A Bondslave and a Freeman

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God." (Romans 1:1)

Paul identified himself as a "servant (literally 'bondslave') of Jesus Christ" as he began several of his epistles; and it is significant that he began the epistle to the Romans in the same fashion. The parallel phrase "bondslave of the emperor" was commonly used in governmental and commercial circles of the day, and the readers in Rome would fully understand the meaning of the new term.

The emperor of Rome not only was to be obeyed as a human slave owner and king, he also was to be worshiped as a god. Paul boldly proclaimed himself to be the bondslave of a different slave owner, the subject of a different King and the worshiper of a different God.

Paul knew and expected to convince his readers that this new doctrine he was preaching would quickly replace the imperialism of Rome, and he fully realised that this challenge would quickly be recognised and fought by Rome. Paul himself, not many years hence, would stand before the emperor Nero, not as an imperial bondslave, but a bondslave of the King of kings.

Long before Nero's executioner freed Paul from the limitations of his physical body, Paul had been made a "freeman of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 7:22). The common title of the day "freedman of the emperor" designated a bondslave of the emperor who had been elevated by the emperor to a higher position.

Paul had been, and all believers have been, ransomed out of the slave market of sin by Christ's blood, and have been set free from the guilt, power, and penalty of that sin. Our willing response should be to permanently place ourselves into enslavement to our redeemer, making us simultaneously both bondslaves and freedmen of the King. JDM

For more . . . .

jayriginal:
Very good. Correction taken.
My question is still the same albeit with a slight modification.
My main point of interest now is premise 2 ie The Universe began to exist.

I hope this means that you now accept premise 1 to be correct.

Before that I will still ask you how you know that Premise 1 (Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause) is correct.

My dear brother. This issue is very simple. Everything that you see in existence naturally has some explanation (known or unknown). EVEN things that appear magical do have natural explanations. It may be true that the explanations at one point in time or the other may not be known by men, but by very simple commonsense there do indeed exist explanations for everything.

Now there is a reason that this is the case. I hope you understand the philosophical reality that it is impossible for a perfect illogicality to exist. As such, everything that exists naturally proceeds from a reason, a cause or a set of elements or factors that actuate such existence.

When something begins to exist the first thing you need to understand is that by very dint of such a beginning, the logical implication is that prior to that beginning such a thing did not exist in such a form or manner. What that means is that it was caused to begin to exist in such a form or manner for a reason, factor or cause. It is quite ludicrous to suppose otherwise: namely that a thing will suddenly, unbidden, without cause whatsoever, just magically appear from nowhere and for no purpose. To be very honest with you I am struggling to be patient and I am rather shocked that one like you, who shows an inclination towards logic, could suppose that, or even faintly suggest otherwise. It is nothing but the most unreasonable fantasy.

It also becomes more tiresome in light of the fact that it is people just like you, who condemn religious fantasists for their fantasies: when they speak of magical appearances you laugh at them – and you yet make a mockery of your own mockery by suggesting something far more magical, voodooistic, and fantasy driven such as things appearing into existence without a cause! That is the height of black magic. You really need to take a deep breath and pause and ask yourself exactly what you are suggesting. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I gave you an example of an early man throwing things upwards. Surely to that man, it would be illogical to suggest that if he threw an object as far as possible upwards it would not return to earth. Infact, to that man, if he were of a creative bent, he may even examine the thought that it would take an exceedingly long time for the object to return to the ground, but no matter how long, it would still come down. This at that hypothetical time, would be an assertion that he could "take to the bank".

Yes, early man may not have sufficient knowledge about the atmosphere and space; but this is no reason to assert that we cannot know that things do not emerge uncaused.

As far as I am concerned, I will leave you a very simple test.

You claim to be a rationalist, a logic-driven person, right? Logic is driven by that which we observe everyday in nature and in the reality in which we live.

Now here is the test: I task you to point me to ONE SINGLE THING which we have observed in all our centuries in this world and in this existence – which does not have a cause.

Now if you are unable to do so, it would simply mean that your suggestion is out of tune with common observation as far as we know, and mine is in tune with common observation as far as we know.

If that is the case, until you show me the thing that has no cause around you, we will safely assume that you are the one dwelling on fantasy and ASSUMPTIONS whereas I am the one rooting his beliefs in reality as far as we know and can observe.

We will leave it that simple: that is the test I leave for you: if you cannot show me such a thing, then you have no basis for suggesting that the universe itself may be uncaused.

Now I need to know the source of your confidence because to me it seems you are evaluating things in light of your human/logical experience. That will not satisfy me. Remember I talked about assumptions being built into the CA ? The CA is composed entirely of assumptions.
Will you be able to satisfy me that you know these things (as opposed to "intuiting" them? ).

]

As you can see from the above, you are the one imagining things. I am the one basing my suppositions on observed reality. Observed reality is that things as we know them in this world, have causes. If you have observed otherwise anywhere, please show us. If you have not, then UNTIL YOU DO, you have NO BASIS for stating that the observation that things have causes is wrong. That would render you the one who is living in absurd fantasy and imagination, you know?

On to the 2nd premise, how do you know the Universe BEGAN to exist ? Were you there ?

Did the big ba.ng happen or not?

Also can anything really be said to be timeless ? I want you to think about that very carefully. It may be crucial in this discussion (or maybe not).

Is eternity something or is it nothing?

Think about that.

Ok I may be wrong here but I believe matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. We cannot talk about matter without mass can we ? If it did not have mass it wouldnt be matter would it ? I also believe mass can neither be created not destroyed (same as energy).
If this is correct, your x 1-6 fails particularly 5.

Yes indeed, matter changes state. For this exact reason, matter cannot be said to be immutable. Matter is therefore not self-existent because self existent things are both immutable and intangible. As matter is not self existent, it must be caused. Simple, really.

Energy is indeed eternal, and it is the primordial energy that coalesced into matter in the pre-ba.ng singularity. That in itself connotes an open circuit, and not a closed one, as far as the material universe is concerned. However I fear that I am leading you too far here. If you can deal with it though, we can discuss it.

You have to admit that some (not all) unscientific theories are inherently absurd.

Is the theory that things may emerge uncaused out of nothing a scientific theory?

Is it not ridiculously absurd?

In truth, the CA is nothing more than a bunch of unverified assumptions and I would still have said so science or not.

It is in line with common observation and the laws of motion. Your supposition to the contrary is not. Therefore as things stand, YOU are the one making unverified assumptions. It has not been verified anywhere that anything that we know of in this world and this reality commences existence without a cause or trigger, has it? Thus you, and only you, are the one with a truckload of unverified and very absurd assumptions, dear friend.

In the spirit of disclosure to the mods, I had to create this user ID (Deep/Sight ) because my ID: Deep Sight - was banned for a long post I think by the spambot, but I see that my normal ID has been restored so Mods are free to do as they please with the ID: Deep/Sight

Deep Sight:
Yes indeed, matter changes state. For this exact reason, matter cannot be said to be immutable. Matter is therefore not self-existent because[b] self existent things are both immutable and intangible.][/b] As matter is not self existent, it must be caused. Simple, really.

What are examples of self existent things?

Deep Sight:

I hope this means that you now accept premise 1 to be correct.

No I do not. It is not at all clear that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause (though I can understand reasons for supposing so).

My dear brother. This issue is very simple. Everything that you see in existence naturally has some explanation (known or unknown). EVEN things that appear magical do have natural explanations. It may be true that the explanations at one point in time or the other may not be known by men, but by very simple commonsense there do indeed exist explanations for everything.

Brother, if you allow my editing, I have no quarrel with the above. It couldn't please me better to hear you talk about natural explanations. If you believe this, why insist on the supernatural ?

Now there is a reason that this is the case. I hope you understand the philosophical reality that it is impossible for a perfect illogicality to exist. As such, everything that exists naturally proceeds from a reason, a cause or a set of elements or factors that actuate such existence.

An illogicality ? Whats that ? We arent dwelling in the realms of mankind, we are going beyond that. Anything that tends towards the supernatural bears the seeds of "illogicality".

When something begins to exist the first thing you need to understand is that by very dint of such a beginning, the logical implication is that prior to that beginning such a thing did not exist in such a form or manner. What that means is that it was caused to begin to exist in such a form or manner for a reason, factor or cause. It is quite ludicrous to suppose otherwise: namely that a thing will suddenly, unbidden, without cause whatsoever, just magically appear from nowhere and for no purpose.

See ? This is why I didnt want to get into this in the first place. Brotherly, the above is a big assumption. You remember how you would assert that it would take omniscience to know that there is no god ? I assert here that it would take omniscience on your part to validate the above. Logic and common sense are not the same thing (I think). If you can tell me you know these things by omniscience, then maybe things would be different.

To be very honest with you I am struggling to be patient and I am rather shocked that one like you, who shows an inclination towards logic, could suppose that, or even faintly suggest otherwise. It is nothing but the most unreasonable fantasy.

In which case I would crave your indulgence (remember I stated this was a hopeless cause from the outset).
I cant help but note though that you are almost falling into that which impresses me least about you. Contempt !
I do not have to agree with you. Go check, I said I thought you deserved a nomination for religious poster of the year (even though I hardly agree with your views).
I suggest with humility, that you do not know everything. You simply apply your experience broadly and take it as an absolute.

It also becomes more tiresome in light of the fact that it is people just like you, who condemn religious fantasists for their fantasies: when they speak of magical appearances you laugh at them – and you yet make a mockery of your own mockery by suggesting something far more magical, voodooistic, and fantasy driven such as things appearing into existence without a cause! That is the height of black magic. You really need to take a deep breath and pause and ask yourself exactly what you are suggesting. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I am not suggesting anything other than the fact that you are not omniscient. For you see bros, I seek not to prove but to question. I allow for a creator no matter how faint I think the possibility is, but even at gun point, I will hold that the cosmological argument is inherently unsound.
It amazes me that you cannot see this and this I attribute this to your religious nature.
There is no mockery of mockery. I will not be force fed. I hinted to you earlier that god CAN NOT be proven by logic. All attempts must necessarily fail for more than one reason. God is simply an excuse or a cop out if you will. Life is complex therefore god. To make it stick, convoluted arguments are woven.
I bet you Deep Sight, if you will look at things objectively, you will see the gaping holes in the CA.

Yes, early man may not have sufficient knowledge about the atmosphere and space; but this is no reason to assert that we cannot know that things do not emerge uncaused.

It is a reason to assert that things that seem true may not be absolutely true.

As far as I am concerned, I will leave you a very simple test.

You claim to be a rationalist, a logic-driven person, right? Logic is driven by that which we observe everyday in nature and in the reality in which we live.

Now here is the test: I task you to point me to ONE SINGLE THING which we have observed in all our centuries in this world and in this existence – which does not have a cause.

The red speaks volumes and embroiders the point I have been trying to make. That which we observe is our reality, just as the early man's reality was "what goes up must come down". Today we acknowledge his reality and realize that there is more.
Deep Sight, if you are bold enough to assert that the Universe has a cause, then I take dressing from you and suggest the opposite. I put it to you that the Universe does not have a cause.

Now if you are unable to do so, it would simply mean that your suggestion is out of tune with common observation as far as we know, and mine is in tune with common observation as far as we know.

AS FAR AS WE KNOW. Your own words and I have no beef with that. If you can acknowledge that, I wonder why you cant see the problem with the CA.

If that is the case, until you show me the thing that has no cause around you, we will safely assume that you are the one dwelling on fantasy and ASSUMPTIONS whereas I am the one rooting his beliefs in reality as far as we know and can observe.

No Sir, this is no fantasy. You may be rooting your belief in reality "AS FAR AS WE KNOW AND CAN OBSERVE". I cannot begrudge you that. I will simply remind you that times back, as far as they knew and could observe, the world was flat. As in if you sailed too far into the sea, you would fall off the earth.
That was the truth as known and as observed.

We will leave it that simple: that is the test I leave for you: if you cannot show me such a thing, then you have no basis for suggesting that the universe itself may be uncaused.

I've done so. Since you have taken great liberties, I feel like I am entitled to take some too. However, assuming (without conceding) I wasnt able to, it still doesnt prove your claim.

As you can see from the above, you are the one imagining things.

Absolutely not.

I am the one basing my suppositions on observed reality.

Yup. I agree. I would have believed too if only for the fact that I know that I dont know everything. We have history and we know that truths that were once held as absolute have been replaced with "truer" truths which may in turn be one day replaced. And so, when I say science is not important to me concerning god, there you have it.

Observed reality is that things as we know them in this world, have causes. If you have observed otherwise anywhere, please show us. If you have not, then UNTIL YOU DO, you have NO BASIS for stating that the observation that things have causes is wrong. That would render you the one who is living in absurd fantasy and imagination, you know?

That is as eloquent as me saying to my younger brother that my fathers farm is the biggest and until he can show me a bigger farm, he has no basis for saying our farm is small. What happens if we arent allowed to wander ?
Look brother, if you will advance the CA as an argument, it says a lot. Its riddled with holes and the funny thing is we can go back and forth on this and never get to the part where you invoke the uncaused cause. The fun part is yet ahead.
Guess what else ? I havent seen a human heart before. Flowing from your curious logic, I have no basis for saying humans have hearts.

Did the big ba.ng happen or not?

I wasnt there. It has no bearing on my lack of belief. I keep an open mind.

Is eternity something or is it nothing?

Think about that.

I asked if something could really be said to be timeless.
If you consider my question, I'll consider yours. Deal?

Yes indeed, matter changes state. For this exact reason, matter cannot be said to be immutable. Matter is therefore not self-existent because self existent things are both immutable and intangible. As matter is not self existent, it must be caused. Simple, really.

Not so simple really. I did spot something interesting below so there I go

Energy is indeed eternal, and it is the primordial energy that coalesced into matter in the pre-ba.ng singularity. That in itself connotes an open circuit, and not a closed one, as far as the material universe is concerned. However I fear that I am leading you too far here. If you can deal with it though, we can discuss it.

First, feel free to express yourself. I went to garri school and not Kings College. When you go over my head, I will slow you down. There is no shame in learning.

Now please note the coloured. Then read the rest. How do you know this ? Omniscience is the only answer that will satisfy me.
There are other things I want to say, but I wont lest we gloss over these points. If we can settle these issues, I'm surely coming back here. We will not discuss it yet until we have done our plus and minus over these points.

Is the theory that things may emerge uncaused out of nothing a scientific theory?

Is it not ridiculously absurd?

I do not know if its scientific or not neither is that important to me. What I absolutely know is that the first premise is an assumption.

It is in line with common observation and the laws of motion. Your supposition to the contrary is not. Therefore as things stand, YOU are the one making unverified assumptions. It has not been verified anywhere that anything that we know of in this world and this reality commences existence without a cause or trigger, has it? Thus you, and only you, are the one with a truckload of unverified and very absurd assumptions, dear friend.

I make no assumptions. I simply point out your lack of omniscience. As I have shown you earlier todays "truths" may be discarded in lieu of new knowledge. The god you seek to prove has not been verified either. You are better off appealing to the "higher" nature of man or something of the sorts than to use logic to prove god. It cannot be done bros. This one no be by force. I appreciate your zeal but you are butting your head against a brick wall. If you've read King Solomon's Mines, the wall you are hitting is worse than the wall Gagool trapped Alain and CO in. You will get nowhere with this.
I could quote physicists, but it would appear you know better than them. Even if you did, it still wouldnt change my stance. You need to bring your certificate of omniscience to the table.


Now I'd like to tweak the CA just a little bit.

Whatever exists, has a beginning
(if) god exists
god MUST have a beginning

Using your same arguments, our observed reality shows that anything that exists has a beginning. It has not been verified anywhere that things that exist just existed suo motu. Now here is the test: I task you to point me to ONE SINGLE THING which we have observed in all our centuries in this world and in this existence – which exists without a beginning.
until you show me the thing that exists without a cause, we will safely assume that you are the one dwelling on fantasy and ASSUMPTIONS whereas I am the one rooting his beliefs in reality as far as we know and can observe
We will leave it that simple: that is the test I leave for you: if you cannot show me such a thing, then you have no basis for suggesting that the universe itself may be caused.
Now if you are unable to do so, it would simply mean that your suggestion is out of tune with common observation as far as we know, and mine is in tune with common observation as far as we know.

Observed reality is that things as we know them in this world, have causes. MY EDIT: (If we know god,there is a cause) If you have observed otherwise anywhere, please show us. If you have not, then UNTIL YOU DO, you have NO BASIS for stating that the observation that things have causes is wrong MY EDIT (including "god" ). That would render you the one who is living in absurd fantasy and imagination, you know?

It is in line with common observation and the laws of motion. Your supposition to the contrary is not. Therefore as things stand, YOU are the one making unverified assumptions. It has not been verified anywhere that anything that we know of in this world and this reality commences existence without a cause or trigger, has it? Thus you, and only you, are the one with a truckload of unverified and very absurd assumptions, dear friend.





Now I must admit that I find the below worrisome

Martian:

It seems whatever confirms your views is good science and what doesn't is false.

Deep Sight:

Naturally!

Care to explain ?

^^^ Frankly, you did not address either the principles or pith of the argumnents put forward, save to moan about the fact that I am not omniscient. I thus can see nothing in your post of note to respond to.

Yes indeed, we can only root reality in what we know so far. And the fact remains that as far as we currently know, things are caused. As such, the idea that things are uncaused remains your fantasy: until proven otherwise - you are the one fantasizing.

Its a shame that you started this discussion on such a high horse - saying that the cosmological argument is "junk", that you would not bother to discuss it, etc - and yet you have offered a stark nothing in terms of logic or principle to assert your position.

Sadly as well, my meaning in some of the things I said seems to have been lost on you. Such as when I asked about if eternity is something. That question actually answers your question, if only you will task yourself to think about it.

^^^^^
what are examples of self existent things?

^^^

1. Time

2. Space

Deep Sight:
^^^
1. Time
2. Space

So the universe is self existent or are space and time distinct entities?

Deep Sight:
self existent things are both immutable and intangible]. As matter is not self existent, it must be caused. Simple, really.

Matter distorts spacetime.The universe is expanding, so space is expanding. Thats not immutable, is it?

What do we mean when we say that something is self-existent? We mean that by its nature it inherently exists. "Existing" is core to what it is. It could not but exist because its very nature is existent. Accordingly such a thing does not "come into" existence, nor does it cease to exist, because existence is inherent to the principle of what it is.

Now let us understand this carefully. A self-existent thing is so because the core principle, the very principle of what it is, is inherently existent. So it is what it is for that reason. Since it is what it is, it is not something that can change. It just is. Constant. A constant and non-ceasing reality.

This is why we say that a self-existent thing is immutable. Its existence is predicated on a principle that is inherently existent and could not but exist and accordingly it cannot but be that principle. Thus it cannot be or become something else because inherently it is that principle. We thus understand that some-thing that self-exists cannot change.

Matter and Energy as we observe them in the physical are changeable. Thus they are not self-existent things

I may further indicate that there is a deeper, more subtle reason why it is obvious that self-existent things are non-physical. Without being wordy, and selecting my words very carefully let me simply say that a self-existent thing being something that cannot be created, thus cannot be something of form and mass. I hope this resonates within your mind.

And so a self-existent thing can not have a form or physical mass as it is an intangible and neceesary, non-contingent reality.

An example of a self-existent thing is eternity. Eternity is eternity. No birth or death of physical universes could circumscribe eternity. It is just there: a constant: eternity. It is not to be confused with the finite time that we use our indicators to measure. Eternity is just a constant. It could neither change nor be created. It is simply the constant vacuum into which things are interpolated.

Every self-existent thing that one may discern is a great key and a great help to understand what God is. Because God is the sum of intangible self-existent realities. The sum of all self-existent law.

Deep Sight:
What do we mean when we say that something is self-existent? We mean that by its nature it inherently exists. "Existing" is core to what it is. It could not but exist because its very nature is existent. Accordingly such a thing does not "come into" existence, nor does it cease to exist, because existence is inherent to the principle of what it is.

So it just exists.

Deep Sight:
Now let us understand this carefully. A self-existent thing is so because the core principle, the very principle of what it is, is inherently existent. So it is what it is for that reason. Since it is what it is, it is not something that can change. It just is. Constant. A constant and non-ceasing reality.

Provided as much clarity as the first paragraph.

Deep Sight:
This is why we say that a self-existent thing is immutable. Its existence is predicated on a principle that is inherently existent and could not but exist and accordingly it cannot but be that principle. Thus it cannot be or become something else because inherently it is that principle. We thus understand that some-thing that self-exists cannot change.

You really are not saying anything but "it inherently exists".

Deep Sight:
Matter and Energy as we observe them in the physical are changeable. Thus they are not self-existent things

If you say so.

Deep Sight:
I may further indicate that there is a deeper, more subtle reason why it is obvious that self-existent things are non-physical. Without being wordy, and selecting my words very carefully let me simply say that a self-existent thing being something that cannot be created, thus cannot be something of form and mass. I hope this resonates within your mind.

You're reapeating yourself.

Deep Sight:
And so a self-existent thing can not have a form or physical mass as it is an intangible and neceesary, non-contingent reality.

I guess you're free to attach any attribute you want to your creation. Neccesity, intagibility, inviciblity etc.

Deep Sight:
An example of a self-existent thing is eternity. Eternity is eternity. No birth or death of physical universes could circumscribe eternity. It is just there: a constant: eternity. It is not to be confused with the finite time that we use our indicators to measure. Eternity is just a constant. It could neither change nor be created. It is simply the constant vacuum into which things are interpolated.

So eternity is what the universe is expanding into? You should publish a paper about this. I think astrophysicists would be intrigued.

Deep Sight:
Every self-existent thing that one may discern is a great key and a great help to understand what God is. Because God is the sum of intangible self-existent realities. The sum of all self-existent law.

Space + Eternity( Infinite Time)+ Self Existent laws(?)= God

Deep Sight:
^^^ Frankly, you did not address either the principles or pith of the argumnents put forward, save to moan about the fact that I am not omniscient. I thus can see nothing in your post of note to respond to.

Sticks and stones !
Whatever makes you happy. I have addressed your arguments thoroughly. To you, a discussion or an argument means to accept your position. I can practically picture you pouting. The first thing about the cosmological argument is that it is based on assumptions. There is more to get to but only if we move beyond the premises. Indeed to get there I would have to assume on my own.

Yes indeed, we can only root reality in what we know so far. And the fact remains that as far as we currently know, things are caused. As such, the idea that things are uncaused remains your fantasy: until proven otherwise - you are the one fantasizing.

Key Phrase : AS FAR AS WE KNOW. You of course are Deep Sight, the man who has a monopoly on knowledge, philosophy and logic. I didnt say that things are uncaused (did I?). I said that it is an assumption on your part to put forward the first premise (indeed the entire CA) as absolutely true. In saying "as far as we know", it shows that you at least allow that there are somethings you dont know about. I am not fantasizing, I am being practical. I gave you an example of a time when "as far as we know" the earth was flat. Before I will accept those premises, they will have to be proven. He who asserts must prove.

Its a shame that you started this discussion on such a high horse - saying that the cosmological argument is "junk", that you would not bother to discuss it, etc - and yet you have offered a stark nothing in terms of logic or principle to assert your position.

The real shame is you thinking you can use the cosmological argument to convince anyone that god exists. It might work for others who use religiously tinted lenses to look at the world because of the human tendency towards confirmation bias. Drop your assumptions and look again at the CA.

I didnt start by saying the cosmological argument was junk. I started by saying it had problems. You started this debate. I didnt want to discuss it and look at this now. Was it not exactly what I said would happen ? And now you are being petulant. Stop sulking. OPEN YOUR MIND !!!
Maybe I offered "a stark nothing" but maybe thats cos the CA is "a stark nothing" stacked on a bunch of assumptions. As far as I'm concerned though, I have given you reasons to drop the CA. Its not my business whether you do so or not.

Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause ---> First Assumption
The Universe BEGAN to exist ---> Second Assumption
The Universe has a cause ---> GRAND ASSUMPTION


Applying your principles, we get this

Whatever exists, has a beginning
(if) god exists
god MUST have a beginning

You can virtually "prove" anything depending on how far you are willing to assume. All you need is for people to blindly accept whatever you tell them.

I do not know if you were expecting me to copy and paste from different "sources" scientific or otherwise. I asked you to do some research earlier. I will only do that if I think it useful.

Here is what I wrote a few weeks back

jayriginal: DeepSight, sometimes you amaze me.

Many of your posts reek arrogance and I'm not trying to be mean.

I think you need to learn some humility.
Take my post in good faith, I dont mean any offence.
https://www.nairaland.com/878904/historicity-books-bible-reference-daniel/3#10280210

jayriginal:

My problem with DeepSight and where I complain of his "arrogance" is when he says certain things like he is the sole custodian of knowledge. Should a "christian" do that, it wont strike me as unusual.

DeepSight does not strike me as a tolerant person (from reading his posts). Sometimes I read his posts and feel there is barely concealed contempt therein.
Of course these are just my impressions and they do not stem from this thread alone.

On the positive side, DeepSight is not to be counted as one of the foul mouthed personalities here. Also, I have seen some humour in his posts which I always count as a good thing.

All being said and done, I'd like to lay this matter to rest. No need to derail the thread any further and certainly no need to court controversy.
Its my opinion and I may be wrong, but I mean no offense. I just mean to criticize fairly and help him improve (if thats possible).
https://www.nairaland.com/878904/historicity-books-bible-reference-daniel/3#10283434

Mind you, I was not even a contributor on that thread, but just reading it, I felt obliged to say something to you about your "style".

And last year

jayriginal: @Deep Sight
Not so fast Barrister. I've noticed a tendency in your arguments to assume what you seek to prove.
https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9203966

jayriginal: @Deep Sight, you remember our discussion a little while back. I opined that you would do well to rid yourself of certain assumptions. These do nought but give a religious/dogmatic zeal to your "spiritual philosophy" as I would like to call it.


In the meantime, on this thread, nobody knows for sure (one of the questions I asked you on that is if you were certain of your position). I may as well ask here if you are absolutely certain that your musings are the infallible truth and you have perceived the nature of "God".
https://www.nairaland.com/770438/idea-god#9238955

You need to work on yourself. I'd advice you to change your username as well. You are not as deep sighted as you think you are. Bring some objectivity to the table and take your ego down several notches. You will improve after that I guarantee it. Stop arguing by assumptions. Just because something seems plausible does not mean it will survive intense scrutiny.

Martian:

It seems whatever confirms your views is good science and what doesn't is false.

Deep Sight:

Naturally!

My first reaction to the above was to tell you I was no longer interested in the discussion. I decided however to give you a chance to explain that. If you made that statement in all seriousness, then there was absolutely no point in arguing with you in the first place.

^^^ Abeg, you haven't said nada, joor. Prove your points and forget about my personality. Only my wife should be bothered about that. Simple fact is that as we know and observe things around us, we see cause and effect, and thus this is the default position. To suggest otherwise, YOU must give examples of uncaused things and prove same. SIMPLE! and you are wasting time talking about my personality. You have made NO point and frankly the little you have offered has been an embarrasment so far.

Truth is you cannot give an example because there is none. Those who tried to use the example of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum ended up seen as the right clowns that they were. As such, as a reasonable man, you naturally dread a similar fate.

More embarrassing is the fact that the import of my "naturally!" riposte to martian is lost on you.

A supposed logician who advances voodooistic magic such as things magically popping into existence without a cause - contrary to common observation, common sense and common logic! - And yet derides others for staying consistent with common observation and the law of cause and effect. You create a fantasy - that it could be otherwise - without proof - and yawn back at me that I am the one making assumptions. What a laugh.

Assumptions indeed.

^^
Sticks and stones. I hope you feel better now.
Nothing is lost on me as I am not in the habit of making assumptions like you. If I ask you for an explanation it is simply because I do not wish to assume.

Prove my point ? I did and you agree with me, you just will not admit it to yourself. Your CA is based on assumptions.

You only think you are making sense due to the limited nature of your mind. Not surprising to me. You keep talking of common sense, observation and logic. I really have given you a good example of how these things change and you choose to ignore it though you have acknowledged that what is true today may not necessarily be true tomorrow.
I asked you to do research.
Google is your friend. I have no interest in quoting any scientific journal on this matter. If you wish to find about things that can exist without causes, google it. After that, you can argue with the scientists who dare present their evidence of things that disagree with your assumptions. I have no time for that and as I have made clear, it has no bearing on my opinion. God and logic DO NOT mix. You must necessarily fail once you venture down that road.

Now look at you making a mockery of your "deep sight". I should give you an example of something that is uncaused (that exists). Lets assume (not a problem for you) that I cannot. Therefore you win right ? WRONG. There are known truths, and unknown truths and as history and the advance of civilization have shown us, some truths have been and will yet be discarded along the way. You build your arguments on assumptions and fallacies and strut around like you are saying anything meaningful. You start with an assumption and verify it by appealing to ignorance. How terrible. You might be a fan of science and maybe you like debating with scientists. I read up when I can just for information purposes. Never do I use these as a basis for my opinion. Depending on who I am arguing with, I may offer a scientific explanation as better than the religious one, but that is not to be taken as an endorsement. In this case, it is not in the least necessary to invoke science to see that you are just assuming.

Let me repeat what I said earlier, you have to be omniscient to assert that the premises in the CA are true. Appealing to ignorance by telling me that because we do not know better we must accept it is frankly not what I would expect from a self proclaimed "deep sight".

You cannot even prove your own case. When I ask how you know this, you simply appeal to ignorance. Ironically you will be the very first to assert that an atheist needs to be omniscient. Here you are asserting that which you cannot possibly know as fact. Too blinded by your exaggerated sense of intellect to even see the problem with what you are saying.

If saying something or making a point is agreeing with you, then I agree that I havent said "nada". Unfortunately there are no rules that say I must agree with you.

PS
Oh speaking of which,you may wish to review your speed of light thread. There are new developments I believe.

EDIT
By the way, you may want to stop saying that I said the Universe is/was uncaused. I have simply told you that you do not KNOW that it was caused.

Odd fella. He has energy to write long paragraphs but claims he has no energy to produce a single example of an uncaused thing he knows of, right? Lol, see escapism in action. And yet I am the one making assumptions. He says maybe things can move without any triggering factor. Just like that. Just move. No cause, no trigger, just dey move like ghost abi? And no proof. And yet I am the one making assumptions. This is toooo funny!

No worries, my good lad! Let's leave it this simple: you say that knowledge grows and what is true today may be false tomorrow, abi? Excellente! I agree with you. You must also agree that what is commonly observed and known today will remain the default position UNTIL it is disproven.

So we will await that day, okay?

So, as for now, as for today, as for 2012, we can safely say that as far as we know, things are caused. So as far as we know, the premise of the CA is true and logical. If it becomes illogical tomorrow, fine. But as for today, it remains logical. And so as for today, you are still the one fantasizing.

We live every single day in a web of causation. You could not possibly type on NL without various causes that enable you to do so. Every single motion observed has a preceeding trigger. IT is beyond absurd to claim that we do not know this. But it is even worse to claim that people who mention the self evident fact of causation are the ones "assumming" things. He who asserts the contrary is the one assuming things. And very absurd things too.

Wake up tomorrow. Enjoy.

Enigma: @Olaadegbu

And it is not just those few you have mentioned; there is a long list of "scientists" from even before Darwin's book actually to the present day who have used the Darwinist theory or line of thinking to justify racism. And obviously, there is the eugenics debacle, Hitler etc etc etc.

Our "friends" would of course close their eyes to these.

A more general point: do you ever see our friends hold "science" responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or for napalm use in Asia? Or its role in abortion (especially in absence of health risk to either patient or foetus)?

This is why I was pointing out the point about double-standards to kay17.

Their double standards is obvious for all to see. What amazes me is the coincidence that both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln share the same birthday, while the former solidified the grounds for racism the latter liberated the African slaves that were being kept due to racist ideologies.

That whatever begins to exist - has a cause - or triggerring factor - is now said to be an "assumption". LAWD.

Make I go sleep jaare.

noetic16:

thanks Ola, I have been enjoying ur posts so far . . . ,

I'm glad that you are back. Remain blessed.

Deep Sight:
So, as for now, as for today, as for 2012, we can safely say that as far as we know, things are caused. So as far as we know, the premise of the CA is true and logical. If it becomes illogical tomorrow, fine. But as for today, it remains logical. And so as for today, you are still the one fantasizing.

Argument from ignorance. Your style of proving god. You engage in intellectual m@sturbation and want to be taken seriously. I think not.
Simply to do some research, you will not. You think you know better than experts in their field dont you ?

Appealing to ignorance is not going to do the trick. You show your poor grasp of logic therein. The reasoning is quite simple. As far as we know is the only thing you keep repeating. While "as far as you know" may give you reason to consider your proposition, it is no reason for anyone to swallow it whole. You energetically cling to things that support your position whether they make sense or not.

Be a good boy and go on the internet.
When you meet a physicist who gives you proof that things can indeed exist without causes (I notice how you have been setting up strawmen along the way) take your argument to him. Indeed, you need no degree in any of the sciences to best dedicated researchers.

We live every single day in a web of causation. You could not possibly type on NL without various causes that enable you to do so. Every single motion observed has a preceeding trigger. IT is beyond absurd to claim that we do not know this. But it is even worse to claim that people who mention the self evident fact of causation are the ones "assumming" things. He who asserts the contrary is the one assuming things. And very absurd things too

Did you break your glasses ? I asserted nothing. I said you do not know that either the first or second premise is true. I put it to you and your response was an appeal to ignorance. "As far as we know". Its a pity you had to start pouting cos we would have gotten to the stage where your arguments would have refuted themselves.
As far as we know, NOTHING can exist without having a beginning. I gave the following for your consideration.

Anything that exists has a beginning
(If) god exists
god MUST have a beginning.

This is all true AS FAR AS WE KNOW. You cleverly avoided that. Even if you do address it, because you so desperately wish to prove god, you will start making excuses and exempting it from your own rules.
You arent saying anything new. Sorry! You arent even making sense. Your whole argument is this "we dont know any better, therefore god". You are asserting but you arent proving.

You assume contingency of the Universe. Taking your observation of limited phenomena in your realm of existence and applying it to the vastness of the Universe commits the fallacy of composition as well as an argument from ignorance (as far as we know). It shouldnt be surprising though, coming from the same person who sought to argue that the burden of proof is on the atheist.

Deep Sight ? Acute Myopia is more like it.

^^^ No need to get all bitter my good man, you can't send me off "to the internet" to do your work for you. I simply asked you to show me an example of an uncaused thing - you have not been able to do that, and you are still asking me to "go do my research?" Come on. That's both lazy and escapist.

Assume I am as ignorant as you say I am. Then do me a favour. Just point to one such thing. If you cannot, you have no case. Simple.

^^ Me bitter ? Not at all. There are no surprises here. You are actually easy to predict which is why I didnt want to get into this in the first place.
I'm not asking you to do "my" research. You wanted an argument. What type of argument you were hoping to get is what I am not sure about. The situation is very clear to me and I have tried to show you same. Asking you to do research is simply because volumes have been written on the cosmological argument (for and against). It has been continually refined/revised and rebutted. You should go and read up on the rebuttals. Simple. There is no need for me to start repeating word for word what others have said. It is widely available on the internet. You are the lazy one if you will not arm yourself properly.

Saying that whatever begins to exist has a cause is an assumption. SIMPLE! It is an assertion that you cannot prove. You cannot seek to prove your case by asking me to disprove yours. Logic does not work like that. You must win on the strength of your case. Again you are the same individual that tried to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Cant exactly say I am surprised.
If you then say that because everything we have so far observed has X attributes then the Universe must have the same attributes, that is both a compositional fallacy and a fallacy from ignorance. I question the source of your knowledge. I have not said that things are uncaused. In anycase, even if I did, you would still have to prove your case which would require omniscience on your part. Once you have done that, the burden would shift to me. As it is, you are still bearing the load albeit ungracefully.

So who is asserting? You ! I am questioning the assertion and your defence is an appeal to ignorance and a fallacy of composition. Your knowledge is limited. Face it.

You have a talent for constructing straw men.
If I am making a case, my case is that you have no case since your case is based itself on assumptions you cannot prove.

Even you cant fail to get the idea here.

"Three Blind Men and an Elephant"
One day, three blind men happened to meet each other and gossiped a long time about many things. Suddenly one of them recalled, " I heard that an elephant is a queer animal. Too bad we're blind and can't see it."

"Ah, yes, truly too bad we don't have the good fortune to see the strange animal," another one sighed.

The third one, quite annoyed, joined in and said, "See? Forget it! Just to feel it would be great."

"Well, that's true. If only there were some way of touching the elephant, we'd be able to know," they all agreed.

It so happened that a merchant with a herd of elephants was passing, and overheard their conversation. "You fellows, do you really want to feel an elephant? Then follow me; I will show you," he said.

The three men were surprised and happy. Taking one another's hand, they quickly formed a line and followed while the merchant led the way. Each one began to contemplate how he would feel the animal, and tried to figure how he would form an image.

After reaching their destination, the merchant asked them to sit on the ground to wait. In a few minutes he led the first blind man to feel the elephant. With outstretched hand, he touched first the left foreleg and then the right. After that he felt the two legs from the top to the bottom, and with a beaming face, turned to say, "So, the queer animal is just like that." Then he slowly returned to the group.

Thereupon the second blind man was led to the rear of the elephant. He touched the tail which wagged a few times, and he exclaimed with satisfaction, "Ha! Truly a queer animal! Truly odd! I know now. I know." He hurriedly stepped aside.

The third blind man's turn came, and he touched the elephant's trunk which moved back and forth turning and twisting and he thought, "That's it! I've learned."

The three blind men thanked the merchant and went their way. Each one was secretly excited over the experience and had a lot to say, yet all walked rapidly without saying a word.

"Let's sit down and have a discussion about this queer animal," the second blind man said, breaking the silence.

"A very good idea. Very good." the other two agreed for they also had this in mind.
Without waiting for anyone to be properly seated, the second one blurted out, "This queer animal is like our straw fans swinging back and forth to give us a breeze. However, it's not so big or well made. The main portion is rather wispy."

"No, no!" the first blind man shouted in disagreement. "This queer animal resembles two big trees without any branches."

"You're both wrong." the third man replied. "This queer animal is similar to a snake; it's long and round, and very strong."

How they argued! Each one insisted that he alone was correct. Of course, there was no conclusion for not one had thoroughly examined the whole elephant. How can anyone describe the whole until he has learned the total of the parts.

jayriginal:
Argument from ignorance. Your style of proving god. You engage in intellectual m@sturbation and want to be taken seriously. I think not.
Simply to do some research, you will not. You think you know better than experts in their field dont you ?

We ask you such a simple thing as to give JUST ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE - you have made several posts, and you fail to give ANY example, and yet you ask me to go do research? Lol, bro. You too dey funny. Bring your example to the table sir. If you cannot or will not, I am sorry, all your insults cannot be taken seriously.

You speak about "arguments from ignorance", you seem to get upset very easily. You need to develop a thick skin and face the argument squarely and put aside all the crying and insults - they are not good substitutes for good arguments!

Appealing to ignorance is not going to do the trick. You show your poor grasp of logic therein. The reasoning is quite simple. As far as we know is the only thing you keep repeating. While "as far as you know" may give you reason to consider your proposition, it is no reason for anyone to swallow it whole. You energetically cling to things that support your position whether they make sense or not.

The fact remains that there is such a thing as a law of cause and effect. Indeed, you may not have been attentive enough so far to avert your mind to the fact that the entire realm of science is a probe into causality. If this elementary fact is missing you, then it will indeed be very difficult to understand one another on this matter.

Indeed, an article on science and causality states -

Causality is a basic assumption of science. Within the scientific method, scientists set up experiments to determine causality in the physical world. Embedded within the scientific method and experiments is a hypothesis or several hypotheses about causal relationships. The scientific method is used to test the hypotheses.

Now the basic reason that causality is a basic assumption of science is the fact that science itself is an inquiry into same. There would be no science without causality: everything that is probed is probed from the point of view of the question: what causes this, or what is the rationale for this?

We cannot magically jump out of our common experience and observation and assert things to be otherwise without proof: if you believe that material things in this realm may be uncaused, simply adduce proof for same and stop backing away from that challenge with insults only. It does your position no good whatsoever.

All you have stated since we started this discussion is simply that what is true today may be false tomorrow - and there are no qualms about that - the proof that what we know to be true today is false, simply needs to be adduced, and we will at once embrace the new "truth". You cannot refuse to adduce same and then sit back and ask me to do such! That makes no sense - because I do not believe that material things can be uncaused. Since you believe that such may be possible, then surely you must be the once to prove same or adduce proof, bro. Nothing else will do.

Be a good boy and go on the internet.

As I have stated above, I will do no such thing. You are the one with the fantastical claim against causality, and as you YOU have the responsibility to adduce proof. If you will not, then you ought to slink quietly away with your tail between your legs and have the honesty to acknowledge that you said nothing and proved nothing.

When you meet a physicist who gives you proof that things can indeed exist without causes (I notice how you have been setting up strawmen along the way) take your argument to him. Indeed, you need no degree in any of the sciences to best dedicated researchers.

Oh yes, I need none, as I take great pride in having shot down the example given about virtual particles. I notice you are curiously silent on that. Could you not seize it and use it for your argument? Afterall, the self same "physicists" have used such for same argument - with calamituous results!

Did you break your glasses ? I asserted nothing. I said you do not know that either the first or second premise is true. I put it to you and your response was an appeal to ignorance. "As far as we know". Its a pity you had to start pouting cos we would have gotten to the stage where your arguments would have refuted themselves.

Ok, let me help you here. The phrase "as far as we know" - was simply to rebutt your statement that the CA awas based on assumptions. We do know of causality. We do know the laws of motion. If you seek to call these things assumptions, then YOU have to show exactly why they are assumptions. You have not done so. All you have said is that "maybe tomorrow we may know different". And you call that a serious argument? It simply emerges that you are the one making the assumptions. You are assuming that simple principles of causality will necessarily be proved wrong tomorrow. That is an assumption - and you have yet to table a single reason for it.

As far as we know, NOTHING can exist without having a beginning. I gave the following for your consideration.

Anything that exists has a beginning
(If) god exists
god MUST have a beginning.

This is mildly irritating. I already corrected you on this, and you accepted the correction. And now you are making teh same caricature of the cosmological argument again. You shouldnt do that, because it makes you appear as though you do not have the least understanding of it. To help you again -

AS I SAID BEFORE, the CA does not say that whatever exists has a beginning. It is also NOT true that as far as we know, nothing can exist without a beginning. Precepts of self-existent things are as old as man himself. What is rather asserted is a very common sensical notion that things that begin, have a cause. God is not said to have had a beginning.

The argument simply states that things that begin, obviously have causes. And yes, that only stands to perfect reason.

However, to give you a straight-on and specific answer to what you drew up, let me simply say that this argument naturally applies to the material and finite, as we are speaking about the universe. It would be self-contradictory to apply the finite to the infinite. The infinite cannot be said to have a beginning or end.

You assume contingency of the Universe.

I specifically told you the reason for that. The universe must indeed be contingent because necessary things are constant and immutable. The universe is not. It is therefore not a necessary thing. Simplicita, amigo.

Also, where you sought to counter that by stating that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, I ought to correct you that that is only with respect to a closed system. We do not know the universe to be a closed circuit. This is not proven. I say to you rather that given the fact of its initial expantion (commencement) from the point of a singularity, it is an open circuit.

Deep Sight ? Acute Myopia is more like it.

Steady on, no need to get emotional or all worked up.

Just give me an example of a single material thing which we know surely of as uncaused.

^^
I need not give one example when you have not proven your point yet. Arguing from ignorance does not shift the burden.

I also do not need to rely on science per se. I can if I feel like but I am not compelled to.

You speak of insults yet I am fairly certain that I have only matched your tone throughout this discussion. If you cant take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Speak with respect if you want to be respected. Grow up man. Stop being emotional because your argument is failing.

I have not denied cause and effect here. Your attempt to make it look so will not work. I have asked you a question and your answer is insufficient. I asked you how you know that the first two premises are correct. Your answer is "as far as we know" from observations.
My position is to say that your "observations" are but microscopic compared to the vastness of nature. I also gave examples of past observations that were regarded as truths which have now been either discarded or reviewed.

We cannot magically jump out of our common experience and observation and assert things to be otherwise without proof: if you believe that material things in this realm may be uncaused, simply adduce proof for same and stop backing away from that challenge with insults only. It does your position no good whatsoever.

Does this not give you away ? I have repeatedly told you that I am asserting nothing. I am rather challenging your assertions.
You started the disrespect. Why get upset when I match your tone ? I can dish as well as I can take. Speak with civility and see what happens.

All you have stated since we started this discussion is simply that what is true today may be false tomorrow - and there are no qualms about that - the proof that what we know to be true today is false, simply needs to be adduced, and we will at once embrace the new "truth". You cannot refuse to adduce same and then sit back and ask me to do such! That makes no sense - because I do not believe that material things can be uncaused. Since you believe that such may be possible, then surely you must be the once to prove same or adduce proof, bro. Nothing else will do.

This is wrong. I have indeed stated that what is true today maybe false tomorrow and on the basis of that, I have asked how you can be absolutely sure of the first two premises. It would take a lot on your part to POSITIVELY assert the correctness of the first two premises. Nothing short of omniscience would probably suffice. If you are not absolutely sure then you make an assumption. No matter how likely that assumption seems to be, it is still an assumption. I do not have to provide proof for the simple reason that I am asking YOU to prove yours. If I make a claim, I then need to prove it. I am yet to make a claim.

As I have stated above, I will do no such thing. You are the one with the fantastical claim against causality, and as you YOU have the responsibility to adduce proof. If you will not, then you ought to slink quietly away with your tail between your legs and have the honesty to acknowledge that you said nothing and proved nothing.

I claimed nothing. It is you who asserts an assumption as fact. You be honest enough to admit that your argument is a non starter.

Oh yes, I need none, as I take great pride in having shot down the example given about virtual particles. I notice you are curiously silent on that. Could you not seize it and use it for your argument? Afterall, the self same "physicists" have used such for same argument - with calamituous results!

Nope, it has no bearing on me. I sense that this is where a major part of your frustration comes from. Anyone who wants to argue from a scientific perspective is free to do so. I am content to show you that by starting with assumptions, you kill your argument. I see no calamity other than the fact that the physicists do not agree with you. I cannot believe that you know more than them. If you wish to think so, that is your wahala.

The phrase "as far as we know" - was simply to rebutt your statement that the CA awas based on assumptions. We do know of causality. We do know the laws of motion. If you seek to call these things assumptions, then YOU have to show exactly why they are assumptions. You have not done so. All you have said is that "maybe tomorrow we may know different". And you call that a serious argument? It simply emerges that you are the one making the assumptions. You are assuming that simple principles of causality will necessarily be proved wrong tomorrow. That is an assumption - and you have yet to table a single reason for it.

This is exactly why I asked you to do research. I'll advice you to always consider both sides. Two things I know about you; you are neither a physicist nor omniscient. I am not assuming that principles of causality will be proven wrong tomorrow. I am asking how you know they wouldnt. FOCUS! If we knew everything we wouldnt inquire anymore would we ?
You need to engage in critical thinking here. You claim, I ask how you know, you appeal to ignorance and composition, then ask me to prove something I am yet to claim.
Do you consider that as proof ? If you claim and you cannot prove, you must fail. The earth is but a speck in the Universe and from your limited understanding, you seek to make such a claim.
Just an aside, going beyond the obvious assumptions the fun begins when you start to argue for god because then you begin to eat and deconstruct your own arguments in favour of the CA.

It is also NOT true that as far as we know, nothing can exist without a beginning. Precepts of self-existent things are as old as man himself. What is rather asserted is a very common sensical notion that things that begin, have a cause. God is not said to have had a beginning

No god is not said to have had a beginning. This is of course because we wish to avoid infinite regress, so we put god in a special category of "self existent" things in order to make our assumptions work. How do you know this ? I ask again. You come to an argument thinking that once you write something, it is true. Have you seen god ? Have you even seen one single Universe beginning ? If you put stock in the so called singularity, have you considered what was there before then ?
Now let me break it down for you because you dont seem to get the point here. You must have been in too much of a hurry to argue that you didnt read properly. I called this a "tweaking" of the CA. That however may not have been the appropriate term to use. However, in no way did I intend to convey that this was the same as the CA. Let me explain for you.

Anything that exists has a beginning
(If) god exists
god MUST have a beginning.

Nothing can exist without a beginning. AS FAR AS WE KNOW and in accordance with common sense, logic and observation, anything that we know exists has a beginning. Feel free to call this an assumption because by doing so, maybe you will understand what I have been trying to show you.

Having accepted premise one as sound and irrefutable, if you say god exists, then the conclusion necessarily is that god must have a beginning.
The problem will take us to the infinite regress and to avoid that we have to say that god was uncaused and always was. The problem is that this very notion is not in accord with our everyday observation. From our everyday notion nothing can be eternal. We can certainly imagine eternal beings but we cannot observe that to happen. Surely then, the concept of anything being eternally existing is a product of the imagination and not of observation,logic or common sense.

I specifically told you the reason for that. The universe must indeed be contingent because necessary things are constant and immutable. The universe is not. It is therefore not a necessary thing. Simplicita, amigo.

Well let me ask you this. Does time change ?

Also, where you sought to counter that by stating that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, I ought to correct you that that is only with respect to a closed system. We do not know the universe to be a closed circuit. This is not proven. I say to you rather that given the fact of its initial expantion (commencement) from the point of a singularity, it is an open circuit

So indeed, you do not know everything about the universe.
Does space have boundaries ? If it doesnt can it be asserted that the system is either open or closed ?

Steady on, no need to get emotional or all worked up.

Far from it.

jayriginal: ^^
I need not give one example when you have not proven your point yet.

Actually you must give an example. If you do not, then you must accept that you are the one making assumptions.

Let me attempt to clarify this point a little bit. In everything, we proceed from what we know and observe. In all that we have observed in material things, we do not see uncaused things magically hapenning around us. We see the laws of nature and physics in operation, and these laws show cause and effect in all things.

As such, it is dishonest to claim, for example, that we do not know of a law of cause and effect. That is surely disingenuous. We do know of a law of cause and effect, just as we know of many other laws which we have observed in the universe. We certainly don't know everything, but saying that we do not know of causality in the material universe is an out and out falsehood. It is a plain and evident fact of reality.

Now, you need to understand that I have no problems with anyone asserting a contrary position. I simply state to you that in so doing, you will be required to adduce proof, because the default position is observed causality.

Refusing to adduce proof, and being starkly unable to produce a SINGLE example of such, after so much jaw-jaw, is just embarrasing.

You have written alot on this thread. It would have been frankly easier to just cite examples or adduce proof. Rather than shirking that obligation - which arose from your suggestion against a default and commonly observed position. And getting all emotional about the issue doesn't help. Just adduce your proof, kind and benevolent sir.

Surely, even you will not dispute this contention which I set forth to you:

1. Any person who challenges a default position must adduce proof against the default position

2. Causality is the default position regarding material phenomena

3. Ergo, any argument for uncaused material phenomena must be proven first

So its very simple and clear: the burden rests squarely with you. Do not shirk it. That would be cowardly, and might I add, unlawyerly! Indeed if the burden did not rest with those who seek to claim that material things could be uncaused, they would never have made the argument about virtual particles in a quantum vacuum!

Now, that is the principal argument that has been made in favour of the idea that things may proceed from nothing, or that things may be uncaused. It is sad that you are not able to comment on the flag-ship argument so far made by physicists, you shy away from "dealing with science", you REFUSE to give an example of your own, and YET you sit back and claim that the other party - who is sticking by known causality - is the one making assumptions! ! !

That is beyond funny, my friend! - People have observed and daily observe causative chains. As such it yet makes sense to assert causality. NO ONE HAS OBSERVED ANYTHING UNCAUSED! - And yet - YOU, who advance the possibility of a question of that unobserved claim - are stating that YOU are not the one making assumptions! Incredible! This beats all imagination, noble and lofty sir!

I also do not need to rely on science per se. I can if I feel like but I am not compelled to.

Yeah, yeah. Escapist. You simply have no science to rely on, and that is why you dribble about on this score. That much is obvious. I am not afraid to rely on science because science centres around causality ab initio.

In fact, saying that you don’t need to rely on science beggars belief because this is a scientific discussion to the extent that we are looking at causality in matter!

You speak of insults yet I am fairly certain that I have only matched your tone throughout this discussion. If you cant take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Speak with respect if you want to be respected. Grow up man. Stop being emotional because your argument is failing.

Yeah yeah. There's been no insults from my side. Stop being so sensitive. Address the points, flip out your example of an uncaused material thing, and I will shut my trap for once. If you cannot do that, then you simply have no case and no point.

I have not denied cause and effect here. Your attempt to make it look so will not work. I have asked you a question and your answer is insufficient. I asked you how you know that the first two premises are correct. Your answer is "as far as we know" from observations.

This is getting boring. Look at this horrendous contradiction. He says he has not denied cause and effect and yet claims that we cannot know that the first premise of the Cosmological Argument is correct - notwithstanding that it is hinged on cause and effect. What astonishing self-contradiction.

Obviously, you have not reflected on that which you so contradictorily advance.

I tire o.

My position is to say that your "observations" are but microscopic compared to the vastness of nature. I also gave examples of past observations that were regarded as truths which have now been either discarded or reviewed.

Merely stating that knowledge has been reviewed or discarded in the past is not enough to assume that all knowledge will be discarded, is it?

You started the disrespect.

Where? Please don't give a dog a bad name to hang it. I advance my position forcefully and in strong terms does not amount to insulting you or anybody, my friend. If people see it that way, I can only conclude they are wetting their pants because of the creeping fear of the inherent absurdity of that which they argue. That has little to do with me, my brother.

This is wrong. I have indeed stated that what is true today maybe false tomorrow and on the basis of that, I have asked how you can be absolutely sure of the first two premises.

I hope you know that this contains a concession that causality remains true today. Thank you for your humility. When it becomes false tomorrow, then and only then can we hear you out. Its falseness must be proven first – which you have refused to even attempt to – for glaring reasons.

It would take a lot on your part to POSITIVELY assert the correctness of the first two premises. Nothing short of omniscience would probably suffice.

Maybe I also need omniscience to know what principles enables an autocar to move?

If you are not absolutely sure then you make an assumption. No matter how likely that assumption seems to be, it is still an assumption. I do not have to provide proof for the simple reason that I am asking YOU to prove yours.

You cant ask me to prove causality because that is what is observed by default in everything and every motion around us. The person who denies it should be the one to prove the denial.

I claimed nothing. It is you who asserts an assumption as fact.

O, the assumption of the laws of cause and effect and laws of motion? If these are assumptions, they are pretty respectable ones.

I am not assuming that principles of causality will be proven wrong tomorrow. I am asking how you know they wouldnt.

I similarly ask you how you know that they will? Or even that they may?

Anything that exists has a beginning. . . Feel free to call this an assumption because by doing so, maybe you will understand what I have been trying to show you.

I tire of telling you that this can only apply to material finite things. It logically could not be otherwise.

If you will add the word “material” to your sentence, it would become more correct, and of course will then exclude anything immaterial.

Capisce?

Surely then, the concept of anything being eternally existing is a product of the imagination and not of observation, logic or common sense.

No, actually, because we observe that reality continues irrespective of our own deaths for example.

But that is not something I should stand firmly on: I should rather tell you that you must realize that if the singularity preceding the universe had not been caused as you say might be possible - then it is uncaused - and therefore does not "begin" - which means that it is eternal in the past already. As such your very own suppositions do show that eternity should not be mere imagination?

I really must say at this point that I am not sure you have paused to contemplate the unceasing nature of infinite time and infinite space. If you had, you would not say that eternity is our imagination. It is rather a self evident continuum.

Well let me ask you this. Does time change ?

No.

Does space have boundaries ?

In my understanding of space – which differs from the model set forth by scientists - No.

This is a fine point: and my meaning when I refer to "boundaries" in answering your question, I think, may differ from your meaning in asking the question. So perhaps it is apt that I ask exactly what you mean by boundaries. For me, I simply mean that space is infinite - and thus - logically open. Only the finite could be otherwise. But please, mark well that I do not see space the same way scientists do. Nor time. We can discuss this further.

Deep Sight:

In my understanding of space – which differs from the model set forth by scientists - No.

This is a fine point: and my meaning when I refer to "boundaries" in answering your question, I think, may differ from your meaning in asking the question. So perhaps it is apt that I ask exactly what you mean by boundaries. For me, I simply mean that space is infinite - and thus - logically open. Only the finite could be otherwise. But please, mark well that I do not see space the same way scientists do. Nor time. We can discuss this further.

I'll start from here since it will seem we are somewhat in consonance here. What I mean by boundaries is to say, is there an end to space. Theoretically speaking, is it possible to say "this is where space ends/begins" ?

On what basis do you assert that time does not change ?

I really must say at this point that I am not sure you have paused to contemplate the unceasing nature of infinite time and infinite space. If you had, you would not say that eternity is our imagination. It is rather a self evident continuum.

I never said that eternity is our imagination. I constructed an argument to show that whatever exists (as opposed to "begins to exist" ) has a beginning. I also showed (following your example ) that this is grounded in logic, common sense and observation. So contrary to the above, I havent said eternity is in our imagination. I have acknowledged that we can indeed IMAGINE an eternal being. What I said was that the basis for this eternal being is not grounded in logic, common sense or observation. I say so strictly based on the argument set forth

Anything that exists has a beginning
(If) god exists
god MUST have a beginning.

This argument certainly meets your tripartite criteria of logic, common sense and observation. Curiously you will not accept it. You seek instead to distort my meaning by trying to make it look as if I am arguing against eternity.

No, actually, because we observe that reality continues irrespective of our own deaths for example.

But that is not something I should stand firmly on: I should rather tell you that you must realize that if the singularity preceding the universe had not been caused as you say might be possible - then it is uncaused - and therefore does not "begin" - which means that it is eternal in the past already. As such your very own suppositions do show that eternity should not be mere imagination?

As I have said, I never argued against eternity. Your point therefore has no bearing. I NEVER SAID ETERNITY WAS IN THE IMAGINATION.

I tire of telling you that this can only apply to material finite things. It logically could not be otherwise.

If you will add the word “material” to your sentence, it would become more correct, and of course will then exclude anything immaterial.

Capisce?

Fine. You can reconstruct the sentence so I can see your angle.

I similarly ask you how you know that they will? Or even that they may?

Oh no you dont! It doesnt work that way. You assert, you prove !

O, the assumption of the laws of cause and effect and laws of motion? If these are assumptions, they are pretty respectable ones.

Maybe so, but it was pretty respectable at a time to assert that the earth was flat.

You cant ask me to prove causality because that is what is observed by default in everything and every motion around us. The person who denies it should be the one to prove the denial.

I'm not sure you have considered the import of your statement. EVERYTHING ! What is everything ? Have you left the earth ? What do you know other than your everyday observation ? In any case I havent denied it. I have only asked for proof. You persist with the habit of erecting straw men. I havent asked you to prove causality, I have asked you to prove that causality applies throughout the Universe.

Maybe I also need omniscience to know what principles enables an autocar to move?

I dont think you do. Another strawman. Comparing the Universe with an "auto car" will not work.

I hope you know that this contains a concession that causality remains true today. Thank you for your humility. When it becomes false tomorrow, then and only then can we hear you out. Its falseness must be proven first – which you have refused to even attempt to – for glaring reasons.

You are clutching at straws here. You have also erected another straw man. You commit a fallacy of composition. A part (or parts) of the Universe is caused, therefore the Universe is caused. I do not need to prove any falseness since I have not asserted that anything is false. You on the other hand have asserted what you cannot possibly know. You cannot prove it and then you seek to erect strawmen as you go. This cannot work.

Where? Please don't give a dog a bad name to hang it. I advance my position forcefully and in strong terms does not amount to insulting you or anybody, my friend. If people see it that way, I can only conclude they are wetting their pants because of the creeping fear of the inherent absurdity of that which they argue. That has little to do with me, my brother.

Given the above, you have absolutely no reason to feel insulted. I have only matched your tone. It is hardly my style to draw first blood. Indeed on threads I have monitored, I have spoken of your arrogance and ill concealed contempt for others.

Merely stating that knowledge has been reviewed or discarded in the past is not enough to assume that all knowledge will be discarded, is it?

No! I never said so. Another straw man. You will soon have an army.

This is getting boring. Look at this horrendous contradiction. He says he has not denied cause and effect and yet claims that we cannot know that the first premise of the Cosmological Argument is correct - notwithstanding that it is hinged on cause and effect. What astonishing self-contradiction.

Obviously, you have not reflected on that which you so contradictorily advance.

I tire o.

Where is the contradiction ? You need to slow down, read and think carefully. You say whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. I ask how you know this. You say you know this from observation of the world around us. I tell you that it is both an argument from ignorance and a fallacy of composition. You cannot deny the vastness of the Universe. This is your very first premise and since we are talking about the Universe, you cannot expect your limited views to reign supreme on this issue. It would take omniscience for you to assert the truth of the first premise (and second one for that matter). There is no contradiction here. I simply ask how you know. The truth is YOU DONT KNOW. You simply base your understanding of the CA on your limited understanding based on your experiences.
I say YOU CANNOT KNOW you just intuit it. There is no contradiction there.

Yeah yeah. There's been no insults from my side. Stop being so sensitive. Address the points, flip out your example of an uncaused material thing, and I will shut my trap for once. If you cannot do that, then you simply have no case and no point.

No insults from my side either. You can stop whining. I am addressing the points cogently. I need not prove until I assert. You on the other hand undertook a task. Unfortunately, you cannot prove your argument and you seek to escape by asking me to prove that which I have not asserted.

Yeah, yeah. Escapist. You simply have no science to rely on, and that is why you dribble about on this score. That much is obvious. I am not afraid to rely on science because science centres around causality ab initio.

In fact, saying that you don’t need to rely on science beggars belief because this is a scientific discussion to the extent that we are looking at causality in matter!

I never needed science to make me stop believing in god. I dont need it now. There is actually plenty of science that should make you reconsider at the very least, but that is of no concern to me. Your CA is an Ostrich pinned to the ground. Its never going to fly.
I am not dribbling, I am being factual. You rely on your limited understanding to explain the Universe.

Actually you must give an example. If you do not, then you must accept that you are the one making assumptions.

No I dont. He who asserts must prove. You must win on the strength of your case.

Let me attempt to clarify this point a little bit. In everything, we proceed from what we know and observe. In all that we have observed in material things, we do not see uncaused things magically hapenning around us. We see the laws of nature and physics in operation, and these laws show cause and effect in all things.

Surely you cant be omniscient enough to have examined "all things" ?
What you have above is a fallacy of composition.
We can suppose the following

Things in the Universe are caused
therefore the Universe is caused.

Does that help you see the problem ?

As such, it is dishonest to claim, for example, that we do not know of a law of cause and effect. That is surely disingenuous. We do know of a law of cause and effect, just as we know of many other laws which we have observed in the universe. We certainly don't know everything, but saying that we do not know of causality in the material universe is an out and out falsehood. It is a plain and evident fact of reality.

Its amazing the way you go about this. I have not said anywhere that there is no law of cause and effect. Kindly drop this.
Thank you kindly.

Now, you need to understand that I have no problems with anyone asserting a contrary position. I simply state to you that in so doing, you will be required to adduce proof, because the default position is observed causality.

Refusing to adduce proof, and being starkly unable to produce a SINGLE example of such, after so much jaw-jaw, is just embarrasing.

You have written alot on this thread. It would have been frankly easier to just cite examples or adduce proof. Rather than shirking that obligation - which arose from your suggestion against a default and commonly observed position. And getting all emotional about the issue doesn't help. Just adduce your proof, kind and benevolent sir.

I'm not the one getting emotional (wetin concern me) you are, in fact. I will match your tone. If you are polite, I will be too. However if you arent, I see no reason to accord you respect.

Now you must hear for the umpteenth time that I have not asserted anything. You cannot arbitrarily define the default position. Default position in what ?
Let me tell you what is embarrassing. The fact that I have shown you clear as day the assumptions built into the CA. The fact that you argue from ignorance and assert that as the truth. The fact that you have been very loud mouthed on this thread and you are yet to move past your basic assumption. The fact that you advanced the CA even after the subtle hints I gave you.
You make me wonder if deep down you are only arguing for the sake of argument or if you really cant see the obvious.

You want me to cite examples, surely if you did your research you wouldnt ask for such. I do not need examples. I only need to show that the argument is fallacious and it fails.

Surely, even you will not dispute this contention which I set forth to you:

1. Any person who challenges a default position must adduce proof against the default position

2. Causality is the default position regarding material phenomena

3. Ergo, any argument for uncaused material phenomena must be proven first

If I had told you "hey, I want to to refute the CA" the above proposition might work. Since you undertook to prove it, prove it you must. Only you mustnt use your limited knowledge to do so. Your knowledge has to be all encompassing to truly assert your first 2 premises.

So its very simple and clear: the burden rests squarely with you. Do not shirk it. That would be cowardly, and might I add, unlawyerly!

There ! You had to bring the profession into this. If I respond in like manner you will play the victim. I will be the bigger man here and let it slide. I have respect for the profession and for that reason I have sought in my own way (right or wrong) to correct you. I will ignore this for now.

Indeed if the burden did not rest with those who seek to claim that material things could be uncaused, they would never have made the argument about virtual particles in a quantum vacuum!

In your mind, people report genuine observations to refute silly theistic arguments ? Get real man!

Now, that is the principal argument that has been made in favour of the idea that things may proceed from nothing, or that things may be uncaused. It is sad that you are not able to comment on the flag-ship argument so far made by physicists, you shy away from "dealing with science", you REFUSE to give an example of your own, and YET you sit back and claim that the other party - who is sticking by known causality - is the one making assumptions! ! !

My dear, I dont need science for this. Its easy enough to deal with without involving science If I didnt need science to realise that in all likelihood there is no god, then I dont need science to refute the CA or any claims about god. Its clear enough that the first two premises are assumptions. That is enough to render the cosmological argument still born. I gave you subtle hints at the beginning. The fact that you continue to assert the CA is pitiful indeed.

That is beyond funny, my friend! - People have observed and daily observe causative chains. As such it yet makes sense to assert causality. NO ONE HAS OBSERVED ANYTHING UNCAUSED! - And yet - YOU, who advance the possibility of a question of that unobserved claim - are stating that YOU are not the one making assumptions! Incredible! This beats all imagination, noble and lofty sir!

Argument from ignorance.

And now my good friend I am going to make things simple for you. I am going away and I will not return here until probably the 4th of April (for reasons I adduced earlier).

Let me spell this out for you.

Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause.
The Universe BEGAN to exist.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.

CONCERNING THE FIRST PREMISE
You do not KNOW that whatever begins to exist has a cause. You only think so based on what your limited observation tells you. For something as complex and intricate as the Universe, you cannot assert the veracity of the first premise unless you are omniscient. Just like how you assert that atheists need to be omniscient to not believe in god. Indeed flowing from that assertion about atheists and omniscience, its clear that you are even undecided on the matter (but thats another story).
All you can say is "as far as we know". That is an argument from ignorance. Your other proof which is that we observe the laws of causality, is not good enough as it applies to the whole, the attributes of the parts. So for example

things in the Universe are caused
therefore the Universe is caused

This does not work either.

Shockingly you claimed that god can be empirically proven yet your arguments in themselves are fallacious.

You have to scale the hurdle the first premise sets before you approach the second

Note: I have not asserted anything. I have only asked you to prove your point. Asking me to prove that which I am yet to assert will not help you.

I will be back in April.

Alright. As you are going away, let me also summarize my points.


1. On the burden of proof, I believe it rests with you because -

(x) You did make a statement, which is what I am reacting to. You stated that the CA was "junk". I need you to substantiate that, because it is a very bold statement.

(y) Assuming but not conceding that (x) above fails, I contend that the burden of proof still rests with you because causality is in line with common observation. We observe causative chains in all that we see and all that happens around us. Thus anyone who will ask a question in doubt of causality will have the burden of proof on him - as causality is indeed the default position that we know of in material phenomena around us.


2. On Contradictions - I believe you contradict yourself as follows -

(x) You say you accept the law of cause and effect for material phenomena

(y) BUT you then say that we cannot assume that it applies to particular material phenomenon


3. On Assumptions

(x) You accept that in our knowledge and observation, material phenomena are caused

(y) You yet say that it is possible that this may be disproved tomorrow

(z) This indicates that you accept that the argument from causality remains true as we know for TODAY

(zz) You ASSUME that it may become false tomorrow, without having presented any evidence therefore


4. On the Argument from Ignorance which you allege

(x) You accept that causality operates in material phenomena

(y) You state that that is what we know so far

(z) You yet conclude that this is an argument from ignorance

(zz) You thus imply that making statements based on our observatory knowledge is arguing from ignorance: e.g: If I say, "As far as we know, water is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen" - since I have said "as far as we know" - your position would mean that this too, is a statement from ignorance. Whereas it is simply the current proven knowledge which we accept until proven otherwise.


5. On The Law of cause and effect and the cosmological argument

(x) You say you accept the law of cause and effect

(y) You yet state that we cannot know the 1st principle of the Cosmological Argument to be true - notwithstanding that it is simply a reference to the law of cause and effect - which you say you accept!


6. On the Part-Whole Fallacy which you allege -

(x) You accept the law of cause and effect for material things

(y) You accept the universe to be material

(z) You then reject the law of cause and effect for the universe!


7. On the inherent absurdity of your position: A beginning connotes that the element referred to did not exist in that form prior. As such it is illogical and unscientific to suppose a re-organization of the form of an element which occurs spontaenously, purposelessly, and with no cause or triggering factor whatsoever. As it happens, the initial expansion called the big bang was at least such a re-organization of the pre existing singularity. As such, it must have required cause.

These only stand to fundamental reason. Thank you.

^ O, and I must mention again that your failure to raise a single example of an uncaused material thing still ends the argument against you.

Enjoy.

Where is Jayriginal? I cannot wait for April. Come back here and untie the knots you left hanging all over the place.

But let me just comment on this -

I wrote -

So its very simple and clear: the burden rests squarely with you. Do not shirk it. That would be cowardly, and might I add, unlawyerly!

And you said -

There ! You had to bring the profession into this. If I respond in like manner you will play the victim. I will be the bigger man here and let it slide. I have respect for the profession and for that reason I have sought in my own way (right or wrong) to correct you. I will ignore this for now.

I just read these above again. I want to assure you that there was no insult or denigration there: if you read the context you will see that by "unlawyerly" I was not referring to any ethics but simply to the general fact that it behoves a lawyer to argue his points and discharge his burden of proof. That's sincerely all I meant there bro.