To infinity and beyond.

[jeremyp]

Feel free to show where I definitively say that actual infinities don't exist?

Periodically, throughout this thread: https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21979.0

I don't think you can empirically demonstrate an infinity.

Our measurements of certain phenomena in the Universe show that it is infinite, if general relativity is an accurate description.

These are empirical measurements.

You want the luxury of being an atheist on the strength of not being able to demonstrate God empirically

I don't want the luxury(?) of being an atheist. I am an atheist.

but deny the same luxury to me being an AInfinitist.

I'm not denying you anything. You can disbelieve what you like, but, unlike with God there is some evidence that infinities exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Periodically, throughout this thread: https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21979.0


Our measurements of certain phenomena in the Universe show that it is infinite, if general relativity is an accurate description.

These are empirical measurements.I don't want the luxury(?) of being an atheist. I am an atheist. I'm not denying you anything. You can disbelieve what you like, but, unlike with God there is some evidence that infinities exist.

But the problem with this sampling as you well know, Is is the sampling extensive enough and is it representative?
The argument that it is is self defeating since how could you adequately sample an infinity.

Further if you have ruled out extrapolation in the argument that every natural object in the universe is contingent, then you are special pleading that you can extrapolate in this case.

Similarly if one rules out Alan Burns explanation of consciousness on the grounds that it creates an infinite regress what business have you proposing one for the universe although I am not saying you've done that.

As I say the argument from contingency is not affected by whether there is an infinity of not since the reason there is physics is the necessary entity.

If the universe then has a beginning but no end, Why should that have come to pass
And not one that has a beginning and an end
Or no beginning but an end,
Or is infinite in both directions?

[Outrider]

We can say that nothing is definitionally non existent.

No, we can't. You keep viewing 'nothing' as some sort of lowest point - like an absolute zero in temperature measurement. In some instances, though, zero is a balance point, a centre-line between 'thing' and 'anti-thing'. Zero, in that instance, is not 'definitionally nothing'.

So something exists that has always existed since nothing comes from nothing.

Again, no.

Outrider maintains that this something is an infinite regression of causes.

No, Outrider doesn't maintain that. Outrider posits that as a possible example of a model of reality which doesn't require an 'uncaused cause'.

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.

You just arbitrarily determine your favourite toy is 'uncaused' out of nowhere because... um... ooh, look, strawman. Quick, say 'antitheists' in the hope no-one spots the special pleading.

So although it is not caused it has an explanation.

No, it's trying to define the problem out of existence rather than actually addressing. 'God did it' has always been the avoidance of answering the question rather than an attempt to actually answer it, and 'God did God' is just the epitome of that nonsense.

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

Do you bother reading what people actually write? I've expressly pointed out, in response to this assertion, that that's not what I'm saying. Each element of an infinite regress has a cause, yes, but given that there's no initiation (hence, infinite) there is no initial start point to have a 'reason' implemented, no instantiation for an overriding purpose, reason or cause to be inserted.

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

Because you appreciate you've manifestly failed to address any of the primary ones, or because you have new and interesting misrepresentations waiting in the wings? Presumably created ex nihilo, obviously, just emerging spontaneously out of diefic magnanimity, because something out of nothing is impossible.

O.

[jeremyp]

But the problem with this sampling

What do you mean by sampling?

The argument that it is is self defeating since how could you adequately sample an infinity.

Much more easily than sampling a god.

Further if you have ruled out extrapolation in the argument that every natural object in the universe is contingent, then you are special pleading that you can extrapolate in this case.

Who's ruled out that argument? If you want to argue that every natural object in the Universe (what even is an unnatural object) is contingent, go for it.

Similarly if one rules out Alan Burns explanation of consciousness

He hasn't given us an explanation of consciousness.

[Gordon]

If the universe then has a beginning but no end, Why should that have come to pass
And not one that has a beginning and an end
Or no beginning but an end,
Or is infinite in both directions?

To borrow from Spock - 'It may be poetry, Captain, but not as we know it'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, we can't. You keep viewing 'nothing' as some sort of lowest point - like an absolute zero in temperature measurement. In some instances, though, zero is a balance point, a centre-line between 'thing' and 'anti-thing'. Zero, in that instance, is not 'definitionally nothing'.

Again, no.

No, Outrider doesn't maintain that. Outrider posits that as a possible example of a model of reality which doesn't require an 'uncaused cause'.

You just arbitrarily determine your favourite toy is 'uncaused' out of nowhere because... um... ooh, look, strawman. Quick, say 'antitheists' in the hope no-one spots the special pleading.

No, it's trying to define the problem out of existence rather than actually addressing. 'God did it' has always been the avoidance of answering the question rather than an attempt to actually answer it, and 'God did God' is just the epitome of that nonsense.

Do you bother reading what people actually write? I've expressly pointed out, in response to this assertion, that that's not what I'm saying. Each element of an infinite regress has a cause, yes, but given that there's no initiation (hence, infinite) there is no initial start point to have a 'reason' implemented, no instantiation for an overriding purpose, reason or cause to be inserted.

Because you appreciate you've manifestly failed to address any of the primary ones, or because you have new and interesting misrepresentations waiting in the wings? Presumably created ex nihilo, obviously, just emerging spontaneously out of diefic magnanimity, because something out of nothing is impossible.

O.

zero May well be the balance point etc. But here I am using the term nothing to mean the absence or non existence of a thing.

In your quest to find an uncaused thing you have to arbitrarily alter the word contingent to the point of ignoring it.

You merely make the universe non contingent and therefore you defeat your own argument. All contingency must be accounted for. The puzzle is why you run away from that obligation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by sampling?
Much more easily than sampling a god.
Who's ruled out that argument? If you want to argue that every natural object in the Universe (what even is an unnatural object) is contingent, go for it.
He hasn't given us an explanation of consciousness.

He has given sufficient explanation to start a veritable cottage industry in rebuttals, including the one relevant to this thread, he produces an infinite regress so that renders his ideas cobblers. Indeed such is the interminability of the response  that I'm almost swayed toward there being an actual infinity.

[Outrider]

zero May well be the balance point etc. But here I am using the term nothing to mean the absence or non existence of a thing.

And it being a balance point doesn't obviate that point - at the balance point there is nothing.

In your quest to find an uncaused thing you have to arbitrarily alter the word contingent to the point of ignoring it.

That's not even close to being true. Each element within the chain is contingent on something prior in exactly the conventional sense of contingent. It's just that there isn't an arbitrary point at which someone has decided there must be something different.

You merely make the universe non contingent and therefore you defeat your own argument.

My argument is that when you say there must be a start point you're wrong - my model of an entirely contingent infinite chain makes that point perfectly.

All contingency must be accounted for.

As must necessity, if you're proposing a specific definitive explanation - I'm not. I'm showing that your claim that there must be a necessary element somewhere isn't the case. I don't need to give all the infinite examples, I just need to show that the model is conceptually valid.

The puzzle is why you run away from that obligation?

No, the puzzle is why you still haven't grasped the nature of the burden of proof. You're claiming God. You're claiming on the basis that it's the necessary thing for the universe to exist. I'm showing there are models which don't require a necessary element. It's on you to show either why your model is definitively right, or why mine's definitively wrong, and you're failing to do that.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And it being a balance point doesn't obviate that point - at the balance point there is nothing.

That's not even close to being true. Each element within the chain is contingent on something prior in exactly the conventional sense of contingent. It's just that there isn't an arbitrary point at which someone has decided there must be something different.

My argument is that when you say there must be a start point you're wrong - my model of an entirely contingent infinite chain makes that point perfectly.

As must necessity, if you're proposing a specific definitive explanation - I'm not. I'm showing that your claim that there must be a necessary element somewhere isn't the case. I don't need to give all the infinite examples, I just need to show that the model is conceptually valid.

No, the puzzle is why you still haven't grasped the nature of the burden of proof. You're claiming God. You're claiming on the basis that it's the necessary thing for the universe to exist. I'm showing there are models which don't require a necessary element. It's on you to show either why your model is definitively right, or why mine's definitively wrong, and you're failing to do that.

O.

Burden of proof about the providence of the universe is a euphemism for No one was there so any old bollocks idea will do in your hands.

Necessity less contingency is absurd since necessity is derived from contingency that's why it is called the argument from contingency. It's not a question of empirical evidence, There seems to be none for rebuttals it's a question of what's possible and contingency with no necessity is an absurdity.

The proposition there is no contingency is more valid than necessityless contingency which is intellectual cake-ism.

[jeremyp]

He has given sufficient explanation to start a veritable cottage industry in rebuttals,

Of course he hasn't. All he has done is say "I don't know, but God".

he produces an infinite regress so that renders his ideas cobblers.

Saying "but God" produces potential infinite regress because you have to explain God's consciousness. This is why it is unsatisfactory. I guess it's possible that there is an infinite series of gods, but doesn't seem very satisfying, especially as there is zero evidence that any of that infinite regress exists.

Indeed such is the interminability of the response  that I'm almost swayed toward there being an actual infinity.

And the level off understanding that both you and he displays works very nicely as an example of an actual zero.

[jeremyp]

Necessity less contingency is absurd since necessity is derived from contingency

Lol. Necessity is contingent on contingency. Something can only be necessary if there are things which are contingent on it. That makes it also contingent.

Do you have any understanding at all of the things about which you talk?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lol. Necessity is contingent on contingency. Something can only be necessary if there are things which are contingent on it. That makes it also contingent.

Do you have any understanding at all of the things about which you talk?

No. Again a misunderstanding of the term contingency.
A contingent is dependent on an external necessity. The necessity is inferred from the contingency.

Having cleared that up your point is right in that a universe made up of contingent things is contingent.

What your logic allows for is statements like "My Dad only exists because I was born" which is clearly absurd. Your father did not need you to exist.
Similarly The necessary entity does not need contingent things to exist.

Again If the necessary entity is in the universe. What is it?

[jeremyp]

No. Again a misunderstanding of the term contingency.
A contingent is dependent on an external necessity. The necessity is inferred from the contingency.

Having cleared that up your point is right in that a universe made up of contingent things is contingent.

You are doing exactly what I did in my post: conflating different meanings of "dependent".

You need to tell us exactly what meaning of dependent you assume when you say "x is contingent on y".

Some possible answers (all of which you have attempted to use at various times in the past).

"x is caused by y"

"x is made of y"

"x contains y".

What your logic allows for is statements like "My Dad only exists because I was born" which is clearly absurd. Your father did not need you to exist.

No it's your logic - or lack of - and it's deeply dishonest..

Again If the necessary entity is in the universe. What is it?

Has anybody claimed that there is a necessary entity in the Universe? I don't think so. You are being dishonest again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are doing exactly what I did in my post: conflating different meanings of "dependent".

You need to tell us exactly what meaning of dependent you assume when you say "x is contingent on y".

Some possible answers (all of which you have attempted to use at various times in the past).

"x is caused by y"

"x is made of y"

"x contains y".
No it's your logic - or lack of - and it's deeply dishonest..
Has anybody claimed that there is a necessary entity in the Universe? I don't think so. You are being dishonest again.

I have made it quite clear what my position is.
The necessary is not dependent for it's existence or status on whatever is contingent.

I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things.

That you now seem to agree with me on this....Well done! ?keep it up.

[jeremyp]

I have made it quite clear what my position is.

No you haven't. In your previous message you were still prevaricating.

The necessary is not dependent for its existence or status on whatever is contingent.

In what sense? Causation? Composition? Contents?

I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things.

Yes. Because you are flat out wrong when you say that.

[Outrider]

Burden of proof about the providence of the universe is a euphemism for No one was there so any old bollocks idea will do in your hands.

You could just admit that you don't understand the burden of proof.

Necessity less contingency is absurd since necessity is derived from contingency that's why it is called the argument from contingency.

No, that's a misnomer, because the point of the 'argument from contingency' is to arbitrarily decide that there must be a start point, must be some change, without any demonstration that that's the case. That, in case it's not clear, is the bit where you're falling over here - you're saying 'there must be something at the start', and I'm saying 'Why, what's wrong with an infinite regress' and you're waffling and trying to push the burden of proof.

It's not a question of empirical evidence

Did anyone suggest that it was?

There seems to be none for rebuttals it's a question of what's possible and contingency with no necessity is an absurdity.

So you keep asserting without basis.

The proposition there is no contingency is more valid than necessity less contingency which is intellectual cake-ism.

That's the same assertion, with exactly the same lack of basis. If you want to suggest that there cannot be contingency without some necessary 'start' condition, all you have to do is provide the argument to support that. We're still waiting for that.

O.

[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have even been taken to task for insisting the universe has to be contingent if it is just a collection of contingent things.

Yes. Because you are flat out wrong when you say that.

You seem to be contradicting your observation that things formed from other things are contingent on those things and that makes them contingent.

The apparent problem for me is, supposedly the fallacy of composition. e.g. just because a wall is made of small bricks doesn’t mean it has to be a small wall. But which ever way you cut it, the wall is still a composite and it’s “wallness” is dependent on it’s bricks.

Similarly, the universality of the universe is dependent on it’s components. It is contingent on it’s components and therefore contingent.
Finally what if the wall is made of red bricks. Your reading of the fallacy would render the wall “Not necessarily red” so you see under certain conditions the fallacy is not applicable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that's a misnomer, because the point of the 'argument from contingency' is to arbitrarily decide that there must be a start point,

It’s a bottom up argument starting with objects and an empirical knowledge of how they came into existence. We don’t start with something that just is, always has been, and always will be because nothing like that, that is also prone to sense or instrumental discovery, has been observed. To start with something non contingent would be to introduce a skyhook.

must be some change, without any demonstration that that's the case.

Change is observed. So what we are doing is setting up an account where all contingency must ultimately be accounted for so if we agree that the universe is contingent, I.e. dependent for it’s existence on it’s components then we have to ask on what are they contingent on ultimately?

iI'm saying 'Why, what's wrong with an infinite regress'.

It assumes everything has a cause...Do you want to be doing that?
Also we are entitled to ask why an infinite regress....and not a finite chain?
Can this infinite regress be demonstrated?
Then there is the nature of contingency. We borrow our existence from the past. However if someone owed me a fiver who could only pay it when they were owed a fiver and there was an infinite regress there, then I would still be waiting a long time for my fiver.In other words forever, in other words an infinite regress never accounts for contingency since it keeps kicking the Can back down the road.
How does infinity of causes fit in with the phenomenon of entropy. Are you proposing a perpetual motion machine?
So that’s the problems known to me with infinite regress.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are doing exactly what I did in my post: conflating different meanings of "dependent".

You need to tell us exactly what meaning of dependent you assume when you say "x is contingent on y".

Some possible answers (all of which you have attempted to use at various times in the past).

"x is caused by y"

"x is made of y"

"x contains y".

The first and third describe a contingent entity. Not sure I have proposed the second since X would equal Y wouldn’t it?
If Y were the sum of a+b etc, Then that would result in a contingent entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My argument is that when you say there must be a start point you're wrong - my model of an entirely contingent infinite chain makes that point perfectly.

If it is contingent then logically we have to ask “Contingent on what?”

[Gordon]

We don’t start with something that just is, always has been, and always will be because nothing like that, that is also prone to sense or instrumental discovery, has been observed.

But, in your scheme, you do start with something that 'just is': you call it 'God', and you then you sneakily exclude this 'God' of yours from being susceptible to "sense or instrumental discovery", which is no more than special pleading on your part.

To start with something non contingent would be to introduce a skyhook.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing - case closed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But, in your scheme, you do start with something that 'just is': you call it 'God', and you then you sneakily exclude this 'God' of yours from being susceptible to "sense or instrumental discovery", which is no more than special pleading on your part.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing - case closed.

No you don’t start with God, You start with any contingent thing, note that it was made or born or made in a supernova, and then work, your way back. That’s why greater minds than ours call it “The argument from contingency”. The argument then takes us to the necessary feared and loathed by atheists everywhere and those that accept the logic state that it doesn’t mean there is a God, but that is based on a misunderstanding imo.

So, Wrong.

[Gordon]

No you don’t start with God, You start with any contingent thing, note that it was made or born or made in a supernova, and then work, your way back. That’s why greater minds than ours call it “The argument from contingency”. The argument then takes us to the necessary feared and loathed by atheists everywhere and those that accept the logic state that it doesn’t mean there is a God, but that is based on a misunderstanding imo.

So, Wrong.

But surely your schema must 'start' with the 'necessary' preceding any initial state of 'contingency', and any approach of working backwards doesn't avoid that scenario.

So, the 'God' you pray to may not be this 'necessary' thing after all?

[Outrider]

If it is contingent then logically we have to ask “Contingent on what?”

What came before it, that's sort of what contingency means.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What came before it, that's sort of what contingency means.

O.

No the contingency of the "It" has no bearing on the contingency or otherwise of what came before.

In terms of a temporal chain of contingency, there are other heirarchies of existence independent of befores and after e.g the Tory government existed simultaneously with the requisite MPs it was contingent on. So you can have contingency irrespective of "before"