/lit/ - Literature

>>10714812
Look into animism.

>>10714812
>spiritualism
what exactly do you mean by this? mystical belief?

>>10714812
Thebsense of belonging can make or break a person. People kys themselves when feeling out of society, a family, or a relationship. Of course its strong and special, if you dont belong you are soon to die.

>>10714828
Kind of.

I am thinking of when religious people say they are feeling God, either through community, a kind of warmth or happiness, and uses that as a factor to confirm the existence of a God.

Spiritualism might not even be the right word for it, beg me a pardon if that is the case.

bump

>>10714812
Humans are pretty tribal and most of us need a chief. God is pretty much the perfect father figure really. Even most atheists are "religious", just go to reddit, they worship whatever pop scientist wrote the latest best seller

>>10714812
People who aren't raised as Christians don't and can't empathize with your personal spiritual experiences. Even if you think your bible isn't literally true scientifically speaking it can still be useful for your psychologically. If you think it is, why change your habits? Like other anon said, even atheists can be religious, nonreligiousness isn't the lifestyle for every person.

>>10715535
that's a pretty common disingenuous comment. it sets being religious to an incredibly low standard. plenty of religious people "worship" politicians in the same way you claim atheists "worship" scientists, but it's clearly not the same as worshiping the supposed creator(s) of the universe

>>10715571
Because politicians aren't as powerful a figure as a god. Plus super religious people usually love politicians that are also religious

I personally don't think christianity or even language offers us the tools to properly conceive of God. Even our own minds fall short.

I'm non religious. I don't do church, but I've read a fair amount of the major revealed texts and felt God in my own life - it is a vast and perhaps daunting presence that I've felt with me somehow when working my ass off on art or music, when faced with personal danger or moral quandary. It's not really a conversational thing, more like a guiding hand.

And like I said, not a church person (family of atheists, actually), but Once a day I stop and I say "Thank You" to whatever beckoning alien mind beyond is guiding us out of profane history, out of the mortal coil and shaping us in its image through evolution, culture and technology.

Gratitude helps me stay grinding.

Forget spiritualism, I want to know how atheists explain miracles with physical evidence, like bleeding Eucharists and incorruptible saints.

>>10714812
>doubt God's existence
this can't be doubted except out of foolishness or pride

I understand doubting certain religious dogmas, but metaphysical truths like the existence of God are something separate

>>10715559
The Bible isn't a scientific document, nor is it a historical account of human history. Even priests will tell you this.
>>10715571
Whenever people cut God out of their lives, there is a void in their psyche where God was, and they usually try to fill that hole with commodity and media fetishism, idolatry, and ideological pursuits. No matter how much they try to fill it to give their lives meaning, they still feel like something is missing because, they have no transcendent purpose.

>>10715625
>nor is it a historical account of human history.
>has an entire section called the "historical books"

>>10714812
>The joy and community I experience in church is nothing like anything else
Placebo effect. You don't become joyous by attending church, you have convinced yourself, and the surrounding environment has, that is a wonderful and pleasurable environment. A man can find pleasure in all things. Of course if you feel lacking and desire to fill that hole with community, a group of people who preach kind words to you and make you feel at home will have that effect. You could go and sit in the woods alone and close your eyes and feel the same experience, if you were orientated in that direction. You will always find pleasure in the things you want to make you feel pleasurable. With this, I mean that it isn't church or God or religion that is making you happy, but your own ego and subconscious.

>>10715623
Please show me metaphysical proof and evidence of God's existence.

>>10714812
It's about patterns. The spiritual feeling is usually the "all is one," feeling. Since the brain is technically a pattern recognition machine, it is not surprising that at some point, it will find the fundamental pattern that is occurs in all things. Technically speaking all the neurons in our brain is connected. That means everything we categorize is tied together by association. If we overload it, we will make a majority of the neurons activate causing us to get this "all is one" feeling. If we go to far we end up getting a seizure.

It is important to remember that the spiritual state is not always good. It is not good for survival to be in this state constantly since you will stop eating and caring about your body. It somber state, the state of recognizing things are different is more proper for survival or rather for the propagation of the pattern that is you and your species.

>>10715625
That is a false cause. You do not need God in your life in order to fill a void. Ironically, the ones who have the void are religious people who fill it with God. Many people are non-religious and live haply lives. You can't state to know every person who is not religious to have some serious spiritual issues because they don't have a transcendent goal. The desire to feel purpose and meaning for the end of your life is a shallow fear that you are enslaved to because of weak mental fibre.

>>10715625
Many people weren't raised as christians, and hence don't have this weird 'god-void' you speak of that afflicts ex-christians.

>>10715652
I don't think anyone has this. Cosmological argument and ontological argument aren't convincing, desu. You can definitely prove that the World exists though, which lets you take the pantheist option if you really need to.

>>10715694
That's my point exactly, no one has that proof yet people want to go around spouting it exists. Why be deliberately misleading to others? If you truly believed in God there would be no need to deceive others, as if you know there is proof then post it and be done with it. Obviously, there is no such proof though.

>>10715652
You didn't self-create, so you had a creator.
Either you think your creator is a mindless nothing, a stroke of chance, or a supreme intelligence, who knew you before you were born and how to bring you into existence.
Your parents aren't ultimately your creator, they didn't structure you or know you or plan you, the trees and sun and laws of nature aren't your creator either they are mindless links in the chain of causality.
Your existence is proof of God.
The existence of the relative world of appearances implies there is an absolute truth operating behind, within and above it.

>>10715709
you might be interested in a class on evolutionary biology

>>10715703
i agree there's no need to mislead others, I'm definitely not a theist in any powerful sense
however, I respect the fact that the idea of theism is useful for people, or that some people have peculiar, mystical philosophies

>>10715709
>What is evolution?
Looks like you have never created anything. If you have you would understand that the act of creation is mainly a random process of what you have, by sheer chance, experience, things you have come across, mixed and recombined.

Even in physics and mathematics, people don't "create." They take a few principles that they come across and recombine them into producing something different.

>>10715717
evolution is another law of nature, a vehicle for your appearance, it isn't your ultimate creator anymore than newtons laws are or the elastic force within cells.
Who wrote the laws of evolution? Your thinking has to go back farther than what you can see and touch, metaphysics and logic imply an absolute creator

>>10715727
Why do evolution and God just HAVE TO BE mutually exclusive, unless you're one of them cats taking it all literally? Why wouldn't God create the same way we do, by building upon successes?

>>10715709
Who created God then? If I didn't self create please explain how God self created itself?

>>10715727
evolution transforms matter according to various laws, matter that has already been brought into existence and laws given by the law giver.
evolution doesn't "know" you anymore than your parents did when they copulated. it doesn't understand or know the people it creates.
hence it is not a creator, but an intermediary cause, like copulation, it is not the grand designer.
Your thinking is small, expand it.

>things happen by chance
chance is an illusion

>>10714812
Imagine bacteria in your gut, they live their puny lives and in comparison to you have no consciousness in comparison to you due to their insignifigance. Thus, it'd be very arrogant of us as humans to think their is no God and that we are the supreme beings in which all "vaccums of ignorance" end.

In this analogy and in real life we are the bacteria in the gut. We have no idea the magnitude of our God that created us, we have no capacity of learning he who made us because he is too great. To not believe in intelligent design is to believe in pure cosmic coincidence that our surreal experiences of the Lord and the Holy Spirit just happened to have been created out of dust. Frankly I find that ludicrous OP and I hope when you continue to wrestle with your faith that you will come out even stronger and more faithful of a man than before. I can tell you as a religious man now that I used to be a full on atheist before I allowed the holy spirit into my heart :)

>>10715733
there aren't "laws" of evolution
evolution still occurs though, you can observe it
you should take a class, you'd probably learn a lot

>>10715745
Anecdotes aren't proof. Bacteria in your gut doesn't prove the existance of God.

>>10715739
>who caused God ;)
God is not a finite thing in the world of appearances like you and me. The question doesn't apply to the Absolute.

>why isn't the absolute relative?
>why isn't the true false?
>why isn't a circle a square
because logic.
because intuition.
this question is empty.

>>10715736
Because I don't know what your definition of God is. If God is good. Then it runs counter to evolution which has created tapeworms, viruses, and a lot of other shit.

So define what you mean by God. If you say a creator, then what do you mean by creator? Is he good or bad? What is he trying to create? What is his goal?

If you say God is the infinite or existence itself than I don't have a problem. But then why use "God"? Just use "the infinite" and "existence."

>>10715742
So what you're saying is
>things that can be scientifically measured and explained, where created by something that it's own laws disprove, and I will prove its existance by using laws set in place that have no proof they were created by God
You have no ACTUAL proof. Just X exists so that proves Y. Constant false causes.

>>10714812
>how science or philosophy explains the feeling of a god.

You need to start obsessing with this guy's works. He'll fill you in. It's been a while since I read his book on religious experiences, but he himself is also just a fascinating character who might provide you with insight about your doubt.

And to be honest, I've had this experience of joy in another setting. I was mountain climbing for a month and meet people along the way, and because of the randomness of meeting people along the trail was so strange in the wilderness, the group connection over our struggle really pulled people together quickly and made the experience so much richer. It's such a weird thing to gather with people in some struggle and being focusing on the same things for long periods of time.

>tfw I actually think it's weird that churches don't purposely try to entice atheists more often by downplaying their language and reason and upping their goodwill and cheer, and esoteric practices.

>>10715747
>there aren't "laws" of evolution
laws, principles, parameters, limitations, whatever you want to call them, evolution operates within certain restrictions and given certain patterns.
the process of evolution doesn't know what the hell it's doing, who it's creating or mutating, just like a river eroding a mountain doesn't know wtf it's doing, but these phenomena still operate and cause transformations to occur, not by "chance" or "luck", but because the laws of the universe compel them to.
Your existence is not ultimately explained by evolution.

>>10715748
Atoms couldn't have popped out of nothing, because the inherent state of nothingness is that there is nothing that can exist, since there is nothing that can be created. Therefor, the burden is on you to prove that in a vaccum something can come out of it.

This is, of course, impossible. So the plausible explanation is in fact a catalyst, of which that catalyst would be outside our universe and we can describe this catalyst as being our creator/God

>>10715751
Your circular logic and nonsensical answers just prove that you cannot justify the existance of God as there is no proofs.

>>10714812
>how science or philosophy explains the feeling of a god.
Lately I've been hearing God explained as love and/or all that is good in the world. Less a "person", more of a "feeling" or "concept".

>>10715739
I can make self generating, self evolving and harmonious music come into being of its own accord by programming my sampler/sequencer accordingly. Just press play once the settings are in place and it makes a techno song in ~5 minutes.
Stand alone complexes and self organizing entities are all over our reality. There's no sure answer one way or another, no matter what trails of logic you follow.

And that's kind of the essence of faith, no? You're making that choice to believe, taking that leap and doing so regardless of hard facts. In some ways doubt is an essential part of faith itself, being the dark to its light.

In the grand scheme of things, it makes me a little more at peace, and I'd rather be happy than prove that I'm right.

>>10715760
>i can't measure it so it doesn't real
>checkmate
we're talking about the infinite, the ultimate cause of reality, not a tree in the park you can see...of course the way we talk about it is going to be different, have different criteria, a different nature.

>>10715768
If you say there was nothingness, and then something outside of it created the universe, the proof is on you to prove that fact. Please tell me how God was created? Did he self create from nothingness or did something create him?

>>10715756
I usually DO refer to it as "infinity", to be honest. God just seems to require less explanation, IME.
My uncertainty about its true and absolute nature is mediated by faith but never dismissed.

>>10715770
circular logic is not inherently false.
The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

>>10715777
>I can't prove it
>but I have metaphysical proof!
>but I can't show it you!
>you wouldn't understand it anyone silly human, but I, a human, do perfectly understand the power of God
So this is the power of christ?

When you actually start looking into things you'll realise that none of this has come about by some random chance.
Reminder that evolution is just a theory.

>>10715783
It's inherently a senseless sort of argument, because, while the conclusion fits the premise, the premise is also dependent on the conclusion. This is the character of a circular argument, that its premises are validated by the conclusion. It has no validity because it assumes what was to be proved in order to certify its assumptions. Read Prior Analytics.

>>10715802
https://youtu.be/-wzbBEG35ew

>>10715802
>>10715812
>start looking into things
quantum mechanics does it for me

>>10715802
That's about patterns you retard. It is not surprising if there is a single set of principles that governs everything in this universe for patterns to repeat themselves. This is the whole point of the field of physics. The sunflower exist in the same physical reality as the seashell. It is not surprising that they both come up with, even by random chance, the same solution if they exist in the same universe. And as a result, the patterns can be recorded by mathematics. But remember mathematics itself only works if you strictly follow the axioms of that particular system. If you don't, shit won't work out. That's the reason why people make mistakes and get their math wrong constantly.

>>10714812
>How does atheism or other philosophies explain spiritualism?
Atheism isn't a specific view so it inherently doesn't explain it. Naturalists explain spiritualism as illusion though.

>>10715679
>Dude, life is meaningless. Just do what makes you happy lol XDDDD
>>10715694
I didn't mean 'God' in the strict Judeo-Christian sense of the word.
>>10715703
You can't prove the existence of God, and God can only be perceived, not known. As >>10715608 pointed out, language is a very low resolution form of communication, and accurately describing the experience would by very hard.
>>10715608
>not a church person
>Once a day I stop and I say "Thank You" to whatever beckoning alien mind beyond is guiding us out of profane history
Stop being a faggot, and convert already!

>>10715833
>That's about patterns you retard.
Why are atheists always so confrontational and ready to abuse anyone that doesn't conform to their world view?

>>10715772
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8anag2zAqd0

I'm feeling that concept man. But it sounded like something I've heard before.

>>10715846
Because your a retard who don't know basic logic, can't do mathematics proof, and science.
And who the fuck are you to think i'm atheist? Atheism is not how I structure my world. The infinite, time, change, chaos and order, randomness and regularity is what is at the bottom of my beliefs, what I believe in as absolute truths. Everything else is derived from there.

>>10715790
>cant understand the difference between the Absolute and the relative, the finite and infinite
>wants a proof for God
if your idea of God is some measurable and finite entity within the universe, like a tree or the sun, then yes, there is no such "god"
You didn't actually say how my argument was wrong, only that it put God into the category of "infinite" which you find problematic for some reason, yet its true by definition.

>>but I can't show it you!
no one can show you God but there are methods of making yourself more receptive to him, like meditation, prayer and humility

>>10715810
actually all actually true logical arguments are circular/tautological. There is no such thing as some sort of "empirical" logical truth.

>>10714812
As most people, Christian and atheistic, in this thread have said, it's not possible to prove that God exists. It's more a question of whether or not the idea appeals to you. I prefer to do without it as a directive principle.

But if you like the community of a Church and the feeling of believing, and would think that your life is lacking something without this, then it seems to be in your interest to continue believing.

t. spookmeister

>>10715892
>As most people, Christian and atheistic, in this thread have said, it's not possible to prove that God exists
I'm just now reading this thread. What this argument actually made? That's utter bullshit.

>>10715902
Go back to /pol/, faggot

>>10715907
Fuck that you heard me

>>10715892
I don't think "appeal" is the right word.
God never appealed to me but I eventually stopped fighting him and submitted. Atheism is indefensible logically and philosophically infertile.
But being religious is very hard, it's not something fun or easy or something that leads to "happiness" and the community aspect is really what you make of it.

>>10715920
Atheism isn't indefensible logically. You just have to understand that not all Divine power is necessarily a narrow infantile god.

>>10715883
There is a difference between validity and soundness, so yes, there is "empirical" logical truth when the arguments purport to apply to something empirical.

>>10715919
Take out your trip, nigger

>>10715926
>atheism
>divine power
pick 1

>>10715928
>empirical logical truth
induction is fallacious and leads to uncertain conclusions.
all logical arguments are either valid via circularity or tautology.
logic just repeats A = A in different forms.

>>10715939
No Divine power absolutely exists in atheism. Again you limit yourself to weird infantile illusions of Divinity.

>>10715939
Do you know what logical soundness is?

That's not even a reasonable position. Do you entirely eschew perception? I guarantee that you have used induction. I grant that arguments with probabilistic premises are less certain than purely deductive ones, but that doesn't mean one can operate on an entirely deductive basis.

>>10715766
my existence is actually EXTREMELY well explained by evolution, anon
the evolutionary biologists have it down very, very specifically. It's quite astounding, really.

>>10715939
>logic just repeats A = A in different forms
That's why you're suppose to tie it empirically to experiment, i.e. theoretical science. The point of logic is to make prediction from basic principles. You follow the logic of what every system you have to reach a conclusion to which can be checked with reality for accuracy. Unless you deny the existence of an external reality, logic can lead to truths or rather true/false.

>>10715956
>my existence is actually EXTREMELY well
evolution operates within certain restrictions and given certain patterns.
the process of evolution doesn't know what the hell it's doing, who it's creating or mutating, just like a river eroding a mountain doesn't know wtf it's doing, but these phenomena still operate and cause transformations to occur, not by "chance" or "luck", but because the laws of the universe compel them to.
Your existence is not ultimately explained by evolution. You need to go farther back, to the big bang and beyond it.

>>10715902
>>10715919
I haven't seen a compelling one for or against here yet, but I'm convinced from reading Kant.

>>10715920
If you submitted, why are you acting the mick now?

>>10715836
>convert already!
I tried religious service on my own time, and it wasn't for me in the same way politics ain't for me.
I can't call myself repub, even though I'm morally/fiscally conservative, pro gun rights & dislike intersectional 3rd wavers. I believe we should have separate bathrooms for those who wish. BUT I don't take cotton to pro-life groups, religious zealots hiding under the GOP banner or the whole racial purity thing. I don't like Trump. I despise Hillary. I do not vote because I believe two parties is not a real choice. I think our government is broken, but I LOVE America, and that's largely why I volunteer on a regular basis.

Getting back to church, I don't like a lot of the people in there and the shit that some folks want to rope you into. Or that people are in church or going about the ablutions or whatever and are still ignorant of basic human decencies, or cheating on their spouses, or just going through the motions of a stand in for their dead parents. I went for God, not them.
Fortunately, God is elsewhere, and you don't need a special room and a shitty suit to be at peace with it/him/her/they/whatever

and that's my deal. Why not? because many roads lead to God.

>>10715978
And how does Kant reject basic arguments for theism such as divine conservation?

>>10715995
Well, that (divine conservation/occasionalism) is a misrepresentation of empirical causality, according to him. Time in itself is a necessarily successive conception, so there needn't be any agent acting to unite the disparate units that time can be broken into in the understanding.

>>10715609
Holy shit, not only are you a psuedointellectual (just like every other religious person), you're even psuedoreligious. The church doesn't even recognize "incorruptibility" as a miracle, and hasn't for over 15 years.

>>10715920
People fail to realize the empowerment that surrender offers, when placed in trustworthy hands. Surrender can help make a qt3.14 into your best friend, maybe even wifey. Imagine being fully satisfied in the female and close friend departments. Always. No more chasing unrequited desires (the basis of suffering, in Buddhism). It's because you surrendered to a relationship grounded in terms and conditions.

It's similar with submitting to God - however you choose to - but God is about changing your programming on a fundamental level, getting rid of bad habits like worrying or sublimating your anger. The price is your ego, but I think it was worth it just to be this much more laid back about shit.

I just don't talk about it IRL.

>>10716008
Well first off Divine Conservation does not immediately imply occasionalism. It could also lead to concurrentism.

I don't get this criticism though. No one is saying time isn't successive necessarily, just that there isn't a chain of essentially ordered causation in every instance of that. The theism stems by seeing how that chain comes about (inherently getting its efficacy). Is he ACTUALLY hand-waving or is he trying to argue that there are no essentially ordered causal series or... what?

>>10716054
How could there not be a chain of causation, if time is successive? What do you mean precisely by "essentially ordered causation"?

>>10714812
Read sam harris 'waking up' he talks about peak spiritual experiences being natural and shouldn't be linked to any one religion.

>>10716026
Yes being a cuckold must feel amazing

>>10714812
Technically speaking spiritual experiences and the lack of them are the same kind of feeling, that is, a personal impression. In other words, if we have to doubt the authenticity of religious experiences, we must also doubt the authenticity of their absence as saying anything valid about reality.

>>10716082
Essentially ordered causal series are pretty much exclusively dealing with causal series within an instant rather than just over time; they are defined as instances where things cause events through intermediaries. Instead of A causing B causing C, A causes C through B.

>>10716014
You didn't answer my question.

>>10714812
Stimulating certain parts of the brain creates a feeling of a 'god presence'. Look up God helmet.

Keep in mind that any feeling at all can be explained by delusions. How would you explain alien abductees who are absolutely convinced of it? People who feel they're Metatron?

My spirituality -whatever that means- didn't disappear after I stopped believing. Conscious being holds many wonders and awes. Existing at all is a greater thing than any God could ever be.

>>10716208
Within an instant is still over time, I don't understand the distinction. If we're both conceding that time is infinitely divisible, which was e.g. Descartes entire argument for divine conservation, then any instant can be broken into two smaller parts, and so on, and thus be considered as over a stretch of time.

>>10715625
Cope. If you don't believe all that occured in Genesis didn't literally happen then you're not a Christian.

>>10716257
I'll go straight into an example argument to make this easier.

1. Causation exists.

2. Act and Potency are classic terms we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take a property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing.

3. When we find an instance of causation in the world we are finding some potency being actualized.

4. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.

5. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.

6. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.

7. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is either necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)

8. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to a new cause C.

9. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.

10. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. And we can apply 7 to C, then to a new cause D, and so forth. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.

11. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.

12. If “10” is the case there is no causation

13. There is causation ( from premise 1)

14. Premise “10” is not the case.

15. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series “9” is the case.

16. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.

>>10715679
>implying happiness is possible

Give me a fucking break

>>10716270
Here is the exact problem with treating phenomena as noumena. The phenomenal regress is necessarily indeterminate, because it is inductive. Every natural cause must be determined of itself, by observation of the phenomenon in question. This argument relies on a scholastic distinction in the form of 'potency/actuality,' i.e. a property in the object that can only retroactively imputed to it after it has caused the event, and the event. This is not a valid distinction empirically, because potency can never be observed, it can only be inferred, and then only this certain particular potency which we call a 'cause' may be inferred. As such the assumption of a generalized, noumenal 'potency' is entirely unwarranted, and inapplicable in the world of experience.

>>10716270
8b. There is no potency. Everything is actual.

>>10716270
15.(revised) There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality. Or a thing. Or the whole causal chain itself. (refer to premise 8b)

>>10716342
Contradicts premise 1.
>>10716348
Premise 8b is entirely faulty and "thing" is vague. The end of the causal chain being the causal chain itself is incoherent.
>>10716311
I greatly appreciate the comment. I'll be honest that it has taken me a bit to get through it.
I don't see the issue with potency here. You say it's not valid, unwarranted, and inapplicable on grounds that it can only be inferred but how is it not accurate of causation? You seem to be denying deductive reasoning itself over inductive needlessly when both are valid ways to ascertain knowledge.

>The phenomenal regress is necessarily indeterminate, because it is inductive.

Forgive me but I'll have to ask you to explain.

>>10716419
Both inductive and deductive reasoning are indeed valid ways to acquire knowledge, but in the case of causality, which refers to specific events in space and time, deductive knowledge can only be a supplement to inductive knowledge. The fundamental materials of any claim about the world must be perceptions, otherwise, the exercise is purely conceptual, and cannot be related back to the things (objects) to which it claims to apply.

Answer to your question: any empirical regress involves inferring a condition from the conditioned, essentially a cause from an effect. Now it stands to reason that this cause will have a cause, and so on. But we cannot in this way work backwards to the point that there must be a "first cause," because this method drives us to the point of claiming that there is a cause that caused time, or something of the sort, i.e. God, which is flatly nonsensical, because causality cannot exist without time. Therefore the regress is not infinite, because it is necessarily one which cannot be completed, but indeterminate, because it is one which has not been completed. All one can do is work back as as far as one can in the causal chain and, at that point, admit ignorance of the unknown cause in question, without appealing to God.

>>10716453
Sorry, that should be, "isn't necessarily one which cannot be completed"

>>10716419
>Contradicts premise 1.
No. Premise 1 is that causation exists, no mention of potency or actuality yet. Premise uses these terms to explain causation. I don't see a contradiction.
>Premise 8b is entirely faulty
I contest the claim that 8b is faulty, but for the sake of argument (see premise 16r*) it's not necessarily actual anyways. It's got some slightly diffuse potentiality actuating about it. I digress.
>and "thing" is vague.
"Thing" is vague on purpose. Think about it!
>The end of the causal chain being the causal chain itself is incoherent
You speak to me of incoherence! The causal chain knows not of its end nor its beginning, for in its infinite beingness it defies to be defined.
Confined you look around inside, when the answer's outside right there for me to see.

*It should have been
>16.(revised)

>>10715836
What's up with 4chan christians being worse than atheists?

>>10716419
>Contradicts premise 1.
No. Premise 1 is that causation exists, no mention of potency or actuality yet. Premise 2 uses these terms to explain causation. I don't see a contradiction.
>Premise 8b is entirely faulty
I contest the claim that 8b is faulty, but for the sake of argument (see premise 16r*) it's not necessarily actual anyways. It's got some slightly diffuse potentiality actuating about it. I digress.
>and "thing" is vague.
"Thing" is vague on purpose. Think about it!
>The end of the causal chain being the causal chain itself is incoherent
You speak to me of incoherence! The causal chain knows not of its end nor its beginning, for in its infinite beingness it defies to be defined.
Confined you look around inside, when the answer's outside right there for me to see.

*It should have been
>16.(revised)

>>10716453
But we're not talking about accidental causal series and so talking about a first cause that causes time itself is altogether unrelated. For accidental causal series you are entirely correct but for essential causal series we are not going backwards in time but ultimately looking at what is a sustaining causation.

>Both inductive and deductive reasoning are indeed valid ways to acquire knowledge, but in the case of causality, which refers to specific events in space and time, deductive knowledge can only be a supplement to inductive knowledge. The fundamental materials of any claim about the world must be perceptions, otherwise, the exercise is purely conceptual, and cannot be related back to the things (objects) to which it claims to apply.

>Both inductive and deductive reasoning are indeed valid ways to acquire knowledge, but in the case of causality, which refers to specific events in space and time, deductive knowledge can only be a supplement to inductive knowledge. The fundamental materials of any claim about the world must be perceptions, otherwise, the exercise is purely conceptual, and cannot be related back to the things (objects) to which it claims to apply.

Deductive knowledge can only supplement inductive knowledge insofar as it would require empirical premises, not that it would require inductive proof of its result to be valid. Else no-go theorems simply would not get off the ground.

How could they not be related back to the objects in reference?

>pic
Sad thing is they likely did.

>>10716501
Welp. Didn't mean to double post that greentext.
>>10716491
>>10716500
>No. Premise 1 is that causation exists, no mention of potency or actuality yet. Premise 2 uses these terms to explain causation. I don't see a contradiction.
Fair enough, it contradicts Premise 3 then.
>I contest the claim that 8b is faulty, but for the sake of argument (see premise 16r*) it's not necessarily actual anyways. It's got some slightly diffuse potentiality actuating about it. I digress.
Do you reference a revised premise that cites a premise that you refute by the end of the sentence.
>"Thing" is vague on purpose. Think about it!
"No!"
>You speak to me of incoherence! The causal chain knows not of its end nor its beginning, for in its infinite beingness it defies to be defined.
>Confined you look around inside, when the answer's outside right there for me to see.
Well I have been trolled enough for tonight then.

>>10716501
Right, but there is no "essential" causal series, because what you call an "accidental" series is simply a phenomenal series subject to empirical laws, while this "essential" series is how causation would operate absent human perception. But causality cannot operate absent human perception, because it is grounded in the fundamental forms of perception, space and time. The idea of "sustaining" causation is subject to the same problem as what causes time, except in this case, you are talking about what causes causality. Nothing extraneous to the human mind can "cause" causality, otherwise you run into the above mentioned problem; you extract causality from the arena in which it functions.

Yes, the fundamental materials of intuition can take the form of premises that are validated by deduction. But the premises (major and minor) must be empirical in order for the entire proof to be properly realigned with an empirical cognition. If one or the other is notional (a pure concept), you end engaging in transcendental sophism.

>>10716099
And that's exactly the challenge that committed relationships or faith tend to face when you want them to be a part of your life.

Because you're afraid to give an inch, lest ye be cucked or something else about a sexual humiliation fetish. Peel off the layers of pejorative and 'submit' doesn't mean what you think (especially with an SO). SUBmit might even be the wrong word. Perhaps "commit" is better.

>>10716517
>Fair enough, it contradicts Premise 3 then.
As does Premise 16.
>Do you reference a revised premise that cites a premise that you refute by the end of the sentence.
I made in mistake here >>10716348. It should have been a revision of your premise 16.
>"No!"
Boring!
>Well I have been trolled enough for tonight then.
Humor does not necessarily (I'm sorry!) have to detract from earnestness. Maybe you'll reconsider your "No!"?

>>10716531
But essential causal series are empirically verifiable. In the most basic sense, things being used instrumentally via other objects (I hit a baseball via a bat, not simply I moving the bat and the bat moving the ball) exists so I'd have to say you're bluntly wrong.
This is not precisely "causing causation" either. The issue with "causing time" is that it causation requires time and would lead to saying it existed "before time", which is incoherent. However in the case of sustaining causation the "first cause" would just be beginning essential chains of causation. This is not causing causation as causation would pre-exist in the first cause rather than be brought into existence in some incoherent way by it. It's simply not a similar scenario to "causing time".

>But the premises (major and minor) must be empirical in order for the entire proof to be properly realigned with an empirical cognition. If one or the other is notional (a pure concept), you end engaging in transcendental sophism.

Forgive me but I'll have to ask you to explain what you're meaning by this conundrum. I think it may be too late here for me so I'll head off and get back to you when I'm a bit more coherent tomorrow.

>>10716564
>As does Premise 16
No it doesn't. Causation involving the actual bringing out the potential from another object (premise 3) does not contradict there being something purely actual.

>>10716603
>But essential causal series are empirically verifiable. In the most basic sense, things being used instrumentally via other objects (I hit a baseball via a bat, not simply I moving the bat and the bat moving the ball) exists so I'd have to say you're bluntly wrong.
This seems like a completely linguistic distinction.
>causation would pre exist
This is what I mean by removing causality from its proper grounding. You're saying causation exists through God prior to His creation of the universe, which it must, if God is prior to the universe. But don't you see that adding God into the mix doesn't solve the problem? This first cause is something totally abstracted from the sense, indeed, even set apart from the universe, so it's still a purely formal rendering of causality that has no bearing on the phenomenal world.

By the "conundrum" I mean that if you posit in the major something purely conceptual like "causation exists," then posit something based on an empirical framework, as you did with the potentiality/actuality point, you are engaging in a transcendental sophism, i.e., you are seeking to explain with pure concepts the empirical. For no one can seriously doubt causality's utility as an idea, but working downward from its signification as a pure idea is not permissible with regard to phenomena because the absolute concept in itself contains the idea of its completion. The need for a first cause is fabricated by the pure idea of causality.