 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 But isn't "things just are" a philosophical viewpoint too? I don't know if god/gods is/are just a way for people for reasoning things, because humans want and need an explanation for everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Introducing William Lane Craig and his ramblings - and why he decides infinite regress is impossible. - the present day is the result of successive additions of days - the present would not exist in an infinite universe, as any chain where it is possible to add more items (eg days) is not actually infinite - the universe is not infinite therefore has a beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I actually started a post about quantum fluctuations, but then decided that physicists should never throw physics arguments against philosophers, certainly not when theology is involved. It never ends seems to end well Physics beats theology any day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 God plays with quantum physicists - he/she/it keeps creating new particles and forces just to keep them busy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I don't know if god/gods is/are just a way for people for reasoning things, because humans want and need an explanation for everything? Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Introducing William Lane Craig and his ramblings - and why he decides infinite regress is impossible. - the present day is the result of successive additions of days - the present would not exist in an infinite universe, as any chain where it is possible to add more items (eg days) is not actually infinite - the universe is not infinite therefore has a beginning Doughnuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokesignal Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Introducing William Lane Craig and his ramblings - and why he decides infinite regress is impossible. - the present day is the result of successive additions of days - the present would not exist in an infinite universe, as any chain where it is possible to add more items (eg days) is not actually infinite - the universe is not infinite therefore has a beginning That second statement depends on your definition of infinite. In mathematics, you have at least two kinds of infinity. One you can count (like all the natural numbers, being 0, 1, 2, 3, ...) and one you can't (like all the real numbers, which include fractions and stuff like pi). But even the natural numbers are an infinite set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 God plays with quantum physicists - he/she/it keeps creating new particles and forces just to keep them busy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Doughnuts Well argued. That second statement depends on your definition of infinite. In mathematics, you have at least two kinds of infinity. One you can count (like all the natural numbers, being 0, 1, 2, 3, ...) and one you can't (like all the real numbers, which include fractions and stuff like pi). But even the natural numbers are an infinite set. Potential infinite and actual infinite? eg. 1,2,3 could be infinite if you kept adding one, but if you stop at 12 (representing present day) it isn't infinite. (...?) (I hope nobody thinks I am representing these theories, I am a scientist to the core ) Edited March 10, 2013 by astor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 That second statement depends on your definition of infinite. In mathematics, you have at least two kinds of infinity. One you can count (like all the natural numbers, being 0, 1, 2, 3, ...) and one you can't (like all the real numbers, which include fractions and stuff like pi). But even the natural numbers are an infinite set. That includes negative numbers presumably? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerMoment1608 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I actually started a post about quantum fluctuations, but then decided that physicists should never throw physics arguments against philosophers, certainly not when theology is involved. It never ends seems to end well Interestingly I just heart a article in the news at the radio if the development of science an technics overruns religion. Aquinas would argue that literally everything we can observe has a cause. It is difficult to find exception to this. (unless we go into quantum mechanics where there are observed particles with no apparent cause - which are good basis for indeed rejecting this argument). I don't know, what's the the cause for all the chemical elements for example? The world would exists happily without all the higher ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Interestingly I just heart a article in the news at the radio if the development of science an technics overruns religion. I don't know, what's the the cause for all the chemical elements for example? The world would exists happily without all the higher ones. Good point! I suppose the attraction between electrons causes O2 etc, but then we could say what caused the electrons to be attracted? So you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astor Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Ok anyways, since it's bed time, I conclude that Aquinas was wrong, the cosmological argument gets its ass whooped by science, and god has not been proved tonight. Good night, one and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokesignal Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 That includes negative numbers presumably? Not necessarily, that would be the set of integers, which goes to infinity on both ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikaissocoollike Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Would anyone be able to like give me some sort of introduction for this discursive essay on animal testing I have to do,I am okay for the fors and against I just not sure how to start it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiaIchihara Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Would anyone be able to like give me some sort of introduction for this discursive essay on animal testing I have to do,I am okay for the fors and against I just not sure how to start it off. how about saying what it is, when it started, who does this and why it was/is made??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwurtie Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 PHYSICSSSSS(/MATHS) HELP PLEASE http://www-pvhs.stjohns.k12.fl.us/teachers/veatchd/12F0080F-0118C716.19/Stat%2BEq%2BWS.pdf question 4 first I got 321.39 then tried a dif way and got 388.9 but they have 390 as the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now