Testing huge post formatting

[system]

Pashley, you keep saying you addressed the uncaused causer on page one. Here is what I could find on the subject from you on page one - please add more if I’ve not found it all.
Pashley:

I disagree. Everything that does exist NECESSARILY must have been caused to exist. But caused by what? Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing. That would mean that reality is base on nothing - absurd. So then, there must be something that is uncaused, and that something is that which everything else is dependent. Our existence, everything’s existence, was started, necessarily by something that was uncaused. God.

Pashley again:

Again, see my post to Otto, if you believe something can come from nothing. You even say “no discernable cause”, from which you, in error, jump to the conclusion that there is no cause.

As for your second argument, that the universe always was, well, that’s not what astrophysicists are espousing vis-a-vis the Big Bang theory.

Your last point is my favorite.

The first point, about a creator for God, is the infinite regress theory.

Everything that exists is in space and time; we take up space, we move thru time. Things that are material (matter) are affected. You are, at least partially, made of material. This means you are finite, limited and changing being, for matter is a principle of limitation and change. Because you have limitations, you are dependent upon other things for your existence, such as air and water. If I take that away, surely you will change (die). You exist if something else is exists. But not everything can be like this. If it was, nothing would be able to cause the existence of something else. So, there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which exists in itself. Since all things in this world are material, this “something” must necessarily exist outside of this world.

Guess who?

Is this an accurate statement of your answer to the uncaused causer problem? I propose that you believe you have answered the problem sufficiently, but that you have not, and that is why people keep asking you about it. Merely saying “I’ve already answered it” and ignoring people who analyze your answer is admitting defeat. Let’s take a look at your above points:

I disagree. Everything that does exist NECESSARILY must have been caused to exist.

[ul][li]Saying ‘it is logical’ as you have in subsequent posts does not justify the statement that everything must have been caused. When you say this, you are really saying ‘it is intuitive’, not ‘it is logical’, because no logical supporting argument has been presented.[/li][li]Even if everything must have been caused, I see no reason why there could not be multiple causes (I’ll get back to this later.)[/li][li]The word ‘everything’ causes you problem in your later arguments. Use sparingly.[/ul][/li]

But caused by what? Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.

[ul][li]Why not?[/li][li]Again the word ‘everything’ will trip you up.[/li][li]The statement is self-contradictory - You say “Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.” This flies in the face of what the words “everything” and “nothing” mean. If there is something beyond ‘everything’, then ‘everything’ is not Everything.[/ul][/li]

That would mean that reality is base on nothing - absurd.

People have pointed out that ‘cause’ means nothing outside of time, so it may not be absurd. It may only be absurd to you.

Even granting your above tenuous points, you make a fatal error:

So then, there must be something that is uncaused, and that something is that which everything else is dependent. Our existence, everything’s existence, was started, necessarily by something that was uncaused.

You have just disputed your first premise that “Everything that does exist NECESSARILY must have been caused to exist.” This implies that anything that has not been caused to exist does not exist. ‘something’ which is uncaused must be part of ‘everything’, or this is some strange usage of the word ‘everything’ of which I was previously unaware. Really! I’m not playing word games.

Even if I were to grant you yet another flawed argument and say you are right that something must be uncaused that has caused everything else, you are liable for explaining the following problems:
[ul][li]What makes you think there is only one uncaused thing? Why not 2? 5? Avogadro’s Number?[/li][li]What makes you think you know the identity of the one uncaused thing? (i.e. couldn’t the uncaused thing be the universe itself?)[/ul][/li]
Shall I continue with your second post?

As for your second argument, that the universe always was, well, that’s not what astrophysicists are espousing vis-a-vis the Big Bang theory.

[ul][li]This is a fundamental misapprehension of ‘always’. Time is not defined outside the universe as we understand it, so it is nearly a tautology to say that the universe has always existed. What you can ask, and what cannot ever be answered by science barring some huge breakthrough, is what is outside the universe, if anything. This is what people are really asking when they ask about before the big-bang or after the possible big-crunch - outside the universe, not before or after.[/ul][/li]

Everything that exists is in space and time; we take up space, we move thru time.

[ul][li]Careful with that ‘everything’, pashley.[/ul][/li]

Things that are material (matter) are affected. You are, at least partially, made of material. This means you are finite, limited and changing being, for matter is a principle of limitation and change.

I have a hard time understanding what you are saying here. Care to elucidate? Since I can’t figure out what you mean by this, I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is ‘true’.

Because you have limitations, you are dependent upon other things for your existence, such as air and water. If I take that away, surely you will change (die). You exist if something else is exists.

I think I understand this - you are saying we are dependent on air and water. That is not the same thing as saying that air and water are our cause. Air and water are not dependent on anything - unless you want to go back and say the oxygen was forged in a star. What is the point of this statement at all? I see no relevance to uncaused causers.

But not everything can be like this.

This is equivalent to your above “Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.” The problems with it are the same, to wit:
[ul][li]Why not?[/li][li]This statement contradicts your very statements “Everything that exists is in space and time”, “everything that exists must have been caused to exist”. How on earth can you reconcile these statements to “But not everything can be like this”? You just said umpteen times that everything is like this![/ul][/li]

[quote]
So, there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which exists in itself. Since all things in this world a

[system]

Pashley, you keep saying you addressed the uncaused causer on page one. Here is what I could find on the subject from you on page one - please add more if I’ve not found it all.
Pashley:

I disagree. Everything that does exist NECESSARILY must have been caused to exist. But caused by what? Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing. That would mean that reality is base on nothing - absurd. So then, there must be something that is uncaused, and that something is that which everything else is dependent. Our existence, everything’s existence, was started, necessarily by something that was uncaused. God.

Pashley again:

Again, see my post to Otto, if you believe something can come from nothing. You even say “no discernable cause”, from which you, in error, jump to the conclusion that there is no cause.

As for your second argument, that the universe always was, well, that’s not what astrophysicists are espousing vis-a-vis the Big Bang theory.

Your last point is my favorite.

The first point, about a creator for God, is the infinite regress theory.

Everything that exists is in space and time; we take up space, we move thru time. Things that are material (matter) are affected. You are, at least partially, made of material. This means you are finite, limited and changing being, for matter is a principle of limitation and change. Because you have limitations, you are dependent upon other things for your existence, such as air and water. If I take that away, surely you will change (die). You exist if something else is exists. But not everything can be like this. If it was, nothing would be able to cause the existence of something else. So, there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which exists in itself. Since all things in this world are material, this “something” must necessarily exist outside of this world.

Guess who?

Is this an accurate statement of your answer to the uncaused causer problem? I propose that you believe you have answered the problem sufficiently, but that you have not, and that is why people keep asking you about it. Merely saying “I’ve already answered it” and ignoring people who analyze your answer is admitting defeat. Let’s take a look at your above points:

I disagree. Everything that does exist NECESSARILY must have been caused to exist.

[ul][li]Saying ‘it is logical’ as you have in subsequent posts does not justify the statement that everything must have been caused. When you say this, you are really saying ‘it is intuitive’, not ‘it is logical’, because no logical supporting argument has been presented.[/li][li]Even if everything must have been caused, I see no reason why there could not be multiple causes (I’ll get back to this later.)[/li][li]The word ‘everything’ causes you problem in your later arguments. Use sparingly.[/ul][/li]

But caused by what? Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.

[ul][li]Why not?[/li][li]Again the word ‘everything’ will trip you up.[/li][li]The statement is self-contradictory - You say “Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.” This flies in the face of what the words “everything” and “nothing” mean. If there is something beyond ‘everything’, then ‘everything’ is not Everything.[/ul][/li]

That would mean that reality is base on nothing - absurd.

People have pointed out that ‘cause’ means nothing outside of time, so it may not be absurd. It may only be absurd to you.

Even granting your above tenuous points, you make a fatal error:

So then, there must be something that is uncaused, and that something is that which everything else is dependent. Our existence, everything’s existence, was started, necessarily by something that was uncaused.

You have just disputed your first premise that “Everything that does exist NECESSARILY must have been caused to exist.” This implies that anything that has not been caused to exist does not exist. ‘something’ which is uncaused must be part of ‘everything’, or this is some strange usage of the word ‘everything’ of which I was previously unaware. Really! I’m not playing word games.

Even if I were to grant you yet another flawed argument and say you are right that something must be uncaused that has caused everything else, you are liable for explaining the following problems:
[ul][li]What makes you think there is only one uncaused thing? Why not 2? 5? Avogadro’s Number?[/li][li]What makes you think you know the identity of the one uncaused thing? (i.e. couldn’t the uncaused thing be the universe itself?)[/ul][/li]
Shall I continue with your second post?

As for your second argument, that the universe always was, well, that’s not what astrophysicists are espousing vis-a-vis the Big Bang theory.

This is a fundamental misapprehension of ‘always’. Time is not defined outside the universe as we understand it, so it is nearly a tautology to say that the universe has always existed. What you can ask, and what cannot ever be answered by science barring some huge breakthrough, is what is outside the universe, if anything. This is what people are really asking when they ask about before the big-bang or after the possible big-crunch - outside the universe, not before or after.

Everything that exists is in space and time; we take up space, we move thru time.

Careful with that ‘everything’, pashley.

Things that are material (matter) are affected. You are, at least partially, made of material. This means you are finite, limited and changing being, for matter is a principle of limitation and change.

I have a hard time understanding what you are saying here. Care to elucidate? Since I can’t figure out what you mean by this, I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is ‘true’.

Because you have limitations, you are dependent upon other things for your existence, such as air and water. If I take that away, surely you will change (die). You exist if something else is exists.

I think I understand this - you are saying we are dependent on air and water. That is not the same thing as saying that air and water are our cause. Air and water are not dependent on anything - unless you want to go back and say the oxygen was forged in a star. What is the point of this statement at all? I see no relevance to uncaused causers.

But not everything can be like this.

This is equivalent to your above “Beyond everything there is, there cannot be nothing.” The problems with it are the same, to wit:
[ul][li]Why not?[/li][li]This statement contradicts your very statements “Everything that exists is in space and time”, “everything that exists must have been caused to exist”. How on earth can you reconcile these statements to “But not everything can be like this”? You just said umpteen times that everything is like this![/ul][/li]

[quote]
So, there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which exists in itself. Since all things in this world are material, this “something” must necessarily exist outside o

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Wow, Pashley is in for a treat.

http://www.geocities.com/attrayant_1/maps/chevys.jpg

[lswote]

http://www.zilker.net/~lswote/images/bhammond.jpg