Physics of the Afterlife

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.

202

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here.

203

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

Because there is nothing outside of it. There isn’t even an ‘outside of it’. It doesn’t have sides its infinite. All encompassing.

204

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

It’s definitionally noncontingent in the same way god is definitionally noncontingent. If the infinite series was never created, and if by existing it could not cease to exist, then it is noncontingent.

It’s really the same cosmological argument, only positing that the uncaused, necessary being is the infinite causal series rather than god.

205

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Adding to TTF’s last post is the idea of a static universe. Our species evolved in a time of space where certain conditions were right for life to evolve, but that does not mean those conditions were always present or that they will always be present.

An infinite universe does not mean that the current state of this universe will remain like this for ever and ever, or/and has always been like this for ever and ever.

The state of the universe does not matter.

The universe knows no beginning or end. The universe is God.

Now that’s a religion i could be part of![/quote]

Jaja, and your conscious mind is the means of God to see himself. Buddhists has known this for a long time.[/quote]

Perkele! Here i thought i was original (:

206

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Adding to TTF’s last post is the idea of a static universe. Our species evolved in a time of space where certain conditions were right for life to evolve, but that does not mean those conditions were always present or that they will always be present.

An infinite universe does not mean that the current state of this universe will remain like this for ever and ever, or/and has always been like this for ever and ever.

The state of the universe does not matter.

The universe knows no beginning or end. The universe is God.

Now that’s a religion i could be part of![/quote]

Jaja, and your conscious mind is the means of God to see himself. Buddhists has known this for a long time.[/quote]

Perkele! Here i thought i was original (:[/quote]

Say no more. It would be great to now what it’s like, to be original.

207

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

It’s definitionally noncontingent in the same way god is definitionally noncontingent. If the infinite series was never created, and if by existing it could not cease to exist, then it is noncontingent.

It’s really the same cosmological argument, only positing that the uncaused, necessary being is the infinite causal series rather than god.[/quote]

Exactly. Every flaw to this argument can equally be applied to the cosmological argument. Which is why this discussion will go on forever.

The only viable conclusion is that they are both possible.

I find it easier to imagine infinity than I do an uncaused cause. But others find it easier to imagine an uncaused cause than they do infinity. But that doesn’t mean anything for either side.

Pat, Joab and Cortes do you honestly not believe either is possible after everythng that’s been said?

If you’re religious then it’s my limited understanding that you can admit other logical options. But you have faith in the uncaused cause. God.

208

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

I am sure Pat or Cortes would prefer this version or the Leibnizian version due to a problem in your first premise in the presentation of the argument.[/quote]

6 is an assumption. You dont need it if you accept infinity as possible. If you have a infinite chain of contingent beings then you dont need a non-contingent being.

If you dont belive this then you either do not understand the concept of infinity or you believe it to be impossible. Which you cannot prove…

…Just like I cannot prove that a non-contingent being is possible.

They are both possible. [/quote]
6 comes from 5. Even if you have an infinite amount of contingent things, it is no explanation for the existence of contingent things. What you’re basically saying is contingent things exist because contingent things exist which is a circular argument.[/quote]

You are right. It would be a circular argument if you dont believe in the concept of infinity.

But I think infinity is possible and quite likely. It’s just hard to imagine.[/quote]
… Its still circular even if an actual “infinite” of contingent things existed, the number of contingent things is irrelevant.[/quote]

The number of contingent things is irrelevant unless its an infinite number of contingent things.

I think you are confusing infinite with a really really big number. If its infinite - THERE IS NO FIRST! If there was a first it wouldn’t be infinite. Unless you’re talking about an infinite progression from a starting point. Which is not an ‘Infinite Regress’.[/quote]
Ok lets say there is a set of contingent things named X, and Xn is describing the number of contingent things in the set and it could be any natural number (1,2,3…) or as dubiously claimed if it could exist an actual infinite. Saying that the explanation of X1 is due to the infinite number of contingent things prior to it ignores why the set of contingent things X itself exists.[/quote]

The set itself is the brute fact.[/quote]

Exactly! It’s just the same as the cosmology argument using the ‘Uncaused cause’ as a brute fact.

It exists because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here to ask the question.

Both arguments rely on a brute fact. If someone can explain why an uncaused cause is not a brute fact then it wont be an uncaused cause.[/quote]

No your argument relies on brute facts. Cosmology relies on it’s premises to be factual, you’re relying on the hope that one day a logical fallacy may stop being a logical fallacy for your argument to be fact.[/quote]

Do you agree with:

The uncaused cause exists because things such as life exist?

If so how does that differ from:

The infinite series exists because things such as life exists? [/quote]

The second doesn’t matter. There is still a reason this infinite series of causes would exist. That’s the problem that cannot be gotten around. The infinite series exists for a reason, not for no reason.

209

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

Oh? Explain how said series is non-contingent? You cannot logically reduce an infinite series to a non-contingency. It impossible to to with out using it self as the argument. An infinite series, is not non-contingent.

You made the claim so back it up with an argument…You’ll find you cannot, it been tried by other smart people with credentials. You cannot logically drill down to an infinite series as a conclusion, it’s a premise.
For instance, An infinate series of numbers as in pi exist because the equation 22/7 demands it. Pi isn’t pi for no reason.

210

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

Because there is nothing outside of it. There isn’t even an ‘outside of it’. It doesn’t have sides its infinite. All encompassing.[/quote]

What is all encompassing? Infinity? There are lots of different types of things that are potentially infinite, they don’t encompass ‘everything’. Especially a series is a repeat set of variables, not a repeating set of everything. Just for grins, lets say everything is in a repeating series. How does it repeat? Why does it repeat? IF you cannot answer those question, you can say ‘it’ is in a repeating series. You can’t have the information to know that with out knowing it’s contingencies. Hence, if everything were in a non-contingent repeating series, you cannot ever know it.

Try to break it down into a deductive logic statement. That will show you why it’s impossible. You cannot have finite set of variables lead to an infinite conclusion.

211

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

It’s definitionally noncontingent in the same way god is definitionally noncontingent. If the infinite series was never created, and if by existing it could not cease to exist, then it is noncontingent.

It’s really the same cosmological argument, only positing that the uncaused, necessary being is the infinite causal series rather than god.[/quote]

The Uncaused-cause is the only solution to the cosmological problem. You can’t change the answer just cause you don’t like it.
You cannot have an infinite regress, it’s circular, it begs the question, there is no way around the problem you cannot have a non-answer to the problem. You cannot make an argument that ends up in an infinite series, especially with the premises in the argument. Especially since the series is a finite number of repeating variables.

You can loop the tape to play over and over, but it’s infinitely repeating because you looped the tape. The infinite loop is contingent on the tape, there is not enough info on the tape to beable to deduce that it’s a repeating series on the tape…The recording can’t know it’s in a loop with out knowing it;s on a tape that was looped.

212

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
What is so hard to understand about the difference between contingency and time?

[/quote]

Nothing.

If something is contingent then it relies on something else for its existence.
If something is not contingent then it doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence.

The cosmology argument says ‘the uncaused cause’ is not contingent.
The infinity argument says ‘the infinite series’ as a whole is not contingent.

Do you agree with that?

But where I think the infinity argument carries more weight is that the concept of infinity means it never ends so there is nothing outside of the infinite series.

The problem is the wording. A series sounds like something that is seperate from everything else.

People view an infinite series as something that can be packaged into something. Because that is how the human mind likes to deal with things. In concepts. Infinity isn’t like this, you cannot package something that has no boundaries.
[/quote]

Exactly. I think people are confusing the infinite series with time when the argument is that the series itself is non contingent.[/quote]

I’m sorry why is the series non-contingent? I’m genuinely not understanding how you got here. [/quote]

It’s definitionally noncontingent in the same way god is definitionally noncontingent. If the infinite series was never created, and if by existing it could not cease to exist, then it is noncontingent.

It’s really the same cosmological argument, only positing that the uncaused, necessary being is the infinite causal series rather than god.[/quote]

Exactly. Every flaw to this argument can equally be applied to the cosmological argument. Which is why this discussion will go on forever.

The only viable conclusion is that they are both possible.

I find it easier to imagine infinity than I do an uncaused cause. But others find it easier to imagine an uncaused cause than they do infinity. But that doesn’t mean anything for either side.

Pat, Joab and Cortes do you honestly not believe either is possible after everythng that’s been said?
[/quote]
I don’t think you understand the argument very well based on what you said., you cannot draw this conclusion from the premises in the argument. Especially since you cannot have an infinite regress which is one of the premises.
You cannot reduce to infinity. It simply is not the answer. If it were it would been refuted hundreds of years ago, because this objection was brought up hundreds of years ago. The the argument can only have the conclusion it comes to and no other, because it’s what the premises demand.

Where your running into problems it’s your trying to find flaws with the argument. That’s not going to work because all the premises sufficiently legitimate to come to the conclusion they demand. Further all the premises are actualities.
Study causation and you’ll understand it better. The nature of causation is why this cannot be reduced to an infinite. Causes necessitate their effects, they are not their effects. Something cannot be caused by itself.
Second, which is something you both are missing is that saying ‘it’s infinite’ does not answer the question. The answer to ‘what caused it?’ cannot be ‘it’s just infinite’. It’s not more complicated than the fact that that phrase does not answer the question. It’s either a non-answer or a wrong answer, you take your pick. If I asked you your cousin’s name, and you told me he’s infinite, I might know something new about him, but I still don’t know his name. The question is specific, it’s a fair question to ask and it has a legitimate accurate anwer that follows from the premises presented…It really is that simple.

The only thing you can do is exactly what the theoretical physicists are trying to do. Hawking is trying to prove that something can come from nothing. That’s all you can do…HAwking got it down to gravity, he thinks.

213

How is saying its Infinite any more evasive or imaginary than saying its an uncaused cause.

Is it the wording?

How about instead of infinite we call it ‘The never ending non repeating chain’.

Obviously the ‘experts’ you are refering to do not all agree with you or this wouldn’t be an argument it would be a fact.

214

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
How is saying its Infinite any more evasive or imaginary than saying its an uncaused cause.

Is it the wording?

How about instead of infinite we call it ‘The never ending non repeating chain’.

Obviously the ‘experts’ you are refering to do not all agree with you or this wouldn’t be an argument it would be a fact.[/quote]

Does that answer the question? No it does not. You cannot come to that conclusion based on the premises. A never ending, non repeating chain, would still have a sufficient reason for existing and doing what it does which cannot be explained by simply saying ‘it just does it’. In other words, even if the ‘never ending chain’ existed, all you’d end up with is another premise which leads to the same conclusion, not a different one.

Said ‘experts’ understand the argument. They just think they may be able to one day find ‘something from nothing’ things like null theory have led them to believe it might be possible. Although, really weird, odd, or previously unseen, does not mean that something impossible is possible. The fact that they failed, but it hasn’t stopped them from trying. Nor would I want them to stop. Whether or not they ever discover ‘something from nothing’ is rather doubtful since it’s logically impossible. But the journey leads to very interesting discoveries.

The main reason success is elusive is that ‘nothing’ does not exist, literally. Nothing can’t do anything because it isn’t anything, nothing has no capability of anything, much less popping out existence. You can’t prove something from nothing because you can’t describe ‘nothing’, the second you do, it becomes a something, not a nothing.

215

How would you explain the existence of God?

216

[quote]pat wrote:
Does that answer the question? No it does not. You cannot come to that conclusion based on the premises. A never ending, non repeating chain, would still have a sufficient reason for existing and doing what it does which cannot be explained by simply saying ‘it just does it’. In other words, even if the ‘never ending chain’ existed, all you’d end up with is another premise which leads to the same conclusion, not a different one.[/quote]

Why does the ‘never ending non-repeating chain’ need a reason to to exist when the ‘unacaused cause’ doesn’t?

What if we call it ‘The uncaused never-ending non-repeating chain’?

217

[quote]ephrem wrote:
How would you explain the existence of God?[/quote]

Well that’s a different line of questioning all together. If you think of the argument like an equation, (which deductive arguments technically are) then as it does in math, what on the other side of the equation everything flips around, so instead of everything going it, everything technically flows out. But it’s a different question. Cosmology simply is an expression that proves an Uncaused-cause, or Necessary Being must exist, it doesn’t explain why, how or even what, if indeed they are definitionally valid.

Here’s all we can know about the Uncaused-cause from the basis of the argument. We know that ‘it’ exists. We know that it must necessarily sit outside the causal chain, we know it can act with out being acted upon, and that there can only be one. That’s all we can deduce.

It’s an interesting question, one I wouldn’t mind picking up later. But everybody has to play nice. Becuase at that point we have to act as if the Uncaused-cause, or God does exist. At that point we’re not discussing whether he exists, but what ‘It’ is. We cannot continuously haggle over existence and nature. It becomes a cluster fuck at if you try.

218

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
First lets review the definitions.

Contingent being - a being that if it exists can not-exist.

Necessary being - a being that if it exists cannot not-exist.

Any being is either a contingent or necessary in its existence, there is no third option since one is the negation of the other due to the law of excluded middle. So a non-contingent being would be a necessary in his existence while a unnecessary being would be contingent in its existence.

In the argument I posted it follows from 5 and 6 therefore 7 a necessary being exists.

The argument

  1. A necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
  2. The existing necessary being could not-exist.

Results in a contradiction.[/quote]

Agreed.

My point is that the necessary being is the infinite series. Definitionally, if it exists, it cannot not-exist.
[/quote]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
The deductive argument from contingency.

  1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
  2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
  3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
  4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
  6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Alright I just posted this for reference again since I don’t think its on this page.

Now I know the argument I just referenced is from Aquinas but I want to talk about Leibniz a bit. To him one of the most important questions is why is there something rather than nothing at all. As he pondered this question he reasoned that the answer why there is something rather than nothing is not found in the world of contingent beings but rather in a necessary being.

Now the argument beings with a fact about the world mainly that its contingent. In fact we have come to agree that there is a set whose members are all contingent whether or not there is a finite or as I will concede for sake of argument even thought its absurd an actual infinite of contingent members. Now I hope I illustrate the reason why the set of all contingents is contingent irrespective of the members it contains. If a set is made up of all contingent members all the members could have failed to exist even simultaneously at once which makes the set contingent. Saying a contingent(a contingent in the set) exists because a contingent (the contingent set of an actual infinite of contingencies) is circular reasoning.

Now varying the number of contingents in a set still doesn’t answer why is there something rather than nothing because the set is contingent. A possible response is that there is no reason for why the set exist, it just exist inexplicably which one is arguing against the second premise. This is fine but then one would have to admit to being arbitrary in their use of the principle of sufficient reason taxicabing when one arrives at their destination whether at the set itself or the universe also know as the taxicab fallacy. Otherwise people use PSR everyday in life and is foundational in science without science would be unable to progress. The question is one willing to pay this price tag for avoiding the conclusion?

The only answer to “why is there something rather than nothing” is grounded in a necessary being which sits outside the contingent set of contingents and cannot be the contingent set of contingents as this is mutually exclusive. This being we call God.

I am on board with pat here that we can start talking about God once this has been settled otherwise discussion will go nowhere.

219

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What evidence do you have that suggests that human awareness/consciousness is not [totally] contingent on physical attributes?[/quote]
Being serious Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia [/quote]

The question of “why does consciousness exists?” is answered when we discover how it comes into existence.

I’ve no doubt that, in the near future, we will find out how the brain gives rise to consciousness. For the moment though, i can only answer the “why?” question with, “because it does.”[/quote]
Aw common the “because it does” answer is never acceptable when the theist uses it =).

Anyways I have an argument from impossibility you may find interesting.

  1. A material object cannot have phenomenal experiences.
  2. Humans have phenomenal experiences.
  3. Therefore humans are not a material object.

I will quantify by what I mean by phenomenal experience by giving examples. Experiencing blueness, feeling empathy, love, pain or in actuality think.

Even if we know so much about the brain that we are able to make computers with the computational ability of our brains I still maintain that they cannot experience anything just as the same reason as a loaf of bread can’t object to me eating it.

A few objections are that either everything including rocks have phenomenal experiences, or that the working of our parts causes an epiphenomenon(massive delusion where we think we experience phenomenal experiences when we really don’t and there is no such thing). I think both are highly unlikely.

220

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
What evidence do you have that suggests that human awareness/consciousness is not [totally] contingent on physical attributes?[/quote]
Being serious Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia [/quote]

The question of “why does consciousness exists?” is answered when we discover how it comes into existence.

I’ve no doubt that, in the near future, we will find out how the brain gives rise to consciousness. For the moment though, i can only answer the “why?” question with, “because it does.”[/quote]
Aw common the “because it does” answer is never acceptable when the theist uses it =).

Anyways I have an argument from impossibility you may find interesting.

  1. A material object cannot have phenomenal experiences.
  2. Humans have phenomenal experiences.
  3. Therefore humans are not a material object.

I will quantify by what I mean by phenomenal experience by giving examples. Experiencing blueness, feeling empathy, love, pain or in actuality think.

Even if we know so much about the brain that we are able to make computers with the computational ability of our brains I still maintain that they cannot experience anything just as the same reason as a loaf of bread can’t object to me eating it.

A few objections are that either everything including rocks have phenomenal experiences, or that the working of our parts causes an epiphenomenon(massive delusion where we think we experience phenomenal experiences when we really don’t and there is no such thing). I think both are highly unlikely.[/quote]

Yeah, we’re never all going to agree on cosmology/infinity.

I think the Phenomenal experience discussion could be interesting.

Logically I think the epiphenomenon objection is more concurrent with modern scientific understanding.

Anecedotal evidence from my own life experiences agrees with this.

It is very hard to trace any emotion or act of consciousness back to something that’s not physical/material.

I cannot think of any. Can anyone else?