(October 17, 2016 at 9:42 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

---

"Is supernaturalism your objective truth? Is this what we have been waiting for?"

It's a justification for use of objectivity. Do you have a justification?

---

"Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to the laws that govern our world
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under the law of the laws it created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

Explain how supernaturalism justifies objective truth please.

"Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to what we observe (as far as we know)
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under laws created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

---

(October 17, 2016 at 10:03 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 9:42 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote:

---

"Is supernaturalism your objective truth? Is this what we have been waiting for?"

It's a justification for use of objectivity. Do you have a justification?

---

"Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to the laws that govern our world
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under the law of the laws it created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

Explain how supernaturalism justifies objective truth please.

The creator is the source of objectivity.

(October 17, 2016 at 10:13 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to what we observe (as far as we know)
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under laws created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

Is this your justification or are you just ignoring me? I don't see anything about objective truth. 

Maybe you have decided to move on to the cosmological argument. That's OK by me but I'll let others take that up with you.

(October 17, 2016 at 10:13 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to what we observe (as far as we know)
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under laws created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

---

(October 17, 2016 at 10:03 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Explain how supernaturalism justifies objective truth please.

The creator is the source of objectivity.

Thanks. Not.

Damn... you keep trying to shove assumptions in there!

(October 17, 2016 at 10:13 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to what we observe (as far as we know)

Everything only applies to what we observe (as far as we know).

(October 17, 2016 at 10:13 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: 2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion

"to set it all in motion"? Who says it hasn't been in motion since forever?
How do you know?

(October 17, 2016 at 10:13 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: 3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under laws created (Gravity, time etc)

We left the Kansas, Dorothy... anything is possible int he land of Oz.

(October 17, 2016 at 10:13 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: 4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas that first put this "uncaused cause" into writing? He didn't even know about the big-bang! Kudos to him! But... still wrong!

(October 17, 2016 at 10:25 am)pocaracas Wrote: Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas that first put this "uncaused cause" into writing? He didn't even know about the big-bang! Kudos to him! But... still wrong!

That honor goes to Aristotle.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:17 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 3:15 am)bennyboy Wrote: You really should watch the videos.  The point is that light, which is thought of as a particle, interferes with itself in a double slit, EVEN IF you fire a single photon.  However, if you detect the photon, it will NOT interact with itself in this way.  If you check the state of the photon EVEN AFTER it has passed the slit, it will still get the same results-- wave if not checked, particle if detected.

This is explained by a superposition of states-- the light is both a particle AND a wave (and kind of neither): it is an unresolved function until that function is collapsed by something outside the photon.

So let me refine my search words, since you missed that it was about light.  Search: "photon double slit experiment" and "quantum eraser."

Just a small addendum.
The double skit experience works not just for photons, but also for any other elementary particle.
Electrons are particularly easier to work with than photons.

yep, it works for Bucky Balls too.

(October 17, 2016 at 9:42 am)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: "You really should watch the videos."
I watched this one, he says light cancels itself out

Nope. It interacts with itself as a wave-- canceling itself out in some regions, and magnifying itself in others-- or in the case of individual photons-- having a greatly decreased chance to fall at some positions, and a greatly increased chance to fall at others.

Quote:1. Causality only applies to the laws that govern our world
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under the law of the laws it created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

Causality applies to THINGS IN our world. You do not know that the Universe itself was ever caused to come into existence. If you are going to say, "Well, everything is caused, but something may be uncaused," then this is special pleading-- and if you want to do that, why not hypothesize that the Universe is eternal and uncreated, instead of inventing a Sky Daddy to fulfill that role?

Here come the ad hominems!

(October 17, 2016 at 12:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Causality applies to THINGS IN our world.  You do not know that the Universe itself was ever caused to come into existence.  If you are going to say, "Well, everything is caused, but something may be uncaused," then this is special pleading-- and if you want to do that, why not hypothesize that the Universe is eternal and uncreated, instead of inventing a Sky Daddy to fulfill that role?

The Prime Mover and First Cause demonstrations take no stand with respect to whether the physical universe had a beginning or if it is eternal. The idea that the Big-Bang justifies either demonstration is a modern misconception.

Secondly, the debate takes for granted a modern notion of causality that has become problematic, i.e. that cause-effect relationships are based solely on temporally successive events. Just as embodied objects appear solid, but are not actually so, the idea of prior events are the 'cause' of later 'effects' creates an infinite regress of intermediate causes.