Physics of the Afterlife

[supa_power]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]supa power wrote:
…Studies which recreated NDEs in the subjects…[/quote]

How did they do that?
[/quote]

By applying current to the temporoparietal region of the brain. [/quote]

Then there could be two different ways that people have this experience. So you see it really proves nothing.
[/quote]

There are two different ways of causing the SAME response. How does it prove nothing?
When the current is applied, the subject sees their dead relatives etc. A NDE is nothing more than the brain putting on a great show for the person, based on what they would expect to see in an afterlife. Further evidence of this is in the differences in NDEs of people from different religious beliefs. The NDEs of christians differ drastically from the NDEs of muslims or hindus, where the christian will sometimes see a bearded man in a robe and the hindu will see many gods. Also NDEs reported in children are far more imaginative than those of adults. Many children survive their experience and have reported seeing Santa Claus waiting for them.
So the bottom line is that NDEs conform to cultural expectation, which further backs up that they are hallucinary.[/quote]

NDEs are not a necessary pillar of my faith. That said, you realize that no, the experiments you are describing indeed do NOT prove that there are NO real NDEs. All they prove is that the subjective experience collectively referred to as an NDE appears to be replicable. The subjects in the experiment were not actually killed. So of course they are not going to display supernatural abilities.Therefore at best all you can say is that we can replicate something similar to the experience described by people who have been declared clinically dead and were then revived.

Whether or not those people who were actually, measurably dead were experiencing a hallucination or an actual supernatural encounter will not be provable anytime in the near future. So claim what you will, but in the end, your opinion has no more empirical weight than any theist’s.[/quote]

Denial is a funny thing. I don’t give two fucks if NDEs are not a pillar of your faith.
When will you get it into your head that the greatest amount of evidence that NDEs are hallucianry has come from REAL NDEs, people who were clinically dead and revived. The fact that every component of a NDE can be recreated in the lab is just the final nail in the coffin.
The following are based on reports from REAL NDEs (even though there is no difference to a lab NDE as far as your brain is concerned):

Discrepancies between what is seen in the out-of-body component of an NDE and what’s actually happening in the physical world.

Encountering people who are still alive in the NDE.

The greater variety of differences than similarities between different NDEs, where specific details of NDEs generally conform to cultural expectation.

NDEs where the experiencer makes a decision not to return to life by crossing a barrier or threshold viewed as a ‘point of no return,’ but is restored to life anyway.

Hallucinatory imagery in NDEs, including encounters with mythological creatures and fictional characters. This is particularly evident in young children.

The failure of predictions in those instances in which experiencers report seeing future events during NDEs or gaining psychic abilities after them.
[/quote]

The above are true for ALL NDEs, right?

I’ll be waiting on that syllogism. [/quote]

The above points are based on the experiences of people who were clinically dead and then revived. The above points have also been reproduced in the lab. The above points are true for the MAJORITY of NDEs, there will always be exceptions and I have discussed this in my previous posts.

Syllogism??? Am I talking to a riddle master here. I have given you more than enough info to show that NDEs are very very likely hallucinary(Seeing that I cannot prove it 100% then it must be wrong). No need to complicate things. Complex words are a fools language… syllogism LOL.[/quote]

I didn’t say your statement was wrong, that’s where you are getting all messed up. You just conceded my point. Now we agree. Though there may be strong evidence against the reality of NDEs, we cannot say with any authority that there is NO such thing as the conditions people have described experiencing.

See, that wasn’t that hard, was it? [/quote]

Am I misunderstanding something here?
Lets get back to the point that I am trying to make and spell it out again in plain english:

-I am argueing that actual NDEs do very much occur but they are not real, it is not your spirit floating above your body if that makes sense. They are a product of the fevered brain in its dying moments. Your brain is putting on a show for you.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I understand the argument just fine. My point is only that the concept of an uncaused cause is just as imaginative as an uncaused universe.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter how imaginative one is compared to the other. It is a deductive argument. All that matters is that you can prove one of the premises wrong. So far, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to accomplish this.

Do you believe in an infinite series?[/quote]

Not sure what this is but if it pertains to time or the Kalam Cosmological Argument then it’s a moot point from the start, as the cosmological argument we have been discussing for the past couple of years, as I understand it, has been the argument from contingency.

If the infinite series pertains to contingency, then please do explain.

I’ll use deductive reasoning since you like it so much.

1.Everything is caused by something.
2.Therefore everything must be caused.
3.Things exist, therefore there must be something that caused things to exist.
4.That something needs to be caused.

The infinity solution believes this goes on infinitely (obviously).

Your arguments solution is to say there is an ‘uncaused cause’ but if the first statement ‘everything is caused’ is true (which your argument relies upon) then how can you have something (an uncaused cause) that isn’t caused?

It’s self defeating.

I know you will throw back:

1.Things exists.
2.Everything is caused by something else.
3.There must have been something that existed first. (an assumption)
4.Nothing existed before this to cause this to exist.
5.There must have been something that wasn’t caused but existed. (But wait no.2 of your own deductive reasoning states that ‘everything is caused by something else’. It didn’t mention any exemptions).

You will then say its an UNCAUSED cause just like I will say Infinity means there doesn’t have to be something that existed first.

…This discussion is starting to feel like it will go on infinitely.

[/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.

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.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,

You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.

You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for an interesting discussion anyway.[/quote]

No, I look as infinity as infinite. An infinite regression is circular…Again this is basic logic. An infinite regress /= infinity.

If you oppose what I propose you have to prove me wrong. If you can produce an argument that can prove it wrong, then I will accept it. It hasn’t been proven wrong in 2 millennia, the argument from contingency is over 1500 years old…That’s a good track record.

The argument has been scrutinized in every way possible and has withstood it. Really, what’s the criteria for accepting the validity of an argument, before people consider that it just may be that damn good.
Lets see:
Accurate premises - check
a conclusion that flows directly from the premises - check.
Premises that have never been proven false - check
Been scrutinized by really smart people. - check, way more than any other philosphical argument in the history of man.
withstood the test of time - check.

I mean really, what does it take? [/quote]

That’s the logical fallacy I’m talking about. Just because an argument hasn’t been proven wrong doesn’t mean it has been proven right. You cannot conclude that something must be right solely because it hasn’t been proven wrong.

Furthermore, the cosmological argument has indeed been successfully challenged over the centuries (See Russell, Hume, Kant, Craig, Hawking, Swinburne, etc.). Many disagree that its premises are axiomatic, and many believe that it is not deductively valid. Obviously, you can agree or disagree with their arguments, but they stand by these arguments, and in my opinion their criticisms have merit.

Does that mean the cosmological argument has been definitively disproven? Not at all. But there are solid reasons for questioning its soundness and validity, and it’s far too premature to conclude that it MUST be true.

The premise that gives me the most concern at this point is that there must have been a first cause, which hopefully we can discuss further.
[/quote]

I wasn’t making the argument their, I am asking what is sufficient for accepting it’s validity. It has past all tests, what does it take for you to accept it?

None of the afore mentioned people have proven cosmology wrong and they admit as much. If you look at Kant’s ontology, he essentially takes a cosmological form from the point of ontology… Hawking goes back and forth, but he hasn’t from something from nothing, he is theorizing something from gravity, which is something. Hume proposed a third element of causation, which he failed to prove but he brought great insight in to causation. Russell laughably says the universe ‘just is’ which as you know by now is circular reasoning.
Pick any one of their arguments and I’ll be happy to take a look at them with you.

Now, you still falling into the ‘Appeal to authority’ fallacy. Really smart people who have a different opinion does not prove or disprove anything. Hanging their credentials over my head does not disprove the argument. Besides Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke,Craig, Lowe, Rowe, Smart, even Einstein, etc believe in cosmology. So loads of really smart dudes support it to. My smart dudes can beat up your smart dudes, especially Hawking…

[Cortes]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

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]

Thumbs up from me. Thanks Joab.

[pat]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I understand the argument just fine. My point is only that the concept of an uncaused cause is just as imaginative as an uncaused universe.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter how imaginative one is compared to the other. It is a deductive argument. All that matters is that you can prove one of the premises wrong. So far, no one, not one person, ever, has been able to accomplish this.

Do you believe in an infinite series?[/quote]

Not sure what this is but if it pertains to time or the Kalam Cosmological Argument then it’s a moot point from the start, as the cosmological argument we have been discussing for the past couple of years, as I understand it, has been the argument from contingency.

If the infinite series pertains to contingency, then please do explain.

I’ll use deductive reasoning since you like it so much.

1.Everything is caused by something.
2.Therefore everything must be caused.
3.Things exist, therefore there must be something that caused things to exist.
4.That something needs to be caused.

The infinity solution believes this goes on infinitely (obviously).

Your arguments solution is to say there is an ‘uncaused cause’ but if the first statement ‘everything is caused’ is true (which your argument relies upon) then how can you have something (an uncaused cause) that isn’t caused?

It’s self defeating.

I know you will throw back:

1.Things exists.
2.Everything is caused by something else.
3.There must have been something that existed first. (an assumption)
4.Nothing existed before this to cause this to exist.
5.There must have been something that wasn’t caused but existed. (But wait no.2 of your own deductive reasoning states that ‘everything is caused by something else’. It didn’t mention any exemptions).

You will then say its an UNCAUSED cause just like I will say Infinity means there doesn’t have to be something that existed first.

…This discussion is starting to feel like it will go on infinitely.

[/quote]

That’s the Kalam argument which I wholly reject as valid, as stated before I used the argument from contingency, go look that one up.

[pat]

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

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]

Thumbs up from me. Thanks Joab.[/quote]

Leibniz is my home boy…He replaced Hume as my favorite philosopher…Thanks for digging it up Joab…Now fill thy horn with oil and GO! I give ye the Assyrians into your hand…

[pat]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
…This discussion is starting to feel like it will go on infinitely.
[/quote]

It’s about the 30,000th time we’ve had this discussion. See Joab’s post, that’s the way better version of the cosmological form…Which you need to under stand is not one argument, it’s an argument type and Kalam was better off screwing sheep because he’s an idiotic philosopher. He took what Aristotle wrote, and made it worse.

[Think_tank_fish]

[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.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Neither has your side, but the imaginative scenarios without empirical evidence, e.i. the Bible, is nevertheless accepted as proof.

You have to maintain the cognitive dissonance despite the lack of evidence, yet dismiss equally valid theories because of lack of evidence.

So i say, we’re both wrong [or can’t know whether we’re right] and i’m fine with that.

[/quote]

I’m honestly not looking to debate with you again (no offense, but it’s exhausting but I just wanted to clarify that no one on this site, at least to my knowledge, has ever once claimed that because the cosmological argument is deductively sound, therefore like, the Bible, and stuff.

And “our side” doesn’t have to provide the “if.” That’s yall’s obligation. We provided a sound deductive argument. Until someone can prove otherwise, our “if” is an “is.” Don’t think so? Well let’s see your “if.”

It’s funny, you never hear people questioning mathematics, but you provide an equivalent argument with equally sound premises that calls into question one of their most deeply held convictions and all of a sudden you get a veritable three ring circus of contortionist logic.

Not necessarily talking about you, ephrem, and I did note your last sentence. [/quote]

I asked pat if he had evidence for an afterlife, and he said he can’t know that an afterlife exists but if one exists, etc…etc…

Now, ofcourse i can’t offer proof that an afterlife, or God, does not exist. I can merely point out the absence of proof that an afterlife, or God, exists, and base my conclusions on that.
[/quote]
Cosmology from contingency is sufficient to establish God’s existence. Metaphysical existence is an obvious truth because all physical matter requires a metaphysical counter part. I cannot prove we have a spirit that ascends to heaven or descends to hell

The cosmological argument is, imo, flawed due to the simple fact that it leads to a conclusion about something that exists outside of the chain of logic that preceeded the conclusion.

It doesn’t sit outside the chain of logic, it sits outside the causal chain, it’s very logical and is the only possible conclusion. No other conclusion can be drawn from the premises.

[quote]
The basic assumption that infinite regression is impossible has not [yet] been proven to be true. That’s a thin foundation to build your church on.

Anyway, i must say that, one of the reasons i engage in these discussions is that i find it riveting, not exhausting (: Are you eating enough carbs?[/quote]

Oh brother another one…E, an infinite regress is a logical fallacy it necessarily begs the question, it necessarily is circular…This isn’t even deep philosophy this is basic shit. It’s not the infinite part thats the problem, it’s that a regress cannot be infinite. By definition of what a regress is, it cannot be infinite.

[pat]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]
Incorrect. A regression cannot be infinite. Regression in a causal chain necessarily end up at something or nothing. Infinity doesn’t answer the question there for it’s an invalid answer.

If you as me what 2+2 is and I say yellow, it doesn’t prove the answer isn’t, it just proves I didn’t answer the question provided. Infinity does not answer the question therefore it’s not a valid answer.

I think if you wrap your mind around the difference between infinity and infinite regresses then you will start to understand it much better.
]

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
Pat,

You’re viewing infinity as a circular repeat. That is not infinity. There were many arguments and explanations of infinity in the link Forlife provided.

You are looking at this from such an absolute view I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for an interesting discussion anyway.[/quote]

No, I look as infinity as infinite. An infinite regression is circular…Again this is basic logic. An infinite regress /= infinity.

If you oppose what I propose you have to prove me wrong. If you can produce an argument that can prove it wrong, then I will accept it. It hasn’t been proven wrong in 2 millennia, the argument from contingency is over 1500 years old…That’s a good track record.

The argument has been scrutinized in every way possible and has withstood it. Really, what’s the criteria for accepting the validity of an argument, before people consider that it just may be that damn good.
Lets see:
Accurate premises - check
a conclusion that flows directly from the premises - check.
Premises that have never been proven false - check
Been scrutinized by really smart people. - check, way more than any other philosphical argument in the history of man.
withstood the test of time - check.

I mean really, what does it take? [/quote]

That’s the logical fallacy I’m talking about. Just because an argument hasn’t been proven wrong doesn’t mean it has been proven right. You cannot conclude that something must be right solely because it hasn’t been proven wrong.

Furthermore, the cosmological argument has indeed been successfully challenged over the centuries (See Russell, Hume, Kant, Craig, Hawking, Swinburne, etc.). Many disagree that its premises are axiomatic, and many believe that it is not deductively valid. Obviously, you can agree or disagree with their arguments, but they stand by these arguments, and in my opinion their criticisms have merit.

Does that mean the cosmological argument has been definitively disproven? Not at all. But there are solid reasons for questioning its soundness and validity, and it’s far too premature to conclude that it MUST be true.

The premise that gives me the most concern at this point is that there must have been a first cause, which hopefully we can discuss further.
[/quote]

I wasn’t making the argument their, I am asking what is sufficient for accepting it’s validity. It has past all tests, what does it take for you to accept it?

None of the afore mentioned people have proven cosmology wrong and they admit as much. If you look at Kant’s ontology, he essentially takes a cosmological form from the point of ontology… Hawking goes back and forth, but he hasn’t from something from nothing, he is theorizing something from gravity, which is something. Hume proposed a third element of causation, which he failed to prove but he brought great insight in to causation. Russell laughably says the universe ‘just is’ which as you know by now is circular reasoning.
Pick any one of their arguments and I’ll be happy to take a look at them with you.

Now, you still falling into the ‘Appeal to authority’ fallacy. Really smart people who have a different opinion does not prove or disprove anything. Hanging their credentials over my head does not disprove the argument. Besides Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke,Craig, Lowe, Rowe, Smart, even Einstein, etc believe in cosmology. So loads of really smart dudes support it to. My smart dudes can beat up your smart dudes, especially Hawking…

[/quote]

As a proponent of the cosmological argument, obviously you don’t think their criticisms of its underlying premises have merit. I disagree, and think those criticisms do have merit.

But all of that is beside the point.

The point, again, is that failure to definitely disprove an argument doesn’t make it true. It only makes it potentially true, given what we currently know.

[Think_tank_fish]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]
Incorrect. A regression cannot be infinite. Regression in a causal chain necessarily end up at something or nothing. Infinity doesn’t answer the question there for it’s an invalid answer.

If you as me what 2+2 is and I say yellow, it doesn’t prove the answer isn’t, it just proves I didn’t answer the question provided. Infinity does not answer the question therefore it’s not a valid answer.

I think if you wrap your mind around the difference between infinity and infinite regresses then you will start to understand it much better.
][/quote]

Pat,

I am trying hard to understand your argument. Honestly. But I can’t find anything that proves an infinite regress is a fallacy. Conservapedia has a few arguments that try to. But they dont.

To say that an infinite regress needs a cause is to say its not infinite.

Just like…

To say an uncaused cause is caused is to say its not an uncaused cause.

Neither work so they’re both possible.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[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.

[forlife]

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
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.

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.
[/quote]
Incorrect. A regression cannot be infinite. Regression in a causal chain necessarily end up at something or nothing. Infinity doesn’t answer the question there for it’s an invalid answer.

If you as me what 2+2 is and I say yellow, it doesn’t prove the answer isn’t, it just proves I didn’t answer the question provided. Infinity does not answer the question therefore it’s not a valid answer.

I think if you wrap your mind around the difference between infinity and infinite regresses then you will start to understand it much better.
][/quote]

Pat,

I am trying hard to understand your argument. Honestly. But I can’t find anything that proves an infinite regress is a fallacy. Conservapedia has a few arguments that try to. But they dont.

To say that an infinite regress needs a cause is to say its not infinite.

Just like…

To say an uncaused cause is caused is to say its not an uncaused cause.

Neither work so they’re both possible.[/quote]

I’ve been trying to make this same point. It is a valid criticism of a fundamental premise of the cosmological argument, and I have yet to see a satisfactory answer.

By definition, an infinite causal chain has no beginning. You regress up the chain forever, and you never arrive at “nothing” as Pat claims. With an infinite causal chain, there can be no first cause.

[Think_tank_fish]

[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.

[forlife]

[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]

It’s not a circular argument, it is a brute fact argument.

Proponents of the cosmological argument posit god as a brute fact.

We are positing an infinite causal chain as a brute fact.

Parsimony favors our brute fact over your brute fact.

[ephrem]

pat wrote:Oh brother another one…E, an infinite regress is a logical fallacy it necessarily begs the question, it necessarily is circular…This isn’t even deep philosophy this is basic shit. It’s not the infinite part thats the problem, it’s that a regress cannot be infinite. By definition of what a regress is, it cannot be infinite.

Let’s call it something else then, if you don’t mind.

[ephrem]

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
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]

There is no explanation of life and the universe. It is a mystery.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[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.

[JoabSonOfZeruiah]

[quote]forlife 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]

It’s not a circular argument, it is a brute fact argument.

Proponents of the cosmological argument posit god as a brute fact.

We are positing an infinite causal chain as a brute fact.

Parsimony favors our brute fact over your brute fact.[/quote]
No we do not posit God as a brute fact but instead the reason for his existence is in the necessity of his own nature.

Positing the universe as a brute fact which has no reason for its existence is saying that the principle of sufficient reason is not valid.(edit>)Where one uses the principle of sufficient reason for everything else in the universe but commits the taxicab fallacy when one gets to the universe itself and says the principle doesn’t apply anymore.

(second edit)In this argument you basically have a problem with the second premise by saying there are contingent brute facts which do not have an explanation of their existence, or you are thinking of the Leibnizian cosmological argument which your objection is usually raised against.