Minervas philosophy is your worst nightmare and you can't beat it.

**bcomp** · 06-26-2008 08:15 PM

Minervas. I'm not criticizing your English skills, purely to attack you. I'm pointing out that your confusing sentence structure make it extremely hard to figure out just what you're talking about. Though I speak and write decently in french, I would never post on a french philosophy board, simply because I don't feel I would be able to properly convey my ideas.

At first is seemed like you were talking about the correlation of cause and effect. Now you say you're talking about "truth." I'm really not sure what you mean by that. Please be more clear.

Originally Posted by MP

There can be no first cause of reality. If there was a first cause. It could only be every cause existing in an infinite chain of causes and effects. The effect would have to be the cause. And all those causes and effects would not be able to differ from the original cause. That is because nothing could be taken away or added to the original cause as it would be the only thing that could possibly exist. This means that you cannot define or conclude a cause or effect for anything as it will continually elude your intelligence.

The underlined portion of your original statement is what I was discussing in my previous post.

Originally Posted by MP

That's amature to understand more than this you need to know why it is just a correlation and not a ultimate cause of it.

This is what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by MP

I never EVER stated that the effect of the first cause is the first cause. There is a major difference between the infinite original cause and then a finite first cause. I have already stated it does not exist as finite only. I was only talking about original cause which is that which sustains everything from beginning to end as the one and only within all causes and effects.

When I was referring to "first cause" I was talking about the "infinite original cause."

Originally Posted by MP

The finite first cause you have described as a beginning has a cause that must have initiated it. You cannot say it's a first cause. Besides this does not show anything other than the force which pushed the dominoes is correlated to the effect of the movement of the other dominoes. I am going the extra mile in clarifying this as I'm sure it's clear to all you have mistaken what I've written.

This domino thought experiment is only a model to describe the first cause. To clarify, I do not assume that there is a force that pushes over the first domino, but that domino_1 falls on it's own accord, which makes it a first cause.

Also thanks for insulting my intelligence.

Originally Posted by MP

Numbers are an entirely different separate issue than the dimension of time and space in which the causes and effects interact with each other in a seamlessly connected way. We arn't talking about numbers but something which causes them. By introducing numbers as the main theme this eliminates the original theme and depth of the meaning reducing it to something more limited in a dimension below that which created it.

Not really. They're a way of labeling amounts of space and time, so they're actually quite relevant in any dimension of space and time.

Originally Posted by MP

Even though it is the one thing you have understood fairly you assume that I didn't know about it. A very serious underestimating assumption since everyone knows an effect is different from a cause.

Please don't put words in my mouth. From your previous posts, it seemed like you were saying that the "original cause" effects itself in an infinite series, so I thereby assumed that, at least in this case, you were making the claim that the "original cause" is both cause and effect. I was only trying to point out that such a statement is quite paradoxical and ends up condensing to a single event. I really don't doubt your intelligence.

Originally Posted by MP

I cannot handle any more of this irrelevance. That is enough. It was a discussion between me and roller I was waiting for his next reply.

Lastly I don't need you to tell me I am confusing or that my English is bad and I need to learn this and that better etc. I didn't ask you what you thought about me it's rude.

I would normally thank you for your response except in this case it wasn't intended to help me so I'm not sure what to say to you other than please don't approach me with that attitude. You don't want to be like those others that post troll pictures in a juvenile stupor do you? Remain focused on the importance of listening carefully with respectful relevant feedback and you will do fine.

Please... my argument is not irrelevant. Simply claiming it is proves nothing.

When I told you your language skills were lacking, my intent was not malevolent or mocking. I was simply pointing out that it is very difficult to understand... I was not attempting to belittle you.

If English isn't your first language, you might be picking up attitudes that aren't really there. I'm not sure why you brought up or insulted those previous posters.

And lighten up a bit!

**Minervas Phoenix** · 06-26-2008 09:20 PM

Bcomp this is the only way to deal with your latest responses other than ignoring it which is what I would normally do. Now and then it's nice to have an example of what happens when you don't ignore it. What does this say about what you have done with the genuine discussion when I have to quote simple stuff that I've already written to your responses again and again? Don't answer.