Uncaused what?

[Truthseeker]

The concept truth has a meaning. Where there are two possibilities - a concept is true or not true. Now the concept of being both or neither. Something being both true and not true. But being neither is absolutely not true. So there is some absolute truth that humans can understand. To say there are no absolute truths, that is not true. And to say humans cannot know any absolute truth, that is not true.

I think I am not quibbling. The words you need instead of "concept" is "truth claim" or "proposition" or other words of the same meaning.

[37818]

. . . an eternal uncaused substance exists out of which temporal forms evolve. . .

What do you understand by "substance?" And what do you mean by "evolve?" You seem to presume an uncaused existence by your use of the term "exists." ". . . an eternal uncaused substance exists . . ."

[37818]

So what?!?!?! Yes, fallible humans may gather knowledge of our physical existence and falsify this knowledge.

What constitutes knowledge here? And what method or methods are you presuming by which any or all of that knowledge can or is falsified?

The problem is when we go beyond our knowledge of the physical world that can be observed, tested and falsified. Beyond this we enter the subjective world of philosophical and theological claims of knowledge, and no we cannot comprehend, perceive nor deduce absolute truths nor causality concerning the nature of the spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence.

So what constitutes subjective knowledge of philosophical and theological claims? And it would seem that comprehension, perception and logic cannot be valid for such things. Why is that?

[JimL]

What do you understand by "substance?" And what do you mean by "evolve?" You seem to presume an uncaused existence by your use of the term "exists." ". . . an eternal uncaused substance exists . . ."

Yes, I assume that, because that is more logical than assuming an eternal god/mind who decided a mere 14 billion years ago, that out of shear eternal bordom, he would puff into existence, out of absolutely nothing, a plaything for himself, which we call the universe.

The eternal "substance," I assume, is the energy out of which our universe was born. The process of universe creation involves this energy which due to the intense heat of the Big Bang, congeals into matter. I think that the idea of this energy being eternal and existing within an infinite vacuum, otherwise known as 'nothingness," is a more logical explanation for why we exist, than is the idea of an eternal mind of some sort which is capable of thinking matter into existence. The latter we have no reason to believe, of course there is no way to disprove it, but we have no reason to believe it.

[shunyadragon]

What constitutes knowledge here? And what method or methods are you presuming by which any or all of that knowledge can or is falsified?

The methods of science, and the rational processes that human use to understand the physical existence. In the objective methodology of science, what works persists and builds into more knowledge, what is objectively found false is discarded.

So what constitutes subjective knowledge of philosophical and theological claims?

The subjective knowledge it the knowledge that cannot be verified, tested, objectively observed by definition of Philosophy and Theology.

And it would seem that comprehension, perception and logic cannot be valid for such things.

The problem is the lack of consistency and the conflicting diversity in the result of philosophical and theological claims. Logic remains part of the tool box of human reasoning to understand the nature of being human, as defined still reflects the 'beliefs' of thinking' fallible humans and not absolutes. The problem of validity is the in the unwarranted claims of absolute knowledge.

Why is that?

We are fallible human beings.

[shunyadragon]

Is it an absolute truth and we can not know absolute truths?

Seer, we are arguing philosophical and theological perspectives of knowledge and truth. The above quibbling rhetorical question is not meaningful and from the human perspective it does not have an answer.

By the evidence, the claims of absolute truth by fallible humans are too diverse and conflicting to be considered reliable.

I hear this pop up rhetorical question on occasion, and I am checking out sources concerning the fallacious fallacy.

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9

It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha" like to ask. "Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?" Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept, when they make a statement such as "there is no..." they are not claiming certainly, truth, or whatever.

The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position. Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation. - Bo Bennett, PhD Philosophy.

© Copyright Original Source

[37818]

Yes, I assume that, because that is more logical than assuming an eternal god/mind who decided a mere 14 billion years ago, that out of shear eternal bordom, he would puff into existence, out of absolutely nothing, a plaything for himself, which we call the universe.

The eternal "substance," I assume, is the energy out of which our universe was born. The process of universe creation involves this energy which due to the intense heat of the Big Bang, congeals into matter. I think that the idea of this energy being eternal and existing within an infinite vacuum, otherwise known as 'nothingness," is a more logical explanation for why we exist, than is the idea of an eternal mind of some sort which is capable of thinking matter into existence. The latter we have no reason to believe, of course there is no way to disprove it, but we have no reason to believe it.

Noting:

. . . The eternal "substance," I assume, is the energy out of which our universe was born. . . .

You are going from supposed uncaused to somethings which are caused - "born."

Can we suppose that existence does not exist? why not?

Energy only has energy relative to preexistent matter. Without matter space-time itself has no values. Space-time and matter-energy have to come into their existence together or not at all. Even quantum mechanics requires matter-energy - matter only being a form of energy -- to say there is no matter only energy defined by another form of energy.

[Jedidiah]

Yes, I assume that, because that is more logical than assuming an eternal god/mind who decided a mere 14 billion years ago, that out of shear eternal bordom, he would puff into existence, out of absolutely nothing, a plaything for himself, which we call the universe.

The eternal "substance," I assume, is the energy out of which our universe was born. The process of universe creation involves this energy which due to the intense heat of the Big Bang, congeals into matter. I think that the idea of this energy being eternal and existing within an infinite vacuum, otherwise known as 'nothingness," is a more logical explanation for why we exist, than is the idea of an eternal mind of some sort which is capable of thinking matter into existence. The latter we have no reason to believe, of course there is no way to disprove it, but we have no reason to believe it.

You find one more "logical" for no reason at all. We have no reason to believe your favorite view over mine, of course there is no way to disprove it, but we have no reason to believe it.

[37818]

The methods of science, and the rational processes that human use to understand the physical existence. In the objective methodology of science, what works persists and builds into more knowledge, what is objectively found false is discarded.



The subjective knowledge it the knowledge that cannot be verified, tested, objectively observed by definition of Philosophy and Theology.



The problem is the lack of consistency and the conflicting diversity in the result of philosophical and theological claims. Logic remains part of the tool box of human reasoning to understand the nature of being human, as defined still reflects the 'beliefs' of thinking' fallible humans and not absolutes. The problem of validity is the in the unwarranted claims of absolute knowledge.




We are fallible human beings.

You are saying much in high level jargon - not really dealing with what is uncaused.
Do you agree that there is absolute truth?
Do you agree that how we can know anything comes before knowing anything?
Can you address the original question as to what you understand to be uncaused? And please define any high level terms where used to form an argument - where needed.

A method of science - present the method you refer to.

[seer]

By the evidence, the claims of absolute truth by fallible humans are too diverse and conflicting to be considered reliable.

Nonsense, here is an absolute truth that he you agree with. The law of non-contradiction can not be violate. Here is another one; one object plus one object equals two objects. These are universal and absolute.

I hear this pop up rhetorical question on occasion, and I am checking out sources concerning the fallacious fallacy.

Right therefore you can not claim any certainty for your claim that we can not know any absolute truths. It is meaningless.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, here is an absolute truth that he you agree with. The law of non-contradiction can not be violate. Here is another one; one object plus one object equals two objects. These are universal and absolute.




Right therefore you can not claim any certainty for your claim that we can not know any absolute truths. It is meaningless.

If this is the case, no one can claim any certainty for any claims, dialogue or differences of views.

You did not respond to this which you conveniently ignored, which addressed your meaningless response.

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/2W4Vk9w9

It is one of those questions that people who think they "gotcha" like to ask. "Oh, we can't be certain about anything? Are you certain about that?" Clearly, if one is rejecting the idea of certainty, truth, or any other concept, when they make a statement such as "there is no..." they are not claiming certainly, truth, or whatever.

The person who asks that question is trying to set the other person up for a self-refuting statement (a fallacy). One could argue that the question itself reflect a self-refutation, but clearly those who ask this question are being ironic and attempting to point out an illogical position. Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty that there is no certainty, or similar self-refutation. - Bo Bennett, PhD Philosophy.

© Copyright Original Source

I cite sources you have not cited anything.

[seer]

If this is the case, no one can claim any certainty for any claims, dialogue or differences of views.

You are clueless Suny, you don't even understand what I am saying but what you are saying.

You did not respond to this which you conveniently ignored, which addressed your meaningless response.

THAT IS WHY I SAID: Right therefore you can not claim any certainty for your claim that we can not know any absolute truths. It is meaningless.

Let me quote you link: Just to reiterate, the position is ONLY illogical if someone were to claim certainty.

So either you claim certainty, which would make your original point illogical, or you don't claim certainty - then we can ignore your claim that we can not know absolute truths. Since that is not an absolute claim.

But again, we can know absolute truths: Nonsense, here is an absolute truth that he you agree with. The law of non-contradiction can not be violate. Here is another one; one object plus one object equals two objects. These are universal and absolute.

[JimL]

Noting: You are going from supposed uncaused to somethings which are caused - "born."

Can we suppose that existence does not exist? why not?

Energy only has energy relative to preexistent matter. Without matter space-time itself has no values. Space-time and matter-energy have to come into their existence together or not at all. Even quantum mechanics requires matter-energy - matter only being a form of energy -- to say there is no matter only energy defined by another form of energy.

Nothing in physics does not actually mean nothing, it means no objects. Take away buildings, people, planets, stars etc etc, and you still have space, space and the energy relative to it. That, empty space, is what we call the quantum vacuum, and it is from out of this vacuum that universes are born. Now, that is my opinion of course, i.e. that the substance of existence is eternal, and I understand that you have a differing opinion, i.e. that the substance of things is created out of nothing. Whether my idea is correct or not, i certainly can not say for sure, but I think it more reasonable than believing the latter. "From nothing, nothing comes!"

[37818]

Nothing in physics does not actually mean nothing, it means no objects. Take away buildings, people, planets, stars etc etc, and you still have space, space and the energy relative to it. That, empty space, is what we call the quantum vacuum, and it is from out of this vacuum that universes are born. Now, that is my opinion of course, i.e. that the substance of existence is eternal, and I understand that you have a differing opinion, i.e. that the substance of things is created out of nothing. Whether my idea is correct or not, i certainly can not say for sure, but I think it more reasonable than believing the latter. "From nothing, nothing comes!"

OK. You are responding to my quip,

Can we suppose that existence does not exist? why not?

My point being, to have anything uncaused requires an uncaused existence. Space, by the way, is defined by what is in it. Space is existence as we experience it. It, space as we experience it is not uncaused existence. Without matter space has no defined distance or time. And matter-energy are contingent on there being space-time.

[JimL]

OK. You are responding to my quip,

My point being, to have anything uncaused requires an uncaused existence. Space, by the way, is defined by what is in it. Space is existence as we experience it. It, space as we experience it is not uncaused existence. Without matter space has no defined distance or time. And matter-energy are contingent on there being space-time.

Well this is where we disagree. You believe that space is not uncaused, that it is both finite and caused, aka created from nothing. You see we have two ideas here from which to choose, and I think that space being infinite and uncaused is the more reasonable hypothesis of the two. There is no sound reason in my opinion to accept the notion that anything can come from nothing, such as the theist must believe.