Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 26, 2024, 2:28 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
#41
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
IF eternality doesn't need to be caused to come to be, the same may be true of an infinite chain of effects. And sometimes you cannot apply a feature of every part to the whole.

So he is right, you can't just say well universe needs a cause, but God doesn't.

However, I do believe that an infinities series of effect is still an effect in need of a cause.

God is not an effect. The universe I find is an effect and it would not be the case of a fallacy of the parts being applied to the whole.


It can be proven by induction, that an infinite series of effects remains an effect in itself.


I will go through this proof if anyone is interested.
Reply
#42
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
All evidence for a god arguments are "simple."  It's the best that simpletons can manage.
Reply
#43
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
(October 12, 2018 at 11:42 am)MysticKnight Wrote: IF eternality doesn't need to be caused to come to be, the same may be true of an infinite chain of effects. And sometimes you cannot apply a feature of every part to the whole.

So he is right, you can't just say well universe needs a cause, but God doesn't.

However, I do believe that an infinities series of effect is still an effect in need of a cause.

God is not an effect.  The universe I find is an effect and it would not be the case of a fallacy of the parts being applied to the whole.


It can be proven by induction, that an infinite series of effects remains an effect in itself.


I will go through this proof if anyone is interested.

Somehow I doubt you'll really be able to provide that proof (based on past experience). But go ahead ... not like you ever needed us to give you permission, lol.
Reply
#44
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.
Reply
#45
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
(October 12, 2018 at 11:50 am)MysticKnight Wrote: It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.

[Image: tenor.gif]
"Be Excellent To Each Other"
Reply
#46
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
(October 12, 2018 at 11:50 am)MysticKnight Wrote: It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.

No, I think it's still a fallacy of composition in this case, because the points individually could each be caused and with beginnings, but the whole set would be eternal and uncaused. Just as a whole set of points has at least one dimension, even if the individual point doesn't.

So this is a logical possibility, and if you think it's wrong that this is logically possible, feel free to correct it.

EDIT: IOW, the inductive part applies to the individual points that altogether complete the infinite set, not to the whole set of points.
Reply
#47
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
(October 12, 2018 at 11:58 am)Grandizer Wrote:
(October 12, 2018 at 11:50 am)MysticKnight Wrote: It's just observation, no matter, how long the line becomes, either way (backwards or forward), all of remains points that are effects, and the whole thing is still an effect. This observation will make you see, just like if you were to draw a green line, it would remain green, the same is true of drawing a an infinite line the whole thing is still green. So it's not a fallacy of composition to the whole, but in fact, it's by induction, we know the line (infinite or finite) will remain an effect.

Sometimes composition fallacy is a fallacy, but sometimes its really an induction that applies to every possible reality of a thing.

For example, you can by induction prove things about every triangle.

The same is true of an infinite chain of effects, through this process of observation, you will see by induction, the thing remains an effect.

No, I think it's still a fallacy of composition in this case, because the points individually could each be caused and with beginnings, but the whole set would be eternal and uncaused. Just as a whole set of points has at least one dimension, even if the individual point doesn't.

So this is a logical possibility, and if you think it's wrong that this is logically possible, feel free to correct it.

It would be if you say each point is an effect, so whole thing is an effect. But induction is seeing that no matter what size you give, the same reasoning that proves it to be an effect, will prove it in this case. And in this case, the line is an effect due to composition.  But since applying parts to whole sometimes is right but sometimes is wrong, you have to look an it inductively.  Therefore you have to see the reason why a whole line is still all an effect, will apply here.

So it's proper use of induction, to see the infinite series would remain an effect. The only aspect of it is that we resorted to an infinite chain to do away with a beginning. And if it didn't have a beginning and had no reason to be brought to being this would be true. But by induction, we can apply that infinite chain is still an effect.

And in this case, see the whole thing is made of contingency, and hence in need of a cause.

So yes a beginning would prove a cause, and non-beginning would prove a need of no cause if the thing was all contingent, but by induction, you can apply this.


Here it looks like this.

-
--
---
----

(still an effect)

Why? Cause it's made out of -

An infinite series of ---- would not have a beginning, but still made out ----


To give an example, it's like saying, well saying you know I can lift 300 pounds. 

But I can't lift 350, so I can't life 400, but all of sudden, you say, well if it was infinite pounds it would be different and perhaps I can lift it.

In this case, the property of contingency, can be see by induction, to remain no matter how much we grow it, infinite or not.
Reply
#48
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
Yup, no logical problem with infinite regression. It’s incredibly simple, actually.

Our reality is object 1.

For all values of integer n, the cause of object n is object n+1.

Done. Obviously I’m not saying this is the case, but it can’t be logically ruled out either. When we're talking about how things work outside of our own reality, trying to apply our intuition and experience to rule things out is hopeless. That’s if there is anything outside of our reality of course. Maybe, maybe not.

And maybe if this infinite regression could be viewed in the right way (by someone with pan-reality vision), it would make perfect sense. Who knows.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#49
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
(October 12, 2018 at 12:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It would be if you say each point is an effect, so whole thing is an effect.

No, not necessarily. Every single point? Yes. The whole line? Not if it's an infinite line.

Quote:But induction is seeing that no matter what size you give, the same reasoning that proves it to be an effect, will prove it in this case. And in this case, the line is an effect due to composition.  But since applying parts to whole sometimes is right but sometimes is wrong, you have to look an it inductively.  Therefore you have to see the reason why a whole line is still all an effect, will apply here.

But a whole line, if it's infinite, is infinite ... even though each of its points is "finite" in size.

Quote:So it's proper use of induction, to see the infinite series would remain an effect. The only aspect of it is that we resorted to an infinite chain to do away with a beginning. And if it didn't have a beginning and had no reason to be brought to being this would be true. But by induction, we can apply that infinite chain is still an effect.

You're losing me here. I'm not seeing how a line must be finite in length just because the individual points in it are "finite" points.

Quote:Here it looks like this.

-
--
---
----

(still an effect)

Why? Cause it's made out of -

An infinite series of ---- would not have a beginning, but still made out ----

Yeah ... but an infinite number of these dashes is possible, even if each dash is finite in size ...

Quote:To give an example, it's like saying, well saying you know I can lift 300 pounds. 

But I can't lift 350, so I can't life 400, but all of sudden, you say, well if it was infinite pounds it would be different and perhaps I can lift it.

In this case, the property of contingency, can be see by induction, to remain no matter how much we grow it, infinite or not.

No, if your limit is 300 pounds, then that's the limit.

If, however, there's no limit, then inductive reasoning suggests that you should keep going forever ...

That said, your wording is rather confusing, and I may not have understood what you're really arguing.
Reply
#50
RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any? Simplified arguments version.
The whole thing remains an effect by induction that we can apply parts to the whole, just as we do with any series of lines.

Again, it's like saying 100 pounds is heavy, 1000 pounds is heavy, infinite pounds is not heavy, makes no sense.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Veridical NDEs: Evidence/Proof of the Soul and the After-Life? Nishant Xavier 34 3376 July 17, 2024 at 7:34 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Do you have any interest in the philosophies of introflection pioneered by Buddhism? Authari 67 5742 January 12, 2024 at 7:12 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  My take on one of the arguments about omnipotence ShinyCrystals 9 1026 September 4, 2023 at 2:57 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nishant Xavier 38 4179 August 7, 2023 at 10:24 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  When were the Gospels Written? The External and Internal Evidence. Nishant Xavier 62 5269 August 6, 2023 at 10:25 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience. Nishant Xavier 91 7434 August 6, 2023 at 2:19 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Mike Litorus owns god without any verses no one 3 604 July 9, 2023 at 7:13 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 15101 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 4695 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Why the resurrection accounts are not evidence LinuxGal 5 1292 October 29, 2022 at 2:01 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)