Is God a metaphysical necessity & reasonable? -- quip vs. RidingtheScree

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between quip and RidingtheScree who will debate the following resolution:

Resolved: "God is a metaphysical necessity as well as a reasonable notion."

quip will affirm and RidingtheScree will oppose. The debate will have 7 rounds and quip will go first, per the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3181766&postcount=35).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=155960) is set up in the Existence of God(s) forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- NS, FD Moderator

[quip]

Thanks Nightshade for preparing the formalities and RidingtheScree for broaching the subject.:
Is God metaphysically necessary and is it rational to believe in such a thing?

I’ll start this debate arguing for something that is necessary. Rationality will follow.

So, what does it mean when we state that something exists necessarily? Well, the short answer is - it is impossible for that which existence is necessary, not to exist. In seems that God uniquely qualifies as necessary. The reasons for this are brought about by the argument from contingency (AfC):

This argument is demonstrated by Father F. C. Copleston:

First of all, I should say, we know that there are at least some beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence. For example, I depend on my parents, and now on the air, and on food, and so on. Now, secondly, the world is simply the real or imagined totality or aggregate of individual objects, none of which contain in themselves alone the reason for their existence. There isn't any world distinct from the objects which form it, any more than the human race is something apart from the members. Therefore, I should say, since objects or events exist, and since no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence, this reason, the totality of objects, must have a reason external to itself. That reason must be an existent being. Well, this being is either itself the reason for its own existence, or it is not. If it is, well and good. If it is not, then we must proceed farther. But if we proceed to infinity in that sense, then there's no explanation of existence at all. So, I should say, in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist.*

Opponents of this argument point out that it commits the fallacy of composition in that it infers from the fact that every part of the whole has a property, that the whole has that property as well.
Strictly speaking it is a fallacy to assert the universe is contingent simply because its “aggregate of individual objects�? are contingent.

I agree, thus……..

……..in reference to the AfC I further state that – To exist necessarily is a metaphysical existent and conceptually separate from a physical existent.


To state that something exists necessarily is to say that its non-existence is impossible.
Impossibilities are easily recognized because they involve obvious logical contradictions.
A square-circle is impossible, it cannot exist because it is a logical contradiction.
Where is the contradiction in stating that any particular physical existent could have been non-existent? There isn’t.

As shown above impossibilities do not correlate to physical existence, therefore anything that “exists�? whose non-existence is impossible, precludes the possibility of physically existing and thus cannot exist physically.
It’s a self-defeating proposition.

So it can be shown that God simply IS.

To put it in terms relative to this debate, God is a metaphysical necessity

Now, to clear thing up:

God is necessary, therefore God exists metaphysically.
The universe physically exists therefore it cannot exist necessarily.


Rationality:

To illustrate whether it is rational to believe in a metaphysical necessity, I’ll simply pose a series of questions:

I will ask RidingtheScree to examine his own existence.

Why do you exist rather than not exist?

How do you explain your-"self"? -- Why are you currently experiencing the phenomenon called life from the unique perspective of "you"?

Exactly where in the body does the self reside? Is it strictly biological? If so, by what scientific mechanisms determine that your self is to exist here, now and within your particular biological form? Furthermore ask yourself why you are experiencing this relatively short span of existence only to ultimately proceed to a state of non existence for an eternity and by what determining scientific factor(s) makes this so?

It seems the all pervading mystery of life cannot be answered by mere science alone and is expressively ignored by the atheist.

Why is it rational to accept a necessary God? There are simply too many questions that empiricism cannot attest to.
Conversely, one could ask, since the mystery that is life cannot be empirically ascertained, isn’t it quite irrational to dismiss the metaphysical possibilities?





* A Debate on the Argument from Contingency - Father F. C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell
Broadcast in 1948 on the Third Program of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Published in Humanitas (Manchester) and reprinted in Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957).

[RidingtheScree]

Greetings quip, and those who will be reading.

Note I will be taking an analytic position to begin with, where I will question rather than answer, which I will do further along.

------------------------------------------------
A summation in selective genuine quotation of opposing position:
------------------------------------------------

"it mean[s] when we state that something exists necessarily . . . it is impossible for that... not to exist. God uniquely
qualifies as necessary. The reasons for this...:

...we know that there are... beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence
. . .no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence... must have a reason external to itself.
. . .That reason must be an existent being.
...This being is...the reason for its own existence, or. . . we proceed to infinity in that sense, [and] there's no explanation of existence at all.
In order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist."-----------------------------------------------------------
A response
-----------------------------------------------------------

This train of throught bears much similarity to the Cosmological Argument (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3n.htm#fivw)of Thomas Aquinas, which is summarized here:

There is something moving.
Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.
But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.
Therefore, there must be a first mover (which is god).The argument may appear to make sense on the outset, but there are three aspects of its argument which put it into doubt. These we shall call:

The Internal Error
The External Error
The Essential Error---------------------------------
The Internal Error
---------------------------------

"Everything that moves is put into motion by something else."

or ". . .no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence... must have a reason external to itself. "

These are the main premises stated in the argument.

I wish to articulate the Internal Error as a simple contradiction on the level of this syllogism:

Coke is not real
Shelley drinks only real beverages
Shelley drank some Coke> It is quite easy to realize that if Shelley only drinks real beverages, and Coke is not real, she cannot drink it, however, the syllogism drew a conclusion that she does. The opposite conclusion of what should have been drawn.

Now we will review this syllogism:

Nothing is immanent / all is caused
God is something
God is immanentClearly, the wrong conclusion is drawn, just from what we know of syllogisms,

the correct conclusion is:

Nothing is immanent / all is caused
God is something
God is not immanent / God is caused>Clearly, speaking strictly from ordered logic, this is the correct conclusion of the syllogism, using two premises you verified:

". . .[God] must be an existent being. God is a metaphysical necessity... [that can is known and is experienced because he is necessary]"

and ". . .no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence... [it] must have a reason external to itself."

If these two premisses are correct, than the conclusion that God is not immanent but must have been caused is logically necessary.

>however, I don't feel either premiss is valid, which may surprise you, and I shall cover such later.

------------------------
The External Error
------------------------

There is more than one external error, there are actually two, of differing degrees.

The first is the error of assuming that God exists before you posit him as necessary, which you must do, when you use the cosmological argument. By saying that he is necessary while also not analytic or physically [I]a priori,



"I further state that – To exist necessarily is a metaphysical existent and conceptually separate from a physical existent.
To state that something exists necessarily is to say that its non-existence is impossible.
Impossibilities are easily recognized because they involve obvious logical contradictions.
A square-circle is impossible, it cannot exist because it is a logical contradiction.
Where is the contradiction in stating that any particular physical existent could have been non-existent? There isn’t.
As shown above impossibilities do not correlate to physical existence, therefore anything that “exists�? whose non-existence
is impossible, precludes the possibility of physically existing and thus cannot exist physically.
It’s a self-defeating proposition.
So it can be shown that God simply IS.
To put it in terms relative to this debate, God is a metaphysical necessity.
God is necessary, therefore God exists metaphysically.
The universe physically exists therefore it cannot exist necessarily."


... you must posit him as a solution to what is The Cosmological Problem, that is practially necessary, rather than logically necessary.

You are trying to posit two "synthetic a priori" concepts, of cause-and-effect, and to solve the problem of that concept, which is not logical, but rather practical, in that it is not coherent to not use it, but not contradicted when negated, nor implied by any logical relationship, but only what is practical necessity, and also of a God to negate that concept, which is too incoherent itself.

Seeing change, and circumstance, you practially come up with cause-and-effect to explain it. Very good, however, it is not logical, it is still practical, though very much needed in practice, however, it is only necessary in your words, not necessary in logic.

Seeing the incapability of this non-logical "truth" to explain itself, you negate it and betray it with the internal error of positing a God, which you had already concieved of before you posited it as a solution, as you also did with cause-and-effect, as we know that that which is not contradicted by its absense, is not necessary. You state that the absense of God is contradicted, but by what? Not making sense - means it is not coherent, but I am still able to negate it. Also the internal error makes it equally nonsensical to posit it.

The only conclusion we can arrive at is a loop of positing cause-and-effect as a solution to the present state of circumstance, while constantly negating it with gods as a solution to its inherent problems.... and negating God with cause-and-effect, which is negated by God... It a loop which tries to enforce the practical, and maintains such practical use only on a single solution at any time, which damningly requires ignoring the negations of the other solutions-- so that you must ignore the loop to enjoy both God, the solution of cause-and-effect, and cause-and-effect, the solution of God, as independent concepts. Both which need to have been caused and negate and imply each other, forevermore. There is a resolution; but first a conclusion of this section:

Internal Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmolgical Argument

Thesis>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis>There cannot be a cause for every effect.

External Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmolgical Argument

Thesis>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis>God is not moved.
Synthesis>There cannot be a cause for every effect.

Internal Negation of God Within The Cosmolgical Argument

Thesis> God is not moved, but moves.
Antithesis>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Synthesis>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).

External Negation of God Within The Cosmolgical Argument

Thesis>God is not moved, he is immanent and has always existed, for infinite amounts of time, and during such time has caused infinite movers.
Antithesis>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).

-------------------------------------

Finally, we have the essential error. I've been implying it.

you say "...we know that there are... beings in the world which do not contain in themselves the reason for their existence"

do we? I dissagree. I reject Cause-and-Effect, I reject God. Doesn't circumstance have its own identity? You have not proven to me contrary in suggesting such.

If the past only exists in the present, and the future only exists in the present, then how is the present caused by the past? The present merely [I]is, and all that stuff we call memory of the past; doesn't it exist in our present minds alone? The past only exists in the present. There is no cause for the present, or for any present being. All it is whether we call it past, present, or future, is within that present being and within the universe as it is in the present.

If every effect had to have a cause, even forgetting about the logical impossibilty of it, where would those causes exist? In the present. Both cause and effect are one. Neither exist. They are both called "I."

". . .no object of experience contains within itself reason of its existence... [it] must have a reason external to itself."

Where else do I find me? And how can there be any external to the present? The only reason anything has is its relation to its surrondings and itself, not the interactions had with those objects, for in the present, no interactions occur. They are occuring. But that is all. The past and the future are gone, so the present is also self-identified, odd though it may seem. There is no contradiction in thinking this way, while there is thinking in the cosmological fashion.

To summarize, cause-and-effect is not necessary, contradicts itself, and is an illusion.

Your original claim:

In order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence, that is to say, which cannot not exist.

You may see now, that this is affirmed, in not a being, but in the nature of being.
There is no explanation for that being, and we observe only the "change" of it. There is no changed aspect which caused this state, no changing aspect to pinpoint, Just being and change.

--------------------------------

edits: many of them. By the way, thanks, Nightshade, for processing the thread.

[quip]

First off it should be noted that my series of questions posed to RidingtheScree requested him to take an introspective journey into his own existence and to further explain how the mystery of life is answered or at least dealt with from the perspective of an atheist, was ignored.

Nor was the issue of rationality in general of not believing in God dealt with in any way.

I believe these questions are pertinent to issues at hand, thus I will post them for the second time:

Why do you exist rather than not exist?

How do you explain your-"self"? -- Why are you currently experiencing the phenomenon called life from the unique perspective of "you"?

Exactly where in the body does the self reside? Is it strictly biological? If so, by what scientific mechanisms determine that your self is to exist here, now and within your particular biological form? Furthermore ask yourself why you are experiencing this relatively short span of existence only to ultimately proceed to a state of non existence for an eternity and by what determining scientific factor(s) makes this so?

[S]ince the mystery that is life cannot be empirically ascertained, isn’t it quite irrational to dismiss the metaphysical possibilities?



Now on to RidingtheScree's rebuttal.


Internal Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmol[o]gical Argument

Thesis>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis>There cannot be a cause for every effect.

External Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmol[o]gical Argument

Thesis>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis>God is not moved.
Synthesis>There cannot be a cause for every effect.


Internal Negation of God Within The Cosmol[o]gical Argument

Thesis> God is not moved, but moves.
Antithesis>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Synthesis>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).

All of these three contain categorical errors. This error that they all share stems from the premise - "Every mover needs to have been moved."

To illustrate via the argument from contingency that from all contingent existences a necessary existent must reside, the nature of such a necessary existent by way of this necessary quality indicates two separate modes of existence. Thus we have two categories of existence: the contingent and the metaphysically necessary. By including God into the "every mover" category you are prematurely asserting the conclusion of your proposition within one of its premise. Your begging the question.


External Negation of God Within The Cosmol[o]gical Argument

Thesis>God is not moved, he is immanent and has always existed, for infinite amounts of time, and during such time has caused infinite movers.
Antithesis>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).


I challenge the first premise.

"Thesis>God is not moved, he is immanent and has always existed, for infinite amounts of time, and during such time has caused infinite movers."

If the universe is contingent and thus was caused, then the universe is finite and any subsequent movers caused by God can only be finite. The premise contradicts this fact and thus is false.


I do have a question relating to the External Error:
You state:
"The first is the error of assuming that God exists before you posit him as necessary, which you must do, when you use the cosmological argument."

This is not the case within argument from contingency. The AfC differs from the cosmological argument in that it deduces from previous experience and cause/effect logic that every existent could have been otherwise.(as opposed to asserting that everything must have a cause.) It then follows that we have an infinite regress of contingent entities. This cannot logically be the case therefore, something must be metaphysically necessary. There is no assumption here. The AfC is not assuming conditions (a cause of the universe) prior in time to explain the present or control future events.

This being the case your assertion of practical necessity is moot.

RtS's Essential error:

I reject Cause-and-Effect, I reject God. Doesn't circumstance have its own identity? You have not proven to me contrary in suggesting such.

If the past only exists in the present, and the future only exists in the present, then how is the present caused by the past? The present merely is, and all that stuff we call memory of the past; doesn't it exist in our present minds alone? The past only exists in the present. There is no cause for the present, or for any present being. All it is whether we call it past, present, or future, is within that present being and within the universe as it is in the present.

If every effect had to have a cause, even forgetting about the logical impossibilty of it, where would those causes exist? In the present. Both cause and effect are one. Neither exist. They are both called "I."

There is no explanation for that being, and we observe only the "change" of it. There is no changed aspect which caused this state, no changing aspect to pinpoint, Just being and change.

To summarize, cause-and-effect is not necessary, contradicts itself, and is an illusion.


This seem like quite an odd position for an atheist to take, nonetheless.......

What does it mean for circumstance to have an identity? Are you stating that any particular effect can exist on its own, sans a cause.

Pick up a new match. What is the "identity" of this match? It is a piece of wood with sulfur on one end. Its quite useless in and of itself so how does it exist as an object with an inherent "identity"? Its existence precludes a reason for its existence; its use, a subsequent effect.

Cause and effect reasoning per Hume:

1. C, the cause, preceded E, the effect, in time;
2. C and E are contiguous in time and place; and
3. there is a history of regularity in the precedence and contiguity of C and E.

Since cause and effect is an illusion, 1, 2, and 3 above are false therefore,
per your assertion: the past and future reside in the present and cause and effect is an illusion, then next year when I throw a pebble into Lake Michigan will cause the Titanic to sink. Why not? It’s all an ever-present illusion! Right?

[RidingtheScree]

First off it should be noted that my series of questions posed to RidingtheScree requested him to take an introspective journey into his own existence and to further explain how the mystery of life is answered or at least dealt with from the perspective of an atheist, was ignored.

Nor was the issue of rationality in general of not believing in God dealt with in any way.

I believe these questions are pertinent to issues at hand, thus I will post them for the second time:

Why do you exist rather than not exist?

How do you explain your-"self"? -- Why are you currently experiencing the phenomenon called life from the unique perspective of "you"?

Exactly where in the body does the self reside? Is it strictly biological? If so, by what scientific mechanisms determine that your self is to exist here, now and within your particular biological form? Furthermore ask yourself why you are experiencing this relatively short span of existence only to ultimately proceed to a state of non existence for an eternity and by what determining scientific factor(s) makes this so?

[S]ince the mystery that is life cannot be empirically ascertained, isn’t it quite irrational to dismiss the metaphysical possibilities?

I failed to anwser these, because I wanted to anwser them now. I do not feel it is necessary to question the mystery of life, I believe cause and effect is an illusion which does not exist. It cannot exist. Therefor, it is ridiculous and unecessary to question the cause of life.

Why would I seek a cause to life, if causes don't exist?

First, you must prove they do. And not merely through an appeal to practical use, but through logic. And I even dispute its vaunted practical application.

As for my protests against the cosmological argument, I wish to repost them, making them clearer for you;

----------------------------------------------------
Upon Assuming the Cosmological Argument is Valid, an Analytic Argument
----------------------------------------------------

The following is taken to be hypothetically true, and will be proven false from an assumption of truth:

There is something moving.
Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.
But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.
Therefore, there must be a first mover (which is god).
Internal Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis [from argument]>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis[from argument]>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis[from argument]>There cannot be a cause for every effect.

External Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis[from argument]>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis[from argument]>God is not moved.
Synthesis[outside argument]>There cannot be a cause for every effect.

Internal Negation of God Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis[from argument]> God is not moved, but moves.
Antithesis[from argument]>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Synthesis[from argument]>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).

External Negation of God Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis[from argument]>God is not moved, he is immanent and has always existed, for infinite amounts of time, and during such time has caused infinite movers.
Antithesis[from argument]>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis[from outside argument]>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).

--------------------------------------

This serves to show the argument as inherently false, as these are interlaced with contradictions, if assuming the argument is hypothetically true. Its falseness is analytically determined in such a fashion.

You say that as a metaphysical cause not contingent in time, but independent from time, your theory is different. However, you are assuming that, before hand:


There can be a non-contingent cause,

and there can be cause-and-effect,
which are by no means obvious. I ask you, if not in contingency, how does a cause cause an effect, for aren't all causes in cause-and-effect contingent to their effects? If not, then why must there be a non-physical cause at all for the effect of the universe, could we not reason that the effect of the universe is caused by nothingness after the fact of the universe being caused? Seems like a pretty inept theory, but its valid if there is no need for a contingent external cause in any effect.

And if you say; a metaphysical cause, than how does that cause interact with effects that rely on contingency to relay their own effects?

where would it interact?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contingent chain

^there or ^there or ^there?


If it need not be contingent,

than doesn't this make sense:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(god)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

but that's contingent!

what about this:

(god)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

oh, whoops that is contingent, as God caused the cause which contigently caused the next cause, putting him in a contingent causual chain.

And we must put him there, because if he is uncaused himself, he must cause a contingent chain that he lies immediately behind, in a physical interaction (for nonexistence cannot impact existence). He is contingent, because he cannot be anywhere in a contingent chain than immediately at the beginning. Or else he too would be caused, because he still would be at the start with his impact.

_____________________
| |
*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(God)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




If you say nonexistence can impact existence, than cannot effects arise spontaneously from nothing without some contradictory concept of nonexisting existence?

This just outlines the problems with cause and effect. Your argument will always turn into a cosmological argument, which will always turn into a fireworks display for the failure of cause-and-effect.




This seem like quite an odd position for an atheist to take, nonetheless.......

What does it mean for circumstance to have an identity? Are you stating that any particular effect can exist on its own, sans a cause.

Pick up a new match. What is the "identity" of this match? It is a piece of wood with sulfur on one end. Its quite useless in and of itself so how does it exist as an object with an inherent "identity"? Its existence precludes a reason for its existence; its use, a subsequent effect.

Cause and effect reasoning per Hume:

1. C, the cause, preceded E, the effect, in time;
2. C and E are contiguous in time and place; and
3. there is a history of regularity in the precedence and contiguity of C and E.

Since cause and effect is an illusion, 1, 2, and 3 above are false therefore,
per your assertion: the past and future reside in the present and cause and effect is an illusion, then next year when I throw a pebble into Lake Michigan will cause the Titanic to sink. Why not? It’s all an ever-present illusion! Right?

Sure, you can sink the titanic. I have no objections, if that is what you want to hear. It may be practial for you to scoff, but it is not logical. Cause and Effect is impossible, and wrong. Hume said it, too, you know. It is useful, to describe entities in relations to other entities, but only that... it is not an explanation of entities.

Cause and effect is a self-enforced illusion. And I just caught you. You argued about contingency not having to impact God, and defending him, but you just said;


1. C, the cause, preceded E, the effect, in time;
2. C and E are contiguous in time and place; and
3. there is a history of regularity in the precedence and contiguity of C and E.


You are posting contingency as the basis of cause-and-effect, and then defending God, which you reason from cause-and-effect, by rejecting contingency...

You are contradicting yourself.

Remember the title of this thread, try to defend God's existence some other way. Try the ontological argument. Unless you can prove from logical necessity the existence of cause-and-effect.

[quip]

I do not feel it is necessary to question the mystery of life, I believe cause and effect is an illusion which does not exist. It cannot exist. Therefor, it is ridiculous and unecessary to question the cause of life.

First, you must prove they do. And not merely through an appeal to practical use, but through logic. And I even dispute its vaunted practical application.

Why would I seek a cause to life, if causes don't exist?

I claim there is a reason for our existence; you claim otherwise. Now, I can’t provide the logical contradiction as absolute proof against your claim (not withstanding the near impossibility of disproving a negative existential claim), yet you have the same inability to logically disprove mine. The difference between the two claims is one of logical practicality:
The practical application of cause and effect must be applied, by definition, for one to function practically within his or her own existence.
This is demonstrated by your assertion that life lacks a reason, which, in effect, derives (is contingent) from your prior assertion that cause and effect does not exist. You are contradicting your position by employing (practical) cause and effect to support your assertion that cause and effect does not exist. This contradiction denies your claim on a logical/practical level. One can further logically surmise that by asserting such a contradiction, that assertion is irrational; rationality, of course, being the focus of this debate.


As for my protests against the cosmological argument, I wish to repost them, making them clearer for you;

----------------------------------------------------
Upon Assuming the Cosmological Argument is Valid, an Analytic Argument
----------------------------------------------------

The following is taken to be hypothetically true, and will be proven false from an assumption of truth:
1. There is something moving.
2. Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.
3. But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.
4. Therefore, there must be a first mover (which is god).
Internal Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis [from argument]>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis[from argument]>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis[from argument]>There cannot be a cause for every effect.

External Negation of Cause and Effect Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis[from argument]>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Antithesis[from argument]>God is not moved.
Synthesis[outside argument]>There cannot be a cause for every effect.

Internal Negation of God Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis[from argument]> God is not moved, but moves.
Antithesis[from argument]>Every mover needs to have been moved.
Synthesis[from argument]>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).

External Negation of God Within The Cosmological Argument

Thesis[from argument]>God is not moved, he is immanent and has always existed, for infinite amounts of time, and during such time has caused infinite movers.
Antithesis[from argument]>There cannot be infinite movers.
Synthesis[from outside argument]>God does not move (and hence doesn't exist).

--------------------------------------

This serves to show the argument as inherently false, as these are interlaced with contradictions, if assuming the argument is hypothetically true. Its falseness is analytically determined in such a fashion.

Your protests are quite clear. I illustrated earlier how your hypothetical truths were flawed thus, the “analytical determination�? is flawed. This flaw was not dealt with, you simply re-posted the same flawed argument.

You say that as a metaphysical cause not contingent in time, but independent from time, your theory is different. However, you are assuming that, before hand:
 There can be a non-contingent cause,
 and there can be cause-and-effect,
which are by no means obvious. I ask you, if not in contingency, how does a cause cause an effect, for aren't all causes in cause-and-effect contingent to their effects? If not, then why must there be a non-physical cause at all for the effect of the universe, could we not reason that the effect of the universe is caused by nothingness after the fact of the universe being caused? Seems like a pretty inept theory, but its valid if there is no need for a contingent external cause in any effect.

And if you say; a metaphysical cause, than how does that cause interact with effects that rely on contingency to relay their own effects?

where would it interact?

Code:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contingent chain

^there or ^there or ^there?

If it need not be contingent,

than doesn't this make sense……..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you say nonexistence can impact existence, than cannot effects arise spontaneously from nothing without some contradictory concept of nonexisting existence?

There is no claim of a non-contingent cause nor of nonexistence impacting existence, only of a metaphysically necessary existent:


Metaphysical (god)

Physical *>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

^ First (contingent )cause.





per your assertion: the past and future reside in the present and cause and effect is an illusion, then next year when I throw a pebble into Lake Michigan will cause the Titanic to sink. Why not? It’s all an ever-present illusion! Right?
Sure, you can sink the titanic. I have no objections, if that is what you want to hear. It may be practial for you to scoff, but it is not logical. Cause and Effect is impossible, and wrong. Hume said it, too, you know. It is useful, to describe entities in relations to other entities, but only that... it is not an explanation of entities.

What I want to hear is irrelevant. My “scoffing�? simply illustrates the absurdity of your assertions of past and future exclusively existing in the present and subsequent claim that cause and effect is impossible. What is relevant is how your assertions absurdly violate every condition of (practical) cause and effect:

1 C, the cause, preceded E, the effect, in time;
2. C and E are contiguous in time and place; and
3. there is a history of regularity in the precedence and contiguity of C and E.


Cause and effect is a self-enforced illusion. And I just caught you. You argued about contingency not having to impact God, and defending him, but you just said;

Quote:
1. C, the cause, preceded E, the effect, in time;
2. C and E are contiguous in time and place; and
3. there is a history of regularity in the precedence and contiguity of C and E.


You are posting contingency as the basis of cause-and-effect, and then defending God, which you reason from cause-and-effect, by rejecting contingency...

You are contradicting yourself.

Where is it that I reject contingency by defending God? The contingency of existence implies a necessary existent. God (as necessary) impacts contingency, not the other way around.

Remember the title of this thread, try to defend God's existence some other way. Try the ontological argument. Unless you can prove from logical necessity the existence of cause-and-effect.

I believe it is you who have forgotten the motive of this debate; those who make absurd, impractical and contradictory claims - make irrational claims.

[RidingtheScree]

The practical application of cause and effect must be applied... demonstrated by your assertion that life lacks a reason, which, in effect, derives (is contingent) from your prior assertion that cause and effect does not exist. You are contradicting your position by employing (practical) cause and effect to support your assertion that cause and effect does not exist. This contradiction denies your claim on a logical/practical level. One can further logically surmise that by asserting such a contradiction, that assertion is irrational; rationality, of course, being the focus of this debate.

There is no claim of a non-contingent cause nor of nonexistence impacting existence, only of a metaphysically necessary existent:

Cause and effect cannot exist

therefore, any use of it renders any point moot

as all logic employs practical cause and effect, all logic is moot

as the argument from contingency employs logic, it is moot

as this argument employs logic it is moot

conclusion, all is moot [paradox=nothing is moot]

we know hereby that all logic is inevitably wrong. We cannot find logical truths, it is impossible. We cannot use logic to establish anything as necessary, nothing is necessary [paradox= nothing is unecessary].

There is just no leverage in any grosteque lust for contradictions to fashion a reflection of yourself, an extended id and superego... The entire ordeal is suffocated in grotesque fallacies that are fallacies in themselves. All we can do is be, without any how why or when. in relating to it, we inevitably create these latter terms, but they have no impact on reality. It is a corruption of that reality to attempt to look into it. It cannot be done. Why you try is only a lust for making sense of it, my conclusion, is that there need be no sense in it, I'm more than happy to acknowledge that there is no knowledge at all- and I wonder if you can refute me, without posting contradictions? We all know the practical doesn't make for the logical= and the preffered circumstance is not always the one that exists, so we can rule out any logical necessity of God, because logic doesn't work when we talk about reality itself. It means nothing other than what we make it. If we look at this in the eyes of the dour pragmaticist, I still say it is more useful not to pretend there is some God, than it is to entertain such a foolish practicality. Why not free humanity from all obligations to the theologians' and the scientists' "reality," and have them make their own, loyal to nothingness, to a nihilism of metaphysics, and dwell in what most satsifies humanity here in our reality of flesh and gory organs so detached from any pretended or imagined noumena.................................................................... ................


no arguments can establish the contradicted metaphysical reality, there is no shade of "sense" in it... while I can sense my own contradicted reality much better, and that is all I am concerned with, knowing that all is false any way, all is subjective. That which is most sensual, is most true, of my reality. Why should I have fantasies of the truthfulness of inherent falseness?

I am droning to myself as I say these things, for they carry the droning droneness of a drone...................................................... I merely relay my subjective view, to the Queen subjectiveness which swallows all truth in my arguments, in other's.

............................................................

[quip]

Ahhhh….now we are getting somewhere! Nurture the tree of knowledge with diligent patience and it eventually bears wonderful fruit! But I’m digressively droning.

Onward…………..


Existential nihilism. A position of perpetual ignorance used in an attempt to preempt any further debate against it. After all, there is no cause and effect, logic, reason or truth, so how can one construct a coherent argument against the incoherent?

Of course this fails because of one simple, elementary flaw. This flaw being of course that if truth cannot be known, then how can existential nihilism be known to be true?

RidingtheScree wants everyone to believe that “all we can do is be.” But what does he mean by “be” and how can we “do” this? RidingtheScree can’t tell you what it means to “be” nor how to “do” it. According to RtS, it’s a useless proposition. Hence the paradox that states everything is moot; nothing is moot. It seems we have no were to go. But do we? Is this indeed a paradox?

First we must clear up some terms. When RidingtheScree asserts that there is no reason for existence, in what context is this assertion to be taken? Is this assertion a universal negative as in “There is no Ultimate reason for existence.” ? No, RtS is asserting that there is no cause and effect, that is, we exist yet cause and effect does not. This is a particular negative existential assertion.

Containment Principle:

“In every affirmative true proposition, necessary or contingent, universal or particular, the notion of the predicate is contained in some way in that of the subject. Or else I do not know what truth is.” (Leibniz)

For example:
A contains B iff (if and only if) it is impossible for there to be an object falling under A but not under B

Let us consider this proposition – I exist contingently. - (A = I (exist), B = contingently)

Since RidingtheScree admits that all we can do “is be”, Then he at least admits that he physically exists. There are two forms of existence necessary and contingent. Which existence does RtS exist within? Let’s take a look:
As noted earlier there is no impossibility (contradiction) in stating that any physical existent, could have been otherwise (non-existent.). A necessary existent, not existing an impossiblity…a contradiction, thus RidingtheScree cannot live necessarily and must thus exist contingently. There is no other choice, RidingtheScrees’ existence contains within it the concept of contingency. Therefore RtS exists for a reason.

From this we can logically conclude that existential nihilism is not a statement of being it is a useless statement of non-being”. Particular statements of non-being are antithetical to particular statements of being.

Nihilism is a useless, untenable position.
-------------------------

Since, cause and effect does exist is it rational to assert that it is an illusion?

You claim the cause and effect is an illusion. What is this claim of illusion based upon. An illusion cannot be objectively understood by the illusory experiences of its subject. If all of physical experience (as RtS asserts) is an illusion, then how do we know it to be thus?
A position irrespective of an illusion must be held before cognizance of such illusions may be posited. If the cause of all physical suffering and pain of life that you and everybody so desperately seek a cause to eliminate; or the physical pleasures you enjoy and attempt to sustain in this life are an illusion, then something external to the physical is necessary to this illusion you call existence. This, by definition, is a metaphysical necessity.

Existential nihilism is a irrational, self-refuting fallacy. RidingtheScree states that “That is all I am concerned with…….all is subjective.”

All may be personally subjective to RidingtheScree , but he is going to have to do much better than positing self-refuting assertions before the rest of us can be convinced that RtS, along with his “Queen subjectiveness”, are not irrational self-delusions.

[RidingtheScree]

I don't see how it is necessary that a entity must have a cause... it is world of contradictions, as I have gone over. It cannot be upheld.

Cause and Effect negates itself

<infinite, instant

means

infinite, instant>

means

<Infinite, Instant>

Means,

No present, no reality, nothing.

Cause and Effect destroys itself.

You cannot say effects don't have causes, without denying cause and effect. The Concept of God denies cause and effect.

We only know a statement by a subjective view, and subjective correctness... thus that which is least abstracted, the least involved with different subjects that must be verified, is the most truthful.

Science turns into a giant Ockhams Razor.

I think it is unfair to label what I've said nihilism, which implies denial of something. You cannot deny what is not there, first, which destroys any attempt to apply the label, if objective truth is impossible. Rather, it is the total mistrust, that is, skepticism, of terms which violate sense, or attempt to go beyond it.

Reality as experienced is reality, absolutely, there is nothing beyond it, the question of there being something beyond is irrelevent

Language does not dictate logic

Objective Knowledge, Metaphysics are Inherently False, as they contradict themselves, such as the Cosmological theory.

Logic and Cause-and-effect are in one form or another inescapable aspects of the human understanding, and they do, to a unquantifiable degree, somewhat reflect the reality we experience, they do the best pragmatic job. However they are regulated by the Ockhams Razor principle, that is, mistrust. Utter and complete mistrust, and Nihilism of Metaphysics, (that which goes beyond sense experience) and Nihilism of Objectivity (which attempts to explain things in what are posited as universal terms), also it mistrusts pragmaticism, and is Nihilism of Objective Subjectivity, for instance human values on all objects.

If I see something, I experience something, (for my world doesn't exist beyond me, and I don't exist beyond experience of myself, my body doesn't exist so much as my sense, even concepts don't exist beyond my experience, Nothing does. The universe is my experience, it cannot be anything else, it is nothing else. It doesn't exist outside of me. There is nothing outside of me. I am outside of nothing, however, but am in the "center" clearly, and experience difference, and uniformities "around" me) However, this world as I experience it is absolutely real, with nothing beyond it. However verified, what is most close to my experience, although never objective, for all is explained subjectively, is most truthful, so truth is what is most realistic. Philosophy is defining real.

I don't deny experience, I embrace it as Queen. Queen subjectiveness. Does this relativist empricism sound to you like the markings of a nihilist?

Contradiction is not imperfect, less even is cause-and-effect, math and others... They are important and valid and to be relyed on because we sense they reflect reality, and so teeter on the great subjective truths we all look for. But there is no absolute truth. We cannot hope to posit things beyond all-reality, or the phsyical universe that is ours, we must observe the contradiction and pay homage to reality.

A nihilist wouldn't use logic and cause-and-effect to defend his point...

I am willing to use it if it runs with my will, which is really all that the universe is. And it does. However, we all know that Paradoxes exist, Quantum physics exists, string theories and crap................. Human understanding makes logic, logic does not make human understanding. Logic we all know who are sane represents the highest pinacle of human understanding, you can go no further- but it should be mistrusted like all the rest.

God has no place in my understanding, logical, practical, material, experienced................

[quip]

What do you mean by instant? I can only assume an instant implies some short yet undefined span of time. Taking a page from Zeno’s paradox: there are infinite divisible instances of time within and between any particular demarcated instance of time. Why do I bring this up? Because using vague and abstruse concepts (infinity, instnace) to illustrate how cause and effect does not exist is simply a waste of time. Furthermore., isn’t a span of infinite instances implying some form of logic..ie.. one instant preceding to the next in logical sequence, to the point of infinity? Can one logically imply logic’s existence in an illustration concluding logic’s non-existence? This seems absurd.

Likewise, if cause and effect cannot be ascertained (as asserted by RidingtheScree), how can we be so sure the concept of infinity or even any particular instance can be so rationally defined?

Our existence contains within its concept (Containment Principle) the concept of cause and effect. I do not see how this can be rationally denied. RidingtheScree, has not put forth reasonable nor rational evidence in support of the contrary.

The Containment Principle is further demonstrated in Buddhist philosophy. In Buddhism such a principle is philosophically illustrated by the theory of emptiness. By this theory it is recognized that there is a fundamental disparity in how we view existence and how existence actually exists. In every day life we tend to view our existence and other existences as intrinsic, independent existences.

The ramifications of this indicates that any intrinsic, self-contained existent lacks the ability to influence nor has the capacity to induce an effect upon other existent. Yet, through the past experiences of interaction with other existences, we know this to be untrue of our existence. So it must be concluded that all objects, material, mental or abstract concepts are devoid of such objective, intrinsic independent attributes.

It is the mistaken view that object and events that form our existence are somehow complete within themselves and are therefore entirely self-contained. Nothing exists without prior influence (effect) or the ability to influence (cause).

This fundamental human error poses many problems within our lives but what is relative to this debate is that the notion of intrinsic, independent existence is incompatible with causation therefore, since everything is composed of continuously interacting phenomena, this incompatibility extends to all physical existence.

In our naïve or commonsense view to the world, we relate to things and events as if they possess an enduring intrinsic reality. We tend to believe that the world is composed of things and events, each of which has a discrete, independent reality of its own an it is these things with discrete identities and independence that interact with one another. We believe that intrinsically real seeds produce intrinsically real crops at an intrinsically real time in an intrinsically real place. Each member in this s causal nexus – the seed, time, place and effect – we take to have solid ontological status.*

Thus cause and effect is not a illusory source of our existence; the simple denial of cause and effect produces an illusion of intrinsic existences. Though we rely on cause and effect in practical ways during the daily course of our lives, we seem to view the cause anterior to any particular existing effect; not as an inherent aspect of the existent itself. Thus the error in RtS’s assertion: “for my world doesn’t exist beyond me, and I don’t exist beyond experience of myself……..even concepts don’t exist beyond my experience, Nothing does.”

RidingtheScree doesn’t exist as an intrinsically, self-contained entity…….nothing does.


* “The Universe in a Single Atom”
Dali Lama , Morgan Road Books 2005

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

RidingtheScree,

Please note that your next statement is overdue. You will be granted a 3 day grace period, however, extending your deadline to Mar. 14.

Thank you for your consideration,

- NS, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

RidingtheScree's grace period has expired and unfortunately I must declare a forfeit. quip has declined to post a concluding statement as well. Nevertheless, we'd like to thank RidingtheScree and quip for their participation.

- NS, FD Moderator