(February 9, 2018 at 2:45 pm)polymath257 Wrote: if there is an infinite regress of causes, an infinite number have already passed at any point, so there is no problem. The only problem is if there is a *start* to that infinite sequence.
Your first sentence is a contradiction. It is impossible to count to infinity with successive addition. Think about it: what number plus 1 gets you to infinity? Looking at that in reverse, if there were an infinite number of events in the past you would never count down from the past to 3...2...1...present event. The present would never arrive. Saying silly things like if you never *start* does nothing to solve it.
Quote:I do not know whether there was an infinite chain of causes in the universe or not. In either case, the universe as a whole is uncaused. But that is a necessity since causality part of the universe, not vice versa.
You seem to be saying that causality only applies within the universe and not before it. Setting aside that there are a whole bunch of cosmologists (scientists) that are looking for the cause of the universe, you are making a metaphysical claim and not a scientific one. But as we found out in your previous posts, you espouse verificationism. How do you justify making a such a metaphysical claim when (see my highlighted sections below):
Quote:Verificationism, also known as the verification idea or the verifiability criterion of meaning, is the philosophical doctrine that only statements that are empirically verifiable (i.e. verifiable through the senses) are cognitively meaningful, or else they are truths of logic (tautologies).
Verificationism thus rejects as cognitively "meaningless" statements specific to entire fields such as metaphysics, spirituality, theology, ethics and aesthetics. Such statements may be meaningful in influencing emotions or behavior, but not in terms of truth value, information or factual content.[1] Verificationism was a central thesis of logical positivism, a movement in analytic philosophy that emerged in the 1920s by the efforts of a group of philosophers who sought to unify philosophy and science under a common naturalistic theory of knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verificationism
Unless of course you can verify that the causal principle does not apply beyond our universe.
Quote:Faulty metaphysics? How about anything to do with 'potential existence'? Aristotle is also very poor about causality and the notion of substance.
That all philosophers reject something isn't necessarily a problem. Most scientists accept it. They do so because it works.
So...you don't have anything about MY faulty metaphysics do you?
Quote:No, it is NOT a example of question begging. It is a question of quality of the evidence and whether it is suitable for the conclusion made. Anyone making a claim of a violation of well-tested physical laws has an enormous burden of proof. Mere personal anecdotes are simply not sufficient. Nor, for that matter, are writings of uncertain provenience making such claims.
How in the world do you know the quality of someone's experience!! You have dismissed literally billions of people's experience as "deluded" and "brain-fart" (statements of absolute certainty) based on a burden of proof that you set that these people's experiences cannot meet. You are still question begging--just with more words.
Quote:I am not making the assumption that Matthew (assuming he was the author) is wrong. I am making the conclusion he was. His proposed evidence is not even close to being sufficient to make his claims worthy.
Why just Matthew? Why not lump all 27 books and the 8 or so authors together? I'm glad to see you are calling it evidence--it warms my heart that I have gotten through. Evaluating evidence is subjective. Your burden of proof is not the same as mine or the next guy. Yes or no...can you say for certain that Jesus did not do the things that were claimed in the NT? Trick alert: if you say "yes" you are question begging because you do not have any rebuttal evidence (let along conclusive rebuttal evidence).
Quote:And the belief in a supernatural *is* warranted? Please!
Billions of people find the evidence sufficient to warrant belief. I am not making an argument from popularity--just an observation that a lot of people have viewed the evidence more thoroughly than you have and come to a different conclusion. This should give you pause to how sure you are they are "deluded".
