To infinity and beyond.

[Outrider]

Two conversations seem to have collides here.

Always a risk, but that doesn't meant that point out inconsistencies is necessarily unwarranted.

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

No, and no. Circular continuities don't necessarily imply any sort of hierarchy, and whilst a given instance of an element in a loop can be looked at as being dependent upon a similar precursor, nothing in the existence of a circular continuity necessitates any sort of creation, you'd have to justify that conclusion separately.

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

You tell me. You were the one that said a=god, b=god and c=god, and that a causes b, which causes c, which causes a. I didn't introduce hierarchise to the discussion, but that certainly seems to be the circular continuity that you've just discounted above as 'intellectual cakeism'*

O.

* as any good Portal fan knows, the cake is a lie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, and no. Circular continuities don't necessarily imply any sort of hierarchy,

But we are not talking about continuity but change and causation

and whilst a given instance of an element in a loop can be looked at as being dependent upon a similar precursor, nothing in the existence of a circular continuity necessitates any sort of creation, you'd have to justify that conclusion separately.

That’s only if you can demonstrate one that actually exists and exists free of any explanation

The questions remain
Why a circular and not linear order of causation?
Why this circularity and not another circular continuity?
Why anything at all?

Your trouble as always is demanding a condition and suspending it when it doesn’t suit.

So making all the concessions to your circularity. What is it about your circularity that has to exist?

[jeremyp]

But we are not talking about continuity but change and causation

Well no. You seem to be talking about composition as much as causation.

The questions remain
Why a circular and not linear order of causation?

Actually, the question is "why not?"

You seem to have forgotten that you are the one claiming that a circular causation cannot exist because it would undermine your argument for why there must be a god.

We only bring up the idea of a circular dependency because of your claim that there must be a necessary thing. It is for you to demonstrate that a circular dependency cannot exist.

[Outrider]

But we are not talking about continuity but change and causationThat’s only if you can demonstrate one that actually exists and exists free of any explanation

You are, I'm not. In what way is a continuous cycle of activities not a continuity?

The questions remain
Why a circular and not linear order of causation?
Why this circularity and not another circular continuity?
Why anything at all?

And that's still begging the question. What makes you think 'why' is a valid question? How, fine. But 'why' implies a reason that you've no basis to presume, yet.

Your trouble as always is demanding a condition and suspending it when it doesn’t suit. So making all the concessions to your circularity. What is it about your circularity that has to exist?

I've never suggested that it has to, merely that it does. You're presuming from the existence of something that there must be a conscious creator with an intent on the basis... um... old book, waffle. I'm presuming from the existence of stuff that stuff exists, and might have done forever.

O.

[SteveH]

Talking of circular causation loops, here's one in the real world. Each kid is the cause of the kid in front not falling to the ground, and is themself prevented from falling to the ground by the kid behind. Of course, Herr Zingmatilder is right to point out that causation loops don't explain why there's something rather than nothing, but what Walt disnae realise is that that's irrelevant: the point is not to disprove God, just to invalidate the "first cause" argument.

https://recordsetter.com/world-record/lap-circle/28600

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are, I'm not. In what way is a continuous cycle of activities not a continuity?

And that's still begging the question. What makes you think 'why' is a valid question? How, fine. But 'why' implies a reason that you've no basis to presume, yet.

I've never suggested that it has to, merely that it does. You're presuming from the existence of something that there must be a conscious creator with an intent on the basis... um... old book, waffle. I'm presuming from the existence of stuff that stuff exists, and might have done forever.

O.

I don’t think we can be averse to something being around forever because after all nothing is non existent. But what actually is it that is that fundamental and exists no matter what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Talking of circular causation loops, here's one in the real world. Each kid is the cause of the kid in front not falling to the ground, and is themself prevented from falling to the ground by the kid behind. Of course, Herr Zingmatilder is right to point out that causation loops don't explain why there's something rather than nothing, but what Walt disnae realise is that that's irrelevant: the point is not to disprove God, just to invalidate the "first cause" argument.

https://recordsetter.com/world-record/lap-circle/28600

That things have to reset themselves in this model strongly suggests that such a universe would need some bizarre kind of antientropy not observed in this universe.

[SteveH]

That things have to reset themselves in this model strongly suggests that such a universe would need some bizarre kind of antientropy not observed in this universe.

Ah - entropy. Good point. So much for that idea. Oh well.

[jeremyp]

That things have to reset themselves in this model strongly suggests that such a universe would need some bizarre kind of antientropy not observed in this universe.

Entropy is a statistical effect and it is related very much to time. It may be that the issues with it are due to our lack of knowledge about what is "outside" of the observable Universe.

[Outrider]

I don’t think we can be averse to something being around forever because after all nothing is non existent. But what actually is it that is that fundamental and exists no matter what?

Energy, perhaps. I'm not sure there is a solid idea beyond that, but I'm equally not sure that, for the purposes of this argument, one is needed - the point is to demonstrate that there's a viable explanation that doesn't require a necessary entity, and particularly a sentient one, and therefore it's not valid to claim that a god of sorts is an inevitable conclusion.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Energy, perhaps. I'm not sure there is a solid idea beyond that, but I'm equally not sure that, for the purposes of this argument, one is needed - the point is to demonstrate that there's a viable explanation that doesn't require a necessary entity, and particularly a sentient one, and therefore it's not valid to claim that a god of sorts is an inevitable conclusion.

O.

Energy, but energy that is independent of context perhaps since it is the basic something which has to exist and is fundamental to everything else.

[Outrider]

Energy, but energy that is independent of context perhaps since it is the basic something which has to exist and is fundamental to everything else.

Perhaps, but if it's an infinite stretch back there is always a local context - there isn't a 'pure' unadulterated nascent 'energy' waiting to be manifested as something, there's just energy, and at different times it has different forms.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps, but if it's an infinite stretch back there is always a local context - there isn't a 'pure' unadulterated nascent 'energy' waiting to be manifested as something, there's just energy, and at different times it has different forms.

O.

But then what you describe isn’t fundemental since why one  context and not another.?
What decides that is more fundemental.
Ditto infinities, where the question is why this infinity and not another.
So for a fundemental thing infinities are not relevant. They do not need an infinity to exist.
There is nothing that has to exist or is necessary outside the fundemental thing.
As for nascent energy waiting? Why and what is it waiting for?

[Outrider]

But then what you describe isn’t fundemental since why one  context and not another.?

But the whole point is that I'm trying to show there might not be some 'fundamental', that it might be an eternal system of causes and effects.

Ditto infinities, where the question is why this infinity and not another.

Is there? Where you have justified the notion that there must be a reason, that it can't simply have always been. If there is not start, if there is no cause, if it's, I don't know, let's say INFINITE... in what way does 'why' make sense? How can there be an initial cause or reason if there is no start?

So for a fundemental thing infinities are not relevant. They do not need an infinity to exist.

And, conversely, infinities don't need fundamental things. You see where this is going?

There is nothing that has to exist or is necessary outside the fundemental thing.

You've yet to establish that there is a 'fundamental thing', or that there has to be.

As for nascent energy waiting? Why and what is it waiting for?

Christmas? Who knows. Who knows if there might have been long stretches when the energy was just sloshing around, punctuated by bursts of activity? I'm not definitively saying that there were such periods, just that it's a possibility.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the whole point is that I'm trying to show there might not be some 'fundamental', that it might be an eternal system of causes and effects.

Is there? Where you have justified the notion that there must be a reason, that it can't simply have always been. If there is not start, if there is no cause, if it's, I don't know, let's say INFINITE... in what way does 'why' make sense? How can there be an initial cause or reason if there is no start?

And, conversely, infinities don't need fundamental things. You see where this is going?

You've yet to establish that there is a 'fundamental thing', or that there has to be.

Christmas? Who knows. Who knows if there might have been long stretches when the energy was just sloshing around, punctuated by bursts of activity? I'm not definitively saying that there were such periods, just that it's a possibility.

O.

As I think i’ve Said before it’s not so much suspending an expectation of a reason, it’s where and when you do it and people do that when their atheist poSItion is threatened.
Not sure what you mean by infinities need no fundemental s.
I’m not sure you have properly acknowledged the difficulties with infinities and circularities but you have IMV shown the lengths to which atheists are triggered.

[Outrider]

As I think i’ve Said before it’s not so much suspending an expectation of a reason, it’s where and when you do it and people do that when their atheist poSItion is threatened.

I don't know, that's the fundamental point. You don't know. None of us know. You're trying to put together an argument from pure reason that we must be able to draw a particular conclusion - I'm not making a case for an infinite backstory as a standalone explanation, I'm just positing the possibility as a counter to the suggestion that there must be a conscious, deliberate creator.

Not sure what you mean by infinities need no fundemental s.

If it goes back forever, if it has not definitive start-point, if there's no 'first', in what way is anything fundamental?

I’m not sure you have properly acknowledged the difficulties with infinities and circularities but you have IMV shown the lengths to which atheists are triggered.

And there's the little ad hominem that tells us you know this, you acknowledge this, you have no point, so you're going to attack the author instead of the point. But, hey, I'm the one that's triggered, right? Straight back at ya...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know, that's the fundamental point. You don't know. None of us know. You're trying to put together an argument from pure reason that we must be able to draw a particular conclusion - I'm not making a case for an infinite backstory as a standalone explanation, I'm just positing the possibility as a counter to the suggestion that there must be a conscious, deliberate creator.

If it goes back forever, if it has not definitive start-point, if there's no 'first', in what way is anything fundamental?

And there's the little ad hominem that tells us you know this, you acknowledge this, you have no point, so you're going to attack the author instead of the point. But, hey, I'm the one that's triggered, right? Straight back at ya...

O.

What is fundamental? Well, Science talks of fundamental particles
, quantum foam etc.
So are you now going to introduce yet another infinity to cover your embarrassment?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And there's the little ad hominem that tells us you know this, you acknowledge this, you have no point, so you're going to attack the author instead of the point. But, hey, I'm the one that's triggered, right? Straight back at ya...

O.

Can you deny suspending cause and effect, reason and ignoring the issues raised by infinities and circularities in order to avoid a necessary entity? I’m not sure you can.

[jeremyp]

Can you deny suspending cause and effect, reason and ignoring the issues raised by infinities and circularities in order to avoid a necessary entity? I’m not sure you can.

Well you are ignoring the issues raised by having a necessary entity that is God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well you are ignoring the issues raised by having a necessary entity that is God.

I think you mean empirical evidence here. That applies to infinities and circular causation.
Since quantum theory seems to demand that observation affects the observed, an observed necessary entity wouldn’t be necessary. We either can’t observe it or the thing that logic dictates exists doesn’t.

Therefore IMV the smart money is on it’s physical non observability.

[Outrider]

What is fundamental?

Exactly. You tell me, you're the one that seems to feel a need for them.

Well, Science talks of fundamental particles

Within the context of our material universe, yes. Outwith of that, at the moment, science has very little to say and what it does have to say is unapologetically hypothetical

So are you now going to introduce yet another infinity to cover your embarrassment?

What embarressment would that be?

Can you deny suspending cause and effect,

Suspending it? I'm expanding on the possibility of it being inviolate. You're suggesting an uncaused cause, I'm suggesting an infinite chain of cause and effect - what sort of defect of cognition do you have to have to parse that into the one of us that's suspending cause and effect being me?

reason and ignoring the issues raised by infinities and circularities in order to avoid a necessary entity?

Yes, yes I can deny that, thanks for asking. Of course, it's easy to deny on the same basis you've asserted it, which is to say none. If you want to suggest there's a flaw in the reasoning you need to show what that flaw is, not just claim that it's there. If you want to suggest that I've overlooked some issues raised by infinities and circularities you need to elucidate upon what those might be.

I’m not sure you can.

That's OK, at the moment I'm quite sure I don't need to.

O.

[jeremyp]

I think you mean empirical evidence here.

No, I'm talking about the issues that the assumption of a god as a necessary entity raises. I thought that was pretty clear.

I'm quite happy for you to ignore the empirical evidence for your god, because, of course, there is none.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm talking about the issues that the assumption of a god as a necessary entity raises. I thought that was pretty clear.

I'm quite happy for you to ignore the empirical evidence for your god, because, of course, there is none.

It sounds as if you have nothing Against a necessary entity per se and that IMV is why. Some atheists imo think the necessary entity has the smell of God about it and they would be right...

But let us look at what our necessary entity entails...

It has always existed
It exists rather than nothing existing
There is nothing that can make it do anything...otherwise that would be the necessary entity.
Subsequently, it obeys no greater law, has no context in which to make an accidental or chance action.
Given that then it is not like a natural, unconscious thing.

[Nearly Sane]

It sounds as if you have nothing Against a necessary entity per se and that IMV is why. Some atheists imo think the necessary entity has the smell of God about it and they would be right...

But let us look at what our necessary entity entails...

It has always existed
It exists rather than nothing existing
There is nothing that can make it do anything...otherwise that would be the necessary entity.
Subsequently, it obeys no greater law, has no context in which to make an accidental or chance action.
Given that then it is not like a natural, unconscious thing.

Just a lot of assertions. No logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a lot of assertions. No logic.

Actually, it all follows from being that which exists independent of anything else.