Thought Experiment

[Kamehameha34]

A natural conclusion of what I just quoted is putting the gun manufacturer on trial for murder. Or the inventor of the first firearm. Or the inventor of the first bow and arrow. That's just plain nonsense.

There's a difference between causes and intents. An intent doesn't start a new chain of causes - intents are simply dominos.

We can place fault on a person for shooting the gun, but that doesn't mean that earlier causes and effects didn't influence the scenario.

This is purely common sense. You said the God had to intend to create the universe. Then the "effect" is predicated first on the "intent" to make it happen. Sounds like a "first cause" to me.

Are you suggesting that the intent of the god spontaneously appeared?
Unless you subscribe to acausality, that is impossible.


I think I see where you're being tripped up.

Keep in mind that there are still an infinite number of causes prior to the entry of a deity. A deity can enter at any one of the "dominos", and everything after the deity's entrance will have been influenced by that one domino.

So, despite the fact that there are a finite number of causes and effects between the deity's involvement and the creation of our universe, there are an infinite amount of causes and effects before the deity's involvement. This doesn't change the fact that there were an infinite amount of trials during which a deity could have acted on intent to create our universe.


Furthermore, I think that usages of the terms "cause", and "effect" are prohibiting you from fully understanding my intended message.

Instead, look at each one as a "trial". There were an infinite amount of trials, before the creation of our universe, in which a deity could become involved with our creation.

[Fonceai]

No, I'm not confused.

Quote by: Kame Are you suggesting that the intent of the god spontaneously appeared? Unless you subscribe to acausality, that is impossible.

You're assigning motivations and assumptions to a being.

Sounds like Redefinition to me.

You can what-if this to death to support your opening statement. What if there was a cause to make the being have that intent, right?

Doesn't matter.

The second anything intends to do something, the stuff in-between is just a technicality.

You seemed to miss it the first time, so I'll write it again.

What you are doing is proposing the equivalent of suing a gun company because a person shot their cheating wife.

You draw the line at the intent.

A person who decides to murder someone and succeeds is a murderer. There is no exception.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I'm not confused.

We'll see.

You're assigning motivations and assumptions to a being. Sounds like Redefinition to me.

No, I'm simply saying that, if such a being with the aforementioned intent was possible, there is an infinitessimally small chance that it did not play a part in the creation of the universe.

The second anything intends to do something, the stuff in-between is just a technicality.

Ah, now I see your stumbling block.

The dominos reach back towards infinity. This means that, wherever a deity enters, there were an infinite amount of trials behind it.

There's no way you can slice this to make it seem like there was anything less than an infinite amount of trials, given infinite regress.

Just to make sure I'm not the one confused - what did you come into the argument intending to prove?

[Fonceai]

You really don't understand my "stumbling block".

"Trials" are not the same as dominoes. That is a highly inaccurate comparison.

Quote by: Kame Just to make sure I'm not the one confused - what did you come into the argument intending to prove?

You're confused.

Look at the title of this thread... "thought experiment".

As such, any and every idea is welcome and entertained. But the problem, as I noted in my first post in the thread, and to which I received agreement, is that the premises of your "thought experiment" are flawed.

If you wanted to talk about infinite regression, then you should have done so.

If you wanted an argument, then you shouldn't have called it a thought experiment.

So yes, you're the one confused.

---

Now let's look at your confusion.

I can go back to your intent to create this thread as the cause and show the resulting opening post as the effect.

But what you are suggesting is going back so far as to say that your parents, and their parents, and their parents, are the cause of you creating a contradictory opening post.

That makes absolutely no sense.

If you don't believe me, go to school tomorrow and punch someone in the face. Then just say that it's Al Gore's fault.

After all, he developed the Internet, which made it possible for me to communicate to you the idea to punch someone, which gave you the intention, which you effected by punching.

Does that sound stupid to you?

[Kamehameha34]

Does that sound stupid to you?

Yes. Blame is a different subject.




I've been addressing the flaws you cited, but you are just denying my explanations.

But hey, I'll wrap up everything you need to prove for convenience:

~How intent relates to trial probability

The purpose of this thread is to explain how infinite regression makes godly involvement in our universe's creation a sure thing. This is because, due to the nature of an infinite regress (in which causes and effects stretch back infinitely), there are an infinite amount of trials. Trials for what? - you may ask. Well, each trial constitutes a possibility for a god to enter the regress. If a god is in any way possible, or if "P > 0", then the odds of the godly creation of our universe increase to near-certainty, as expressed in this simple equation:

P = The probability of something happening
1-P= The probability of something not happening
(1-P)^n = The probability of something not happening over "n" trials
1-((1-P)^n) = The probability of something happening over "n" trials.

If P (the possibility of a god, intent on creating our universe, entering the regress) is greater than 0, then godly creation of our universe is a certainty, given "n = infinity".


Now you've been peddling that intent has something to do with this. What if I conceded that a god with the intent of creating our universe is less likely than a god with simply the ability?

It wouldn't effect the end outcome, because n = infinity. The odds of no god having influenced our universe's creation are still infinitessimally small.


Instead of another sly, hostile reply from either side, can we debate this concept civilly?

[Jack]

when your persistence that everyone who disagrees with them is somehow confused just makes you an unpleasant person to debate with.

And on that note, may I suggest that anyone who wishes to debate the subject do so, but those (of us) who cannot accept the basic premise of the thread simply not post. That way we can avoid these personal confrontations and the topic can continue in a relative objective manner.
Agreed?

[Kamehameha34]

I concur.

It was a hard concept to explain, so I can't imagine that it was easy to understand. Ish, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on it. This thread was designated to attract atheist replies - it's my way of running the idea through a filter

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 But the nature of an infinite regress is that which requires an infinite amount of necessary "dominos". If one were missing, the end product* would not exist, or at least be the same.

There would be only one 'necessary' scenario likely and that is one where God was not one of the dominos at all.

The nature of existence whether there is a God or not appears very redundant, and the most likely is a domino scenario where a redundant interconnected pattern of dominos exists and the system is not dependent on any one domino.

With an infinite amount of necessary steps, it's almost certain (meaning infinitessimally small chance for failure) that a "god" was one of them - according to Cappy's equation for trial probability.

If there were redundent Gods than one missing one would not effect destiny.

*I say that our universe was the "end product" because it is the only end product that we are concerned with. Of course, if the expansion and creation of our universe had caused something else to happen, that would have continued the regress.

The more likely scenario is that our universe is part of a cyclic pattern of the existence of universes, and not the "end product". Our concern would be indifferent to real nature of existence.

[Kamehameha34]

There would be only one 'necessary' scenario likely and that is one where God was not one of the dominos at all.

The odds of this are infinitessimally small, given the nature of an infinite regress.

The nature of existence whether there is a God or not appears very redundant, and the most likely is a domino scenario where a redundant interconnected pattern of dominos exists and the system is not dependent on any one domino.

No, all dominos must be concurrent for the creation of our universe to occur. Why would I include unnecessary variables in the regress? There are an infinite amount of necessary causes in the infinite regress, because we can't restrict it to a finite number. As of now, unnecessary dominos are irrelevant.

If there were redundent Gods than one missing one would not effect destiny.

Remember, the infinite regress only applies to necessary steps. Redundant steps are not relevant. The fact at hand is that, given infinite regression, there are an infinite amount of necessary steps.

The more likely scenario is that our universe is part of a cyclic pattern of the existence of universes, and not the "end product". Our concern would be indifferent to real nature of existence.

Yes, the infinite regression stretches both ways, forever. We're talking about what caused our universe to come into existence, and anything beyond that is outside of that category.

The fact that there is one cause for our universe doesn't contradict the fact that there can be, and are others. There is more than one cause for the firing of a gun, correct? There's the pulling of the trigger, the loading of the gun, the manufacturing of the steel - the list goes on. Each one of these steps constitutes a cause for the firing of the gun, but the completion of each step doesn't counteract the existence of other steps.

[Fonceai]

Now now, shunyadragon...

If you can't accept the validity of the premises in the opening post you shouldn't be posting here.

I agree with your assessments.

And I can already see that Kame repeated what he said in the post before yours in the post immediately after yours.

As long as Kame is "challenging" and arguing, it's not much of a thought experiment. Just more "Kame against Volconvo"

[pubmanager]

Thought experiment:

Pre-suppose X
Pre-suppose nature of X

Take theory of Infinite regress

infinite chance of X

multiply X by infinity

=

There must be X if infinity and X

_________________________________________________________________

I'm a genius

[Fonceai]

That's basically the problem, pubmanager

With an infinite amount of time or an infinite number of trials, anything with a probability greater than 0 will eventually be true.

It's the "pre-supposing" that's the problem. If you craft X correctly, you can make it look like the infinite time/trials will mean it happens.

But it's pre-supposing that X is possible.

As a Thought Experiment, there is no possible discussion on this. It's not philosophical, it's introduction to probability.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai That's basically the problem, pubmanager With an infinite amount of time or an infinite number of trials, anything with a probability greater than 0 will eventually be true. It's the "pre-supposing" that's the problem. If you craft X correctly, you can make it look like the infinite time/trials will mean it happens. But it's pre-supposing that X is possible. As a Thought Experiment, there is no possible discussion on this. It's not philosophical, it's introduction to probability.

There are two aspects that I believe warrant discussion, just to flesh out the idea and look for further avenues of inquiry.

Do the laws of physics of the outermost reality allow for a god-level being to exist?

When a god-level being comes into existence, do we cease to have independent trials? This could mean a supreme being helping to nurture our growth to godhood, or this could mean a supreme being preventing others from becoming that powerful. Or some other thing.


Also, no matter where exist in the outermost dimension of time, the number of time intervals (trial periods) preceding that moment will be infinite. Thus, if a self-sustaining supreme being did come into existence, the moment of its emergence will always lie in the past. I am not sure if this is the same thing as having always existed, but it is certainly a very similar concept.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: CC Do the laws of physics of the outermost reality allow for a god-level being to exist?

Who knows? It would be purely guess work.

Even in this reality, one culture's technology taken for granted is another culture's godlike powers.

Quote by: CC When a god-level being comes into existence, do we cease to have independent trials? This could mean a supreme being helping to nurture our growth to godhood, or this could mean a supreme being preventing others from becoming that powerful. Or some other thing.

You raise an interesting point... independent trials.

The domino example fails because it does not accurately represent independent trials.

Also, consider that when a god intends to create a universe, regardless of how many steps it takes to do so, it is no longer "independent".

Quote by: CC Thus, if a self-sustaining supreme being did come into existence, the moment of its emergence will always lie in the past. I am not sure if this is the same thing as having always existed, but it is certainly a very similar concept.

As far as pure infinity is concerned, yes.

If you want to talk about subsets of infinity, then no.

In addition, consider that as soon as you get to the point where a preceding cause would be nonsensical, you deem a Cause #1. No matter how many things are in between that Cause #1, when you get to the end effect you were looking for, it is still finite.

---

Also, I suggest we hurry this discussion and get as much as possible in before 2pm EST

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: fonce If you want to talk about subsets of infinity, then no.

I assume that the outermost dimension of time regresses infinitely.


How could a preceding cause be nonsensical?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Fonceai Now now, shunyadragon... If you can't accept the validity of the premises in the opening post you shouldn't be posting here. I agree with your assessments. And I can already see that Kame repeated what he said in the post before yours in the post immediately after yours.

Then maybe it would have done him well to read what I said in the post before his :confused:

You're not posing arguments, because your arguments have failed to prove relevant. I'm still in the process of explaining it to you, apparently.

I've explained how his arguments are invalid using existing points, and I don't need your commentary.

[Fonceai]

Nonsensical in preceding the intent to cause an effect desired.

If I intend to build a nuclear bomb, you can't blame the college the educated me in nuclear physics. You can't blame the manufacturers of the tools I used. You can't blame the Earth for containing radioactive material.

The same applies to a being intending to create a universe. It's nonsense to talk about infinite regression. If it turns out the being that creates the universe had parents, then would it make sense to cite the parents of the being as a cause of the creation of a universe?

[Fonceai]

@Kame

Your comments make no sense.

Sit still and read the dialog between myself and Captain Chaos. It's functional and respectful, and CC is able to actually ask me to elaborate on the nature of what I believe to be the flaws, and not just tell me I'm wrong.

[Kamehameha34]

Sit still and read the dialog between myself and Captain Chaos. It's functional and respectful

Then be respectful to all members, and don't fall back on condescension - the thing that started this tiff a while ago.

I'm not going to get into another argument about decorum.

...and CC is able to actually ask me to elaborate on the nature of what I believe to be the flaws, and not just tell me I'm wrong.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You said there was a contradiction, and didn't explain how. I clarified the best I could, seeing as you didn't provide anything for me to correct.

I actually pointed out in post #9 that you didn't explain how you thought it was contradictory.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Fonceai Nonsensical in preceding the intent to cause an effect desired. If I intend to build a nuclear bomb, you can't blame the college the educated me in nuclear physics. You can't blame the manufacturers of the tools I used. You can't blame the Earth for containing radioactive material. The same applies to a being intending to create a universe. It's nonsense to talk about infinite regression. If it turns out the being that creates the universe had parents, then would it make sense to cite the parents of the being as a cause of the creation of a universe?

Cause doesn't necessarily incite blame. In the OP, I'm analyzing the cause of our universe's creation. I'm not looking to point a finger and say "it was you!"

Although we can't legally blame an arms manufacturer for a murder they didn't directly commit, we can say that the manufacturing of that firearm was one of the causes for the death of the victim, with said firearm.