W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
see why i dont like this?
- Status
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
which is existence, it must stop there or you hit the logical contradiction of “no-thing exists”
you mean the chain of contingent beings and the necessary being. im not arguing semantics, im using the correct terms. when you say soemthing else, i dont know what you mean.
you claimed that it was arbitrary, im pointing out that defitions are by their very nature arbitrary.
how do you get this from telling you that the omnimaxs arent part of the contingency argument? youre reading a whole lot into that sentence.
thats sleight of hand, not magic.
great, neither do i!
ive demonstrated it several times now. once again.
by definition a contingent being requires a cause to exist. they cant cause themselves. no matter how many you have, none of them, even an infinite chain of them.
ergo to claim that they came into existence with no cause violates the PSR.
if you claim the PSR isnt important, then you undercut the entire basis of science, you essentiualy say that you believe in magic.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Yes, but I can’t do anything about it, it appears normally on all the systems I use. I can’t respond to your posts in just a few lines. You’re the only one who has a problem, and I’m not going to spend lots of time and/or money to investigate a problem that only seems to affect you, and for which there is no evidence that my system is even at fault. Have YOU tried a different system, or are you just sitting there assuming that it’s all my fault?
The CAF BB rendering engine is what it is - they use vBulletin, which is a good quality tool. There’s nothing I can do to change the way it works. You’ll just have to live with it, or quit. Sorry.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
then i guess ill have to live with it.
W
wanstronian
Guest
No - it’s you who are missing the point. Unless we can define what constitutes ‘contingent’ in absolute, rather than subjective terms, we cannot begin the regression.
As above. Why won’t you agree an example? What are you afraid of?
I think you do know what I’m talking about. An angel is an abstract concept to me. Hence my spider-senses started tingling when you used ‘angel’ as an example of a contingent being.
But to move the conversation forward, I’ll agree not to agree on an example.
Good.
No more so than a necessary being, as far as we can determine scientifically.
But surely if you do this, then you concede that a necessary being is not required? If you see what I mean.
The cause is the preceding being, ad infinitum.
This is a false analogy, we are not talking about the physics of power and leverage.
Okay.
No - they only need a cause, and they have one - the preceding being.
Instinctively, yes. Objectively and logically, no.
Okay, so your faith in the Cosmo argument is hinged upon your incredulity, your subjective beliefs and disbeliefs. Not on scientific, demonstrable knowledge of the practicalities of the subject.
It seems instinctive to me as well - I cannot conceive of infinity. However, nor can I conceive of a ‘necessary’ being. Where did it come from? It’s always been there? How is that any more instinctive than an infinite regress? It’s not - it’s just selection by instinctive elimination of the alternative and a lack of consideration for what a necessary being entails.
I’m getting confused by what you’re saying here - isn’t a necessary being’s non-nonexistence an inherent feature of itself?
W
wanstronian
Guest
Then as I say, there’s no point continuing the conversation. To call this arbitrary backstop ‘God’s essence’ is just loaded language. Even if you concede that this is just a convenient label that you are using, and you do not infer any of the attributes generally ascribed to God, you’re still overstepping the bounds of a logical progression. Are you happy for me to label this backstop ‘Satan’s essence?’
I find it very difficult to believe that you didn’t know what I meant. However, I’ve clarified now, so maybe you can answer the question?
But you’re being disingenuous - you know what most people understand by God. To point out that ‘definitions are arbitrary’ does not absolve you of a responsibility to label things neutrally and accurately in a discussion such as this. Would you argue about the price of a TV by arbitrarily replacing ‘dollars’ with ‘dolphins?’
I’ve answered this in the very comment you’re responding to. To use the word ‘God’ in this argument is out of place and you know it.
Look it up.
That’s interesting! You don’t believe the NT then? I thought another of your great ‘proofs’ was the way it supposedly fulfilled prophecy? But you reject the miracles documented therein? How do you square away such inconsistency?
No - you’re conflating ‘demonstrating’ with ‘stating.’ You cannot show that a necessary being exists. I have ‘demonstrated,’ just as comprehensively as you, that an infinite regress cannot be shown to be any less likely than a necessary being.
Please don’t put words in my mouth regarding the PSR. I didn’t say it wasn’t important, I just pointed out that it’s a principle. An instinctively logical principle, a good principle from which to proceed scientifically, but not a provably immutable one. Regardless, I’ve shown how it doesn’t even need to be violated for the Cosmo argument to be wrong.
If you have nothing more than assertion, then I suggest we leave it here. I’ve succeeded in showing that the Cosmo argument is flawed, although I hardly expect you to admit it. After all “you don’t have any quit in you.” It’s as if you think that refusal to give up automatically makes your opinion correct!!
If it makes you feel better, I’ll quit. I’ve achieved what I wanted, which was to debate a proof for God’s existence, and I’m totally satisfied that the ‘proof’ is flawed. Unless you have something new to say, I’m done.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
this one turned out better at least.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
ok
necessary and contingent are mutually exclusive, either one needs a cause or not. though im not sure what science has to do with it.
no, i can see how this might be the first thought, but if we define a contingent being as a being needing a cause in order to exist, then it wouldnt matter how many you have, they all need a cause.
which makes them necessary beings. not contingent on a cause. POOF! theory, they all just appeared in a self supporting infinite string, and if they didnt appear, but always were, they are still necessary beings. violates the PSR
then please explain how this isnt objective and logical.
its based on logic. not science, science doesnt have anything to do with this.
instinct has nothing to do with this. i have already demonstrated that a necessary being must exist if you see contingent beings, and if not then those contingent beings are really necessary then.
as i have also demonstrated, a necessary being doesnt come from anywhere. if it did then it would be contingent. rather a necessary being must exist as the alternative “nothing exists” is a logicaql contradiction.
had to smile, yes, it can be confusing.a necessary being is one who cannot fail to exist.
assume for a second there is a necessary being, and only a necessary being, then say it could fail to exist, what would be left? an existent ‘nothing’ which is a logical contradiction.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
its not arbitrary, existence is the backstop because ‘nothing exists’ is a logical contradiction. now aquinas defines that as G-ds essence. back in his time no one doubted the existence of G-d, we can just as easlity say the essence of the necessary being, if it helps. though again, all the omnimaxes are another story.
answer what question? the circus one? there is nothing about a word that forces it to apply to any particular object.
if we all agreed to it of course, we could say dolphins. why couldnt we? all definitions are arbitrary, language itself ius arbitrary hence all the different spoken languages. im not sure i see the point of arguing this.
no, i dont know it. necessary being and G-d are interchangeable from my viewpoint. that doesnt mean that a discussion of the omnimaxs has a place in the cosmological argument.
Look it up.
there is no inconsistency. i believe that the events in the NT happened, i just dont think there is any such things as miracles or magic. clarkes 3rd law.
“any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
there is no magic, and ‘miracle’ is just the word people use to describe events that they cant account for given their current state of knowledge. but as the march of science shows, everytime we say something is a miracle or magic, we were wrong, there is always an explanation even if we dont understand the process involved in the event that mystifies us.
i have given reasons to support my contention, you have only stated a contention, which is what i mean in that i have demonstrated my postion
i have demonstrated that a necessary being must exist, because its non existence entails a logical contradiction. ‘nothing exists’ is a logical contradiction.
i have demonstrated that an infinite chain of contingent beings that comes into existence self supporting is a violation of the PSR.
maybe i just missed it, how have you demonstrated this?
you have stated it several times, but you havent shown how this is so, and thats the problem with the infinite regress argument, it boils down to the assertion that an infinite chain of contingent beings is possible. yet its easily refuted.
if you wish to quit thats fine, i noticed its taking you days to answer which tells me that you are unfamiliar wiht the arguments. but lets not pretend that you know the argument is flawed, you havent been able to defend it, which isnt unusual. most people cant.
not even the most famous atheist of the last century, bertrand russell. who lost the infinite regression argument to Father Copleston in their last debate 70 years ago.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Indeed. I never suggested otherwise. I just pointed out that a necessary being is no more “non-sensical” in and of itself, than an infinite chain of contingent beings.
And they all have one - the preceding being.
No, it makes them contingent on their predecessor.
As opposed to a necessary being - where did it come from? Just as much ‘POOF! theory’ as an infinite regress. But we’re going around in circles here, and actually missing the point. The point is that there is no conclusive evidence that the “necessary being” hypothesis is any more true than the “infinite regress” hypothesis. Without such evidence, the argument fails.
I have already, a few posts ago. An infinite regress seems instinctively unlikely. We can’t imagine infinity. We can’t count to it, we are unable to conceptualise it.
We are able to conceptualise a necessary being, because all it takes is to imagine a being. But just because we are able to imagine a single being, but not an infinite number of beings, that doesn’t make it any more likely. There are as many problems with the idea of a necessary being as there with an infinity of contingent ones. This ultimately reduces to the argument from ignorance, or incredulity.
Whatever - it’s only based on logic because you reject one option and are left with the other. If you actually consider what you are left with, you have just as many questions to answer. Where did the necessary being come from? When did it start to exist? And so on.
No, you haven’t demonstrated this at all. You’ve just stated and restated it.
I understand that - it’s not a difficult concept.as i have also demonstrated, a necessary being doesnt come from anywhere. if it did then it would be contingent. rather a necessary being must exist as the alternative “nothing exists” is a logicaql contradiction.
a necessary being is one who cannot fail to exist.
But surely a being having non-non-existence must have existence? Surely the absence of non-existence is existence. So how is that a logical contradiction for a necessary being?
W
wanstronian
Guest
So because Aquinas said that (although he didn’t state it as bluntly as that), and because people believed in God back then, you see no problem with asserting that the backstop is God? How do you claim to be able to debate when your colours are so brazenly nailed to the mast? You can’t see past your own presuppositions to argue this objectively!
The point is that you are taking a word that commonly describes a deity with certain attributes, and applying it to an entity for whom all but one of those attributes are unnecessary. You are implicitly giving more meaning to the first cause than can be derived from the premisses of the argument.
No, it doesn’t. But as you are aware, the omnimaxes are traditionally attributed to God. By invoking his name here you commit the loaded language fallacy
Let’s turn this around. What attributes do you apply to God?
Look what up?
Yes! We agree on something! There are no such things as miracles. There is a natural explanation for everything, we may just not know what it is. Of course, it does beg the question - where did Jesus get all this technology from, that eludes us 2,000 years later? But that’s another thread…
(We don’t agree on the definition of magic, which is well-defined in the dictionary. You have a different, isolated definition. It’s wrong, but I understand what you mean so let’s not pursue it further.)
There’s a difference between you rejecting my reasons, and my not having given them. I have made my rationale quite clear.
No - you’ve provided reasons, and I have shown you why they are poor reasons. You haven’t demonstrated anything.
You are illustrating my point exactly - you cannot comprehend infinity so you are saying that an infinite chain ‘coming into being’ is self-supporting. But an infinite chain of being wouldn’t just ‘come into being.’ Or would it? Nobody knows. That’s the point - that we don’t know enough to make a conclusive claim one way or the other.
Post #17:
I’m taking days to respond because I’m very busy. So your assumptions are wrong. If you’d bothered to do some research before judging my attendance record, you’d notice that I haven’t been posting elsewhere either.
The argument is flawed; it’s been exposed countless times and I’ve just done it again. As I said upthread, I don’t need to prove that the conclusion is wrong, I just need to show that it’s not necessarily right. This I have categorically done. Your refusal to accept the many refutations of the argument doesn’t actually mean that the refutations are invalid. You’re just so sure you’re right, you’ve lost the ability to examine the argument independently.
Ha! You’re showing your bias here! You’ve clearly interpreted, “Yes, it is very difficult. What do you say – shall we pass on to some other issue?” to mean, “You’re right and I’m wrong. Silly old me.” This interpretation illustrates nicely your idea of what consitutes “winning” an argument!
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
again, a necessary beings non-existence would be impossible because it entails a logical contradiction. that is completely sensical, its not even much of a question in logical systems using ‘necessary’.
whereas
an infinite chain of contigent beings, would always have to exist, and could not fail to exist. making them necessary beings.
not contingent beings. because a contingent being cannot fail to exist, and if any of your contingent beings did not exist at any point, than they can fail to exist without a logical contradiction.
do you not see the problem here?
there is no such thing as an infinite chaing oc contingent beings, because they meet the definition of a necessary being.
thats before we even get to the problem that contingent beings require a cause, even an infinite pile of them.
otherwise its the POOF! theory.
no, a necessary being doesnt come from anywhere. how many times do i need to explain this? a necessary being must exist, must always exist because their non-existence entails a logical contradiction.
i keep demonstrating the evidence, and you keep dodging it, as usual.
i dont have a problem “conceptualizing” an infinite chain, it fails on 2 other counts,
first, there is no quality, or at least none you have been able to demonstrate, by which an infinite chain of beings can come into existence, without a necessary being. other than a violation of the PSR with a POOF! theory. if you accept that t POOF! theory is possible, you undercut the scientific method, and essentially agree to a universe of magic.
second, what you are calling an ingfinite chain of contingent beings, is actually necessary beings.
either way the infinite regress of contingent beings fails.
i have, i demonstrated at the top of this post yet again.
**again, a necessary beings non-existence would be impossible because it entails a logical contradiction. **that is completely sensical, its not even much of a question in logical systems using ‘necessary’.
im not sure what your sentence here means, but the bolded is answered in 2 ways.
- contingent beings exist
- an existent nothing is a logical contradiction.
W
wanstronian
Guest
I have never disputed this.
But by a different definition to the one we have already agreed. In this case, they would be necessary by dint of having had infinite children. Not the same definition of ‘necessary’ as stated in the SE.
You’re confusing yourself here: “a contingent being cannot fail to exist?” I thought that the whole point of a contingent being is that it doesn’t have to exist?
But to return to the point I was making - just because an infinite chain of contingent beings sounds instinctively unlikely, does that really excuse the critical thinker from actually considering the impact of the concept of a necessary being? It’s as I said in my first post - this ‘necessary being’ is snuck in by virtue of the apparent absurdity of the alternative. But when you think about it, the necessary-ness of any being is equally incomprehensible, and should not be blindly selected as the only answer without due examination.
No - they meet a different definition of necessary being - one whereby they are necessary only because they have spawned children. We have already agreed that this is not the definition of necessary being that we’re working to.
Yes, the cause is the preceding being.
Just like the POOF! theory that simply states that a necessary being can’t fail to exist, without any consideration of what such a statement entails. We have two problems here: we can understand contingency but we can’t comprehend infinity; we can comprehend an existent being but we can’t comprehend how it can’t fail to exist. There are logical problems with both concepts, but you are refusing to consider those associated with the necessary being.
You’ve explained nothing, you’ve just asserted that this is what a necessary being is. You’re at great pains to explain why infinite contingency is impossible, but you don’t bat an eyelid when you assert that this necessary being just exists.
If you’re going to start hurling false accusations at me again, let’s forget this. I took a chance that you would be able to debate rationally, but as always, just because I point out the flaws in your arguments, you take a stance that I’m ‘dodging.’ I’m not dodging anything, and never have. What I am doing, is pointing out the flaws in your argument. That’s all.
Yes, you’ve said both these things before, and I have shown how we cannot be certain one way or the other. Hence the ‘proof’ fails.
No more so than a ‘necessary’ being.
Sorry - you haven’t demonstrated it at all. You’ve used logic predicated on unprovable assertions that are outside our ability to confirm.
Indeed. You stated that a non-nonexistent necessary being is a logical contradiction. The absence of non-existence is surely existence. This is hardly a logical contradiction for a necessary being. I think this is just a misunderstanding due to a typo on your part. Let’s leave it.
I assume you’ll reply to the next part of my post soon?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
all your posts lately have been spaced appropriately, what have you changed?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
not by dint of having children, but by necessarily existing. they could not fail to exist
your right, i made a mistake it should read necessary being
a necessary being isnt snuck in by virtue of the opposite being an absurdity but by being a ‘logical contradiction’ a ‘squared circle’ so to speak.
there is no different definition of necessary being, i do not know where i agreed to this. just post what your etalking about.
a contingent being doesnt exist until it is caused, no matter how many of them you have, im not sure if you dont understand this or if you are intentionally ignoring it. you must first claim they exist en masse, or that they come into being as links in a chain.
if they exist en masse, then its a POOF! theory. a violation of the PSR. if thats the case you undercut science and all intellectual inquiry as things wouldnt need a cause. you would be a believer in magic and safely dismissable. i dont think you want to go there.
if they come into being in any order, then to come from potential to actual requires a cause. a necessary being. then the argument holds and i make nmy point. and i dont think you want to go there.
so its either magic or its caused.
it entails a logical contradiction, back to the ‘squared circle’.
we dont need to comprehend infinity, unless your saying there is some mechanism that allows an infinite number of contingent beings to self causate. if so demonstrate said mechanism.
and there is no logical problem with the idea of ‘logical contradictions’ being impossible. surely you know a squared circle is impossible right? you know what a logical contradiction means dont you?
i keep explaining it. let me explain it yet again
necessary being is one whose non-existence implies a logical contradiction. a logical contradiction is an impossibility, like a ‘squared circle’ meaning that a necessary beings non-existence is an impossibility. which is why a necessary being must ‘just exist’.
do you understand how we are defining a necessary being? is there a part of this that isnt clear? if so, be very specific as to what that part is and i will endeavor to explain further.
the dodging part is when i answer what you think are flaws. but then you simply repeat that they are flaws without seriously adressing what i said. like above where i have to keep repeating ‘logical contradiction’ at you. when the first time it was said, you should have gotten why that makes a being ‘necessary’ instead you just keep ignoring a logical contradiction as an impossibility. for instance, the next 2 statements below
here you simply assert we cant be ‘certain’, without evidence. you do not actually address the refutations of an ‘infinite chain of contingent beings.’
here, you again ignore why a necessary being must exist, and simply assert that a ‘necessary being’ must fail. without addressing the logical contradiction that makes the non-existence of a necessary being impossible
then, very specifically, which assertions are unproven? and what do yuo mean by our ability to confirm?
im not sure what your refering too. post it again, and i will tackle it.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Why not? They’re contingent beings! The definition of a contingent being is that it doesn’t have to exist!
Okay.
Why is it a logical contradiction? It’s contrary to the ‘infinite regress’ hypothesis, true. But the argument doesn’t explore the consequences of a necessary being, it just implies that an infinite regress is impossible, then blithely says, “so it must be a necessary being.” No critical thought is given to the possibility of a necessary being; where it comes from, when did it start to exist etc. It’s just stated as a fact. That’s what I mean by it being ‘snuck in.’
Then you have a short memory. Re-read post #17 and you’ll see that you stated
Now you are saying that an infinite chain of contingent beings ‘meets the definition of a necessary being.’ But you haven’t explained why. I have conjectured that each contingent being is contingent on its predecessor. You haven’t explained why that can’t be true, other than by resorting to an (understandable, but not necessarily correct) implicit rejection of infinity.
Yes, and as I keep saying, each being is contingent on its predecessor. I’m not intentionally ignoring anything, I’m just saying something you disagree with. There’s a big difference.
It’s no more of a POOF! theory than a necessary being POOF!ing into existence. The point I have made, is that we can’t be sure either way. Neither option is within our ability to understand. So you take your choice - you’ve taken one that supports your underlying belief, I’m just pointing out that this choice is no more logical when subjected to scrutiny, than the alternative. And I’ve explained why.
Well, it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. Big surprise!
Disagree, for reasons I have given many times in this thread.
I can’t. I’m not trying to. All I need to do is show that the argument doesn’t reach its conclusion without some deception/assumption. I’ve done that, therefore the argument fails.
Of course I do, there’s no need to resort to insult. The problem here is that you don’t agree with what I say, not that what I say is wrong. The conclusion reached by the argument may be right, but it isn’t right by virtue of its premisses and construction. Therefore, as an argument, it fails.
I understand it very well. This is not a complex argument (which is why I had to smile when you intimated I had to think for days before responding!). The definition of a necessary being is clear. That doesn’t mean that its actuality is any more comprehensible or demonstrable, than an infinite regress. As I keep saying, we can’t demonstrate that either is wrong or right - we just don’t have the knowledge.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Er, no - as I said, I have shown why we can’t be certain.
I have conjectured an alternative to a necessary being, which is no less demonstrable than a necessary being. A definition of a necessary being does not mean that it exists. Otherwise, I could equally define a necessary pile of money in my bank account and go on a spending spree.
The assertion that a necessary being exists.
I posted #29 and #30 - you only responded to #29
However, this first post, #29, after just one back-and-forth, has been split into two, so it’s getting unmanageable.
Let’s move on - we’re clearly not going to agree here. If you want to maintain your apparent stance that a recognition of impasse is equivalent to an admission of defeat, you’re welcome to such delusion!
I want to be clear though - I’m not denying that a necessary being exists; I’m not asserting that an infinite regress is true. I’m demonstrating that we can’t know for definite, either way. This lack of knowledge is enough to cast sufficient doubt on the argument.
However, the purpose of this thread, spawned from the ‘Searching for the truth’ thread, was to pursue, as you put it, the “logical exposition of the necessity of G-d.” Let’s assume that I’ve accepted your defense of the Cosmological argument - I’m keen to see how you get from a necessary being/first cause (the terms are interchanged in the SE whose argument we have been discussing) to God. I really hope you’re not going to invoke the ontological argument though…
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
funny but now its back to this.
W
wanstronian
Guest
If I put loads of new lines in, sometimes CAF will play ball. Sometimes, clearly, it won’t, 'cos I stacked 'em up in my two recent responses to no avail. I think this is a bug in the forum software - it randomly ignores new lines.
I didn’t actually realise that the problem you were having was when you clicked to reply - I thought you were saying that my actual posts appeared like that to you.
I’ll keep putting the new lines in, it seems to have an effect sometimes at least!
- Status