The Assumptions of Science

[shunyadragon]

I thought I would add dome comments here.

Existence and cause are two different things.

Natural Law would be the uncaused cause acting on our physical existence.

An uncaused cause is not a caused effect.

There is no evidence that Natural Law is a caused effect.

An uncaused universe would be made up of a number of things: an uncaused existence, uncaused cause and caused effects to name a few.

This is true. our physical existence may be an uncaused existence. Change and events in our physical existence may be caused by the uncaused cause Natural Law. Yes our universe has caused effects.

This has pretty much been covered many times before. Can provide a better explanation as to where your going with this. Repetitive explanations get tiring.

[JimL]

I thought I would add dome comments here.



Natural Law would be the uncaused cause acting on our physical existence.



There is no evidence that Natural Law is a caused effect.



This is true. our physical existence may be an uncaused existence. Change and events in our physical existence may be caused by the uncaused cause Natural Law. Yes our universe has caused effects.

This has pretty much been covered many times before. Can provide a better explanation as to where your going with this. Repetitive explanations get tiring.

Natural law is not a thing that exists, it is discriptive of that which does exist.

[shunyadragon]

Natural law is not a thing that exists, it is discriptive of that which does exist.

I did not say that Natural Law was a thing. It is not a descriptive of that which does not exist.

In our physical existence Natural Law is the 'uncaused cause' of the reasons physical things are as they are.

[JimL]

I did not say that Natural Law was a thing. It is not a descriptive of that which does not exist.

In our physical existence Natural Law is the 'uncaused cause' of the reasons physical things are as they are.

Well, I think you could argue that natural law is the cause, but only in the sense that the cause is in the effect, and so physical existence itself, in that sense, is not caused by natural law. At any rate, I don't think that is the argument that 37818 was making. His argument is about the uncaused cause of all existence, including the natural laws that govern it.

[37818]

Well, I think you could argue that natural law is the cause, but only in the sense that the cause is in the effect, and so physical existence itself, in that sense, is not caused by natural law. At any rate, I don't think that is the argument that 37818 was making. His argument is about the uncaused cause of all existence, including the natural laws that govern it.

JimL, Thank you.

I make a distinction between uncaused existence and uncaused cause. If Shuny what's to make the assertion that Natural Law is the uncaused cause, that is fine by me, though that is not what I would argue. Uncaused existence precedes everything in that everything is contingent upon that. Even though those things which are also being uncaused are same uncaused existence with it, such as what might be supposed as we know as Natural Law as the uncaused cause of all other things. All uncaused things being one substance in being uncaused. I make the distinction between existence and what exists in existence. So I understand that there are three uncaused things, existence, cause and subtance or essence. I do not believe the things caused need to always be the same subtance as the things which cause them, though they can be. Sound for example is not the same matter or the same thing as the the diaphragm of a speaker.

[JimL]

JimL, Thank you.

I make a distinction between uncaused existence and uncaused cause. If Shuny what's to make the assertion that Natural Law is the uncaused cause, that is fine by me, though that is not what I would argue. Uncaused existence precedes everything in that everything is contingent upon that. Even though those things which are also being uncaused are same uncaused existence with it, such as what might be supposed as we know as Natural Law as the uncaused cause of all other things. All uncaused things being one substance in being uncaused. I make the distinction between existence and what exists in existence. So I understand that there are three uncaused things, existence, cause and subtance or essence. I do not believe the things caused need to always be the same subtance as the things which cause them, though they can be. Sound for example is not the same matter or the same thing as the the diaphragm of a speaker.

I would suggest that you are excluding the possibility that the uncaused cause and those things that are contingent upon it are one and the same thing, one and the same substance. In other words that the cause and the effects are one, the latter, the effects, merely being changes in form which take place within the former. Natural law then would just be a discription of the cause and effect nature, or the changing nature, of the one existence.
"Sound" though, is not an example of a thing that exists in itself as distinct from its cause.

[37818]

I would suggest that you are excluding the possibility that the uncaused cause and those things that are contingent upon it are one and the same thing, one and the same substance.

Yes I am excluding caused things. Since caused things are not uncaused. So I do not see caused things as being uncaused.

In other words that the cause and the effects are one, the latter, the effects, merely being changes in form which take place within the former. Natural law then would just be a description of the cause and effect nature, or the changing nature, of the one existence.

OK. One can make that distinction. That Natural Law as a description not being the thing of cause. Existence, can be understood as a description of being as opposed to being a thing too.

"Sound" though, is not an example of a thing that exists in itself as distinct from its cause.

A better example would be space, things take up space, can can be considered also to be made of space too. But the things in space are not the space. Space is a type of existence which we experience in our physical world.

[shunyadragon]

JimL, Thank you.

I make a distinction between uncaused existence and uncaused cause. If Shuny what's to make the assertion that Natural Law is the uncaused cause, that is fine by me, though that is not what I would argue.

I am arguing that Natural Law could be the uncaused cause based on the evidence.

Uncaused existence precedes everything in that everything is contingent upon that. Even though those things which are also being uncaused are same uncaused existence with it, such as what might be supposed as we know as Natural Law as the uncaused cause of all other things. All uncaused things being one substance in being uncaused. I make the distinction between existence and what exists in existence. So I understand that there are three uncaused things, existence, cause and subtance or essence. I do not believe the things caused need to always be the same subtance as the things which cause them, though they can be. Sound for example is not the same matter or the same thing as the the diaphragm of a speaker.

OK, again you are making Theistic assumptions for a Theistic cosmogony. Your argument cannot progress beyond that based on the evidence.

[37818]

I am arguing that Natural Law could be the uncaused cause based on the evidence.



OK, again you are making Theistic assumptions for a Theistic cosmogony. Your argument cannot progress beyond that based on the evidence.

And this evidence is?

[shunyadragon]

And this evidence is?

Note that I said 'could be' the uncaused cause and our physical existence 'could be' uncaused existence precedes everything in that everything is contingent upon that.' There is no other source that can be falsified from evidence by the methods of science. The existence of any other proposed source would be based on faith.

It remains that your view remains a theistic assertion only, and a Premise of your theistic cosmogony.

[JimL]

Yes I am excluding caused things. Since caused things are not uncaused. So I do not see caused things as being uncaused.

Acne is caused, but it is not distinct from that which caused it. The effect exists within the cause and vice versa.

OK. One can make that distinction. That Natural Law as a description not being the thing of cause. Existence, can be understood as a description of being as opposed to being a thing too.

Not quite following you there. Natural law explains the nature of existence, it is not existence itself. Cause and effect for example is a law explaining a fact of nature, but the law itself is not something that has existence.

A better example would be space, things take up space, can can be considered also to be made of space too. But the things in space are not the space. Space is a type of existence which we experience in our physical world.

Space too is a material part of the whole of material existence, nature abhors a vacuum. The whole of existence has a duel nature, as the one, energy, under certain circumstances, converts to the other, matter.

[37818]

Acne is caused, but it is not distinct from that which caused it. The effect exists within the cause and vice versa.

Still a cause and effect, not uncaused. And even if there were no first event, having and infinite series of causes and effects. Still not uncaused.

Not quite following you there. Natural law explains the nature of existence, it is not existence itself. Cause and effect for example is a law explaining a fact of nature, but the law itself is not something that has existence.

There is nothing before uncaused existence. There was always the uncasued existence never nothingness.

Space too is a material part of the whole of material existence, nature abhors a vacuum. The whole of existence has a duel nature, as the one, energy, under certain circumstances, converts to the other, matter.

All caused things. Even if those things have no first cause, they were always cause and effect. Caused things are not uncaused.

[37818]

Note that I said 'could be' the uncaused cause and our physical existence 'could be' uncaused existence precedes everything in that everything is contingent upon that.' There is no other source that can be falsified from evidence by the methods of science. The existence of any other proposed source would be based on faith.

Faith in what? An uncaused existence and uncaused cause. Two different things. Only thing they have in common would be being uncaused. Physical things are caused. Causes are temporal events. An uncaused cause would be both eternal and temporal being a cause. And what would it cause? An infinite series of physical events with no first cause? The universe without origin being that it is all that exists, which includes uncaused existence. And if there exists an uncaused cause, it too would be part of the universe without an origin. The universe being filled with caused things where there is no first cause may be for none of the caused things. Caused things are not uncaused.

It remains that your view remains a theistic assertion only, and a Premise of your theistic cosmogony.

And explain to me what that is?

[shunyadragon]

Caused things are not uncaused.

There is no known cause for the Quantum World. There is no evidence that it is caused. It is not specifically a thing. It is not matter, it is zero-point energy.

By the way 'God is a thing.' 'What caused God?'

And explain to me what that is?

It remains that your view remains a theistic assertion only, and a Premise of your theistic cosmogony.

[37818]

There is no known cause for the Quantum World.

Does it exist or not?

There is no evidence that it is caused. It is not specifically a thing. It is not matter, it is zero-point energy.

So a gound state of energy happens for no reason? Ah, what is quantum mechanics? It is the reason that governs such a ground state. Uncaused? You suppose.

By the way 'God is a thing.' 'What caused God?'

What is caused is not God, nor can be.

It remains that your view remains a theistic assertion only, and a Premise of your theistic cosmogony.

Define what you are calling a theistic assertion on my part and define what you are calling my theistic cosmology. Or are you just saying meaningless rhetoric? Which I think is the case.