At 12:37 PM 12/6/2007, you wrote: >Dear Marsha -- > > > In the past, I've asked you for your argument, but you responded > > with a list of reputable philosophers and a linage of thought. I > > thought this the perfect opportunity to challenge your eluded to > > argument. It has problems. That 'A causal chain cannot be of > > infinite length.' is what you think, not what you know. So no, \ > > your further explanation does not make your assumption of a > > "primary source" more compelling. ...Your "Primary" and > > "purpose" is stating too much. I find no compelling reason to > > adopt your assumptions. > >Perhaps my explanation is lacking something that appeals personally to you, >but what you choose to believe is your decision to make, based on your >value-sensibility. All metaphysical explanations are by nature problematic, >and they can only be offered as hypotheses. The human brain is not designed >to experience the Essence of reality directly; instead we only sense its >Value in our experience of differentiated existence.
I see your explanation appealing to faith. Fine. But I see it appealing to nothing more than faith. The statement 'A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.' can neither be proved or disproved. And now you want to tell me what the human brain is designed to experience or not experience? On what authority can you make such a statement? Have you been speaking to the designer? >That said, I don't think you can deny that a causal chain extended >infinitely is an oxymoron. If there is no first cause, it isn't a "causal >chain." The most you can say is that the contingencies of existence are an >unending series of events, an infinite continuum without cause. As you may >have noted from Wikipedia's Aquinas paragraph, "contingent beings are >insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings." Something >cannot come from nothing. Logically, there must be something beyond >existential being to support this multiplistic universe, whether you regard >it as the primary source or the first "cause". I don't see your logic. Maybe you can present your informal version and then reduce it to the formal version so it can be properly scrutinized. > > To call those who do not agree with your assumptions > > concerning the source and purpose of Reality nihilists > > is nonsense. > >I apologize if this appellation offends you. For me, the compulsive >rejection of any metaphysical concept on the ground that it is >"theologically motivated" or "supernatural hype" is a form of nihilism. I >understand that Value is recognized by the MoQ community (albeit not as >proprietary sensibility), and that there is an attempt here to envision >physical reality metaphorically as a hierarchy of levels and patterns. >While this may be viewed as idealistic thinking, it falls short of >acknowledging -- in fact, it denies --that there is a transcendent reality >with meaning and purpose for the individual. You don't offend me. It rather amuses me that when you get into a corner, you drag out the word nihilism. Can you not deal with the concept 'unknown'? Marsha Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
