Stupid Question #1—What Came First: Cause or Effect?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Trying to sound all knowing is where your stupid question comes from. A little cause and effect.

Got that example from some Buddhist writing... But I guess you know more than a religion?

Even Buddhist know the difference between cause and effect...

It's not pocket science.



Your logic is along the lines of that french saying, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc." Or what we call in Spanish, "False Cause."

You really need to open your mind to see beyond the surface and think analytically.

reply to post by ChuckNasty

Trying to sound all knowing is where your stupid question comes from. A little cause and effect.

Got that example from some Buddhist writing... But I guess you know more than a religion?

Even Buddhist know the difference between cause and effect...

It's not pocket science.




Your logic is along the lines of that french saying, "cum hoc ergo propter hoc." Or what we call in Spanish, "False Cause."


You really need to open your mind to see beyond the surface and think analytically.

Yet you cannot answer my question and resort to fallacy (ad hominum, appeal to authority) to put yourself on a pedestal. How open-minded and analytic of you.

ETA: Oh, and I never said effects were the causes of causes. I said everything is a cause before it's an effect. So no "false cause", no "cum hoc ergo propter hoc." How all knowing of you.

reply to post by crowdedskies

I think the question has already been answered. They are one and the same.

I would have to agree. Or they are neither.

TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

Yet you cannot answer my question and resort to fallacy (ad hominum, appeal to authority) to put yourself on a pedestal.

The only fallacy is your logic - which is flawed.

How open-minded and analytic of you.

Pretty sure you asked a question in the opening statement - I could be mistaken...nope, even in your title. You sir, are the one with the closed mind. Asking a question and when given a response you keep stating ad hominum - weaksauce. My mind is open. It was open enough to read your statements and answer in my way..this being an open forum and all. Silly me right? But I'm the one who is claims to be all knowing. I know nothing but what I know.

ETA: Oh, and I never said effects were the causes of causes. I said everything is a cause before it's an effect.

Link: To you stating that cause and effect are the same - I've been saying that they are not the same. No idea where you thought I stated effects were the causes of causes.

So no "false cause", no "cum hoc ergo propter hoc." How all knowing of you.

Nope, just not nuts. My main counter argument is that they are not the same - you get Cause first - then effect. Cause comes first - always has.

edit on 7-11-2013 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

Good game though.

reply to post by ChuckNasty

The only fallacy is your logic - which is flawed.

Yet you cannot say how. Oh wait, let me guess—Buddhism says so? You let others speak and think for you?

Pretty sure you asked a question in the opening statement - I could be mistaken...nope, even in your title. You sir, are the one with the closed mind. Asking a question and when given a response you keep stating ad hominum - weaksauce. My mind is open. It was open enough to read your statements and answer in my way..this being an open forum and all. Silly me right? But I'm the one who is claims to be all knowing. I know nothing but what I know.

Your response was "you're stupid and closed mined" or "read a book or two" (ad hominem), and then you say something about Buddhism (appeal to authority). Then you say I am guilty of a fallacy I am not guilty of (ignorance). Yes, silly you.

Nope, just not nuts. My main counter argument is that they are not the same - you get Cause first - then effect. Cause comes first - always has.

Finally an argument. However, that's like saying "The earth is flat; it always has been". It's merely an assertion and proves nothing but incredulity.

Since you're so certain, you can answer this question, using your example:

Hunger—is it a cause of eating, or an effect of not eating?

TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ChuckNasty

 

The only fallacy is your logic - which is flawed.

Yet you cannot say how. Oh wait, let me guess—Buddhism says so? You let others speak and think for you?

Can't seem to where you state how...other than your own opinion. I did the same. Crazy I know, having opinions and all.

Pretty sure you asked a question in the opening statement - I could be mistaken...nope, even in your title. You sir, are the one with the closed mind. Asking a question and when given a response you keep stating ad hominum - weaksauce. My mind is open. It was open enough to read your statements and answer in my way..this being an open forum and all. Silly me right? But I'm the one who is claims to be all knowing. I know nothing but what I know.

Your response was "you're stupid and closed mined" or "read a book or two" (ad hominem), and then you say something about Buddhism (appeal to authority). Then you say I am guilty of a fallacy I am not guilty of (ignorance). Yes, silly you.

Pretty sure my response to this was black and white. I answered your question with my opinion. I still want you to read a book or two - or is reading too much? I mentioned Buddhism because this in a Philosophy and metaphysics forum - pretty sure the first rule of philosophy isn't to 'not talk about philosophy?' I'm also pretty sure those many years of doing nothing but ponder this sort of stuff trumps your...however long it took you to come to this mind blowing conclusion. I am silly for thinking that.

Nope, just not nuts. My main counter argument is that they are not the same - you get Cause first - then effect. Cause comes first - always has.

Finally an argument. However, that's like saying "The earth is flat; it always has been". It's merely an assertion and proves nothing but incredulity.

Since you're so certain, you can answer this question, using your example:

Hunger—is it a cause of eating, or an effect of not eating?

Still don't make them the same...the correlation is coincidental-no connection. A causes B; B causes A; A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other.

edit - Cause always come before effect. You cannot have effect without an effect...but you can always have a cause.

edit on 7-11-2013 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

The earth is flat - funny. Wasn't there an ATS post on that subject...people can be dumb at times.

TheSubversiveOne

What Came First: Cause or Effect?

When referring to 'action', cause always precedes 'effect'. In fact, 'effects' that follow an initial 'cause', are like domino causes that lead down to zero effect. Zero being the point at which the force of the initial cause dissipates it's energy whereby it cannot be the cause of further effects. Think of a guitar string plucked and set vibrating. As long as the string is not plucked again, its vibration will dissipate bringing the string to rest.

In philosophical terms, it is a circular question that always leads back to the original question...it cannot be answered. However, in the real world, no effect can lead back to it's cause, because it can never carry the same energy as what caused it, This is why we cannot see the conditions that existed just before the 'Big Bang' occurred. We will never be able to determine with absolute accuracy what caused the 'Big Bang'.

Causes always dissipate towards zero through a series of effects.

Nice!!! Cause was first then effect.... The chicken was first, then the egg.. Man was first, then the woman..

To answer your Stupid Question

Cause always precedes effect... They are not the same.



God(s/dess/desses) bless you.

I look forward to your Stupid Question (Fact) #2.

Stay Stupid. I've enjoyed it.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne

Stupid Question #1—What Came First: Cause or Effect?

Something is affected by a word on a screen. The word on a screen is an effect of fingers pushing keys on a keyboard. Fingers pushing keys on a keyboard are an effect of a human typing. A human typing is the effect of a human being. A human being is the effect of humans having sex. Humans having sex is the effect of natural processes. Natural processes is the effect of nature.—And so on to infinity.

Nature is the cause of natural processes. Natural processes are the cause of humans having sex. Humans having sex is the cause of a human being. A human being is the cause of a human typing. A human typing is the cause of fingers pushing keys on a keyboard. Fingers pushing keys on the keyboard are the cause of the word on the screen. The word on the screen effects something.—And so on to infinity.

Everything is both a cause and effect of something else.

If everything is both a cause and an effect of something else, what came first? cause or effect?

It is amazing to see that some folks call you stupid when indeed this is a very good question. Weren't they told that there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers …?

Light can be described as a particle or wave function, depending on the point of view of the observer. Both descriptions are incompatible, yet light exists. The "problem" is obviously how we perceive physics and reality. It is flawed and incomplete, but we're doing the best we can to further our understanding.

Same with cause and effect. It is all part of the same sacred creation that actually has no cause and effect. Some may argue that all atoms are ruled under the simple law of actio/reactio, but our mind, which is made of matter, is able to circumvent that law by having free will. We can think of things without a cause. There may be a hint there that our brain actually functions outside of time. It may have quantum properties that we have yet to fully understand.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne

But if everything is both a cause and an effect, it would go to show that something must first be an effect before it is a cause. In other words, something must be an effect of something else, before it can be a cause of something else.

No universe (cause) means nothing can happen in it (effect).

The cause/Creator is first.

Even if the universe is eternal - that would mean it is both causeLESS and not an effect of something else, but things still develop beCAUSE the Universe exist, so the Cause is still always first.

In a absolute empty infinite Space there are no cause and no effect. Because the Space already takes up all Space there is. So there are no need for a cause and effect.

Since the absolute empty infinite Space exists. It is the only physical Space that can create both the cause and effect.

The question is how.

The answer must be awareness.

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne


But everything is both cause and effect. How can something come before itself?

This is the mistake, not everything is both cause and effect. The first cause is purely cause, there was no previous effect that caused it, it was first, before all, and it cause all.

originally posted by: Cinrad

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne


But everything is both cause and effect. How can something come before itself?

This is the mistake, not everything is both cause and effect. The first cause is purely cause, there was no previous effect that caused it, it was first, before all, and it cause all.

Everything that is finite is always related to cause and effect because they are not infinite. The nothingness is not. Nothingness is the only Dimension that can cause an effect out of nothing.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Cinrad

originally posted by: TheSubversiveOne


But everything is both cause and effect. How can something come before itself?

This is the mistake, not everything is both cause and effect. The first cause is purely cause, there was no previous effect that caused it, it was first, before all, and it cause all.

Everything that is finite is always related to cause and effect because they are not infinite. The nothingness is not. Nothingness is the only Dimension that can cause an effect out of nothing.

Pictures or it never happened …

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Imagine you were looking at a perfect grey scale image made with infinite resolution, the color gradient went from solid black to solid white. Consider for a moment if shades of grey were all that you could see, and you set out to solve which came first by linearly scanning this perfectly made greyscale.

Because of the infinite shades of grey that exist between Black and White, you could never discover where grey began. Every time you see the grey fade to seemingly darkness, upon magnifying the view, you would still see an even subtler shade of grey. And since grey is all that you see, you could never see which occurred FIRST...White, Black or grey.

You also wouldn't be able to isolate and separate White from Black because they both constitute Grey. When grey happens, neither White or Black comes first. Nor does Grey happen afterwards. It's a trinity of sorts. All three coming into existence simultaneously, WHITEBLACK(double arrow)grey. Grey isn't a time related after effect. It's an inseparable, spontaneous happening. In this example, the so-called 'cause' and 'effect' are inseparable fictions.