Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    It doesn't feel like anything because I put no effort into it.
    All thought requires effort in one way or the other.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    All thought requires effort in one way or the other.
    I'm being a bit facetious, sorry.

    I mean I don't need to do much self convincing, it's all quite apparent and non trivial to me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    You misunderstand. Cause and effect, the idea that we are so used to observing in everyday life that leads us to make the assumption that all things must have been caused, only exists WITHIN time, which only exists WITHIN our universe. Cause and effect you will agree are sequential, that's the whole point! You cannot have a sequential happening in the absence of time.

    From our everyday observations we have every reason to believe that cause and effect happen within time, and we have not observed anything other than this.

    We have no reason to assume that cause and effect could play out without the existence of time.

    It's a bit like asking WHAT the universe is expanding into....nothing! Expansion is a property of space-time itself, it's the increase in distance between two points in space. We are so used to seeing things within things within things that this is admittedly hard to wrap ones head around.
    I'm afraid we might have to agree to disagree.

    I will agree that, in our universe, cause and effect are sequential. Your argument is that this "sequentialness" is essential to the principle of cause and effect, but that is based only on our limited observation as beings bound by time.

    I would argue that "sequentialness" is not essential to cause and effect, but merely a side-effect of the influence of time on cause and effect. Ergo, something could have caused the Big Bang, and that particular cause and effect was not sequential because it couldn't be, because time didn't exist.

    All that said... I acknowledge that there is nothing to choose between our arguments, as both are entirely theoretical.

    One last thing: it's a pleasant change to have a civil and rational argument with someone who's trying to actually explain a point, rather than aggressively pursue an agenda.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Would you argue that there actually is a right action? Could you explain why that is the right action?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I already explained in the spoiler what I thought of as right.

    Our understanding of reality is what defines what we feel is right or wrong, in that way it is subjective. However each course of action would have reasons as to why it would result in a positive outcome or a negative outcome, in that way, I think it has objectivity.

    Maybe, what is right is not really defined by what we think, but is defined by the common-ground that we reach by discussing morality with other people. We tend to learn what is right and wrong over time, from family, friends & community, by observing the negative outcomes or the positive outcomes of actions taken.

    We are naturally social creatures, remove that need for society and social interactions and we find there is no reason to sustain a morality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    How does it feel to be constantly convincing yourself that God doesn't exist?
    The word "convincing" makes this a loaded question.

    However, putting that aside, it feels good. Very liberating.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I'm being a bit facetious, sorry.

    I mean I don't need to do much self convincing, it's all quite apparent and non trivial to me.
    You mean trivial. Anyways, I don't have anything to say.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    How does it feel to be constantly convincing yourself that God doesn't exist?
    It is the same way I 'convince myself' that unicorns do not exist, tnh seems like more effort to believe in God than it does not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thaladan)
    I'm afraid we might have to agree to disagree.

    I will agree that, in our universe, cause and effect are sequential. Your argument is that this "sequentialness" is essential to the principle of cause and effect, but that is based only on our limited observation as beings bound by time.

    I would argue that "sequentialness" is not essential to cause and effect, but merely a side-effect of the influence of time on cause and effect. Ergo, something could have caused the Big Bang, and that particular cause and effect was not sequential because it couldn't be, because time didn't exist.

    All that said... I acknowledge that there is nothing to choose between our arguments, as both are entirely theoretical.

    One last thing: it's a pleasant change to have a civil and rational argument with someone who's trying to actually explain a point, rather than aggressively pursue an agenda.
    Cause and effect by it's very definition must exist within time. Causes by definition just precede effect. To precede by definition is to occur at an earlier point in time. My point is that cause cannot be discussed outside of the context of our universe, it makes no logical or scientific sense. You can read about this in general relativity theory.

    No problem! It's been nice talking to you too!
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    The word "convincing" makes this a loaded question.

    However, putting that aside, it feels good. Very liberating.
    It's all worth it once you get to choose your own morality, no?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    You mean trivial. Anyways, I don't have anything to say.
    My world is non trivial, is what I mean. Cool.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    That is not the same thing. Logically it sounds like it's the same thing, but as I have said, time is a property of our universe. It cannot exist outside of our universe. Cause and effect have only ever been observed sequentially within spac-time. There is no reason to extrapolate that cause would exist outside of our universe. More than that it makes no sense to do so. It is most likely that the universe is the one thing without cause. How that is, we are working on discovering that, the key is in understanding time itself.
    What's it not the same thing? What cannot exist outside of our universe? Why does it make no sense to extrapolate a cause?

    The reason people argue for a cause, among other reasons, is that they argue for the causal principle. When you say 'it is more likely that the universe is one thing without a cause'. You could be committing the taxicab fallacy. This it to say that you accept a principle (the causal principle) only to arbitrarily dismiss it when it comes the origin of the universe. Of course, you would avoid this fallacy if you give valid reasons for dismissing the principle in this case.

    To say it's more likely is to say you have evidence or reason to make it more probably than the idea that the universe had a cause, can I ask for examples?

    But I want to address the point you made about cause and effect only ever being addressed sequentially - this is demonstrably wrong with incidents of simultaneous causation.

    Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation; to borrow an example from Kant, a heavy ball’s resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in that cushion. Indeed, some philosophers argue that all efficient causation is simultaneous. There seems to be no conceptual difficulty in saying that the cause of the origin of the universe acted simultaneously.

    But even if I put that aside, the bottom line is that there is no consensus on causal directionality.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    It's all worth it once you get to choose your own morality, no?
    Always better than having one dictated
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Yes, but how does having a different height affect whether he necessarily exists or not, whether conceptually or concretely?
    Because a Sirius black that is 4 foot tall with ginger hair is a different Sirius black to the one found in the actual Harry potter books. That fact that you can show a different Sirius Black or that you you could have had the Harry Potter books with no Sirius Black confirms his contingency.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    To what extent does science actually explain the world we live in? Do you think our knowledge in physics is nearly complete or perhaps only just starting? Will we ever 'understand' the universe or are there always going to be limitations to our knowledge?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I get your point now.

    Well it's not that atheists have to declare themselves to be agnostic atheists as it goes without saying that most (informed) atheists are agnostic atheists (that is someone that isn't 100% certain)
    It's only really used in discussions like this where someone is confused about the definitions and we need to be precise.

    I agree with the last paragraph
    Yeah. There's certainly a lot more that we agree on than we disagree.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    For example, many people believe that a god, as an actual being, created the universe.
    Yes? . . .


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    How does it feel to be constantly convincing yourself that God doesn't exist?
    Feels fine considering no continuous convincing is required at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Nope. It is simply the case that people do not generally go round saying that the existence of their teapot is unknowable. It is more typical that people doubt the existence of themselves, as an intrinsic part of nature, the existence of reality itself, or of supernatural entities, an order above the natural world. Agnosticism is most commonly associated with philosophical questions of this sort, and typically to gods, because doubting the existence of the self and/or of reality have their own names.
    Whether people generally do something or not says nothing to whether they have epistemic justification for doing it.

    Agnosticism applies to anything we aren't certain about. We aren't certain about almost everything (perhaps arguable everything)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Yeah. There's certainly a lot more that we agree on than we disagree.


    Posted from TSR Mobile


    It makes me wonder why people have a mental picture of all atheists as some basement dwelling neckbeard. We aren't all bad.
    If people would just put aside the us vs them mentality and engage in intellectual discussion then maybe both sides might learn something from the other.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    I already explained in the spoiler what I thought of as right.

    Our understanding of reality is what defines what we feel is right or wrong, in that way it is subjective. However each course of action would have reasons as to why it would result in a positive outcome or a negative outcome, in that way, I think it has objectivity.

    Maybe, what is right is not really defined by what we think, but is defined by the common-ground that we reach by discussing morality with other people. We tend to learn what is right and wrong over time, from family, friends & community, by observing the negative outcomes or the positive outcomes of actions taken.

    We are naturally social creatures, remove that need for society and social interactions and we find there is no reason to sustain a morality.
    Ok, correct me if I'm wrong.

    You say that we can create objective morality by discussing and agreeing on what is right and wrong, by using reason to see consequences of actions and to come to an agreement what we consider consequences that are morally right and morally wrong.

    But at the same time, there is no morality when there are no humans (no rational, social creatures).

    Which is to say that objective morality does not exist in the universe, but is created and sustained by humans, only to vanish along with us?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.