Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

That's Where the Truth is Found


Ben Masada

Recommended Posts

I love it when someone starts out a response with a blunt,"No," but then fails to say anything. I really think you should read up on the subject before being so absolute.

Frank, I was a very young and naive 'grad' student back in 1981. A fellow student and I got into a debate about causation. He pushed his ashtry and asked me why it moved. I said, "because you pushed it." He said, "I pushed it, but how do you know that caused it to move?" I was directed to Hume, and some open horizons that haven't all been colored in yet. It was a good learning experience, and kept me humble in this vast universe. . .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not, it is not missing, it is simply irrelevant because, as I said, I hold to the belief there has never been "nothing".

Because there has never been "nothing", there is no requirement for a creator to make something from nothing.

No, I'm not. You are misunderstanding almost every statement I make.

Leonardo, are you saying that (instead of 'there has never been nothing') that "there has always been something?" It sounds like BM is positing what that something is. It sounds like you are not. Is this accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank, I was a very young and naive 'grad' student back in 1981. A fellow student and I got into a debate about causation. He pushed his ashtry and asked me why it moved. I said, "because you pushed it." He said, "I pushed it, but how do you know that caused it to move?" I was directed to Hume, and some open horizons that haven't all been colored in yet. It was a good learning experience, and kept me humble in this vast universe. . .

You should have punched him on the nose and then asked him "How do you know it was that punch that caused your nose to bleed?"

This student wasn't promoting philosophy, he was promoting semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have punched him on the nose and then asked him "How do you know it was that punch that caused your nose to bleed?"

This student wasn't promoting philosophy, he was promoting semantics.

No -- there is many a slip between the push and the movement -- it gets down to electrons repelling each other and where in their orbits they happen to be and that gets down to the nature of negative electricity and why it has a repulsive effect on other negative charges, and if you answer that it gets down to why whatever answer you may have reached is the case, and so on in an infinite spiral.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leonardo, are you saying that (instead of 'there has never been nothing') that "there has always been something?" It sounds like BM is positing what that something is. It sounds like you are not. Is this accurate?

Very much so. Ben is limiting the unknown to something that conforms to his belief. I am suggesting if it unknown it cannot be limited so. However, I then apply reason to this unknown and examine what is known to extrapolate what is (imo) most likely. Given the known fact of the universe's existence; that something always arises from something (i.e. conservation of energy); that things aren't 'created' in the sense Ben uses the term; and the complete lack of evidence for a creator, the most likely conclusion is that the universe has always existed, negating the requirement for a creator.

It is, I suppose, an application of Occam's Razor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No -- there is many a slip between the push and the movement -- it gets down to electrons repelling each other and where in their orbits they happen to be and that gets down to the nature of negative electricity and why it has a repulsive effect on other negative charges, and if you answer that it gets down to why whatever answer you may have reached is the case, and so on in an infinite spiral.

It doesn't matter, Frank - it's all semantic play on what "push" means. The student "pushed" the ashtray. Whether that "push" resulted in "electrons repelling each other" or not - it was the "push" which caused the ashtray to move.

It doesn't matter what you define "push" as, it was the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it when someone starts out a response with a blunt,"No," but then fails to say anything. I really think you should read up on the subject before being so absolute.

There is nothing absolute about man and what he does. We exploring the truth with by means of relative terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter, Frank - it's all semantic play on what "push" means. The student "pushed" the ashtray. Whether that "push" resulted in "electrons repelling each other" or not - it was the "push" which caused the ashtray to move.

It doesn't matter what you define "push" as, it was the cause.

That's great Leonardo!, I couldn't have put it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very much so. Ben is limiting the unknown to something that conforms to his belief. I am suggesting if it unknown it cannot be limited so. However, I then apply reason to this unknown and examine what is known to extrapolate what is (imo) most likely. Given the known fact of the universe's existence; that something always arises from something (i.e. conservation of energy); that things aren't 'created' in the sense Ben uses the term; and the complete lack of evidence for a creator, the most likely conclusion is that the universe has always existed, negating the requirement for a creator.

It is, I suppose, an application of Occam's Razor.

Thanks for the answer. I can take the next unit of reading comprehension, I guess. Seriously, I wanted to confirm that I grasped your position before I pondered it. This has (more than semantic) implications for a theological (not exclusively, but including, Christian) cosmology and the differentiation between 'eternity' and 'infinity'.

As for my fellow student, I don't think punching him in the nose would have helped, except to learn the causation of my hands being immobilized behind my back by locking steel bracelets.

I don't know if Hume was merely a semanticist, but he did destroy causation as a simple matter and anticipate what future theorists would propose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very much so. Ben is limiting the unknown to something that conforms to his belief. I am suggesting if it unknown it cannot be limited so. However, I then apply reason to this unknown and examine what is known to extrapolate what is (imo) most likely. Given the known fact of the universe's existence; that something always arises from something (i.e. conservation of energy); that things aren't 'created' in the sense Ben uses the term; and the complete lack of evidence for a creator, the most likely conclusion is that the universe has always existed, negating the requirement for a creator.

It is, I suppose, an application of Occam's Razor.

It is very easy to say something but to prove it is the strike that broke the camel's back. The "logic" that something always arises from something else is false because nothing can go back ad infinitum as matter is concerned. The universe is made out of matter and even according to the theory of the BB it did have a beginning according to the majority of the scientists especially astrophysicists. If things are not created according to my reasoning all you have to do is to present the evidences that they are eternal or caused themselves to exist. You can't as an evidence that rather your logic is at fault.

To talk about "complete lack of evidence for a creator" is possible only according to your preconceived notions which is totally destitute of logical reasoning. You are part of the universe; have you always existed? No, you were caused to exist by your parents. If you go back to the "beginning" yes, the beginning which is corroborated by Science through the BB and by the Bible, the Creator becomes obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the heavens do not declare the Glory of God. They are silent on the subject. Ask any astronomer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very easy to say something but to prove it is the strike that broke the camel's back. The "logic" that something always arises from something else is false because nothing can go back ad infinitum as matter is concerned. The universe is made out of matter and even according to the theory of the BB it did have a beginning according to the majority of the scientists especially astrophysicists. If things are not created according to my reasoning all you have to do is to present the evidences that they are eternal or caused themselves to exist. You can't as an evidence that rather your logic is at fault.

To talk about "complete lack of evidence for a creator" is possible only according to your preconceived notions which is totally destitute of logical reasoning. You are part of the universe; have you always existed? No, you were caused to exist by your parents. If you go back to the "beginning" yes, the beginning which is corroborated by Science through the BB and by the Bible, the Creator becomes obvious.

Strictly speaking, "I" wasn't caused to exist by my parents as "I" am a result of my life experience since birth - but that is probably a bit pedantic as I do understand the point you are making.

"There is causality." is your point, and I agree 100%. Which brings us to the tricky situation regarding the "Creator" you allege exists. If causality is true, what caused that Creator?

And your constant reference to BBT 'explaining' the (observable) universe had a beginning ignores that BBT does not attempt to explain what existed before that beginning. BBT does not state there was nothing, but alludes to there being something (a singularity.) BBT attempts to explain in natural terminology why that singularity became our universe, and does not promote the notion it was through the action of a "Creator".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the heavens do not declare the Glory of God. They are silent on the subject. Ask any astronomer.

You are right. The heavens aka the universe do not declare the Glory of God but according to the members of the literal interpretation club who have no idea of metaphorical language. Do you thing that the universe has to speak like a man for us to understand? Have mercy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. The heavens aka the universe do not declare the Glory of God but according to the members of the literal interpretation club who have no idea of metaphorical language. Do you thing that the universe has to speak like a man for us to understand? Have mercy!

Oh it just strikes me that God forgot to mention his presence in the Universe while He was making it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. The heavens aka the universe do not declare the Glory of God but according to the members of the literal interpretation club who have no idea of metaphorical language. Do you thing that the universe has to speak like a man for us to understand? Have mercy!

But all the various 'revealed religions' - including Judaism - are based exactly on "the universe speaking like a man" through the premise the subject of those religions has communicated it's existence to us via human language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But all the various 'revealed religions' - including Judaism - are based exactly on "the universe speaking like a man" through the premise the subject of those religions has communicated it's existence to us via human language.

Human language is human invented and full of ambiguities and possibilities for misinterpretation. Look at the mess of religions we have. Surely God would have chosen a better medium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking, "I" wasn't caused to exist by my parents as "I" am a result of my life experience since birth - but that is probably a bit pedantic as I do understand the point you are making.

"There is causality." is your point, and I agree 100%. Which brings us to the tricky situation regarding the "Creator" you allege exists. If causality is true, what caused that Creator?

And your constant reference to BBT 'explaining' the (observable) universe had a beginning ignores that BBT does not attempt to explain what existed before that beginning. BBT does not state there was nothing, but alludes to there being something (a singularity.) BBT attempts to explain in natural terminology why that singularity became our universe, and does not promote the notion it was through the action of a "Creator".

Yes, I do believe in the concept of causality. And to answer your question about the Creator, if He was caused to exist He would not be the Creator but the One Who caused it to exist. And do not take that chain back because it will be tedious and a wasting of time.

Now if the BBT was not the closest-to-the truth achievement ever reached by Science we have only morons for scientists since the majority declare that the BBT brought the evidence they needed for the beginning of the universe. Read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan and many others have given the same testimony in books and in the History channel which I have read and observed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I do believe in the concept of causality. And to answer your question about the Creator, if He was caused to exist He would not be the Creator but the One Who caused it to exist. And do not take that chain back because it will be tedious and a wasting of time.

Now if the BBT was not the closest-to-the truth achievement ever reached by Science we have only morons for scientists since the majority declare that the BBT brought the evidence they needed for the beginning of the universe. Read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan and many others have given the same testimony in books and in the History channel which I have read and observed.

Or, those scientists recognise the 'limitations' of people in the non-scientific lay-community and adjust their use of language and concepts to order. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that at some point there was a beginning of time and that there was really, truly, nothing before that. I'm dealing with two individuals here who have their own mental boxes, one who can't see that time had to have a beginning or there could be no "now," and another who says everything has to have a cause, and can't realize that causation is an illusion.

Well, my ability to explain is obviously less than perfect, as can be said of others' ability to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that at some point there was a beginning of time and that there was really, truly, nothing before that. I'm dealing with two individuals here who have their own mental boxes, one who can't see that time had to have a beginning or there could be no "now," and another who says everything has to have a cause, and can't realize that causation is an illusion.

Well, my ability to explain is obviously less than perfect, as can be said of others' ability to understand.

Why not include yourself and make that "three individuals who have their own 'mental boxes'"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, those scientists recognise the 'limitations' of people in the non-scientific lay-community and adjust their use of language and concepts to order. :rolleyes:

Lame withdrawal but not too bad. At least it helped cover the naked behind of our so called scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh it just strikes me that God forgot to mention his presence in the Universe while He was making it.

Intent via silence? (Meaning, perhaps, that part of the human task is to try and decode from what we sense--see, hear, feel, etc.?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not include yourself and make that "three individuals who have their own 'mental boxes'"?

A bit facile since you didn't bother to do any research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intent via silence? (Meaning, perhaps, that part of the human task is to try and decode from what we sense--see, hear, feel, etc.?)

A speculation that seems to me driven of lack of alternatives.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God was created or caused to exist He would not be God. The real God would be He who created him. Don't you consider Logic an evidence?

Logic is logical, it may or may not be sound reasoning, ya gotta check your premises. You're the one who said 'all things' are caused, and then contradicted it by stating that God doesn't have a cause, thus your statement is illogical, not 'all things' are caused.

It is only obvious that before the BB there was nothing. Only God which any one is allowed to refer to as the "Great Nothingness" or the Primal Cause a title granted to Him by the classic Philosophers.

Evidence please of this 'only obvious' presumption you're making. You are continually conflating 'the universe' with 'everything there is and has been', while simultaneously allowing something, God, to exist outside this universe. On what logical grounds (including sound premises) are you presuming that God is the only thing that exists outside of this universe and is the only thing without a cause?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.