If that's all we're doing, couldn't we define it another way? — Terrapin Station

you're contradicting yourself again. if there exists a non-spatial aspect to reality, the all isn't material. so saying that all causes are material causes, when some causes have their origin in the non-spatial and others have their origin in the spatial is to purposely ignore the distinction between them when distinguishing them is paramount. a first cause is a cause which acts from non-locality to non-locality or non-locality to locality, and a material causes is a cause which acts from locality to locality.

if it involves the will — TheGreatArcanum

Does it have to? Maybe, maybe not.
What wills the will? Itself? How does it do that? Does it... just do that - on account of nothing?

to prove to yourself that you can will without reason — TheGreatArcanum

Can't you?
Why does gravity suck us in and not throw us out? No reason, it just does.
Why are we having this, in actuality, pointless conversation? Why not? We can, and we do.

You're saying that the initiated event's purpose lies in itself; sure, in essence it does.
But why is there an event to begin with? Why, why, why, why...? Why not?
There just is, without anything in mind, no purpose or reason to cause it to happen, or maintain, or end.

You're putting rationale in the whirlpool of ideas, and it's going to sink.

Have you ever read "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings? What i get from this is we should not assume there is no reason for existence and we should not assume there needs to be a first cause.

However some have speculated existence to some extent cannot be explained other than "i think therefore i am". How do you feel about this? I like the book "flatland" by Abbott Abbott

see my profile or click on my name if you would like. No wrong answer.

Have you ever read "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawkings? What i get from this is we should not assume there is no reason for existence and we should not assume there needs to be a first cause. — christian2017

no, I don't trust non-mystics and non-metaphysicians to give meaning to empirical or intuitive truths. we must distinguish between existence as it was before the big ban and existence as it is afterward; there may not be a reason for existence as it was before the big bang because, and this is because it is eternal, meaning that it's reason for existing lies in its antithesis, or rather, 'that there is no necessary reason why it should not be;' however, existence as it is, the material aspect of existence, necessitates a reason, and this is because, as stated in the axiom, that first and final causes exist inside our mind, and if they exist inside our mind they exist in the universal sense of the word, meaning that the coming into being of the universe involved a first cause...why? because the only other alternative is that the causal chain is infinite and therefore there was no first cause, but the existence of this infinite causal chain is negated by the fact that first and final causes exist; if the infinite chain existed, there could be no such things in between physical causes. a first cause involves teleology, that is, a reason, that is, an intention of mind; the existence of a first cause proves not only that mind precedes matter, but that God exists. This post proves the existence of God, but you have to have a clever eye to recognize it.

we should use scientific principles in our reasoning in my opinion. However i do agree that there is alot of evidence (as Alcoholic anonymous calls it) that a God or gods exist. To get a full understanding of reality we should read as much as possible. Given our limited time on earth i would say we'll never come to complete knowledge of reality.

*not gods but higher power as Alcoholic anonymous calls it

Given our limited time on earth i would say we'll never come to complete knowledge of reality. — christian2017

you only need to meditate and treat others, to include all lifeforms, as if they are yourself, in top of seeking knowledge. you can achieve the mystical union with God but you have to be very pure first. if someone tells you that mysticism is irrational or that the mystical union is not possible, discount their opinion entirely because it means that they haven’t yet achieved it and therefore that they don’t have knowledge of absolute context in which they exist and therefore cannot give proper interpretations to scientific facts. they could be the greatest physicist or scientist or philosopher in the world according to societies standards, but that doesn’t make them so according to God’s standards. If one hasn’t achieved the mystical union they aren’t great according to Gods standards and Gods standards are the only standards that truly matter.

if there exists a non-spatial aspect to reality, the all isn't material. so saying that all causes are material causes, when some causes have their origin in the non-spatial and others have their origin in the spatial is to purposely ignore the distinction between them when distinguishing them is paramount. — TheGreatArcanum

Then it's not just due to a definition.

Who is positing something nonspatial? You're saying that materialists are doing this if they posit a first cause? How are you figuring that?

without quoting the Bible i would have to say for the most part you are right. Why i believe the Bible is right is a whole another forum topic.

without quoting the Bible i would have to say for the most part you are right. Why i believe the Bible is right is a whole another forum topic. — christian2017

you should be a Christ, not a Christian.

if you saw my profile or clicked on my name you would realize thats not the case. As you may know an online forum is a bad place to realize someone's character. Online forums are best for discussing concepts and facts. I do appreciate the compliment and i do think your philosophy is a step up from post modernism. On the other hand we can only make decisions on what we have been nurtured with and we in fact all have a similar nature to some measure.

@TheGreatArcanum

This post proves the existence of God, but you have to have a clever eye to recognize it.

It says nothing. Define “God” ... oh wait! You cannot. No doubt you’ll say that is the ‘point’?

It says nothing. Define “God” ... oh wait! You cannot. No doubt you’ll say that is the ‘point’? — I like sushi

A trinitarian unity of Absolute Memory, Will, and Imagination. Of course, to be self aware, one need only use their will and imagination to reference the past, and this process is beyond space and is therefore occurring within a self-referential point. It’s very simple.

Your aware that that isn’t generally what many people refer to as “God”.

Not quite sure that “beyond space” means anything other than by metaphor. We cannot imagine something beyond something beyond space or something atemporal. We can use abstractions that are applicable - knowable - referentially to space and time.

Universal items, such as “as,” “one” and “and” cannot be presented to sensibility in a pure form. They can only be understood by us in reference to items in space-time though. That is not to say these abstract concepts exist “beyond time and space” in a literal sense. To suggest such is to misunderstand how language captures cognitive thought.

Not quite sure that “beyond space” means anything other than by metaphor. We cannot imagine something beyond something beyond space or something atemporal. We can use abstractions that are applicable - knowable - referentially to space and time. — I like sushi

it means the non-local aspect of reality which is not atemporal, but a subset of Absolute Time, i.e. the persistence of the essence of existence itself. we know that information (concepts) is without spatial dimension, we know that concepts exist, so a non-spatial aspect to reality must exist. why? because the non-spatial cannot be a subset of the spatial, it must be the other way around.

Universal items, such as “as,” “one” and “and” cannot be presented to sensibility in a pure form. They can only be understood by us in reference to items in space-time though. That is not to say these abstract concepts exist “beyond time and space” in a literal sense. To suggest such is to misunderstand how language captures cognitive thought. — I like sushi

the can be presented in the intuition as a concept, their pure form lies in the intuition of the essence of the concept itself, in both the relative and absolute sense. oneness is the persistence of the existence of the self-awareness of God, and when we intuit our own existence as such, we are partaking in oneness with the absolute. you don’t need the intellect, or space for this, only time, will, and memory. space and objects in space just limit/expand the potential concepts that we can conceive of, and use as a conceptual starting point to Will from.

because the non-spatial cannot be a subset of the spatial, it must be the other way around.

You can just as easily argue the reverse and come to the opposite conclusion - meaning that the non-spatial is a subset of the spatial known by us as beings living, knowingly, in reference to space and time NOT because we’re ‘other-than’ the world we’re part of.

You seem to be happy to talk of some one/whole yet disregard this when it doesn’t fit your argument. How do you deal with that contradiction?

In addition: time is impossible without space - I’m not just talking physically because you cannot think of items without space, time or substance. They are integral to thought.

this process is beyond space and is therefore occurring within a self-referential point. It’s very simple. — TheGreatArcanum

That's very incoherent rather.

how is the non-spatial point supposed to remain within the spatial reference frame without slipping out of it like sand?

the mind has a dual aspect, one part of the is I’m space, the content of perception, and the other is outside of space looking in, hence the reason man can look down upon relative space and time as an object. if there is no aspect to the mind outside of space, man cannot have free will and all of his wills are merely links in a physical chain of causation extending backwards in time to infinity.

it’s how you use this non-spatial aspect of your mind to say that there is no such thing and contradict yourself all while telling me that my correction conception of the mind is contradictory.

That's very incoherent rather. — Terrapin Station

what’s incoherent is your entire philosophy. the man who holds that all is changing all the time except change itself, and also that there is no such thing as unchanges wants to talk about coherent beliefs, how ironic...your opinion has not no value, but negative value because all of us become less intelligent by reading your posts.

how is the non-spatial point supposed to remain within the spatial reference frame without slipping out of it like sand?

It does doesn’t exist. That is the point. You CANNOT think without reference to space, time and matter/substance. Remove any one of these and you’re left with nothing comprehensible/rational/logical/thinkable - just like you cannot image a shape with no form or a sound with no tone.

Just to further clarify ... A ‘non-spatial point’ is NOT a ‘point’. It is like suggesting there is a ‘non-distance’ whose length can be measured.

t does exist. That is the point. You CANNOT think without reference to space, time and matter/substance. Remove any one of these and you’re left with nothing — I like sushi

you’re committing a fallacy here, that just because this applies to the part that it applies to the whole.


a non-spatial point is just an abstract set

An abstract set understood, and ONLY understood, in reference to spatial. You cannot think ‘non-spatially’ it is not possible. That is my point.

There is no explicit fallacy it what I’ve said.

Note: I meant “doesn’t exist” btw

Just to clarify. I can think of the concept “one” but only because
I understand it’s logical application within a space-time-substance frame. Outside of the frame ... well, there is nothing I can say about “outside” because for me there is no ‘outside’ of space-time-substance.

the man who holds that all is changing all the time except change itself, — TheGreatArcanum

"Change itself" isn't a thing that's changing or not.

Just to clarify. I can think of the concept “one” but only because
I understand it’s logical application within a space-time-substance frame. Outside of the frame ... well, there is nothing I can say about “outside” because for me there is no ‘outside’ of space-time-substance. — I like sushi

you only need the continuation of your own memory set, imagination, and will, to intuit the existence of the concept of unity. all of those things are non-spatial, so one can thinking non-spatially. however, the concepts that one an thinking about are primitive, at least, in the beginning. in imagination there can exist imaginary space, just the same as in the absolute sense.

Change itself" isn't a thing that's changing or not. — Terrapin Station

prove it.

Empirical claims are not provable. Science methodology 101.

.

don’t you mean non-empirical claims?

how are we supposed to know if change itself is changing or not changing, or rather, can become non-existent or not?

don’t you mean non-empirical claims? — TheGreatArcanum

No.