Thread 17930707

>We observe contingency - things depending on other things for their existence. Cat depends on chemistry. Chemistry on various forces. Forces on laws etc.
>Everything about the universe down to spacetime seems to be contingent as it's subject to change, necessarily implying contingency
>The layers of contingency either go infinitely or have a stopping point
>Infinite contingency layers lead to infinite regress, which isn't a logically sustainable explanation
>Thus contingency has as stopping point
>God is beyond description. We talk of him in conscious terms because those are the highest terms we have. Using inanimate language just degrades the prime mover and although it would appease the naturalist bias many of us have, there are precisely zero good philosophical reasons to do it, not even mentioning spiritual ones.
The contingency argument is unironically the worst possible argument for God. Why do retards fall for this shit?

>>17930707 (OP)
The contingency argument isn't stupid.

It is just easily misused by bad debaters. Infinite regress is a problem, but calling the stopping point "God" without further justification is lazy. If you are gonna use it, actually defend why the uncaused cause must be conscious/personal instead of just slapping "God" on it and calling it a day.

>>17930712
>actually defend why the uncaused cause must be conscious/personal instead of just slapping "God" on it and calling it a day.
I've brought up this point multiple times and the only answers I ever get are "God is beyond our understanding of personhood or agency"

>>17930720
>God is beyond our understanding of personhood or agency
which is another reason why trying to prove his existence was doomed to fail.

It's never even made clear why the prime mover has to be a God and not some other metaphysical force.

I think if you're having trouble with explaining something, and your only solution is to make up a guy with the superpower to explain anything
you probably went wrong somewhere in your reasoning

>>17930707 (OP)
>contingency isn't necessary
oops there goes science

Retard here. What's the problem with an infinite regress? Sure, it feels weird to imagine things going on forever into the past but I don't get why that technically or physically means it's impossible.

>>17930899
It’s all about aesthetic preference. Some people just want a final answer. No more thinking required. That is why they love brute facts, prime movers, or just saying *deal with it*. The hate for infinite regress comes from the same place. The psychological need for closure.

In logic, there is the Münchhausen trilemma (known also as Agrippa's): any explanation eventually leads to one of three *bad* options

> Infinite regress (no real answer just endless *why?*)

> Brute fact (*just because* no deeper reason)

> Circular logic (it is true because it caused itself to be true)

Pick your poison. Each camp acts like their choice is obviously better, but really, it is all arbitrary. Brute fact fans shrug and say *that is just how it is*, circular logic folks hide behind *foundational coherence*, and infinite regress enjoyers either embrace the chaos or get called out for explaining nothing.

Everyone knows the trilemma is unavoidable and unsolvable, but no one wants to admit their pseudo-answer is just a fancy way of saying *I like this one better*. So instead, we get endless debates where people dress up their preference in big words, pretending it is deeper than it is.

This whole mess disappears once you realize it isn't about logic but about psychology.

>>17930707 (OP)
But have you tried the Arbitrary Axiomatic Argument?
>assume god exists
>assume logic systems pertain to physical reality and not just to conclusions based on on accepting rules based on arbitrary premises
>therefore, god is real, because his existence is a given within this logical framework

>>17930899
There's no logical contradiction in an infinite regress. However I would say that even if you have an infinite regress of contingencies, you can take that chain as a whole and ask whether it's contingent on something. And you can even step all the way back and do this with regard to reality as a whole. And since reality can't be contingent on something outside itself, we've arrived at a stopping point similar to what theists argue. That's not really the stopping points theists want though (unless they're pantheists) so their reasoning is usually that actual infinities are absurd. Sometimes they just say it's self-evident or they might try to point to paradoxes like the Grim Reaper paradox.

>>17930917
>>17931181
Great answers! Thank you!

>>17930752
Because consciousness is intent, and a "force" is merely blind. If you can accept "forces" that lord over the world but not God, then you are in no way, shape, or form spiritually dissimilar to an atheist.

>>17930899
Nothing. The universe came from a slightly shittier cloud of dust that existed forever because the base state of matter is a few stray particles in an endless void. A beginning is not necessary, the earth didn't have a beginning. It had trillions of infinitesimal unrecognizable forms that lead into one another

>>17930917
>The hate for infinite regress comes from the same place. The psychological need for closure.
Or maybe it's because its incoherent you stupid crypto-buddhacuck.

Tao is eternal, one without a second.

>>17931281
>A beginning is not necessary, the earth didn't have a beginning. It had trillions of infinitesimal unrecognizable forms that lead into one another
Babble

>>17931285
Wrong. There's no single moment when you can say the earth existed where it didn't before. Also true of anything that isn't a human narrative form.