anotherfailure

You can't just say it is the nature of knowledge that it must have been caused by something. You have to prove it logically, and I don't think you have done that.

Where did the universe come from? Nothing- it was always there. existence is an end unto itself, as is knowledge. Knowledge does come from nothing, in that it was always there to begin with, and we have just recently managed to pick up on it. If we could not think chronologically, we would be forced to concede that everything had always been the way it was. I think time is an illusion, and the truth is that things don't change. They are always what they are at this particular moment, and though they may seem to change over time, this is simply a function of our weak, organizing brains.

John Page

Agreed, and I'm not just saying it. We acquire knowledge through exposure to stimuli which we investigate. Its why the college system works (i.e. we learn that sport can be profitable ).

Are you seriously suggesting that we can have knowledge of an elephant (or the concept of an elephant) without that knowledge being caused by exposure to information about elephants?

Cheers, John

Name me one thing that hasn't changed.

anotherfailure

Okay...

Quote:

Are you seriously suggesting that we can have knowledge of an elephant (or the concept of an elephant) without that knowledge being caused by exposure to information about elephants?

I'm saying that the knowledge of elephants that you speak of is there, regardless of whether we absorb and organize it or not. Those data are existent with or without our understanding of them, and the fact that we comprehend elephants is of little or no consequence to the subject at hand. There is no cause for that information to be there. There is no cause for us to have perceived it.
Nothing has changed. There is still the exact same amount of material in the universe as there ever was, or ever will be. Just because your human perceptions of reality have changed, does that mean reality has changed? Maybe in your little universe, but not in anyone else's.

John Page

The data were caused by learning about elephants and thet experience of perceiving them is caused by our mind focusing onthose data.

Why do you say "There is no cause for that data to be there?"
Ah! So you're a 1LT rather than a 2LT person....
Reality, is, in fact, constantly changing. This can be measured and demonstrated, it is not a function of (my specific) perceptions.

I suggest that our perception of time is brought about by relative rates of change within reality. Why do you refer to "your little universe"? Is this a multi-verse theory or an attempt at sarcasm to bolster your argument?

Cheers, John

johngalt

I agree with Pyrrho when he says that many of the objects and events in our realm of conciousness have an origin. Getting to our origin, however, is where i am unsure. I haven't really researched much on human origin, but i am not so sure that we have one. I realize that many things do have a so called First Cause, but i think the origin of humans isn't actually the origin of them at all. Just a thought.

Nowhere357

Hey, don't blame me! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)



I agree with John - our perception of time exists BECAUSE of the fact that things change.

This is an unproven assumption. If we accept the existence of virtual particles, then IMO the laws of conservation become an approximation, much like Newton's laws are now seen to be approximation, with Einstein et al providing the more precise versions.

The more precise laws of conservation remain to be discovered, I suppose.

Primal

Ah so the argument from personal incredulity, the "I don't believe it."

Which may as much be attributed to stubborness or ignorance as much as sound reasoning, i.e. not really a refutation as much as mere denial.

The fact is the big bang has evidence behind it(and in logic expert testimony counts as evidence) whereas the creation myth does not. Science is testable, religion is not, plain and simple.

John Page

Touche!

Nowhere357

You know, Primal, every worldview reduce to a tautology - requires circular reasoning.

The "argument from personal incredulity" can be as valid as any other argument. It can simply mean "the evidence has failed to convince".

From a certain viewpoint, to say (paraphrase) "Then study the math until you DO understand"; is no different then to say "Study the Bible until you DO understand".