I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
On another point, would you agree the validity of the cosmological argument depends on infinite regression being an impossibility?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Pat, you’re arguing strenuously that no thing is uncaused, but insist that God is uncaused. You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God, in my humble opinion. I respect your faith, but I think the CA is a terrible means to support it. It’s logical, based on incomplete assumptions about causation and the universe that are undermined by emerging theories. And it may always stand to be logical, based on the incomplete. I doubt very much our technology will unlock these questions any time soon. We’ll do things like we’re doing now, like removing time from an equation and finding that it then fits nicely with another equation that it should have fit prior or, we will discover a few more particles, but at the end of the day, we will be trying to measure and observe elements of the universe that are firmly beyond our experience.
It’s akin to attempting to measure 3 dimensions with a 2 dimensional tool. [/quote]
“You’re making a heckuva case for the non-existence of God” ← Then you do not understand the argument. How in the hell can you get an argument against the existence of God from an argument for it?
There aren’t assumptions. There’s three moving parts. Causation, regression and conclusion, I really don’t think you thinking this through based on what you said. You can’t be. I sense your still working this through by way of the scientific method within the realm of the known universe. It goes beyond that. [/quote]
My responses may be awkward. Admitted.
Let’s take this as you have stated it.
Causation: For the CA to be correct, causation need be the rule of the universe. We do know of things within our observation that appear to be uncaused and I have stated those prior, radioactive decay being one.
[/quote]
It’s not understood, doesn’t mean random. Randomness in the realm of science only indicates a lack of predictability, that doesn’t mean uncaused. We just don’t know enough about it’s behavior to make a prediction. You cannot have radioactive decay without something radioactive, right?
That’s only temporal regression, which is a kind, but not the only kind. You can have a property regression, you can have a reduction regression, dependency regression, etc. It doesn’t have to follow a timeline. To say, “My car needs it’s engine to move” isn’t a temporal order. It’s an order of requirement. Please don’t read too much into the example.
[quote]
Your conclusion is based on an unknown, an assumption at best (causation) based upon our experience. There is nothing you can write or postulate that is not in some way linked to our experience. Back to the 2d character. We both know the sphere exists because we can see and touch it. The 2d character will never know of the sphere. And his language and logical constructs will always be of the circle. [/quote]
You just said the conclusion is an unknown and then said it’s a function of our experience? It’s not, the logical problem itself drew the conclusion. It’s not an assumption; it is a solution to a problem. There is only one right answer to that problem, the Uncaused-cause is it.[/quote]
Quickly, but more later, I do agree with your final conclusion. The CA is a logical answer to the “problem” assuming that causation is the rule of the universe and not merely an illusion of our experience.
Yes, I said YOUR conclusion (the CA) is based upon an unknown. I “get” that it’s based on our “known” experience - but what are we doing here other than word play. I get the logical deductions from our “known” experience e.g. causation.
Thank you for clarifying other kinds of regression. I shall consider them further. I’m not sure I agree with property regression though. It seems more like “reduction” to me. But I’ll research, consider and comment further. Thanks for the food for thought.
Incorrect, movement, energy and that which composes something isn’t dependent on it’s result. They can live just fine with out the result.
[/quote]
This is circular. You’re claiming that matter does not exist uncaused. If it is in fact uncaused, it cannot exist without its result. No result = no causation.
[/quote]
I argued no such thing. I never said it cannot exist with out it’s result. I said it doesn’t exist uncaused and stated exactly why. We don’t even have to go into deduction to know that it was brought about, that it is caused.
And no, it’s not circular. No begging the question here.
First Cause is just a name, it’s not intended to indicate temporal order. Non-contingent being, Necessary Being, Uncaused-cause, all refer to the same thing.
“First cause” by nature and definition is necessarily a temporal construct. It implies a beginning. A beginning is temporal.
Can I at least get you to admit that in an eternal universe, causation is moot except within your discrete experience of a thing?
[quote]
Hell no. How would it be moot? Fine first cause indicates temporal order, so let’s go with uncaused-cause, that does not.
[quote]
And, causation is temporal. It implies a cause and effect, the effect proceeding after the cause on our timeline. If you disagree, provide an example of causation where the effect precedes the cause or occurs outside of time.[/quote]
That was debunked about 1500 years ago. Don’t take my word for it, look it up. [/quote]
That was messy. Uncaused-cause IS eternal in nature but you’re tip toeing around my question. In an eternal model of the cosmos, is there “causation” as we presently understand it, or is there just “causation” within our slice of perceived “time”? I’d like to hear your answer.
As to the debunking, if you’d provide a reference, I’d like to consider it.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Could not the cosmos itself fit that definition under an eternal model?
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
On another point, would you agree the validity of the cosmological argument depends on infinite regression being an impossibility?[/quote]
I think it would be more accurate to say that the validity of the CA depends on a finite universe as opposed to an eternal model. Infinite temporal regression still flows along a time line. Eternal is squarely outside of time. Time does not exist in an eternal universe except for an observer in a finite slice of experience or “time”.
Does not the Bible make reference to an “eternal” nature of God? If so, why are we imagining God in the anthropomorphic literal sense instead of the rich allegory that the Bible is unarguably filled with?
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
On another point, would you agree the validity of the cosmological argument depends on infinite regression being an impossibility?[/quote]
I think it would be more accurate to say that the validity of the CA depends on a finite universe as opposed to an eternal model. Infinite temporal regression still flows along a time line. Eternal is squarely outside of time. Time does not exist in an eternal universe except for an observer in a finite slice of experience or “time”.
Does not the Bible make reference to an “eternal” nature of God? If so, why are we imagining God in the anthropomorphic literal sense instead of the rich allegory that the Bible is unarguably filled with?[/quote]
That’s why I asked the question. If the CA depends on the argument that an infinite regression is impossible, the CA is definitionally time bound and ignores the possibility of timelessness, which we now understand to be possible. That is a major flaw of the theory. It’s understandable back in Aristotle’s day, but doesn’t make sense given our understanding of time.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Could not the cosmos itself fit that definition under an eternal model?[/quote]
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
[/quote]
Really? Matter and energy which are clearly contingent based on empirical science and math, are still what you call a non-contingent ‘thing’, which may or may not have always existed? OK, suit yourself, but I think you could find something stronger than that.
[quote]
On another point, would you agree the validity of the cosmological argument depends on infinite regression being an impossibility?[/quote]
It is a logical impossibility, it begs the question and is circular…Why do I get the feeling your about to throw me a link disputing that point?
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Could not the cosmos itself fit that definition under an eternal model?[/quote]
Eternal isn’t germane to it, causality is.[/quote]
Why? If the cosmos is eternal, where does causality fit in? Answer please.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
On another point, would you agree the validity of the cosmological argument depends on infinite regression being an impossibility?[/quote]
I think it would be more accurate to say that the validity of the CA depends on a finite universe as opposed to an eternal model. Infinite temporal regression still flows along a time line. Eternal is squarely outside of time. Time does not exist in an eternal universe except for an observer in a finite slice of experience or “time”.
Does not the Bible make reference to an “eternal” nature of God? If so, why are we imagining God in the anthropomorphic literal sense instead of the rich allegory that the Bible is unarguably filled with?[/quote]
That’s why I asked the question. If the CA depends on the argument that an infinite regression is impossible, the CA is definitionally time bound and ignores the possibility of timelessness, which we now understand to be possible. That is a major flaw of the theory. It’s understandable back in Aristotle’s day, but doesn’t make sense given our understanding of time.[/quote]
Didn’t we go over this like on page 20? Time is not relevant to the argument. Temporal causation, causation in a sequence of time is one kind. There’s hundreds of different types of causation, they all concern themselves with cause and effect in different states, order and sequences. I am not concerned with one type, only that causes necessitate their effects. That something relies on something else for it’s existence.
Why are we going in circles? I thought we’d been over and over it already…
It is a logical impossibility, it begs the question and is circular…Why do I get the feeling your about to throw me a link disputing that point?
[/quote]
I disagree that it is a “logical impossibility”. Please state why? Is it your opinion that an eternal cosmos is impossible? If so, why are we discussing this? There is nothing “circular” about eternal when you consider eternal in its proper context. I do believe “eternal” may be beyond our “reason” since we are potentially “time trapped”.
Given all that we do not know about time, and given that the removal of time merges two very sound theories neatly together, I think there is a case to be made that time is strictly a human construct. If time is strictly a human construct, then “eternal” is certainly possible, if not probable. Such a universe however, would not exclude “God” or an intelligent designer in my opinion.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
[/quote]
Really? Matter and energy which are clearly contingent based on empirical science and math, are still what you call a non-contingent ‘thing’, which may or may not have always existed? OK, suit yourself, but I think you could find something stronger than that.
Yes, really. I’m talking about matter and energy not being contingent for their CREATION, since I don’t believe matter and energy can be created, and in fact have always existed. They can evolve, change, and interact with other matter and energy over time, and in that sense only they are contingent. However, in that sense the theoretical god would be contingent as well, especially if you consider Jesus as a contingent being.
No link, I was just asking the question about an infinite temporal regress to make the point that it is only a logical impossibility if you are time bound. It is not illogical when you step outside of time.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
On another point, would you agree the validity of the cosmological argument depends on infinite regression being an impossibility?[/quote]
I think it would be more accurate to say that the validity of the CA depends on a finite universe as opposed to an eternal model. Infinite temporal regression still flows along a time line. Eternal is squarely outside of time. Time does not exist in an eternal universe except for an observer in a finite slice of experience or “time”.
Does not the Bible make reference to an “eternal” nature of God? If so, why are we imagining God in the anthropomorphic literal sense instead of the rich allegory that the Bible is unarguably filled with?[/quote]
That’s why I asked the question. If the CA depends on the argument that an infinite regression is impossible, the CA is definitionally time bound and ignores the possibility of timelessness, which we now understand to be possible. That is a major flaw of the theory. It’s understandable back in Aristotle’s day, but doesn’t make sense given our understanding of time.[/quote]
Didn’t we go over this like on page 20? Time is not relevant to the argument. Temporal causation, causation in a sequence of time is one kind. There’s hundreds of different types of causation, they all concern themselves with cause and effect in different states, order and sequences. I am not concerned with one type, only that causes necessitate their effects. That something relies on something else for it’s existence.
Why are we going in circles? I thought we’d been over and over it already…[/quote]
But the CA is directly dependent on temporal regression being a logical fallacy. It specifically is based on the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Something cannot begin to exist outside of time. The concept of beginning requires the concept that there was a time when the thing didn’t exist.
Didn’t we go over this like on page 20? Time is not relevant to the argument. Temporal causation, causation in a sequence of time is one kind. There’s hundreds of different types of causation, they all concern themselves with cause and effect in different states, order and sequences. I am not concerned with one type, only that causes necessitate their effects. That something relies on something else for it’s existence.
Why are we going in circles? I thought we’d been over and over it already…[/quote]
It appears you’re trying to put causation in a vacuum. Define the type of causation you are making veiled references to and how that fits into the CA without going back in time to the creation of the universe.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
[/quote]
Really? Matter and energy which are clearly contingent based on empirical science and math, are still what you call a non-contingent ‘thing’, which may or may not have always existed? OK, suit yourself, but I think you could find something stronger than that.
Yes, really. I’m talking about matter and energy not being contingent for their CREATION, since I don’t believe matter and energy can be created, and in fact have always existed. They can evolve, change, and interact with other matter and energy over time, and in that sense only they are contingent. However, in that sense the theoretical god would be contingent as well, especially if you consider Jesus as a contingent being.
No link, I was just asking the question about an infinite temporal regress to make the point that it is only a logical impossibility if you are time bound. It is not illogical when you step outside of time.[/quote]
You cannot regress infinitely, the key word is regress, not infinite. That’s the part that cannot happen infinitely.
Time is not relevant. I perhaps don’t explain it well, but time is not at issue here. To say that matter relies on energy and movement (at least) for it’s existence is not a temporal statement. It doesn’t matter if it happened in or out of time. As a matter of fact matter and energy are responsible for time, if none of it moved, there would be no time. Where there is no time all things are eternal. Technically something can be created and eternal at the simultaneously.
There are two huge empirical problems with your theory, the big bang and black holes. There is no evidence of eternal matter and the same conservation laws also have the constriction that used energy cannot be ‘recharged’. If that’s true, then there can be no ‘accordion’ universe theory because you’ll have only spent energy that cannot be returned to an uncharged state. Once all the universe’s energy is spent it’s dead, still and timeless once again. So in this scenario where the universe is closed or isolated, there is one shot. The energy would have had to exist in a pure potential state until something acted on it to put it in a kinetic state, which would bring us this universe and this universe will die. Even if gravity could act on expired energy, it cannot be recharged. So even if it did collapse back, it could only be little dead ball of existence.
Gravity in its relative weakness can crush energy. What’s not known is if it’s information is lost or not, some say yes, some say no. This theory, ‘Conformal Cyclic Cosmology’ says information is lost. And guess what? It all happens outside of time.
If you want to hang your hat on that go ahead, but it’s empirically flimsy and which makes it deductively flimsy as well. Again, it’s not saying the law is wrong, it says we don’t know enough about the universe to know if it applies in all circumstances.
Further, matter and energy cannot do anything on it’s own, it must be acted on.
Lastly, you cannot prove deductivly that matter even exists outside your own mind or some ‘mind’. It may be possible that this whole universe is an illusion and truly no matter actually exists and never has…
And a temporal infinite regress outside of time is impossible because you cannot regress temporally where you have no time. And you didn’t say ‘temporal’, you just said infinite regress.
I could similarly argue that said Necessary Thing must be be uncaused. Not can be, has to be, or it’s not Uncaused. Therefore, matter and energy are uncaused else they wouldn’t be the Necessary Thing.
What, if anything, is wrong with that logic? And before you answer, consider why the criticism doesn’t equally apply to the Necessary Being, rather than only to the Necessary Thing.
[/quote]
Because they are not the ‘Necessary Thing’. They are contingent on energy, space, movement, and stuff other than themselves to move them.
If it were the ‘Necessary Thing’ they wouldn’t be mired with all these issues. [/quote]
When I point out that god also has attributes, your reply is that those attributes follow his nature rather than him being contingent on them…because he is Uncaused.
[/quote]
It’s more stringent than that, has to be uncaused.
Omnipotence, benevolence, and omniscience don’t depend on their result either. They can live just fine without the result.
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point, so let me ask this. Where is your proof that the Uncaused Being is not an Uncaused Thing instead?[/quote]
It can be, so long as this ‘thing’ causes and cannot be caused, I am fine with that.[/quote]
Ok, so we agree that something exists uncaused. It’s just a question of what that something is. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that something is matter and energy. I personally think it is.
On another point, would you agree the validity of the cosmological argument depends on infinite regression being an impossibility?[/quote]
I think it would be more accurate to say that the validity of the CA depends on a finite universe as opposed to an eternal model. Infinite temporal regression still flows along a time line. Eternal is squarely outside of time. Time does not exist in an eternal universe except for an observer in a finite slice of experience or “time”.
Does not the Bible make reference to an “eternal” nature of God? If so, why are we imagining God in the anthropomorphic literal sense instead of the rich allegory that the Bible is unarguably filled with?[/quote]
That’s why I asked the question. If the CA depends on the argument that an infinite regression is impossible, the CA is definitionally time bound and ignores the possibility of timelessness, which we now understand to be possible. That is a major flaw of the theory. It’s understandable back in Aristotle’s day, but doesn’t make sense given our understanding of time.[/quote]
Didn’t we go over this like on page 20? Time is not relevant to the argument. Temporal causation, causation in a sequence of time is one kind. There’s hundreds of different types of causation, they all concern themselves with cause and effect in different states, order and sequences. I am not concerned with one type, only that causes necessitate their effects. That something relies on something else for it’s existence.
Why are we going in circles? I thought we’d been over and over it already…[/quote]
But the CA is directly dependent on temporal regression being a logical fallacy. It specifically is based on the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Something cannot begin to exist outside of time. The concept of beginning requires the concept that there was a time when the thing didn’t exist.[/quote]
You must be looking at the Kalam argument, I use the argument from contingency as my basis, time is irrelevant there as it too, is caused and therefore cannot bind causation.
Didn’t we go over this like on page 20? Time is not relevant to the argument. Temporal causation, causation in a sequence of time is one kind. There’s hundreds of different types of causation, they all concern themselves with cause and effect in different states, order and sequences. I am not concerned with one type, only that causes necessitate their effects. That something relies on something else for it’s existence.
Why are we going in circles? I thought we’d been over and over it already…[/quote]
It appears you’re trying to put causation in a vacuum. Define the type of causation you are making veiled references to and how that fits into the CA without going back in time to the creation of the universe. [/quote]
I am not arguing a type, yall are, actually, temporal causation or sequenced. The reason there are types of causation is basically make discussions and arguments less wordy. But they don’t apply here. I am not worried about a ‘type’ for they all apply. I am concerned with the basis for all causal types, that causes necessitate their effects. Because ‘A’ there is ‘B’, that under lies all causality.
Didn’t we go over this like on page 20? Time is not relevant to the argument. Temporal causation, causation in a sequence of time is one kind. There’s hundreds of different types of causation, they all concern themselves with cause and effect in different states, order and sequences. I am not concerned with one type, only that causes necessitate their effects. That something relies on something else for it’s existence.
Why are we going in circles? I thought we’d been over and over it already…[/quote]
It appears you’re trying to put causation in a vacuum. Define the type of causation you are making veiled references to and how that fits into the CA without going back in time to the creation of the universe. [/quote]
I am not arguing a type, yall are, actually, temporal causation or sequenced. The reason there are types of causation is basically make discussions and arguments less wordy. But they don’t apply here. I am not worried about a ‘type’ for they all apply. I am concerned with the basis for all causal types, that causes necessitate their effects. Because ‘A’ there is ‘B’, that under lies all causality.[/quote]
I understand that. But B comes after A. If not, and I asked you prior, give me an example, in or out of time, where effect does not proceed temporally from cause. You’re saying everything is caused. Correct? If so, I get that, and I have always understood that position. However, you cannot deduce to a “first cause” absent a temporal construct. If you can, I’d like to hear you amplify your position. The entire exercise of the CA is to deduce a “first cause” and an “uncaused causer”. Correct? Well, I say that such a conclusion is inextricably linked to a temporal construct.
And it brings me full circle and I don’t think you answered this question. Do you admit that if the cosmos are eternal, that causation is rendered moot for purposes of this discussion? You can argue it all you want, but causation by itself begs a beginning, a starting point.