The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[The Grand Nudger]

Couldn't have gotten that more wrong. Being able to think of something doesn't make it possible.

I bet you don't believe that it would, either. Consider all of the impossible wrongthink you believe atheists engage in. If being able to conceive of these things made them possible..then you would be wrong about all of that.

[Loaded dice]

Couldn't have gotten that more wrong.  Being able to think of something doesn't make it possible.  

I bet you don't believe that it would, either.  Consider all of the impossible wrongthink you believe atheists engage in.  If being able to conceive of these things made them possible..then you would be wrong about all of that.

I don't think that what atheists think about is logically impossible. It's implausible in the extreme, yes, but not logically impossible.

Now what about them conceiving about reality without God's existence? that may not be a problem, either. It's not clear to me that Islam and its core texts advocate for the concept of necessary being.

[Mister Agenda]

No, that's not what the argument says. 

It sounds as if you are anthropomorphizing the First Cause by calling it a being, with the indefinite article.

Thumpalumpacus is not trying to anthropomorphize the first cause but the OP is because he is trying to prove that god exists.

But the so-called first cause, if it exists, could be natural. The discovery of the quantum nature of subatomic reality shows us that no particular prior condition is either necessary or sufficient for some physical events such as radioactive decay, the behavior of electrons and photons, and potentially for the appearance of the physical universe itself out of a background of quantum fluctuations.

Quantum foam seems to be noncontingent...it can't not exist.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

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.

But can you demonstrate that disembodied minds exist? I’ll save you the trouble: you can’t. In fact, the concept of a disembodied mind is…wait for it…incoherent.

Here is the best - absolute BEST - argument for theism being incoherent: the phrase ‘God exists’.

You’re welcome.

Boru

[polymath257]

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.

Please note that you shifted the sense of the word 'dependent' here. The first example is the result of the reactions in the sun producing the light required to drive the chemical reactions of life. Any other G2 star in place of the sun would work equally well. So, in a sense, it is accidental that life is dependent on the sun. it would be more accurate that life depends on the existence of certain sources of energy and the sun is one potential source.

The sun depends on hydrogen in a different sense: it is composed of hydrogen (and helium). But in order to provide the energy for the last step, the sun has to be a certain size, so life is 'dependent' on the sun being a certain size and type of star (unless the energy is provided some other way, like in deep sea vents).

Can you at least agree that your term has shifted meaning between these two examples?

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

This is in the second sense: being composed of something. We can also allow for dependency on specific arrangements of the composing objects (different molecular isomers, for example).

Hmm...what does the arrangement depend upon?

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

This is a bit different. What does it mean to be a law of nature and in what sense do the subatomic particles depend on those laws? Would you not be able to say directly that the sun depends on those laws? or that life on Earth does?

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

That is not at all clear. In what sense does the existence of the laws of nature depend upon spacetime as opposed to the other way around? Or, perhaps, they are mutually dependent. An intriguing possibility for your argument, eh?

[/quote]
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. 
[/quote]
Well, the most obvious example would be mathematical objects. Do they depend on the laws of nature or on the existence of spacetime? Of course, it can be asked whether they actually 'exist'. But then, the same could be asked equally validly of the laws of nature. In what sense do they exist and in what sense to things 'depend' upon them?

Plato would suggest Forms as another example. But abstract concepts could be examples even in the absence of platonic philosophy.

For example are the laws of nature descriptive? So, they are simply ways to describe the properties of things in the universe? In that case, the laws and the  properties of things would be co-existent (co-dependent?). But, while the subatomic particles could be said to 'depend' on their properties, it could equally well be said that the properties 'depend' on the subatomic particles.

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.

I would say that the term 'depends on' is way too vague to be useful and allows, among other things, circular dependency relations through use of different meanings (natural laws depend on math, which depends on humans to  invent it, and they depend on natural laws). There is a vagueness on whether logical dependency and causal dependency are both allowed, and how composition factors into this.

In any case, there is no clear reason why dependency cannot be circular given the different interpretations. And that would allow for the lack of a 'independent source of dependence'. It would be possible all things are dependent, even with only finitely many things. Hence, the  whole argument fails on its own terms.

[Loaded dice]

But can you demonstrate that disembodied minds exist? I’ll save you the trouble: you can’t.

I can, that's just not the topic for it. The point was that we can conceive of disembodied minds. We have tons of stories about ghosts and all kinds of spirits that interact with reality, we had absolutely no problem making them up.

In fact, the concept of a disembodied mind is…wait for it…incoherent.

You probably forgot to check out the sizeable chunk of philosophy that says disembodied minds are a coherent concept.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/1...-0024/html

Quote : "Even though the Cartesian mind-body dualism has largely been dismissed in contemporary philosophy, the idea that the conscious mind can be a bodiless and non-spatial entity is still held to be possible. This paper examines a series of arguments by Jaegwon Kim, Peter Strawson, and Immanuel Kant against the possibility of a disembodied mind. It is argued that although the concept of a disembodied mind is coherent, it derives from a more fundamental concept in which the mind and the body are originally unified"

[Bucky Ball]

But can you demonstrate that disembodied minds exist? I’ll save you the trouble: you can’t.

I can, that's just not the topic for it. The point was that we can conceive of disembodied minds. We have tons of stories about ghosts and all kinds of spirits that interact with reality, we had absolutely no problem making them up.

In fact, the concept of a disembodied mind is…wait for it…incoherent.

You probably forgot to check out the sizeable chunk of philosophy that says disembodied minds are a coherent concept.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/1...-0024/html

Quote : "Even though the Cartesian mind-body dualism has largely been dismissed in contemporary philosophy, the idea that the conscious mind can be a bodiless and non-spatial entity is still held to be possible. This paper examines a series of arguments by Jaegwon Kim, Peter Strawson, and Immanuel Kant against the possibility of a disembodied mind. It is argued that although the concept of a disembodied mind is coherent, it derives from a more fundamental concept in which the mind and the body are originally unified"

It may be conceivable, but there is no known example, ... and science knows of no such example. We know how human brains work, ... neuro-science is quite advanced and no Neurologist or Neurosurgeon has ever proposed how the (known) complexity of working brains would work, be nourished or be oxygenated, or how known brain structures would work without a blood supply, Disembodied brains are a fantasy. There also is no such thing as a "mind" When brains are injured badly, they cease to function. There is no example of a mind functioning in the absence of a heathy brain. _ people with injured brains DIE.

[Belacqua]

Quantum foam seems to be noncontingent...it can't not exist.

Interesting point. I don't know anything about quantum foam.

Is there anything that must exist in order for quantum foam to exist? 

So by analogy: it's clear that hydrogen must exist for water to exist; if all the hydrogen suddenly disappeared, then water would disappear too. 

Is there anything for which we can say "If X disappeared, quantum foam would disappear too?"

[Neo-Scholastic]

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='2155339' dateline='1689369850']

Is there anything that must exist in order for quantum foam to exist? 

A good question but I might phrase it differently. What must be true in order for quantum foam to exist and have the properties it seems to have?

[Bucky Ball]

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

It makes them logically possible.

No. There are no unicorns and no Pink Sparkly ones. It's not logical at all.
It also does not mean that they are possible. 
I can conceive of all kinds of things which COULD NOT exist.