> > > Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided.-> 
> To speak more plainly, this version of God I'm discussing didn't start out with a concrete plan because it IS the universe. There wasn't an if->then; remember again that God told Moses "I AM" for his name. Why? Jewish mystics, Sufis, Gnostics (when they were around) and Hindus all came to a similar conclusion about unity, even about this very idea we're discussing. The version of God I'm discussing exists only at this moment, can only modify things as he moves based on past knowledge and future prediction. He gets an idea to create conscious beings in order to not be alone, perhaps, so works through experiment to get the universe where it needs to go so that in at least one pocket, sentient beings arrive and can fathom him.-That is the best description of process theology I've read; I may not fully agree with it, but I have learned!
 
> 
> Einstein's spacetime is a mathematical construct that eliminated time as a fourth dimension and simply treats time and space as the same quantity. Time is relative--that's the whole point of the theory of relativity. If time were a real dimension, it would be the same for all bodies of mass everywhere, but for massive bodies, they experience time at a slower rate than small bodies. -And faster bodies become smaller. And speed slows the machines we construct to tell time. Makes more sense to me than it did before. But what of the proposal that a twin who travels near the speed of light returns to Earth much younger than his brother. If time is just a human construct how does it affect biological processes of aging, or does it?


> > Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided.
> 
> A problem. Chance to me implies potentiality without guarantee. I'm potential at BB but must follow certain contingencies to get to me. I'm here, I was not designed to be here, my potential was realized, but it seems all chance. Chance and design are not the same. Yet I am part of the overall process which includes both chance and design.
> -To speak more plainly, this version of God I'm discussing didn't start out with a concrete plan because it IS the universe. There wasn't an if->then; remember again that God told Moses "I AM" for his name. Why? Jewish mystics, Sufis, Gnostics (when they were around) and Hindus all came to a similar conclusion about unity, even about this very idea we're discussing. The version of God I'm discussing exists only at this moment, can only modify things as he moves based on past knowledge and future prediction. He gets an idea to create conscious beings in order to not be alone, perhaps, so works through experiment to get the universe where it needs to go so that in at least one pocket, sentient beings arrive and can fathom him. -> The other thought: if time is a human construct, what is Einstein's space-time? A form of human relativity? Or a form of space evolution from the BB, which we view in a time measurement?-Einstein's spacetime is a mathematical construct that eliminated time as a fourth dimension and simply treats time and space as the same quantity. Time is relative--that's the whole point of the theory of relativity. If time were a real dimension, it would be the same for all bodies of mass everywhere, but for massive bodies, they experience time at a slower rate than small bodies.


> Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided.-A problem. Chance to me implies potentiality without guarantee. I'm potential at BB but must follow certain contingencies to get to me. I'm here, I was not designed to be here, my potential was realized, but it seems all chance. Chance and design are not the same. Yet I am part of the overall process which includes both chance and design.-The other thought: if time is a human construct, what is Einstein's space-time? A form of human relativity? Or a form of space evolution from the BB, which we view in a time measurement?

Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress?
> 
> This sounds liked pre-determinism, everthing planned in advance. Yet another way of expressing it is, I was a potential at the BB, but not necessarily.
> -Your second way of expressing it is a little closer. Some forms of Vedic thought do think in terms of predetermination, but the division is about what you see in the west, with say Calvinism. When it is remembered that the singularity is ALL possibilities, there's no guarantee that you'll actually appear. But the potential is there.-> > Because we cannot truly separate cause and effect FROM cause and effect, the distance between us and 'initial cause' is zero. 
> 
> What you seem to say: My God and I continue to exist together; it seems to jump out at me. We continue our connection that was there in the beginning quantum plasma. The BB is all potential, constant evolution, and our concept of time is of no consequence. My arrival is contingency, a la Gould.
> -Yeah, you're getting it. This is why I liked process theology; the universe unfolds itself and God changes along with his creation in a continuous process. For the Hindus, one can find communion with God by mastering "the present moment." God doesn't exist yesterday or tomorrow, only today. -> If I am co-existing with my God, it seems to strengthen my belief system, not undermine it at all. 
> -Well, I wasn't actually trying to undermine anything; only share eastern perspectives. I thought I was a "miner." Am I an "underminer?" Maybe we can only find gold by going under...-> All of this is perfectly acceptable. It opens up my thinking but doesn't change anything. I am me. I look at reality around me the same way. I appreciate Gould a little more, but think he is totally wrong, as I still think evolution has coded directionality, and that explains much more satisfactorily where we are today than chance contingency.-Again... false distinctions, chance and design. Think process; no plan, only movement along an idea; inspiration on a cosmic scale. Explains much more than thinking of God as engineer... this view embraces chance and design as unity... not ALL things are guided.

Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress?-This sounds liked pre-determinism, everthing planned in advance. Yet another way of expressing it is, I was a potential at the BB, but not necessarily.-> Because we cannot truly separate cause and effect FROM cause and effect, the distance between us and 'initial cause' is zero. -What you seem to say: My God and I continue to exist together; it seems to jump out at me. We continue our connection that was there in the beginning quantum plasma. The BB is all potential, constant evolution, and our concept of time is of no consequence. My arrival is contingency, a la Gould.-If I am co-existing with my God, it seems to strengthen my belief system, not undermine it at all. -All of this is perfectly acceptable. It opens up my thinking but doesn't change anything. I am me. I look at reality around me the same way. I appreciate Gould a little more, but think he is totally wrong, as I still think evolution has coded directionality, and that explains much more satisfactorily where we are today than chance contingency.

The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Buddhists and Indians both think that this foundational thought is the first step to understanding the universe at large.
> 
> You seem to be saying that cause and effect are two parts of the same thing, not a relationship, but a unity. That suggests that cause and effect as an infinite regress does not exist and that cause and effect do not have a temporal relationship, or another way of putting it, part of an arrow of time. Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress?-In a word, yes. If you think of the Big Bang, it was(is) everything that ever is(was). You've heard me say before in this regard that the only thing that truly exists is right now. The passing of time is an illusion of man's measurements. The universe is all-encompassing; my words in green. Study the permutations...-You're extremely close to both Vedic/Buddhist thought. Human psychology begins where we think to differentiate ourselves from the universe around us. Because we cannot truly separate cause and effect FROM cause and effect, the distance between us and 'initial cause' is zero. Viewed singly, there is an infinite amount of causes and effects that leads to David Turell. Viewed holistically, David Turell has always existed. -It's not hard to pick out where Kabbalah and Hinduism share common ground.

The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Buddhists and Indians both think that this foundational thought is the first step to understanding the universe at large.-You seem to be saying that cause and effect are two parts of the same thing, not a relationship, but a unity. That suggests that cause and effect as an infinite regress does not exist and that cause and effect do not have a temporal relationship, or another way of putting it, part of an arrow of time. Does this mean that I exist at the same time with the inital cause of the infinite regress?

MATT: (to dhw): Why do you do it? [...] Why [do] we rank some property higher than others? [...] Why do we decide to reject some arguments and not others?
> 
> MATT: (explaining Buddhist philosophy to David): [...] distinctions between cause and effect are delusions. [...] There is an infinite network of causes and effects. [...] The only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect.
> 
> Answers to "why" questions usually begin with "because". If you're trying to understand why people hold certain priorities, or have certain beliefs, or perform certain actions, how can you possibly avoid the sequence of cause and effect? Can you think of a single answer to your own questions that will not involve that sequence? The fact that there is an infinite network of causes and effects, and each cause is an effect of an earlier cause, does not mean that the distinction is a delusion. It simply means that whatever factor you are considering has a dual connection, like any link in a chain. 
> 
> We can, of course, argue that EVERYTHING is a delusion, but then we might as well stop talking altogether. David says "I know we do not see reality as it really is", but nobody "knows" that. It's a contradiction in terms. How do you know you don't see reality as it really is if you don't know what reality really is? The fact that our understanding of reality comes about through our limited senses and language need not necessarily mean that what we perceive and verbalize is not real, or is not reality as it really is. Try stepping in front of a bus and you'll soon find out.
> 
> The claim that "the only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect" would rob us of virtually every technological, medical, and scientific advance we humans have ever made. Of course our understanding will only be partial ... as you say, the network is infinite ... but without that clear distinction we will be confined to the present state of things: the car will never start again, the disease will never be cured, I shall never know the cause of thunder.
> -You went down the wrong rabbit hole here...
This goes back to my distinction on what it means to know something. Not to just hear it. Not just repeat what someone told you, but to know. Knowing is a marriage of all the causes and all the effects that make up that object. It's a deep understanding, NOT a superficial one. Science's job is to give us workable knowledge--NOT truth. You're describing workable knowledge. -All of the bits of knowledge you discuss here, are instances where you don't really need to know everything there is to know about them: when a doctor prescribes you medicine, he's really playing a probability game. Based on what picture he creates between what you've told him and his tests, he gambles on the right course of action. He knows that if his action doesn't work, he needs to search down another path. If it works though, who cares if he didn't really arrive at the true cause? (Many kinds of bugs are killed with the same antibiotic... and if they all have similar symptoms, you don't really know the cause... it's often not cost-effective.)-> David says "everything I know has a cause". I agree. Matt, can you tell us of anything that does not have a cause? But David is also riding the trail with Messrs Plato, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas on the old first cause bandwagon. I think the only response we brother agnostics can give is that if there is a first cause, no-one can possibly know what it is.-The real question isn't "Is there anything without a cause?" it is "Is there anything that isn't both a cause and an effect?" Chew on that for awhile. It's a completely different way of looking at things. Buddhists and Indians both think that this foundational thought is the first step to understanding the universe at large.

I understand your explanation, but where I am stuck is "First Cause" I know we do not see reality as it really is, but everything I know has a cause.
 
> 
> The Buddhist answer is that distinctions between cause and effect are delusion; There is an infinite network of causes and effects.
> 
> The distinction between cause and effect (in Buddhism) is that they are perspective-based things to begin with. A cause is a cause when viewed as a cause but can also be viewed as an effect of something else. The only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect. 
> 
> This teaching causes alot of heartburn and is a big reason why Westerner's "don't get" Buddhism at all. But when you contemplate the real nature of things, all things are unity--all things are part of the same singularity.-Yes, and the only thing we do not know is the cause of the first singularity that caused this universe. 
> 
> The question of "first cause" is false. There simply "is". God told Moses "I AM." Consider that.-I know, "I am who I am". I've considered it. God is a first cause. Everything else thereafter 'is'. I don't see that Ed Feser is wrong. 
> 
> Reality supersedes all questions of cause and effect--an observer is required to be able to differentiate between them, but the differentiation is due primarily to linguistic relativism...-All reality is cause and effect. Even quantum uncertainty works as averages of all particle movements and states.


> > Thomism is dismissed because he asserts that we can know truth. We can't. 
> > Realism--Thomist variety included, makes this distinction: "Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc."
> > 
> > This has been rejected by philosophers since Hume, with very few notable exceptions, primarily because linguistic relativism is accepted as a fact among humans.
> 
> I understand your explanation, but where I am stuck is "First Cause" I know we do not see reality as it really is, but everything I know has a cause.-Well consider this. -In Buddhism, the idea of "cause" and "effect" are treated as simplistic mental attributions: we separate things to make them easier to handle. A pool cue hits the cue ball. The cue ball sinks the 8-ball. -But, we can only make this kind of distinction on an incredibly small scale. Because the real cause is that you wanted to play pool with a friend. Your wanting to play pool caused the 8-ball to be sunk, not the pool cue. But you had a want to play with your buddy; the want was a cause. That want exists because you know and have a relationship with your friend. That relationship has a cause... -But analyze that same paragraph in terms of effect. Which is effect and which is cause? -The Buddhist answer is that distinctions between cause and effect are delusion; yes statistically a cause exists for a bacterial infection of C. difficile, but the real cause is something else. Something deposited C. diff, and the infected person picked it up. Those C. diff spores are the result of a constant wave of that organism though time, the entire reality of a single person's infection is a single continuous flow of causes and effects throughout time that culminated in that person in your office. There is an infinite network of causes and effects.-The distinction between cause and effect (in Buddhism) is that they are perspective-based things to begin with. A cause is a cause when viewed as a cause but can also be viewed as an effect of something else. The only way to understand what you're studying is to understand it as a unity of cause and effect. -This teaching causes alot of heartburn and is a big reason why Westerner's "don't get" Buddhism at all. But when you contemplate the real nature of things, all things are unity--all things are part of the same singularity. -The question of "first cause" is false. There simply "is". God told Moses "I AM." Consider that. -Reality supersedes all questions of cause and effect--an observer is required to be able to differentiate between them, but the differentiation is due primarily to linguistic relativism...


> Thomism is dismissed because he asserts that we can know truth. We can't. 
> Realism--Thomist variety included, makes this distinction: "Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc."
> 
> This has been rejected by philosophers since Hume, with very few notable exceptions, primarily because linguistic relativism is accepted as a fact among humans.-I understand your explanation, but where I am stuck is "First Cause" I know we do not see reality as it really is, but everything I know has a cause.