What would be the other possibility, if not a first cause? |
|
What would be the other possibility, if not a first cause? |
|
eternal recycling idk lol |
|
grrr, I addressed that. |
|
That something eternal can have a first cause? |
|
The possibility of an infinite regression of causes. I basically said that that infinite series would still be a 'something', and where did that come from? Then the series itself would be the first cause. |
|
I'm not talking about an infinite regression of causes, just one eternal structure. You said it yourself, you eventually end up with something that has no cause, that is eternal, I'm wondering why you choose to call this 'the first cause' instead of just saying there is no cause in essence. I really don't think this matters, it really is just word games like Xei mentioned, but I think it's fun anyway lol |
|
You don't have to call it the 'first cause'. What I was saying is that there is no cause. I don't care what terms are used. |
|
What does even that mean? Knowledge ultimately rests with truth itself; that is the a priori that cannot be wronged. That is a step further than "recognition". |
|
Last edited by really; 12-17-2011 at 06:25 PM.
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
I'm not entirely sure you do have a grasp. I don't say this to be offending, just that I've seen you repeatedly say that you think you have a grasp of the definitions of the words you are using and the concepts you are trying to convey, but that you don't understand why people don't get it, disagree, or think you don't have a grasp of your chosen vocabulary. How many people does it take for you to admit that they may be right? Everyone I've seen explain why they think you are wrong thus far you have rejected using the argument that you think you are right and that it is a simple concept, therefore they are the ones that are wrong. Truthfully that is not an argument, it isn't even a strong attempt to rationalize the situation. It's you willfully denying any viewpoint other than your own. Personally, I stand corrected to Xei. Speaking logically, I made the best argument I could. However, not being an avid aficionado of the study of more advanced physics/science dealing with space and newer discoveries, I am more inclined to believe what he said. |
|
Is this well defined? |
|
Last edited by Xei; 12-17-2011 at 08:33 PM.
I think the fact that everybody (including Dianeva) is unable to clearly define the issues demonstrates that we're dealing with something that's beyond human comprehension. Seeing as we evolved in a universe, according to its principles, I think it's impossible for us to really understand anything beyond that universe - the combined effort of science haven't yet penetrated all the way to the moment of the Singularity - how can we be expected to make intelligent statements about it or anything "before" it? Personally I find it utterly impossible to meaningfully understand a complete lack of existence - I can picture black empty space, and the only way I can imagine no space is if there's solid matter there instead. Space to me is simply the lack of matter. I have no idea what else could possibly be there (see, the word there implies a place - I can't even speak about it properly). |
|
That's the point. Since when is "have an infinite series of reasons" not a reason in itself? Furthermore why is it even worth considering as a final answer? Therefore the intellect has to arrive at the fact that it has no explicit "fact" for an infinite universe, despite that such a universe must exist. The famous "no beginning" to the universe is the humble answer that is more insightful than anything else. |
|
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
Truth = Objective |
|
Do you realize how ambiguous that is alone? |
|
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
Yeah, nice one really, humans never discover new things. Well thought out. |
|
How is it possible to say that something is true before it is known? Well that's what discovery is for isn't it? |
|
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
I guess these short posts might not be as helpful to others as they actually could be. Everybody should elaborate their keywords if they want something it to flow smoothly. |
|
Last edited by really; 12-20-2011 at 07:48 AM.
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
So then - what - the world wasn't truthfully round until we knew about it? |
|
Last edited by Darkmatters; 12-20-2011 at 07:47 AM.
Let's say you are from the era when many believed the world was flat. That is what is true to you, according to your naive perception of the ground and sky etc. Is the earth truthfully round? No, because considering all of the former, it is truthfully flat. Truthfully - by what you know, I.e. relative truth. It is not the same as "factually round". |
|
Last edited by really; 12-20-2011 at 08:02 AM.
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
So let me see if I get this straight - according to your definition - what we KNOW - that's truth, What's actually objectively TRUE whether we know it or not - that's knowledge. Um yeah... |
|
I define relative truth as the latest theories relative to our previously accepted theories that weren't as adequate in explaining our observations. I also include the yet to be discovered theories that would be relatively true over our currently accepted theories with obvious inadequacies. There is an objective aspect in these because they are inevitable steps in the knowledge of humanity. |
|
Last edited by Wayfaerer; 12-20-2011 at 08:50 AM.
Bookmarks