A contingent entity requires not merely a explanation for its being or being such as it is, but an explanation for the possibility that it could have been otherwise.

That’s nonsense. That’s never what contingency has been about in the sense I described; and will never exclusively refer to what you mean here. All you did is axiomatically preclude a discussion about contingency in the sense of being caused. Even if this axiom were granted, then we would just refer to caused beings then instead of contingent beings: this doesn’t help your case. If a chair is caused by, at least in part, the atoms which comprise it; then, boom, we have the same argument taking lift off…

"the necessity of a necessary entity just consists in its being the way that it actually is. Thus, an explanation of the entity’s being as it is will be an account of its necessity. "
(Page 3 of "A Case For Necessitarianism")

Yes, but this doesn’t mean what you think it does. This means that the entity’s composition suffices to demonstrate the necessity of that being because, under necessitarianism, causation could not have failed to be exactly what it is. This does NOT entail that this being is not contingent on its parts to exist—in fact, that is a necessary presupposition for what they are saying to be true. If the table, e.g., is not contingent on its parts to exist, then it would be false that its parts suffice to explain why the chair necessarily had to exist (for it would exist at least in part independently of its parts).

Suppose cause C indeterminately causes some one member of a set of possibilties to exist. All members of the set are possible, but only one will member will be actualized. The other members of the set are "non-actual possibilities"

No, no, no. If necessitarianism is true, then there are no other possibilities than the causality that occurred because nothing could have been otherwise—not even laws, numbers, logic, etc.

The only cogent interpretation of a ‘non-actual possibility’ would be either A) a possibility which failed to occur or B) something which is conceivable but not currently actual. With respect to A, this kind of possibility is not possible; with respect to B, it is possible but confusing language—it should just be referred to as conceivability.

That might be relevant if it could be shown that the past is infinite
…
But we don't need to debate that, because there's a worse vice for an infinite past:

You are not understanding this argument at all. Temporal causality is not necessarily a per se causal series. E.g., begetting children is a per accidens series of causality even if it stretches infinitely backward and forward in time—this kind of causality is not viscious and does not require any further explanation causally.

1) it is apriori more sensible to believe so - no examples of property-less objects can be cited

This would be a reasonable a posteriori argument if, again, we didn’t have an example now by way of demonstrating that a simple being is required to explain completely the causal chain of composition of an object.

2)it is an ad hoc assumption, that adds no needed explanatory power

It does, because we cannot explain composition otherwise.

What is extended and what is temporal?

Extension and temporality are pure intuitions. We get them from our experience of the world; or more accurately they are the forms of our experience.

You are asking of me, e.g., what does it mean to exist? Well, its a pure intuition. There’s nothing more I can say; nor can you.

What metaphors/analogies do you use and do you understand their limitations and errors?

Until you are absolutely clear on this we will not make head way.

We might be able to say some things about how space and time behave scientifically; but not what they are themselves. Space and time are the a priori intuitions of the sensory data (manifold) of our outer and (some of our) inner senses; and there may be a space and time akin to these a priori modes of intuition which may or may not behave similarly (e.g., Einstein’s special relativity). Our brain represents things which occur in a multiplicity as in space (whether that be material [e.g., my hand] or immaterial [e.g., the feeling of pain in my hand]); and it represents things which change in time (which may or may not include space—e.g., thinking). It is impossible for me to speak of anything without referencing spatiality and temporality because they are pure intuitions a priori in our brains—viz., they are so integral to the human understanding—but it is important to distinguish space and time proper (in the sense of the forms of the understanding) from conceptual space and time: the latter can be used to talk analogically about things which may not be in the former (e.g., Platonic forms, God, a non-spatiotemporal “particle”, etc.).

Outside is spatialized language which I don't choose to indulge in so I don't understand what you mean. Use different language. I don't accept it.

You literally cannot describe space and time without using them in language. That’s a waste of time to try and avoid.

Second, you keep using this substance metaphor to reify the notion of properties or talk about them if you don't know.

Is reification always good in your eyes and proper philosophical method?

What “substance metaphor”???

Third, going off of moorean intuition. . . everything I've ever experienced and said was ever a 'single piece' or a 'whole' has always been itself composed. I have never in fact met with an un-composed entity and therefore perhaps the notion of an 'un-composed' entity is itself a limiting abstraction that is therefore unreal and un-warranted to postulate.

That’s called in inductive case against an absolutely simple being; and it holds no weight against the argument from composition because it demonstrates the need for its existence. Your argument only works as a probabilistic-style argument IF we have no good reasons to believe a simple being exists. All you are saying is “well, we haven’t had any good reasons to believe there are black swans, so we shouldn’t”. Ok. But now we know there are black swans….

If you say something along the lines of, ". . . but I can imagine. . ." Then you need to justify the method or role of imagination in proper philosophical practice.

Did you read the OP? It is not an argument from conceivability. I will outline a shorter version here:

A5-1. A composed being is contingent on its parts to exist.
A5-2. Therefore, a composed being cannot exist by itself or from itself.
A5-3. Therefore, a part which is a composed being cannot exist by itself or from itself.
A5-4. An infinite series of composition, let’s call it set C, of a composed being would be an infinite series of beings which cannot exist by themselves or from themselves.
A5-5. In order for a composed being to exist, it must be grounded in something capable of existing itself.
A5-6. C has no such member as described in A5-5.
A5-7. Therefore, the existence, ceteris paribus, of C is (actually) impossible.

Here’s the other version:

1. A composite gets its composition from its parts.
2. If all the parts of a composite are themselves composite, then all the parts get their composition from their respective parts.
3. If all of the parts get their composition from their respective parts, then every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another (or others) that it gets its composition from.
4. If every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another for its composition, then no member has composition.
5. If none of the parts have composition, then none of the parts can give composition to another.
6. If none of the parts can give composition to another, then no parts can be parts of a greater composition.
7. Therefore, if all parts are composite, and a composition depends only on its parts, then there can be no composition.

Instead of bringing up red herrings and straw mans, maybe try actually contending with the above arguments?

It is important to note the difference between a necessary being in the sense of being incapable of failing to exist vs. in the sense of being uncaused. The former still allows for contingency of existence on other things, and the latter entails brute facts. I think this is the crux between us, which rides on a conflation between these two.

The OP is talking about a contingent being in the latter sense—not the former—and you are talking about a necessary being in the former sense—not the latter. I don’t think you disagree that a chair which, under necessitarianism, cannot fail to exist is still contingently existent on its parts such that IF the parts didn’t exist it wouldn’t either. All you are noting is that the chair and its parts could not have failed to be caused; but this does not take away from the OP’s point that they are caused. A necessary chair in the latter sense would be a chair that exists with no cause—I don’t think you are arguing that.

If C is contingent, this means ~C is a non-actual possibility

What the heck is a non-actual possibility?!?

This doesn't imply object C exists eternally (at all times). It just means that when it actually exists, it could not have failed to exist.

Right, but C would still be contingent upon the things which caused its existence even if it could not have failed to exist.

Concrete example: suppose determinism is true. This implies every event, and everything that comes to exist, is the necessary consequence of prior conditions.

No. Causal determinism dictates that every entity subject to natural laws has a cause: this does not entail that every entity has a cause and consequently does not entail that every entity is necessary in the former sense. What you are thinking of is called necessitarianism, and it is basically causal determinism’s roid’d brother.

Again, even if this is true, it is irrelevant because the caused thing—the effect—is or at least was dependent on its cause for it to exist (even if it could not have failed to exist because its cause must have occurred in such-and-such a manner to bring about it as an effect). E.g., the eternal chair is still contingent on its parts to exist.

It's erroneous to conflate conceivability with metaphysical possibility

Agreed, and I am not doing that. It is not merely conceivable that a chair is dependent upon its parts: that is actually true of chairs—period.

There must be a first cause because an infinite series of causes is viscious, NOT because an infinite series of compositions is viscious

This isn’t true, though; and that’s why my argument and classical arguments like this one do not rely on that. Aquinas’ prime example is an infinite series of begetting children: there’s nothing, i.e., impossible about an infinite series of per accidens causality. There’s nothing “viscious” about it; but there is something absurd about an infinite per se causal series.

The only rational choice is for you to agree with me, and drop your assumption.

:lol:

That's because I gave a real world example that falsifies your assumption.

Hopefully I clarified in this response how that definitely did not happen (:

Nothing can exist that lacks properties, so no object can exist that meets your definition of "absolutely simple".

Ok, but let’s go back to the composition quick argument I gave you: that demonstrates that your metaphysical theory here is false; so I have not reason to believe that nothing can exist that lacks properties.

What part of space and time being extension and temporality is hard for you to understand? If there's specific concepts of space and time that would be immune to the OP, then please feel free to bring them up: I don't see any. You can go the Einsteinien, Kantian, or literally any other route and it will not matter for the OP since we are talking about ontological parts which could be outside of space and time.

You're the one who introduced A, not me. :)

I am trying to give you the tools to provide clarity on your position. You still keep conflating them and talking about unclear sets.

If you have your own sets that you want me to work with, then please provide them in an analogous way to how I provided mine.

The scope captures everything causally because C != A. I've never claimed that it was equal.

If there is an infinite regress of causal things, then it would have to be. For if every real thing is a member of C, which is the case if every real thing is sufficiently explained in an infinitely regressive fashion, then there is no real thing which is not a member of C; and therefore no real thing which is not a member of C and A; so C = A.

Yes it can, because one of the answers to something causally is that it is uncaused. You seem to be putting this answer outside of causality, when I'm noting its one of the answers.

We are not quantifying over answers—and purposefully so (because it muddies the waters and leads to issues in inferences as seen in your OP)—but, rather, real things; and C is the enumeration of all of those real things that are also caused.

What I was noting is that if something caused C, when taken as its members, and is not itself caused then that thing is not a member of C; and this is patently true because C contains only real things that are caused—which precludes things that are not caused. A, ceteris paribus, assuming there’s nothing else to consider but the two, would look like: A = [F, C] – not C = [F, <…>] = A.

We're in complete agreement that sets aren't real. I'm just using it to give a better understanding of what I was trying to get across

This is crucial though to my point; because you keep asking questions that assume they are real. For example, you keep asking “what caused C?”. C is a set: it is not real. When we ask colloquially “what caused C?”, we charitably meant to ask “do the members of C sufficiently explain each other’s existences or not?”. Crucially, an infinite regress proper would be such that each member would suffice to explain the next member and so on; and, therefore, there is nothing required to explain the members outside of that set. There is nothing uncaused in this!!! The set being outside of the purview of causality is not the same as it being a real thing that is uncaused.

"What caused existence period?"

This is too vague. The only valid way to translate this, as far as I can tell, is to assume you mean “what caused these real things to exist?”, then, again, an infinite regression explanation would dictate that there nothing uncaused: each real thing is explained by the next or the previous or what not.

Existence itself is not a property like other properties: you can’t ask “why is there being?” like “why is there red things?”.

They are part of the causality of that universe, therefore they are part of the scope of causality in that universe.

Let me just grant your point here. Let’s say there’s a first cause, F, to the set C and the set W = [F, C]. Ok, fair enough. How does this change anything? An infinite regression would entail that there is no F and C just has an infinite amount of members which explain each others’ existences; and C itself is not caused or uncaused.

"What caused existence at all?" Can you answer that question Bob?

If I take it literally, then it is an invalid question. Existence is not a proper property. In terms of why do things exist, the question in an infinite regress would be that each one explains the other: that’s no problem to answer.

As you know, I would say that God is the explanation. The issue is that your argument tries to determine a priori that each cogent solution results in the idea of everything being uncaused; and this is simply not true UNLESS you conflate a set as a real entity.

What caused universe 1 to exist instead of universe 2 once you go up the causal chain within that universe?

The infinitely regressive set would be identical to the universe: again, you are treating the set as if it is real because you substituted the word ‘set’ for ‘universe’ here. There’s no extra-beyond ‘universe’ from the infinite collection of sufficiently explained real things if the person arguing for an infinite regress is right. Your question here assumes that there is still something real, namely the universe itself, which has not been answered; but all the ‘universe’ is here, in your argument, is the set of the all the real things. Hence, your question is just falsely framed.

This is different, per se, from asking about our universe and what caused it because we aren’t necessarily stipulating that the universe is just a set of all caused, e.g., cobalts.

The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused.

If you agree that sets aren’t real, then you must concede that C cannot be caused or uncaused.

"What caused existence?" You didn't reply to this very specific question from the last post Bob, so I think you're avoiding it to refocus on the sets that I've already told you are just a tool to convey this notion

Hopefully my above response suffices to answer this. However, it doesn’t matter: that is the introductive question to the solutions (e.g., infinite regressions, infinite circularities, first causes, etc.) that your proof is supposed to demonstrate all of them leading back to everything being uncaused; and so if there is even on solution that doesn’t lead back to that, then your thesis is void. An infinite regression is one such example.

The probability that magical knowledge exists is low, as I discussed

The idea of it being magical just begs the question; but it is worth noting that your view depends on physical processes for beings to apprehend the forms of things, and we still to this day have no clue how that would work in the brain. We have reason, which is distinct from AI, and we have every reason to believe it could never be facilitated by the brain. Why? Because reason abstracts the universal of a particular—not just pattern-matching given the universal like AI—and this seems to posit yet another hard problem for physicalists: how could an brain processes abstract out the universal from a particular—which is necessarily to go beyond the given data of the particular itself—when nothing about the particular itself entails its universal? AI, on the other hand, is given concepts (universals) and then trained to pattern-match particulars: our minds do not do that.

False. A particular composed being has its parts necessarily. If even one part were added or subtracted, it would not be the same being.

A composed being is not necessary, and its parts are not necessary unless those parts do not depend on something else to exist. Contingency is about existenting dependently on something else, and necessity is to exist independently of anything.

Now, what you are noting, is actually what I noted just with less precise language. You are absolutely right that a composed being will not be the same being if it has different parts or if those parts are arranged differently; and, so, what makes that composed being that kind of composed being is necessarily relative to those parts and their arrangement. This does not make the parts necessarily existent: they are necessary for the composed being to exist as that being, and this is just another way of saying the composed being is contingent on its parts.

"Exist in itself" is a vague term, but I'll take it to mean existing autonomously. Autonomous means being uncaused and without external dependencies. A part of a composed being may, or may not, exist autonomously. You've given no reason to think a composed being cannot exist autonomously.

Autonomy is a bad term for this, as that relates only to agents; and the part being contingent on its own parts would entail that that part does not, in turn, exist necessarily (i.e., independently of any dependencies on other beings).

Think about it. If the table exists only insofar as the atoms comprising it are in such-and-such arrangement which makes the table contingently existent from the atoms; then if the atoms exist only insofar as the electrons, protons, and neutrons exist in such-and-such arrangement, then that makes the atoms contingently existent on the electrons, protons, and neutrons. None of these beings can exist as a necessary being because they lack existence themselves (subsistently); for they depend actively on something else to sustain their existence.

The second part about existing contingently is a non-sequitur because all beings have their parts and properties necessarily,

Firstly, as I said above, that a being would no longer be that being without certain parts does NOT entail that those parts nor the being are nor is necessary. They exist contingently—viz., they could not continue to exist if their parts are removed or modified in such-and-such manners.

Secondly, what you are really noting is traditionally called per se properties; which is different than a necessary vs. contingent being analysis. E.g., a circle is no longer a circle with being the shape of a circle—so that property of circularity is a per se and necessary property for circles—but a circle, e.g., block that that child is playing with right now does not necessarily exist: it exists contingently on atoms and what not—the guy who made it could have decided not to make it, etc.

I infer that you're describing a vicious infinite regress. I agree this is an impossibility because although each compositional layer is explained by a deeper layer, nothing accounts for the series as a whole.

Beautiful! This means, Relativist, that a per se series of causality for composition cannot be infinite (circularly nor in a regression) for each being lacks itself composition (i.e., subsistent exist): none of them are capable of existent themselves and this kind of essential relation between them (for exist) entails that they could never begin to exist nor continue to if it weren’t for some thing which as the ipsum ens subsistens—pure being itself. Why? Because if it can’t be infinite then there must be a first cause, and this first cause must not have parts (because, if it did, then it would just be a member of this infinite series of composition—and we just established that that is impossible).

Now you concur that an absolutely simple being must exist to account for such-and-such composition. From there, we then continue to deriving God’s existence.

7. Therefore, a series of composed beings must have, ultimately, uncomposed parts as its first cause. (6 & 3)
Disagree that a composed being was necessarily caused. See my objection to #4.

OH COME ON! (;

In all seriousness, you cannot agree that a composed being cannot be only infinitely comprised of parts (because none of them is capable of existent by themselves) and then say that the first cause is composed. If it is composed, then it is a member of that infinite series we stipulated because it exists contingently on its parts (no differently than the table).

9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.
False. Two beings can have identical intrinsic properties. Example: water molecules.

I am not sure we can make headway on this one ):

All I will say is that if the two beings have properties—irregardless if it is intrinsic or extrinsic—then they are not absolutely simple. In other words, they have parts. Remember, a part is something that comprises something else—it is NOT something material that comprises something else. E.g., a letter in a word uttered in a sentence is a part of a part of a whole (i.e., the sentence) and this thing is not material (i.e., the sentence). E.g., the number two is comprised of two number ones.

A word has the property of being made of letters; and a particular word has the property of being made of certain letters.

I think you are thinking of a part in the stricter sense of something that comprises a material object. A quark having an X property would entail that, even if it is non-spatiotemporal, it has parts because X would relate to some part that it has—just like a letter is a part of the word. The upness, or whatever, of the quark is a part of that quark; and it is a part because it is something which is not identical to the whole—the quark—but contributes to its existence as a quark. I would presume that an up-quark, for you, would no longer be an up-quark if it didn’t have the property of ‘upness’.

In short, we are talking about ontological parts—not just material parts (e.g., wheels on a car).

Anyone can give a definition of blue its only you who has a problem with certain definitions with blue and may be unhappy with any of them so he throws his hands up in the air saying, "Well you just can't!"

I already explained why blue cannot be properly defined. Remember Mary’s room thought experiment? Are you just ignoring that?

So now that we agree that your assertion that its 'undefinable' is just you being lazy and unwilling to enter the discussion into defining other such difficult terms only because its 'hard'. Could you stop gish galloping. . . give a definition!

Have you not heard of Moorean intuitionism?

It's also impossible to know things because something. . . something. . . skepticism but that doesn't stop ordinary people from using the term knowledge in ignorance of a precise definition or arguing a particular definition for their purposes. Why? This is because skepticism doesn't actually remove this discussion from the intellectual dialectic.

Nothing I said is an argument from skepticism. Again, I think Mary’s room thought experiment demonstrates how the phenomenal properties we experience cannot be reduced to physical properties; which means there are forms of knowledge which cannot be reduced to scientific knowledge; which also means that these properties cannot be defined—they must be intuited from experience.

Another example is being. Being is the granddaddy of impossible-to-define-concepts; and this is not me being lazy or appealing to scepticism. We literally cannot define it; and yet we all intuit exactly what it is. It is a pure intuition.

This is relevant because space and time are pure intuitions.

My argument doesn’t care if you are a realist or not about space and time, ironically, as there will still be ontological parts to things even if they are not in space or time; so I say take your pick! **shrug** (:

Again, define you terms and no griping this time around. Simple, easy, end of story.

I already described them sufficiently for purposes of the OP. Space is extension; time is temporality.

Why must I do that? I showed you to have a burden based on your expressed purpose of swaying some people. You've sidestepped that entirely, and are back to making the false claim that I have some burden.

No you don’t have a burden of proof: you have to contend with a premise. That’s not the same thing as having a burden of proof. If you don’t contend with a premise, then you are providing a red herring.

So far all you have noted is that you find it improbable that a simple being could have knowledge; but yet haven’t contended the premises I have in the argument for why this has to be the case.

I am talking about the scope of causality that encompasses all things. You cannot talk about the totality of call causes without the totality of all existence

So, is your answer that you are talking about A and A = C?

In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally

But this isn’t true for a first cause, F, of C; such that if there is a first cause then C != A.

In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality

This “A” that you refer to here—which is an existent thing and not a set—cannot be a member of C if it is uncaused.

Also, that there is a first cause does not entail that the set is finite. It could be a set of infinite sets, like [F, C]. Where C is a set of an infinite amount of caused things. You seem to be implying, although I may be mistaken, that a first cause would entail a finite set which has the first cause as a member of C.

Another way to answer this is, "The first cause is explained by itself." "An infinite set of causality is explained by itself."

Sets are not caused—ever. The members of the sets may be caused. Again, you are conflating sets with real things. Sets are not real.

Again I think the infinite set is the only issue you have. Lets say we have one universe A that is a set of causal interactions between diamonds.

I am not sure how a diamond causing other diamonds and how that could be identical to a universe, but let’s roll with it.

Let’s call the set of the totality of caused diamonds in diamond universe D; and let’s call the set of the totality of caused cobalt in the cobalt universe T. Here’s have comments I would have:

1. The Gem God would not be a member D; nor is the Cobalt God a member of T.

2. One cannot quantify causally over a set itself like a member.These universes, if they have no first cause(s), are not uncaused. Either:

A. Each previous member sufficiently causes the next member; or
B. There is a member or members which caused itself and thereafter caused the other members; or
C. There is a point where the causal series circles around.

There is no situation in this case where anything that exists is uncaused. Your response is: “but what about the set itself?”. The set isn’t real. It is not a real thing which is caused or uncaused.

3. What causes T to exist as opposed to D is to, again, ask what caused a set; and this is fallacious reasoning. Sets are not real. E.g., if T is an infinite regression of caused cobalt, then the reason each cobalt exists is explained by the previous leaving no room to need to explain anything else. It would be, contrary to D existing, because such-and-such cobalt caused this cobalt to be cobalt and that cobalt caused such-and-such cobalt to be cobalt because of this other cobalt ad infinitum. There is nothing left unexplained in this type of analysis.

'C' is the scope of all causality. And yes, when you extend the scope of causality out, we ask the last question, "What caused all of this other causality to exist apart from what we can discover?" And the answer IS inside of C

That is incoherent. You either are not asking if the totality of caused things is caused by shifting the goal post and saying that the totality of caused things is not this total that you are evaluating; or you are asking if the totality of caused things is caused and this leads to a set of first causes.

It can’t be the case that F causes C and that F is a member of C

Therefore the conclusion is possibly true and possibly false

Again, that is just a more complicated way of saying they are propositional!

Your "burden" is to succeed at that.

All I am doing is providing an argument for why God exists from the idea that composition requires an absolutely simple being that ends up necessarily being God: you seem to want a book about this argument.

The whole point is to get people to read it, consider it, and respond with any questions, comments, or objections they have; and to see if we can find common ground. That’s how all arguments work. You are acting like my OP establishes merely that the premises themselves are propositional; which is actually a prerequisite.

Your argument depends on the unstated premise that knowledge can be present without parts

No it does not, but I understand why you would think this (given where your head space is at). There is no such thing as an unstated premise: there are implications of premises and conclusions; and this implication you speak of is definitely there, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

For example, if I successfully demonstrate to you that quantum entanglement can happen, then it would not be a valid objection to say “but, how can that happen?”. We don’t have to explain how it happens to demonstrate that it happens: your objection here hinges on this conflation.

To your point, though, you could formulate a rejoinder that demonstrates the improbability of, e.g., quantum entanglement being true by considering how it would seem to violate classical laws of nature; and this may convince some people.

You can offer a valid rejoinder that knowledge would have to exist in a simple being for this argument to work and that seems improbable; and you might convince people.

However, I don’t see how you have demonstrated it is metaphysically impossible.

We are just approaching this two different ways: I am convinced by the argument of composition that such a being must exist (and so knowledge would exist in this simple being), and you are tackling it by starting with your understanding of knowledge and seeing if it jives with a simple being having it. The problem is that even if it doesn’t jive well for you, it doesn’t negate the OP: you would have to demonstrate what about my argument for why this simple being has knowledge is false—for it would have to be false if you don’t believe that knowledge can exist in a simple being.

It's the unstated premise I pointed out above. The probability of unstated premises is just as relevant to P(C) as the stated ones.

Nope. That will not suffice. If you are right, then my premises that derives that the being has knowledge—which makes no reference to this “hidden premise”—must be false; and you would have to demonstrate where it that is; or concede that a person approaching this exposition from the standpoint of composition would be warranted, ceteris paribus, on believing that a simple being has knowledge (even if it does not cohere with their knowledge of physics).

So let me try again, which premise is false:

20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!).
21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19)
22. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must be an intelligence.

One of these has to be false for the argument for fail. You would have to deny 20 or 21 or both. Both of them have nothing per se to do with knowledge in the sense of data.

I would say, if I am being charitable, that you are denying both 20 and 21; because you think intelligence has to do with bits of data (and I don’t) and that thusly this simple being cannot apprehend the forms of things.

So another unstated premise is: physicalism is false.

An implication; yes. It is not a premise. I don’t need to deny physicalism itself to make the argument work: it is implied though if I succeed. That’s like saying an argument for physicalism has an “unstated premise” that “idealism is false”, “substance dualism is false”, etc. They don’t.

You could falsify the theory by identifying an object that can't fit the "state of affairs" model

But the argument in the OP demonstrates that this is impossible. Like I have said many times in this thread, an infinite per se causal series cannot exist; and this also applies to infinite loops and circular relations. If all objects have properties, then they all have parts; and if they all have parts, then they are infinitely composable. They can’t be infinitely composable. So your theory can’t be true.

Here’s a basic argument in two different ways. Here’s my way:

A5-1. A composed being is contingent on its parts to exist.
A5-2. Therefore, a composed being cannot exist by itself or from itself.
A5-3. Therefore, a part which is a composed being cannot exist by itself or from itself.
A5-4. An infinite series of composition, let’s call it set C, of a composed being would be an infinite series of beings which cannot exist by themselves or from themselves.
A5-5. In order for a composed being to exist, it must be grounded in something capable of existing itself.
A5-6. C has no such member as described in A5-5.
A5-7. Therefore, the existence, ceteris paribus, of C is (actually) impossible

Here’s @NotAristotles way:

1. A composite gets its composition from its parts.
2. If all the parts of a composite are themselves composite, then all the parts get their composition from their respective parts.
3. If all of the parts get their composition from their respective parts, then every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another (or others) that it gets its composition from.
4. If every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another for its composition, then no member has composition.
5. If none of the parts have composition, then none of the parts can give composition to another.
6. If none of the parts can give composition to another, then no parts can be parts of a greater composition.
7. Therefore, if all parts are composite, and a composition depends only on its parts, then there can be no composition.

You would have to accept that all beings are infinitely composed (either regressively or circularly) for your view of real things always having properties. That’s very problematic.

The problem is that you are not explaining which set you are quantifying over; and I suspect you are switching back and forth between C and A. Sometimes you say you are talking about the totality of caused things, and then say it is the totality of what exists. Which is it?

The knowledge of the infinite regress does not make the entire set of causality sufficiently explained. What caused that particular set of infinite regresses?

Causality is outside the purview of a set of all caused things. The set of all caused things, C, is literally the encapsulation of all caused things; so it doesn't make sense to ask what caused C since that conflates C with being one of its members.

EDIT: in other words, asking "is C caused?" presupposes that C could be a caused thing which would entail it is not C but rather a member of C (viz., it is not the set of caused things but, rather, a caused thing that is in that set).

Ok.

4. If every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another for its composition, then no member has composition. — NotAristotle

:fire:

That wasn't a scientific definition of blue. I was just listing what things pop to mind and therefore are related to what people understand the concept of blue as related to it.

Those have to serve as a part of the conceptual foundation of the concept of blue even if they do not exhaust it.

THAT IS WHY I LISTED CONSCIOUSNESS after you all those SCARY science terms and left in the phrase ETC!

It seems your philosophical views are clouding you judgements here.

I don’t understand what you are really objecting to. I originally was noting that blueness cannot be defined just like temporality and space. You objected that we can and should give proper definitions of these; and I used blueness as an analogous example. You now are agreeing with me that blueness cannot be defined—right? It seems like you are noting that we can describe it to some extent—I wasn’t disputing that.

This response was merely a random rant that introduced nothing substantive into the conversation.

I don't think it is necessary and actually I think premise 7 depends on premises 3 and 5, not 3 and 6.

I completely agree. I realized, after making this argument, that I am really just arguing:

P1. Reality is either an infinite series of contingent beings or a series that contains at least one necessary being.
P2. Reality as an infinite series of contingent beings cannot exist (for each member lacks the ability to subsistently exist).
C: Therefore, reality must contain at least one necessary being.

Then we can determine it is one, absolutely simple, purely actual, etc. in the same manner.

I also realized that I am committed to the idea that there are infinite series’ of contingent beings because I believe that the representation of objects in space and time—by our brains—indicates (or at least suggests) that each object is infinitely divisible into smaller parts.

To say more, the argument necessitates either A. a simple part, or B. something other than the parts that the composed composition is composed of that is itself simple. In that case, any composed composition having infinite parts would itself require something other than itself, or its parts, for its existence, namely God.

Very true.

Blue is difficult to define. . . but it has to do with certain brain states, wavelengths of light, biological/physical interactions, consciousness, etc.

A scientific definition of blueness is not a valid definition of blueness. I does not account for the phenomenal property of blue: see Mary’s room thought experiment.

Define wisdom. . .

Here’s a quote of myself that elaborates on that:

“Philosophy” literally translates to “the love of wisdom”, and wisdom (traditionally) is the absolute truth of the nature of things (with an emphasis on how it impacts practical life as a whole and in terms of practical judgment). Thusly, philosophy dips its toes in every subject-matter; for every subject at its core is the study of the nature of something. Nowadays, people like to distinguish philosophy from other studies akin to distinguishing, e.g., history from science; but the more I was thinking about this (in preparation of my response to your comments) I realized this is impossible. Philosophy is not analogous to history, science, archaeology, etc. It transcends all studies as the ultimate study which gives each study life—so to speak. For without a yearning for the understanding of the nature of things, which is encompassed in the love of wisdom, then no subject-matter is sought after—not even science.

Some might say philosophy is the study of self-development, but this clearly isn’t true (historically). It includes self-development but is not restricted to just that domain. E.g., logic is not an area itself within the study of self-development and yet it is philosophical.

Some might say, like you, that philosophy is the application of pure reason (viz., the study of what is a priori); but is is equally historically false. E.g., cosmological arguments are typically a posteriori. Most disputes in philosophy have and will continue to be about reasoning about empirical data to abstract what is mostly likely the nature of things (and how to live life properly in correspondence with that knowledge).

This would entail that science is philosophy at its core, but is a specific branch that expands on how to understand the nature of things; and so science vs. philosophy is a false dichotomy.

Do you not have such a purpose in mind?
…
If your premises only seem possible, then your conclusion is still only possible- you won't move the needle of belief one bit.

My purpose is, indeed, to sway minds and to hear critiques of my position; but my point was that you were invalidly implying that my premises in the OP are proven merely as possibilities, which makes no sense. Every premise of every argument that is a proposition is possible (in some mode of thought); and so this is trivially true.

You're reversing the burden of proof.

I don’t have the burden of proof to demonstrate how knowledge can exist in something absolutely simple: like I said before, the OP demonstrates that knowledge must exist in something absolutely simple—not how that happens.

Wrong. The argument I stated explicitly referred to God.

Yes, that is true; but that “God” being imported in was just the absolutely simple being I was referring to before.

My position is that it is most likely metaphysically impossible and I explained why

That’s fine, and I think, for what it is worth, is a reasonable rejoinder. My point is that it sidesteps the discussion.

Think about it, if you are right that a being with knowledge cannot be absolutely simple; then one of my premises in the OP—which does not argue for how it works—must be false; but yet you have never once pointed to what premise or premises that is or are.

acknowledged it's logically possible, but possibility is cheap. You need to provide a compelling reason to think it is metaphysically possible.

It is right here:

20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!).
21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19)
22. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must be an intelligence.

It is physically impossible to store complex data without parts.

First of all, what is complex data? That suggests that there is a sort of simple data that can be stored without parts (:

Secondly, I agree that it is physically impossible...that just means it cannot happen in accordance with things governed by physics. God is beyond physics.

all the premises need to be true - including the unstated ones
…
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 - not sure of, 18, 20 21, 23, 27, 28, 34. I also disagree with the inferences in 11,14, 19, 24, 29, 31 32, 35, 38,
39, 41, and 42 because they are based on false premises.

I understand what you are saying, and I see that the idea of knowledge being imparted to an absolutely simple being epistemically counts against the theory for you; but that’s too many premises for me to talk in one response! Pick one, and we will dive in.

all existing objects have properties, so it follows from this that it cannot exist.

I already demonstrated this is false. This is non sequitur: you cannot say that something is impossible because we have no example of it. That’s illogical. Impossibility is a mode of thought whereby something violates some principle determinable relative to that mode. Lacking examples is not a violation of that mode.

I said two objects could have the same intrinsic properties

Which, again, makes them non-simple.

I said essentially the same thing in my first post: every argument depends on questionable metaphysical assumptions. Since you more or less agree, why bother presenting it?

Because that is nonsense. That could be posited for every argument for everything: do you say “why bother” for everything else?

You didn't need to introduce a new set, as everything was in the U1 and U2 sets.
…
U1 = A -> B -> C
U2 = infinite regress -> C
…
This is the set of all causal relations in the the universe Bob, not set of all things.

The universe is not itself identical to the the set of all things nor the set of all causality per se: which are you referring to, if either?

Assuming we are talking about the universe, then we are talking about cosmology; which is about whether or not we think the universe itself is contingent or not (ultimately). The minute you abstract further than that—which is required for your proof in the OP—one ends up in a broader discussion of ontology which will result in discussion the sets that I was discussing before.

I'm noting that if you extend the causality to its entire scope, you will reach a point where it is inevitably uncaused

The problem is that you are not clearly defining to yourself what you are quantifying over in this set. You said it was the universe, and now you are saying it is the entirety of causal things—which is C in my abstractions and not A. You are still conflating A and C; but you are adding into the mix U which is irrelevant to the discussion. U itself is not in principle identical to C or A, and it does not allow for any discussion of the totality of causes (C).

A set of infinitely regressive causality could itself be just as real and lack any explanation for its existence as a set of finite regressive causality.

The members would be real, the set would not; and your argument depends on the set itself being treated as real like its members. Again, and to which you never responded, the members sufficiently explaining each other makes the entire set sufficiently explained; and, thusly, the set itself is not uncaused in the sense of causing the members.

But I am not saying R is A, so I don't think this applies. Remove A from the notion, which I am not including, and I'm not sure my abstraction is invalid. Try again without A being involved and see if your claim still holds.

I never said you did.

The problem is that either U (1 or 2) is a member of C and A; or is a member of only A. There is no third option, Philosophim; viz., either this ‘universe’ is contingent and a member of the set of causal things, C, or it is not contingent and is a member of the totality of things, A, but is not a member of the set of causal things, C. Your idea of U just muddies the waters, since you are trying to argue that ontologically we can determine that all causal things are uncaused by way of abstraction of the totality of caused things (C).

There is a problem with the argument I stated: it assumes God exists.

It presupposes that we are talking about an absolutely simple being—that’s it. You asked about how an absolutely simple being could have properties (like omniscience) which presupposes in the very question that we are talking about such a being.

To then use the conclusion to support an argument for God's existence entails the circularity I was referring to

The argument I was commenting on was your argument, which was:

1.God is omniscient (possesses all possible knowledge)
2. God is simple;
3. Therefore knowledge doesn't entail parts

This argument you gave is not circular: it does not presuppose the conclusion in any of its premises. Likewise, my OP’s argument never presupposes God’s existence as a premise—not even in part.

You brought up the fact that it's possible knowledge can exist without parts or complexity.

It is logically possible because it violates nothing in logic; it is actually possible because it violates nothing in physics; and it is metaphysically possible because it does not violate the natures of things.

The problem is that you are saying it is impossible; and that requires that you demonstrate why it violates one of these three aforesaid modalities (or pick your own modality if you will).

The question is whether or not the argument in your Op provides good reason to think it's more than merely possible.

First of all, this negates your first point, because you are implying that the OP gives good reasons to believe that is possible (which you said was problematic before).

The OP doesn’t argue for the possibility of God’s existence: it argues that God does exist.

Consider that it's possible that physicalism is true: would you consider an argument for physicalism compelling if it's premises were based on entailments of physicalism?

That depends on what you mean by “entailments of physicalism”. Every argument comes in with metaphysical assumptions: I don’t think physicalism is any different in this regard. What I would do is provide counter arguments to the premises that I disagree with and perhaps for the assumptions that I disagree with so that I could have a productive conversation with them.

In this OP, it is demonstrated that it is possible for a being to not have parts and have knowledge only insofar as it was demonstrated that an absolutely simple being exists and that it must apprehend the forms of things (in abstracta).

Someone could come around and offer a rejoinder that we have good reasons to believe that a being which has knowledge must have parts; and I am more than happy to entertain that. However, my problem with you is that the closest argument I have gotten from you for this is essentially:

P1. If every example we have of A requires B, then A always requires B.
P2. Every example we have of a being with knowledge has parts (which facilitate its capacity to know).
C: Therefore, A being with knowledge must have parts.

I deny P1. Impossibility—in whichever modality we are referring to—is demonstrated by showing that the existence of the thing would entail a violation of that mode (e.g., it is actually impossible to jump to the moon from earth because it violates physics, it is logically impossible for a proposition to be both true and false because it violates the LNC, etc.). That we don’t have any other examples of a thing, does not entail that it is impossible for it to exist.

This is also a cop-out, because this absolutely simple being is unique: so there literally can’t be other examples!

Since you're presenting an argument, you have the burden of defending your premises

Give me the premise you are disagreeing with! Your critiques have not been about any of my premises: you are noting that you believe we have separate good reasons to believe something that is incompatible with the conclusion of the OP.

If your premises only seem possible, then your conclusion is still only possible- you won't move the needle of belief one bit.

That’s not how arguments work. Either one agrees with the premise or they don’t. To say it is possible that the premise is true is trivial to most arguments: that just means it is a proposition.

You're rationalizing your theistic framework, not making a compelling argument. I described the way knowledge (and willing) exists in the real world - there is a physical basis.

I am explaining to you how this being has no properties proper; and that just because we have no examples of something other than itself, it does not follow that it cannot exist.

This just shows that your argument depends on a specific ontological model.

What premise do you deny in the OP? The argument is pretty clear.

My key point is that you've given no reason to think multiple properties is equivalent to a single property.

Ah, yes, I have not; because they aren’t multiple properties and I have been focusing on getting you to see the issues with your critiques before trying to explain in detail how these analogical properties of God’s are identical with himself. I’ll do that once we find common ground with the above.

Every particular has at least one part. Everything that exists is a particular:

A part is something that makes up the whole; so it cannot be identical to the whole; and your argument here assumes that they can be identical. A part that is identical to the whole is not a part: it is just the itself.

It's a relational property, not an intrinsic property. Again: we're applying different metaphysical assumptions.

That’s fine, as long as you explain what you mean by your terminology.

I'm just pointing out that your argument depends on your preferred metaphysical system being true

Literally every argument for anything is guilty of this: that is a trivial note and I never argued to the contrary.

Irrelevant. I believe there has to be a bottom layer of reality, consisting of indivisible objects. You should at least agree this is logically possible- that's all I've claimed

Ehhh, it might be logically possible; but it is definitely not actually possible.

Considering the first cause would be the first part of causality, A -> B, isn't A part of the set of causality?

No. The set contains all caused things. Now, like I said before in the other thread, you could quantify over the set of all things simpliciter and then your argument would work but be trivial.

But what I'm doing is looking at the entire set. In the case of U1, the first cause is the first part of the set. So when I ask, "What caused U1?", the answer is that the first cause existed without prior causation, then caused other things

What you are describing is not the set of causality (viz., of caused things) but, rather, the set of all things; and you are right that this set, U1, is uncaused.

The reason you end up with a trivial conclusion is that you are abstracting like this for other options for causal series (such as infinite regression) and conflating it with explaining the set of caused things.

How is my abstraction invalid?

Let’s call the set of caused things C, the set of all things A, a first cause to C F, an infinite circularity O, a self-cause of C S, a necessary cause of C N, and an infinite regression R.

The debate in metaphysics, ontology, which your OP claims to solve, is about C not A. What needs be explained is the causality which we see around us and so we abstract out how this causality would work; so we ask “is there a first cause?” and what not, but this refers to the abstraction of the set of caused things—hence C. Subsequently, you end up with all sorts of positions about C; such as C being identical to R, being identical to a O, C requiring F, F being O, F being N, etc.

What you are doing is conflating A with C. You are noting that irregardless of who is right about how causality works, the totality, A, of all things is uncaused; and this is trivially true and has nothing to do with the debate. Moreover, more specifically, you are conflating a being that is uncaused with a set being uncaused: F, assuming it is of type N, is certainly not uncaused in the same sense as A nor R—for a set is not a being. A being that is uncaused is something which is real and lacks any explanation for its existence; whereas a set of real things is not itself real and lacks the ability to require any explanation in the first place—for what needs explaining are the things in the set of real things and not a mental abstraction of the totality of them. Thusly, if we say that R is A, then it necessarily follows that every real thing has an explanation for its existence—there is nothing uncaused in the sense of a real thing lacking any explanation for its existence. Saying that the set is uncaused is just to equivocate, because if we were to say it is uncaused then we mean it in a disanalogous sense of needing no explanation for why it is because it is itself not real.

Think about it, if every real thing has a cause, then every real thing has a reason for its existence; the abstraction of every real thing into a totality does not introduce a real thing which is uncaused: that contradict that every real thing has a cause (which we presupposed in the first place).

That is because you fail to actually define 'spatial' or 'temporal' so that is part of the problem.

They refer to extension and temporality respectively: they are pure intuitions—there is no way to define that properly, no different than defining the color blue.

As regards 'i', that is how all of philosophy including your own is constructed. You make something up and see if it makes intuitive sense or if its unintuitive how might you still intuitively motivate it.

This is a baseless assertion.

Philosophy is about extensive creativity and making stuff up without any requirement that it have anything to do with reality.

Philosophy is the objective study of wisdom.

:fire:

If I feel them in space, aren't they in that space?

No. Again, you cannot locate the pain in your finger in a literal sense. You are confusing the spatial reference in the phenomena of pain with the physical constitution of it.

My understanding though is that gravity is a bending of space from matter. So there is some interaction at the touch point of matter that spreads out.

My point is just that interaction—causation—is not strictly about physical touch. E.g., convincing someone to do something with mere words, electromagnetism, etc.

Can you give an example of how a being outside of time and space creating existence would work?

Of course not! It is impossible for humans to discuss in any substantive sense a thing which is non-spatiotemporal because we cognize in space and time. Also, it is worth nothing that if this OP succeeds, then this being—God—is uniquely in this position to create things from the standpoint of eternity….so asking for a different example is an impossible task.

We can invent any combination of words and concepts we desire. The only way to know if these words and concepts can exist outside of our imagination is to show them being applied accurately to reality.

I provided a proof of the existence of such a being in the OP. What you are asking is for, beyond a proof of its existence, an complete understanding of its nature; and I don’t think that is possible.

This is the point of the unicorn mention. There is nothing that proves the concept of a unicorn is incoherent

Yes there is; but let’s assume you are right: the difference is that the OP demonstrates why God exists—it does not merely claim that the concept of God is internally coherent.

A magical horse with a horn that cannot be sensed in anyway passes as a logical amalgamation in the mind.

This is just a straw man; for the OP gives an argument for how we can prove God exists from empirical data—so this is not analogous to an undetectable unicorn.

You're telling me an A exists and creates a B by essentially magic.

No, the OP is saying that B is composed fundamentally by A; and A is such that it must be the ultimate cause of B existing. I am not claiming to know how A is able to subsistently keep things in existence nor how it creates them. I don’t know how anyone could know that.

Again, you keep saying that any interaction between non-spatiotemporal and spatiotemporal things is ‘magic’ without any argumentation: you are just making an argument from ignorance. Likewise, I don’t believe you even believe this, because I think you would agree that physics has shown that space and time are not fundamental; so there must be things which are not in space and time which influences things within them.

Correct, its formation would be outside of causality. However, what it caused next would be within causality

Correct. So, going back to your OP, it cannot be that this is the same as an infinite series of causality which has no cause: that series having no cause cannot be equivocated with a first cause to a series (which is outside of it).

The point here is that once such a being formed, how do we reconcile that the universe necessarily came from this being?

A reconcilation implies that there is an incoherence, and you still haven’t demonstrated any incoherence. You keep blanketly asserting that ~”I don’t see how it could happen, therefore magic” or ~”I don’t think any of us knows how that works, so it must be impossible or incoherent”.

At that point we need causality, and we need some explanation for how A caused B

A causing B does not entail that A is caused; so there’s nothing incoherent going on here. A necessary being causing something contingent does not entail that it is contingent on that contingent thing.

A simple thing by itself does not constitute a whole. Therefore, in order to constitute a whole, the simple thing must subordinate itself to the composition of the whole in order to function as a constituent thing.

To say that the part is subordinate to the whole is to admit that the whole is real and independent of the parts; and I am not willing to accept that (I don’t think). It seems like, to me, parts make up wholes.

In order to relate the contingent to the necessary the necessary must be part in a relation. This is the dialectic of the master and slave seen in Hegel. The master needs the recognition of the slave in order to be master, which reduces him to a slave of recognition itself.

That’s different, I would say, because Hegel is talking about relations between two different beings (e.g., master and slave, individual and society, etc.) and NOT the composition of beings themselves. To say the whole influences the part is to accept some kind of realism about forms that I am now hesitant to admit.

U1 = A -> B -> C
U2 = infinite regress -> C

I don’t know what this is supposed to represent.

If there is a first cause, F, then it would be outside of the set of causality. If you were to say something like “why F has no reason for its existence: it is necessary”, then you would be correct; and there’s nothing about it that is similar to an infinite regress: a regress would entail that there is an infinite series of sufficient explanations.

I think you think such an infinite series of sufficient explanations doesn’t have a sufficient explanation because you are invalidly abstracting out the entire series and treating it like an object.

I apologize for the belated response: I intended to respond earlier but got busy and forgot.

1.God is omniscient (possesses all possible knowledge)
2. God is simple;
3. Therefore knowledge doesn't entail parts

I don’t see anything unreasonable about this argument. You seem to be noting that all the examples we have of beings with knowledge also have parts: that is true. However, this does not entail that a being could not exist which has knowledge and doesn’t have parts. The problem I have is that you are presupposing that a being with knowledge must have parts without giving any sort of argumentation for that.

You've identified no "primitive knowledge" that exists independent of a physical medium. My willing entails physical processes (e.g. neurons firing in a sequence based on action potentials that could be established either by learning, or be "hard wired") in a brain

That is why God is attributed—or more accurately just is—these properties analogically. I am not claiming that God has, e.g., a will the same as ours.

You seem to be doing a literal equivocation between the usages of these properties when the OP is outlining analogical equivocation—nothing more.

A plant certainly isn't making a decision - it's growth is entirely a result of its physiological mechanisms, expending energy in the most entropically favorable way.

I was using it as an example of willing in a more primitive sense: the plant is willing—just not in the sense of willing like a human.

I claimed there was circular reasoning in your statement,"although you are right that a being with one property is simpler than a being with more than one; my rebuttle is that God’s properties are reducible to each other." And you're correct that you haven't stated a strictly circular argument (I'm making an assumption that you chose to equate multiple properties with a single property to rationalize your claim that God is "simple")

That’s still not what circular reasoning is! Even if I ad hoc rationalized my position by saying God’s properties are identical, that would not imply that I am presupposing the truth of the conclusion in a premise.

You've given no argument at all, and haven't articulated the rationalization I assumed. So I can certainly be wrong.

If the OP succeeds, then we know there is an absolutely simple being with these attributes (insofar as we analogize it); and so it follows that this being’s attributes must be literally identical. God cannot be said to “have omniscience” or “be omnipotent” but, rather, is omniscience or is omnipotence; for an absolutely simple being cannot have parts and to have literally separate properties is to imply a thing has parts—a simple being is one and the same with itself with no real distinctions.

To be clear, I'm referring to intrinsic properties, not just attributes we talk about.

I am not sure what you mean by “intrinsic properties”, but assuming you mean something like “properties a thing has independently of what we say it has” then I would say God has no properties: that’s the whole point of being absolutely simple.

No, it doesn't. It just assumes individual up-quarks exist as particulars, and that (generically) "up-quark" is a universal (it exists in multiple instantiations)

Think about it: how can a being which has no parts exist as a particular? That would imply that it has some property which is distinct from any others of that particular; and this implies it has parts (for no absolutely simple thing can have properties proper—since it is literally one thing with no distinctions). What I am trying to get you to see, is that this philosophically makes no sense even if we posit it for the sake of science—just as much as the square root of -1 is not a real number but we use it in math anyways.

Individual up-quarks are distinguishable at a point of time by their spatial location.

That is a property that one has that the other doesn’t; which implies it has parts. Likewise, anything in space and time is infinitely divisible, which implies that all spatiotemporal things are made up of parts.

Moreover, yes, I do not see any contradiction with the idea that a composed being which is spatiotemporal must be infinitely divisible and yet ontologically be comprised ultimately by one singular non-spatiotemporal thing. (:

Then you have an incorrect understanding. They are part of the standard model of particle physics, which is an active field of research. I'm not insisting they are actually the most fundamental level of reality (quantum field theory treats them as disturbances in fields), but all macro objects in the universe have quarks as part of their composition.

Sure, but we also thought atoms were absolutely simple and it was very attractive at the time. Science uses models to map reality—irregardless if the model is actually true.

Again:

No, the uncaused thing would be the limit inside of that totality.

I will quote myself from the previous thread:

Anytime you get to a point in which there is something which has no prior causation for its being, then it is outside of causality.


I am glad you said this, because this was what I was going to point out in the other thread discussion we are having, as I wasn’t sure if you agreed or not. If there is a first cause, then it has no prior causation for its being; so, by your own logic, it resides outside of the totality of causal things (viz., outside of causality). Your argument in your OP you said is arguing that there is no cause for the totality of causal things and that a first cause would be in that totality; but this contradicts what you just said above.

But you feel them in space.

We are talking about if they are in space—not if you feel them in space.

The definition of interaction is a touch from one thing to another

Ok, then you are using the term ‘interaction’ much more strictly than I was. E.g., the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth is an interaction (in a looser sense) without there being touch.

Again, I don't know of any definition of interaction that is not some connection and imparting between two things.

Yes, that is true; and I am saying you haven’t demonstrated why it is incoherent to believe that something outside of space and time cannot have some connection with things which are spatiotemporal. You just keep blanketly asserting it; and this sort of interaction does not imply physical touch (as seen above in my sun example).

or something that has never been discovered before like a unicorn.

This is a straw man. We have no evidence that a unicorn exists and it would blatantly defy physics: nothing about God is analogous to that.

A -> B, A is necessary for B to exist

Material implication does not create a biconditional: A → B just means that when A is true, then B is true as well—it does not mean that when B is true A must be true.

Anytime you get to a point in which there is something which has no prior causation for its being, then it is outside of causality.

I am glad you said this, because this was what I was going to point out in the other thread discussion we are having, as I wasn’t sure if you agreed or not. If there is a first cause, then it has no prior causation for its being; so, by your own logic, it resides outside of the totality of causal things (viz., outside of causality). Your argument in your OP you said is arguing that there is no cause for the totality of causal things and that a first cause would be in that totality; but this contradicts what you just said above.

First, I'm not using the phrase, "The totality of what exists" in the argument. I'm saying the entire scope of causality.

Well, that’s a huge difference! An argument that the totality of what exists has no cause is true (trivially) because any cause—be itself caused or not—would be included in such totality; however, that the totality of caused things has no cause does not follow these lines of thinking—for an uncaused thing would be outside of that totality. You would have to provide some further argument—and perhaps I missed it—for why there would be no cause to such a series.

And if it cannot have a prior cause itself, what does that logically lead to next? The realization that no origin is necessary for existence or can be impossible. If I say, "X origin cannot be possible," there is a reason prior why it would be impossible. Is there anything prior which could make it impossible, then of course it would mean there was a prior cause. A cause not only tells us what is possible, but also impossible. — Philosophim

If anything could happen, and there is no cause which would make any one thing be more likely than the other to happen, then they all had equal chance of happening.

I am not following: I think you are conflating causality a lot. Let me just explain what I am thinking about your position and correct me where I’m getting it wrong.

If we are talking about the total series of caused things, then your OP is arguing that such a series is either infinite or self-caused; but it cannot argue that there is a first cause. A first cause would exist outside of the series of caused things.
If it is infinite, then each member has a reason for its existence from the previous member.

If it is self-caused (notwithstanding how patently incoherent this concept is itself), then the being has its own existence explained through itself.

Either way, nothing is equally probable in the sense you described; for either the ultimate cause explains itself (viz., is contingent upon itself) or there is an infinite series of sufficient explanations.

If you posit a necessary being, then you would be positing a first cause; and this would exist outside of the series of caused things and would have no cause itself. This also would not entail an equal chance of things happening, for it simply would entail the existence of whatever it causes and it would be the sufficient explanation of those causes.

We can invent the concept of an infinite set of contingent beings. But that set is not contingent on anything else.

That doesn’t matter. That’s like saying an infinite series of gears rotating is possible because we can conceptually posit it and the whole series does not require rotation. The set itself is not an entity that you can manipulate like that. The set itself of contingent members is just a bunch of contingencies abstracted into a set: the set is not a necessary being.

Like I said before, the argument is on ontological parts. That could be in time and space or not; it doesn't matter to me. Some of the OP would have to be adjusted though, but I think most people are realists about space and time (so I'll leave it how it is).

So you assume some magical sort of knowledge is metaphysically possible in order to prove there exists a being who has it. Circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning is when a premise presupposes the conclusion as true: I didn’t do that. Also, why would it have to be magical?

Just think about how you will, and how this willing—even without what we stereotypically refer to as rational deliberation—is correspondence with at least primitive knowledge. Think of a plant growing towards the sunlight. I am just noting that we can see—by analogy—how a being can have knowledge and yet not be computating like a human brain or AI would.

More circular reasoning.

You clearly don’t know what circular reasoning is…

Every up-quark is identical to every other, except in its external relations to other particles, and they're certainly ontologically distinct.

This argument necessitates that an up-quark is not comprised of anything else and is non-spatiotemporal. Ok. But then there would be only one since there’s nothing ontologically distinguishing them. What you are doing is talking about separate quarks and thinking that since they are simple that they are absolutely simple.

Now, I understand they say quarks have no parts in science, but I don’t take that literally; as they used to say atoms were like that. Scientifically, we posit things as absolutely simple for the sake of science until we discover smaller parts. Philosophically, we can know that it is impossible for there to be a thing ontologically distinguishable from another thing which has no parts. That is absurd.

So what? You made assumptions that would entail a God. To be effective as an argument, you would need to use mutually agreed premises. You're just rationalizing something you already believe.

I was an atheist before this style of argumentation found its way onto my desk; so, you are grossly making assumptions here. Every premise is pretty clear and follows from what has been said (albeit a psuedo-syllogism).

Sorry, missed this reply initially.

No worries, and sorry for the belated response on my end!

Using the term phenomenal does not deny that feelings are located in our body and not outside of them.

What I am saying is that they are not in space like objects: if you cut open your arm, you will not find this feeling that is spread throughout your body. You are right that feelings can have spatial references to them, but they are not in space; for you would be able to find them in space like your neurons if that were the case.

True, but if something non-spatial is to interact with something spatial, it must at that moment of interaction become spatial. A purely non-spatial being cannot interact with space

Why? What’s the argument for that? Do you think everything, or at least everything that can interact with ordinary objects, is in space and time then? What kind of metaphysics of time and space are you working with here?

Saying it can is the same as saying a unicorn exists

We have no solid evidence that a unicorn exists, but if we did then we would be justified in believing it. The problem I’m having is that you are not contending with the argument in the OP, but instead are asserting that non-spatiotemporal beings cannot interact with spatiotemporal ones—what’s the argument for that?

I believe we're discussing this in the other thread now, but once you introduce the possibility of something capable of existing itself, you open the doors open to anything being possible.

So this is the same as saying that if it is possible for something to be necessary, then anything is possible. Why?

:up:

I appreciate your input, Relativist. Let’s see if we can find common ground.

knowledge = organized data;
data entails encoding;
encoding entails parts;
Therefore omniscience would entail parts.

It is vital to understand that omniscience in the pre-medieval sense does not entail a being with knowledge like a person has: God is not a person. Omniscience, rather, in this classical sense, would be knowledge in the sense of apprehending the abstract forms of things (being its first cause). Now this doesn’t negate your point per se, but I do need to prefix my response with this.

Now, I would say that I reject that encoding entails that a being must have parts; or that, perhaps, knowledge entails the requirement to encode/decode it. I think you are thinking of something like an AI or human brain, when God is disanalogous to this. God is pure will and being. Willing requires knowledge, but not knowledge necessarily in the sense of computation. In fact, I think that you are right to conclude that a being which computes cannot be absolutely simple.

A being with one property is simpler than a being with multiple properties, even if cannot be decomposed into more fundamental parts.

So, although you are right that a being with one property is simpler than a being with more than one; my rebuttle is that God’s properties are reducible to each other. Pure goodness is the same thing as pure actuality; pure power is the same as pure actuality; and pure actuality is the same as pure willing; and pure willing is the same as volition in correspondence with knowledge.

God doesn’t have multiple properties other than analogically.

non-sequitur. Two identical beings could exist, and a set of multiple "simple" beings (no parts) could exist with non-identical properties. Because of this, both of the following are non-sequitur:

But then you are saying that two things which are have absolutely no ontological differences are ontologically distinct!

This depends on Thomist metaphysics which I see no reason to accept (e.g. that an ontological object can have "actual" and "potency" as intrinsic properties).

I didn’t make an argument from change: I didn’t import that part of Thomistic metaphysics. My argument is from the contingency relations of composition.

:kiss:

Consider: when someone dies we can transplant their organs into other bodies, but we cannot give them an organ transplant to resuscitate them. For example, a heart transplant requires a living body, and will not work on a body that has only recently died.

I see your point; but I am thinking that wouldn’t the ‘being alive’ be a result of those parts interacting with each other properly? Viz., if you give a dead person an organ transplant and get their neurons to start firing again and what not then wouldn’t they be alive? A part of the physical constitution of a thing is the process which is has (e.g., you can have an engine with all the parts in the right place and yet it isn’t burning fuel [i.e., on], but if you know how to start it up then it starts working properly).

Well it’s not Aristotelian (or Thomistic). It misses what Oderberg calls reverse mereological essentialism. Or: yes, it doesn’t “account for” a soul.

Why would we need to posit one for this “reverse mereological essentialism”?

Do you have references to the places in Aristotle and Feser you are thinking of?

Here is Ed Feser discussing change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl3uoCi9VjI starting at 25:15.

What I would say is that the argument from motion begins with the premise, “Things are in motion,” and it concludes with an Unmoved Mover. What is unmoved would apparently “remain the same through time.”

Yes, but by ‘motion’ the medieval’s and pre-medieval’s meant any actualization of a potential and not locomotion. If you think about it, this would make sense; since for Aristotle (and Ed Feser) God keeps us in existing right now: they are not arguing merely for a being which started the locomotion at the beginning of the universe (or something like that). That would require this idea of a “hierarchical series” which is a per se series of composition which is analyzed in terms of what causes each thing to remain the same (e.g., Ed Feser likes to use the example of H20: the atoms that make up that molecule don’t themselves have any reason to be H2O—something else actualizes that and keeps it that way [and its the keeping it that way that seems to break the law of inertia]).

My point stands that there can be no conclusion to what necessarily must be the origin of the universe without finding direct evidence.

But that’s what philosophy also engage in. Metaphysics is reasoning about evidence—which can be empirical.

By reason, the OP proves that none of them are absurd or incoherent. No prior cause means no limitations
…
Its not moot at all because I demonstrate that their claim to God is no longer necessary, and that it has no more reason to be the origin then any other origin someone else can think of.

Again, this is an equivocation. When we discuss cosmology, it is about what needs to be explained (i.e., the things around us: the universe) and NOT the totality of what we end up having to posit. You are shifting goal post and then trying to claim to be at the original goal post: that’s not valid.

The conclusions I've put forward are from pure logic and reason. Can you demonstrate at what point my conclusions aren't?

The more I think about it, I think you are right that this argument—if I am understanding it correctly—is an a priori style argument; for you are noting that reason dictates that irregardless of if there is a first cause, infinite causality, etc. that the totality of what is real must be uncaused. So I recant my position on this point.

Again, try it. Put something forward that demonstrates a necessary origin and refutes the conclusions of the OP.

We have don’t have to try to give a counter-argument to know this argument is fallacious. You saying:

1. The totality of what exists could have a first cause, be self-caused, etc.
2. The totality of what exists, being such that nothing can exist outside of it, must be uncaused.
3. Therefore, whether or not the totality of what exists has a first cause, is self-caused, etc. are all equally probable.

The underlined portion is where the equivocation happens that is pivotal to your argument working and of which you are implicitly asking the reader to conflate (with each other); and, I for one, am not willing to. They are not referring to the same thing; and, not to mention, it is patently incoherent (for if this totality is uncaused then it is impossible for it to have a first cause, etc.).

EDIT: I think demanding an argument for the nature of the the cosmos is a red herring, but if you want one, here's a basic one:

1. Per se contingent beings lack the power to exist themselves.
2. An infinite series of contingent beings all lack the power to exist themselves.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for the cosmos to be an infinite series of contingent beings.
4. Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being.

The point is not that you need to accept that argument, it's that your OP doesn't negate anyone from validly engaging in this type of metaphysics.

Philosophy is more often then not the logical construction of concepts. Science is the test and application of those concepts

The definition of philosophy is a tricky and interesting one.

“Philosophy” literally translates to “the love of wisdom”, and wisdom (traditionally) is the absolute truth of the nature of things (with an emphasis on how it impacts practical life as a whole and in terms of practical judgment). Thusly, philosophy dips its toes in every subject-matter; for every subject at its core is the study of the nature of something. Nowadays, people like to distinguish philosophy from other studies akin to distinguishing, e.g., history from science; but the more I was thinking about this (in preparation of my response to your comments) I realized this is impossible. Philosophy is not analogous to history, science, archaeology, etc. It transcends all studies as the ultimate study which gives each study life—so to speak. For without a yearning for the understanding of the nature of things, which is encompassed in the love of wisdom, then no subject-matter is sought after—not even science.

Some might say philosophy is the study of self-development, but this clearly isn’t true (historically). It includes self-development but is not restricted to just that domain. E.g., logic is not an area itself within the study of self-development and yet it is philosophical.

Some might say, like you, that philosophy is the application of pure reason (viz., the study of what is a priori); but is is equally historically false. E.g., cosmological arguments are typically a posteriori. Most disputes in philosophy have and will continue to be about reasoning about empirical data to abstract what is mostly likely the nature of things (and how to live life properly in correspondence with that knowledge).

This would entail that science is philosophy at its core, but is a specific branch that expands on how to understand the nature of things; and so science vs. philosophy is a false dichotomy.

The problem I have with your understanding of philosophy vs. science is that it seems to be very verificationistic. The vast majority of what we know with the most credence cannot be scientifically verified. E.g., the nature of a proposition being a statement that is truth-apt; 1 + 1 = 2; a = a; !(a && !a); the nature of truth being such that it is the correspondence of thought with reality; the law of causality; etc.

The truth is that most of our knowledge is not scientific: they are evidence-based reasoning. They are probabilistic based off of our experiences; and this is not science proper—nor is it an imitation of science.

I would challenge you to demonstrate how science proves that a proposition cannot be both true and false; or that 1 = 1; or that knowledge is a JTB; or that every change has a cause; etc.

But there is no philosophical discovery at that point. There would be the discovery of whether there was a first cause, or infinite regress.

We can still do the exact same philosophical questioning of causes: your OP just notes that if we take the totality of what we posit as existing then that totality cannot have a cause; which is a trivial note. We still have up for grabs whether or not an infinite regress of causes is absurd; whether a first cause is arbitrary; whether a self-cause is incoherent; whether ….

Nothing about this OP negates any of this. You seem to be equivocating the totality of things which need explaining with the thing being used to explain it. E.g., the theist says there must be a first cause to explain the totality of these things which exist, and you come around and point out that God + those things is now the new totality which is uncaused—this is a mute point (by my lights).

The only logical conclusion is that we cannot know.

Ontology and metaphysics is largely not about a priori proofs; and so they have not been primarily about arguments from pure logic or reason. You seem to think that’s not the case…

If the OP is correct, then you cannot prove it to be impossible.

See, this is where you are equivocating. No, your OP does not entail that an infinite regress vs. a first cause of composition is equally probable: it demonstrates that irregardless of which one we think is most probable because the whole of things we posit (which includes that regress or first cause) cannot have a cause itself. Which is, dare I say, obviously true but not relevant to the debate.

When we debate cosmology, we are debating the comsos—the whole of what immediately needs explaining; and NOT the whole of what we end up having to posit as real. You are conflating these two.

The scientific ontological argument is still on

This is a contradiction in terms: ontology is philosophy, not science. Science cannot get at ontology, being merely the study of the relation of things and not the nature of things.

Is it the big bang? A God that made a big bang? Etc.

Yes, this is metaphysics which rides closely with science; as it should be. Most scientists are also metaphysicians whether they like it or not.

The different is it requires evidence, reason, testing, and confirmation

This is true of the vast majority of philosophy.

Try it. Try to show that any particular origin is philosophically necessary if the OP is true and see if it works.

What do you mean by "philosophically necessary"?

In my OP, e.g., I am considering actual impossibility as that modality relates to an infinite series of composition. Are you saying if a first cause, infinite series of causes, etc. cannot be proven to be logically necessary then it must be outside the purview of philosophy?