Only atheists

[LuisDantas]

You do understand this is why @LuisDantas wouldn't answer, at least partly. It always turns into some precanned guessing game which lacks real discourse. I covered this already in my answer, but since it wasn't reductionist enough you've restated the question.

Okay, so, anyways, I'll still play along. Here is my answer once more, this time without any context or substance;

Neither of them would move

Indeed. To be even more succint: I want to be listened to, not to give a pretext for preconceived expectations to be presented and supposedly "validated".

 

[LuisDantas]

Made me laugh. Perhaps we can call them statues instead.
But you do realise you're bringing nuance and context into a discussion based around 'Guess what's in my head' right? @interminable wasn't a fan of me framing an answer with any sort of context. Why are you so special as to get a leave pass?

What is wrong with you, @lewisnotmiller , to favor discussing reality over reductionist models?

WHY ARE YOU SO PARTIAL TOWARDS REALITY?

What is your angle?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What is wrong with you, @lewisnotmiller , to favor discussing reality over reductionist models?

WHY ARE YOU SO PARTIAL TOWARDS REALITY?

What is your angle?

You got me. I'm deliberately being evasive so as to avoid being convinced there is an all-loving God, because I want to burn in hell.

 

[interminable]

Normally, no one decides to run when they just feel like it as they remain poised and ready, waiting for the command to begin, to "GO!"

When one jumps the gun, and starts before the other, we call that a false start and the runners have to all line up and start again.

You do understand this is why @LuisDantas wouldn't answer, at least partly. It always turns into some precanned guessing game which lacks real discourse. I covered this already in my answer, but since it wasn't reductionist enough you've restated the question.

Okay, so, anyways, I'll still play along. Here is my answer once more, this time without any context or substance;

Neither of them would move

First thank u
Look

This very simple question that Luis didn't answer to it proves that the concept of running will never happen.

And this is what we say when we talk about impossibility of vicious circle. In this example two runners are existed but just they decide not to run until the other runs.

So imagine two existents which both of them aren't necessary existents

Which one is creator????
A created B and B created A?
This is impossible



This simple reason shows that infinite regress is impossible
When we proved that infinite regress is impossible and consider causality too we must prove that there is an existent that is necessary and isn't created by anything else.

Is it hard????


Please if u wanna reject my claims just use logic.

 

[interminable]

Don't send any links
I just wanna talk to u step by step

 

[interminable]

At which point neither are in fact runners. Maybe they used to be, and maybe they will be again. But until they change their minds they aren't runners.
Tom

Maybe they are disabled that made such decision huh???


Please when u wanna discuss first tell yourself I wanna get the truth . I wanna reach the reality. I wanna consider everything that might be true.
Those who began to doubt about everything reached nowhere.

 

[interminable]

You got me. I'm deliberately being evasive so as to avoid being convinced there is an all-loving God, because I want to burn in hell.

Did I understand correctly?
[emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji15] [emoji15] [emoji15]

 

[LuisDantas]

You are abusing your own model. @interminable.

It is unrealistic enough to presente two "runners that never run", since it is literally impossible for actual people to decide to never move.

Making the jump to presente that as a proper argument for why there must be a creator of existence with divine exception privilegie is probably satisfying to your sense of aesthetics, but it has no logical value.

You are just confusing pleasing your expectations with satisfying logic.

And calling me dishonest for not playing along while you do that.

That is not the way to convince anyone who is not already convinced or trying hard to, that much I can assure you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did I understand correctly?
[emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji33] [emoji15] [emoji15] [emoji15]

Quite on the contrary. He is pointing out that there is reason to consider where we come from. More than likely it is not quite where you may assume us to be.

 

[interminable]

You are abusing your own model. @interminable.

It is unrealistic enough to presente two "runners that never run", since it is literally impossible for actual people to decide to never move.

Making the jump to presente that as a proper argument for why there must be a creator of existence with divine exception privilegie is probably satisfying to your sense of aesthetics, but it has no logical value.

You are just confusing pleasing your expectations with satisfying logic.

And calling me dishonest for not playing along while you do that.

That is not the way to convince anyone who is not already convinced or trying hard to, that much I can assure you.

I wait for a logical argument to reject my claim

That was an example to make your mind closer to the main meaning

Logical arguments with simple words


Don't keep me waiting please

 

[YmirGF]

First thank u
Look

This very simple question that Luis didn't answer to it proves that the concept of running will never happen.

And this is what we say when we talk about impossibility of vicious circle. In this example two runners are existed but just they decide not to run until the other runs.

So imagine two existents which both of them aren't necessary existents

Which one is creator????
A created B and B created A?
This is impossible



This simple reason shows that infinite regress is impossible
When we proved that infinite regress is impossible and consider causality too we must prove that there is an existent that is necessary and isn't created by anything else.

Is it hard????


Please if u wanna reject my claims just use logic.

I'm going to put this off to a poor command of the English language because your explanation is neither logical, compelling nor particularly lucid. Perhaps it makes more sense in your native tongue.

 

[interminable]

I'm going to put this off to a poor command of the English language because your explanation is neither logical, compelling nor particularly lucid. Perhaps it makes more sense in your native tongue.

Ask I'll explain

 

[YmirGF]

Ask I'll explain

I'm trembling with excitation at the prospect.

 

[LuisDantas]

I wait for a logical argument to reject my claim

Demonstrating that the model does not correspond to reality is logical enough.

That was an example to make your mind closer to the main meaning

I understand your meaning well enough.

It just won't convince me, because your whole argument depends on taking a few unncessary, undemonstrated, arbitrary premises as true, as applicable to reality proper.

I feel and see no logical need to emulate your choice to assume that:



1. There is a cause for existence itself.

2. Such cause is in some meaningful sense distinct from existence itself (for instance, by having some form of intention or sentience).

3. Everything that exists must have a causer, a creator.

4. The direct contradiction between (1) and (3) can and should be resolved by appealling to a claim of miraculous, literally divine privilege or exception.



To the best of my understanding, you mean to claim that all four items above are accurate and correspond to our reality.

That is no logical argument. It does not even sustain itself.

You are building a model that is not even consistent with itself in the first three items.

Then you throw them away in order to take refuge in the fourth item, which is just a claim of miraculous exception.

The whole exercise goes out of its way to avoid having any connection to reality and could never be considered a logical explanation for anything.

It can perhaps qualify as an illustration of how appealling claims of divine exception may be for many people. I don't think it has any other practical application.

 

[interminable]

Demonstrating that the model does not correspond to reality is logical enough.


I understand your meaning well enough.

It just won't convince me, because your whole argument depends on taking a few unncessary, undemonstrated, arbitrary premises as true, as applicable to reality proper.

I feel and see no logical need to emulate your choice to assume that:



1. There is a cause for existence itself.

2. Such cause is in some meaningful sense distinct from existence itself (for instance, by having some form of intention or sentience).

3. Everything that exists must have a causer, a creator.

4. The direct contradiction between (1) and (3) can and should be resolved by appealling to a claim of miraculous, literally divine privilege or exception.



To the best of my understanding, you mean to claim that all four items above are accurate and correspond to our reality.

That is no logical argument. It does not even sustain itself.

You are building a model that is not even consistent with itself in the first three items.

Then you throw them away in order to take refuge in the fourth item, which is just a claim of miraculous exception.

The whole exercise goes out of its way to avoid having any connection to reality and could never be considered a logical explanation for anything.

It can perhaps qualify as an illustration of how appealling claims of divine exception may be for many people. I don't think it has any other practical application.

What a shame!

1. Everything that is created needs a cause
2. Everything that exist either is possible existent or necessary one

3. All of them can't be possible existents because of impossibility of infinite regress and vicious circle

4. So there Must be an existent that isn't possible and is necessary and isn't created by anything else

Till now I proved that necessary existent must exist even I didn't prove that it should be one or two or unlimited or....


Reject my claims using simple words

 

[LuisDantas]

What a shame!

My thoughts exactly. Apparently not quite for the same reasons, but still.

1. Everything that is created needs a cause

Arbitrary belief that was never demonstrated.

2. Everything that exist either is possible existent or necessary one

Unfortunately, it is not clear what you mean to say here. There is definitely some language trouble there.

Do you mean "Everything that exists must be possible or necessary", perhaps?

3. All of them can't be possible existents because of impossibility of infinite regress and vicious circle

A vicious circle is a far more concrete concept than applies here. I assume that you mean "closed cycle", one that has no clear start or finish.

To the best of my understanding, you mean to say something along the lines of:

"3. It is not possible for everything that exists to have been created by something else" (because that would logically lead to infinite regression and/or a closed cycle).

Incidentally, I agree. That is a logical enough statement.

4. So there Must be an existent that isn't possible and is necessary and isn't created by anything else

This needs work in order to make some logical sense.

Something that "must be" is by definition possible, so you can't also claim that it is not possible and still expect to have a meaningful statement.

All I can make of it is that you are attempting to indeed make a claim of divine exception, as I guessed in my own (4) above.

Till now I proved that necessary existent must exist even I didn't prove that it should be one or two or unlimited or....

So your (4) means to be evidence for the existence of at least one creator God?

Well, it does not work as presented.

 

[interminable]

My thoughts exactly. Apparently not quite for the same reasons, but still.


Arbitrary belief that was never demonstrated.

Reject it by logic
This is causality .I don't know what u r denying!

Unfortunately, it is not clear what you mean to say here. There is definitely some language trouble there.

Do you mean "Everything that exists must be possible or necessary", perhaps?

Do u have a third part to add?

A vicious circle is a far more concrete concept than applies here. I assume that you mean "closed cycle", one that has no clear start or finish.

To the best of my understanding, you mean to say something along the lines of:

"3. It is not possible for everything that exists to have been created by something else" (because that would logically lead to infinite regression and/or a closed cycle).

Incidentally, I agree. That is a logical enough statement.

So what's your problem???
We can conclude easily that there is something that isn't created by anything else
This would prove the existence of first cause not god

This needs work in order to make some logical sense.

Something that "must be" is by definition possible, so you can't also claim that it is not possible and still expect to have a meaningful statement.

All I can make of it is that you are attempting to indeed make a claim of divine exception, as I guessed in my own (4) above.

When u accept that infinite regress is impossible as u did is there anyplace for this statement????

So your (4) means to be evidence for the existence of at least one creator God?

Well, it does not work as presented.

Did I say something about god???

 

[LuisDantas]

@interminable , in attempting to address a closed cycle you created a very similar one.

Your claim makes no logical sense.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God is a construction of faith. If one needs to explain it with logic, they've not only lost that argument, but have also shown their lack of faith. It's like a fisherman trying to convince a hunter that the best way to catch a fish is with a bear trap.

 

[interminable]

@interminable , in attempting to address a closed cycle you created a very similar one.

Your claim makes no logical sense.

Make an explanation to explain what difference between vicious circle and closed circle is then reject my claim by logical arguments not by claiming it's not logical.


U always say it's not logical but saying it's not logical doesn't change anything u need to show it