>"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument." Holy shit is it possible to miss the point of God any harder?

File: 498 KB, 2223x2837, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous !P45fr4QSwk Thu Sep 5 22:25:21 2019 No.13767782 [Reply] [Original]

>"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."
Holy shit is it possible to miss the point of God any harder?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 22:34:11 2019 No.13767816 >>13767782 God is First Cause God caused God God is self-caused

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 22:41:49 2019 No.13767850 >>13767816 God caused God Causes always precede their effects God preceded God God existed before God existed God existed when God did not exist

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 22:56:40 2019 No.13767934 [DELETED]

>>13767782
>If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause
the argument isn't
>everything must have a caused
it is
>every contingent being must have a cause
I realize that anglos have a hard time with not being driveling retards, so I don't really blame Brainlet Russel

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:00:04 2019 No.13767951 File: 263 KB, 750x846, 1554503655140.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13767782 How are a*alytics this bad at philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:01:35 2019 No.13767956 >>13767951 They Kant even

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:02:12 2019 No.13767958 File: 7 KB, 549x456, quantum_vacuum.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13767782 >>13767816 >>13767850 >>13767934 >>13767951 >muh cause https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ psssh nothin personnel kid

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:03:03 2019 No.13767960 >>13767782 >Holy shit blasphemous language

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:04:21 2019 No.13767966

>>13767782
>>"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument."
>Holy shit is it possible to miss the point of God any harder?
Holy shit is it possible to miss the point of Russel's argument any harder?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:05:29 2019 No.13767972 >>13767951 a pillar of kant's system is the claim that it's an a priori and necessary truth that space is euclidean and so he was btfo by physics. at least russell made a few lasting contributions to mathematics

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:09:22 2019 No.13767990 >>13767972 >space is euclidean How did he come to this conclusion? What kind of “space” was he referring to?

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:09:37 2019 No.13767991

>>13767972
If you think that was Kant's point you're retarded and never read him. Kant's point is that Euclidean geometry is an a priori truth of human perception--you can't perceive shapes or forms existing in non-Euclidean space because existence in the three flat spatial dimensions of our conception (not our reality) is the condition for perceptibility. Space itself is noumenal and need not align with our human concept of space for perception.
Typical a*alytic lmao.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:11:33 2019 No.13767997

>>13767972
>>13767990
Kant was talking about space as underlying basis of perception, not about a abstract entity in modern physical models. He wasn't doing a naturalistic theory of space.
Have humans started to intuitively perceive rooms as pseudo-riemanian submanfolds since the early 20th century? Then Kant hasn't been "bffo by physics".

>at least russell made a few lasting contributions to mathematics
Not really, almost all of it was Whitehead and it wasn't that lasting for the most part.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:13:29 2019 No.13768007

>>13767991
>three flat spatial dimensions of our conception (not our reality) is the condition for perceptibility
That's not true, it's simply an evolutionary adaptation that makes us perceive the world this way. One could be born an anomaly and perceive the world very much differently.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:14:06 2019 No.13768008

>>13767990
his proof that space is the form of outer intuition and not a feature of things in themselves hinges on the fact that we can know euclidean geometry a priori and that space (the kind of space that is studied in physics) is euclidean. since physics has established a posteriori that space isn't euclidean, his argument collapses and there is no reason to think that space is merely the form of outer intuition

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:14:45 2019 No.13768012 >>13768007 yes and you are (presumably) a human

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:15:01 2019 No.13768014 >>13767991 YOU can't

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:16:27 2019 No.13768022

>>13768012
One can be human and not perceive the world that way, I'd even wager people born blind don't perceive the world that way and with some CRISPR modification for hyperintelligence and some other genes we should be able to make people perceive the world as shards in Hilbert space.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:17:33 2019 No.13768028

>>13767991
>Space itself is noumenal
no, in kant space is merely the form of outer intuition, meaning the thing we observe empirically and study in physics. things in space are appearances, not things in themselves or nourmena. it's impossible to know whether noumenal reality has any spacelike structure at all and saying "space itself is noumenal" is a serious misunderstanding of his views

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 23:47:59 2019 No.13768145

>>13768007
Yes. That's my point. That's what I'm saying. That's the idea. It's only the condition for human perceptibility. Nothing to do with reality or the thing-in-itself. You're dense as plutonium.
>>13768028
This is a fair and correct take, that's my own viewpoint on top of Kant's but it's not Kant's own. Thank you for keeping me honest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 00:23:07 2019 No.13768246 >>13767958 A quantum field isn’t nothing. Try again

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 00:29:51 2019 No.13768268 why does ever /phil/ thread turn into discussing Kant? Will /lit/ ever be able to take the next step after having understood the goblin?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 00:33:57 2019 No.13768287 >>13768246 That's irrelevant and not the point, try again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 00:38:15 2019 No.13768301 >>13768287 What caused the quantum field, dipshit?

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 00:43:48 2019 No.13768324

>>13767958
Virtual particles don't really exist. They're literally a just a calculational device for Feynman diagrams. See also Boddy, Carroll, and Pollack's paper on Boltzmann brains which talks about the issue:
>one way of thinking about the fluctuations of a quantum system is to consider an observable represented by a self-adjoint operator O. If a state psi is not an eigenstate of O, then the variance
>(delta O)^2_psi = <O^2>_psi - <O>_psi^2
>will be strictly positive. Hence, O does not have a definite value. However, a nonzero variance is not a statement about the *dynamics* of the state, which may well be stationary; it is merely a statement about the distribution of measurement outcomes. In quantum field theory, it is common to refer to radiative corrections from virtual particle pairs as "quantum", "zero-point", or "vacuum" fluctuations, which give rise to phenomena such as the Lamb shift or Casimir effect; they are not, however, "fluctuations" in the sense of a dynamical process that changes the state of the system.
If you want a simplified presentation watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFovwCaOik.. Particles in general don't really exist either, but that's a story for another day.
t. physicist

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 00:48:38 2019 No.13768345 >>13768324 Huh?

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 01:07:19 2019 No.13768418

>>13768324
So you are telling me this "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested." And this "Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics." Are false statements that got published on Scientific American, gotcha.

>>	Anonymous !P45fr4QSwk Fri Sep 6 01:09:54 2019 No.13768427 >>13768287 ?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 01:16:13 2019 No.13768453 >>13768418 oof

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 01:17:24 2019 No.13768458 >>13768287 >sophists

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 01:28:50 2019 No.13768494

>>13768145
>Yes. That's my point. That's what I'm saying. That's the idea
No, you don't understand me. There is nothing inherent about the human condition that a human to perceive the world this way and there are likely already humans dthdt perceived it differently and even if not its possible to modify humans to perceive it differently, and they would sirll be human. Therefore Kant was wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 02:57:59 2019 No.13768669 >>13767782 Truly awful.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 03:56:33 2019 No.13768772 >>13768418 You didn't address a single one of anon's points.

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 04:05:20 2019 No.13768782

>>13767782
>If everything must have a cause

There is the problematic idea already.
Any given "thing", any object that is a subset of the concept "every-thing", must have a cause.

The concept "every-thing" however is different. It doesn't need to abide by the laws and patterns of behavior that govern its own dominion. It is everything. It surveys the field of causality itself as an outside entity. Actually, even more than that. It is beyond conceptual boxes. If you talk about "every-thing" and then start talking about what it must or must not have, what it must or must not be like.. you are making a metaphysical proposition.

I tend to view existence as the relationship between two spheres of existence: the potential (chaos, void, prima materia, dark matter) and the potentiator (logos, god, mind, spirit).
As a simple visual, imagine a kind of black bubble with these little will-o-the-wisp lanterny lights fading in and out inside an iridescent jet black pearl of a bubble.. that is the prima materia. All you have to do is think or rather say what it is and you uh...

im tired

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 10:45:01 2019 No.13769809 >>13768772 Virtual particles are REAL, it doesn't matter if they "exist", this violate causality. Therefore we don't know if EVERYTHING has a cause

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 10:51:02 2019 No.13769831 >>13767782 The debate he did with Copleston is irritating. Copleston is too polite and is just forced to change the subject because Bert doesn't get it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 10:52:28 2019 No.13769841 >>13767958 >quantum mysticism makes an appearance fuck off deepak chopra

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 10:54:30 2019 No.13769847 >>13768324 >Virtual particles don't really exist. They do, the Casimir effect shows it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 11:00:02 2019 No.13769871 >>13769841 >i don't know what you are saying, so imma throw a hissy fit

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 12:21:53 2019 No.13770243

It’s hilarious that people think modern quantum physics won’t go the way of the psychosomatic bumps of a few hundred years ago. If chemists had been as gullible as physicists and mathematicians, they would have hatched the equivalent of a quantum theory over a century ago to account for the variations observed in atomic weights. Instead they kept on plugging, and what was once chaos was reduced to the most perfect order.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 12:22:53 2019 No.13770250 >>13770243 haha

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 12:24:53 2019 No.13770265 >>13767782 I don't even believe in God but this is silly >God is an ordinary "thing" just like everything else >God does not transcend the rules of logic >God exists within the physical universe where temporal sequence and causal order uphold

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 12:30:56 2019 No.13770306 >>13768782 Everything doesnt exist, the point is that fewer things became every single thing that exists now

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 12:32:56 2019 No.13770319

>Everything which "moves", i.e. changes from posse ad esse, potency to act(uality), must have a cause
>There cannot be an infinite regress of causers because there is no way for such a chain of causers to begin
>Hence, there is an unmoved mover, which we call God

Not that hard to understand Bertie

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 13:26:37 2019 No.13770629
File: 76 KB, 850x400, Truth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13767782
>"If everything must have a cause

But the argument never says this! It says that whatever changes from potency to actuality has a cause.

Russell has always seemed a bit of a brainlet when discussing previous philosophers, but I am not sure why: why doesn't he ever make the attempt at a charitable reading?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 14:16:38 2019 No.13770907 what is the essential literature for understanding the different viewpoints on the existence of god?

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 14:27:03 2019 No.13770963 >>13769841 dude its 100% backed by Science(tm) guaranteed or your soul back

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 18:28:51 2019 No.13772245 >>13767782 Bump

Anonymous Fri Sep 6 18:33:31 2019 No.13772265

Bertrand Russel is the best modern example of what Nietzsche talks about when he talks about the crippled Socrates or the midget with the enormous ear. A dude who is undeniably brilliant in one specific area but also undeniably retarded in all other areas. Russell was a genius and also a complete fucking moron.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 18:46:01 2019 No.13772316 >>13767850 >Causes always precede their effects This is an axiom of world as Material; because God is Immaterial the laws of physics don't apply, and your refutation is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 18:52:18 2019 No.13772342 >>13768268 Halt die Fresse, Kant ist echt basiert.

>>	Anonymous Fri Sep 6 22:54:51 2019 No.13773456 >>13767782 There's literally a word that refutes this: Autotellic

>>	Anonymous Sat Sep 7 04:48:47 2019 No.13774467 bump

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature