..and again, you are leaving out points that i have made that are pertinent to the argument. If you want to argue opposed to only snippets of my comments, then i'm sure i can find a monkey that suits.Immanuel Can wrote:Atto:
I did reply to this message of yours. But perhaps quoting that response here would be helpful.
Immanuel Can wrote:No problem.attofishpi wrote:Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.
But now you're saying you think there IS such a thing as an infinite causal regress? That's odd, because you had seemed alright with stage 1 before...
Well, could you explain how an infinite causal regress is possible, then?
You wrote:But now you write:attofishpi wrote:Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.So...in your view, the universe is not coextensive with "the real," but "the real" is that which "exists within the confines of a universe"? You're going to have to clear that up for me.attofishpi wrote:No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe.
It looks very much like a self-contradiction.
Not at all. I have never referred to my experience in this argument so far. I premise nothing on it...not stage 1, nor stage 2, nor stage 3.All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...
At stage 3, all I asked is what you thought was the most plausible explanation. I was waiting for your answer, not advancing a statement about my own experience. I didn't even tell you what I wanted you to conclude, and I definitely did not refer you to "my experience" in order to do so.
So I'm a bit surprised by your claim there. It's manifestly untrue. If I can read you charitably, it seems that you are (wrongly) anticipating what you expect my argument to be. Perhaps a little patience...?
HERE IS MY POST - ADDRESS IT ACCORDINGLY:-
Sorry for the ambiguity, yes i see no reasoning to suggest God\'God' exists at stage 1 of your argument.Immanuel Can wrote:Do you mean, by that phrase, "I don't know what the actual probability is," or "I don't believe there's a probability at all"? Your wording reads either way there, so you'll have to clear it up for me.attofishpi wrote:No. I don't have any probability in your stage 1 argument toward there being a 'God'.
No. Reality exists within the confines of a universe. All you are stating is based on your explanation of experience...(see your stage 3) and ultimately if you are only relying on experience - experience is a result of the reality whether provided by a 'God' or not. It does not necessarily pertain to an entity that created our universe.Immanuel Can wrote:How so? Because there are things "outside the universe" that are still "real"?attofishpi wrote:Ultimately you are questioning what makes REALITY which is different from questioning what makes a UNIVERSE.
Plausible; but what makes you think so?
You state:-Stage 3 asks, given what we observe in the cosmos and the world around us, what is the most probable explanation for the existence of what we see? Does chance + time look like the most probable explanation, or does power + design look like the better explanation?
How can i see it other_wise? REAL_IT_Y can be provided by an A.I. that we have evolved within - or a reality with no intelligent backing as atheists see it. Take your pick.