**The Necessary Reality Argument**

[IWantGod]

Of course this model does not address how these states arose, or what rules govern an individual’s awareness of progress through them, or how those rules arose. If we are not to get stuck in an infinite regression loop, we must postulate some factor external to time and space, which must therefore be unchanging. This is IwantGod’s “necessary non-physical cause of reality”.

But is it necessarily intelligent?

I think there are two ways we can show this to be necessary. One is by process of elimination which i presented in premise 8…

There are only two types of causes, natural and intelligent. Because necessary reality is not physical it cannot function as a physical or natural cause. It is not a natural process.

I then go on to point out that an intellect is the only option left. But you obviously disagree.

Another argument would involve the consistent behavior of unnecessary beings, the fact that they consistently act to particular ends even though their natures are not necessary…

We can go over that later on, but for now i need to do some things. I will be back.

 

[AlNg]

What you can say is that there is an actual infinite and thus no temporal beginning to their existence.

The “actual infinite” does not exist in this argument. There is only the NOW. The past does not exist and the future does not exist. The past did exist, but it does not exist NOW. However, historically, you can always go back as far as you want to a finite time in the past. There is no limit to the length of the finite time you can go back. But it is always a finite distance in time measured from the time NOW that you are going back.

 

[IWantGod]

It doesn’t make any difference. I’m not even going to bother explaining what i meant by the term actual infinite, because it doesn’t matter. You can say that there has been an infinite number of events in the past, but obviously you cannot say that those events are necessarily actual.

 

[AlNg]

It doesn’t make any difference. I’m not even going to bother explaining what i meant by the term

It might not make any difference to you, but to those trying to understand the argument, my guess is that it would make a difference.

 

[IWantGod]

It might not make any difference to you, but to those trying to understand the argument, my guess is that it would make a difference.

Neither does saying that there has only been a potential infinite number of event in the past going to make iggypkrebsbach’s “eternal and necessarily existing series of contingent entities” rationally coherent.

This is what you need to understand.

 

[AlNg]

This is what you need to understand.

I understand that what exists is NOW. The past does not exist nor does the future. The past did exist and the future will exist, but they are not existing NOW. And in the argument, there is no infinite regress. Assuming that there is spacetime before each Big Bang, there is a regress which goes back into the past as far as you want to any specific time which is a finite distance from NOW.

 

[IWantGod]

I understand that what exists is NOW. The past does not exist nor does the future.

It’s irrelevant.

there is a regress which goes back into the past as far as you want to any specific time which is a finite distance from NOW.

There has either been an infinite number of events before this point or there has not. Either way it is irrelevant. Those events are not necessarily actual and that is what i was pointing out to iggypkrebsbach’s.

 

[AlNg]

Those events are not necessarily actua

I disagree. Events in the past are actual since they actually happened.

It’s irrelevant.

I

It doesn’t make any difference. I’m not even going to bother explaining

I disagree. I see the argument that I presented as relevant and making a difference. Further, although I think that my argument should be clear, I am willing to explain it further if need be.

 

[IWantGod]

I disagree. Events in the past are actual since they actually happened.

They actually happened but that is not the same thing as being necessarily actual… What you are doing here is just a game of semantics.

And no…you do not need to explain it any further. I get the gist of it.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s been a pleasure everybody. You have succeeded in making my head bigger than it was before. But i appreciate all your arguments.

 

[AlNg]

They actually happened but that is not the same thing as being necessarily actual… What you are doing here is just a game of semantics.

I thought it was you who was playing the semantics game. You say that things actually happened in the past. But they are not actual? The meaning of the word actual is something that exists or has existed in fact. So it is necessary to admit that if something actually happened in the past, then because of the definition of the word actual, it is necessary to admit that these things were actual. So they are necessarily actual by the definition of the words themselves.

 

[IWantGod]

You mean, if they are in the past, it is necessary to say they were actual relative to the present moment, since past events are certainly not actual at this very moment are they. It seems to me you are confusing the context in which a thing is said.

You are not making much sense.

 

[AlNg]

You are not making much sense.

Perhaps that is because I am going by the accepted definition of the word actual: The accepted meaning of something being actual AFAIK is something that exists or has existed in fact.
I thought that most people would agree that there is a difference between something which exists or has existed in fact (i.e. ACTUAL) and something which happened in a dream or in a fictional novel. (i,e, NOT ACTUAL).
In any case, this makes sense to me. I am sorry that it does not make sense to you.

 

[IWantGod]

So when a Christian refers to only the present as being “actual”, they’re speaking from their own limited perspective. From God’s perspective however, both the past, and the future, must be just as “actual” as the present.

Fair point, but that doesn’t change the fact that things change, that things move from potential to actual. And this is the context in which i am using the word. Something that is necessarily actual in comparison does not move from potential too actual, it is not a sequence of actualized potential states because every thing that it is or could be is necessarily real while potential beings are not…

 

[IWantGod]

Again, you’re interpreting things from the perspective of an observer. And indeed, from an observer’s perspective things change. But from God’s perspective, things don’t change. What has been, and what will be, already are. Now which perspective…yours or God’s…do you think best represents reality? Do things change? Or don’t they?

Wrong. Things are changing insofar as physical reality is concerned. God exists outside of space-time and God is not physical. That is why he is not limited in his perspective and does not perceive change. His perspective relative to space time allows him to view the entirety of all change in one instant. That does not mean that there is no change, and its absurd to argue otherwise since change is self-evident.

 

[IWantGod]

Again, you’re thinking from the observer’s perspective. STOP DOING THAT!!!

Change is self-evident. I cannot ignore that fact. Thus there is something wrong with your argument, not mine. I will leave you to work it out.

 

[IWantGod]

And the operative concept in this statement…is “Self”. But the fact that it’s self-evident doesn’t negate the possibility that it’s wrong.

The fact that something is self-evident negates the possibility of it not being true, since the truth of it is self evident. I do not need to prove it. Things clearly change whether you accept it or not.

 

[IWantGod]

The question is, does the appearance of change, actually constitute change? Or is that change simply an illusion?

No, the real qeustion is can there be an illusion of change without something changing. Anyone who understands how illusions work will tell you no. If there was absolutely no change in existence we would never experience it, much less an illusion of it. Your argument leads to absurdity and that’s why i have to reject it.

 

[IWantGod]

You’re free to reject whatever you want to, it’s your choice, but it’s what I expected you to do. Which is the only thing that’s somewhat disappointing. Because I was hoping for better. Not that I hold it against you, you are what you are, and I can accept that without judging it. For better or worse…things are what they are.

The feeling is mutual, believe me.

I don’t know why you are intent on making my head bigger than it already is, but you have succeeded.

I was hoping to be humbled.

I’m looking for a master, not a student.

 

[IWantGod]

The question is, would you recognize one if you found one? And would they be a master if they simply agreed with you, or are they more likely to be a master, if they don’t?

lol. Master would certainly see the contradiction in thinking that absolutely no change exists while at the same time accepting the idea that the illusion of change.exists in our experience. Either way you are acknowledging change when we should not have any concept of it in the first place. You have rendered the very concept of an illusion absurd. An illusion only works because it has the appearance of something real, you are recognizing something.

As for the qeustion of whether or not i would recognize master. Arrogance and pride can certainly get in the way of that, but if you acknowledge your faults then these problems can be overcome. But by your standards, everything exists in your mind, so you have completely negated the possibility of finding your master.

The irony is sweet, very sweet indeed.