The Cosmological Argument

[UnworthyApostle]

I generally like the Aristotelean argument of infinite regression. He states that there cannot be a change of causes ad infinitum. Thus, there had to be a principle cause from which all came. For example, if I write on a blackboard “word” with chalk, the chalk is a cause of “chalk” appearing on the board. But, my hand would then be a cause of the chalk moving. Then, the intent within my mind is an even further cause that produced my hand to move witht he chalk, and “word” to appear on the blackboard. And the cycle regresses to the first cause or primary principle.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not?

im going to shorten this to the specifics. its much too hard to parse apart these posts. so lets limit them to a specific argumnt and refutation to make sure that each is directly adressed.

your argument

you have claimed an infinite regress of contingent beings.

my refutations

all contingent beings require a cause before they can exist. therefore.

1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

often people think merely repeating ‘infinite chain of contingent beings’ is sufficient to show an alternative to a necessary being. i have provided here some reasons why this is not so. please provide refutations. i will then adress refutations. and then you can adress mine and so on.

this way, each argument and refutation can be clearly answered and examined in a format devoid of constant repetition.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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!

thats ok, i want to limit our posts so we can stop repeating things at eachother.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

my contention is that we can know for sure because we can eliminate the possibility of an infinite regress.

the only way we cant know is if you are willing to violate the PSR. but then that is far enough out there it becomes a kind of solipsism.

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…

i went 850 posts on the ‘infinite chain’ argument with the moderators on an atheist forum before they suspended me, i even got them to inadvertantly admit that there is anecessary being around post 350 or so made them awful mad.

for once i would like to settle the argument about a necessary being with an atheist!

 

[wanstronian]

im going to shorten this to the specifics. its much too hard to parse apart these posts. so lets limit them to a specific argumnt and refutation to make sure that each is directly adressed.

your argument

you have claimed an infinite regress of contingent beings.

No, I haven’t. I would never claim such a thing, because I simply don’t know. I *have *claimed (and, I think, demonstrated), that there is sufficient doubt over the assertion that a necessary being exists, to put the remainder of the argument in question.

my refutations

all contingent beings require a cause before they can exist. therefore.

1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

They don’t cause themselves - each is caused by its predecessor.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

Okay - it’s a POOF! theory, as you’re so fond of saying. Why is a necessary being not also a POOF! theory? What evidence is there to support a necessary being, other than an instinctive rejection of an infinite regress?

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

As above.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

often people think merely repeating ‘infinite chain of contingent beings’ is sufficient to show an alternative to a necessary being. i have provided here some reasons why this is not so. please provide refutations. i will then adress refutations. and then you can adress mine and so on.

I haven’t ‘merely repeated’ it - I have conjectured an alternative, drawing attention to the intrinsic peculiarity of ‘infinity’ and how we can never really know one way or the other. I have asked you to validate your conclusion of a necessary being without simply rejecting my conjecture. You have been unable to do so. Ignore infinity for a second - think about what a necessary being actually is. Where did it come from? When? Why? How? Do you have answers to any of these questions, or do you just say, “It can’t be X, therefore Y,” without giving any thought to the implications of Y?

this way, each argument and refutation can be clearly answered and examined in a format devoid of constant repetition.

I would like you to consider and validate your assertion of a necessary being… not as an alternative to an infinite regress, but as a concept in and of itself. I would like you to explain why it is not itself a POOF! theory.

my contention is that we can know for sure because we can eliminate the possibility of an infinite regress.

You haven’t shown that we can eliminate that possibility. You’ve used logic that one would sensibly apply to finite limits, and applied to a concept - infinity - that we are inequipped to understand. You may be right, you may be wrong (it’s gotta be one or the other!) but we can’t know for sure because both options contain concepts that we fundamentally cannot understand or explain. So the argument fails as a proof.

the only way we cant know is if you are willing to violate the PSR. but then that is far enough out there it becomes a kind of solipsism.

I’m getting tired of pointing out that I’m not violating your precious PSR. Everything has a cause - the cause is the preceding being. No violation.

i went 850 posts on the ‘infinite chain’ argument with the moderators on an atheist forum before they suspended me, i even got them to inadvertantly admit that there is anecessary being around post 350 or so made them awful mad.

for once i would like to settle the argument about a necessary being with an atheist!

It can’t be settled, because we can’t know for sure. We just… can’t. The concepts involved are beyond our ken.

As I’ve said, I’m willing to take it as read that there is a necessary being in the interests of advancing the argument - how do you get from this first cause to God? I’m not really interested in batting necessary vs contingent back and forth any more, as I think it’s futile.

p.s. Getting pretty pissed off with putting 6 line feeds in per comment, amazed this bug still exists in mature software like this…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would like you to consider and validate your assertion of a necessary being… not as an alternative to an infinite regress,

ok

1. it has nothing to do with an infinite regress. when St. Aquinas wrote the arguments concerniong a necessary being, no one had yet invented an argument from infinite regress.

but as a concept in and of itself.

as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction.

I would like you to explain why it is not itself a POOF! theory.

because a necessary beings non-existence entails a logical contradiction. which means that there is no point at which a necessary being does not or cannot exist. it must always exist, so there is no point at which it can go POOF!

You haven’t shown that we can eliminate that possibility. You’ve used logic that one would sensibly apply to finite limits, and applied to a concept - infinity - that we are inequipped to understand. You may be right, you may be wrong (it’s gotta be one or the other!) but we can’t know for sure because both options contain concepts that we fundamentally cannot understand or explain. So the argument fails as a proof.

ive posted the specific reasons that its something we can eliminate.

1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’

you may appeal to some quality of ‘infinity’ that neither of us can know of, as a justification, but if we are to accept things that cant be shown, then we may as well accept the existence of G-d straight out and skip the intervening steps.

As I’ve said, I’m willing to take it as read that there is a necessary being in the interests of advancing the argument - how do you get from this first cause to God? I’m not really interested in batting necessary vs contingent back and forth any more, as I think it’s futile.

i have other threads going and i dont want to add to the discussions im in right now. just too busy, and its only going to get worse in a few weeks.

 

[wanstronian]

ok

1. it has nothing to do with an infinite regress. when St. Aquinas wrote the arguments concerniong a necessary being, no one had yet invented an argument from infinite regress.

I haven’t read Aquinas in any detail. I’d be interested to know his rationale for positing the actuality of a necessary being. Maybe that’s what I’m missing - the rationale for an actual - rather than conceptual - necessary being.

as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

Only if such a being is possible. Defining something as ‘necessary’ doesn’t make it so. Otherwise, as I said upthread, I could simply define a necessary pile of money in my bank account and go on a spending spree. You need to show that this necessary being is not only definable, but actual.

1. contingent beings exist

1. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction.

because a necessary beings non-existence entails a logical contradiction. which means that there is no point at which a necessary being does not or cannot exist. it must always exist, so there is no point at which it can go POOF!

As I said, this is only true if there is actually such a thing as a necessary being. Simply defining something as ‘necessary’ does not entail a logical contradiction if it doesn’t exist.

ive posted the specific reasons that its something we can eliminate.

1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’

But it doesn’t. It simply uses bare assertion to state that contingent beings need a necessary being.

Why isn’t a necessary being a violation of the PSR? What’s the **reason **for the necessary being?

you may appeal to some quality of ‘infinity’ that neither of us can know of, as a justification, but if we are to accept things that cant be shown, then we may as well accept the existence of G-d straight out and skip the intervening steps.

Well, my point isn’t to accept things that can’t be shown. Quite the opposite; I am conjecturing an alternative to illustrate that this ‘necessary being,’ which can’t be shown, also can’t be proved. I am advocating a philosophy where we don’t blindly accept something just because we might want to. Exactly the opposite of what you’ve suggested.

i have other threads going and i dont want to add to the discussions im in right now. just too busy, and its only going to get worse in a few weeks.

Okay, well I guess we’ll have to leave it if you’re not happy to complete the original challenge.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I haven’t read Aquinas in any detail. I’d be interested to know his rationale for positing the actuality of a necessary being. Maybe that’s what I’m missing - the rationale for an actual - rather than conceptual - necessary being.

i explained it in the qoute under this, but you should give some Aquinas a try, it is eye opening, and quite interesting. but its also dense and difficult.

Only if such a being is possible. Defining something as ‘necessary’ doesn’t make it so. Otherwise, as I said upthread, I could simply define a necessary pile of money in my bank account and go on a spending spree. You need to show that this necessary being is not only definable, but actual.

existence is actual, yes? ‘nothing exists’ is a logical contradiction. we can experience existence, and we can show the reverse is a logical contradiction, an impossibility. ergo the necessary being is actual. if you remove every contingent being, you are left with bare existence, beyond which we hit the logical contradiction of ‘nothing exists’

But it doesn’t. It simply uses bare assertion to state that contingent beings need a necessary being.

they need a cause, by definition. without a necessary being we hit the problems ive already mentioned.

Why isn’t a necessary being a violation of the PSR?

because it doesnt ‘happen’ or come into existence, it must always exist. the PSR applies to what happens or comes into existence.

What’s the **reason **for the necessary being?

because ‘nothing exists’, is a logical contradiction, an impossibility

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.

:thumbsup:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

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.’

Your denial is baseless. The hows and whys of a necessary being is really irrelevant to the validity of the argument and secondary in concern when trying to understand why potential realities exist. We know by force of logic that a contingent reality cannot support its own existence; we know by force of logic that absolutely nothing cannot logically exist and that out of nothing comes nothing. Thus we have to admit by force of logic that there is a necessary reality; otherwise we cannot rationally understand reality. Thus there is only two options;

1. Either there is a first and necessary cause.
2. Or reality is fundamentally irrational.

If that is the difference between a theist and an atheist, then the theist certainly cannot be called irrational; since we are faithful to logical thinking, and you are not. Nobody is sneaking in anything. You would not deny that 2+2 = 4, therefore there is no basis for you to deny that the argument for the existence of a necessary being follows logically and consistently. Your denial is purely a personal dislike of the consequences of such an argument. I resent your continuous attempts to imply that warpspeedpetey is not arguing logically and consistently, and making arbitrary conclusions that do not follow from the facts. This is not true.

A square triangle cannot exist. I cannot exist and not exist at the same time. If you admit the valid truth of those two statements, then you have to accept the validity of his argument in so far as its logical structure is concerned, and the validity of its implications about what can and cannot happen in reality.

The fact is, contrary to your scientism, we can know things about objective reality through logical discourse.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. Either there is a first and necessary cause.
2. Or reality is fundamentally irrational.

If that is the difference between a theist and an atheist, then the theist certainly cannot be called irrational; since we are faithful to logical thinking,

:clapping:

thats exactly how it is. its either logic, or magic.

and i diont believe in magic!

 

[wanstronian]

i explained it in the qoute under this, but you should give some Aquinas a try, it is eye opening, and quite interesting. but its also dense and difficult.

Well if you’ve explained it, then there’s no point me reading Aquinas! I’ll refute his conclusions the same way I’ve refuted yours!

existence is actual, yes? ‘nothing exists’ is a logical contradiction. we can experience existence, and we can show the reverse is a logical contradiction, an impossibility. ergo the necessary being is actual. if you remove every contingent being, you are left with bare existence, beyond which we hit the logical contradiction of ‘nothing exists’

Surely you see that this is only true if a necessary being can exist? Simply defining something as ‘necessary’ does not actualise it. As I have shown with my ‘necessary pile of money’ analogy. You claim to use logic to reach your conclusion, yet you seem unaware of the fundamental logical fallacy you are committing here!

they need a cause, by definition. without a necessary being we hit the problems ive already mentioned.

And, as I have mentioned at least five times - the cause of each is the preceding being. We cannot demonstrate conclusively that this isn’t the case, therefore the argument fails at the point where it erroneously asserts the existence of a necessary being. I have seen nothing that demonstrates that there is any such thing as a necessary being - just that if there is, then it exists. That’s a big ‘if,’ for which I still see no convincing evidence - just opinion.

because it doesnt ‘happen’ or come into existence, it must always exist. the PSR applies to what happens or comes into existence.

How very convenient for your argument! You’re presumably aware that it gives your hypothetical necessary being a get-out-of-jail-free card? That’s just special pleading.

because ‘nothing exists’, is a logical contradiction, an impossibility

Your answer presupposes the actualisation of a necessary being, which you have yet to demonstrate. Nobody is suggesting that nothing exists. An infinite regress of contingent beings satisfies your ‘nothing exists is a logical contradiction’ requirement. So, what is the reason for a necessary being, other than your previous repeated bare assertions that contingent beings need a necessary being?

Another thought occurs - could there be lots of necessary beings? If not, why not?

And one final question - I have agreed to suppose, for the sake of the rest of the argument, that a necessary being exists. I do this because I want to see how you get from there to God. That was, after all, the original challenge which you accepted. Are you prepared to meet this challenge, or not?

If not, let’s call it a day. I’ve got everything I need out of this so far - I’m happy that the Cosmological argument doesn’t stand up. I don’t need you to admit that you’re wrong, I know that’s not going to happen and it was never my aim.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well if you’ve explained it, then there’s no point me reading Aquinas! I’ll refute his conclusions the same way I’ve refuted yours!

insisting on what cannot logically exist, an infinite chain of contingent beings, doesn refute anything.

you still havent shown that such a thing is possible from the 3 objections i posted.

Surely you see that this is only true if a necessary being can exist? Simply defining something as ‘necessary’ does not actualise it.

the necessary being does not actualize. it must alwas exist, or be ‘actual.’ there is no question of ‘can’ exist, becuase it is a ‘must’ exist. there is no other choice because ‘nothing exists’ is a logical contradiction

As I have shown with my ‘necessary pile of money’ analogy. You claim to use logic to reach your conclusion, yet you seem unaware of the fundamental logical fallacy you are committing here!

i am unaware of this logical fallacy, please post the specific one your pointing out. use the technical name so i know what your talking about

as to a necessary ‘pile of money’ a pile of money is a contingent being. the only thing that is necessary is existence, the essence of G-ds being.

maybe you dont understand, but the necessary being is existence itself.

And, as I have mentioned at least five times - the cause of each is the preceding being. We cannot demonstrate conclusively that this isn’t the case, therefore the argument fails at the point where it erroneously asserts the existence of a necessary being.

you have yet to over come the 3 objections i have posted to the infinite chain of contingent bengs.

simply insisting that there may be something that isnt logically possible, doesnt cut it.

ive posted the specific reasons that its something we can eliminate.

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

I have seen nothing that demonstrates that there is any such thing as a necessary being - just that if there is, then it exists. That’s a big ‘if,’ for which I still see no convincing evidence - just opinion.

yet again

**1. contingent beings exist

1. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

please which one of these is an opinion? do contingent beings not exist, or is an existent nothing an actual possibility?

How very convenient for your argument! You’re presumably aware that it gives your hypothetical necessary being a get-out-of-jail-free card? That’s just special pleading.

thats not special pleading, thats the definition of the PSR, which we didnt write.

An infinite regress of contingent beings satisfies your ‘nothing exists is a logical contradiction’ requirement.

ive posted the reasons why an infinite chain of contingent beings cannot logically exist, your repeating that it can without showing this to be true. please those adrdess those three objections

So, what is the reason for a necessary being, other than your previous repeated bare assertions that contingent beings need a necessary being?

itsd not an assertion, unti you can show that an infinite cahin of contingent beings is possible, then its not an alternative.

Another thought occurs - could there be lots of necessary beings? If not, why not?

it seems that existence is uniform, either thigs are or they are not. anything else would violate the law of non-contradiction. how does soemthing exist, but not exist without creating a logical impossibility?

And one final question - I have agreed to suppose, for the sake of the rest of the argument, that a necessary being exists. I do this because I want to see how you get from there to God. That was, after all, the original challenge which you accepted. Are you prepared to meet this challenge, or not?

If not, let’s call it a day. I’ve got everything I need out of this so far - I’m happy that the Cosmological argument doesn’t stand up. I don’t need you to admit that you’re wrong, I know that’s not going to happen and it was never my aim.

what would be the point?, you are dodging the reasons an infinite chain of contingent beings cant exist, and the 2 reasons a necessary being must exist.

until you do, we havent settled the argument, and if you cant the argument stands.

so if you wont submit to flat out logic, then why would i think that the leap to G-d is any different?

 

[wanstronian]

insisting on what cannot logically exist, an infinite chain of contingent beings, doesn refute anything.

You keep saying this, but you can’t show that an infinite chain cannot exist. You’re just stating that it can’t.

you still havent shown that such a thing is possible from the 3 objections i posted.

I haven’t tried to show that it’s possible - I’ve said many times, nobody can know. Similarly, nobody can know whether a necessary being exists. So why choose one over the other, unless it’s to reach a desired conclusion?

the necessary being does not actualize. it must alwas exist, or be ‘actual.’ there is no question of ‘can’ exist, becuase it is a ‘must’ exist. there is no other choice because ‘nothing exists’ is a logical contradiction

You’re missing the point. Just ‘defining’ a necessary being does not bring it into existence. There is no reason to believe that a necessary being is more than just a pure concept. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

i am unaware of this logical fallacy, please post the specific one your pointing out. use the technical name so i know what your talking about

Well my example of a ‘necessary’ pile of money should highlight the problem. But it is often referred to as ‘reification’, or the ‘existential fallacy.’

as to a necessary ‘pile of money’ a pile of money is a contingent being. the only thing that is necessary is existence, the essence of G-ds being.

But a defined necessary pile of money is the same as a defined necessary being. A pile of money is a being, isn’t it? So it’s just a definition. Not actualisation.

maybe you dont understand, but the necessary being is existence itself.

I understand that’s your conjecture, yes, but if we all believed the unconfirmed conjecture of others we’d never get anywhere.

you have yet to over come the 3 objections i have posted to the infinite chain of contingent bengs.

Yes I have. You just don’t accept my refutations. Big difference.

simply insisting that there may be something that isnt logically possible, doesnt cut it.

Indeed, and I haven’t done this at any point.

ive posted the specific reasons that its something we can eliminate.

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being. **

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

**this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

Again, just because you reject my points, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. It just means we disagree.

please which one of these is an opinion? do contingent beings not exist, or is an existent nothing an actual possibility?

Neither of these is an opinion, nor have I stated that they are. Do you have to resort to straw men? I suppose you probably do…

thats not special pleading, thats the definition of the PSR, which we didnt write.

It’s a misuse of the PSR in that you use it to ‘prove’ your conclusion based upon unproven premisses - namely, that your defined ‘necessary being’ actually exists and always has.

ive posted the reasons why an infinite chain of contingent beings cannot logically exist, your repeating that it can without showing this to be true. please those adrdess those three objections

I’ve stated that we can’t know that it can’t exist. I have addressed your objections several times over now.

itsd not an assertion, unti you can show that an infinite cahin of contingent beings is possible, then its not an alternative.

I could say the same about a necessary being.

it seems that existence is uniform, either thigs are or they are not. anything else would violate the law of non-contradiction. how does soemthing exist, but not exist without creating a logical impossibility?

Erm, I asked whether you thought that more than one necessary being could exist. You haven’t answered this question.

what would be the point?, you are dodging the reasons an infinite chain of contingent beings cant exist, and the 2 reasons a necessary being must exist.

until you do, we havent settled the argument, and if you cant the argument stands.

so if you wont submit to flat out logic, then why would i think that the leap to G-d is any different?

I guessed it would only be a matter of time before you accused me of ‘dodging’ - it’s your standard tactic when anyone disagrees with you for more than a couple of posts. You must be right, therefore anybody who disagrees with you must be ‘dodging.’ It’s sad really - not only are you unable to prove your assertions, you don’t even seem to be aware that you’re unable to do so, even when the flaws are pointed out to you!

We’re obviously not going to agree on this. I’m happy that I’ve refuted the argument. I don’t care whether you agree -I know you have to protect your own agenda.

I’ve made a concession in the interest of seeing the discussion through to its original purpose. It seems you are now backing out of the challenge that you originally accepted. Shame, but in any case, I have no further interest in this thread unless you’re going to accept my concession and move the argument forward.

 

[tonyrey]

You keep saying this, but you can’t show that an infinite chain cannot exist. You’re just stating that it can’t.

An infinite number of causes? Are you serious? It is logically possible but why go for the most uneconomical solution that has ever been proposed!

Occam’s Razor would become so blunt it would be useless…

 

[wanstronian]

An infinite number of causes? Are you serious? It is logically possible but why go for the most uneconomical solution that has ever been proposed!

Occam’s Razor would become so blunt it would be useless…

If you had read my posts properly you would realise that I am not advocating an infinite regress. I am merely using its possibility to show that the Cosmological argument is inconclusive.

As to whether it’s more or less than economical than a necessary being, is a question we simply lack the knowledge to answer. That’s the problem with all these sorts of arguments - one can reach a conclusion only by making assumptions that are unverifiable.

 

[Thing]

If you had read my posts properly you would realise that I am not advocating an infinite regress. I am merely using its possibility to show that the Cosmological argument is inconclusive.

As to whether it’s more or less than economical than a necessary being, is a question we simply lack the knowledge to answer. That’s the problem with all these sorts of arguments - one can reach a conclusion only by making assumptions that are unverifiable.

An infinite chain is the same an an infinite cause, is’nt it?, which is the same as the God of Christianity. An infinite cause who maintains everything in its existance at every moment, sort of like re-creating a thing anew every moment, like an infinite chain.uch:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You keep saying this, but you can’t show that an infinite chain cannot exist. You’re just stating that it can’t.

I haven’t tried to show that it’s possible - I’ve said many times, nobody can know. Similarly, nobody can know whether a necessary being exists. So why choose one over the other, unless it’s to reach a desired conclusion?

let me post it yet again. this is the reason that an infinite chain of contingent beings cannot exist and why a necessary being must exist.

ive posted the specific reasons that its something we can eliminate.

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

You’re missing the point. Just ‘defining’ a necessary being does not bring it into existence. There is no reason to believe that a necessary being is more than just a pure concept. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

the reason it is more than pure concept is…

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

Well my example of a ‘necessary’ pile of money should highlight the problem. But it is often referred to as ‘reification’, or the ‘existential fallacy.’

first these are 2 different fallacies

there is no such thing as a reification fallacy. i cant find any examples outside of atheist literature, and the wiki.

i dont see how the existential fallacy applies here? this fallacy has different meanings in different logics, so be specific.

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

i wonder if your not trying to make the empirical claim?

But a defined necessary pile of money is the same as a defined necessary being. A pile of money is a being, isn’t it? So it’s just a definition. Not actualisation.

no, a pile of money is a contingent being. every dollar could fail to exist. without entailing a logical contradiction.

I understand that’s your conjecture, yes, but if we all believed the unconfirmed conjecture of others we’d never get anywhere.

its not conjecture, its a logical necessity. a contradiction results, an ‘existent nothing’

Yes I have. You just don’t accept my refutations. Big difference.

you havent even adressed them. please show me where you have adressed each one and shown it to be wrong? ill post them yet again.

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

Indeed, and I haven’t done this at any point.

you have insisted that an infinite chain of contingent beings is an alternative to a necessary being.

you havent even addressed my first 3 objections.

Again, just because you reject my points, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. It just means we disagree.

this is still dodging the 3 objections, if you have refuted them then please post what you think are the refutations.

i havent seen you adress them at all.

Neither of these is an opinion, nor have I stated that they are. Do you have to resort to straw men? I suppose you probably do…

yes you did right here.

I have seen nothing that demonstrates that there is any such thing as a necessary being - just that if there is, then it exists. That’s a big ‘if,’ for which I still see no convincing evidence - just opinion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s a misuse of the PSR in that you use it to ‘prove’ your conclusion based upon unproven premisses - namely, that your defined ‘necessary being’ actually exists and always has.

the necessary being isnt the premise of the argument, its the conclusion. however, its not a misuse of the PSR, because im not proving anything with the PSR. you asked why the necessary being cant be a violation of the PSR, and i told you.

I’ve stated that we can’t know that it can’t exist. I have addressed your objections several times over now.

except i keep posting why this isnt so and you keep dodging answering these.

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

I could say the same about a necessary being.

which i have repeatedly, yet you ignore the reason.

again.

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

Erm, I asked whether you thought that more than one necessary being could exist. You haven’t answered this question.

yes i did right here.

it seems that existence is uniform, either thigs are or they are not. anything else would violate the law of non-contradiction. how does soemthing exist, but not exist without creating a logical impossibility?

can you see it now? its in the bolded right here!

I guessed it would only be a matter of time before you accused me of ‘dodging’

then stop doing it and adress the issues. these specifically.

**as ive mentioned before a necessary being must exist, because its non-existence entails a logical contradiction.

1. contingent beings exist
2. an existent nothing is a logical contradiction. **

and

**1. an infinite number of contingent beings are no more capable of causing themselves than a single contingent being.

A) if they pass from potential to actual in masse they still require a cause. if not this is a violation of the PSR. a POOF! theory, they happened without a cause.

B) if they pass from potential to actual in any kind of order, they still require a necesssary being.

C) if they have always been actual, then they are really necessary beings fitting that definition.

this should eliminate an ‘infinite regression of contingent beings’ **

you havent adressed any of these.

• it’s your standard tactic when anyone disagrees with you for more than a couple of posts. You must be right, therefore anybody who disagrees with you must be 'dodging.

no, i accuse people of dodging when they ignore refutations of their argument and do not address them, as you have repeatedly done. answer them!

’ It’s sad really - not only are you unable to prove your assertions, you don’t even seem to be aware that you’re unable to do so, even when the flaws are pointed out to you!

im happy to talk about the flaws you see, only you dont adress it when i refute them. you ignore the refutations and repeat your arguemtn as though nothing were said

We’re obviously not going to agree on this. I’m happy that I’ve refuted the argument. I don’t care whether you agree -I know you have to protect your own agenda.

you havent refuted anything, youve simply insisted on some logically impossible structures and refused to addtress the issues that invalidate them.

I’ve made a concession in the interest of seeing the discussion through to its original purpose. It seems you are now backing out of the challenge that you originally accepted. Shame, but in any case, I have no further interest in this thread unless you’re going to accept my concession and move the argument forward.

until this is settled all other points are moot, nor does the contingency argument show who G-d is, thats an entirely separate argument.

i am not going to move on to an entirely separate argumentl, before the basis of why G-d must exist is settled.

either adress these issues, or admit there is no refutation. you read some atheist websites and assumed they were right, noe that you are confronted you refuse to adress the issues.

how am i to take this as anything short of straight out cognitive dissonance?

 

[tonyrey]

If you had read my posts properly you would realise that I am not advocating an infinite regress. I am merely using its possibility to show that the Cosmological argument is inconclusive.

A possibility is not a substantial reason for rejecting a conclusion to which you can present no alternative. It is reasonable to accept any consistent explanation that cannot be refuted.

As to whether it’s more or less than economical than a necessary being, is a question we simply lack the knowledge to answer.

Yet atheists have used the principle of economy to attempt to disprove the existence of God.
It seems a matter of selecting criteria to arrive at one’s preferred explanation…

That’s the problem with all these sorts of arguments - one can reach a conclusion only by making assumptions that are unverifiable.

If that is the case it is more reasonable to be an agnostic rather than an atheist…