To infinity and beyond.

[Outrider]

You seem to be positing energy as the necessary entity.

I'm not sure 'necessary entity' makes sense in an eternal cycle, but I suppose it's a possibility.

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.

Absolutely.

That leaves us with the question "What is it about energy that is not contingent".

Only if you're wedded to the idea that something has to be non-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?

What makes you think 'why' is a valid question? It's simply what there is, it's what there has always been, it's what there always will be. Why this arrangement - because of the preceding arrangements and the way the various states of energy interact.

This compositeness therefore makes energy a contingent. I think you probably realise that's a circular argument.

For you, because you're trying to lever in non-contingency somewhere to say that it's God. Where I'm not trying to fit something non-contingent in there I'm happy to have energy going back in various states forever.

O.

[jeremyp]

but we know energy to be particulate.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what energy is. Energy is not stuff, it's a property, a number that is calculated in a certain way depending on the situation. It's really an accounting abstraction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what is the relationship between 'God and time?

God is at every moment in time.
Did God create the universe with time. I think the jury is still out on the Kalam but if it has had it's day and the universe is an infinitesequence of events, God is still behind/at the bottom of everything as the thing the whole ensemble of contingent things
are contingent on.
Contingency remains even in an infinity.
Without a necessity you have nothing and nothing comes from nothing so if we have contingency we have a something that has to exist.
Something HAS to exist it exists because there never anything to prevent it existing and contingency is dependent on it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't.
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.
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.
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.

Alan Burns ideas on consciousness are dismissed on account that they give rise to an infinite regress. I am dismissed because I am dismissing infinite regress and I am the one being called a clown.
Circular dependencies have things existing because they already have existed and ceased to exist. It introduces the absurdity of self causation and that gets you to something like necessity. The very thing you are trying to rule out by assuming that everything has an external cause. You want something to be the reason for its own existence and contingent as well. You are the one who is confused. In other words You've been sympathetic to everything having an external reason for existence and everything being it's own reason for existing.


Terms like Father Son and Holy Ghost are not mathematical or scientific terms Jeremy. They are figurative words coined for situations and arguments at times and places. God the son doesn't literally sit at God's right hand because God doesn't have one. It's a vision which shows those who can access it what it is closest to in terms that can be understood. That's why Christianity has different metaphors.

[jeremyp]

Alan Burns ideas on consciousness are dismissed on account that they give rise to an infinite regress.

No, they are dismissed on the grounds that he has no evidence for their truth.

I am dismissed because I am dismissing infinite regress and I am the one being called a clown.

You are dismissed because your arguments are chock full of logical fallacies and your use of big words that you don't understand.

Circular dependencies have things existing because they already have existed and ceased to exist. It introduces the absurdity of self causation and that gets you to something like necessity.

You would have us believe that the Universe depends on the things in it and the things in the Universe are dependent on it.

The same applies to your Trinity.

These are circular and yet you try to hand wave them aside.

The very thing you are trying to rule out by assuming that everything has an external cause. You want something to be the reason for its own existence and contingent as well. You are the one who is confused. In other words You've been sympathetic to everything having an external reason for existence and everything being it's own reason for existing..

The other thing you do is put words into our mouths to misrepresent our positions.

Terms like Father Son and Holy Ghost are not mathematical or scientific terms Jeremy. They are figurative words coined for situations and arguments at times and places.

They do have meanings though and pretending they don't mean what even Christians normally think they mean is disingenuous at best.

God the son doesn't literally sit at God's right hand because God doesn't have one. It's a vision which shows those who can access it what it is closest to in terms that can be understood. That's why Christianity has different metaphors.

Nobody is claiming Jesus does literally sit at God's right hand. Why are you even bring it up?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they are dismissed on the grounds that he has no evidence for their truth.

Neither has infinite regress of causes or circular heirarchy of causes

You would have us believe that the Universe depends on the things in it and the things in the Universe are dependent on it.

I thought that was your schtick. The things that the universe are composed of ultimately come from the necessary entity. But I'm glad you've spotted the argument is circular.

[jeremyp]

Neither has infinite regress of causes or circular heirarchy of causes 

Your point?

I thought that was your schtick. The things that the universe are composed of ultimately come from the necessary entity. But I'm glad you've spotted the argument is circular.

No. I reject your vague definition of contingency. I also point out that your god has a circular dependency exactly like the one you claim applies to the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your point?
No. I reject your vague definition of contingency. I also point out that your god has a circular dependency exactly like the one you claim applies to the universe.

No put simply a circular heirarchy is a gives rise to b gives rise to c gives rise to d gives rise to a. So a is responsible for giving rise to itself.

God is eternal and doesn't cause himself.

[jeremyp]

No put simply a circular heirarchy is a gives rise to b gives rise to c gives rise to d gives rise to a. So a is responsible for giving rise to itself.

God is eternal and doesn't cause himself.

Your god is composed of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. They in turn are aspects of your god.

Circular dependency.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your god is composed of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. They in turn are aspects of your god.

Circular dependency.

A is God, B is God, C is God
A causesBcausesCcauses A

You are saying these are not different?

[jeremyp]

A is God, B is God, C is God
A causesBcausesCcauses A

You are saying these are not different?

You are beginning to catch on. There is hope.