davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Forget that, what does "beginning" mean?
What is a "cause"?
What is "God"?
Cause and Effect.
Every effect requires a cause.
Forget that, what does "beginning" mean?
What is a "cause"?
What is "God"?
You wrote all that just to ask what I mean when I use the word "claim"? And you accuse me of verbosity?? I'm guessing the irony of those accusations is still lost on you.Dear Sarkus, in our preceding exchange on the same theme of everything with a beginning has a cause, you said that my statement is only a claim.
I like us to resume your statement that my statement everything with a beginning has a cause is just a claim.
You bring in that word claim to describe my statement, everything with a beginning has a cause, please enlighten readers starting with myself, what do you understand by your use of the word claim?
That's all well and good, but how certain are we that all events are effects?
I'm not the person trying to beg the question on a metaphysical principle.Well, can you name an event that didn't have a cause?
I'm not the person trying to beg the question on a metaphysical principle.
I can conceive of the possibility.That may well be true, but can you think of anything that didn't have a cause?
You may be able to conceive, but your not going to prove it.I can conceive of the possibility.
I don't have to prove it.You may be able to conceive, but your not going to prove it.
Can you name something whose cause was supernatural?Well, can you name an event that didn't have a cause?
No. Not yet. Can you name something natural or cosmic that hasn't had a cause?Can you name something whose cause was supernatural?
I can't.No. Not yet. Can you name something natural or cosmic that hasn't had a cause?
I say that you still don't understand my position: I am not saying that "everything with a beginning needs a cause" is false. I am saying that I do not know whether it is true or false.Dear Sarkus, I think you have now a proposition, namely, that everything with a beginning needs a cause is false.
My proposition is that everything with a beginning needs a cause is true.
So let you and me give an example to illustrate our respective proposition.
What do you say?
All I see here is (yet another) "When in doubt resort to argument from incredulity" tactic.As we are all possessed of reading comprehension, even without reading his book but just the title, it is clear for us that the man is going to convince all mankind that nothing and something and the universe are convertible, i.e., nothing is equivalent to something and to the universe; why? because nothing gives rise to the universe; and why would nothing do that? Because he tells us, "Nothing is unstable," so as we usually understand with us humans, when a guy is unstable then he is liable to give rise to something like a universe from nothing.
I.e. a completely meaningless (and also unworkable and of no use whatsoever) "concept".So, now you know, dear readers here, that by the totality of existence I mean everything that is anything at all, even just the word nothing; and you will notice that the concept of the totality of existence is larger than the concept of the universe and even the concept of God.
So rather than attempt to support your previous assertion you now change tack? Are you unable to support the assertions you have already made?Okay, Sarkus, let you and me go to a higher level of concern, namely, the totality of existence.
Do you mean "a reality" or simply "reality"? The former implies one of a plurality, the latter implies the only one.I say the totality of existence is a reality, do you agree to that?
Your condescension is not only unwarranted but actually insulting. Please desist.Now, readers here, please pay close attention to the ensuing conversation: my attempt to get Sarkus connected with my concern, now into the matter of the reality of the totality of existence.
Presumably the basket is also inside itself?Perhaps you might want to know what I mean by the totality of existence.
It means a very big basket where everything that man talks about is put into, no matter whether it exists even just in man's mind with his imagination, or with scientists talking about virtual particles, or with innovative cosmologists talking about parallel universes or multverses, or whatever other verses they want to talk about.
This is just one large strawman, Pachomius. It has very little, if anything, to do with your "totality of existence" once you have stated that the cosmologists notion of "nothingness" is also included in the basket.But of course the most important things are things like the nose in our face and we ourselves and the actual universe we have for our home; and don't forget the nothingness that one cosmologist insists the universe came from or as he puts it as the title of his best seller, "A Universe from Nothing -- Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing."
As we are all possessed of reading comprehension, even without reading his book but just the title, it is clear for us that the man is going to convince all mankind that nothing and something and the universe are convertible, i.e., nothing is equivalent to something and to the universe; why? because nothing gives rise to the universe; and why would nothing do that? Because he tells us, "Nothing is unstable," so as we usually understand with us humans, when a guy is unstable then he is liable to give rise to something like a universe from nothing.
Please stop with the condescension. It is wholly unwarranted.Okay, let us sit back and observe the participation of Sarkus in this latest attempt of mine to get him connected with me.
You're not trying to engage in any conversation. That much is abundantly clear. Conversations tend to move forward.Dear readers here, please pay close attention to the conversation I am trying to engage Sarkus with:
You still haven't answered whether you are talking about subjective reality or objective?Dear Sarkus, choose either option you prefer, but please leave the other option open, so that when we are through with our exchange on your first option, we will go to the second option.
It is lack of semantic clarity at the outset that can cause confusion and disagreement later on. If you use a term that has a plurality of interpretations, such as "reality" (which is a philosophical minefield in itself), then forgive me if I want you to be clear with what you mean.And believe me, Sarkus, I am not into laying semantic landmines because that is a silly endeavor, and I want to get the impression that you are not into wasting the time and effort of readers in this thread.
First, just drop your dogmatic insistence on the need for proposition and counter-proposition. This is not a formal debate about competing theories, as has been explained to you. This is you making a proposition, presumably followed by the rest of your argument, and me (and others) examining what you say. If you can not cope with this, move somewhere where your approach is adopted.Addressing the readers of this thread:
Pay close attention to how Sarkus is behaving in this conversation I am trying to engage him with.
That thing about a reality or reality alone is just his way of wasting time and labor for everyone except himself to engage in whatever he is into, but not any engagement on the basis of proposition and counter-proposition.
Again this dogmatic insistence on proposition/counter-proposition. All I have done is ask you questions about your propositions, to seek clarity with what you mean, thus with whether I agree with them (which you did ask me), and you condescend and insult me yet again.The way I know this poster's history with me, it is one of wishy-washy dilly-dallying useless talk, instead of connection on the basis of my one proposition and his opposite proposition.
I told him already to cease with his verbosity in aid of vain pomposity and also on his verbosity in aid of obfuscation, but the man does not seem to take the cue; so let us all sit back and see what he is up to.