Thought Experiment

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame we can say that the manufacturing of that firearm was one of the causes for the death of the victim, with said firearm.

No, you really can't say that.

And since you can't say that, you can't trace back infinite causes before the being who intends to create a universe.

If you think that is something you can say, then I won't even bother with you, because it's just plain nonsense to suggest it's legitimate.

Quote by: Kame I'm not looking to point a finger and say "it was you!"

You could have fooled me.

By inferring that one of the causes along the way was a being that intended to create a universe, that is exactly what you're doing.

[Kamehameha34]

No, you really can't say that.

Back that up.

You could have fooled me. By inferring that one of the causes along the way was a being that intended to create a universe, that is exactly what you're doing.

How about you sit tight, and I tell you what I'm doing, mmk?

There's a difference between "deserving of blame" and "causual". Partly due to the fact that blame is largely subjective.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame Back that up.

Do you blame the school your teacher went to for a bad grade you get in a class?

Do you blame the movie you were watching until 1 AM for falling asleep at school?

Back to your example... do gun manufacturer's get tried for every shooting?

How much common sense do I need to recite for you?

Quote by: Kame How about you sit tight, and I tell you what I'm doing, mmk?

Repeating my words like that belittles you.

Especially when you use words like "causual".

What the f*ck does that mean?

Illustrate for me the difference in "deserving of blame" and "causal", because they are exactly the same thing in this context.

[Kamehameha34]

Do you blame the school your teacher went to for a bad grade you get in a class? Do you blame the movie you were watching until 1 AM for falling asleep at school? Back to your example... do gun manufacturer's get tried for every shooting?

All of your examples are subjective.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're pursuing, but I know it's a bad idea to pursue it without objectivity.

Illustrate for me the difference in "deserving of blame" and "causal", because they are exactly the same thing in this context.

No, they're not. You're misinterpretting the context - "blame" isn't even relevant.

"Deserving of blame" is a concept that is completely subjective. Causality is the property of facilitating an effect. Let's look at the gun example:

The blame for shooting you would be on me, as per our justice system.

The cause for the shooting can be traced to before the actual pulling of the trigger.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame All of your examples are subjective.

How are they subjective?

Ask yourself this...

What does the gun manufacturer have to do with your motivation to shoot someone?

What does a university have to do with how your teacher grades you?

What does a late night movie have to do with you falling asleep at school?

All of them are one step in a series of events that leads to another event. That event itself is the cause of something else, but for the purposes of the questions we are asking, it doesn't matter what follows.

You want to separate "blame" and "cause", and I understand why you do, but your reasoning is incorrect.

Intent is the only cause that matters.

The teacher writes a grading rubric that shows their intent as to how they grade. They intended to grade your paper a certain way. Or maybe you intended to spend time posting on Volconvo instead of studying. Regardless, the intent usually points to the final effect.

You intended to watch a movie until 1 AM, knowing that you'd only get 5 or 6 hours of sleep. By intending to not get enough sleep, you caused your later somnambulism.

You intend to murder someone. The gun is just a tool. Your intent was murder, and the final effect was a murder. The means does not matter.

How that relates to the topic is this...

You cannot cite that a being has intent and then imply infinite regression.

Picture a long string. At a particular point you say that that spot is where the being intended to create a universe. Cut the string.

Now you find the point on the string where the universe was created. Cut again.

What you now have is a finite piece of string.

Or find that piece you cut at the intent. There is an infinite amount of string before that event, but infinity "ends" at that cut. It's the equivalent of graphing a line from (0,0) to (-INF, 0)

Depending on how you perceive infinity, that preceding piece of string is only half of infinity.

Infinite regression is not compatible with intended creation.

[Kamehameha34]

What does the gun manufacturer have to do with your motivation to shoot someone?

By not producing guns, killing with the guns that would have been produced becomes impossible.

What does a university have to do with how your teacher grades you?

They hire the teacher.

What does a late night movie have to do with you falling asleep at school

The producers of the movie realize that it will most likely air on television, and sometimes late at night.


I can extend blame as far as I want, and there's no refutation other than "that's stupid/nonsensical."

That's what makes is subjective. Blame is irrelevant in a topic about causality.

You cannot cite that a being has intent and then imply infinite regression. Picture a long string. At a particular point you say that that spot is where the being intended to create a universe. Cut the string. Now you find the point on the string where the universe was created. Cut again. What you now have is a finite piece of string. Or find that piece you cut at the intent. There is an infinite amount of string before that event, but infinity "ends" at that cut. It's the equivalent of graphing a line from (0,0) to (-INF, 0) Depending on how you perceive infinity, that preceding piece of string is only half of infinity. Infinite regression is not compatible with intended creation.

I'm having trouble following this.

Intent has nothing to do with the infinite regress, other than its function as a "domino", because it's still centered around the subjective "blame" principle.

There's no need to differentiate between different "kinds" of dominos - all that matters is that the dominosare an infinite regression.

Given infinite regression, the probability of no godly involvement in the creation of our universe is infinitessimally small. Cutting the string every time "intent" is a cause just serves to segment the string, based on 'blame'.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame By not producing guns, killing with the guns that would have been produced becomes impossible.

So is the gun company the cause of a shooting murder?

Quote by: Kame They hire the teacher.

No, the university taught the teacher. It "produced" the teacher.

Quote by: Kame That's what makes is subjective. Blame is irrelevant in a topic about causality.

It's not blame, it's cause.

How thick is your skull that this doesn't sink in?

Screw it.

You are not worth the time or effort.

Next time I have business at Ft. Meade I'll stop by and see if you're like this in person, because your conduct is completely demonstrative of ignorance.

[Kamehameha34]

So is the gun company the cause of a shooting murder?

Not the cause, but an ultimately vital and necessary cause.

No, the university taught the teacher. It "produced" the teacher.

Oh, I thought you were referring to a college professor.

Same principle applies. But if the teacher's education wasn't a vital and necessary cause for said teacher to give me a bad grade on a paper, then it doesn't count as a domino.

It's not blame, it's cause.

Exactly, so who we blame for an act is irrelevant. For example, we'd blame the gunman in a murder, but the actual murder had an infinite number of preceding causes.

your conduct is completely demonstrative of ignorance.

I proposed the concept, you misconstrued the concept, I explained how, you fall back on subjectivity..

I understand the concept I conceived and verbalized perfectly well. Maybe you should pay attention, instead of being an arrogant jackass*.


*jackass - Definitions from Dictionary.com

It's not vulgar if it's in the dictionary, right? :)

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Nonsensical in preceding the intent to cause an effect desired. If I intend to build a nuclear bomb, you can't blame the college the educated me in nuclear physics. You can't blame the manufacturers of the tools I used. You can't blame the Earth for containing radioactive material. The same applies to a being intending to create a universe. It's nonsense to talk about infinite regression. If it turns out the being that creates the universe had parents, then would it make sense to cite the parents of the being as a cause of the creation of a universe?

When you are regarding intent, then no, that would not make sense. I understand what you are saying now, and agree with you.

Explaining my perspective on it: If you are just plotting out the chain of cause and effect, then it would make sense to cite the parents as part of the causal chain.

I guess it is just a matter what components of the process we are addressing: Intent or Effect. I am very hesitant to use the term 'first cause' because that is usually meant to mean an uncaused cause - a being or thing with no origin. This tends to confuse people.

I think it is safe to say that the sum total of reality has no origin, but that is not the same as saying it came from nothing. Instead, it is saying that it regresses backwards in time forever.

When talking about cause and effect, we have to think through what we mean by those terms. I believe an effect is a state of being that is either a snapshot in time, or a finite period of time. The cause is a state of being that precedes that effect. Thus, all states of being are both causes and effects.

Although the sum total of reality has no origin, it does have a cause. The cause of the sum total of reality at this moment, in the outermost dimension of time, is the sum total of reality in the preceding moment in the outermost dimension of time.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Not the cause, but an ultimately vital and necessary cause. Oh, I thought you were referring to a college professor. Same principle applies. But if the teacher's education wasn't a vital and necessary cause for said teacher to give me a bad grade on a paper, then it doesn't count as a domino. Exactly, so who we blame for an act is irrelevant. For example, we'd blame the gunman in a murder, but the actual murder had an infinite number of preceding causes. I proposed the concept, you misconstrued the concept, I explained how, you fall back on subjectivity.. I understand the concept I conceived and verbalized perfectly well. Maybe you should pay attention, instead of being an arrogant jackass*. *jackass - Definitions from Dictionary.com It's not vulgar if it's in the dictionary, right? :)

Hi Kame,

I think your disagreement with Fonceai is a matter of difference in your understanding of terminology. Escalating the conflict will not advance understanding.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Explaining my perspective on it: If you are just plotting out the chain of cause and effect, then it would make sense to cite the parents as part of the causal chain.

I agree!

The problem with a causal chain is that it isn't linear.

It branches as you go back (or converges as you go forward).

To use my previous example, if the God-being had parents, you can't use a single chain of causality, because it splits at the mother and father (or whatever it might have).

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am very hesitant to use the term 'first cause' because that is usually meant to mean an uncaused cause - a being or thing with no origin. This tends to confuse people.

I agree, it does confuse people. But that is the fault of the person who is confused.

Any causal chain is relative.

The point of Intent and Effect is that, relative to the Effect, the "first cause" is the one where there was Intent to achieve the Effect.

Regarding the rest of your post, I understand perfectly what you are saying.

In the totality of time, you have infinite causes and branchings.

But when you talk about the intent to create you, it starts with your parents, and ends with you.

That's what I mean when I say that you can't combine intent with infinite regression.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai I agree! The problem with a causal chain is that it isn't linear. It branches as you go back (or converges as you go forward). To use my previous example, if the God-being had parents, you can't use a single chain of causality, because it splits at the mother and father (or whatever it might have).

Absolutely. It branches in both directions. That makes matters more confusing, but is unavoidable.

I guess, in order to call something a god, it would have had to play a major part in the causal chain preceding a universe, including intent. I think that including both design and implementation into the definition of godhood will nearly always include intent and primary causality. All definitions of difficult concepts, when analyzed closely, start to require many conditional statements. Reality just isn't simple.

That's what I mean when I say that you can't combine intent with infinite regression.

cool

[Kamehameha34]

That's what I mean when I say that you can't combine intent with infinite regression.

A subjective disagreement with an objective concept. Doesn't hold water.

The problem with a causal chain is that it isn't linear.

That doesn't matter. Each cause is still necessary for the end product.

Let's say that my great - great grandfather conceived by great grandfather the day he came back from the civil war. If he died in the civil war, he wouldn't have been able to conceive, and I wouldn't exist.

The fact that a causual chain is tentacled does not counteract the fact that each step must be completed before the end product, nor the fact that there are an infinite amount of steps.

Also, how far back can we trace intent?

Let's say that a soldier intends to shoot someone on the battle field.

Does this offset the chain of causality that resulted from the generals intent, to attack the people in that area?

It may take the coinciding intent of beings in two seperate steps to complete the end product. That's one of the reasons why we can't end anything at "intent".

[Fonceai]

Sorry, Kame, but if Captain Chaos understands and agrees, that's all that matters to me.

Trying to get someone half my age to understand something when that someone insists I don't know what I'm talking about is pointless.

You're a no-factor in this discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

You fall under the category of "confused" that I alluded to earlier, and I doubt you would be able to get past your own mentality in order to understand.

[Kamehameha34]

I accept your concession, now the thread can be used by people willing to understand.

[Captain Chaos]

You guys are just fighting over terminology.

Everyone has their own pet definitions for words. It isn't worth fighting over. If you were to express all of these concepts in visual representations, your representations would be very similar to each other.

I do think that young people have a lot to offer, and debates like these are good for both young and old, because they help us focus our thinking.

[Fonceai]

Is it really terminology?

You yourself understand what I'm writing because it's not a matter of terminology.

[Captain Chaos]

It is a disagreement over what is meant by 'cause', among other things. You can both agree that a god, many links back in the chain of cause and effect, could be said to be a part of the causal chain, regardless of intent. You seem to disagree over whether we should actually call that being a cause.

[Athena]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 For this thread: God - A being that had the intention and ability to create our universe We - The universe we reside in For this experiment, let's assume that our universe was caused by an infinite regress. That means that it was caused by an ever-lasting chain of causes and effects. This implies that there were an infinite amount of causes, prior to the creation of our universe. Is it possible that one of those causes was a being setting into motion a chain of events that would create our universe? I'm trying to explain this as well as I can, and I know I'm not doing it very eloquently, so I'll try to simplify it: There were an infinite amount of possibilities for a "god" to step into the infinite regress that caused our universe to be born. Given an infinite amount of possibilities, does that mean that there is a sure chance we were created by a "god"? Of course, none of this applies if you subscribe to acausality. I'm not pushing this as an argument for theism - I just want to see some reactions to this idea I've been playing with.

God is not tangible. That means we can not touch or see God. None of our senses can be used to experience something that is not tangible, therefore, we can not experience God, and therefore, we can know God. God is a concept, and there are many concepts of God and gods and goddesses.

Now if people insist in discussing God, please define which concept of God is under discussion. If you are working with Spinoza's concept, it is reasonable to go on to discussing the creation of the universe. However, if by God you mean the God of Abraham, this offered discussion of the creation of the universe is a mix of science and myth that doesn't work very well.

At the very, very least, I hope volconvo can at least acknowledge there are different concepts of God, by defining which concept of God is under discussion. Stop using the word God as though there is only one definition of God.

[Captain Chaos]

Athena,

This is the concept of a god that Kame was discussing:

God - A being that had the intention and ability to create our universe