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. [/quote]
A temporally eternal cosmos is logically incoherent, but for the sake of discussion if it could exist that cosmos is still contingent.
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. [/quote]
It does not matter if the cosmos is eternal, it is still contingent. Contingency takes time out of the equation. Let’s use forlife’s example of matter. What is matter? Let’s say for the sake of argument everything following is true. Matter is made of singularities, that move and have charge. If not singularity, therefore not matter. If not movement, therefore not matter. If not charge, therefore not matter.
It cannot be though: not matter, therefore not singularity, movement or charge. Matter depends in it’s properties for it’s existence. Further, each component, singularity, movement and charge are also dependent upon something else for it to exist. There is no time here, only contingency.
And no you cannot apply the same rules to the Necessary Being or thing, as it must be, by definition uncaused, non-dependent, contingency free.
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. [/quote]
A temporally eternal cosmos is logically incoherent, but for the sake of discussion if it could exist that cosmos is still contingent.[/quote]
Why? First of all, “eternal” is not a temporal construct and is not bound or defined by time. Eternal renders “time” meaningless except to our experiences.
But for the sake of discussion however, explain how an eternal cosmos, no beginning, and no end, is contingent as you state.
I’ll also add that there is nothing “logical” about string theory and other advanced physical theories, but they may very well be true. “Logic” is of man’s mind. Our failure here may be trying to understand the mind of God or, a universe beyond our comprehension.
It does not matter if the cosmos is eternal, it is still contingent. Contingency takes time out of the equation. Let’s use forlife’s example of matter. What is matter? Let’s say for the sake of argument everything following is true. Matter is made of singularities, that move and have charge. If not singularity, therefore not matter. If not movement, therefore not matter. If not charge, therefore not matter.
It cannot be though: not matter, therefore not singularity, movement or charge. Matter depends in it’s properties for it’s existence. Further, each component, singularity, movement and charge are also dependent upon something else for it to exist. There is no time here, only contingency.
And no you cannot apply the same rules to the Necessary Being or thing, as it must be, by definition uncaused, non-dependent, contingency free.[/quote]
Fine, let’s abandon “causation” and speak “contingency”. You’re taking a reductionist approach to known matter by claiming that nothing exists without those parts that make it. Well, all the sum parts themselves just constitute “stuff” within the known universe. That they came together to form charge, spin, movement, etc. and ultimately what you refer to as “matter” is likely more a consequence of the physical laws of our known universe, rather than some apparent contingency chain. The “properties of matter” are already there, and have likely always been there.
I don’t think you made a very cogent argument for an eternal, yet contingent universe. I find your explanation confusing. And I have no opinion about the Necessary Being. That seems to be more relative to your discussion with forelife.
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. [/quote]
It does not matter if the cosmos is eternal, it is still contingent. Contingency takes time out of the equation. Let’s use forlife’s example of matter. What is matter? Let’s say for the sake of argument everything following is true. Matter is made of singularities, that move and have charge. If not singularity, therefore not matter. If not movement, therefore not matter. If not charge, therefore not matter.
It cannot be though: not matter, therefore not singularity, movement or charge. Matter depends in it’s properties for it’s existence. Further, each component, singularity, movement and charge are also dependent upon something else for it to exist. There is no time here, only contingency.
And no you cannot apply the same rules to the Necessary Being or thing, as it must be, by definition uncaused, non-dependent, contingency free.[/quote]
That last sentence is where you keep going astray.
The Necessary Being is noncontingent.
If anything with properties is contingent, the Necessary Being cannot have properties.
Since your idea of god has properties, your idea of god cannot be the Necessary Being.
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.
[/quote]
Please explain how something can be created and eternal. Creation is inherently temporal, since it requires a point in time where the thing didn’t exist.
Also, you keep saying energy and matter can’t do anything on their own but must be acted upon. Acted upon by what? Everything we currently know about matter and energy is that it does act and interact on its own. We have zero evidence for anything that exists outside of matter and energy, unless you consider time to be an interactional force.
It does not matter if the cosmos is eternal, it is still contingent. Contingency takes time out of the equation. Let’s use forlife’s example of matter. What is matter? Let’s say for the sake of argument everything following is true. Matter is made of singularities, that move and have charge. If not singularity, therefore not matter. If not movement, therefore not matter. If not charge, therefore not matter.
It cannot be though: not matter, therefore not singularity, movement or charge. Matter depends in it’s properties for it’s existence. Further, each component, singularity, movement and charge are also dependent upon something else for it to exist. There is no time here, only contingency.
And no you cannot apply the same rules to the Necessary Being or thing, as it must be, by definition uncaused, non-dependent, contingency free.[/quote]
Fine, let’s abandon “causation” and speak “contingency”. You’re taking a reductionist approach to known matter by claiming that nothing exists without those parts that make it. Well, all the sum parts themselves just constitute “stuff” within the known universe. That they came together to form charge, spin, movement, etc. and ultimately what you refer to as “matter” is likely more a consequence of the physical laws of our known universe, rather than some apparent contingency chain. The “properties of matter” are already there, and have likely always been there.
I don’t think you made a very cogent argument for an eternal, yet contingent universe. I find your explanation confusing. And I have no opinion about the Necessary Being. That seems to be more relative to your discussion with forelife.[/quote]
Contingency is causation…
And where did the physical laws of the known universe come from? For they too are contingent.
And where did the physical laws of the known universe come from? For they too are contingent.[/quote]
Okay This is pointless. I understand the CA perfectly. And you certainly understand the opposition to the CA. We always come full circle and I’m sure we don’t want to repeat the exercise others have repeated prior to us two guys from a BB forum.
I like the discussion (in general) but I think we ran the course with the CA. You should start another physics thread. The nature of time is a fascinating subject for starters.
Please explain how something can be created and eternal. Creation is inherently temporal, since it requires a point in time where the thing didn’t exist.
[/quote]
I thought I did, but anything brought about in timelessness would be both created and eternal…Time is also caused.
[quote]
Also, you keep saying energy and matter can’t do anything on their own but must be acted upon. Acted upon by what? Everything we currently know about matter and energy is that it does act and interact on its own. We have zero evidence for anything that exists outside of matter and energy, unless you consider time to be an interactional force.[/quote]
Exactly what acts upon it, what set it in motion? Why does it do what it does, and where did that come from? And yes, ‘information’ as discussed previously is ultimately what makes up the matter and energy. And just what is information? It’s not physical.
And if you are talking evidence, we have zero evidence that matter and energy has always existed. The best guess is that matter and energy as we know it came about through the big bang. Further, it is theorized to be able to be destroyed. Laws of conservation are not sufficient to explain the past present and future of all existence. It explains energy in an isolated system, that’s it.
AND further, like I said, you could never deductively prove the existence of matter. You cannot prove it’s anything more than imagination at work. That’s doesn’t mean it does not exist, it just means you are limit, wait for it…by perception. It’s not deductive. Deductive arguments are more true than inductive ones.
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. [/quote]
It does not matter if the cosmos is eternal, it is still contingent. Contingency takes time out of the equation. Let’s use forlife’s example of matter. What is matter? Let’s say for the sake of argument everything following is true. Matter is made of singularities, that move and have charge. If not singularity, therefore not matter. If not movement, therefore not matter. If not charge, therefore not matter.
It cannot be though: not matter, therefore not singularity, movement or charge. Matter depends in it’s properties for it’s existence. Further, each component, singularity, movement and charge are also dependent upon something else for it to exist. There is no time here, only contingency.
And no you cannot apply the same rules to the Necessary Being or thing, as it must be, by definition uncaused, non-dependent, contingency free.[/quote]
That last sentence is where you keep going astray.
The Necessary Being is noncontingent.
If anything with properties is contingent, the Necessary Being cannot have properties.
Since your idea of god has properties, your idea of god cannot be the Necessary Being.
[/quote]
No so, a non-contingent being must be, by defintion non-contingent. If said existence is contingent, it’s not a non-contingent being. It’s the solution that must be. It has to be non-contingent or it’s not true.
Since nothing can dismantle a non-contingent being, any properties it has must depend on it, and not the other way around. It’s a metaphysical necessity.
And where did the physical laws of the known universe come from? For they too are contingent.[/quote]
Okay This is pointless. I understand the CA perfectly. And you certainly understand the opposition to the CA. We always come full circle and I’m sure we don’t want to repeat the exercise others have repeated prior to us two guys from a BB forum.
I like the discussion (in general) but I think we ran the course with the CA. You should start another physics thread. The nature of time is a fascinating subject for starters. [/quote]
Thanks. Perhaps later, quite frankly I am a little burned out to start any new heady discussions. I may do it later though. Actually I would probably go with a philosophy of science thread. Time would need to be a part of that, too.
And where did the physical laws of the known universe come from? For they too are contingent.[/quote]
Okay This is pointless. I understand the CA perfectly. And you certainly understand the opposition to the CA. We always come full circle and I’m sure we don’t want to repeat the exercise others have repeated prior to us two guys from a BB forum.
I like the discussion (in general) but I think we ran the course with the CA. You should start another physics thread. The nature of time is a fascinating subject for starters. [/quote]
Thanks. Perhaps later, quite frankly I am a little burned out to start any new heady discussions. I may do it later though. Actually I would probably go with a philosophy of science thread. Time would need to be a part of that, too.[/quote]
After the initial brouhaha I enjoyed it. Thanks. I’ll be reviewing those references you provided further too.
And where did the physical laws of the known universe come from? For they too are contingent.[/quote]
Okay This is pointless. I understand the CA perfectly. And you certainly understand the opposition to the CA. We always come full circle and I’m sure we don’t want to repeat the exercise others have repeated prior to us two guys from a BB forum.
I like the discussion (in general) but I think we ran the course with the CA. You should start another physics thread. The nature of time is a fascinating subject for starters. [/quote]
Thanks. Perhaps later, quite frankly I am a little burned out to start any new heady discussions. I may do it later though. Actually I would probably go with a philosophy of science thread. Time would need to be a part of that, too.[/quote]
After the initial brouhaha I enjoyed it. Thanks. I’ll be reviewing those references you provided further too.[/quote]
Looks like we’ve kicked the horse to death at this point
I agree, it’s been a good discussion. Pat, while I don’t share your confidence that the CA must be true, I’ve enjoyed learning more about the theory. And I’ve appreciated the constructive discussion and spirit of respect.
This is pointless. I understand the CA perfectly. And you certainly understand the opposition to the CA. We always come full circle and I’m sure we don’t want to repeat the exercise others have repeated prior to us two guys from a BB forum.