Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:14 pm
No, it's what it means

analytically -- that is, it's what it means to anybody who understands the two-word phrase.

You are welcome to underline it as much as you want but it doesn't make your error in reasoning go away.

You are assuming that the Universe is the immediate consequence of the First Cause where it could be the 100th.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:14 pm
All contingent beings and entities. It does not include necessary beings and entities, because being necessary, they would be "uncaused." So, for example, it does not need to include mathematical entities...they might exist

*necessarily.* But it would include every empirically-available entity, because they're all

*contingent*.

OK.But I am telling you THAT it includes them. ALL means ALL.

When you qualify a set you are necessarily talking about a sub-set of its members.

You seem to have some deep misunderstanding of probability theory.

Given the set of ALL red things:

The probability that the next thing you observe being a red is P(red) = 1.

The probability that the next thing you observe being a red rose is P(red, rose).

P(red) > P(red,rose)

And so the probability of a Universe = P(U) = 1

The probability of a caused universe = P(C,U)

The probability of an uncaused universe = P(~C, U)

P(U) > P(C,U)

P(U) > P(~C, U)

Does this make sense to you? If not - why not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:14 pm
Well, we

know that there has to have been a First Cause, because we can observe causal chains. Logically, a causal chain has to have a start, and it cannot be infinitely regressive. QED

Logically, how did you determine that the "First Cause" immediately precedes the universe?

Let the universe exist at C(N), then the universe's cause is at C(N-1).

How did you determine that C(N-1) is the "first cause". Maybe the "first cause" is C(N-75)?

It's not infinite regress, but it's not regress-of-1 either.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:14 pm
That would fail to realize any different between the terms "necessary" and "contingent" beings.

I am not at all failing to realize that.

The set of

**ALL being** contains both contingent and necessary being.

Do I really have to draw you venn diagrams for these things?