Nobody gives a fuck about William Lane Craig, except for evanjellykule pseudo-intellectuals, and the kalam argument is just the first cause argument rephrased, and the first cause argument is fuller of holes than a 50', fine-mesh sieve. It's a philosophical kalamity.Yes it is a first cause argument
Just as there is nothing unreasonable in putting forward the idea that even something that has been around for ever still needs an explanation
So what's the explanation of God?Well you could say God's existence naturally falls out of the idea that a completely contingent reality with nothing ultimately necessary is in fact what Hillside would call magic.
which isn't amusing!
Vlad, I think you have gone too far with your name change this time. I doubt the relatives and fans of Norman Wisdom would be thrilled with your choice, which isn't amusing! >:(I hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it, but I think it's FUCKING HILARIOUS! ;D
Neither was Norman Wisdom so it is consistent.That's not fair - he was very funny when he stuck to the slapstick routines, but I hated his outbursts of glutinous sentimentality.
(Cue howls of outrage from Mr Wisdom's fans - that may need to be amended to the singular)
That's not fair - he was very funny when he stuck to the slapstick routines, but I hated his outbursts of glutinous sentimentality.
I may have been a little provocative because of a certain po-faced attitude on display ;);D
Well you could say God's existence naturally falls out of the idea that a completely contingent reality with nothing ultimately necessary is in fact what Hillside would call magic.That's not an explanation. It doesn't explain why or how God came to exist, it's merely an argument (a bad one) that God does exist.
That's not an explanation. It doesn't explain why or how God came to exist, it's merely an argument (a bad one) that God does exist.
That's not an explanation. It doesn't explain why or how God came to exist, it's merely an argument (a bad one) that God does exist.So let me get this straight Jeremy you are absolutely happy and need nothing else than the universe just is....but not when it comes to anything else Is there any reason for what amounts to this special pleading?
So let me get this straight Jeremy you are absolutely happy and need nothing else than the universe just is....but not when it comes to anything else Is there any reason for what amounts to this special pleading?So let me get this straight, Vlad. You are absolutely happy and need nothing else than God just is, but not when it comes to anything else. Is there any reason for what amounts to this special pleading?
So let me get this straight, Vlad. You are absolutely happy and need nothing else than God just is, but not when it comes to anything else. Is there any reason for what amounts to this special pleading?When I say just is I mean that God is the ultimate necessity which exists for it's own internal reasons and not dependent for existence on anything external.
When I say just is I mean that God is the ultimate necessity which exists for it's own internal reasons and not dependent for existence on anything external.
When I say just is I mean that God is the ultimate necessity which exists for it's own internal reasons and not dependent for existence on anything external.
Why does this thing - let's call it 'The First Thing' (TFT) to avoid conflating the idea with any of the historical baggage of depictions of gods - bypass the requirement that 'everything that exists has a cause'?There is no such requirement.
O.
When I say just is I mean that God is the ultimate necessity which exists for it's own internal reasons and not dependent for existence on anything external.
When you say the universe just is tiny baby pink unicorns are wrapped up in cozy blankets by their parents,carers and significant others and everybody gets a warm feeling........
There is no such requirement.Doesn't really matter. We can't show that anything that begins to exist has a cause, we can only assume it.
The requirement is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Once the sloppy atheist misinterpretation that you have reiterated was exposed, the gaderene rush to demonstrate a Multiverse or that the universe was infinite, began.
When I say "just is", I mean that the Universe is the ultimate necessity which exists for its own internal reasons and not dependent for existence on anything external.That's fine. Show us something then which doesn't depend for existence on anything external.
There is no such requirement. The requirement is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Doesn't really matter. We can't show that anything that begins to exist has a cause, we can only assume it.Of course it matters. You are just trying to back up your sloppy thinking fellow atheists.
So the first premise isn't evidenced at all. Even if we allow the assumption, then the problem of induction applies.
And that's just the first premise. All versions I have seen of the Kalam are logically flawed.
That's fine. Show us something then which doesn't depend for existence on anything external.
You first.
Show me how your god doesn't depend on anything external. I'll concede that you might find that tricky since you can't even show me how your god exists at all.
You first.I dont have to go first......or even go.
Show me how your god doesn't depend on anything external. I'll concede that you might find that tricky since you can't even show me how your god exists at all.
Of course it matters. You are just trying to back up your sloppy thinking fellow atheists.I've pointed out why it doesn't matter. Simply saying it does matter doesn't get you anywhere.
It doesn't surprise me coming from a Humeian.
I dont have to go first......or even go.
I am in the enviable position of admitting I can't.....something seemingly impossible for you.
I am also in the enviable position of being able to agree that there could be something in the universe that might be the necessary.
If we cannot show what it is which is necessary we are in the same boat as the classic theist.
If we bottle it and say well everything is contingent then we have self elected to be the village fucking idiot.
I've pointed out why it doesn't matter. Simply saying it does matter doesn't get you anywhere.OK we will run with you since something popping out of nowhere is a massive Hume trope.
So to repeat what argument do you have against:
' We can't show that anything that begins to exist has a cause, we can only assume it.
So the first premise isn't evidenced at all. Even if we allow the assumption, then the problem of induction applies.
And that's just the first premise.'
I dont have to go first......or even go.That's totally ridiculous. We've already admitted multiple times that we don't know why there is a Universe rather than not. But that is not at issue. What is at issue is your claim that the Universe had to have a creator in the form of a god.
I am in the enviable position of admitting I can't.....something seemingly impossible for you.
I am also in the enviable position of being able to agree that there could be something in the universe that might be the necessary.Nobody else has made any kind of claim that something in the Universe is necessary. We have simply pointed out that nothing in your argument rules out the possibility that the Universe itself is necessary or that some other thing that doesn't conform to the definition of your god might be necessary.
OK we will run with you since something popping out of nowhere is a massive Hume trope.Nope, you've missed the point. I'm not saying anything about how the universe or anything came to be. I am not ruling anything out. Just pointing out that the first premise of the Kalam is logically flawed for the reasons given - which you have ignored.
The universe just popped out of nothing then.
Hang on chaps......how do we know it didn't come from somewhere else?
How do we know it hasn't always been here?
How do we know it wasn't created ex nihilo?
Except contingent and necessary as already covered are based around that cannot be shown. I am in the even more enviable position of not begging the question as regards everything beginning to exist having a cause. So until you show that as being true - no progress can be made.Now Sane be honest here...... Contingency is supremely demonstrable. Follow then the logic of where you would like us to be.......that's right.....
Now Sane be honest here...... Contingency is supremely demonstrable. Follow then the logic of where you would like us to be.......that's right.....That's assertion, not an argument. You need to show that nothing begins to exist without a cause.
Contingency is all I can see......
And therefore?
Um er, There are only contingent things?
I Vlad being the returning officer for Religion Ethics declare said person elected as village idiot.
That's assertion, not an argument. You need to show that nothing begins to exist without a cause.Whatever pops up out of nothing without explanation or cause is definitionally necessary. So I'm afraid today's wankover demolition of the argument from contingency has ended in failure. As for Lane Craig's argument. I have heard it said that Craig understands it as a probabilistic one.
Whatever pops up out of nothing without explanation or cause is definitionally necessary. So I'm afraid today's wankover demolition of the argument from contingency has ended in failure. As for Lane Craig's argument. I have heard it said that Craig understands it as a probabilistic one.ANd again you are missing the point, and conflating two arguments. This is not about anything being necessary or contingent it's about demonstrating the fist premise of the Kalam, If you can't show that everything that began to exist has a cause then it fails.
ANd again you are missing the point, and conflating two arguments. This is not about anything being necessary or contingent it's about demonstrating the fist premise of the Kalam, If you can't show that everything that began to exist has a cause then it fails.I'm just wondering why, as a naturalist, one should be bending backwards to invest in what is very likely the extremely thin possibility that the universe does something so counter to the laws of nature as to produce something from nothing in fact it wouldn't even be nature that was doing it?
And worse, I haven't seen you demonstrate that anything that begins to exist has a cause - only assertion.
Sorry, but the cosmological argument was originally 'that which exists has a cause'. Craig (and others) picked up al-Ghazli's (sp?) refinement of that obvious flaw with 'that which begins to exist', which just shifts the problem - now it becomes why does everything else in existence need to begin but TFT doesn't?Yes...and Wordsworth's first draft was shit.
O.
There is no such requirement.
The requirement is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
I'm just wondering why, as a naturalist, one should be bending backwards to invest in what is very likely the extremely thin possibility that the universe does something so counter to the laws of nature as to produce something from nothing in fact it wouldn't even be nature that was doing it?I am not a philosophical naturalist. You have misunderstood the objection which is to the first premise of WLC's formulation of the Kalam. You need to demonstrate that it is true for it to be worthwhile. It is not a probablistic statement. It's an absolute claim.
How could you ever face resurrectionists or transubstantiationists and tell them that they were talking crap?
So thanks for evidence of extreme God dodging. As a probabilistic argument the Kalam just knocks spots over what must be the most improbable thing ever.
Now what little rule in what wee game of logic am I breaking here with my infuriating practicality?
Yes...and Wordsworth's first draft was shit.
If we cannot show what it is which is necessary we are in the same boat as the classic theist.
I am not a philosophical naturalist. You have misunderstood the objection which is to the first premise of WLC's formulation of the Kalam. You need to demonstrate that it is true for it to be worthwhile. It is not a probablistic statement. It's an absolute claim.But it could be a probabilistic argument which I guess is bad news for somebody who has bet the house on the most improbable thing er, not even in the universe.
Vlad forgets the burden of proof yet again. We know the universe exists, we have no reason whatsoever to think your favourite variety of god does.utter gobshiting and spew drawing bollocks.
Wordsworth wasn't guilty of special pleading, though - what reason do we have to think that there's some special 'first thing' that doesn't have a beginning? And if that 'thing' can exist with beginning, why can't reality exist without beginning?Not specially pleading since I've not poo pooed finally the idea of the universe not having a beginning although it looks as if it had kind of a beginning.
O.
But it could be a probabilistic argument which I guess is bad news for somebody who has bet the house on the most improbable thing er, not even in the universe.I haven't bet anything on anything. You have - in this thread the Kalam. The first premise is not probabilistic. You can tell by the use of the word 'everything' that it is an absolute claim.
I haven't bet anything on anything. You have - in this thread the Kalam. The first premise is not probabilistic. You can tell by the use of the word 'everything' that it is an absolute claim.All right then....."It is highly probable that nothing pops out of nothing and therefore it is highly probable that everything that begins has a cause...........The Vladam cosmological argument.
My memory is that the first premise used to be described as a self-evident truth, but this collapsed, when people started to require evidence for it. As NS states it hits against the induction issue. There are other problems, e.g., what is the cause of a tree? When does something begin? Collapse of kalam.Yes but there is a pattern here.
So thanks for evidence of extreme God dodging.
As a probabilistic argument the Kalam just knocks spots over what must be the most improbable thing ever.
utter gobshiting and spew drawing bollocks.
If somebody states which Jeremy did that the Universe is the necessary entity then he has to demonstrate necessity.
Laughable idiocy.Look Paul, you put your faith in something popping out of no where.If it preserves science and has predictive abilities then go ahead......It doesn't of course.
Kalam is supposed to be a logical deduction but even as a probabilistic argument it's utter drivel from start to finish. I'd say the most improbable thing ever is that somebody's notion of god just happens to exist for no reason at all.
If he stated it as a definite assertion, you're right. If, on the other hand, he suggested it as a possibility to counter the assertion that there must be something else that is necessary, then it's you who are talking bollocks for reasons I've explained before.
Have you even managed to come up with a logically coherent idea of what would make something necessary even make sense, yet? How is it even possible for something to be its own explanation?
Look Paul, you put your faith in something popping out of no where.
If it preserves science and has predictive abilities then go ahead......It doesn't of course.
My memory is that the first premise used to be described as a self-evident truth, but this collapsed, when people started to require evidence for it. As NS states it hits against the induction issue. There are other problems, e.g., what is the cause of a tree? When does something begin? Collapse of kalam.I'm wondering if the appearance of requiring evidence has been thoroughly investigated though to check for soundness although this is why falsification was brought in.
Laughable idiocy.
I don't think so. Consider the person who thinks they have put away God on the hope that somewhere and some strange how at some time, something is going to pop out of nothing defying nature and the laws of nature.
Here then is wanting to eliminate God using something so improbable and so unnatural as something popping out of nothing.
Now the objection to God here is no longer on grounds of the unnatural or probability. The only thing driving the proposition of this must be fear or hatred of God.
Not specially pleading since I've not poo pooed finally the idea of the universe not having a beginning although it looks as if it had kind of a beginning.
If the universe doesn't have a beginning then Kalam falls over, because you don't need TFT to create it, surely?The Kalam would fall over. What would the case be though if the universe does have a beginning?
O.
The Kalam would fall over. What would the case be though if the universe does have a beginning?
And since Someone on this thread is trying to nudge us into the psychological aspect of this.....how would you feel in either scenario?
Are we differentiating here between the universe and some broader reality? If the universe, as in everything, had a beginning well then we have to start investigating what caused it and how that came about; I don't see a way out of (or a need to get out) of an infinite chain of causality backwards.You are trying to get therefore something for nothing. There is no way of dressing that up.
If the universe were infinite or if it were part of an infinite chain with a defined (relative to us) start point would be an academic curiosity for me, but it wouldn't fundamentally change very much about how I see or feel about anything.
O.
You are trying to get therefore something for nothing. There is no way of dressing that up.
That is unnatural. Are unnatural things valid on a science thread?
An infinitely old universe is also unfalsifiable. That too is unnatural.
If infinite why hasn’t it experienced heat death.
Real, live infinities. Possibly not. In an example you gave of a real infinity you talked of an infinite density of matter being created.
Anything divided by zero is not infinity. It has another designation in maths.
I think we are therefore having to look for other examples of infinity.
Neither I believe can you appeal to infinities which look as though they start but never end.
An existence beyond the universe is a)such an open idea as to incorporate almost everything and anything b) unfalsifiable.
Are we differentiating here between the universe and some broader reality? If the universe, as in everything, had a beginning well then we have to start investigating what caused it and how that came about; I don't see a way out of (or a need to get out) of an infinite chain of causality backwards.And how would you feel if it was Kalam?
If the universe were infinite or if it were part of an infinite chain with a defined (relative to us) start point would be an academic curiosity for me, but it wouldn't fundamentally change very much about how I see or feel about anything.
O.
And how would you feel if it was Kalam?
Or at least without the infinite chain you seem to be using as a comfort blanket?
I don't see that I am; if anything starts we can look to what the cause is, and it's possible that there is no ultimate cause there's simply an everlasting chain of causes and effects going back. The other option is 'something from nothing' which you (understandably) appear to take issue with.I’m sorry but what this amounts too is very much” I am prepared to accept any improbable thing.... as long as it isn’t God.
If we don't know how it's come about how can we say whether or not it's unnatural?
Those two are not synonymous. It may be unfalsifiable, it might not be, but if it were that doesn't make it unnatural.
Maybe it has, repeatedly. Maybe heat death is something that our universe can look forward to but has no impact on the broader realities in which our universe manifests.
Perhaps - what I actually talked about was our maths not being able to distinguish between infinite mass in an infinitessimal space and finite mass in an infinitessimal space behaving as though it were infinite mass, but regardless of that the fact that we don't currently have sufficient mathematics to resolve what might be an inaccurate depiction of the universe in no way invalidates the possibility of another model being true despite the fact that our maths struggles to adequately accommodate that either.
I think, technically, it doesn't have a designation at all, it's 'undefined'.
Until our maths is advanced enough that we can categorise and manipulate the various forms of countable and uncountable infinities, we're stuck with what we have.
And yet that's what our universe appears to be - 14 billion years or so old, with an endless heat death ahead of us.
Which is why it's not put forth as a scientific hypothesis, just a counter to the idea that 'well we need to have a divine 'First Thing''.
O.
How do I feel about the Kalam biting the dust? The same way Christians felt when Fred Hoyle was King of the universe I suppose. The question is always at base why something and not nothing?Which is based on not wanting or accepting you can get something for nothing.
Something for nothing? To paraphrase the late, great Paul Daniels “ Now that’s magic.”
That there was a conscious, self-creating creator power of some sort that decided to propogate a universe - it would lead to a raft of new questions, like why, and what was the point, it would lead to all sorts of turmoil in the world as various religions either fell or fell in line... it's such a disruptive idea it's difficult to predict how I'd react.Aren’t you saying then if atheism didn’t exist. It would be necessary to invent it.
I’m sorry but what this amounts too is very much” I am prepared to accept any improbable thing.... as long as it isn’t God.
Things are unnatural if they aren’t subject to methodological naturalism surely.
Or are you saying the are natural so long as they don’t involve God?
If the latter then it just shows you have a problem with God rather than fantastically improbable, unfalsifiable, and unnatural events......as has been mentioned before.
I've said before, and I don't mind saying it again here, I struggle to conceive of what a reality with an actual god in it would be like.Is this because you have insufficient data for God or because you have sufficient data which renders it unimaginagable
My first instinct would be to presume that there was some as-yet-undiscovered natural phenomenon at the root of anything.Yeh, and that probably holds until we start digging about at the root of everything then methodological materialism doesn’t seem to cut it.
That definition of 'natural' is somewhat meaningless - god, if it exists, is presumably as naturalYeh, I’m not entirely happy with the term either.
Very interesting. Love to tackle this and maybe the moral claims of new atheists in general. Maybe on the crisis of morality thread sadly but hopefully temporarily derailed at the moment.
With the idea of a god comes the totalitarianism of believers in a divine right, which has troublesome history at best, which is the main root of my disquiet with the traditional depiction of the Abrahamic god. The idea of a divine creator in general... if it's something that 'will's events to happen bypassing natural laws then I struggle to understand how or why that works, and if it's 'merely' an extremely accomplished scientist/engineer well then we shift the enquiry back a stage (where did that creator come from) and add in 'why didn't they pass along the science'?
O.
utter gobshiting and spew drawing bollocks.I have not stated that the Universe is "the necessary entity". I've stated that it could be a necessary entity. Please stop lying about what I have said.
If somebody states which Jeremy did that the Universe is the necessary entity then he has to demonstrate necessity.
I have not stated that the Universe is "the necessary entity". I've stated that it could be a necessary entity. Please stop lying about what I have said.My apologies. Care to say how it could be?
My apologies. Care to say how it could be?
A number of options have already been put forward. I suggest you review the thread.My objection to those has been they just argue that the universe could have been around an infinite time. Not whether it is necessary.
My objection to those has been they just argue that the universe could have been around an infinite time. Not whether it is necessary.You have to demonstrate that 'necessary' makes any sense in this context rather than assume it.
To do that you would have to demonstrate what it is about the universe which is necessary.
You have to demonstrate that 'necessary' makes any sense in this context rather than assume it.Why just in this context? Are you not specially pleading?
My objection to those has been they just argue that the universe could have been around an infinite time. Not whether it is necessary.
Why just in this context? Are you not specially pleading?I didn'y say 'just in this context'.
Time is internal to the universe, so whether it's infinite in extent or not is simply irrelevant to any concept of 'necessity'.No NS asked how necessity makes any sense at all in this context.
As NS said, you first need to establish how 'necessity' makes any sense at all and then say why it could apply to your favourite version of deity
Until you can explain exactly what would make something 'necessary', it's a toatlly meaningless term.
No NS asked how necessity makes any sense at all in this context.
We are talking about the universe and whether it is necessary. Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.
Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of the universe?
You cannot junk contingency. That is like having a square circle.
Actually can you show 'Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.' As a definition makes sense in any context?I'm sorry Sane, your now talking from a place where not only do I not want to climb in with you.......I wouldn't. Know how to.
We are talking about the universe and whether it is necessary. Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.
I'm sorry Sane, your now talking from a place where not only do I not want to climb in with you.......I wouldn't. Know how to.So you can't justify it in any context.
So how do you propose we could recognise "something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is"?Yes plus the trouble with the whole of reality is the overwhelming bulk of contingency going on. That immediately fucks up any notion of saying the whole of reality is necessary as a serious prospect.
I mean, I guess you could say "the whole of reality" necessarily falls into that category, since, by definition, there is nothing external to it, but it tells us nothing whatsoever about what it contains or if there is anything specific within it that could be identified as 'necessary'.
Yes plus the trouble with the whole of reality is the overwhelming bulk of contingency going on. That immediately fucks up any notion of saying the whole of reality is necessary as a serious prospect.
Of course it doesn't. Your definition was: "something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is" [emphasis added].Great, so the explanation and reasons must be internal to the whole of reality.
Since, by definition, there is nothing at all that is external to the whole of reality, there can be no external explanation and no external reason for it to be any different. Hence, by your own definition, it must be necessary. QED.
Great, so the explanation and reasons must be internal to the whole of reality.
What is it?
Assuming there are any.There is a reason which needs no other reasons. Now we know there are other reasons for things in reality.
I haven't a clue - and why do you think it's just one thing?
The question remains ........what is it?
IF there is a God, then no doubt that God exists necessarily, but that tells us nothing about whether God exists at all.I think the argument points out that there is an explanation for which there are no other explanations. That there is contingency. We know that from observation. The alternative comes down to popping out of nowhere but even that winds up as being the necessary. Talking of believing that things might pop up from nowhere there seems to be a lot more takers for that here......and they accuse Alan of believing in magic.
And the answer remains...... we don't know.And what do we do if we dont know something?
Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of the universe?
And what do we do if we dont know something?
Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of God?I can't disagree with that, however the universe still has this mountain of contingency in fact the necessary has a particular specification.
If you want to know how the Universe could be necessary, the answer is "in exactly the same ways a god could be necessary".
Rather depends on whether there is a feasible way to investigate it or not. What we don't do is make up an answer we happen to like.Unhappily for you and some of the colleagues have been speculating like good'uns and by your own admission sought to come up with several alternatives that you hope rule to out God.
Unhappily for you and some of the colleagues have been speculating like good'uns and by your own admission sought to come up with several alternatives that you hope rule to out God.
So less of the piety please. You, IMHO, are as guilty of seeking an atheist answer ( God dodging) as anybody is seeking a divine answer.
Another way we might know the necessary reason is if it reveals itself to us.....just sayin'
Again, you don't seem to understand that if you are trying to argue for some specific answer, then offering alternatives is one way in which to counter it. It does not mean that they are somehow omitting to those alternatives.I think we are evolved to recognise the necessary entity and funnily those who have a reluctance to the necessary entity like their reluctance to God provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid.
For example, on the other thread, I offered Penrose's conjecture as one of the possibilities for an infinitely old universe. That doesn't mean that I'm committed to the idea - it could easily be wrong.
I'm not seeking an answer. I don't think there is a reasonable way to investigate the problem. I've also said all along that I can't rule out some sort of god(s), but I see no reason to take any of them seriously. If there is something within the whole of reality that is necessary, then I don't see any argument that it is likely to be some sort of god, let alone one (or more) of the thousands that humans have believed in.
And you're still using the word "God" as if it was a well defined term. I'm ignostic, with regard to the unqualified term "God".
Again, where is the evidence or reasoning? Even if something revealed itself somehow, how could you tell if it was necessary?
I think we are evolved to recognise the necessary entity and funnily those who have a reluctance to the necessary entity like their reluctance to God provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid.all of the wrong words necessarily in the wrong order.
I think we are evolved to recognise the necessary entity and funnily those who have a reluctance to the necessary entity like their reluctance to God provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid.
Apart from this being an all but meaningless expression of your faith, it is actually rather funny. We evolved to be over sensitive to agency where there is none - hyperactive agency detection - due to the fact that false positives are far less dangerous than false negatives. It doesn't much matter if you think a storm is some god being angry, whereas failing to think that a predator wants to eat you could easily be fatal.Do you see God as a predator who wants to eat you? That would be really interesting.
Do you see God as a predator who wants to eat you? That would be really interesting.Was it only children over the age of 8 you wanted to sexually assault?
Is necessity and contingency about agency? I don't know? Nobody seems to be angry or hungry in contingency and necessity.
Do you see God as a predator who wants to eat you? That would be really interesting.
Is necessity and contingency about agency?
I think we are evolved to recognise the necessary entity and funnily those who have a reluctance to the necessary entity like their reluctance to God provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid.
I think we are evolved to recogniseMathematical reality is entitled to as many infinite regressions as it can find, even an infinite number.the necessary entitycause and effect and funnily those who have a reluctance to thenecessary entityinfinite regress like their reluctance toGodreality provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid...
O.
Mathematical reality is entitled to as many infinite regressions as it can find, even an infinite number.
In physical reality. Infinite regresses in heirchies of dependency produce nothing. You tried a thought experiment yourself a few weeks back I seem to recall.