Of course it’s a premise, just like god being noncontingent is a premise. Both are logically possible, and neither can be disproved.[/quote]
Uncaused-cause is logically possible, infinte series is not logically possible.[/quote]
The infinite series IS an uncaused cause. You can call it logically impossible, but you have offered no proof to support this.[/quote]
You woefully misunderstood somthing. First of all, a ‘series’ Well here is the definition:
“a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in
temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence.”
So what you are saying isn’t a series. Even if it were, there is a reason for it’s existence, it isn’t cause it just is. That is a fallacy…
No, an infinte series being incontinent is not logically possible. Repeating the same thing a number of different ways is not going to make it suddenly true.
This objection was debunked hundreds of years ago. That’s why scientists and philosphers don’t fuck with it, save for Russell who made the same mistake, knew it was one and just didn’t give a shit.
[/quote]
How is it not a series? It is an infinite sequence of contingent things.
You keep insisting a noncontingent infinite series is impossible, without offering any proof for your claim.
If a god can be noncontingent, then an infinite series can be noncontingent.
[quote]pat wrote:
One more thing about infinite, there is no evidence of an infinite anything in the physical universe. Infinity is only true in concept. We don’t know that it isn’t infinite per se, but being able to measure it’s size and mass in total throws a huge rock into the combine of infinity.
Just sayin’ the best scientific guesses is the the physical universe is finite. [/quote]
The infinity is in the series of causes and effects, not in the size and mass of the universe.[/quote]
I was making a different point, but reduction still prove you cannot have an infinite “series” of cause and effects. Your dying on terminology.
[/quote]
You can have an infinite series if the series itself is noncontingent.
I welcome a logical argument against it, but continuing to insist it’s impossible doesn’t make it so.
[quote]pat wrote:
That’d because consciousnesses and emotion are already, not physical, they are metaphysical. A elctro-chemical reaction may produce a thought or an emotion, but ‘it’ is not itself the thought or emotion.[/quote]
Can you elaborate? I cannot deduce any logic that proves that the electro-chemical reaction is not the emotion.
[/quote]
I think this may help…
Basically, say you think of something in your childhood an image or event. And we were able to take an exact replica of all the electro-chemical activity in your brain and then replicate it in my brain exactly…Would we have the same thought?
I don’t have the same experience as you, so how could I have the same recollection, even with the exact same electro-chemical activity replicated? I may think of a squirrel fucking a coconut for all we know. [/quote]
Ha. I remember seeing a squirrel fuck a coconut when I was 6!
Interesting thought. The brain is so complex I cant’t imagine we would be capable of doing that for a long long time. But who’s to say that you wouldn’t have the exact same memory. Obviously there’s more to thought and memories than electro-chemical activity. I’m sure you would have to have identicle synapses and other things as well.
[quote]pat wrote:
One more thing about infinite, there is no evidence of an infinite anything in the physical universe. Infinity is only true in concept. We don’t know that it isn’t infinite per se, but being able to measure it’s size and mass in total throws a huge rock into the combine of infinity.
Just sayin’ the best scientific guesses is the the physical universe is finite. [/quote]
The infinity is in the series of causes and effects, not in the size and mass of the universe.[/quote]
I was making a different point, but reduction still prove you cannot have an infinite “series” of cause and effects. Your dying on terminology.
[/quote]
You can have an infinite series if the series itself is noncontingent.
I welcome a logical argument against it, but continuing to insist it’s impossible doesn’t make it so.[/quote]
Don’t you have to actually make an argument for it first? How could I counter argue something that does not exist?
Of course it’s a premise, just like god being noncontingent is a premise. Both are logically possible, and neither can be disproved.[/quote]
Uncaused-cause is logically possible, infinte series is not logically possible.[/quote]
The infinite series IS an uncaused cause. You can call it logically impossible, but you have offered no proof to support this.[/quote]
You woefully misunderstood somthing. First of all, a ‘series’ Well here is the definition:
“a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in
temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence.”
So what you are saying isn’t a series. Even if it were, there is a reason for it’s existence, it isn’t cause it just is. That is a fallacy…
No, an infinte series being incontinent is not logically possible. Repeating the same thing a number of different ways is not going to make it suddenly true.
This objection was debunked hundreds of years ago. That’s why scientists and philosphers don’t fuck with it, save for Russell who made the same mistake, knew it was one and just didn’t give a shit.
[/quote]
How is it not a series? It is an infinite sequence of contingent things.
[/quote]
You didn’t read the definition did you? An infinite sequence, really? So like it repeats the same thing over an over? And does that out of nothing for no reason?
Ok i am game, what’s in this sequence, why do you believe it to be one? And how exactly would it continually repeat itself?
You have to prove it exists first, don’t you…Cause you said so, is not a reason. What reasoning or evidence do you have this? It’s kind of important to establish your argument first.
I have explained several times why you’ll never succeed in constructing the argument…You need an infinite amount of premises to reach an infinite conclusion. If you have an infinite amount of premises, you can’t reach a conclusion.
[quote]
If a god can be noncontingent, then an infinite series can be noncontingent.
There is absolutely no logical conflict here.[/quote]
There is absolutely no logic behind your claim. Make your argument, or quit telling me that an argument that does not exist is as likely a scenario as an argument that does exist.
[quote]pat wrote:
That’d because consciousnesses and emotion are already, not physical, they are metaphysical. A elctro-chemical reaction may produce a thought or an emotion, but ‘it’ is not itself the thought or emotion.[/quote]
Can you elaborate? I cannot deduce any logic that proves that the electro-chemical reaction is not the emotion.
[/quote]
I think this may help…
Basically, say you think of something in your childhood an image or event. And we were able to take an exact replica of all the electro-chemical activity in your brain and then replicate it in my brain exactly…Would we have the same thought?
I don’t have the same experience as you, so how could I have the same recollection, even with the exact same electro-chemical activity replicated? I may think of a squirrel fucking a coconut for all we know. [/quote]
Ha. I remember seeing a squirrel fuck a coconut when I was 6!
Interesting thought. The brain is so complex I cant’t imagine we would be capable of doing that for a long long time. But who’s to say that you wouldn’t have the exact same memory. Obviously there’s more to thought and memories than electro-chemical activity. I’m sure you would have to have identicle synapses and other things as well.
What about a theoretical brain transplant?
[/quote]
I would assume if such a thing were possible, the mind that came with the brain, would follow. So Fred would just look like Fred and think like George…
Pat, will you please read what I’m posting instead of just auto-replying? I feel like I keep repeating myself.
Again:
It is not a repeating series. Why do you keep saying this, when I’ve never said it? It is an infinite series of causes and effects that has no beginning and no end. IT IS LINEAR, NOT CIRCULAR.
WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THE POINT THAT THE ARGUMENT I’M PRESENTING IS THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT?
The cosmological argument concludes that there must be an uncaused cause.
Are you with me?
We agree, for the sake of this discussion, that there is an uncaused cause.
The cosmological argument DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THIS NECESSARY BEING MUST BE A GOD.
It is perfectly consistent with the cosmological argument that THIS NECESSARY BEING COULD BE AN UNCAUSED INFINITE SERIES.
The series itself has no cause. It is definitionally noncontingent.
Either prove that this is impossible (hint: you can’t) or admit that this is a logical possibility. Insisting that the series can’t be uncaused doesn’t mean squat. You need to provide a compelling reason that it cannot possibly be uncaused, or stop insisting that it can’t.
[quote]pat wrote:
That’d because consciousnesses and emotion are already, not physical, they are metaphysical. A elctro-chemical reaction may produce a thought or an emotion, but ‘it’ is not itself the thought or emotion.[/quote]
Can you elaborate? I cannot deduce any logic that proves that the electro-chemical reaction is not the emotion.
[/quote]
I think this may help…
Basically, say you think of something in your childhood an image or event. And we were able to take an exact replica of all the electro-chemical activity in your brain and then replicate it in my brain exactly…Would we have the same thought?
I don’t have the same experience as you, so how could I have the same recollection, even with the exact same electro-chemical activity replicated? I may think of a squirrel fucking a coconut for all we know. [/quote]
Ha. I remember seeing a squirrel fuck a coconut when I was 6!
Interesting thought. The brain is so complex I cant’t imagine we would be capable of doing that for a long long time. But who’s to say that you wouldn’t have the exact same memory. Obviously there’s more to thought and memories than electro-chemical activity. I’m sure you would have to have identicle synapses and other things as well.
What about a theoretical brain transplant?
[/quote]
I would assume if such a thing were possible, the mind that came with the brain, would follow. So Fred would just look like Fred and think like George…[/quote]
If that were true wouldn’t it prove that thoughts and emotions are simply physical things?
[quote]pat wrote:
You have to prove it exists first, don’t you…Cause you said so, is not a reason. What reasoning or evidence do you have this? It’s kind of important to establish your argument first.[/quote]
The reasoning is the same as the cosmology argument. Because it can’t not exist. If it didn’t exist we wouldn’t be here.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, will you please read what I’m posting instead of just auto-replying? I feel like I keep repeating myself.
Again:
It is not a repeating series. Why do you keep saying this, when I’ve never said it? It is an infinite series of causes and effects that has no beginning and no end. IT IS LINEAR, NOT CIRCULAR.
WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THE POINT THAT THE ARGUMENT I’M PRESENTING IS THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT?
The cosmological argument concludes that there must be an uncaused cause.
Are you with me?
We agree, for the sake of this discussion, that there is an uncaused cause.
The cosmological argument DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THIS NECESSARY BEING MUST BE A GOD.
It is perfectly consistent with the cosmological argument that THIS NECESSARY BEING COULD BE AN UNCAUSED INFINITE SERIES.
The series itself has no cause. It is definitionally noncontingent.
Either prove that this is impossible (hint: you can’t) or admit that this is a logical possibility. Insisting that the series can’t be uncaused doesn’t mean squat. You need to provide a compelling reason that it cannot possibly be uncaused, or stop insisting that it can’t.[/quote]
Shouting doesn’t make you point more valid. Second, you won’t put it it argument form because you know you cannot. So I will do it for you:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must be an infinite series of events
Therefore, a necessary being does not exist but is actually an infinite series of events.
You said “WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT THE POINT THAT THE ARGUMENT I’M PRESENTING IS THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT?”
Please tell me you see what’s wrong with this picture. Please tell me you see that such a conclusion has no way of being drawn from the premises being presented.
Oh wait let me yell it for you:
“WHAT DON’T YOU GET THE THE INFINITE SERIES CONCLUSION CANNOT BE DRAWN FROM THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT?”
Seriously, though, do you not really see the problem?
[quote]pat wrote:
You have to prove it exists first, don’t you…Cause you said so, is not a reason. What reasoning or evidence do you have this? It’s kind of important to establish your argument first.[/quote]
The reasoning is the same as the cosmology argument. Because it can’t not exist. If it didn’t exist we wouldn’t be here.[/quote]
It’s put into argument form now. Can you see that reasoning for the cosmological argument cannot support a ‘infinite series’?
The problem first is the word ‘series’ is completely not applicable here. What you would want to say more accurately is an “Infinite causal succession” The problem is you cannot explain an infinite causal succession’s existence by it’s own essence. That is circular reasoning and that is the bottom line.
The other problem with that conclusion is that you can never reach it. It takes an infinite amount of premises to reach it.
But I am asking you guys, to please try to put this into argument form if you believe it’s valid.
I honestly think both of you are afraid to try because you know what the result will be and it will not support either an infinite series, or an infinite causal succession. Especially since it has already been tried with no success.
Please try, cause right now all I have to do is swat the ball back in your court, until you have proven your assertion. I can keep doing that infinitely.
[quote]pat wrote:
But I am asking you guys, to please try to put this into argument form if you believe it’s valid.[/quote]
Ok, let’s try it this way since my point is obviously getting lost.
Your argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Only a god is a non-contingent necessary being, because only a god has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being must be a god.
My argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
An uncaused infinite series is a non-contingent necessary being, because it has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being could be an uncaused infinite series.
Note that the only differences in our arguments are:
Premise #6
Conclusion #9
Your argument has a higher standard of proof, because it insists that ONLY a god can fit the criterion of a non-contingent, necessary being.
Your argument is less parsimonious, because it invokes a highly complex, omniscient, omnipotent, superbeing while my argument only invokes an uncaused infinite series.
I contend that the infinite series itself is non-contingent. The series itself is a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything in order to exist. Even if every contingent being within the series were to cease to exist, the series itself, as a self-containing metaphysical object, would continue to exist.
To support your argument, not only must you demonstrate that a god is a non-contingent necessary being, but you must meet the higher standard of demonstrating that it is impossible for any other being to be a non-contingent, necessary being.
You have not done this, and you cannot do this. Logically, it is absolutely feasible that an uncaused, infinite series would exist as a metaphysical object. It depends on nothing in order to exist, and you cannot prove otherwise.
Please don’t respond with a trite “But it’s impossible for an uncaused infinite series to exist!!!”, without actually providing compelling reason(s) WHY this is impossible. I fundamentally disagree that it is impossible; as a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything for its existence, the series meets the standard of a non-contingent, necessary being.
[quote]pat wrote:
But I am asking you guys, to please try to put this into argument form if you believe it’s valid.[/quote]
Ok, let’s try it this way since my point is obviously getting lost.
Your argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Only a god is a non-contingent necessary being, because only a god has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being must be a god.
My argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
An uncaused infinite series is a non-contingent necessary being, because it has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being could be an uncaused infinite series.
Note that the only differences in our arguments are:
Premise #6
Conclusion #9
Your argument has a higher standard of proof, because it insists that ONLY a god can fit the criterion of a non-contingent, necessary being.
Your argument is less parsimonious, because it invokes a highly complex, omniscient, omnipotent, superbeing while my argument only invokes an uncaused infinite series.
I contend that the infinite series itself is non-contingent. The series itself is a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything in order to exist. Even if every contingent being within the series were to cease to exist, the series itself, as a self-containing metaphysical object, would continue to exist.
To support your argument, not only must you demonstrate that a god is a non-contingent necessary being, but you must meet the higher standard of demonstrating that it is impossible for any other being to be a non-contingent, necessary being.
You have not done this, and you cannot do this. Logically, it is absolutely feasible that an uncaused, infinite series would exist as a metaphysical object. It depends on nothing in order to exist, and you cannot prove otherwise.
Please don’t respond with a trite “But it’s impossible for an uncaused infinite series to exist!!!”, without actually providing compelling reason(s) WHY this is impossible. I fundamentally disagree that it is impossible; as a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything for its existence, the series meets the standard of a non-contingent, necessary being.[/quote]
An uncaused series of events is not explained by those premises. How is it that an series of events can be uncaused, when every other series of events is caused? You conclusion violates the causal principle and is still circular. You have not sufficiently explained how this ‘infinite series of events’ is uncaused. The premises do not follow that this is necessarily true. The premises demand a necessary truth.
Lot’s of infinite serieses exist, all of them are caused except yours. How does your exist uncuased and the others have cause? What is the difference between you series and every other series in existence?
#6 does not flow in toe 7,8.9.
I never made the argument you agmented deliberately to make it look as bad as yours. The argument is this:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
[quote]pat wrote:
But I am asking you guys, to please try to put this into argument form if you believe it’s valid.[/quote]
Ok, let’s try it this way since my point is obviously getting lost.
Your argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Only a god is a non-contingent necessary being, because only a god has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being must be a god.
My argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
An uncaused infinite series is a non-contingent necessary being, because it has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being could be an uncaused infinite series.
Note that the only differences in our arguments are:
Premise #6
Conclusion #9
Your argument has a higher standard of proof, because it insists that ONLY a god can fit the criterion of a non-contingent, necessary being.
Your argument is less parsimonious, because it invokes a highly complex, omniscient, omnipotent, superbeing while my argument only invokes an uncaused infinite series.
I contend that the infinite series itself is non-contingent. The series itself is a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything in order to exist. Even if every contingent being within the series were to cease to exist, the series itself, as a self-containing metaphysical object, would continue to exist.
To support your argument, not only must you demonstrate that a god is a non-contingent necessary being, but you must meet the higher standard of demonstrating that it is impossible for any other being to be a non-contingent, necessary being.
You have not done this, and you cannot do this. Logically, it is absolutely feasible that an uncaused, infinite series would exist as a metaphysical object. It depends on nothing in order to exist, and you cannot prove otherwise.
Please don’t respond with a trite “But it’s impossible for an uncaused infinite series to exist!!!”, without actually providing compelling reason(s) WHY this is impossible. I fundamentally disagree that it is impossible; as a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything for its existence, the series meets the standard of a non-contingent, necessary being.[/quote]
An uncaused series of events is not explained by those premises. How is it that an series of events can be uncaused, when every other series of events is caused? You conclusion violates the causal principle and is still circular. You have not sufficiently explained how this ‘infinite series of events’ is uncaused. The premises do not follow that this is necessarily true. The premises demand a necessary truth.
Lot’s of infinite serieses exist, all of them are caused except yours. How does your exist uncuased and the others have cause? What is the difference between you series and every other series in existence?
#6 does not flow in toe 7,8.9.
I never made the argument you agmented deliberately to make it look as bad as yours. The argument is this:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
[/quote]
You have not proved that every other series of events is caused
Even if every other series of events was caused, that doesn’t prove the uncaused infinite series of events is caused
The conclusion doesn’t violate the causal principle and is not circular, beacause the causal principle allows for uncaused non-contingent necessary beings to exist (see Premises 4-6)
The premises demand a necessary being, and my argument posits that this necessary being is the uncaused non-contingent infinite series
You have in fact repeatedly argued what I presented earlier, rather than the 7-step classic cosmological argument, because you have claimed that the necessary being must be a god. If you abandon that claim, you must admit that there are other possibilities for the necessary being, besides the possibility of a god.
[quote]pat wrote:
An uncaused series of events is not explained by those premises. How is it that an series of events can be uncaused, when every other series of events is caused? [/quote]
How is it that a cause can be uncaused, when every other cause is caused?
Your exact argument only with ‘series of events’ replaced with cause.
If that were true wouldn’t it prove that thoughts and emotions are simply physical things?[/quote]
No, it can means that the metaphysical constructs are tied to a physical thing, but are not the thing it self.
I can go 100 MPH in a GTO, or in a Honda Civic Si. It doesn’t mean the GTO is 100 MPH or that the Honda is 100 MPH, it means both can reach it.[/quote]
Good point. So there is nothing to prove thoughts and emotions are purely physical or phenomenal.
Instead of asking yourself what are the physics of the afterlife why don’t you explore how this one is made. It should take a while before you proceed to the one of the afterlife.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
But I am asking you guys, to please try to put this into argument form if you believe it’s valid.
Ok, let’s try it this way since my point is obviously getting lost.
Your argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Only a god is a non-contingent necessary being, because only a god has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being must be a god.
My argument:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
An uncaused infinite series is a non-contingent necessary being, because it has no cause or explanation for its existence beyond itself.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
Therefore, this necessary being could be an uncaused infinite series.
Note that the only differences in our arguments are:
Premise #6
Conclusion #9
Your argument has a higher standard of proof, because it insists that ONLY a god can fit the criterion of a non-contingent, necessary being.
Your argument is less parsimonious, because it invokes a highly complex, omniscient, omnipotent, superbeing while my argument only invokes an uncaused infinite series.
I contend that the infinite series itself is non-contingent. The series itself is a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything in order to exist. Even if every contingent being within the series were to cease to exist, the series itself, as a self-containing metaphysical object, would continue to exist.
To support your argument, not only must you demonstrate that a god is a non-contingent necessary being, but you must meet the higher standard of demonstrating that it is impossible for any other being to be a non-contingent, necessary being.
You have not done this, and you cannot do this. Logically, it is absolutely feasible that an uncaused, infinite series would exist as a metaphysical object. It depends on nothing in order to exist, and you cannot prove otherwise.
Please don’t respond with a trite “But it’s impossible for an uncaused infinite series to exist!!!”, without actually providing compelling reason(s) WHY this is impossible. I fundamentally disagree that it is impossible; as a metaphysical object that doesn’t depend on anything for its existence, the series meets the standard of a non-contingent, necessary being.
An uncaused series of events is not explained by those premises. How is it that an series of events can be uncaused, when every other series of events is caused? You conclusion violates the causal principle and is still circular. You have not sufficiently explained how this ‘infinite series of events’ is uncaused. The premises do not follow that this is necessarily true. The premises demand a necessary truth.
Lot’s of infinite serieses exist, all of them are caused except yours. How does your exist uncuased and the others have cause? What is the difference between you series and every other series in existence?
#6 does not flow in toe 7,8.9.
I never made the argument you agmented deliberately to make it look as bad as yours. The argument is this:
A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
[/quote]
AGAIN?? I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS SHIT FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME AGAIN? WHY? DID THE FIRST 999,999 TIMES ELUDE YOU? DID YOU MISS IT SOME HOW? DID YOU SLEEP THROUGH IT?
FOR THE LAST TIME:
If something is not caused it came from nothing. All you have to do is prove one thing that came from nothing. Provide an example, it has a reason for existing.
You cannot even show me how something can come from nothing muchless prove anything does. You want to debunk it? Find something that exists for no reason.
You’re terrible retreading of the cosmological argument does not prove anything, much less that a ‘infininte series’ even exists much less is uncaused. It’s sufficient to ask how, and you have said nothing but cause it is. THIS IS FUCKING CIRCULAR. No matter how many times you repeat it, it’s still wrong. You cannot draw that conclusion from those premises. It’s a non sequiter. I don’t even know how you can reasonably think that. It’s circular. All you did was introduce another premise not a conclusion. That’s a best case scenario…
Are you fucking blind? A being that must exist there for cannot not exist is an infinite series?
How about this? A ‘infinite series’ of what? Kind of fucks you argument if you don’t say what the hell you are talking about. Are we talking numbers, trees, frogs, etc. Infinite series of what?
You want me to accept that a generic arbitrary infinite series of nothing in particular is an alternate solution to the cosmological argumnet? You’re sniffing glue.
See #3 An infinite series of what? Further a ‘series’ isn’t ‘a being’. A series is a finite number of variables put into a repetitive sequence. A that isn’t non-contingent or you just don’t know what the hell that actually means.
I never said “it must be a god” Go ahead. Look, show me anything I have ever said in my 9600+ posts that says it must be a god. You will never find it.
Look, I don’t mind having this discussion, but you are going to have to get your head around some very basic philosophical principles. Basic shit. I have studied this shit for years, it’s not fair for you to ask me to argue and teach you simultaneously. You need to know what basic deductive logical arguments consist of and what they do not. What they cannot do is come to multiple conclusions. Hell, the ‘infinite series’ is worse than the infinite regress. An infinite series is a finite amount of shit in an endless cycle, otherwise its not a series, it’s just shit.
You have to explain how something that exists, exists uncaused with out being the uncause-caused. An infinite series of something, who the hell knows what, isn’t something, it’s an infinite amount of things. An infinite amount of caused things isn’t suddenly uncaused because you want them to be.
[quote]pat wrote:
An uncaused series of events is not explained by those premises. How is it that an series of events can be uncaused, when every other series of events is caused? [/quote]
How is it that a cause can be uncaused, when every other cause is caused?
Your exact argument only with ‘series of events’ replaced with cause.[/quote]
It’s the only way to solve the problem…It’s actually no more complicated that that. All deductive arguments are like math problems which are also, deductive arguments. Just like a math problem, there is only one solution and the equation demand that they equal the solution.
An infinite causal succession does not answer the problem, but the Uncaused-cause does. The reason there is an infinite causal succession, for instance, is to bring forth the universe as we know it. Can you argue against this reason? You can continues until you break it down and when you do, you are sitting at a cross roads. One fork is that nothing did it, the other is something did it.
In regress your reducing not dividing. Eventually you run out.