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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are beginning to catch on. There is hope.

No if they were the same the circular heirarchy would have to read a is b b is c c is d and d is a. Not at all the same.

[jeremyp]

No if they were the same the circular heirarchy would have to read a is b b is c c is d and d is a. Not at all the same.

It's even tighter than that. God depends on the Son, and the Son depends on God. Same for the Father and Holy Ghost. You have three circular dependencies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's even tighter than that. God depends on the Son, and the Son depends on God. Same for the Father and Holy Ghost. You have three circular dependencies.

No,  the son is God but b isn't a  and c isn't b.
Similarly Saturn is not the universe but the Son is God.

[jeremyp]

No,  the son is God but b isn't a  and c isn't b.

no. You don't get to redefine English.

God is three distinct persons, so the Son is God in  the same sense that Saturn is the Universe i.e. both are parts of the whole.

[Outrider]

A is God, B is God, C is God

That's fine if A is B is C, but that's not the claim.

A causes B causes C causes A

So they're all contingent? That was your suggestion when I pointed out that you could have a necessary 'loop' of entities in a cycle, that they were therefore all contingent and therefore it was invalid.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

no. You don't get to redefine English.

English is redefined and adapted all, the time. Science is particularly noted. Meanings are different in different contexts. Persons is a translation from the original Greek word for what early theologians wish to convey about the nature of God and how we encounter God.It's more to do with the relationship between God and his creation.

God is three distinct persons, so the Son is God in  the same sense that Saturn is the Universe i.e. both are parts of the whole.

No Saturn is not the universe. It is a part. Jesus is not a part . He is God. As he says. Who has seen me has seen the father. I am in the father and the father in me.

Saturn is not the universe. If you see Saturn you have not seen the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's fine if A is B is C, but that's not the claim.

So they're all contingent? That was your suggestion when I pointed out that you could have a necessary 'loop' of entities in a cycle, that they were therefore all contingent and therefore it was invalid.

O.

Not getting you. In a linear chain nothing causes a but a is ultimately responsible for everything in the chain.

In a circular chain a is ultimately responsible for its own existence but is caused by the last member of the chain.

You have in effect entities that are there own explanation and not their own explanation simultaneously.

[jeremyp]

English is redefined and adapted all, the time. Science is particularly noted. Meanings are different in different contexts. Persons is a translation from the original Greek word for what early theologians wish to convey about the nature of God and how we encounter God.It's more to do with the relationship between God and his creation.No Saturn is not the universe. It is a part. Jesus is not a part . He is God. As he says. Who has seen me has seen the father. I am in the father and the father in me.

Saturn is not the universe. If you see Saturn you have not seen the universe.

And Jesus is not God, at least not the whole of it. If you’ve seen Jesus you haven’t seen the Father or the Holy Ghost.

Your tactic is to try to render language meaningless. Well we not playing Calvinball.

[Outrider]

Not getting you. In a linear chain nothing causes a but a is ultimately responsible for everything in the chain.

You weren't suggesting a linear chain, you were suggesting the Trinity were causes of each other.

In a circular chain a is ultimately responsible for its own existence but is caused by the last member of the chain.

Which I suggested for a cyclic model of reality as not needing an external cause, and you suggested that was somehow an invalid model - I never did fully understand why you though it was invalid, but it was something to do with all the parts being contingent.

You have in effect entities that are there own explanation and not their own explanation simultaneously.

Just like your model of a causes b causes c causes a where a, b and c are all aspects of God. Sauce for the goose...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You weren't suggesting a linear chain, you were suggesting the Trinity were causes of each other.

Which I suggested for a cyclic model of reality as not needing an external cause, and you suggested that was somehow an invalid model - I never did fully understand why you though it was invalid, but it was something to do with all the parts being contingent.

Just like your model of a causes b causes c causes a where a, b and c are all aspects of God. Sauce for the goose...

O.

Two conversations seem to have collides here.

Circular hierarchies result in things creating themselves AND being created by something other than themselves.

THAT is intellectual cakeism imv.

Is the trinity a circular heirarchy?
It doesn't seem even to be a heirachy of any sort.

[jeremyp]

Is the trinity a circular heirarchy?
It doesn't seem even to be a heirachy of any sort.

It is a hierarchy. You have God and God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There's also an implied dependency between Father and Son.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a hierarchy. You have God and God consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. There's also an implied dependency between Father and Son.

And a glass of wine is the whole universe according to Feynmann.The son is God incarnate in Jesus. Of course Christ's humanity is subordinate to his divinity.

[jeremyp]

And a glass of wine is the whole universe according to Feynmann.

Really? Where does he day that?

Or are you lying again?

The son is God incarnate in Jesus. Of course Christ's humanity is subordinate to his divinity.

So Jesus is made of two parts. Now we have God, the Father, the Son (human part and divine part) and the Holy Ghost.

That makes God contingent by your own rule.

[SteveH]

I don't see why an infinite regress is intrinsically impossible, though II don't think real infinities exist, but as an alternative to it and to a first cause, how about a loop, eg a causes b, which causes c, which causes d ... which case y, which causes z, which cases a, which causes b, etc ?