A Couple of Fair Questions

[pat1911]

That's nonsense.

If you're still up for reasonable philosophical/ scientific debate, I am willing. I don't agree with Lambert and I don't know what his point is.

It is not difficult to understand.

Time is, but is without an existence of being.

Space is, but is without a existence of being.

God is, but is without an existence of being.

Life is, but is without and existence of being.

Truth is, but is without an existence of being.

You are, and have an existence of being.

Therefore, you are all of the above and the center of the universe in the end.

You could have shortened that list by consulting the term 'metaphysics'. We understand the physical through the metaphysical and the physical need not exist for the metaphysical to exist. Yes, it's a 'higher realm' of existence, if you will as metaphysics deals in absolutes and is not subject to the physical, but rather the physical is subject to the metaphysical. Nature does not and cannot violate natural law. But I am not sure what it has to do with the conversation in this thread.

[Lambert]

That's nonsense.

If you're still up for reasonable philosophical/ scientific debate, I am willing. I don't agree with Lambert and I don't know what his point is.

It is not difficult to understand.

Time is, but is without an existence of being.

Space is, but is without a existence of being.

God is, but is without an existence of being.

Life is, but is without and existence of being.

Truth is, but is without an existence of being.

You are, and have an existence of being.

Therefore, you are all of the above and the center of the universe in the end.

You could have shortened that list by consulting the term 'metaphysics'. We understand the physical through the metaphysical and the physical need not exist for the metaphysical to exist. Yes, it's a 'higher realm' of existence, if you will as metaphysics deals in absolutes and is not subject to the physical, but rather the physical is subject to the metaphysical. Nature does not and cannot violate natural law. But I am not sure what it has to do with the conversation in this thread.

Yes, and that is exactly the way it is.

Huh? The universe is eternal and all?

How can the universe be eternal if it does not even exist?

But I would not agree that the metaphysical can exist without the physical because the physical is needed to present the metaphysical as the essence that we may call a horse, but does not exist until we first see a horse, and then it is the horseness of a horse that makes the horse in the likeness of a horse. 

[pat1911]

That's nonsense.

If you're still up for reasonable philosophical/ scientific debate, I am willing. I don't agree with Lambert and I don't know what his point is.

It is not difficult to understand.

Time is, but is without an existence of being.

Space is, but is without a existence of being.

God is, but is without an existence of being.

Life is, but is without and existence of being.

Truth is, but is without an existence of being.

You are, and have an existence of being.

Therefore, you are all of the above and the center of the universe in the end.

You could have shortened that list by consulting the term 'metaphysics'. We understand the physical through the metaphysical and the physical need not exist for the metaphysical to exist. Yes, it's a 'higher realm' of existence, if you will as metaphysics deals in absolutes and is not subject to the physical, but rather the physical is subject to the metaphysical. Nature does not and cannot violate natural law. But I am not sure what it has to do with the conversation in this thread.

Yes, and that is exactly the way it is.

Huh? The universe is eternal and all?

How can the universe be eternal if it does not even exist?

But I would not agree that the metaphysical can exist without the physical because the physical is needed to present the metaphysical as the essence that we may call a horse, but does not exist until we first see a horse, and then it is the horseness of a horse that makes the horse in the likeness of a horse.

The universe doesn't exist? I am not even going to bother.

[Lambert]

The universe doesn't exist? I am not even going to bother.

Show me where it is.

[osmosis321]

If you're still up for reasonable philosophical/ scientific debate, I am willing. I don't agree with Lambert and I don't know what his point is.

I'm still here, and my position hasn't changed.  I consider Craig dead wrong on almost every point, and I'm willing to argue that on any front.

[Lambert]

If you're still up for reasonable philosophical/ scientific debate, I am willing. I don't agree with Lambert and I don't know what his point is.

I'm still here, and my position hasn't changed.  I consider Craig dead wrong on almost every point, and I'm willing to argue that on any front.

Yes, but just a different wrong.

[osmosis321]

Yes, but just a different wrong.

I have a feeling I'll end up regretting asking, but what do you mean?

[osmosis321]

But Craig is completely right: existence, as Kant pointed out, is not a property of things, but it can, in a way, be a great making property.

Excellent!  I got that wrong.  Craig didn't say that exactly, and you're defending my accidental strawman.  If that doesn't show you up for the doofus you clearly are, I don't know what does.

[osmosis321]

- Are there real, demonstrated exceptions to this causal principle in the natural world?

Yes.  Look up nuclear physics, there is no cause ascribable to instances of radioactive decay.  It's a statistical process, not a deterministic one.

So, in the instance of particles seemingly fluctuating in and out of existence...can I remove the quantum vacuum and/or the laws...and still get the particles"?

Surely, noone really knows.  Noone can "remove the quantum vacuum" without adding something, knowwhatImean?

Can Stephen Hawking claim that the universe came into existence without a cause while simultaneously appealing to laws like gravity as a precursor (or a simultaneous cause) to that universe? 

Precursor:  I wouldn't imagine so, please show me a link to this statement.
Simultaneous: Linky.

As I understand it: no, none of the physical laws we take for granted are involved as a "precursor" or "cause" to those very laws.  This seems logically absolute to me: If I make a peanut butter sandwich, I can't use that peanut butter sandwich to explain the peanut butter sandwich I made.

-  Does not the scientist assume causality as a metaphysical principle

No, WLC does that.

It seems like causality is a philosophical/metaphysical principle, and not a scientific/empirical one, as it informs the scientific method itself.

You're so close to being right!  Causality is a *physical* principle, not a metaphysical one.  Causality is about the rules of this universe, not about the rules that precede the rules of this universe.

Just my two cents, let me know what you think!

I think you ask very good questions.

[Lambert]

Yes, but just a different wrong.

I have a feeling I'll end up regretting asking, but what do you mean?

The latest count I heard was 33.000 all wrong in their own kind of way. They each have snippets of truth they run away with and conjured into a salvation recipe on which they stand and are ready to die for, and most certainly will.

I can lead you to a book that makes this very clear, but the problem is that it is not an easy read. It is called "The Consolation of Philosophy" by Boethuis, and there you will see on page 2 Book 1 that "Her dress had been torn by the hands of marauders who had each carried off such pieces is he could get."

Wisdom here is woman presiding over our TOL. We call her Mary for short as local and she is the curse in every one of the above. This is just to give you a hint how they make it very obvious as seen from above.

The writing style is "poetry and prose" where the poetry must give direction to  the prose because we can read poetry with lyric vision to give direction to the prose that is free-flow by induction from the divine (called neologic induction proper).

[Lambert]

- Are there real, demonstrated exceptions to this causal principle in the natural world?

It seems like causality is a philosophical/metaphysical principle, and not a scientific/empirical one, as it informs the scientific method itself.

You're so close to being right!  Causality is a *physical* principle, not a metaphysical one.  Causality is about the rules of this universe, not about the rules that precede the rules of this universe.

I often trip over the use of the words causation and causality that have no place in philosophy itself where even the word reality is not real, but points at truth inside the description that is made. 

[pat1911]

If you're still up for reasonable philosophical/ scientific debate, I am willing. I don't agree with Lambert and I don't know what his point is.

I'm still here, and my position hasn't changed.  I consider Craig dead wrong on almost every point, and I'm willing to argue that on any front.

Well my questions still stands: Where in the universe does causation end?
Or if you prefer, pick a point you think Craig is wrong... Can't do just the whole thing, it's over an hour long.

[pat1911]

The universe doesn't exist? I am not even going to bother.

Show me where it is.

Go outside, Look up.
Just because you cannot prove something as an absolute doesn't mean it does not exist, it means it's not an absolute. It is however, very highly probable to a high degree of certainty. If your point is that you have to take it on faith, yes to a certain degree you do.
Nothing physical is a certainty. But you cannot get to certainties without the physical. Here is where Kant wins.

[Lambert]

The universe doesn't exist? I am not even going to bother.

Show me where it is.

Go outside, Look up.
Just because you cannot prove something as an absolute doesn't mean it does not exist, it means it's not an absolute. It is however, very highly probable to a high degree of certainty. If your point is that you have to take it on faith, yes to a certain degree you do.
Nothing physical is a certainty. But you cannot get to certainties without the physical. Here is where Kant wins.

That is my point. I see nothing but empty space until cloud comes by and then I see a cloud. And there may be particles and atoms in space and that can only be if there is room for them in space, and that can only be if space has no being of its own.

Oh, and Kant will always be wrong because certainty is found in the essence of being and not in the being he was looking at. This is where the Universe has no being, eternity has Being in all beings to make beings the embodiment of the Being that makes infinity known on earth.

[osmosis321]

Where in the universe does causation end?

Nowhere IN the universe, but everywhere outside it.