Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Amarok]

That or time runs two different ways at once

Which is a nonsensical concept because the future is what happens next and the past is what has already happened. If A came first and A causes B then B cannot cause A in the same sense, because B's ultimate cause is A if A truly came first.

No i'm afraid that is not what i mean

---

An ontological infinite regress can only happen in an infinite universe. A Reductio ad Absurdum via an infinite regress argument shows that something begs the question for infinity, and that is an argument that can be made in a finite universe just as much an infinite one, and an argument merely to show that a special pleading is being made. To say that everything needs a cause is to say that God also needs a cause, and that whatever caused God needs a cause, and that needs a cause, and so on, for all infinity.

If it is truly true that everything needs a cause, then the universe must be infinite.

I think what theists are really trying but failing to say is "Everything needs a cause . . . except God" which is indeed special pleading and a completely unqualified statement. "Everything needs a cause . . . except the first cause." actually makes sense in a finite universe, but the assumption that that first cause must be God or must have a mind is just special pleading that isn't backed up by anything. There's no reason at all to think that the first cause is any different from any of the other causes at all, let alone to think that it's "God".

I'll grant the possibility of this . And your right that it's pure special pleading.

[Edwardo Piet]

No i'm afraid that is not what i mean

Then what do you mean? What do you think the concept of time working "both ways" would entail? Because the way I see it that by definition leads to contradictions because the concept of time is already defined in such a way that it only makes sense if it moves forwards. What happens next means what happens in the future, but if time worked both ways that would mean that what happens next could be the past, but the past isn't what happens next the future is, that's what "the future" means, it means whatever happens next. So it doesn't seem to make any sense.

[RoadRunner79]

Your apologetic s remains lame road . Stick to failing at defending the history of the bible. Or engaging in losing debates about testimony .

I was agreeing with you!

You don't even look at things (let alone think), before attacking;   do you?

[Amarok]

No i'm afraid that is not what i mean

Then what do you mean? What do you think the concept of time working "both ways" would entail? Because the way I see it that by definition leads to contradictions because the concept of time is already defined in such a way that it only makes sense if it moves forwards. What happens next means what happens in the future, but if time worked both ways that would mean that what happens next could be the past, but the past isn't what happens next the future is, that's what "the future" means, it means whatever happens next. So it doesn't seem to make any sense.

I'm trying to word it properly. I'll right more when i do 

[The Grand Nudger]

That or time runs two different ways at once

Which is a nonsensical concept because the future is what happens next and the past is what has already happened. If A came first and A causes B then B cannot cause A in the same sense, because B's ultimate cause is A if A truly came first.

It may not be true, but it's not non-sensensical.  You're confusing unidirectionality of time for the definition of cause.  A cause precedes an effect, by definition..but that doesn't mean that it must precede it in-time, only in it's chain of sufficiency or necessity.

The MP-MT transposition, a rule of the system we use to determine whether or not something is sensible, implicitly invokes retrocausality any time we try to form a conditional statement regarding orthodox cause in-time. 

Food for thought and fun with logic.

[Edwardo Piet]

In all honesty I thought you were disagreeing with him and agreeing with me here, RR. So I don't think it's a matter of Tizheruk not looking at what he was attacking, because I was confused by what you were trying to say as well :

That or time runs two different ways at once

I don't see how you can get away from the above, if you are postulating an infinite regress.

If you're suggesting that an infinite regress means that times run two ways at once then I have no idea how you reach that conclusion. That seems like a total non-sequitur. Whether the universe is finite or infinite has no bearing over time moves more than one way or not, and if time moves more than one way then we aren't actually talking about what we call "time", what we call time is a concept that speaks of things that happened, are happening and will happen, and those 3 kinds of things (The Happened, The Happening and The Will Happen) are respectively the past, present and future.

---

It may not be true, but it's not non-sensensical.  You're confusing unidirectionality of time for the definition of cause.  A cause precedes an effect, by definition..but that doesn't mean that it must precede it in-time, only in it's chain of sufficiency or necessity.

No, I'm not confusing the two, an effect is what at least seems to be happening after a cause whether causality is an illusion or not. And what happens next is what happens in the future, and the very idea of time working both ways doesn't make any sense.

---

The MP-MT transposition, a rule of the system we use to determine whether or not something is sensible, implicitly invokes retrocausality any time we try to form a conditional statement regarding orthodox cause in-time. 

What is the MP-MT transposition and how can anything implicitly invoke retrovausality when retrocausality isn't even a coherent concept?

[Amarok]

Your apologetic s remains lame road . Stick to failing at defending the history of the bible. Or engaging in losing debates about testimony .

I was agreeing with you!

You don't even look at things (let alone think), before attacking;   do you?

How the heck was your last statement agreeing with me ?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I'm not confusing the two, an effect is what at least seems to be happening after a cause

Sure, -after a cause-

And what happens next is what happens in the future,

-this is actually two further and distinct propositions, one of a singular timeline and another of unidirectionality of time.

and the very idea of time working both ways doesn't make any sense.

Try an MP/MT conversion.  You'll find that it might make sense, even if it isn't true.

[RoadRunner79]

In all honesty I thought you were disagreeing with him and agreeing with me here, RR. So I don't think it's a matter of Tizheruk not looking at what he was attacking, because I was confused by what you were trying to say as well :

I don't see how you can get away from the above, if you are postulating an infinite regress.

If you're suggesting that an infinite regress means that times run two ways at once then I have no idea how you reach that conclusion. That seems like a total non-sequitur. Whether the universe is finite or infinite has no bearing over time moves more than one way or not, and if time moves more than one way then we aren't actually talking about what we call "time", what we call time is a concept that speaks of things that happened, are happening and will happen, and those 3 kinds of things (The Happened, The Happening and The Will Happen) are respectively the past, present and future.

If time goes on without boundary into the past, then there is always more past prior to any given point.  It is part of you saying that it is infinite in the direction of the past, and that it goes on without end.  How do say that it is infinite, and that it does not proceed forever into the past.

[Edwardo Piet]

Sure, -after a cause-

Yes. And what happens after a cause is what happens in the future.

-this is actually two further and distinct propositions, one of a singular timeline and another of unidirectionality of time.

No it isn't. What happens next is by definition what happens in the future. "Y happens next" and "Y happens in the future" are the same thing. Time necessarily works in one direction, forwards, otherwise we're equivocating when we're talking about it. The very idea of time working in an alternative direction doesn't even make sense.

Try an MP/MT conversion.  You'll find that it might make sense, even if it isn't true.

What is an MP/MT conversion?