(July 13, 2023 at 2:21 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(July 12, 2023 at 11:48 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: We know almost nothing about "all the stuff that's out there". 
Dark Energy and Dark Matter comprise 95 % of this universe. 
We know nothing about what it is or how it acts. 
We know about 5 % of what comprises this universe. 
We know very little about reality between the quantum world and the macro world. 

If there are other universes we know nothing about them, or about the environment within which universes launch. 
Roger Penrose's Infinite Cycles proposes no cause is necessary at all. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_FUlo8BF9Y

Exactly. And if energy can not be created or destroyed, its not contingent. Ergo: All the stuff that makes up the universe -- nearly all of it is clearly NOT contingent….

(July 13, 2023 at 10:29 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(July 13, 2023 at 9:51 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Can you show your work, totaling it up, and if "nearly all  of it is clearly contingent", what is the small part that isn't contingent, and how do you know ?

If a thing is contingent, it depends for its existence on the existence of something else. 

So for example, life on earth is dependent, directly or indirectly, on the sun.

The sun depends for its existence on the existence of hydrogen.

Hydrogen depends for its existence on the existence of sub-atomic particles.

Sub-atomic particles depend for their existence on the laws of nature being what they are. 

All of this depends for its existence on the existence of space/time. If there was no space/time, none of this would exist.

If you know of anything which is NOT dependent for its existence on space/time or the laws of nature, I would be interested to hear about it. 

Whether space/time and the laws of nature are dependent for their existence on some further thing, or whether they "just exist," is the subject of this thread.

None of those are are answers to the questions I asked. 
You were asked to justify your unsupported assertion 
I see you cannot.

But ... OP.. how can infinite regress be impossible if theism is true ? isn't the sequence of God's states of existence or decisions extended infinitely in the past, since God is eternal ?

(July 14, 2023 at 4:24 pm)Loaded dice Wrote: But ... OP.. how can infinite regress be impossible if theism is true ? isn't the sequence of God's states of existence or decisions extended infinitely in the past, since God is eternal ?

No. 
God is "timeless", your invocation of time is meaningless for an "eternal", (timeless) being. 
Philosophy 101.

Theism is not true, and in fact incoherent.

(July 14, 2023 at 4:28 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 14, 2023 at 4:24 pm)Loaded dice Wrote: But ... OP.. how can infinite regress be impossible if theism is true ? isn't the sequence of God's states of existence or decisions extended infinitely in the past, since God is eternal ?

No. 
God is "timeless", your invocation of time is meaningless for an "eternal", (timeless) being. 
Philosophy 101.

Theism is not true, and in fact incoherent.

We can define time in other ways, such as a sequence of decisions or mental states, it doesn't have to be time as conceived in physics. So, save us your lack of imagination.

And please don't make a fool of yourself by claiming that theism is incoherent, because I know you know you can't prove it.

(July 14, 2023 at 4:41 pm)Loaded dice Wrote:

(July 14, 2023 at 4:28 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: No. 
God is "timeless", your invocation of time is meaningless for an "eternal", (timeless) being. 
Philosophy 101.

Theism is not true, and in fact incoherent.

We can define time in other ways, such as a sequence of decisions or mental states, it doesn't have to be time as conceived in physics. So, save us your lack of imagination.



And please don't make a fool of yourself by claiming that theism is incoherent, because I know you know you can't prove it.

How are sequences, decisions, and mental states NOT physics?

There’s actually a sizable chunk of philosophy that makes a good case for theism being incoherent. Look stuff up, whydoancha?

Boru

(July 14, 2023 at 4:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 14, 2023 at 4:41 pm)Loaded dice Wrote: We can define time in other ways, such as a sequence of decisions or mental states, it doesn't have to be time as conceived in physics. So, save us your lack of imagination.

And please don't make a fool of yourself by claiming that theism is incoherent, because I know you know you can't prove it.

How are sequences, decisions, and mental states NOT physics?

There’s actually a sizable chunk of philosophy that makes a good case for theism being incoherent. Look stuff up, whydoancha?

Boru

A sequence requires time. Don't be stupid. One ... after the other.  I have already proven it.

(July 14, 2023 at 5:00 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 14, 2023 at 4:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: How are sequences, decisions, and mental states NOT physics?

There’s actually a sizable chunk of philosophy that makes a good case for theism being incoherent. Look stuff up, whydoancha?

Boru

A sequence requires time. Don't be stupid. One ... after the other.  I have already proven it.

Ok, I’ll try to be less stupid. No promises, though.

Boru

(July 14, 2023 at 4:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: How are sequences, decisions, and mental states NOT physics?

Because we can conceive of disembodied minds making decisions. Again, your lack of imagination won't help you score any points in an argument.

(July 14, 2023 at 4:56 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: There’s actually a sizable chunk of philosophy that makes a good case for theism being incoherent. Look stuff up, whydoancha?

I was reading this stuff for over a decade. Now go ahead and bring it on, give us the best piece of philosophy you read about theism being incoherent.

(July 14, 2023 at 5:06 pm)Loaded dice Wrote: Because we can conceive of disembodied minds making decisions. Again, your lack of imagination won't help you score any points in an argument.

I can conceive of Pink Sparkly Unicorns. 
Does that make them real ?

(July 14, 2023 at 5:11 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 14, 2023 at 5:06 pm)Loaded dice Wrote: Because we can conceive of disembodied minds making decisions. Again, your lack of imagination won't help you score any points in an argument.

I can conceive of Pink Sparkly Unicorns. 
Does that make them real ?

It makes them logically possible.