Quote:In this interview with Closer to Truth, I compare a number of different religious views (Buddhist, Daoist, Abrahamic religions) concerning Ultimate Reality and answer the question why think that Ultimate Reality is a Personal Creator. See my open access book The Teleological and Kalām Cosmological Arguments Revisited. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. 2022. Download from here.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
Quote:Dr. Andrew Loke joins the show to discuss his book "God and Ultimate Origins."
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2024-09-19, 11:10 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel.)
This is an interesting area of philosophy. I agree with the arguments against an infinite past. I'm not so convinced by the argument that a first cause must be a personal being with libertarian free will. That said, I do think that consciousness and libertarian free will are irreducible, and that to me is a good reason to believe that consciousness and libertarian free will are involved in ultimate origins.
(2024-09-23, 06:52 PM)Laird Wrote: This is an interesting area of philosophy. I agree with the arguments against an infinite past. I'm not so convinced by the argument that a first cause must be a personal being with libertarian free will. That said, I do think that consciousness and libertarian free will are irreducible, and that to me is a good reason to believe that consciousness and libertarian free will are involved in ultimate origins.
Yeah I am working through his book that he linked for free.
I will try to post more about his ideas if I think I can present them clearly.
The basic idea of needing a Mind as the First Cause does make a certain sense to me, in that if there has to be a beginning because infinite temporal regressions are unsound then a mental decision seems the only fit unless we accept genuine randomness got things started.
But you can't, IMO, have a little bit of causal randomness. And accepting that reality is completely random means denying the power of argumentation's logical chains...which means any discussion about the way things really are would be pointless...
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(This post was last modified: 2024-09-23, 07:55 PM by Sciborg_S_Patel. Edited 1 time in total.)
(2024-09-23, 07:52 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: The basic idea of needing a Mind as the First Cause does make a certain sense to me, in that if there has to be a beginning because infinite temporal regressions are unsound then a mental decision seems the only fit unless we accept genuine randomness got things started.
I just don't see why either a decision or randomness are required. We don't require that of causes in time (or, at least, I don't), so why would we require it of the cause of time?
(2024-09-23, 07:52 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: But you can't, IMO, have a little bit of causal randomness.
As you know, we disagree here, but I'm just noting that, not seeking to (re)start a debate.
(2024-09-23, 08:06 PM)Laird Wrote: I just don't see why either a decision or randomness are required. We don't require that of causes in time (or, at least, I don't), so why would we require it of the cause of time?
Well for me I think all causation is mental causation, and Time is (just?) observing mental causation in action.
I am a bit confused here, because if a cause isn't a decision or random what is it? Determined as a brute fact?
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2024-09-23, 08:13 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: Well for me I think all causation is mental causation
Yep, so, then, it's not that the cosmological argument in particular convinces you that the nature of the First Cause is personal and free willing; it's simply an outcome of your general view of causation.
(2024-09-23, 08:13 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: I am a bit confused here, because if a cause isn't a decision or random what is it? Determined as a brute fact?
Maybe the best way of responding is to turn the question back on you: are the very existence and nature of the First Cause themselves decided or random? If not, what are they? Determined as brute facts?
(2024-09-23, 08:21 PM)Laird Wrote: Yep, so, then, it's not that the cosmological argument in particular convinces you that the nature of the First Cause is personal and free willing; it's simply an outcome of your general view of causation.
Well it is likely biasing me, but I do think one can come to the conclusion that the First Cause is personal/free without fully accepting the "Volitional Theory of Causation" for all cause-effect relations. Loke himself seems to reject the Volitional Theory while still believing God created Everything.
Quote:Maybe the best way of responding is to turn the question back on you: are the very existence and nature of the First Cause themselves decided or random? If not, what are they? Determined as brute facts?
This is just my preliminary thinking right now...but it seems to me the First Cause could not be determined as we would use that word for processes in time, because there is no preceding cause.
Now could it be random? This gets a bit tricky because can any Unique Event be classified as determined or random (or neither as Thomas Nail would propose), when the usual way we try to figure this out is by seeing the same cause-effect relations across replication.
We could say it is random in the sense that it happens for no reason at all, but my issue here is then are we saying that this single violation of the Principle of Sufficient Reason is acceptable at the Beginning but afterward we have a logical reality? I just don't think this is possible because how can one try to insist that reality is intelligible now but not at its origin?
So what is left seems to be a mental decision.
To be clear this is my intuitive grasping of the argument, I haven't gotten far enough in the book to lay out Loke's arguments.
'Historically, we may regard materialism as a system of dogma set up to combat orthodox dogma...Accordingly we find that, as ancient orthodoxies disintegrate, materialism more and more gives way to scepticism.'
- Bertrand Russell
(2024-09-23, 08:39 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: This is just my preliminary thinking right now...but it seems to me
I have a feeling you've misunderstood me. I wasn't asking about the (very existence and nature of the) First Cause in the sense of the (first) causal event, but of the Causer of that event.
I looked at a summary of the book on Amazon. It seemed excessively abstract to me. I feel that the true nature of time (we hear repeatedly that is different from our time or that it 'doesn't exist'. This means concepts such as 'First Cause' might be meaningless!
On a more down-to-earth level, I think that evolution is likely to be under the control of multiple designers because there are so many predator/prey races that are hard to explain without multiple designers. I have even heard it suggested that human spirits designed life on Earth as a sort of spiritual workout!
David
|
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)