Ed

Quote:

lp: (Me on the development of a Jesus-Christ myth...) Ed: Mythologies require much greater time than 15 years to develop, so your analogy fails. lp: I wonder how Ed came up with that number, because there is one major modern mythology that has developed at a similar speed, if not faster: Conspiracy theories about the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Only a very small numnber of those actually involved in the event believe that it was conspiracy. With the events surrounding Christ's life, almost all involved believed what happened was fact.

Quote:

Ed: Of course there is going to be such things as inscriptions and coins considering Caesar being a major general of the largest empire on the earth at the time. lp: But where are the inscriptions describing people's direct acquaintance Jesus Christ? There are temples to Asklepios, Greek god of medicine, in various places, and they have lots of testimonials written on their walls.

Given that they were a persecuted minority at the time they would not be writing on walls. Though there are the fish symbols on ancient walls where christians gathered.

Quote:

lp: And the conflicts are serious; look for "Biblical Errancy" in the Library section of this site. Ed: I have, and my statement still stands. lp: You must have done a lot of reading; what errors did you find in the Biblical-Errancy discussions?

Too many to name.

Quote:

Ed: The gospels have much more psychological depth and are much more realistic than mythologies. lp: How so? And why does Jesus Christ fit Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero so well?

Read them side by side. He doesnt and I will show why on another post.

Quote:

lp: ... Even a cursory look at different cosmological beliefs reveals a widespread belief that the familiar Universe had had a beginning. Ed: Yes, but they all have a pre-existing space time universe. While only the bible teaches that only a non-space-time existing creator existed prior to this universe. lp: Which the Bible nowhere explicitly states. Genesis 1 certainly does not state that; G1 could refer to creation from formless matter, and some of the creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is explicitly described as using pre-existing matter. Thus, in G1, God commands that plants and trees are to grow from the land, and in G2, God makes Adam from some dirt and Eve from Adam. G1 is more ambiguous about pre-existing matter than G2 is, but I note in passing that this is more evidence that G1 and G2 are two separate creation stories and not one.

Not explicitly, but it is plainly implied in Genesis 1:1. The matter mentioned later was created in this verse. Genesis 2 is a telescoping in on the creation of Man after a general overview in Gen. 1.

Quote:

Ed: The law of causality is one of the primary laws of logic. lp: Says who, Ed?

Aristotle.

Quote:

Ed: No, an eternal quantum gravity soup is impersonal and therefore is unlikely to produce a universe with personal beings, according to the Law of Sufficient Cause. lp: A "law" which does not really state anything. It is an assertion that "impersonal" entities cannot give rise to "personal" ones; an assertion presented with absolutely zero support.

All of human experience is hardly zero support!

Ender

Causality

What is causality? A law of nature, you say? Aristotle said so, I gather? Whatever a great philosopher said a couple eons ago must be right- just because it's a big name and it falls in nicely with the wishful thinking for God, so it must be!

By the way, don't you think it's possible that 2,500 years of intellectual development has gained on Aristotle?

I want to ask you a question about this 'causality' thing- from what impression, if any, does the idea of cause arise?

Wait- don?t bother. I'll do the dirty work for you.

The common sense idea of causality must come from our daily life, that it arises from our sensory data of two kinds of relations between objects.
Several things:

• Contact: Generally when we decide that something 'caused' something else it must've come in contact or touched it, or be spatially related to the object. Take an errant shot and take the mighty paw of Dikembe Muotombo. When the ball takes an opposite trajectory from the basket we surmise that the defensive player swatted it.
• Temporality:we always infer, from experience, that the effect follows from the cause. the defensive player's hand cause of the motion of the errant basketball is actually two impressions of the relations between them- the hand is spatially contiguous or in spatial contact with, the basketball and the hand is temporally prior to the basketball?s new motion. This sequence is best defined as conjunction.
• necessary connection: this is the crucial important one, that this relation is ultimately more important than the previous two.

What is necessary connection? In a causal event the cause necessarily produces the effect, i.e. that the impact of the swooping 7'2" player's hand on the basketball is the cause that necessarily produces the effect of the motion of the basketball. Now pay attention- where is the impression, sensory data, empirical information do we deduce the idea of necessary connection between cause and effect?*

• Here's a hint- there's no such animal.

Why do we believe in the causal principle, then? Why do we believe that whatever happens must have some cause that produced it? most rationalists like Descartes and scholastic philosophers found this 'principle' as self-evident. This is utterly false since the rationalists have never demonstrated that the causal principle is absolutely certain, self-evident to reason or needs further proof, as if it was an analytic principle like two plus two always results in four.

Most rationalists will come to the defense of the causal principle with some silly shit, i.e. "nothing comes from nothing." Well I hate to break up the theologian's little teaparty but this is circular reasoning, since it only asserts what the causal principle asserts, i.e. that nothing is uncaused! So there is no rational basis for causality.

Reason is inert in matters of temporality, that it cannot tell us anything about factual matters like basketball, for instance. Reason is strictly limited to mathematics and logic.

Could you locate the sensory data of a necessary connection between a particular cause and effect, i.e. the defensive play in basketball? I see a basketball headed towards the basket. Then I see the ball take an awkward redirection towards the bleachers. Sometimes I can hear the embarrassing "thwak" amid the crowd. The motion of basketball is spatially contiguous and temporally prior to the sensation of the sound. I have satisfied the first two relations that are required for the mundane idea of causality. But what about the third? Since there is no sensory impression of a necessary connection, in any causal event whatsoever, what are we left with? Just separate impressions (spatially contiguous and temporally sequential sensations). Therefore, without a necessary connection or reason, we keep on claming that a particular cause has a particular effect. All this boils down to is an idea of a constant conjunction of experience. This methodological skepticism undermines the rational belief of causality and renders the idea of necessary connection between causes and effects worthless, meaningless, a fraud and nonsense.

We infer the idea of necessary connection not from rational self-evidence or from empirical sense impression but from the psychological association of our ideas.

~WiGGiN~

((M$ word smart quotes gremlins))

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

HRG

Counterexample: the zygote (an impersonal entity, since it is brainless) gives rise to a human being: a personal entity.

How the zygote arose is irrelevant.

Regards,
HRG.

Ed

Hello Ender. No, not just because of what a great philosopher said long ago but millenia of human experience have confirmed the Law.

Quote:

Ender: By the way, don't you think it's possible that 2,500 years of intellectual development has gained on Aristotle?

No, because those 2500 years of intellectual development would not have been possible without a good understanding of the Law of Causality.

Quote:

ender: I want to ask you a question about this 'causality' thing- from what impression, if any, does the idea of cause arise? Wait- don?t bother. I'll do the dirty work for you. The common sense idea of causality must come from our daily life, that it arises from our sensory data of two kinds of relations between objects. Several things: Contact: Generally when we decide that something 'caused' something else it must've come in contact or touched it, or be spatially related to the object. Take an errant shot and take the mighty paw of Dikembe Muotombo. When the ball takes an opposite trajectory from the basket we surmise that the defensive player swatted it. Temporality:we always infer, from experience, that the effect follows from the cause. the defensive player's hand cause of the motion of the errant basketball is actually two impressions of the relations between them- the hand is spatially contiguous or in spatial contact with, the basketball and the hand is temporally prior to the basketball?s new motion. This sequence is best defined as conjunction. necessary connection: this is the crucial important one, that this relation is ultimately more important than the previous two.

Not necessarily. There is evidence that causes can be non-physical. What caused Dikembe to raise his hand to swat the ball?

Quote:

ender: What is necessary connection? In a causal event the cause necessarily produces the effect, i.e. that the impact of the swooping 7'2" player's hand on the basketball is the cause that necessarily produces the effect of the motion of the basketball. Now pay attention- where is the impression, sensory data, empirical information do we deduce the idea of necessary connection between cause and effect?* Here's a hint- there's no such animal.

The impression is in the mind. So you deny the existence of the mind? What is communicating to me thru your computer?

Quote:

ender: Why do we believe in the causal principle, then? Why do we believe that whatever happens must have some cause that produced it? most rationalists like Descartes and scholastic philosophers found this 'principle' as self-evident. This is utterly false since the rationalists have never demonstrated that the causal principle is absolutely certain, self-evident to reason or needs further proof, as if it was an analytic principle like two plus two always results in four.

Actually the correct formulation of the law of causality is NOT everything requires a cause, but every EFFECT requires a cause. Also I am not saying that the law is absolutely certain, nothing can be proven to be absolutely certain except our own existence and that only to ourselves.

Quote:

ender: Most rationalists will come to the defense of the causal principle with some silly shit, i.e. "nothing comes from nothing." Well I hate to break up the theologian's little teaparty but this is circular reasoning, since it only asserts what the causal principle asserts, i.e. that nothing is uncaused! So there is no rational basis for causality.

See above about the correct formulation of the law.

Quote:

ender: Reason is inert in matters of temporality, that it cannot tell us anything about factual matters like basketball, for instance. Reason is strictly limited to mathematics and logic.

If reason cannot tell us about factual matters then factual matters do not exist.

Quote:

ender: Could you locate the sensory data of a necessary connection between a particular cause and effect, i.e. the defensive play in basketball? I see a basketball headed towards the basket. Then I see the ball take an awkward redirection towards the bleachers. Sometimes I can hear the embarrassing "thwak" amid the crowd. The motion of basketball is spatially contiguous and temporally prior to the sensation of the sound. I have satisfied the first two relations that are required for the mundane idea of causality. But what about the third? Since there is no sensory impression of a necessary connection, in any causal event whatsoever, what are we left with? Just separate impressions (spatially contiguous and temporally sequential sensations). Therefore, without a necessary connection or reason, we keep on claming that a particular cause has a particular effect. All this boils down to is an idea of a constant conjunction of experience. This methodological skepticism undermines the rational belief of causality and renders the idea of necessary connection between causes and effects worthless, meaningless, a fraud and nonsense.

But there is a sensory impression of a necessary connection, you have not demonstrated otherwise. We can see or feel the pressure of the hand on the ball changing its direction.

[b] No, see above.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Ender

Ed, the king of one liners!

But of course you can only speak for your own experience, which doesn’t quite translate to millennia. Feel free to correct me here. Why don’t you follow through your earlier assertion to ipetrich, that causality is the law of logic? Are you being disingenuous here? If experience supports the law, then it’s not a law of logic, or knowledge that is known a priori, or independent of experience.

Which doesn't support your assertion at all. Are you familiar with recent philosophers and their attempt at dealing with causality? Or do you put far too much stock in the ancient philosophers who were germane to medieval scholasticism? Does the name Hans Reichenbach mean anything ot you? Karl Popper? et. al.

Not necessarily WHAT? Please be specific in your next post, given that I had written a long paragraph or three on empirical analysis of causality in GOOD FAITH. Furthermore, before I bite your all-too-obvious bait, what do you mean, ‘non-physical?’

*buzzer* that’s quite incorrect. I am operating with an empirical formula of impression – not the common sense layman term which you seem to be laboring with- that impressions are our immediate perceptions, sensations, passions, and emotions. where do you get the silly notion that I am “denying the existence of the mind?” what gave rise to this ludicrous inference?

A solipsist! You’re a brave lad. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein’s private language argument? By the way, how does that so-called “correct” formulation differ from that “everything has a cause?” please, no pithy one-liners you are notorious for.

That doesn’t even begin to answer this section. Are you being intentionally lazy here?

Explain, please. And do include your definition of reason. It had better not be some dictionary excerpt insertion.

Where is it? Don’t just leave me hanging with authoritarian statements like this. Cite an example and verify, please.

yes, you cited sensory impressions. Where’s the “necessary connection?”

above what? Perhaps you fail to understand the term ‘necessary connection.’

~Speaker 4 the Death of God~

(((UBB is the bane of existence)))

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

GunnerJ

Whoooo... boy. This is going to be fun. Ed, I'm going to go get a tombstone made out for you... wait, nevermind, there won't be enough left to bury!

Ed

Well actually it is both though at the most fundamental level it is a priori. I wasnt sure how deep you wanted to go on this one.

Quote:

Ender, previously: Ender: By the way, don't you think it's possible that 2,500 years of intellectual development has gained on Aristotle? Ed replied: No, because those 2500 years of intellectual development would not have been possible without a good understanding of the Law of Causality. Ender: Which doesn't support your assertion at all. Are you familiar with recent philosophers and their attempt at dealing with causality? Or do you put far too much stock in the ancient philosophers who were germane to medieval scholasticism? Does the name Hans Reichenbach mean anything ot you? Karl Popper? et. al.

I have never heard of Reichenbach, but I know a little about Popper as a philosopher of science.

Quote:

Ender, previously: I want to ask you a question about this 'causality' thing- from what impression, if any, does the idea of cause arise....<snip long winded rant that was dismissed>....that this relation is ultimately more important than the previous two. Ed replied: Not necessarily. There is evidence that causes can be non-physical. What caused Dikembe to raise his hand to swat the ball? ender: Not necessarily WHAT? Please be specific in your next post, given that I had written a long paragraph or three on empirical analysis of causality in GOOD FAITH.

Our understanding of causality must not necessarily be limited to our everday experience.

Quote:

ender: Furthermore, before I bite your all-too-obvious bait, what do you mean, ‘non-physical?’

Something that is not made up of matter or energy.

Quote:

Ender, previously: What is necessary connection? In a causal event the cause necessarily produces the effect, i.e. that the impact of the swooping 7'2" player's hand on the basketball is the cause that necessarily produces the effect of the motion of the basketball. Now pay attention- where is the impression, sensory data, empirical information do we deduce the idea of necessary connection between cause and effect?* Here's a hint- there's no such animal. Ed replied: The impression is in the mind. So you deny the existence of the mind? What is communicating to me thru your computer? ender: *buzzer* that’s quite incorrect. I am operating with an empirical formula of impression – not the common sense layman term which you seem to be laboring with- that impressions are our immediate perceptions, sensations, passions, and emotions. where do you get the silly notion that I am “denying the existence of the mind?” what gave rise to this ludicrous inference?

What is an "empirical formula of impression"?


[b] [quote]
Ender, previously: Why do we believe in the causal principle, then? Why do we believe that whatever happens must have some cause that produced it? most rationalists like Descartes and scholastic philosophers found this 'principle' as self-evident. This is utterly false since the rationalists have never demonstrated that the causal principle is absolutely certain, self-evident to reason or needs further proof, as if it was an analytic principle like two plus two always results in four.
Ed replied: Actually the correct formulation of the law of causality is NOT everything requires a cause, but every EFFECT requires a cause. Also I am not saying that the law is absolutely certain, nothing can be proven to be absolutely certain except our own existence and that only to ourselves.

Quote:

ender: A solipsist! You’re a brave lad. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein’s private language argument?

Hardly, in fact just the oppposite. I believe we can know true things about objective reality.

Quote:

ender: By the way, how does that so-called “correct” formulation differ from that “everything has a cause?” please, no pithy one-liners you are notorious for.

Because we can differentiate between causes and effects, therefore, logically something could be a cause without being an effect and vice versa.

Quote:

Ender, previously: Most rationalists will come to the defense of the causal principle with some silly shit, i.e. "nothing comes from nothing." Well I hate to break up the theologian's little teaparty but this is circular reasoning, since it only asserts what the causal principle asserts, i.e. that nothing is uncaused! So there is no rational basis for causality. Ed replied: See above about the correct formulation of the law. ender:That doesn’t even begin to answer this section. Are you being intentionally lazy here?

No, as I stated above, logically there could be something that is uncaused.


[b] If reason cannot tell us about factual matters then how do you know all this about basketball and philosophy? Reason is the ability to use logic to obtain knowledge.

Quote:

Ender, previously: Could you locate the sensory data of a necessary connection between a particular cause and effect, i.e. the defensive play in basketball? I see a basketball headed towards the basket. Then I see the ball take an awkward redirection towards the bleachers. Sometimes I can hear the embarrassing "thwak" amid the crowd. The motion of basketball is spatially contiguous and temporally prior to the sensation of the sound. I have satisfied the first two relations that are required for the mundane idea of causality. But what about the third? Since there is no sensory impression of a necessary connection, in any causal event whatsoever, what are we left with? Just separate impressions (spatially contiguous and temporally sequential sensations). Therefore, without a necessary connection or reason, we keep on claming that a particular cause has a particular effect. All this boils down to is an idea of a constant conjunction of experience. This methodological skepticism undermines the rational belief of causality and renders the idea of necessary connection between causes and effects worthless, meaningless, a fraud and nonsense. Ed replied: But there is a sensory impression of a necessary connection, you have not demonstrated otherwise. ender: Where is it? Don’t just leave me hanging with authoritarian statements like this. Cite an example and verify, please. Ed replied: We can see or feel the pressure of the hand on the ball changing its direction. ender:yes, you cited sensory impressions. Where’s the “necessary connection?”

What is your definition of "necessary connection"?


[b] How is the necessary connection NOT made from sense impression? Of course our mind processes that impression and our mind operates according to laws of logic to make the connection.

Ed

Where are you Ender? Are you not going to reply?

lpetrich

Ed, that is a totally separate issue. Do you concede that myths can develop within 15 years of someone's death?

Then why not write an article listing some of them?

That I'd love to see.

However, G1 and G2 contradict each other in several important details.

One can make a similar argument against the miracles of the Bible.

Ender

Chill, Ed. If it took you 4 days to respond, you should give me at least that much before assuming i won't respond.

Indulge me and explain how it is possible to derive causality from logic alone, a priori, and bereft of experience. Here’s a freebie: this is where Kant made his great “turn” in philosophy.


Study their treatment on causality before you swear allegiance to Aristotle’s view of causality. By the way, Aristotle’s view of causality is far different from the contemporary one, since the word ‘cause’ meant any legitimate explanation. Furthermore he split causality into four: the ‘why’ that seeks the ends, and the ‘why’ that seeks a justification, the ‘why’ that sought an explanation, and the ‘why’ that sought an ‘efficient cause.’

Must? How authoritative, and how groundless this assertion is! Until and unless you demonstrate why our understanding “ought” transcend experience, this remains a gratuitous statement.

Do you have any evidence of anything not made of matter/energy?

for the short-term memory impaired: “that impressions are our immediate perceptions, sensations, passions, and emotions.

A solipsist is exactly what you said was the “absolutely certain” proof is our own existence. By the way, Wittgenstein’s private language argument renders solipsism incoherent.

That doesn’t follow. Just because we are able to identify causes and effect separately in time, that doesn’t mean that an effect could be uncaused or a cause would have no effect.

Not quite if you cannot formulate this assertion in symbolic logic form, or in predicate calculus. Despite our ability to use the law of non-contradiction in identifying temporal events in causality, there is no logic in inferring that something could be “uncaused” or “unaffected.”

How does one gain factual matters about the world? Through the senses. Which isn’t logical because logic is a priori knowledge, whereas factual matters are known a posteriori. How does one develop logical knowledge? By definitions of the constituents employed in logic. Not by experience! Your definition doesn’t cover empirical data or sensory input, which isn’t privy to logic. Which is why I limit reason to strictly mathematics and logic and reasoning in matter of facts to causality- where we go beyond the evidence of memory or senses, we apply causality in making inferences about facts beyond experience.

if I were as lazy as you I’d refer you to “scroll up” and locate the exhaustive and comprehensive explication I’ve laid out in my first post. Necessary connection is the belief that the cause must produce the effect.

What laws of logic? Please be more specific. Are the laws of logic prescriptive rather than descriptive, that they delineate how we process data?

~Speaker 4 the Death of God~