To infinity and beyond.

[Nearly Sane]

No, All the contingency needs accounting for and the necessary entity accounts for it. It balances the books.
An infinite regress however requires something for nothing.
An analogy would be someone ordering a meal and instead of paying for it they keep ordering more and more dishes.

He asserted

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying then that without something settling the account the contingency IS accounted for? That's what an infinite regress model is trying to do.

No, he's pointing put that the issue you think there is with infinite regress applies to your model too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, he's pointing put that the issue you think there is with infinite regress applies to your model too.

It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.

Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.

We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?

[Outrider]

If what has always been?

Reality.

I Seem to be surrounded by things that haven't always been.

You seem to be, but actually you aren't. You're surrounded by energy, which changes form, solidifies into matter in some circumstances, interacts with other forms of energy in different ways depending on their states at the time.

That energy appears to have been released in the period immediately prior to the Big Bang, but from what we aren't clear on. Given, though, that so far as we know energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it's reasonable to presume that it was around in some other form prior to this. Hence, the history of that energy could well be infinite in scope, going back forever.

O.

[Gordon]

It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.

Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.

We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?

Not really - in my experience some theists invoke 'God' as a means of stopping an infinite regress - but they tend to remain silent on where 'God' came from else they are happy to say that 'God, and only God, just is' as a 'necessary' special case (which is special pleading).

[jeremyp]

No, All the contingency needs accounting for and the necessary entity accounts for it.

But you then need to account for the necessary thing.

An infinite regress however requires something for nothing.

So does an unaccounted for necessary being.

An analogy would be someone ordering a meal and instead of paying for it they keep ordering more and more dishes.

I don't think you haver got the hang of this analogy thing. Analogies are meant to help explain things, not make them more confusing.

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.

Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.

We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?

More assertions.

[jeremyp]

It doesn't. If contingency cannot explain itself it must be explained from without I.e. non contingency.
In fact contingency demands it, which is why it is called the argument from contingency.

Infinite regress is an attempt to solve contingency by contingency but it actually throws up what looks like a necessary entity as insurance I.e. the infinite regress.

We know that something exists but we are surrounded with entities that don't have to and at sometime haven't.
The question then is what is it that has always existed?

You seem to have introduced yet another definition of contingency.

X is explained by Y.

You are also conflating two different meanings for the word "account". Please try to get your thoughts in some sort of coherent order before coming back to us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Reality.

OK. How does that differ or tell us anymore than the term something that has existed forever?

You seem to be, but actually you aren't.

So you and I and your computer aren't real? [/quote]You're surrounded by energy,[/quote] But if I'm not real then it's incorrect to say I'm surrounded by energy, because there is no I

which changes form, solidifies into matter in some circumstances, interacts with other forms of energy in different ways depending on their states at the time.

Thanks to entropy. It sounds like you are proposing a perpetual motion machine. An infinite chain of changes and actualisation requires a prime mover to avoid thermodynamics, I would have thought

That energy appears to have been released in the period immediately prior to the Big Bang, but from what we aren't clear on. Given, though, that so far as we know energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it's reasonable to presume that it was around in some other form prior to this. Hence, the history of that energy could well be infinite in scope, going back forever.

O.

Since we are talking Big Bang we have a situation where all the energy is potential. I would have thought release involves the introduction of a gradient. So we have to ask ourselves what it is that introduced this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to have introduced yet another definition of contingency.

X is explained by Y.

That is just the principle of sufficient reason.
Note explanation does not have to mean " external cause".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - in my experience some theists invoke 'God' as a means of stopping an infinite regress - but they tend to remain silent on where 'God' came from else they are happy to say that 'God, and only God, just is' as a 'necessary' special case (which is special pleading).

God is proposed as that which has always been here Gordon. You either say something popped out of nothing or it was always here.

[Nearly Sane]

God is proposed as that which has always been here Gordon. You either say something popped out of nothing or it was always here.

False dichotomy based on assumptions

[Outrider]

OK. How does that differ or tell us anymore than the term something that has existed forever?

What more did you need to understand the concept? I don't understand why you're struggling with this possibility.

So you and I and your computer aren't real?

You missed out some reasoning there in how you got from conservation of energy and mass and energy are interchangeable to therefore we're not real.

You're surrounded by energy,

Yes. And I AM energy, condensed and channelled and interacting according to physical laws.

But if I'm not real then it's incorrect to say I'm surrounded by energy, because there is no I

Well if you want to make that case, go for it. As I didn't even hint towards that, it's not on me to explain how the hell you found yourself there.

Thanks to entropy.

Entropy is the tendency of the energy in the universe to disperse and even out - nothing in that obviates anything that I've said.

It sounds like you are proposing a perpetual motion machine.

Only in the sense that the conservation of energy suggests that the universe is a constant energy state - elements within that energy state undergo change constantly, and entropy is one of the resulting effects of those processes of change.

An infinite chain of changes and actualisation requires a prime mover to avoid thermodynamics, I would have thought

No it doesn't. We do need to understand, potentially, what the 'restart' events are that instigate things like the Big Bang, but there's no reason to presume that those mechanisms constitute any sort of prime mover notion, it's entirely plausible that they are effects within reality already.

Since we are talking Big Bang we have a situation where all the energy is potential.

No, we don't. Immediately prior to the Big Bang all the energy was condensed into a singular point, but all the information we have suggests that is as far back as we can know at the moment. Where that energy came from before that is, currently, not known.

I would have thought release involves the introduction of a gradient. So we have to ask ourselves what it is that introduced this?

If you want to help to understand the early universe and what happened to move from the singularity to expansion, you'd be better served studying Cosmology I'd say than trying to claim a cosmic magician did it.

O.

[jeremyp]

That is just the principle of sufficient reason.
Note explanation does not have to mean " external cause".

What is the sufficient reason for your god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What more did you need to understand the concept? I don't understand why you're struggling with this possibility.

You missed out some reasoning there in how you got from conservation of energy and mass and energy are interchangeable to therefore we're not real.

Yes. And I AM energy, condensed and channelled and interacting according to physical laws.

Well if you want to make that case, go for it. As I didn't even hint towards that, it's not on me to explain how the hell you found yourself there.

Entropy is the tendency of the energy in the universe to disperse and even out - nothing in that obviates anything that I've said.

Only in the sense that the conservation of energy suggests that the universe is a constant energy state - elements within that energy state undergo change constantly, and entropy is one of the resulting effects of those processes of change.

No it doesn't. We do need to understand, potentially, what the 'restart' events are that instigate things like the Big Bang, but there's no reason to presume that those mechanisms constitute any sort of prime mover notion, it's entirely plausible that they are effects within reality already.

No, we don't. Immediately prior to the Big Bang all the energy was condensed into a singular point, but all the information we have suggests that is as far back as we can know at the moment. Where that energy came from before that is, currently, not known.

If you want to help to understand the early universe and what happened to move from the singularity to expansion, you'd be better served studying Cosmology I'd say than trying to claim a cosmic magician did it.

O.

When I said I seemed surrounded by things that haven't always been there you said I wasn't.
When challenged you changed that to they were there, I could talk about an I and a you but they were made of energy. It seems like you are doing a bit of handwaving there. "It's a finite entity, no it's energy it's a finite entity no it's energy"

That you and I will cease to exist makes us contingent. That we are altered energy makes us contingent.
That energy can be changed makes it contingent.

You seem to intimate that this energy was concentrated. Since you discount it as being solely potential energy. I have to ask you what energy transfers were going on and how you propose these happened since the only way energy transfers is where there is a potential difference or gradient.

 Cosmologists do recognise the heat death problem for the infinite universe theory. It should have happened an infinitely long time ago perhaps hence Penroses conformal cosmological theory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the sufficient reason for your god?

One reason is that contingency demands a non contingency.
Infinite regress seems an insufficient reason because it never satisfies the demands of contingency but change makes it contingent IMO. Why does it change?
Popping out of nothing? Not sure might be might not be a sufficient reason but has the drawback that nothing comes from nothing.

[Outrider]

When I said I seemed surrounded by things that haven't always been there you said I wasn't.

And that doesn't meant that they weren't real, it just means those 'things' weren't always there. The energy that makes them up has been.

When challenged you changed that to they were there, I could talk about an I and a you but they were made of energy. It seems like you are doing a bit of handwaving there. "It's a finite entity, no it's energy it's a finite entity no it's energy"

The energy is conserved. The 'things' that it makes up, at times, change.

That you and I will cease to exist makes us contingent.

No. The fact that you and I started to exist implies that we're contingent. Whether or not we cease to exist (and speak for yourself on that assumption  ) has nothing to say about whether we're contingent.

That we are altered energy makes us contingent.

Yes.

That energy can be changed makes it contingent.

No. If I change energy by, say, building a windmill and changing kinetic energy of wind into kinetic energy of machinery, the existence of the energy itself is not a result of that process. The energy is not contingent; its state might be.

You seem to intimate that this energy was concentrated. Since you discount it as being solely potential energy. I have to ask you what energy transfers were going on and how you propose these happened since the only way energy transfers is where there is a potential difference or gradient.

The energy was condensed, in part, because there was no space for them to have a gradient within.

Cosmologists do recognise the heat death problem for the infinite universe theory. It should have happened an infinitely long time ago perhaps hence Penroses conformal cosmological theory.

Penrose's theory isn't that this instance of a universe should have undergone a heat death already, so far as I've read, but rather that previous universes may have undergone a heat death which creates the conditions for a 'Big Bang' type event.

O.

[jeremyp]

One reason is that contingency demands a non contingency.

Rubbish. You haven't demonstrated that yet nor have you demonstrated that your god is not contingent.

Infinite regress seems an insufficient reason because it never satisfies the demands of contingency but change makes it contingent IMO. Why does it change?

I wasn't asking you about infinite regresses, I was asking you about your god. Please don't distract yourself in this way. Concentrate on the question in hand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. If I change energy by, say, building a windmill and changing kinetic energy of wind into kinetic energy of machinery, the existence of the energy itself is not a result of that process. The energy is not contingent; its state might be.

You seem to be positing energy as the necessary entity. This would make everything necessary since everything is energy. And yet there is, by definition contingent things in the universe including the state of energy. That leaves us with the question "What is it about energy that is not contingent". Secondly though you seem to be treating energy like a single entity, but we know energy to be particulate. It is made up of parts and the question is why this number of parts and why this or that arrangement of components?
This compositeness therefore makes energy a contingent.

The energy was condensed, in part, because there was no space for them to have a gradient within.

I think you probably realise that's a circular argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rubbish. You haven't demonstrated that yet nor have you demonstrated that your god is not contingent.

It demonstrates itself. If something is contingent there is the question "What on". You've recieved that news time and time again. No person of the trinity is independent of another. They are not parts.  You are confusing closest analogies of a thing with the thing itself imo.

[Gordon]

It demonstrates itself. If something is contingent there is the question "What on". You've recieved that news time and time again. No person of the trinity is independent of another. They are not parts.  You are confusing closest analogies of a thing with the thing itself imo.

If they are not three elements of a single thing - this 'one true God' notion - then they are surely three separate things. Seems to me that the 'trinity' comprises three separate things since, from what I understand, they can each independently do their own thing - is that so?

Anyway, drifting back in the general direction of infinity, is it your view that 'God' didn't have a start point and has always 'been' - here, there and everywhere, and also 'everywhen' - so that it is both eternal and infinite since what it is alleged to have created, as in 'everything for all time', implies infinity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If they are not three elements of a single thing - this 'one true God' notion - then they are surely three separate things. Seems to me that the 'trinity' comprises three separate things since, from what I understand, they can each independently do their own thing - is that so?

No the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son and the father is in the son and the son is in the father.

Anyway, drifting back in the general direction of infinity, is it your view that 'God' didn't have a start point and has always 'been' - here, there and everywhere, and also 'everywhen' - so that it is both eternal and infinite since what it is alleged to have created, as in 'everything for all time', implies infinity?

I think it's perfectly possible for an infinite God to be maintaining an infinity . That is acceptable within the argument from contingency. How that works is that God is the necessity at the bottom of all hierarchies of existence and that isn't time dependent. So You are contingent on your body parts which are contingent on tissues which is contingent on cells which are contingent on molecules all the way down to the fundamental and necessary entity.

Anyway aside from that,wishing you all the best.

[Nearly Sane]

If I understood that Gordon I'd disagree with it.I think it's perfectly possible for an infinite God to be maintaining an infinity . That is acceptable within the argument from contingency. How that works is that God is the necessity at the bottom of all hierarchies of existence and that isn't time dependent. So You are contingent on your body parts which are contingent on tissues which is contingent on cells which are contingent on molecules all the way down to the fundamental and necessary entity.

He asserted

[Gordon]

No the holy spirit proceeds from the father and the son and the father is in the son and the son is in the father.

Makes no sense: I'm quite clear that my son and myself are two distinctly separate people no matter that we are related.

I think it's perfectly possible for an infinite God to be maintaining an infinity . That is acceptable within the argument from contingency. How that works is that God is the necessity at the bottom of all hierarchies of existence and that isn't time dependent. So You are contingent on your body parts which are contingent on tissues which is contingent on cells which are contingent on molecules all the way down to the fundamental and necessary entity.

So what is the relationship between 'God and time?

Anyway aside from that,wishing you all the best.

Thank you, Vlad: much appreciated.

[jeremyp]

It demonstrates itself.

No it doesn't.

If something is contingent there is the question "What on".

Wouldn't you agree that a thing can be contingent on other contingent things? For example, I would not exist but for my parents. I assume it is not your claim that they are necessary.

You've recieved that news time and time again.

And time and time again you have been told that your argument is bollocks. Why don't you actually do some thinking instead of vomiting your normal tripe?

You haven't been able to rule out an infinite regress and you haven't been able to rule out circular dependencies. You are just a mess.

No person of the trinity is independent of another. They are not parts.  You are confusing closest analogies of a thing with the thing itself imo.

The Trinity are three persons right. If none of them existed, would God exist?

You just denying a logical outcome of your own argument is not persuasive. In fact, it makes you look like a clown.