[quote='IATIA' pid='193617' dateline='1318814351']
[quote]
Logic is based on proven or accepted premises and as I do not accept causality as a fact or premise, this then requires proof of causality to establish that as a premise.
To accept causality requires an uncaused beginning (which breaks causality anyway) or we have infinite regression, neither of which I can logically accept.[/quote]
OMG finally someone with a brain thank you from giving me something I can actually respond too. okay first off let me define logic, it's slightly different in meaning from what you say, let me define it.
Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.
One thing though, cause and effect are at the heart of analytical logic and the same math behind entropy is used to describe linear time and how effects are mathematically impossible to happen before the cause. I may not know the immediate cause of say a baseball through my window but I can observe it breaking through but that event cannot happen until the baseball is hit into the window. Since effect follow a pattern laid out by a cause, the cracking of the glass, you would see glass crack and say why do the crack follow a certain pattern, mathematically it must be determined by cause. If you state then that the universe can create effect without cause, what pattern is it following, this would be illogical and hence you are proving my point about needing something illogical to start the process. If you have a god, by very definition that is not logical because it can change the very innate observable laws and reasoning to go with it thus breaking logic and supporting my simulation. Here is a link for more information on causality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. This is a long term acceptance in mathematics when applied to any scientific research. Much to your own doubt causality is proven beyond any shadow of doubt. Again my simulation holds up because causality is an absolute proof, I hope I have clarified it for you.
[quote]
Logic is based on proven or accepted premises and as I do not accept causality as a fact or premise, this then requires proof of causality to establish that as a premise.
To accept causality requires an uncaused beginning (which breaks causality anyway) or we have infinite regression, neither of which I can logically accept.[/quote]
OMG finally someone with a brain thank you from giving me something I can actually respond too. okay first off let me define logic, it's slightly different in meaning from what you say, let me define it.
Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.
One thing though, cause and effect are at the heart of analytical logic and the same math behind entropy is used to describe linear time and how effects are mathematically impossible to happen before the cause. I may not know the immediate cause of say a baseball through my window but I can observe it breaking through but that event cannot happen until the baseball is hit into the window. Since effect follow a pattern laid out by a cause, the cracking of the glass, you would see glass crack and say why do the crack follow a certain pattern, mathematically it must be determined by cause. If you state then that the universe can create effect without cause, what pattern is it following, this would be illogical and hence you are proving my point about needing something illogical to start the process. If you have a god, by very definition that is not logical because it can change the very innate observable laws and reasoning to go with it thus breaking logic and supporting my simulation. Here is a link for more information on causality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. This is a long term acceptance in mathematics when applied to any scientific research. Much to your own doubt causality is proven beyond any shadow of doubt. Again my simulation holds up because causality is an absolute proof, I hope I have clarified it for you.
