Irrefutable series part 1: An Argument For the Existence Of An Intelligent Cause Revised

[IWantGod]

If the cycle is infiite, it has no begining. Hence no creator.

The problem you have here is that i wasn’t arguing for a temporal cause. And since you are talking about something that is changing, it follows that you are not talking about an act of existence that necessarily exists (since a necessary act of existence does not more from potential to actuality).

And if it doesn’t necessarily exist, then it requires a cause. Adding infinity to it does not change it’s status as a contingent act of existence.

 

[Bradskii]

Your whole case is reliant on the belief that i have said something that i haven’t really said.

No. It’s the fact that you are making an assumption and will not admit it. You are ignoring this:

…physical reality and any contingent thing was ultimately dependent on the orignal existence of a ncessary-being which may or may not still exist.’

If you don’t agree with that statement then you are making the assumption that the neccesary-being still exists.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If the cycle is infiite, it has no begining. Hence no creator.

The problem you have here is that i wasn’t arguing for a temporal cause.

Neither am I. There can be no cause for something which has always existed. Temporal or not. I have simply removed it. Occam’s Razor.

And it makes as much sense to talk about potential in an infinite event as to talk about north of the north pole.

The cycle has always existed. It never was in a position to potentially change into something else. It had no begining where it could have changed from one thing to another.

 

[IWantGod]

Neither am I. There can be no cause for something which has always existed. Temporal or not. I have simply removed it. Occam’s Razor.

So you are choosing to ignore what has been said.

And it makes as much sense to talk about potential in an infinite event as to talk about north of the north pole.

It’s clear that the universe is changing, moving from potential to actuality regardless of whether there is an infinite number of changes or not.

The cycle has always existed.

It’s irrelevant. An act of reality that necessarily exists does not change at all in anyway shape or form. It is not anything other than what it is. It does not have potential states, emergent properties, transformation of forms, or anything of the sort.

You are not addressing the argument…In fact you are completely ignoring it.

 

[IWantGod]

No. It’s the fact that you are making an assumption and will not admit it

I have given you my argument and you have ignored it. Asserting that i am wrong is not going to help your case

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

No. It’s the fact that you are making an assumption and will not admit it

I have given you my argument and you have ignored it. Asserting that i am wrong is not going to help your case

I am not saying that you are wrong. But you are ignoring this:

'…physical reality and any contingent thing was ultimately dependent on the orignal existence of a ncessary-being which may or may not still exist .’

Again, do you agree with this or not?

 

[IWantGod]

'…physical reality and any contingent thing was ultimately dependent on the orignal existence of a ncessary-being which may or may not still exist .’

Again, do you agree with this or not?

No i don’t, because there cannot be a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist. A necessary act of existence is required.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

'…physical reality and any contingent thing was ultimately dependent on the orignal existence of a ncessary-being which may or may not still exist .’

Again, do you agree with this or not?

No i don’t, because there cannot be a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist. A necessary act of existence is required.

Not in an event which is eternal. There WAS no act of existence. And in any case, once existence is created, each event is contingent on the previous event. The glass breaking is contingent on the stone being thrown.

You are saying that there must have been a necessary-being to start the process.

In my example, there was no first instance. In any other example, it is an assumption to say that the necessary-being still exists.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s irrelevant. An act of reality that necessarily exists does not change at all in anyway shape or form. It is not anything other than what it is. It does not have potential states, emergent properties, transformation of forms, or anything of the sort.

If you are saying that something - your necessary-being - is constantly required to convert potential to actual then I will give it a name. Nature.

 

[IWantGod]

You are saying that there must have been a necessary-being to start the process.

No i am not. I am not arguing for a temporal cause.

I am saying contingent beings cannot exist without the existence of that which exists necessarily because a contingent nature or act of existence cannot account for itself regardless of how many there are.

I have no problem with there being an infinite number of physical changes. I do have a problem with the idea that an infinite number of changes explains why there is something rather than nothing because it doesn’t follow that it’s existence is necessary just because there is no temporal beginning. And i have explained why.

 

[IWantGod]

If you are saying that something - your necessary-being - is constantly required to convert potential to actual then I will give it a name. Nature.

Potentiality cannot become actual without a cause. And there cannot be a state of affairs where there are only beings, or natures, or qualities, or states, or properties, that were at some point only potentially actual.

An infinite number of any kind doesn’t resolve the problem. It still requires a cause that has a necessary act of existence.

You can give that cause any name you want so long as you understand that it is not physical reality

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If you are saying that something - your necessary-being - is constantly required to convert potential to actual then I will give it a name. Nature.

Potentiality cannot become actual without a cause. And there cannot be a state of affairs where there are only beings, or natures, or qualities, or states, or properties, that were at some point only potentially actual.

You can give that cause any name you want so long as you understand that it is not physical reality

The potential for hydrogen to become helium exists. It cannot do so without a cause. That cause is a specific condition within nature.

Nature is all that’s required. If you need a necessary-being to have created nature, then go for it. Just don’t assume that it still exists.

 

[Bradskii]

I have no problem with there being an infinite number of physical changes. I do have a problem with the idea that an infinite number of changes explains why there is something rather than nothing…

It doesn’t. That’s an entirely different discussion. We have started with the fact that there is something and you are trying to argue that it needed a cause. We aren’t discussing why.

An infinite loop doesn’t require a cause. All potential changes to actual within that loop are handled by nature, which has always been part of that loop.There’s no requirement for a necessary-being when one already exists: Nature.

 

[IWantGod]

That cause is a specific conditon within nature.

Specific causes within nature is irrelevant. The point is physical reality is moving from potentiality to actuality, and a necessary act of existence does not.

Nature is all that’s required.

Wrong. When you feel ready to actually address my argument feel free.

If you need a necessary-being to have created nature, then go for it. Just don’t assume that it still exists.

I’m not assuming anything. Physical reality is not a necessary act of existence. Therefore the nature of this reality is contingent. There cannot be a state of affairs where only contingent beings exist. Therefore there must be a being that necessarily exists without cause and has the power to give existence.

Since it necessarily exists and is the cause of physical reality, it is meaningless to describe it as possibly not existing.

 

[catholicray]

An infinite loop doesn’t require a cause.

An infinite loop still requires you to explain why there is an infinite loop rather than nothing at all.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

An infinite loop doesn’t require a cause.

An infinite loop still requires you to explain why there is an infinite loop rather than nothing at all.

We aren’t discussing the why. We’re discussing the what. But to briefly address that point:

IWantGod is discussing the begining of existence. On the assumption that there was a begining. In which case, whether there is an answer or not, it is logically possible to ask why it started. An infinite loop does not have a begining. It makes no sense to ask why.

 

[IWantGod]

IWantGod is discussing the begining of existence. On the assumption that there was a begining.

No i am not. I am not arguing for a temporal beginning. I am arguing for the existential dependency of physical reality on something other than itself. There is a difference regardless of what the logical consequences are.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

That cause is a specific conditon within nature.

Specific causes within nature is irrelevant. The point is physical reality is moving from potentiality to actuality, and a necessary act of existence does not.

Nature is all that’s required.

Wrong.

Just repeating your previous point will not validate that answer. The argument is now doing this:

IWG: Let’s say that yadda yadda yadda.
B: OK, but let’s also say that it could be the case that yadda yadda yadda.
IWG: You’re wrong and I’m right.

Physical reality just is. There’s no need to complicate it any further than that. Just as you believe that a necessary-being just is.

 

[IWantGod]

Just repeating your previous point will not validate that answer. All you are doing now is saying that you are right and I am wrong.

Clearly that is not true.

The point is physical reality is moving from potentiality to actuality, and a necessary act of existence does not.

If you wish to challenge the idea that a necessary act of reality does not change (which if you really knew what you were doing you would have done so in the first place) then by all means challenge it. But to assert that i haven’t given an argument for my position is just being dishonest.

 

[IWantGod]

Physical reality just is.

The final cry of those who are incapable of crafting a justifiable argument for why they believe in metaphysical naturalism.