QUESTIONABLE SEQUITURS OF PREMISES

+K railroads

....hey bro... nice one. I have seen your polished reply. Seems like I was too hasty to call you out when I hadn't even responded to your polished reply. Ok... lets do this :D

1. Necessary being cannot be eternally material or mechanistic since there is no possibility of an infinity of mechanical operations.

I see you using the argument of the impossibility of an infinite regress. Yes you are right. This is the evidence we see in this world. So if I were to re-implicate that premise it would read as thus:

1. Necessary being CAN be eternally IMMATERIAL...

and I agree.

But i see you equivocating material and mechanism together. This seems to be a questionable dichotomy to me. Please, can you logically warrant why a "materiality" and "mechanistic operations" should be equivocated in this context. For example, the mechanistic operations of the laws of logic are NOT material. You seem to imply that "mechanistic operations" can ONLY be "material". Now I have given you the analogy of the laws of logic; in this rebuttal-light, can you logically warrant why they are "necessarily" mutually inclusive in the context of this premise.

2. We have no reason to suppose material reality exists since all we know is qualia and awareness. Qualia does not tell us that material exists.

My beloved brother, after seeing +Alex Spevak and +z08840 take down themselves in russian language (which was entertaining btw - these guys never fail to make my day hahahaha), I assume that English Language might not be your first language (i don't know, you gotta confirm it to me please); but saying

we have not reason to suppose material reality exists...

you make me wonder. Maybe you are conflicting the dichotomy between "believing / supposing / assuming / trusting / having confidence" with "absolute-knowledge-certainty". If you said:

we have no reason to know-for-certain material reality exists...

But come on... I totally disagree with premise 2. I think there exists good logically warranted reasons to believe / suppose / assume / trust / being confident with the fact that the material world exists.

Qualia may not absolutely/ certainly tell us that the material world exists... but Qualia can make us believe / suppose / assume / trust / being confident with the fact that the material world exists. (Sorry for the Tautology :P :D :) )

3. The simplest theory of the nature of qualia is that it is necessary being's awareness of its own activity, or 'energy level', or variation. To posit other possibilities is less parsimonious since we already have a proven being that can have these qualities (necessary being).

I agree, Hence Qualia must be "The Beginning" lol ie variation rather than special pleading one-ended sticks lol.

4. Necessary being is immaterial (from 1) and can have all necessary qualities to explain reality so it is more parsimonious to suggest that all there is is immaterial 'being' than to propose that unsupported 'material' exists as well as proven necessary being, or to propose that material needs to be created by necessary being.

This premise again creates an accent fallacy that leads to an argument from ignorance. I'll repeat... Just because we cannot absolutely-know-certainly that the material world exists, does not mean that we cannot use the undebunkable evidences/ data we have now of what we can see, hold, touch, feel, perform science on etc ... to "posit, theorize, believe, suppose, assume, trust, be confident" in the fact the material world may actually exists. Saying that "only Qualia exists is certain" and therefore "everything must be qualia" is a Slippery Slope fallacy arising from Rene Descartes fallacious circular reasoning

Cogito ergo sum - meaning "I think therefore I am".

Are you absolutely sure that because your qualia thinks, therefore, that is all that exists? or do you "posit, theorize, believe, suppose, assume, suspect, trust, be confident" that all that exists is qualia. There are many metaphysical assertions that make premise 4 UNNECESSARY:-

- Solipsism

- materialism

- Idealism

- Skepticism

- Dualism

- Externalism

- Internalism etc

So I am not convinced on the explanation of the above logic that it is more parsimonious to suggest that all there is is "immaterial being" because the "material" seems to be supported by belief/ theory/ presupposition/ assumption / trusts / confidences.

Secondly, I do not see why it is more parsimonious to propose that material need not to be created by necessary beings. It sounds like special pleading;

Do you know any other way contingent-materials can arise without a necessary-being?

One answer you could give is that the materials are necessary-entities. But can you show how acausality can occur without it being a conscious being without personality. (this is to distinguish between conscious personal beings and material beings).

- Conscious Personal Beings (material/ immaterial) = Humans, Animals, God (by definition),

- Material Beings =  Everything contingent on the big-bang ie this cosmos that can be seen, felt, sensed with our material senses.

- Immaterial Beings = Laws of Arithmetic/ Logic/ Mathematics/ Nature etc

Can the Laws of Mathematics or Arithmetic acausally create more money in my bank account? no

Can the Laws of nature acausally make me start floating in the air? no

It seems to me that even if the "material" was not created by a necessary being and it self-existed, devoid of a consciousness, it cannot be self aware that it exists. Hence, it cannot imbibe acausality if it were the only thing that existed. For example, the primordial soup that started the big bang, if it was not created by a necessary being and it existed atemporal, how can it just "start" to create seeing that it has no "personality" or "ability to choose" from transitioning mechanisms from a timeless, spaceless realm to this one we have now? It seems to me that only conscious beings with freewill can choose to oppose the determinism of eternal atemporality acausally.

5. Mechanism is therefore supported as an inherent aspect of the nature of immaterial being even though it could not be an eternal aspect.

I do not agree. I believe that Mechanism CAN be an eternal aspect and it is supported as an inherent aspect of the nature of immaterial beings. Let me explain my opinion: Firstly, I think you're categorizing / equivocating "infinite regress/ progress" with "eternal". You assume that mechanisms CANNOT be eternal because they only exist operationally regressing or progressing IN TIME. However, a necessary being existing eternally is not subject to "progress" or "regress" - such a necessary being is unchanging. This means that it is possible for a necessary being to be undergoing the mechanisms of speaking, breathing, seeing, sitting, being, existing, thinking, smiling, crying etc through all eternity but may freely choose to manifest them using HIS personality at various different moments/ times. This is only applicable on a philosophical A-Theory of time.

However, if you advocate for a B-Theory of time, then you're right - mechanisms cannot ultimately exists - this means that all mechanisms are ultimately illusions - everything is determined - even God. But this is not the Christian God. The Christian God is free by virtue of HIM being transcendental and infinitely great.

6. Mechanism began to exist (from 1 and 5).

I agree lol. but not in this context - not ALL mechanisms began to exist. by "began" you need to do what Dr Richard Dawkins did in his book "The God Delusion" and ask who created God? lol. In this context, you need to talk about the mechanism that made the mechanism that made the mechanism that made the mechanism ... which is an infinite regress... which is impossible. You have to be like Thomas Aquinas and posit the impossibility and reductio ad absurdum of this bad boy as you smack it on its bottom lol

Notice Thomas Aquinas First Cause Argument:

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1.) There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.

2.) It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.

3.) To take away the cause is to take away the effect.

4.) If there be no first cause then there will be no others.

5.) Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

To which I would say, as per this context, by equating "mechanism = cause" - because there is not mutual exclusivity or logical contradiction in that notion (ie mechanism can cause effects too) "Therefore a First Mechanism exists (and this is God). This still proves my point that a mechanism can exist eternally without going through an infinite regress/ progress - God is constant and Unchanging and in no need of regress/ progress. If you want to stand on this premise, you must prove, in light of my counter-arguments presented, that ALL MECHANISMS must necessary "begin" to exist.

7. In order to explain causality we need variation. Since there is only necessary being supported (from 2 and 4) this variation is supported as being of necessary being.

God is variation - I agree according to the philosophical bootstrap objection of christian theology (BOCT). This is why we believe in God's variation in the trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

8. Therefore since it is supported that causality is entailed by variation , variation began, and therefore the beginning is supported to be a simple awareness with a single qualia type. Any variation would mean causality since there is no other explanation for causality that is supported other than variation in necessary being since necessary being is supported as all there is.

Notice you said "necessary being is all there is"? So, if this necessary simple qualia with no variation is all there is ... where did variation come from?

I think that it is a category mistake to say that since necessary being is what existed in the beginning, therefore contingent beings dont exist UNLESS you are talking to THE BEGINNING in this context, then i apologise :). Secondly, you get the fact that "variation is a necessary being" but you say it "began" to exist. I do not believe that it "began" to exist because you would imply that variation began to exist from another variation which is an impossible infinite regress. Variation has to exist eternally for your premises to be logically coherent. Thirdly, this single qualia type without variation sound like a one-ended stick which is a logical contradiction ... please, i cannot conceive of this, can you explain to me how anything can exist in its simplest form with out any single iota of variation?

9. Since there is only necessary being supported and causality began, it must have begun a-causally since necessary being would have no variation until the advent of causality, and so necessary being would therefore be very simple until the advent of causality (from 8).

I do not see the logical connection between7, 8 and 9. You just said that necessary being supports variation without the necessary being being variation. This is begs the question "where did that necessary being find the variation to vary the first acausal variation?" ... either way, that cannot be the first variation. It would mean that the necessary being is variation and hence, it can create variation itself. Where God the Father/ Agency varies from God the Son/ Variation and from God the Holy Spirit/ Mechanism. It seems to me that variation must not "begin" to exist but must exist eternally as the first and beginning.

As I said earlier, this is also a special pleading simple-to-complex argument. Why must everything move from simple-to-complex necessarily without appealing to the consequence that the explanation of the complex being is gonna be more complex and hence inexplicable? - because that's the point, God is complex and inexplicable. However, do not equivocate the fact that just because God cannot be comprehended, then HE cannot be apprehended.... because HE CAN be apprehended. In layman's terminologies, just because you cannot get the infinity into your head, does not mean that you cannot get your head into infinity.

10. Therefore it is not supported for the beginning to be the Christian God.

I'm sorry bro ... not my God hahahahaha ...My God is the beginning and HE is the Christian God. By your fallacious premises, you're right lol. You seem to be arguing for a Monadic Concept of God like the Islamic God "Allah". Well done, you have debunked Allah but not the Trinity Cocept of God. Your premises are contextually disjointed and logically unwarranted. You have failed to tackle the Philosophical Bootstrap Objection of Christian Theology (BOCT) (1). This BOCT says that whatever created the beginning is more of a beginning than the created beginning - therefore, the creator/ cause is THE BEGINNING.

and the corresponding proof in the bible bible

John 1:1-5 ... 1In the beginning was the Word (simple qualia), and the Word was with God*(Cause), and the Word was God *(both simple qualia with variation + cause = God is variation + conscious). 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him (mechanism) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life (raw materials - the essence), and that life was the light (effect) of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

SUMMARY OF MY CRITICISM OF YOUR LOGICAL SYLLOGISM

So far you are question begging and special pleading about the christian God.

(1) Equivocation fallacy between "suppose" and "absolute certainty"

(2) Special Pleading for "unsupported material" = variation in the context of no-variation in the simple beginning.

(3) Special Pleading for mechanisms inability to be eternal as a result of (1) above.

(4) Accent fallacy of the word "began" without indicating how it "began" - from where? how? when? (all special pleading and blanket assertions).

You can propose other possibilities that there may be another property of necessary being apart from the variations that are related to causality, but that makes things more complicated and this added complication is not called for since a-causal advent of variation is a logical and simple proposition.

Well... this is an appeal to complex consequences which is not a valid justification of why other possibilities cannot be posited. Hence, I still believe I remain logically coherent to ignore you and posit other possibilities. One of the inherent properties of entities that begin to exist is that they were efficiently caused by something outside their exists according to Thomas Aquinas First Cause Argument. If you are arguing for ADVENT of mechanisms and variations and acausality you must answer the questions especially number 1:

(1) Where did acausality come from when there was no acausality?

(2) Where did mechanism come from when there was no mechanism?

(3) Where did variation come from when there was no variation?

You can talk of the possibility of brute fact intelligent will but that wouldn't entail capacity to do the logically impossible (ie violate the law of identity). The creation of mechanism is not possible for God as defined ( in the beginning there was only God) because God does not have anything about his nature that could be used to create mechanism. He therefore lacks explanatory power.

I don't wanna repeat myself too much. I answered you before in (2). And this is where I gave you the Philosophy of Infinity to show you about the Eternal NATURE of God for HIM to conserve HIS identity.

1 + infinity = infinity

1 - infinity = infinity

and then I said But, to say, if mathematics behaves MOSTLY like this, then why is it impossible for God to ADD or SUBTRACT from HIS identity and HE still remains HIS very same identity? ... Hence, the Christian God has the nature to create smaller mechanisms because HE is Mechanisms HIMSELF and YET... HIS identity is conserved due to HIS infinite greatness. The only thing HE cannot do is create another infinite greatness greater than HIMSELF because that would be a logical contradiction. You are defining God on your own terms in logically wanting manners and appealing to consequences for special pleadings. Please, read my first reply (2) especially the "This is where I educate you on Christian Theology" section before I tackled your former premise 7 :)

So God theory is not only uncalled for and elaborate, it is contradictory because omnipotence doesn't entail capacity to do the logically impossible. So rather than bringing all this elaborate contradictory theory, I suggest we stick with the simple non contradictory suggestion that the beginning of causality was an aspect of the a-causal advent of variation in the immaterial conscious being.

I'm glad you understand the definition of Omnipotence that God cannot create one ended sticks ie do the logically contradictory. You seem to have studied a very huge amount of Christian Arguments. Well done :) - you have my respect :D Although, Study more Christian Theology and Doctrine. God Theory is not contradictory. The "simple qualia" with no variation sounds like a one ended stick and you fail on BOCT. I like your suggestion lol - it sure would make it very very very easy to understand God lol. But it seems like your one-sided stick that lacks variation is even a bigger contradiction than the contradiction you're trying to prove by disregarding the complexity and infinitude of my God, the Christian God. According to BOCT the "a-causal" advent of variable, is more of a variation than the created variation which makes A-causal Advent of Variation = Variation which is circular reasoning of saying variation existed before variation. You would save yourself a lot of brian space if you just admitted like Thomas Aquinas that "Variation (God the Son), Mechanism (God the Holy Spirit) and Agency (God the Father) has always existed eternally and never "began" or "advent" to exist at some finite point in time.

God bless you :)

PS: There is no NECESSARY law that states that EVERYTHING must always move from simple-to-complex.

REFERENCES

(1) http://sh.st/vC7x5

(2) http://sh.st/vVqLC