Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:Atto:

I did reply to this message of yours. But perhaps quoting that response here would be helpful.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.

No problem.

But now you're saying you think there IS such a thing as an infinite causal regress? That's odd, because you had seemed alright with stage 1 before...

Well, could you explain how an infinite causal regress is possible, then?

You wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

But now you write:

attofishpi wrote:No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe.

So...in your view, the universe is not coextensive with "the real," but "the real" is that which "exists within the confines of a universe"? You're going to have to clear that up for me.

It looks very much like a self-contradiction.

All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...

Not at all. I have never referred to my experience in this argument so far. I premise nothing on it...not stage 1, nor stage 2, nor stage 3.

At stage 3, all I asked is what you thought was the most plausible explanation. I was waiting for your answer, not advancing a statement about my own experience. I didn't even tell you what I wanted you to conclude, and I definitely did not refer you to "my experience" in order to do so.

So I'm a bit surprised by your claim there. It's manifestly untrue. If I can read you charitably, it seems that you are (wrongly) anticipating what you expect my argument to be. Perhaps a little patience...?

..and again, you are leaving out points that i have made that are pertinent to the argument. If you want to argue opposed to only snippets of my comments, then i'm sure i can find a monkey that suits.

HERE IS MY POST - ADDRESS IT ACCORDINGLY:-

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:No. I don't have any probability in your stage 1 argument toward there being a 'God'.

Do you mean, by that phrase, "I don't know what the actual probability is," or "I don't believe there's a probability at all"? Your wording reads either way there, so you'll have to clear it up for me.

Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.

Immanuel Can wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.

How so? Because there are things "outside the universe" that are still "real"?

Plausible; but what makes you think so?

No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe. All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...(see your stage 3) and ultimately if you are only relying on experience - experience is a result of the reality whether provided by a 'God' or not. It does not necessarily pertain to an entity that created our universe.
You state:-Stage 3 asks, given what we observe in the cosmos and the world around us, what is the most probable explanation for the existence of what we see? Does chance + time look like the most probable explanation, or does power + design look like the better explanation?

How can i see it other_wise? REAL_IT_Y can be provided by an A.I. that we have evolved within - or a reality with no intelligent backing as atheists see it. Take your pick.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who created God?

You believe in "created gods"? Are you a Roman? An ancient Greek?

No. I'm asking you. I don't believe in anything.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:Why not attempt to answer the question intelligently...

I was just pointing out that the question isn't intelligible. You can't ask "Who created the Supreme Being and First Cause of all things," anymore than you can ask, "Who squared the circle?" or "Who married the bachelor?"

"Created God" is an oxymoron, you see. The First Cause is, by definition, the Uncaused. You then can't ask, "Who caused the Uncaused?" That's just silly.

If one wants to ask the question seriously, one must not force upon it false terms that gratuitously contradict the very meaning of the central concept. If one does, and then if afterward the question cannot be coherently answered, then the fault then remains in the question, not the answer.

Ask a coherent question.

All this philosophical jargon along scholastic lines never once morphed a single unknown into a fact or even a remote probability of one. I can't believe that any civilization which proclaims to be advanced would argue in such a manner delimiting itself into a First Cause cul-de-sac which can never be identified at any level. It would have no need for a super-mind entity called god knowing it explains absolutely nothing being a literal dead end, a sterile concept which offers the future nothing except inhibitions as confirmed by the last 2000 years of history.

You're right when you say that the question "who created god" is an oxymoron since it's a contradiction which can never be transformed into any other meaning. It remains absolute in its antithesis to anything meaningful or useful.

It is only by way of some majestic perversity of which the human mind is capable to give it some measure of credence inverse to its complete lack of logic based on another oxymoron well understood by the likes of Tertullian...Credo quia absurdum. Any beliefs which default to that must be defended by the same means the absurdity of which you remain oversubscribed to.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Actually, this rejoinder would seem to be a product of a failure to grasp the solidity of the argument against infinite causal regress:

Infinite causal regress is merely linear whereas God is at least chaotic existence itself and all the laws of nature.

attofishpi wrote:HERE IS MY POST - ADDRESS IT ACCORDINGLY:-

Not playing games here, atto. If you don't like what I do, fine; you don't have to. Talk to someone else.

Dubious wrote:All this philosophical jargon...

Where did you think you were? This is PN. If you don't want philosophy, why are you here?

I'm not here to fight with you, Dube, and certainly not possessed of the wads of time it takes to trade insults. If you're not happy, I accept that.

Be well.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who created God?

You believe in "created gods"? Are you a Roman? An ancient Greek?

No. I'm asking you. I don't believe in anything.

I don't believe in "created gods" either. So what's your question?

Belinda wrote:God is at least chaotic existence itself and all the laws of nature.

How can the explanation for anything be the thing itself?

How can "laws of nature" be the explanation of why "laws of nature" exist?

I'm afraid you've fallen afoul of The Law of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz). Any "cause" posited has to be adequate to the "effect" attributed to it. This means that things simply cannot be thought to be the "cause" of themselves.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Belinda wrote:God is at least chaotic existence itself and all the laws of nature.

How can the explanation for anything be the thing itself?

How can "laws of nature" be the explanation of why "laws of nature" exist?

I'm afraid you've fallen afoul of The Law of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz). Any "cause" posited has to be adequate to the "effect" attributed to it. This means that things simply cannot be thought to be the "cause" of themselves.

There is something that is uncaused which is the ground of all caused events. Things cannot be the cause of themselves. Nature or God if you prefer is the cause of itself.

Explanation is not the thing itself.

Belinda wrote:There is something that is uncaused which is the ground of all caused events.

So far, so good. That's true.

Things cannot be the cause of themselves.

Right...

Nature or God if you prefer is the cause of itself.

False, by your own account. You just said above, "Things cannot be the cause of themselves." Nature is a "thing." Therefore, it cannot be the cause of itself.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:All this philosophical jargon...

Where did you think you were? This is PN. If you don't want philosophy, why are you here?

I'm not here to fight with you, Dube, and certainly not possessed of the wads of time it takes to trade insults. If you're not happy, I accept that.

Be well.

Your belief it seems rests on nothing more than a philosophical chess game and an insurance policy to get favorable treatment just in case there is such a thing as a Last Judgement. Your motives are clear to any normal intelligence - no god required for that - and ready to leave the field with any cheap, glib excuse when you can't offer any counter arguments. From what I've read of the NT you're exactly the kind of person Jesus, divine or not, would call a hypocrite. Also note, nothing is an insult when it's true.

...have a nice day!

Well IC, Have you had enough fighting with everyone so that you can just continue with your explanation of the Cosmological argument?

I'm beginning to think you're just here for the fight.

Immanuel Can wrote:... Nature is a "thing." Therefore, it cannot be the cause of itself.

So IC's 'God' is not a thing and therefore does not exist.

Arising_uk wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:... Nature is a "thing." Therefore, it cannot be the cause of itself.

So IC's 'God' is not a thing and therefore does not exist.

Based on human logic, Yes. If not based on human logic, the answer might be different.

thedoc wrote:Based on human logic, Yes. If not based on human logic, the answer might be different.

There's no such thing as 'human' logic, just logic. A 'God' either exists or it doesn't, if it exists it is a thing somewhere. Now that somewhere might be where our laws of physics don't apply but the laws of logic will. So if it is not a thing then it doesn't exist and if one says ah! but it's not a thing here then it is impotent in the way many appear to wish it to be, i.e. it can't interact here and as such those who talk about 'it' in any other way other than it may exist are talking bullshit. So no knowing bugger all about 'it' or 'it's will' or wishes or any of the guff we hear from some.