Does antitheism exist?

[Gordon]

Not all explanatory chains are sequential events Gordon.

Then please cite an example of effect preceding cause. 

For example consciousness as a brain function. We arent talking Brain" then "brain function" then Consciousness.

I think we are, unless you can cite an example of a brain function that precedes a brain.

We are talking about this explanatory hierarchy happening simultaneously.

It just seems that way, Vlad: but 'happening very fast' isn't the same thing as being 'simultaneous'.

As a concept Time is irrelevant to Necessity as colour is to the concept of  cars.

So, are you saying that time is irrelevant in any chain of cause and effect (or from necessary to contingent, since clearly these are your preferred terms du jour these days)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, they are - if cause does not predate effect, how can it be considered a cause.

Who isn't?

No. Brains happened - until there was a brain, there was no possibility of brain function.  Until there was brain function there was no possibility of consciousness.  The timeframes might be miniscule, but they have to happen in that order, you can't have consciousness from a brain that's not there yet.

No, time is a necessary concept for necessity to be; you couldn't have a car without space-time for it to exist within, without a need to navigate a four-dimensional area in the first place.

O.

yes there are sequential events which are explanatory chains but to say all chains are sequential in time is wrong. Since The building you are standing in is contingent on its solid foundations which are contingent on solid ground.
So what if there is a time delay between a quark and the proton it comprises although is there?
But since you are insisting on time being the thing things are dependent on by which all is explained you have arrived at time as the necessary. You see ......it doesn't go away.

Would you now agree that infinite stuff is dependent on infinite
Time?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

necessity as a concept is not predicated on sequential events.

Yes it is. If A is necessary for B, then A must occur prior to B. Your only way out of that is to invoke magic - "A is outside time" or some such white noise, and if you do that you can assert anything you like. Any attempt at reason or logic is out of the window, and all bets are off. You may as well assert A to be outside geometry too, so square triangles are fine as well.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then please cite an example of effect preceding cause.

You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon
Since I am thinking of vertical explanatory hierarchies eg Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule  substance reaction process etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes it is. If A is necessary for B, then A must occur prior to B. Your only way out of that is to invoke magic - "A is outside time" or some such white noise, and if you do that you can assert anything you like. Any attempt at reason or logic is out of the window, and all bets are off. You may as well assert A to be outside geometry too, so square triangles are fine as well.   

So time is the necessity then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon…

It’s got nothing at all to do with atheism – just that thing to which you are a stranger: logic.

Since I am thinking…

You’ve never shown any evidence of doing that but ok…

…of vertical explanatory hierarchies eg Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule  substance reaction process etc.

None of which gets you off the hook of a necessary thing not being there before the thing that’s contingent on it.

What always happens with the religious that attempt at least to try rational argument to justify their claims is that they resort to magic (”outside time” etc) to escape when the effort collapses into incoherence. It’s just the cartoon again with the complex formula on the blackboard with “miracle happens here” added. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s got nothing at all to do with atheism – just that thing to which you are a stranger: logic.

You’ve never shown any evidence of doing that but ok…

None of which gets you off the hook of a necessary thing not being there before the thing that’s contingent on it.

What always happens with the religious that attempt at least to try rational argument to justify their claims is that they resort to magic (”outside time” etc) to escape when the effort collapses into incoherence. It’s just the cartoon again with the complex formula on the blackboard with “miracle happens here” added.

In your view then how long is it respectful for a brain capable of functioning to wait for it to function.

How long is it respectful for consciousness to operate without being seen as presumptuous?

[jeremyp]

That statement suggests that the necessary might not be in this part of the universe. Is that what you wanted to convey?

Nobody has claimed that the "necessary" is part of the Universe except you constructing your straw men.

The Universe is not any of the things in it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In your view then how long is it respectful for a brain capable of functioning to wait for it to function.

How long is it respectful for consciousness to operate without being seen as presumptuous?

I think you need to call out the engineer again - your random word generator is overheating. Maybe it's the weather?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody has claimed that the "necessary" is part of the Universe except you constructing your straw men.

The Universe is not any of the things in it.

Vlad

None of which gets you off the hook of a necessary thing not being there before the thing that’s contingent on it.

I am talking of things existing because something else is IN PLACE. NOW.

EMERGENT PROPERTIES FOR INSTANCE.
The universe is none of the things in it. What is it then?

[jeremyp]

You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon
Since I am thinking of vertical explanatory hierarchies eg Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule  substance reaction process etc.

What do you mean by "vertical" here. Clearly you do not mean "all on the same straight line that passes through the centre of gravity". So what do you really mean?

[jeremyp]

The universe is none of the things in it. What is it then.

That's a good question to which I do not know the full answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by "vertical" here. Clearly you do not mean "all on the same straight line that passes through the centre of gravity". So what do you really mean?

Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule group of molecules wetness. Something cannot be wet unless everything else were in place.

The moment there were quarks under the laws of physics wetness was possible providing conditions were suitable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The universe is none of the things in it. What is it then.

And as a dog returns to its vomit yet again you return to one of your favourite fallacies: shifting the burden of proof.

What the universe "is" (or more to the point how it is) is unknown given the current state of knowledge, but there are various plausible hypotheses about that. You though are the one who is making a positive claim - ie, that it cannot be its own explanation and so required something else to start it (which something by some magic process is not subject to the same logic you think must apply to the universe itself) so its your job to justify the claim.

The problem with that though is that justification requires an actual argument, something you've never shown either the inclination to provide or even an understanding of what the term "argument" means.   

[jeremyp]

Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule group of molecules wetness. Something cannot be wet unless everything else were in place.

The moment there were quarks under the laws of physics wetness was possible providing conditions were suitable.

Ah, you are talking about reductionism. Wetness is contingent on the properties and interactions of water and other molecules which are contingent on the properties and interactions of electrons and photons and so on, all the way "down" to quantum fields which, as far as we know are not contingent on anything - they just "are". Quantum fields might be the "necessary" you are looking for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


None of which gets you off the hook of a necessary thing not being there before the thing that’s contingent on it. 

Are you saying for example that the moment there were quarks they were intrinsically unable to form sub atomic particles like protons and neutrons under the laws of physics and were sub atomic particles from then on inevitable, regardless of time. In other words is time part of the explanation?

[Outrider]

yes there are sequential events which are explanatory chains but to say all chains are sequential in time is wrong. Since The building you are standing in is contingent on its solid foundations which are contingent on solid ground.

And the foundations could not have been put there if there was not solid ground already there - solid ground is a prerequisite of solid foundations, and has to occur earlier in the time sequence.  Identifying it now as a necessary step is to implicitly require that it was there at an earlier point, even if I wasn't there to witness it.

So what if there is a time delay between a quark and the proton it comprises although is there?

If you're attempting to establish necessity then demonstrating one must pre-date the other is, dare I say it, a necessary part of the argument - you can't conclude until you've met the prior conditions.

But since you are insisting on time being the thing things are dependent on by which all is explained you have arrived at time as the necessary.

No, I've said that time is necessary for necessity - if you don't have time, you can't have necessity, but you can have a timeless reality.

You see ......it doesn't go away.

It doesn't need to go away, it was never there.

Would you now agree that infinite stuff is dependent on infinite Time?

No.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, you are talking about reductionism. Wetness is contingent on the properties and interactions of water and other molecules which are contingent on the properties and interactions of electrons and photons and so on, all the way "down" to quantum fields which, as far as we know are not contingent on anything - they just "are". Quantum fields might be the "necessary" you are looking for.

I believe Swinburne and Krauss think as much. Krauss's and Swinburne's critics are not so sure though.

Is reductionism pro emergence though, I'm not sure on that since the existence of wetness is not explained by studying a single atom. In other words reductionism is pretty poor on prediction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the foundations could not have been put there if there was not solid ground already there - solid ground is a prerequisite of solid foundations, and has to occur earlier in the time sequence.  Identifying it now as a necessary step is to implicitly require that it was there at an earlier point, even if I wasn't there to witness it.

If you're attempting to establish necessity then demonstrating one must pre-date the other is, dare I say it, a necessary part of the argument - you can't conclude until you've met the prior conditions.

No, I've said that time is necessary for necessity - if you don't have time, you can't have necessity, but you can have a timeless reality.

It doesn't need to go away, it was never there.

No.

O.

I need my foundations and the ground it stands on to be solid now. If that is not maintained. I don't have a building. If the electricity supply is not maintained moment by moment, I don't get my cheese toastie no matter that I have a glorious nuclear power station down the road.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I've said that time is necessary for necessity - if you don't have time, you can't have necessity, but you can have a timeless reality.

And again, if a timeless reality is the explanation for time then time doesn't explain reality and we have arrived at our Necessity.

[jeremyp]

Is reductionism pro emergence though, I'm not sure on that since the existence of wetness is not explained by studying a single atom.

It is explained by studying molecules and the way they interact with each other. Molecules and their interactions are explained by atoms, electrons and photons and their interactions.

[Gordon]

You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon
Since I am thinking of vertical explanatory hierarchies eg Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule  substance reaction process etc.

I see you've gone nuclear by deploying the 'get out of jail' card that is so beloved by over-reaching theists: 'I'm way out of my depth here - therefore 'quantum'.

All you need now is a puff of smoke and an audience to exclaim 'Wow'!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the foundations could not have been put there if there was not solid ground already there - solid ground is a prerequisite of solid foundations, and has to occur earlier in the time sequence.  Identifying it now as a necessary step is to implicitly require that it was there at an earlier point, even if I wasn't there to witness it.

If you're attempting to establish necessity then demonstrating one must pre-date the other is, dare I say it, a necessary part of the argument - you can't conclude until you've met the prior conditions.

No, I've said that time is necessary for necessity - if you don't have time, you can't have necessity, but you can have a timeless reality.

It doesn't need to go away, it was never there.

No.

O.

You have tried to demonstrate that time is necessary for contingency since that which explains but needs no explanation is definitionally ''The necessary''. So you haven't got round that. Your timeless reality is actually not far off traditional descriptions for God and God has been comfortably referred to as the necessary being for ages.

Your confusion is that the necessity needs no explanation and is hence the necessity par excellence. You are diddling with words to try and airbrush concepts you find inconvenient. 

Is time then part of the explanation for all things? For example time does not feature in all scientific formula can you explain then why it is necessary for Necessity? It also doesn't feature in mathematic reality....or Moral reality(But that is another story)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you've gone nuclear by deploying the 'get out of jail' card that is so beloved by over-reaching theists: 'I'm way out of my depth here - therefore 'quantum'.

All you need now is a puff of smoke and an audience to exclaim 'Wow'!

If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.

I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on  the floor of a rough pub.

[Gordon]

If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.

I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on  the floor of a rough pub.

Then get out of the pub, old chap.