To infinity and beyond.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I gave at least two: that it could be infinite in extent, and there was no initial event; or, that it's an entirely spontaneous natural occurrence without any underlying intelligent motivation - it simply is, there is no intellect to incept it with a reason.

Both of these have been offered before.

O.

A spontaneous natural event sounds a bit unnatural to me. It also requires nature and then what does that require.

Infinite regress has two problems. It intrinsically avoids reason and for no good reason assumes that everything has an external cause.

[Outrider]

A spontaneous natural event sounds a bit unnatural to me.

Because our understanding of natural is confined to in-universe events, and we're considering extra-universal possibilities.

It also requires nature and then what does that require.

If it's, by your definition, unnatural, how do you then determine that it requires nature? What does it require? Well, if it's spontaneous, nothing, that's what makes it spontaneous. If it's infinite, nothing, it never wasn't for there to conditions to consider requirements.

Infinite regress has two problems. It intrinsically avoids reason and for no good reason assumes that everything has an external cause.

That an infinite regress 'avoids reason' is an argument from consequence - you don't like that it doesn't give you a reason, so you reject it. That's a logical fallacy - the whole point here is that you're presuming a reason, and I'm showing explanations which don't require one. For you to then reject it because it doesn't give a reason is an admission that I've satisfactorily made my point.

An infinite regress, which by definition precludes a cause, also by definition therefore doesn't presume that everything has an external cause. It mentions a single example, and that single example doesn't have an external cause.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm quite happy that current evidence shows that space-time is apparently infinite. The Penrose model has no evidence to suggest it is true at this point.
You haven't explained why not. You try to hand wave away evidence based on your experience of a very small corner of the Universe.

Apparently Penroses theory uses the same evidence as you. Expansion of something towards infinity. Towards mind. And the dispersion of finite matter throughout.

Yours and his depend on extrapolation and following what has been called the law of mediocrity where what we observe here, Cosmic flatness, is what we'd expect to see anywhere in the universe.

And yet, You were prepared to suspend that self same law of mediocrity when you suggested that we may not have observed a thing that was necessary because we haven't observed everything in the universe.

So if the universe looks flat here and that is good for the universe then all we observe is contingent and so the whole universe is contingent given your logic.

Whatever is expanding I would say, does not ever reach infinity.

Once you allow the law of mediocrity in this case you have then to ask what business you have to ignore it in other arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That an infinite regress 'avoids reason' is an argument from consequence - you don't like that it doesn't give you a reason, so you reject it. That's a logical fallacy - the whole point here is that you're presuming a reason,

But equally you could be proposing it because it precludes a reason which it actually doesn’t

and I'm showing explanations which don't require one. For you to then reject it because it doesn't give a reason is an admission that I've satisfactorily made my point.

An infinite regress, which by definition precludes a cause, also by definition therefore doesn't presume that everything has an external cause. It mentions a single example, and that single example doesn't have an external cause.

Unfortunately an infinite regress is only reached if you assume that everything has an external cause.
If you say everything has a cause then we are entitled to ask what that cause is.
Your infinite regress is a regress of events of causes.
Your claim that this infinite regress needs no cause is in contradiction to your claim that everything needs a cause. So the argument for Uncaused infinite regress is self defeating.

O.
[/quote]

[Outrider]

But equally you could be proposing it because it precludes a reason which it actually doesn’t

It does, and that's exactly why I'm positing it, because you're trying to portray reality as requiring some sort of underlying reason. I'm demonstrating that there viable explanations where that's not the case.

Unfortunately an infinite regress is only reached if you assume that everything has an external cause.

Everything that we've ever been able to study has been the result of external causes. It's not an 'assumption' to propose that principle could continue, it's somewhat presumptive to make a special case for one thing.

If you say everything has a cause then we are entitled to ask what that cause is.

Yes you are. And, at the moment, we don't know what might have caused the universe - and if we do find that out, we then have 'well what caused that'. That's the nature of an infinite regress, no matter how far back you go you still have an infinite list of questions waiting to be answered.

Your infinite regress is a regress of events of causes.

Yes.

Your claim that this infinite regress needs no cause is in contradiction to your claim that everything needs a cause.

No. You're conflating the individual elements or stages of the regress - which require a cause - with the overall process, which being infinite didn't have a start point, and therefore has no ultimate 'cause'.

So the argument for Uncaused infinite regress is self defeating.

No, your scarecrow with a sign round it's neck saying 'argument for an infinite regress' is flawed, but your straw-man is not the argument that I'm putting forward.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It does, and that's exactly why I'm positing it, because you're trying to portray reality as requiring some sort of underlying reason. I'm demonstrating that there viable explanations where that's not the case.

Everything that we've ever been able to study has been the result of external causes. It's not an 'assumption' to propose that principle could continue, it's somewhat presumptive to make a special case for one thing.

Yes you are. And, at the moment, we don't know what might have caused the universe - and if we do find that out, we then have 'well what caused that'. That's the nature of an infinite regress, no matter how far back you go you still have an infinite list of questions waiting to be answered.

Yes.

No. You're conflating the individual elements or stages of the regress - which require a cause - with the overall process, which being infinite didn't have a start point, and therefore has no ultimate 'cause'.

No, your scarecrow with a sign round it's neck saying 'argument for an infinite regress' is flawed, but your straw-man is not the argument that I'm putting forward.

O.

You are still ignoring that the reasonableness of proposing an infinite chain of causes is based on everything having a cause. Otherwise the proposal of an infinite regression is just an assertion.
So you are proposing a reason for something while simultaneously arguing it needs no reason.

In otherwords you are saying that a infinite regression just is without having a reason and providing a reason for it.

We don't empirically have the answer but some lines of argument can be dismissed on the grounds of absurdity

[Nearly Sane]

You are still ignoring that the reasonableness of proposing an infinite chain of causes is based on everything having a cause. Otherwise the proposal of an infinite regression is just an assertion.
So you are proposing a reason for something while simultaneously arguing it needs no reason.

In otherwords you are saying that a infinite regression just is without having a reason and providing a reason for it.

We don't empirically have the answer but some lines of argument can be dismissed on the grounds of absurdity

This also applies to your position that everything has a cause apart from one thing. Neither position is logical therefore the only logical position is dunno.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This also applies to your position that everything has a cause apart from one thing. Neither position is logical therfore the only logical position is dunno.

I disagree. Outlander is proposing something doesn't need a reason or explanation which is itself based on the idea everything has a cause.
It would be like me asserting God and everything needs a cause.
I am not asserting everything needs a cause. A reason yes but not a cause.
What I say is that there are things that do need a cause So we are entitled and duty bound to ask what that cause is.

I'm not surprise that someone who can propose that perhaps their is nothing contingent can consider my position equivalent to Outlanders.

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree. Outlander is proposing something doesn't need a reason or explanation which is itself based on the idea everything has a cause.
It would be like me asserting God and everything needs a cause.
I am not asserting everything needs a cause. A reason yes but not a cause.
What I say is that there are things that do need a cause So we are entitled and duty bound to ask what that cause is.

I'm not surprise that someone who can propose that perhaps their is nothing contingent can consider my position equivalent to Outlanders.

What's the difference between a reason and a cause here?

And if you want to deal with the idea that nothing might be contingent then propose am argument that defeats is rather than just assume that it is wrong 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's the difference between a reason and a cause here?

And if you want to deal with the idea that nothing might be contingent then propose am argument that defeats is rather than just assume that it is wrong

Take the question why something and not nothing or existence as opposed to non existence.
We can say that nothing is definitionally non existent. So something exists that has always existed since nothing comes from nothing.
Outrider maintains that this something is an infinite regression of causes. I say that it it is something other since caused things have a cause and the thing I proposes hasn't failed to exist and can have no external cause since nothing comes from nothing.

So although it is not caused it has an explanation.

Outrider says his entity doesn't have a reason but it does since an infinite regress implies that everything has a cause.

I would be very interested in moving to some of the secondary problems with an infinite regress if anyone is game.

[Nearly Sane]

Take the question why something and not nothing or existence as opposed to non existence.
We can say that nothing is definitionally non existent. So something exists that has always existed since nothing comes from nothing.
Outrider maintains that this something is an infinite regression of causes. I say that it it is something other since caused things have a cause and the thing I proposes hasn't failed to exist and can have no external cause since nothing comes from nothing.

So although it is not caused it has an explanation.

Outrider says his entity doesn't have a reason but it does since an infinite regress implies that everything has a cause.

I would be very interested in moving to some of the secondary problems with an infinite regress if anyone is game.

The question why something rather than nothing is already as has been covered countless times before begging the question that there is a reason. So you've just repeated an error. Add to that, you then say nothing makes no sense in the question, and you've said your own question, already based on a fallacy, is meaningless.

As so often, you demonstrate that your grasp of logic is non existent.

[jeremyp]

There is existence rather than non existence.
Nothing comes from nothing since nothing is non existence.
So something must always exist. And we call that God.

You call it God. I see no reason to.

That then is the explanation of God.

It's not very good though. Apart from making some unfounded assertions, there is no reason to believe that the "something that must exist" is God.

So, again, I ask what is the explanation for God?

[jeremyp]

Apparently Penroses theory uses the same evidence as you. Expansion of something towards infinity. Towards mind. And the dispersion of finite matter throughout.

Are you aware that Penrose's model (it's not a theory) makes things worse for you? The implication of it is that we are in the middle of one of an infinite sequence of Big Bangs and expansions. At least you had the point that the cosmos doesn't extend infinitely into the past. Now you've proposed a mechanism whereby it could.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The question why something rather than nothing is already as has been covered countless times before begging the question that there is a reason. So you've just repeated an error. Add to that, you then say nothing makes no sense in the question, and you've said your own question, already based on a fallacy, is meaningless.

As so often, you demonstrate that your grasp of logic is non existent.

Things exist, nothing comes from nothing, nothing does not exist something exists then without external reasons. Not everything exists without an external reason so things which exist are divided into that which exists without external reason and that which exists because of external reasons.

If you disagree with those two ways of existence you have to state how they exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You call it God. I see no reason to.

It must be the ultimate entity, or ground of being, The fundemental thing. I see no reason not to call it God

It's not very good though. Apart from making some unfounded assertions, there is no reason to believe that the "something that must exist" is God.

Call it what you like but not the physical universe since
a lot of it doesn't have to exist and indeed doesn't at some point or other

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you aware that Penrose's model (it's not a theory) makes things worse for you? The implication of it is that we are in the middle of one of an infinite sequence of Big Bangs and expansions. At least you had the point that the cosmos doesn't extend infinitely into the past. Now you've proposed a mechanism whereby it could.

The existence of infinities including a chain of causation which is infinite would not address the question "Why existence rather than non existence".

I think I asked you whether each universe is identical to the last.
If so then that is indistinguishable from a loop and we are entitled to ask why a loop. Indeed we are entitled to ask why each new universe has to be flat....and if they don't then there would not be an infinite chain of universes.

[Nearly Sane]

Things exist, nothing comes from nothing, nothing does not exist something exists then without external reasons. Not everything exists without an external reason so things which exist are divided into that which exists without external reason and that which exists because of external reasons.

If you disagree with those two ways of existence you have to state how they exist.

No, I don't. If you make statements you have to justify them. Simply repeating yourself does not change thar your assumptions that things need a reason, apart from the thing that doesn't contradict each other.
As so often you do not understand the burden of proof.

Oh and can you answer what the difference between cause and reason is in this context. (Note because you rarely define terms with any clarity, you have used the terms interchangeably in the past so it seems you have managed to confuse yourself)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I don't. If you make statements you have to justify them. Simply repeating yourself does not change thar your assumptions that things need a reason, apart from the thing that doesn't contradict each other.
As so often you do not understand the burden of proof.

Oh and can you answer what the difference between cause and reason is in this context. (Note because you rarely define terms with any clarity, you have used the terms interchangeably in the past so it seems you have managed to confuse yourself)

Just a word about the burden of proof here.
What is the status quo here?
Infinite regress? We are to run with infinite regress because that
is what we wake up everyday and see?
Or are we to say naturalism is the status quo? What advantages does naturalism have over contingency and accounting for it?
You seem to have arbitrarily abandon sufficient reason at a critical point in the discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

Just a word about the burden of proof here.
What is the status quo here?
Infinite regress? We are to run with infinite regress because that
is what we wake up everyday and see?
Or are we to say naturalism is the status quo? What advantages does naturalism have over contingency and accounting for it?
You seem to have arbitrarily abandon sufficient reason at a critical point in the discussion.

No, the status quo is if you make a claim you have to justify it. There is no assumed position. Any and all suggestions would need to be justified. Note that also includes the principle of sufficient reason. I have, as covered previously, pointed out that it has not been justified as the absolute you treat it as - though you essentially abandon it in suggesting that the reason for something existing is it just has to in terms of necessity.


And again please, explain the difference between reason and cause that you suggested as previously you have used the terms interchangeably.

ETA - and it's not that any posts ago thar I pointed out that there are logical problems about infinite regress and that we',,re at the position of Dunno - it would help if you didn't, create strawmen on things that I've explicitly covered as not being my position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the status quo is if you make a claim you have to justify it. There is no assumed position. Any and all suggestions would need to be justified. Note that also includes the principle of sufficient reason. I have, as covered previously, pointed out that it has not been justified as the absolute you treat it as - though you essentially abandon it in suggesting that the reason for something existing is it just has to in terms of necessity.


And again please, explain the difference between reason and cause that you suggested as previously you have used the terms interchangeably.

ETA - and it's not that any posts ago thar I pointed out that there are logical problems about infinite regress and that we',,re at the position of Dunno - it would help if you didn't, create strawmen on things that I've explicitly covered as not being my position.

JeremyP is arguing that the picture not the proof science evidence gives us of the universe is of a universe with a start that thermodynamically is tending to entropy into infinity.
Penrose presumably uses physics to postulate how the universe started and what came before it. There is no question that Penrose is wrong to so do. Or any pressure for him to show the previous universe. Or it seems for Jeremy to empirically produce an infinity.

You state that naturalism has a stronger case because of methodological naturalism.
Contingency as you have seem to have forgotten also uses methodological naturalism.

So Sane you have lost your advantage. We are both using the same argument.

It's where you and I diverge. You seek to undermine contingency in the strange way of suggesting it isn't a thing.You arbitrarily suspend cause and effect and methodological naturalism at a point that is suspiciously atheist.

I on the other hand propose accounting for contingency which leads of course to the necessary entity.

[Nearly Sane]

JeremyP is arguing that the picture not the proof science evidence gives us of the universe is of a universe with a start that thermodynamically is tending to entropy into infinity.
Penrose presumably uses physics to postulate how the universe started and what came before it. There is no question that Penrose is wrong to so do. Or any pressure for him to show the previous universe. Or it seems for Jeremy to empirically produce an infinity.

You state that naturalism has a stronger case because of methodological naturalism.
Contingency as you have seem to have forgotten also uses methodological naturalism.

So Sane you have lost your advantage. We are both using the same argument.

It's where you and I diverge. You seek to undermine contingency in the strange way of suggesting it isn't a thing.You arbitrarily suspend cause and effect and methodological naturalism at a point that is suspiciously atheist.

I on the other hand propose accounting for contingency which leads of course to the necessary entity.

No, you assert both contingency and that it leads to a necessary entity. You present No arguments that it does so. You don't attempt to demonstrate that it is an absolute.

You also misunderstand  as ever, methodological naturalism, which is based on an assumption  that things works as they do. I can't and don't extend that to being an absolute as you attempt to do with the PSR, though as noted you then abandon it

I don't say
"You state that naturalism has a stronger case because of methodological naturalism." And as already covered I explicitly take the position of dunno. I'm not sure whether you are continually misrepresenting me because you are lying or just completely out of your depth in terms of logical philosophical discussions , though the second is certainly true.

Take up what Jeremy says with him.

And any chance of you explaining your idea that rwaon and cause are different in this context?

[jeremyp]

It must be the ultimate entity, or ground of being, The fundemental thing. I see no reason not to call it God

"God" implies something with agency.

Call it what you like but not the physical universe since
a lot of it doesn't have to exist and indeed doesn't at some point or other

You've clearly not heard of any of the conservation laws.

[jeremyp]

The existence of infinities including a chain of causation which is infinite would not address the question "Why existence rather than non existence".

What makes you think there is an answer other than "why not?"

I think I asked you whether each universe is identical to the last.

You were the one who brought up the Penrose Universe. You're the one who's supposed to know about it.

If so then that is indistinguishable from a loop and we are entitled to ask why a loop.

Indeed we are. Why not a loop?

[jeremyp]

JeremyP is arguing that the picture not the proof science evidence gives us of the universe is of a universe with a start that thermodynamically is tending to entropy into infinity.

I'm arguing that that seems to be the most likely scenario given the evidence we observe.

Or it seems for Jeremy to empirically produce an infinity.

I'm saying that it seems like the Universe is infinite.  You are claiming that infinities don't exist . But you are not giving us any evidence that they don't exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm arguing that that seems to be the most likely scenario given the evidence we observe.

I'm saying that it seems like the Universe is infinite.  You are claiming that infinities don't exist . But you are not giving us any evidence that they don't exist.

Feel free to show where I definitively say that actual infinities don't exist? I don't think you can empirically demonstrate an infinity.

You want the luxury of being an atheist on the strength of not being able to demonstrate God empirically but deny the same luxury to me being an AInfinitist.

Hypocrisy.