Maybe this is will be my last time to write here Since I almost said everything on my mind, so I hope that I haven't been unpleasant guest. and I want to Apologize to anyone I have insulted especially Nyarlathotep and Randomhero, not including xenoview since I still Insist that he Is Omni-stupid, Omni-Brainless and Omni-Ignorant and IF I would make a Top 100 list Of all stupid Ignorant people of all time he would definitely make it to the whole 100 places in the list. I really hope he won't Interpret that to his FIXED reply on anything that is: "So are you saying that god is a necessary being? can you prove god exists? you haven't proved that god is real, all you do is just claiming that there is one" and this irrelevant bullshit. Anyway, I haven't seen Any Objection to my arguments that can really be called objections, But rather responses that circulate over "SCIENCE doesn't say that, this isn't scientific, You can't make scientific claims using logic, these are not proofs do you have a scientific proof? do not say anything about the universe because SCIENCE says we don't know, do not say that Actual Infinite regress cannot exist because SCIENCE doesn't say that ... etc" we can put it in a simple syllogism that goes like:
P1) X claims that y is not the case.
P2) SCIENCE doesn't say that y is not the case.
C1) therefore, X cannot say that y is not the case.
Now, we all know that there are things that we know necessarily, and SCIENCE cannot "DISPROVE" them such as the law of non-contradiction on which SCIENCE is based. SO, we cannot say that SCIENCE can Prove that 1+1=5 because it would lead to logical impossibilities. So, we can say that SCIENCE cannot PROVE logical impossibilities. they do not even fall under the subjects that It addresses since they cannot exist. SCIENCE deals Only with What is Possible in itself, All subjects that SCIENCE address are not logical impossibilities in themselves. [SIDE NOTE: that doesn't mean that all Possible subjects are addressed by science] but all scientific subjects are Possible in themselves.
So, Before Claiming that SCIENCE can Prove 'y' in the future, we must know what 'y' is. As logicians say, Conceptualization Precede Predication/Assertion. So, we can say that, IF 'y' entails logical Impossibilities then 'y' cannot exist let alone be proven by SCIENCE. So, I would divide the subjects into 2 main categories:
1- Subjects that are Impossible in themselves.
2- Subjects that are Possible in themselves.
And would divide the second category into two sub-categories:
2.1- Possible Subjects that are addressed by SCIENCE.
2.2- Possible Subjects that are not addressed by SCIENCE.
NOTE: I do not consider Art, Psychology, Politics ..etc to be SCIENCE, so IF you do consider them to be, then you can ignore the sub-categorization. Anyway, to avoid the dispute in terminology I'm just gonna stick to the main categorization.
Now, what I'm actually saying IS:
P1) 'y' entails logical impossibility
P2) logical impossibilities cannot exist./logical Impossibilities cannot be proven by SCIENCE.
C1) therefore 'y' cannot exist./'y' cannot be proven by SCIENCE.
For example when I said that Actual Infinite regression (y) cannot exist I argued that it entails logical impossibilities. Now, there are Only 2 ways to refute that claim:
1- You can argue that the arguments that was used against 'y' are fallacious and therefore 'y' doesn't entail logical impossibilities.
2- You can say that Logical Impossibilities can exist indeed and can be proven by SCIENCE. but then you would be refuting SCIENCE itself.
So, when you object that SCIENCE doesn't say that 'y' is not the case OR it's for SCIENCE to prove it OR it's a scientific subject so we need scientific proofs, you're actually saying either that 'y' does not entail any logical impossibility OR SCIENCE can Prove logical impossibilities. just saying that 'y' is possible in itself is not gonna make it Possible unless You Proved it and you cannot prove it except through these 2 ways.
So I'm not really making a scientific claim that needs scientific proofs when saying that actual infinite regress cannot exist, since the mind Is able to reveal logical contradictions unless you're saying that we need a scientific proof to prove that a certain claim entails logical contradiction. in fact it would be absurd to say such a thing because then you would need at least to Presuppose that the claim "SCIENCE can prove that a certain claim is contradictory" Is itself not contradictory. OR you would have to presuppose that whichever conclusion you would get from this scientific experiment would not be contradictory itself.
------------------------------------------------------
There is also an objection that raised by LogicForTW to the premise that states that contingent things must have a cause, which is, as I understood it and he can refine for me, this is only can be true inside the universe or after the universe existed but it doesn't apply before that, because this rule is created inside the universe so I can't use it before the universe existed.
And I would say that is not true, it wasn't created inside the universe, it has nothing to do with the existence or the nonexistence of the universe OR with inside or outside anything. that's like saying the logical contradiction is not logical contradiction outside the universe. the only thing that doesn't need a cause for its existence is necessary. so saying that an essence that is contingent only needs a cause within the universe would imply that all contingent things, before the universe existed, were either necessary or Impossible and that would entail logical absurdities since the former implies that all contingent things have always been existent, but if that was true then what would be left to be caused into existence? that would contradict your statement that contingent things are caused within the universe. And if it was the latter then all contingent things cannot be caused whatsoever to exist. the way in which an essence relate to existence does not depend on the existence of some other essence. because the existence of that 'other essence' must also relate to its essence somehow (either necessarily or contingently). so at the end you would admit that the existence of an essence does not depend on the existence of another essence. an essence in itself relates to existence either necessarily or contingently. a giraffe in itself is possible to exist and not to exist whether there is a universe or not. the Phoenix in itself is possible to exist and not to exist whether there is a universe or not. and the possible( in relation to existence) beings in themselves do not contain the reason for their existence, their essences are neutral to exist and not to exist so they would need an external cause to preponderate them to exist, if they were to exist, whether there is a universe or not.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Hi, Peripatetic. I haven't done my "homework" yet about the Cosmological Argument... But I have a question. It's not that it matters, you have the right to ask anyway and I admire the effort... But are you doing a study for college, church or a blog? Or is it just for your personal fulfilment?
I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if you're asking me why am I debating on this matter. then I should say I don't do it for college, Church (i'm not even a Christian) or a blog. but I would rather say I do it For personal purposes. If that was not your question then rephrase it again please.
I'm sorry, since I live in a country full of christians and churches everywhere, I use the word 'church', as a whole for all religious temples... Apologies for my subconscious.
Yes, that was the question... I was just curious about whether you took the time to write your elaborated posts just for pleasure. Since you say this is your case, I'll give you back what you told me in another post. RESPECT.
(deleted)
Happy to expand on the part you mentioned me.
I actually am saying a logical contradiction is not a logical contradiction outside the universe. All rules of logic, of science, of nature, of chemistry, gravity, physics, quantum physics. Absolutely everything we learned and observed. All of our collective knowledge is contained within the "box" that is the universe. You can not build any argument one way or another on what is utterly unknown. Logic no longer holds sway before or outside the universe, (if there even is an outside or a before, we have no way of knowing that either!)
I do not say this lightly, my forum nickname uses the word logic, I love employing logic. This is actually a sort of win for the theist/god like entity side. The completely illogical idea of: most every major religions depiction of god, (to me anyways), can actually exist outside our universe where no logic or any other rules apply. But!! Again, their is zero way to know that. A christian god idea is only one of an infinite different scenarios of what is "before" or "outside" the universe. And every single one of those infinite possibilities has equal chance of being true or real. There is no way to measure or observe it, we know nothing about outside the universe. Perhaps even: every single one of an infinite possibilities actually does occur outside/before our universe, or perhaps their really is absolutely nothing.
-----
Where did the logic rule come from? It sprung from human minds. A shared common definition language system allowed this idea of a "logic rule" to spread, to form, to be checked, to be debated about etc. Logical rules in the past have been shown to be faulty, new logic rules are created, some later to be discarded. All of this occurred within our universe. Just like every other rule or law etc, they all exist within our universe.
Every logic rule is based on something, something we observed, something we thought, something that drove us to consider it, to share it, etc. Those somethings are things within this universe. When we say outside or before the universe we are applying things about this universe to outside/before this universe. Again the before or outside is completely unobserved, we do not have anything to build the logic rule on other than to try and say what makes logic sense within this universe could maybe also apply before or outside of it. But we have no way of verifying that, checking that.
I think it is quite likely that there was all kinds of logical absurdities (to us,) outside/before the universe. But again the answer is, we do not know. We will likely never know. All we are doing is trying to apply rules, thoughts, concepts to something that we simply cannot know, not even a little bit. Even the idea of "perfect" or "forever" or "nothing" or "infinity" is logically absurd to us. We can only deal in: near perfect/forever/etc to even begin to understand those "absolute" concepts.
-------
I am not saying I am right, that there is no god in this argument. I am just pointing out building a logic "proof" for a contingent being does not work, because we truly know nothing about before/outside every single theory/idea/logic construct based on "before" or outside the universe is based on absolute lack of knowledge and therefore meaningless beyond philosophy debate, there is nothing to build on. Back to the same answer of: we do not know. And we do not know means we can not derive any truths, any new information (like a proof) on it.
------
If of the infinite possibilities of different scenarios of "before the universe" is true nothing. Then yes, the existence of the universe is not dependent on existence of another essence. A logical impossibility within this universe, but obviously not outside/before this universe, as we are here. If it was some god like entity/essence that is timeless then yep that "god" created the universe. If it was the flying spaghetti monster, that created everything so be it. Perhaps I am a god and created the universe and I just do not know it. Perhaps you are, Maybe we all are a part of this god entity thingy and god split it's conscious/essence into billions of minds. The point is, all of these are all equally valid answers, because none of them have any more or less evidence then the others. or things we can observe or build logic on. Of the infinite possibilities of "before" or outside all of them are just equal in possibility. We need observable evidence to begin to differentiate them, to categorize into more likely and less likely. With before or outside the universe, we cannot do that.
----
It is likely you are clinging to an answer of contingent being, because:
-One, to you it proves your current world view.
-Two, you are very uncomfortable with the idea that their is no ultimate cause, no purpose, that us humans just "are." Their is no ultimate goal or game plan. That all we are is memories and circumstances, bags of complex chemistry. That if we built a machine/computer that could house all our memories and made a near perfect replica of our bodies and lives, that machine would be just as "alive" as we consider ourselves to be. That "human" and "alive" are very blurry lines that their is no soul, there is no "self" all of it is just concepts we made to try to make better/more comfortable sense of things.
In fact I didn't read the whole thing. but these statements have caught my eyes. these assertions cannot come from a man who know what logic is. Logic have sprung from human minds? really? so the universe in itself can be existent and not existent at the same time? I think this is a dead end and it would be a waste of time to discuss anything with someone who thinks that the laws of logic are just Products of human minds. (I mean no offense by that)
that also catches my eyes. And as you know, mere assertions can be refuted by mere assertions so I would response to that PURE BULLSHIT by just stating the opposite: "it is likely you are clinging to deny the objectivity of the laws of logic, because:
-One, to you it proves your current world view.
-Two, you are very uncomfotable with the idea that there is an ultimate cause, purpose, that us humans not just "are". There is an ultimate goal and a game plan"
and I don't understand you, If A leads to B, then why clinging to A is a bad thing unless you already don't want to believe B is true. that would be totally fine, But do not claim that there is no evidence for B.
Woah there, what does the universe being existent and not existent at the same time have to do with human created logic? Just like everything else, whatever the universe is, it is, regardless of what humans think of it. Logic is a "what humans think of it." I happen to think everything in this universe does currently does have a motivating cause. We just do not know if it had an original cause to pop into being before the big bang. We cannot observe it or learn anything about it.
I love logic, it can be a highly useful tool, but it does have limitations, it can be wrong (cause human thoughts are definitely not infallible. All logic is based on observation. We cannot observe or learn anything at all about before/outside the universe. It comes back as what should be real obvious, we do not know. When we do not know, we cannot make any valid conclusions, especially ones that supercede valid conclusions we have made about what we can actually observe, study, test and repeat. As I said before, I will even say that your exact god exactly how you think god is, exist out there, in the "outside" or before, in the area that is unobservable. But again you cannot draw any conclusions for that. Drawing conclusions from zero information is chaos, it produces no helpful to us information.
-
My current world view is: we do not know. We know absolutely nothing about a possible "before" or outside. There is no way to observe it or learn anything about it. We have no way of knowing that the human made up laws of logic based on our observations within the universe apply to before or outside the universe. We know so little we do not even know if there is/was a before/outside. To try to draw conclusions about ourselves and this universe from what we do not know outside this universe is beyond foolish. I do not need to prove a "I do not know." That is silly. You have to prove that objectivity of the laws of logic does exist outside this universe, and that those laws are correct. You can't. It is impossible. Your answer is also "I do not know."
I would actually love it if there was an ultimate cause, and purpose, and that humans are not just "are." It would be an enormous relief to me. I would happily admit I was wrong, a bit upset that all the evidence pointed the other way and that I was tricked by simply following real evidence based conclusions. Employing tools of logic and reason that are so useful in every other aspect in life but strangely a hidden god goes out of his way to hide itself from by being counter to those tools. But ultimately I would be overjoyed at the prospect of an afterlife, of a purpose and ultimate goal and game plan.
I just refuse to abandon all these very useful tools in life that has led me to lots of success and happiness and just take it on "faith." To me it is like me taking it on faith that the snake oil salesman is not full of shit and actually has a cure for my cancer for a 1 time price of 10 grand that he sells out of his suitcase on the side of the street and refuses to show me his government issued ID.
If A leads to B is correct, nothing wrong with that.
I do claim their is a huge lack of evidence for contingent being, or god. And lots of evidence that their is no god on our little blue planet that we can actually observe that far out weighs the "evidence" of a particular god idea.
Your world view is also that of science, and precisely the point I have been trying to make, "we do not know!"
I think this is why I lost my faith at a young age, It is essentially a desperate attempt to invoke the god of the gaps in a very sly way.
When science doesn't know something a deceptive ploy is introduced that leads to a god of the gaps.
Science is the process of predicting the state of a system at time B, given the state of the system at time A (and subjects associated with this, such as experiments/observations to collect information about the state at a given time, crafting evolution laws to map the state at time A to time B, etc). Anyone (theist, atheist, or whatever) you tries to tell you it is more than that is pulling a fast one.
Is this an objection to any point that i have stated or what? I don't see how the definition of science relates to the subject of the post.
I feel honored that you mention me. I find it funny that you think I'm dumb or stupid. I'm not sorry for asking you some hard questions that you couldn't answer. I'm surprised you didn't throw the necessary being into your OP. What seems impossible right now, may be proven otherwise by science in due time.
I feel so bad that you feel honored.
I find it funny that you find it funny that I think you're dumb OR stupid.
I actually don't think that, I Know that You're dumb AND Stupid.
that's what happens when you allow an Idiot to get on the internet.
because it's not as a spam message as your FIXED reply.
What seems to be impossible is you having a sound mind.
Peripatetic
Your not a good troll, and I find your effort to troll me is very funny. I also find it very funny when you failed to answer my questions. It's funny that you made claims about a necessary being, but called them statement, like that made them true.
I would apologise to you if my replies were too scientific based and went away from your logical arguement, but this is my field and if someone claims that say "the universe cannot be infinite" and other claims that step into physics then well I must answer that with what I know.
As your claims did transgress into points that refer to the universe I feel it is fair for me to answer that with physics and scientific method.
I think we can proceed now and ask in reply to your premises in previous post:
P1 - "whatever is contingent must have a cause"
Response - This premise is certainly plausible and I think we could concede this first point.
P2 - "The universe is contingent"
Response - Firstly, let us even try to comprehend how vast the universe is. I would claim it cannot be comprehended in much the same way 'nothingness' can truly be comprehended, We have no way of understanding truly nothing of infinity, and it is widely considered that the universe it likely to be infinite.
C1 - "Therefore the universe must have a cause"
Response - Again, This cannot be proven at all. And as stated there is plenty of theories and considerations made to assume this very well may not be the case, I would happily read anything peer reviewed that may argue this but I would also say this would only leave us at a crossroads and unable to truly to say one is more likely then the other.
I will stop here for now, But I would like to thank you for the eloquence and articulation of your posts and I apologise for going over trodden ground here, But I believe it is very important for your argument to know that although philosophy, metaphysics and logic can ask the most beautiful questions and help guide scientists, It is we who make the discoveries so that we can ask new questions and take more journeys into the great unknown.
We must not divide and make claims that go against the evidences that are out there for all to see, I would also like to see you go over this argument again and present it more accurately.
However may I put it to you to stop at the universe is necessary, because no one could possibly know that and know one could possibly know if there is something other than the reality we perceive, again this would be a similar unknowable concept as true nothingness and infinity.
Thank you
I think this is exactly what I responded to in the post which, it seems, you didn't read. I think the word 'Universe' triggers you to think that if it has been placed at any Context then that context must not be addressed by anyone but scientists. I don't know why clinging to that Position? Is 'Logical contradictions cannot exist in the universe' is a scientific claim that needs only scientists to address it? Is 'the universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect' is a scientific claim the needs only scientists to address it? NO, because 'the universe cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect' entails logical impossibilities, So this claim can be immediately dismissed without even a scientific proof. IF you Accept that, then My claim that is 'Actual infinite regression cannot exist' can be also immediately dismissed without going back to physics because it entails logical Impossibilities and I have argued to prove that it does entail logical absurdities. IF you are insisting that it can be addressed by science. then what you are actually saying is that it doesn't entail logical impossibilities. and that's a logical research not physical one. I do think I'm repeating myself here, so I recommend Rereading the post starting from "we can put it in a simple syllogism ......" and you'll find the response.
As I'm claiming that the Actual infinite regression would entail logical impossibilities then your statement is no different from saying "we have no way of understanding truly nothing of logical contradictions and it's widely considered that 1+1 is likely to equal 5" Unless, of course, you prove that it doesn't entail logical impossibilities.
Again, I swear I do not make scientific claims about the universe, I'm just pointing out What would lead to logical absurdities and dismiss them right away. So when I'm saying that the universe cannot be necessary OR an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist, I argued how are these claims entails logical absurdities.
So, Again, what am actually saying is that the distinction between what is Impossible in itself and what is Possible in itself, Must Precede claiming that which we don't know if it's possible or impossible IS a scientific subject. So, Logical discussion must Precede The scientific One. IF it turns out the all these claims are possible in themselves and do not contain logical impossibilities then I would indeed accept them and reject the argument. I'm not dogmatic by the way.
Not at all, But you have come onto an atheist forum with these claims, therefore people will reply with the tools they have available.
Why did you not post this on a general philosophy, theology or logic forum? You have used your reasoning in an open forum and therefore we will argue with what we have at our disposal.
Couldn't the art of philosophy be considered an infinite regress? Wouldn't a philosopher not constantly ask 'why' to every event or situation?
- the universe is contingent - this is something that at least dips its toes into the pool of science and can be refuted
- therefore the universe must have a cause - this conclusion can also be considered delve into science and therefore be refuted by science.
And as you cannot disprove the scientific evidence available regarding the communities position on these subjects, we can equally dismiss your arguments.
Moving to the argument from contingency, i would say there are three logical (not scientific) possibilities
- each contingent thing has as its explanation another contingent thing
- most contingent things have an explanation but the chain of dependency doesn't go back forever
- most contingent things have as their explanation other contingent things but do not regress forever and have a termination point and we will call this 'necessary'
it appears these are the only options, and to prove a god you just have to rule out the first two
and lets just concede this rather then droning on and just get down to option three.
But my response would be that option 3 is no better then the other two options,
if we consider the necessary agent is 'god' and he/she set everything of the contingent sequence,
what was his nature of choice? specifically what virtue made the choice to do this?
why this sequence rather than another sequence?
we have two options here
- yes there was something in virtue which god made this choice
- no there was nothing in virtue which god made this choice
I'm not explaining a gods existence just asking if gods choice has an explaination.
if it is something of his nature then his choice is not free, in some sense he has to make a choice as a result of his nature.
if this is correct then the existence of the universe and all its contingent components is in fact necessary. neither could happen without another because the existence of the universe is as necessary as that of the existence of the first mover.
if you consider option two there in no virtue of god to make a the world then he could have chosen any events and any factors, making every in fact contingent. and that indeed makes this universe contingent and without an explanation which would in fact violate sufficient reason,
i would conclude that no options is stronger than another and perhaps we should just say, we don't know! we cannot comprehend anything that we cannot observe, test or measure in any sufficient way.
that's a problem because there is no single tool that can be used to discuss anything. Suppose that I came to an atheist forum and posted that "1+1=5" OR "the universe is beautiful" OR "Shawshank redemption is an overrated movie" Are you gonna use physics to address these claims just because it's is your field?
I have been hearing a legend that says Atheists are rational, Intellectual and/or free-thinkers. So I wanted to destroy this legend.
what a shame that you do not even know what SCIENCE, which is your field, does address and what subjects it doesn't address. I think your professors would be ashamed of you. Since when contingency and necessity abandoned the books of metaphysics and Jumped into the Scientific books, or I should rather say the pop-science books?
'the universe is contingent' is just as scientific as 'the universe is beautiful' But I think you don't have any strategy other than being entitled to say that all my claims are scientific so that you can justify your position which is dishonest and a lame try.
and since this is the third time for you to Ignore my responses and just repeat the same thing that I responded to, then I'm gonna make it more simple to you through yes-or-no questions:
1- As SCIENCE is your field, Do you maintain that SCIENCE can prove Logical Impossibilities?
2- Do you think that the Actual infinite regression Is Possible in itself and does not entail logical impossibilities?
3- Do you think that it's Only for SCIENCE to determine whether a certain claim entails logical impossibilities?
No, you can not equally dismiss my argument. (you can in fact dismiss it anyway without even reading it) but do not say "equally" we're not in identical positions Since I dismiss a certain claim for being Contradictory. but you just dismiss it for no reason (which is fine).
What is the difference between the second point and the third point? I think the second implies the third, since it does not go back for ever that would imply that there is a termination point, so what is the difference?
I would say it's a dichotomy, either there is an Actual infinite regress of causes OR there is a starting point. I cannot see any other option. So I would say each contingent thing has a cause and it goes back for ever, ad infinitum OR It stops at a necessary cause.
Do you accept that or you think that there are other options that I deliberately hide?
I would see that it's no different from other options, as you stated them, so I think you should restate them again.
But as to my division, If, of course, you do accept them, I would say that an actual infinite regress is impossible as I argued in the previous thread. and therefore there must be a starting point that is necessary in itself.
As a matter of fact, I found this a bit vague for me and it has some expressions i cannot understand such as " something in virtue which ..." May be it's just my English. so, im gonna restate what you have stated here, as i understand it and you can refine for me if i got something wrong.
so, you're saying that why god make the universe look like the way it looks like?
so, it's either god chose it for a reason or for no reason.
IF it's the former then the universe must be necessary. and that's not true the universe is only necessary through its cause but, in itself it's contingent IF god did not cause it to exist it would have not been existed and that's the definition of a contingent thing. it's, in itself, possible to exist and not to exist. it only exists through another.
and IF it's the latter, i don't actually seem to understand anything you've said here, except for he can choose anything making the universe contingent and without explanation and that would violate the sufficient reason. and I don't see how does this follow?
Why do you randomly capitalize words? And should I expect your answer to take the form of an insult?
I don't really know maybe it's a bad habit.
And there it is again, because you cannot understand you resort to insults.
If you apologise for acting like a petulant child then perhaps I will simplify for you and answer you.
Because so far you are failing miserably, i would even claim you have not even offered a good explanation
or demonstration of something that is 'necessary' other than conceptual 'thing's' that are 'contingent' on a mind to perceive them.
I only "resorted" to insults when you kept ignoring my responses and kept repeating the same thing over and over.
I'm not apologizing for anything.
Nothing new about that, I didn't see any atheist that is capable to come up with an objection that is better than that. it's surprising how all "FREE-THINKERS" seem to think alike.
Now, I used these examples to clarify what I mean by necessity after I had defined it. So, saying that these are contingent on human beings IS right, I agree with you. I never made a claim that there is something that exists necessarily, In fact premise 2 states the same thing. but for a triangle to be 3-sided and for even numbers to be divided by 2, they're not contingent on human beings, of course you can say that perceiving them is contingent on the existence of a human being. but even numbers don't get divided by two just because human beings conceived of them in that way.
So what I'm saying is it's necessary for a triangle to be 3-sided but conceiving one is indeed contingent upon the existence of human beings. but a triangle that is 3-sided is not contingent case, it's a necessary case. In all Possible worlds there can't be a triangle which is not 3-sided. so, I would say a triangle must and cannot not be 3-sided. in the same sense, I say a necessary being is a being that must and cannot not exist.
IF you're saying give me an example for such a being then you're completely missing my point. since I'm saying that the existence of contingent things and the impossibility of an actual infinite regress of causes make me deduce that there must be such a being. I never claimed that such a being exists because there is indeed some other necessary being exists in the nature, I do not maintain that.
Well, we do that when people are too stupid to understand simple things.
That's fine, I will not go in depth on your questions then as your clearly to much of a childish boy to deserve a reasonable conversation.
The fact remains it requires a mind to conceive anything conceptual, so you've proven nothing and to follow your silly patterns, it is surprising how THEISTS all think alike, no proof that corresponds to reality but only conceptually, well if that's all the proof you need than so be it.
Your saying the universe is contingent and requires a necessary agent, the universe is not conceptual, so provide evidence of something within reality that is necessary otherwise you have no validity in your point and we are essentially discussing what a human perceives... Perhaps consider stepping out of reality and look in as if all the universe exists without mankind, now name one thing that is necessary then perhaps we have reason to consider that the universe which is not conceptual and exists with or without us, may have a necessary agent to have cause it.
Going back to what you said about me arguing with science,
"the universe is contingent " causality essentially, we study this in depth in physics so can be answered by science and we don't ask why, we actually find out with scientific methodology.
your conclusion states the universe must have a cause, this is what physics strives to know so is also answerable to and by physicists.
the universe is composite of its part, universe is susceptible to corruption... again you only know this thanks to physics so I'm free to answer this.
there infinite regress of cause is something we also try to discover, so to dismiss science from the argument is stupid
and your 'fact' about jupitars orbits which you accepted was wrong, this is basic astronomy, so again this can be answered by science.
Those are the reasons i replied to your argument, that should be plainly obvious for everyone to see.
If anyone else disagrees i am happy to listen.
What we can say regarding your argument i would say is, conceptual 'things' can indeed be necessary... like a 3 sided triangle, a number or a deity. what we cannot say is any object within reality must regress to a necessary cause until we prove that something non conceptual or requiring a human to interpret has a termination point that is deemed necessary.
they are not mutual exclusive! conceptual things are invented by the mind, objects within the cosmos are real and there is nothing there that has a necessary cause that we can compare and contrast.
And even IF you could provide that evidence, you have not even got close to explaining how we go from a termination point in causation within reality, to a necessary being. It is more logical to suggest that IF there was something necessary that caused all within the cosmos then it follows that the agent would be within the cosmos.
I'm sure you can surmise a logical argument that would be valid for that.
But lets just get to the basics:
1 - True or false, numbers, shapes etc. are objects invented by the human mind?
the only reason why you're not gonna address these questions is because their answer would not make it justifiable for you to just repeat yourself over and over and would prove my point that you're keeping Ignoring it.
Again, the same strategy of just Ignoring what I'm saying and clinging to a certain view. I've not said nor have I ever maintained that there is a necessary being in reality, that's exactly what premise 2 states. My argument is all about proving that there must be a necessary being since an actual infinite regress of CONTINGENT THINGS is impossible. see? I do not claim that are any necessary beings that exist in the universe.
So It doesn't even matter IF numbers are concepts in the mind or not, since I've never said anything about them being necessary existents. I only used them as a clarification for the word 'necessity', so I don't really care about the numbers or triangles themselves, but I care about the definition of the word 'necessity' so that i can say that what I mean by a necessary being is that a being that its existence IS necessary (i.e., cannot fail to exist) in the same way that 3 sides are necessary to a triangle (i.e. cannot fail to have 3 sides) So I was clarifying what I do actually mean by the word 'necessity'.
an essence relating to its existence in a POSSIBLE way, How could that be discussed in physics? causality is concomitant to Possibility. and the Possibility-necessity are not concepts that are discussed in physics. Causality in itself is not a scientific subject. causality do not exist outside. what exists out side is the cause and the effect, and the experiment explains the relation between them. take, for example the fire and water boiling. experiment only observes fire and water boiling and it explains the relation between them, but it does not observe anything that called causality. it doesn't observe that why would water need a cause in order for it to boil. "what is exactly that which makes something need a cause?" is not a scientific question, it's metaphysical one. so what actually make a thing need a cause is the Possibility/Contingency of it. it's possible for the water to boil. so, in order for it to boil there must be a cause which Actualize its potency/Potentiality to boil. and then SCIENCE come to observe the effect and the cause and try to explain the relation between them. but the question that why would an essence need a cause in the first place has nothing to do with SCIENCE. so claiming that all contingent things must have a cause is not a scientific claim it's the answer for the question "what makes an essence need a cause"
so, A being possible to be B is the reason why we say A must need a cause in order to be B. because A in itself doesn't necessitate being B, it just has the possibility to be B, so something must intervene and break that state of possibility and actualize what is possible in itself, and that 'something' is what we call a cause. and that's what justifies saying "possible/contingent things must have a cause" so, Again it's not a scientific claim.
So you're admitting that scientists consider the universe contingent? since looking for causes would be useless in a case of a necessary being. since a necessary being never came to existence at one point, then that would imply that they do not consider it to be necessary. good, that's an improvement in our discussion. but I have a questions here, is there a scientific justification for this 'looking for causes' operation?
The universe is composite of its parts is known by SCIENCE? this knowledge is just as scientific as the knowledge "the human race is composite of its members."
I don't know why you need it so bad to make the argument look like a scientific claim? it's funny how you are rummaging through my post to find a word that is related to science.
that's why you did not answer my questions, to justify the assertion of this silly claim. and it's funny to say the we try to discover it as if it really exists and you're just trying to discover it. Discovering things Presupposes the existence of these things, but the Possibility of the existence of these things IS not a scientific subject. so it must be discussed before even saying that science is still looking for its existence.
What exactly are you referring to when you say "this" can be answered? I only used this fact about the disparity between Jupiter and earth to say that if they existed eternally then this would lead to a logical contradictions. so my argument is logical, I didn't make a scientific claim here that needs to be proven by science.
Forgive my stupidity but can you say how these reasons are replies to the argument? I thought them to be justifications for you to invoke science in the discussion.
so you're saying necessary things is only conceptual? no that's not true, it has nothing to do with the existence or the non existence of anything. Saying that it's necessary for a triangle to have 3 sides only because it's conceptual and has no concrete reality is silly. an essence of a triangle cannot be comprehended without those 3 sides whether it exists in nature or not, that's just like saying an essence can only be itself as concepts in the mind but outside the mind cannot be itself. an essence of a triangle cannot not have 3 sides because that's what makes it itself whether it exists or not.
Why could that possibly be true? on what basis you asserted that we cannot say that there is a necessary being unless there were a necessary being in the nature? and how could be there any necessary being exists withing contingent? a necessary being by definition is not caused to existence, but a contingent being is. so, how would that being exist in something that has not always been existent? that's a contradiction.
OMG, are you for real?! what I mean by a necessary cause. is a cause that was not caused. not "seeing" a cause that was not caused by something else in the nature doesn't mean that such a cause doesn't exist or it only exists inside the mind. that doesn't, logically follow. how does the antecedent imply the consequent? we say that there must be such a cause, which is uncaused, because the actual infinite regress is impossible in itself and leads to logical absurdities. that's why I have been telling you, but you just kept Ignoring, that the only way to refute my argument is either by claiming that logical impossibilities can exist OR by claiming that the actual infinite regress of causes does not entail logical impossibilities.
that's logical contradiction for something that has always been existed to exist in something that has caused to exist.
I would say the mind extract a universal concept for them from nature. we see multiplying of identical essences so we extract the concept of numbers and the same goes for the shapes. but what does this have to do with anything?
- No it is simply because you are too stupid to grasp simple things
- "I do not claim that are any necessary beings that exist in the universe." misrepresenting me again, what a stunning surprise pah! Where did I say in that paragraph anything about necessary beings in the universe?
I left it wide open for you, name one thing within reality that is necessary! because your description of a necessary can only be described by something that is invented within the mind. The universe is not a conception of our primitive minds.
All you can say is that logically speaking anything that is conception cannot have an infinite regress. We cannot say one way or another with the universe because it is not proven, We have no descriptions of a necessary within reality.
Again if you could view the cosmos in its entirety, with no man kind on earth, can you name one thing that is necessary that does not require a human mind to perceive it? It is really not a difficult question.
- OH MY!!! you have no concept of physics what so ever lol Causality is the relationship between cause and effect and it is absolutely fundamental to physics! Have you never heard of Quantum Causality? The laws of quantum mechanics applied to the causal relation. then we hypothesize and theorise orders of events, it is not always but is under the umbrella of quantum uncertainty.
Do you really think physicists simply look at A and B and say "ok that's what happens!" wow!!!!
- And yet another misrepresentation, Where did I admit that? The point is,no one knows! As I said, we strive to know!
Distributed causality?
Causal dynamical triangulation?
Causal sets?
Justification for looking for cause, this is basic in any science we don't just find something and say "oh ok that's is!" we see a galaxy with what looks like a brighter star on the outside of the spiral arm, we ask, "why is that brighter then the celestial bodies within the galaxy itself? We make theories and prediction and then go to work and find out the cause, in this instance it was a star going super nova. And that is a very simple and basic analogy.
- You really have no idea about physics, this is embarresing but at least you are making me laugh!
Of course the universe being composite of its parts is scientific, How do you know that there are 8 planets in our solar system?
That there are up to 100 billion stars in the milky way
There is also interesting research by David Kornreich who prefixes this by saying "we cannot know the answer(how many stars in the universe" because I don't know it the universe is infinitely large or not"... But formulated that if we simply multiply the milky ways 100 billion by the rough estimate of 10 trillion universes in the universe, you get 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.
And we can also find out the composits of electron fields, sub atomic particles. honestly, this would take far to long to continue.
- Again you display a complete lack of knowledge yet again, this is tiresome. Because we don't go by your silly standard of a cause having an essential termination point, As far as physics goes we have no idea if the universe is infinite or not, if it had an natural termination point or if it has always been in a primeval state prior to the 'big bang'. So we have no need to consider an termination point. We simply follow the evidence, we could even find something more stunning then the virtual particle or quantum fields, we may find they have a cause and go on to study that.
I would cautiously state that although I cannot prove it, but I would theorise that the G-Type main sequence star or dwarf yellow star that we call our sun will likely die as the core runs our of hydrogen then helium and engulfs us before we get close to discovering the most intrinsic parts of our cosmos or the ends of the universe.
- They would continue to orbit for eternity if our very sun was to not go supernova, but there are theories that when it swell its may engulf the nearest planets but may push out the furthest stars which may then orbit the body with the highest mass thereafter.
- If you can't see how then no one can help you really
- That is the most ridiculous statement you have made to date, You have already admitted that "So saying these things are contingent on human beings IS right" so we can extrapolate from there that is there was no humans then your point is moot.
Its not even difficult to understand! Again I ask, can you name one thing in reality that is 'necessary' without being invented with a mind?
- Because there is no evidence of anything 'necessary' other then what people make up in their minds,
- OMG yes i'm real!!!! yippe! And that is why the human discoveries by your logic, philosophy, metaphysics whatever you want to call it, is not even in the same proverbial realm as that of science.
- It is more logically sound then an infinite necessary being that isn't within our reality and yet creates it somehow.
- Thank you, so it is invented within the mind. All conceptual things are within the mind and have no bearing on the nature of the universe.
You're repeating yourself, so, in order for the comments not to turn into a bunch of insults about how stupid you're and how Ignorant in physics I am. I think we just have to stop here. it was nice talking to you, and I'm apologizing for any insults I have made.
No worries pal, I live by a saying, "No one could ever hate me half as much as I couldn't give a fuck!" Lol so it's cool with me
a sign of wisdom right there.
Well it's a hell of a lot better then being offended by everyone who disagrees with me.
too long. didn't read it. but I read your earlier posts and they including amazingly stupid claims and assertions
unless they have surpassed xenoview's stupidity, there won't be a problem at all.
Pages