The problem with this is that if you allow one brute face, one exception to the need for adequate dynamics, one thing with no intelligible explanation, then there is no reason not to allow others -- and once you do that, your entire line of reasoning breaks down. If one arbitrary finite being can have no explanation why can't any arbitrary finite being have none, be a brute fact? So I see your reasoning self-refuting. — Dfpolis
I see no reason to accept this definition. Information is the reduction of possibility, while every new existent makes more acts possible. I agree that finite beings have an intelligible/informative essence that specifies what they can do, but the essence of infinite being does not limit possibility, and so is utterly uninformative. (This is confirmed by trans-cultural reports of mystical experience -- see W. T. Stace's works.) — Dfpolis
I don’t follow this. Are you suggesting that unique events cannot occur naturally? That because I am unique, for instance, I cannot claim to be natural? — Possibility
I happen to agree that ‘time’ is finite - I just don’t agree that this points to a non-natural creation of the universe. I also think that for something to exist ‘outside of time’ or ‘beyond causality’ does not make it ‘unnatural’. — Possibility
"Ex nihilo" = from nothing, implies a state of "nothingness" existed, a self-contradictory term ("nonexistence exists"). If x exists at all times, and the past is finite, then x did not "come into" existence - that would entail a prior existing state of affairs into which x appears, which is impossible because x exists at all times. Further, the scenario assumes x is fundamental to everything that exists - everything in existence is composed of x. — Relativist
What is your justification for believing something causally efficacious can exist outside of time, and can somehow reach into time and interact? — Relativist
The fundamental stuff is necessary for all existence, since everything is composed of it. It therefore exists permanently. It can't have been caused, because all possible causal factors (like everything else in existence) are composed of this fundamental stuff. That's what it means to be fundamental. Your only optiob is to deny that there can exist some fubdamental stuff. — Relativist
You have provided no justification for believing this. — Relativist
It's bad logic. If the past is finite, then something existed without "coming into existence" because that would entail a state prior to its existence, and this is logically impossible. — Relativist
If there is fundamental stuff, it is metaphysically impossible for it not to exist (i.e. its existence is metaphysically necessary). A finite past implies the fundamental stuff was in an initial state (configuration) and perhaps this state could have been different (i.e. the specific state is contingent), but why think that it impossible for an initial, uncaused, contingent state to be impossible? You need to provide a justification for this that is not based on the subsequent temporal states and the composition fallacy. — Relativist
I don't follow your argument. It appears you're treating particles as fundamental. What do you mean by "next to start"? An eternal particle doesn't start to exist (nor cease to exist) but it exists in contingent relations to other eternal particles that collectively configure into higher level objects. These higher level objects are what come into existence. — Relativist
Again, you just seem to be asserting (without support) that contingent things cannot exist uncaused. My response is the same: any initial state will necessarily have contingent properties. This is true even if there is a God. A God that exists in an initial state would have had had an uncaused plan for a universe in his mind - i.e., an intent to create THIS contingent universe rather than all other metaphysically possible universes. — Relativist
And by definition anything that happens in nature is natural. — god must be atheist
Only the religious, those who believe in the supernatural, those who practice Voodoo, and those who are superstitious can tell you what they don't know, and they are quite eager to do so at any given time. — god must be atheist
Why believe the fundamental stuff required a start in time? Your intuition about the need for a start is based on experience with configurations of the fundamental stuff, and when you extrapolate this to the fundamental itself, you commit the fallacy of composition — Relativist
Quanta are disturbances in a quantum field. Fields are fundamental (or at least, MORE fundamental), so quanta are just configurations of the more fundamental field. — Relativist
Matter and energy (which are interchangeable) are just configurations of fundamental stuff — Relativist
This leads to the conclusion there is a past infinite series of configurations (every configuration "started", having been caused by a prior configuration) — Relativist
And it's unnatural to call natural events unnatural. — god must be atheist
This does not imply the quantum system itself is necessarily explainable by something external. — Relativist
There's a difference between "God did it" and "using this collection of mathematical models we can correctly predict the behaviour of all physical phenomena". — Michael
"Should"? Why? What is the force of this "should"? And, what is the error of my analysis? — Dfpolis
It's a category error to think an infinite being can be confined to a location. If a being is contained, it can act in the container, but not outside of it, and so is limited. — Dfpolis
This argument fails because we are not speaking of numerical but ontological infinity -- the capacity to do any possible act. An infinite being cannot change because an infinite being is a necessary being, and whatever is necessary cannot possibly be different. — Dfpolis
I agree that it is a real problem, but having a problem does not mean that the proof is unsound. I think the problem is that what might be good for other things need not be good for humans. If dinosaurs could think they would have thought the asteroid that ended their era was evil, but it was good for us. — Dfpolis
Assuming there is one, if it is timelessly, it is necessarily. This necessity is either intrinsic (in which case it is self-explaining), or it is derived (in which case it is explained by another). In either case, it has an explanation. — Dfpolis
I made no claim that God is "in" (limited to) the cosmos. — Dfpolis
Still not entirely sure how you get to that. I'm not saying it isn't, but I'm not at all sure how you justify that claim in a positive sense. — Theologian
Yet placing God, or at least God's ability to act, wholly inside this universe seems to be a premise of your argument. Remember: post Einstein, time is very much a part of the fabric of this universe. So it is difficult to say that God exists outside of time and yet is somehow constrained by the limits of the universe. — Theologian
Premise 6: A finite being cannot explain its own existence — Dfpolis
I am not going to say that there are brute facts. I am going to say that it is not a self evident truth that there are not - and since you're the one offering the proof, the burden is on you. — Theologian
Premise 2: Whatever exists is either finite or infinite. — Dfpolis
I don't really see what you mean by "proof" here. A "proof" in the strict sense only exists in purely deductive systems like formal logic or mathematics. There is no "proof" of that kind for empirical science, and I don't believe very much can be deduced about metaphysics other than that something exists that thinks my thoughts. But since the possibility of metaphysics are essentially unlimited, it doesn't make sense to call this "being agnostic". Because it would follow that one is agnostic towards everything, from naive realism to the simulation hypothesis. — Echarmion
Well, the quality of the evidence will depend on the circumstances, as I already stated. With God, the problem isn't really about whether the absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence but more about how God can even be imagined as a physical entity in the first place and what predictive power such a theory of God would have. Rules such as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are only true for purely deductive formal logic, not for inductive empirical science, and are useful shorthands rather than actual rules in the latter. — Echarmion
How does that show the measure number to pre-exist the measurement operation? — Dfpolis
I agree that our universe is finitely old. — Dfpolis
If you have distinct events, there is not concurrence between them. Being concurrent means there is only one event. — Dfpolis
In their ignorance, most modern philosopers do not realize that there are two kinds of efficient causes (accidental and essential). Aristotle and the Scholastics did. You may do as you choose. — Dfpolis
Only if you choose to close your mind to essential causality. Sawing and being sawed are concurrent. Every doing is concurrent with someting being done. — Dfpolis
God is not a physical being, and so not subject to the laws of physics. God is an intention being. Aristotle called Him "Self-thinking thought." As intentions are not measuable, they cannot be quantified and so are beyond the competance of mathmatical physics. — Dfpolis
The space time manifold has no intrinsic necessity. If God did not act to maintain it in being, it would cease to be. — Dfpolis
When you look at the menu in your favourite restaurant, you have to choose among perhaps 5 favourite dishes, all very pleasant. Then there is the competing issue of cost. You might like the steak tartare, but it costs 3 times as much as the stuffed grape leaves which you also like. Your date is a vegan, so splitting the steak tartare is out of the question (you won't have to give so much as a bite of it). The desserts are good too -- Galatopoureko (custard baked in filo crust) isn't vegan so you won't have to share that either. — Bitter Crank
I agree we have evidence of absence. But this evidence is based on absence of evidence - quite literally nothing happening. — Echarmion
Disproving the existence of things doesn't usually involve ruling out the possibility of it's existence. — Echarmion
Unless there is a reason to posit some metaphysical entity, we might as well consider it nonexistent. — Echarmion
Depends on the context. If you run a drug trial and detect no difference compared to the control group, that is evidence of absence (in that case absence of a pharmaceutical effect). — Echarmion
I think the Hitchensian dictum "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" holds true in this case. No faith is required. — NOS4A2
Actually, in relation to "the eternal", what Aristotle argued is that anything eternal must be actual. So the infinite is argued to be potential, and the eternal is argued to be actual. This produces a separation between "infinite", and "eternal", as categorically distinct, and lays the ground work for a conception of "eternal" which is other than infinite time. This is the sense of "eternal" which is more commonly expressed in metaphysics, meaning outside of time. — Metaphysician Undercover