-
Article on a 'new' argument for god. Despite what it says in the article, I think it's just a reframing of the fine tuning argument from a less specific perspective. As with so many arguments like it, the obvious failing is that of special pleading, in that it creates an infinite regress unless one arbitrarily says the argument does not apply to something.
https://buff.ly/3xIaQzK
-
I would describe it as a rehashing of the teleological argument. TBH as soon as it started talking about regularities, I lost interest.
-
Article on a 'new' argument for god. Despite what it says in the article, I think it's just a reframing of the fine tuning argument from a less specific perspective. As with so many arguments like it, the obvious failing is that of special pleading, in that it creates an infinite regress unless one arbitrarily says the argument does not apply to something.
https://buff.ly/3xIaQzK
It is, in my opinion, a very poorly thought through argument that clearly starts from a biased position. So virtually his opening statement is:
Suppose that you receive five consecutive royal flushes in a game of poker. What explains this? You could have received them by chance, but that seems unlikely. A better explanation is that someone has arranged the decks in your favor.
This is terribly flawed if then compared to the possibility of life in the universe for the following reasons:
1. There is no evidence for the equivalence of five consecutive royal flushes which would be life developing multiple and consecutive times on the same planet. Indeed we have no evidence that life has developed anywhere else, but on our planet it would appears that it arose once and developed from there. So the equivalence would be one royal flush which hardly seems unlikely. And of course you haver to factor in all the other players, and times when a royal flush was not received, recognising that a royal flush is no more, nor less likely than any other specific set of cards - it just seems significance due to our propensity to see patterns, and in that case of cards that this combination is advantageous in the rules.
2. In cards we know there is a dealer, who may be fairhanded or could arrange the deck. So the starting point for this argument is an assumption of a powerful and knowing guiding hand. That assumption cannot be made for the universe and to do so, and then use that starting point to argue for god is classic circular argument - to use your conclusion as a framework for the starting point of your argument.
3. It fundamentally misunderstands the notion of statistical probability and chance. As pointed out earlier the only reason why a flush is deemed significant over any other combination of cards is that it carries an advantage under the rules of the game. There is nothing statistically unusual about a flush over any other combination of cards.
-
It is, in my opinion, a very poorly thought through argument that clearly starts from a biased position. So virtually his opening statement is:
Suppose that you receive five consecutive royal flushes in a game of poker. What explains this? You could have received them by chance, but that seems unlikely. A better explanation is that someone has arranged the decks in your favor.
This is terribly flawed if then compared to the possibility of life in the universe for the following reasons:
1. There is no evidence for the equivalence of five consecutive royal flushes which would be life developing multiple and consecutive times on the same planet. Indeed we have no evidence that life has developed anywhere else, but on our planet it would appears that it arose once and developed from there. So the equivalence would be one royal flush which hardly seems unlikely. And of course you haver to factor in all the other players, and times when a royal flush was not received, recognising that a royal flush is no more, nor less likely than any other specific set of cards - it just seems significance due to our propensity to see patterns, and in that case of cards that this combination is advantageous in the rules.
2. In cards we know there is a dealer, who may be fairhanded or could arrange the deck. So the starting point for this argument is an assumption of a powerful and knowing guiding hand. That assumption cannot be made for the universe and to do so, and then use that starting point to argue for god is classic circular argument - to use your conclusion as a framework for the starting point of your argument.
3. It fundamentally misunderstands the notion of statistical probability and chance. As pointed out earlier the only reason why a flush is deemed significant over any other combination of cards is that it carries an advantage under the rules of the game. There is nothing statistically unusual about a flush over any other combination of cards.
The authors seem to have closed down recourse to oppose by appealing to Ockhams razor.
What is/are the argument/s for regularities arising impersonally?
-
What is/are the argument/s for regularities arising impersonally?
A god, or any other mind, consists of regularities, not to mention requiring time (or something like it) in which to think. That's why it's just an infinite regress with special pleading, as NS said in the OP.
-
The authors seem to have closed down recourse to oppose by appealing to Ockhams razor.
What is/are the argument/s for regularities arising impersonally?
Regularities are merely in the eye of the beholder. As I've pointed out the authors see a flush as a regularity, yet a flush is no more or less likely than any other combination of cards. So five flushes in a row is no more likely that any other five combinations of cards. The only reason we see this as remarkable is because we perceive it as significant and/or a pattern. But that is merely subjective - there is nothing remarkable about five flushes in a row, any more than any other combination of hands - each are statistically equally likely or equally unlikely.
So their appeal to Occam's razor is totally ill founded - the most simply explanation (and therefore most plausible) is that this combination or cards (which is statistically no more or less probably than any other combination of cards) is simply a chance occurrence - we wouldn't comment on any other combination of hands, so why comment on this.
The only reason why we might appeal to a biased dealer is because we know there is a dealer of the cards. In the case of the universe there is no reason to suspect, nor any evidence for, the equivalent of the dealer of the cards so Occam lends us to a conclusion that this is merely a chance occurrence not a biased dealer of cards. The latter falls foul of Occam as it requires an additional, complicating scenarios - that there is the equivalent of a dealer of the cards.
-
"Suppose that you receive five consecutive royal flushes in a game of poker. What explains this? You could have received them by chance, but that seems unlikely. A better explanation is that someone has arranged the decks in your favor."
Oh dear.
Any randomly dealt deck of cards will produce a sequence whose odds against are 52 factorial (52!). 52! written in full is: 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000.
Amazing right? Why then doesn't the author claim divine intervention for any randomly dealt pack of cards given the extraordinary odds against that particular sequence appearing? Oh yeah, that's right – it's because he's committing a basic error in reasoning called the reference point fallacy. Just because a sequence of numbers might look significant to him does not mean that it actually is significant.
0/10. See me.
-
"Suppose that you receive five consecutive royal flushes in a game of poker. What explains this? You could have received them by chance, but that seems unlikely. A better explanation is that someone has arranged the decks in your favor."
Oh dear.
Any randomly dealt deck of cards will produce a sequence whose odds against are 52 factorial (52!). 52! written in full is: 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000.
Amazing right? Why then doesn't the author claim divine intervention for any randomly dealt pack of cards given the extraordinary odds against that particular sequence appearing? Oh yeah, that's right – it's because he's committing a basic error in reasoning called the reference point fallacy. Just because a sequence of numbers might look significant to him does not mean that it actually is significant.
0/10. See me.
Indeed.
To think otherwise indicates a profound lack of perspective and an inability to see beyond the narrowness of human perspective and experience.
To think that a flush (or even five flushes in a row) is somehow more remarkable than any other combination of hands (except due to a perceived importance of a human defined pattern) is naive nonsense.
-
TBH I think that it's not only a bad argument, it's poorly explained. The analogy of consecutive royal flushes doesn't really fit with what the actual argument (such as it is) is about.
It's not about why the universe or its laws seem to be special or improbable in some way (fine tuning argument) but why there are laws at all. So I guess what they're trying to do is compare the fact that (for example) every time we do the same experiment in science, we get the same result (regularity) to consecutive royal flushes, so any combination of cards would have done as well (just as long as it was the same every time). The royal flush just invites misunderstanding.
Of course, it's still just an infinite regress with special pleading because we can just ask the same question about any god as we did about the fact that there are physical laws (regularities). It's also circular in the sense that they describe god as a person and ascribe things like aesthetics, pragmatism, morality (and implicitly rationality, thought, and the ability to choose) to it and then use creating the conditions for those things as reasons why god might do so!
"Similarly, we can think of pragmatic, aesthetic, and even moral reasons why God might want to impose regularities on nature: notably, most of the valuable things we know of (such as happiness, love, rationality, knowledge, or meaningfully free choices) cannot be realized in worlds without regularities. And since God is a person, we have reason to think that God might have moral and aesthetic preferences."
-
"Suppose that you receive five consecutive royal flushes in a game of poker. What explains this? You could have received them by chance, but that seems unlikely. A better explanation is that someone has arranged the decks in your favor."
Oh dear.
Any randomly dealt deck of cards will produce a sequence whose odds against are 52 factorial (52!). 52! written in full is: 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000.
Amazing right? Why then doesn't the author claim divine intervention for any randomly dealt pack of cards given the extraordinary odds against that particular sequence appearing? Oh yeah, that's right – it's because he's committing a basic error in reasoning called the reference point fallacy. Just because a sequence of numbers might look significant to him does not mean that it actually is significant.
0/10. See me.
A royal flush is significant under the rules of the game of poker and even if it wasn't, his argument was that it is incredibly unlikely that you would get a royal flush five times in a row. Getting a royal flush once is nothing special (except under the rules of poker), in fact you're four times more likely to get a royal flush than a hand consisting of the two and five of hearts, seven of spades, king of diamonds and jack of clubs. But, if you have been dealt that nothing special hand once, and then you are dealt it again, you'd suspect skulduggery. If you are then dealt it three more times, you'd be certain that the dealer is doing it deliberately.
There are several problems with the argument that I can see. Firstly, it is an argument by analogy. It is thus, fallacious. If I get dealt five royal flushes in a row, I would assume that the dealer had something to do with it. By analogy, I apparently must assume the creator of the Universe is like a poker dealer i.e. an intelligent being. But poker dealers are humans. This argument by analogy therefore leads me to assume that God is a human.
Another problem is that we only know one Universe. If the analogy is correct, we are still on the first deal. Not only that, but we've looked at the cards we were dealt and have made up a game (or assumed a game) in which the winning hand consists of those cards.
As an addendum, your number of the possible ways of shuffling a deck of cards massively overestimates the number of different poker hands. There are, in fact, only (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48) / 5! different poker hands because you are only dealt five cards and it doesn't matter which order you get them in. There are 2,598,960 poker hands, of which four are royal flushes.
-
TBH I think that it's not only a bad argument, it's poorly explained. The analogy of consecutive royal flushes doesn't really fit with what the actual argument (such as it is) is about.
It's not about why the universe or its laws seem to be special or improbable in some way (fine tuning argument) but why there are laws at all. So I guess what they're trying to do is compare the fact that (for example) every time we do the same experiment in science, we get the same result (regularity) to consecutive royal flushes, so any combination of cards would have done as well (just as long as it was the same every time).
But it isn't just consecutive hands that count here. Any specific combination of hands in cards has the same probability as any other, even though most wont be noted as having a pattern, or a 'regularity'.
Perhaps easier to explain with rolling a dice. So applying this example to the authors arguments, they'd imply something remarkable about throwing a dice 10 times and it coming up with a 6 every time. But that is no more or less likely than any other combination. So
6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6
has exactly the same probability as:
6, 6, 3, 1, 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 3
The only reason why someone might consider the former to be remarkable and not notice that the latter is every bit as remarkable is a naive human centric focus on 'pattern' or 'regularity' rather than any fundamental understanding of probability.
-
A royal flush is significant under the rules of the game of poker and even if it wasn't, his argument was that it is incredibly unlikely that you would get a royal flush five times in a row. Getting a royal flush once is nothing special (except under the rules of poker), in fact you're four times more likely to get a royal flush than a hand consisting of the two and five of hearts, seven of spades, king of diamonds and jack of clubs. But, if you have been dealt that nothing special hand once, and then you are dealt it again, you'd suspect skulduggery. If you are then dealt it three more times, you'd be certain that the dealer is doing it deliberately.
There are several problems with the argument that I can see. Firstly, it is an argument by analogy. It is thus, fallacious. If I get dealt five royal flushes in a row, I would assume that the dealer had something to do with it. By analogy, I apparently must assume the creator of the Universe is like a poker dealer i.e. an intelligent being. But poker dealers are humans. This argument by analogy therefore leads me to assume that God is a human.
Another problem is that we only know one Universe. If the analogy is correct, we are still on the first deal. Not only that, but we've looked at the cards we were dealt and have made up a game (or assumed a game) in which the winning hand consists of those cards.
As an addendum, your number of the possible ways of shuffling a deck of cards massively overestimates the number of different poker hands. There are, in fact, only (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48) / 5! different poker hands because you are only dealt five cards and it doesn't matter which order you get them in. There are 2,598,960 poker hands, of which four are royal flushes.
Not sure that poker dealers are necessarily Human or that the universe is a dealt hand of poker.
-
Not sure that poker dealers are necessarily Human or that the universe is a dealt hand of poker.
Glad you agree with me on the second point, at least.
I suppose a poker dealer need not be a human, it could be a computer, but computers and their programs are made by humans. If I was dealt five royal flushes in row in a computer game of poker, I'd still suspect skulduggery on the part of the programmer.
-
Jeremy,
A royal flush is significant under the rules of the game of poker and even if it wasn't, his argument was that it is incredibly unlikely that you would get a royal flush five times in a row. Getting a royal flush once is nothing special (except under the rules of poker), in fact you're four times more likely to get a royal flush than a hand consisting of the two and five of hearts, seven of spades, king of diamonds and jack of clubs. But, if you have been dealt that nothing special hand once, and then you are dealt it again, you'd suspect skulduggery. If you are then dealt it three more times, you'd be certain that the dealer is doing it deliberately.
Except that misses the point still. The “unlikeliness” of an event is defined by reference to the number of opportunities there are for it to happen. Thus if, say, the cards were dealt only five times and five royal flushes appeared that would indeed be extremely unlikely. Given a vastly greater number of hands being dealt though, the chances of the same five cards being dealt five times consecutively (regardless of what those five cards happen to be) increases in line with he greater number of same event opportunities. It's the same phenomenon of longer and longer sequences of consecutive heads or tails appearing the more often the coin is tossed.
That’s the mistake creationists make by the way (ok, one of many). Not only do they wonder at the unlikelihood of them specifically appearing (the royal flush error), they also fail to factor in the countless bajillions of opportunities there were for evolution itself to start.
There are several problems with the argument that I can see. Firstly, it is an argument by analogy. It is thus, fallacious. If I get dealt five royal flushes in a row, I would assume that the dealer had something to do with it. By analogy, I apparently must assume the creator of the Universe is like a poker dealer i.e. an intelligent being. But poker dealers are humans. This argument by analogy therefore leads me to assume that God is a human.
Another problem is that we only know one Universe. If the analogy is correct, we are still on the first deal. Not only that, but we've looked at the cards we were dealt and have made up a game (or assumed a game) in which the winning hand consists of those cards.
Yep.
As an addendum, your number of the possible ways of shuffling a deck of cards massively overestimates the number of different poker hands. There are, in fact, only (52 x 51 x 50 x 49 x 48) / 5! different poker hands because you are only dealt five cards and it doesn't matter which order you get them in. There are 2,598,960 poker hands, of which four are royal flushes.
Yes I know – that’s why I referred specifically to randomly shuffled deck of cards. The point wasn’t the size of the odds against a specific event, rather it was to illustrate the reference point error. When we bring our own narrative to an event such that it seems significant because of that narrative – the rules of poker, a car mileometer ticking over to 100,000 miles, our being born at all etc – we’ll often attach some special meaning to that event because of the narrative we bring even though there’s none at all. It’s known as the reference point error.
-
But it isn't just consecutive hands that count here. Any specific combination of hands in cards has the same probability as any other, even though most wont be noted as having a pattern, or a 'regularity'.
Perhaps easier to explain with rolling a dice. So applying this example to the authors arguments, they'd imply something remarkable about throwing a dice 10 times and it coming up with a 6 every time. But that is no more or less likely than any other combination. So
6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6
has exactly the same probability as:
6, 6, 3, 1, 5, 4, 1, 2, 6, 3
The only reason why someone might consider the former to be remarkable and not notice that the latter is every bit as remarkable is a naive human centric focus on 'pattern' or 'regularity' rather than any fundamental understanding of probability.
I understand all that - but I don't think that's the point of the argument (which is why I said it was poorly explained). If every time you flipped a coin ten times you got (say): HHTHTTHTTH (or any other pattern you choose). Now compare to every time we measure (say) the gravitational constant we get the same value, or even every time we observe that gravity always attracts any mass to any other. What I took to be the point is that there is no more reason to expect consistent physical laws as there to expect consistent results from flipping a coin or dealing cards - which is still a bad argument but for different reasons.
-
It is, in my opinion, a very poorly thought through argument that clearly starts from a biased position. So virtually his opening statement is:
Suppose that you receive five consecutive royal flushes in a game of poker. What explains this? You could have received them by chance, but that seems unlikely. A better explanation is that someone has arranged the decks in your favor.
This is terribly flawed if then compared to the possibility of life in the universe for the following reasons:
1. There is no evidence for the equivalence of five consecutive royal flushes which would be life developing multiple and consecutive times on the same planet. Indeed we have no evidence that life has developed anywhere else, but on our planet it would appears that it arose once and developed from there. So the equivalence would be one royal flush which hardly seems unlikely. And of course you haver to factor in all the other players, and times when a royal flush was not received, recognising that a royal flush is no more, nor less likely than any other specific set of cards - it just seems significance due to our propensity to see patterns, and in that case of cards that this combination is advantageous in the rules.
2. In cards we know there is a dealer, who may be fairhanded or could arrange the deck. So the starting point for this argument is an assumption of a powerful and knowing guiding hand. That assumption cannot be made for the universe and to do so, and then use that starting point to argue for god is classic circular argument - to use your conclusion as a framework for the starting point of your argument.
3. It fundamentally misunderstands the notion of statistical probability and chance. As pointed out earlier the only reason why a flush is deemed significant over any other combination of cards is that it carries an advantage under the rules of the game. There is nothing statistically unusual about a flush over any other combination of cards.
I get that a royal flush is as likely as any other designated hand of cards.
What attracts me to aspects of what they say about Ockhams razor. For example an external explanation for the universe is rejected for being an extra entity or step. Occam's razor though rejects having unnecessary entities or steps. However the universe is full of contingency so there must be something about it that makes it necessary and the final step. a ''something'' constitutes an extra entity or step.
-
Not sure that poker dealers are necessarily Human or that the universe is a dealt hand of poker.
The point about the universe not being a dealt hand of poker is that there needs to be a dealer in poker (whether human or not) while there is no requirement for there to be the equivalent of a dealer for the universe and no evidence that one exists. Therefore under Occam the authors argument fails as it adds an unnecessary complexity and additional step that need not be required.
-
Jeremy,
Except that misses the point still.
No it doesn't. I'm explaining his argument which everybody else seems to be misunderstanding.
-
There is no requirement for there to be the equivalent of a dealer for the universe.
That's a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
I hope you're not thinking that occam's razor favours the explanation with the least steps. Rather than favouring the one which has no unnecessary steps.
-
What attracts me to aspects of what they say about Ockhams razor. For example an external explanation for the universe is rejected for being an extra entity. Occam's razor though rejects having unnecessary entities. However the universe is full of contingency so there must be something about it that makes it necessary and final a something is an extra entity.
The argument in the article fails under Occam as it adds an additional complexity and entities that have not been demonstrated to be necessary. Hence it moves beyond the simplest explanation.
The analogy with poker is poor because the dealer (whether human or not) is a necessary entity, hence it isn't being added and an explanation for a surprising set of hands may involve a biased dealer under Occam as the dealer is already necessary.
The analogy is not comparably to the universe where an entity that is the equivalent of the dealer is not necessary and therefore suggesting there is one is adding an unnecessary additional entity.
-
That's a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
I hope you're not thinking that occam's razor favours the explanation with the least steps. Rather than favouring the one which has no unnecessary steps.
Indeed and there are explanations for the universe that do not require the equivalent of a poker dealer and therefore to include one adds an unnecessary step and fails under Occam.
-
Vlad,
I get that a royal flush is as likely as any other designated hand of cards.
Good.
What attracts me to aspects of what they say about Ockhams razor. For example an external explanation for the universe is rejected for being an extra entity. Occam's razor though rejects having unnecessary entities. However the universe is full of contingency so there must be something about it that makes it necessary and final a something is an extra entity.
Still you misunderstand Occam’s razor. Put simply, it’s that the conclusion requiring the fewer number of assumptions is to be preferred to the conclusion requiring the greater number of assumptions.
The number of assumptions for five of the same cards to be dealt five times in a row though is a function of the number of times the trial is run. Given enough opportunities, five of the same cards dealt five times consecutively is just what you’d expect to see with no appeal to purpose (eg, divine intervention) necessary for that at all. The fact that someone might happen to be there to witness it (and then to make the reference point error in response) is irrelevant.
-
The argument in the article fails under Occam as it adds an additional complexity and entities that have not been demonstrated to be necessary. Hence it moves beyond the simplest explanation.
Firstly you have made a positive assertion effectively that the universe just is and needs no explanation.
That's wrong...... it needs an explanation. In other words what is it about the universe that makes it necessary rather than contingent? The puzzle that this raises is then what are atheists doing arguing against necessary entities in the necessity/contingent sense while supporting the idea when it comes to explaining the universe?
Wow....two birds ,one stone.
-
Vlad,
Good.
Still you misunderstand Occam’s razor. Put simply, it’s that the conclusion requiring the fewer number of assumptions is to be preferred to the conclusion requiring the greater number of assumptions.
Not sure that isn't just another ''fewer steps the better'' argument rather than ''not multiplying entities beyond necessity''.
-
Vlad,
Not sure that isn't just another ''fewer steps the better'' argument rather than ''not multiplying entities beyond necessity''.
What are you trying to say here?
-
Vlad,
Firstly you have made a positive assertion effectively that the universe just is and needs no explanation.
How on earth did you derive that straw men version from what he actually said ("The argument in the article fails under Occam as it adds an additional complexity and entities that have not been demonstrated to be necessary. Hence it moves beyond the simplest explanation")?
That's wrong......
You’re telling me. He said no such thing.
…it needs an explanation. In other words what is it about the universe that makes it necessary rather than contingent? The puzzle that this raises is then what are atheists doing arguing against necessary entities in the necessity/contingent sense while supporting the idea when it comes to explaining the universe?
Not even close. “Atheists” merely explain to you why the cosmological argument fails. No more, no less.
Wow....two birds ,one stone.
Wow – one stone, two misses.
-
Vlad,
What are you trying to say here?
You've fucked up again.
-
Firstly you have made a positive assertion effectively that the universe just is and needs no explanation.
No I'm not - I am saying that the equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe. That isn't close to suggesting that the universe just is and needs no explanation, merely indicating that the explanation doesn't necessarily require the equivalent of a card dealer.
-
Vlad,
You've fucked up again.
Neither lie helps you.
-
No I'm not - I am saying that the equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe. That isn't close to suggesting that the universe just is and needs no explanation, merely indicating that the explanation doesn't necessarily require the equivalent of a card dealer.
And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
-
Vlad,
And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
A necessary creator is your claim. You know what you have to do.
-
And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
::) The existence of many other hypotheses (with far better reasoning, as it happens) are evidence that the statement is correct.
-
And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.
Oh dear Vlad, you really don't get it do you.
Eric Clapton is necessarily the best guitarist in the world - positive claim
Eric Clapton is not necessarily the best guitarist in the world - not a positive claim
Messi is necessarily the best footballer in the world - positive claim
Messi is not necessarily the best footballer in the world - not a positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is necessarily required to explain the universe - positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe - not a positive claim
The reason being that the former posits a specific claim and discounts all the others. The latter does not posit a single claim and does not actually rule out the specific claim posited by the former wording.
Onus is on you chum.
-
Oh dear Vlad, you really don't get it do you.
Eric Clapton is necessarily the best guitarist in the world - positive claim
Eric Clapton is not necessarily the best guitarist in the world - not a positive claim
Messi is necessarily the best footballer in the world - positive claim
Messi is not necessarily the best footballer in the world - not a positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is necessarily required to explain the universe - positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe - not a positive claim
The reason being that the former posits a specific claim and discounts all the others. The latter does not posit a single claim and does not actually rule out the specific claim posited by the former wording.
Onus is on you chum.
Sorry I'm not your Chum, Pal.
Onus is on me? It's not my argument and It isn't the part I said I found attractive. In fact I said I understood the cards objection.
I've said the person who says the universe is the last step in an occam's razor because it is is wrong.
Since they need to go on and explain what it is about the universe that makes it the final step. That is really the final step and is one more than they thought.
-
Oh dear Vlad, you really don't get it do you.
Eric Clapton is necessarily the best guitarist in the world - positive claim
Eric Clapton is not necessarily the best guitarist in the world - not a positive claim
Messi is necessarily the best footballer in the world - positive claim
Messi is not necessarily the best footballer in the world - not a positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is necessarily required to explain the universe - positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe - not a positive claim
The reason being that the former posits a specific claim and discounts all the others. The latter does not posit a single claim and does not actually rule out the specific claim posited by the former wording.
Onus is on you chum.
No....as previously explained. Unfortunately you used the word IS in your argument..........You know what you have to do.
-
No....as previously explained. Unfortunately you used the word IS in your argument..........You know what you have to do.
That has to be the most appalling bit of quote mining in a long long time.
You have selectively quoted a single word, IS from my argument. I will remind you of the full version:
"I am saying that the equivalence of a card dealer IS NOT necessarily required to explain the universe." - my emphasis.
You do understand that IS and IS NOT are diametrically opposite in terms of their meaning - hence to quote just ISrather than IS NOT is an attempt to completely reverse the meaning of what I actually said.
Back to the case in point - you have made a positive claim, I have no - the onus is on you Vlad.
-
I've said the person who says the universe is the last step in an occam's razor because it is is wrong.
Oh another positive claim, using IS (well actually twice but we'll excuse the typo) rather than IS NOT.
Onus on you Vlad - prove that the universe is not the last step as you have (positively claimed).
-
Oh another positive claim, using IS (well actually twice but we'll excuse the typo) rather than IS NOT.
Onus on you Vlad - prove that the universe is not the last step as you have (positively claimed).
You are the one that proposes that the universe is the last step in an Occam's razor without any justification.
When Bertrand Russell added that to atheist doctrine he also REFUSED to justify. To quote: ''The universe just is and that's it.
That must be the mother and father of all positive assertions without justification.
What then is your justification for saying the universe is the last step? How does that square with simulated universe theory? How do you know that you don't need a ''dealer''? What is it about the universe that makes it the last step?
And while we are at it how does a universe that just is square with claims of infinite regression?
Do people prefer Russell's unjustified assertion or infinite regress because there is no judgment of them in these models?
-
You are the one that proposes that the universe is the last step in an Occam's razor without any justification.
No I haven't - stop lying Vlad.
And I think you fundamentally misunderstand Occam - it isn't about determine which of two or more explanation is correct, it is about determining which of two or more equally plausible explanations is more likely to be correct. There is an important distinction between is correct and more likely to be correct. And under Occam that is the explanation with the least necessary entities, steps or complexity. Adding a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' as a necessary step clearly falls foul of Occam as there are other plausible explanations that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' and therefore have fewer necessary entities, steps or complexity.
But under Occam that does not prove that an explanation without a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' is correct, merely that it is more likely to be correct.
And the purpose of Occam is not as an end in itself but to help guide further research aimed at providing evidence for one or more of those explanations. And while we are still a long way from fully understanding the universe there is significant evidence to support theories that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer'. There is, of course, no evidence for a creator though.
-
No I haven't - stop lying Vlad.
And I think you fundamentally misunderstand Occam - it isn't about determine which of two or more explanation is correct, it is about determining which of two or more equally plausible explanations is more likely to be correct. There is an important distinction between is correct and more likely to be correct. And under Occam that is the explanation with the least necessary entities, steps or complexity. Adding a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' as a necessary step clearly falls foul of Occam as there are other plausible explanations that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' and therefore have fewer necessary entities, steps or complexity.
But under Occam that does not prove that an explanation without a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' is correct, merely that it is more likely to be correct.
And the purpose of Occam is not as an end in itself but to help guide further research aimed at providing evidence for one or more of those explanations. And while we are still a long way from fully understanding the universe there is significant evidence to support theories that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer'. There is, of course, no evidence for a creator though.
Necessity is not complexity. Plausibility is to do with belief. Why is ''The universe just is and that's that'' plausible? It is not even an explanation since we can still ask why is it the way it is. More importantly, what warrant do you have of depriving anything else of the statement just is, what are these theories that do not require an explanation and explain why the universe just is and that's that? You are merely waffling.
-
Vlad,
Why is ''The universe just is and that's that'' plausible?
Why is ''God just is and that's that'' plausible?
-
I suppose the Universe just is, because it is a fact. We see it, we experience it. The universe is a hard fact.
God's etc are not the same.
-
Necessity is not complexity. Plausibility is to do with belief. Why is ''The universe just is and that's that'' plausible? It is not even an explanation since we can still ask why is it the way it is. More importantly, what warrant do you have of depriving anything else of the statement just is, what are these theories that do not require an explanation and explain why the universe just is and that's that? You are merely waffling.
But once again I have never said that The universe just is and that's that, stop putting words into my mouth that I never said.
I said that there are plausible explanations for the universe which do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' and applying Occam those explanations are preferred (although not proven) compared to an explanation that does necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' as the latter adds additional necessary entities, steps or complexity.
Indeed to apply Occam we need, as our starting point, to accept a number of plausible explanations for the universe and in the case in point we are taking starting assumptions that explanations for the universe necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' and others that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are plausible starting points for us to consider under Occam.
You seem to fail to even accept that explanations for the universe that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are even plausible and therefore you cannot apply Occam, as that is an approach to determine which of several plausible explanations are preferred.
But as I've said before Occam is merely a starting point and proves nothing - it does however guide further evidence gathering that may prove one explanation to be wrong or likely to be right.
-
Vlad,
Why is ''God just is and that's that'' plausible?
I think plausibility itself is an unreliable measure here.
The trouble is that everything in the universe which we can observe is contingent in some way. But Russell is declaring the universe necessary rather than contingent since no contingent thing '' just is ''.
Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying the universe might not just be I'm saying that whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' doesn't seem to be being observed.
So whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' is not observable and a ''God who just is'' also not observable. In other words whatever it is that is really ''just is'' and not contingent on anything is not observable.
So why is what is necessary or ''just is'' not observable? Because observability involves that which is observed being contingent in that it would be affected by the observation.
In conclusion then is that Russell is wrong to suggest the universe ''just is'' without an internal explanation. It's status as the necessary entity would be that explanation. However we observe the universe, so whatever it is which is necessary about the universe is unobserved and therefore we have a second reason to charge Russell with being unwarranted in his claim.
And so a universe which is in some way necessary has to have a necessary entity and thus we end up with the same number of entities involved in Russell's declaration as we do in a created universe, which brings us to another problem.
Russell's declaration is the opposite of the proposal that a creator must have a creator who must have a creator which seems to be one belief that atheists hold while subscribing also to Occam's razor.
So there are obvious problems in Russell's declaration, There are problems for the necessity of the universe when all we can observe is contingency and there are problems with an infinite chain of creators.
The only explanation that avoids these issues is one necessary creator.
-
I said that there are plausible explanations for the universe which do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer'
Yes so what are they? and applying Occam those explanations are preferred
Or would be if you could provide them (although not proven) compared to an explanation that does necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' as the latter adds additional necessary entities, steps or complexity.
Provide them.
Indeed to apply Occam we need, as our starting point, to accept a number of plausible explanations for the universe and in the case in point we are taking starting assumptions that explanations for the universe necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' and others that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are plausible starting points for us to consider under Occam.
You seem to fail to even accept that explanations for the universe that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are even plausible
I can neither accept or not accept them unless you provide them and therefore you cannot apply Occam, as that is an approach to determine which of several plausible explanations are preferred.
But as I've said before Occam is merely a starting point and proves nothing - it does however guide further evidence gathering that may prove one explanation to be wrong or likely to be right.
That last remark sounds innocent enough.
-
The trouble is that everything in the universe which we can observe is contingent in some way. But Russell is declaring the universe necessary rather than contingent since no contingent thing '' just is ''.
Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying the universe might not just be I'm saying that whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' doesn't seem to be being observed.
So whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' is not observable and a ''God who just is'' also not observable. In other words whatever it is that is really ''just is'' and not contingent on anything is not observable.
So why is what is necessary or ''just is'' not observable? Because observability involves that which is observed being contingent in that it would be affected by the observation.
In conclusion then is that Russell is wrong to suggest the universe ''just is'' without an internal explanation. It's status as the necessary entity would be that explanation. However we observe the universe, so whatever it is which is necessary about the universe is unobserved and therefore we have a second reason to charge Russell with being unwarranted in his claim.
I don't really get why you're arguing against a proposition that nobody has put forward in this thread (except you, when you misrepresented what the prof said) but I'm sure I recall explaining to you elsewhere how the universe might 'just be'.
It's right there at the very centre of our best discretion of the universe as a whole: general relativity. What that describes is a four-dimensional space-time manifold, which would, as a whole, be timeless because time is internal to it. It would therefore not be subject to change and cannot have started to exist, nor will it ever cease to exist. That sounds pretty much like 'just being' to me. Oh, and, of course, nobody can observe the whole thing because all observers are necessarily embedded in it (not that I quite see why something 'necessary' has to be unobservable).
And so a universe which is in some way necessary has to have a necessary entity and thus we end up with the same number of entities involved in Russell's declaration as we do in a created universe, which brings us to another problem.
Russell's declaration is the opposite of the proposal that a creator must have a creator who must have a creator which seems to be one belief that atheists hold while subscribing also to Occam's razor.
If the reasons given for positing a creator would apply just as much to the proposed creator (as they do in the argument linked to in the OP), then infinite regress is the logical conclusion. Occam can't be used to trump straightforward logic.
The only explanation that avoids these issues is one necessary creator.
Which is the very epitome of special pleading. You arbitrarily decide that you need something 'necessary' and the declare that you can't see what it is about the universe that might be, so you just make up something, that by some staggering coincidence just happens to be what you want to believe in already, and simply assert it into being 'necessary'.
-
Yes so what are they?
Are you really telling me that you are unaware of the various theories that explain the original and existence of the universe, that don't involve a creator? Where have you been Vlad?
-
Are you really telling me that you are unaware of the various theories that explain the original and existence of the universe, that don't involve a creator?
Are you?
-
Are you really telling me that you are unaware of the various theories that explain the original and existence of the universe, that don't involve a creator? Where have you been Vlad?
Are you objecting only to a creator God like Jehovah for example.....or are you objecting to any form of intelligent design or a multi layered universe?
-
Occams razor cannot be a reason to accept or reject any hypothesis. It is just an opinion and a thumb rule of sorts....not some sort of an immutable law of nature.
The world is already proving to be much more complex than we had ever imagined. "Simplest explanation is usually the right one"...What exactly is meant by 'simple' here?
Occam (a friar) was in fact, advocating this thumb rule to defend the idea of divine intervention...
-
Occams razor cannot be a reason to accept or reject any hypothesis. It is just an opinion and a thumb rule of sorts....not some sort of an immutable law of nature.
Absolutely correct - and the very point I have made several times to Vlad. Occam doesn't prove anything right or wrong, but can be used as a starting point to whittle done a range of plausible explanations for further analysis.
The world is already proving to be much more complex than we had ever imagined. "Simplest explanation is usually the right one"...What exactly is meant by 'simple' here?
But Occam (certainly in its modern form) isn't about saying the simplest explanation is right - it fully recognising that a more complex explanation can be preferred if it is a better explanation. What it guards against are complex explanations that add layers of unnecessary complexity, without providing a more compelling explanation.
Occam (a friar) was in fact, advocating this thumb rule to defend the idea of divine intervention...
True - but I think more commonly now it is used to shine a light on contrived and convoluted explanations for natural phenomena that add in some kind of divine element which it neither necessary to explain the phenomenon nor provides a better explanation.
Of course that doesn't prove or disprove those explanations, merely suggests which are more likely to be correct and therefore the ones that should be explored more to provide evidence. And this is what is happening, whether through scientific study of the nature and formation of the universe or the process of evolution. And guess what, the explanations favoured by Occam that do not require any kind of additional divine element are proving to have huge amounts of compelling evidence in their favour. Meanwhile there is no credible evidence for the divine at all, let alone its requirement in these processes.
-
Are you objecting only to a creator God like Jehovah for example.....or are you objecting to any form of intelligent design or a multi layered universe?
In response to Vlad, who started the discussion on this thread about Occam, I am merely testing various explanations for the universe under Occam.
And, yes, both intelligent design (a kind of card dealer) and a multi layered universe, will also fall foul of Occam if they posit the intelligent designer or additional layers of universe as necessary entities for the existence of the universe, while there are other plausible explanations that do not require an intelligent designer nor further layers of the universe.
-
And guess what, the explanations favoured by Occam that do not require any kind of additional divine element are proving to have huge amounts of compelling evidence in their favour.
Name one.
-
In response to Vlad, who started the discussion on this thread about Occam, I am merely testing various explanations for the universe under Occam.
And, yes, both intelligent design (a kind of card dealer) and a multi layered universe, will also fall foul of Occam if they posit the intelligent designer or additional layers of universe as necessary entities for the existence of the universe, while there are other plausible explanations that do not require an intelligent designer nor further layers of the universe.
So you are not against your theories having extra steps or be beyond time and space. It's just that these entities cannot be personal or intelligent.
-
In response to Vlad, who started the discussion on this thread about Occam, I am merely testing various explanations for the universe under Occam.
And, yes, both intelligent design (a kind of card dealer) and a multi layered universe, will also fall foul of Occam if they posit the intelligent designer or additional layers of universe as necessary entities for the existence of the universe, while there are other plausible explanations that do not require an intelligent designer nor further layers of the universe.
Krauss I believe took the line that everything derives from the laws of nature which are the final word. However there is the problem of what laws of nature do the laws of nature follow.
-
Absolutely correct - and the very point I have made several times to Vlad. Occam doesn't prove anything right or wrong, but can be used as a starting point to whittle done a range of plausible explanations for further analysis.
But Occam (certainly in its modern form) isn't about saying the simplest explanation is right - it fully recognising that a more complex explanation can be preferred if it is a better explanation. What it guards against are complex explanations that add layers of unnecessary complexity, without providing a more compelling explanation.
True - but I think more commonly now it is used to shine a light on contrived and convoluted explanations for natural phenomena that add in some kind of divine element which it neither necessary to explain the phenomenon nor provides a better explanation.
Of course that doesn't prove or disprove those explanations, merely suggests which are more likely to be correct and therefore the ones that should be explored more to provide evidence. And this is what is happening, whether through scientific study of the nature and formation of the universe or the process of evolution. And guess what, the explanations favoured by Occam that do not require any kind of additional divine element are proving to have huge amounts of compelling evidence in their favour. Meanwhile there is no credible evidence for the divine at all, let alone its requirement in these processes.
So...Occams razor is just a convenient 'argument', if we can call it that.....to brush off inconvenient arguments.... It doesn't really establish anything one way or the other.
-
So...Occams razor is just a convenient 'argument', if we can call it that.....to brush off inconvenient arguments.... It doesn't really establish anything one way or the other.
I'm not sure it brushes off inconvenient arguments, it merely allows us to develop shortlist of the most likely explanations for something for further investigation. It may of course be that all of the shortlist are found wanting and we need to expand out again to further explanations. But it provides a framework for a starting point for further examination.
However - you should note that it is really a philosophy tool, it isn't really used in science where the shortlist of potential hypotheses to be tested tends to be based on prior evidence and data.
-
Ok....but to argue that the simplest explanation should be taken, has no basis at all. Why should the simplest explanation be taken? And how does one define 'simple'? Simple in whose opinion?
From a theological perspective (Occam's perspective) it may make sense. But from a scientific point of view it is just irrelevant.
-
Ok....but to argue that the simplest explanation should be taken, has no basis at all. Why should the simplest explanation be taken? And how does one define 'simple'? Simple in whose opinion?
I think the point is more about not including unnecessary additional complications (e.g. entities, steps etc) - that's what Occam is all about. And in that respect it has some value. The point being that if you are adding an additional step and that there is an explanation without that step that is just as valid, then that added step is unnecessary and can be discounted, as its absence makes no difference to the outcome.
-
So...Occams razor is just a convenient 'argument', if we can call it that.....to brush off inconvenient arguments.... It doesn't really establish anything one way or the other.
No, it's just a way to discard unnecessarily complex explanations.
-
Sriram,
Ok....but to argue that the simplest explanation should be taken, has no basis at all. Why should the simplest explanation be taken? And how does one define 'simple'? Simple in whose opinion?
Because the principle is actually that the explanation with the fewer assumptions is to be preferred over the explanation with greater assumptions, and the reason is that more assumptions = more opportunities to be wrong.
From a theological perspective (Occam's perspective) it may make sense. But from a scientific point of view it is just irrelevant.
No, it's completely relevant for the reason I just explained: the more opportunities to be wrong are built into the explanation, the more likely the explanation is to be wrong.
-
Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?! It is an assumption by itself.
There is no data to back up the idea that fewer assumptions make a theory correct. It just doesn't make sense. It depends on the nature of the assumptions. Might have been useful from a theological point of view...perhaps.
It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.
-
Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?! It is an assumption by itself.
There is no data to back up the idea that fewer assumptions make a theory correct. It just doesn't make sense. It depends on the nature of the assumptions. Might have been useful from a theological point of view...perhaps.
It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has spotted the shift from number of necessary assumptions to merely the number of assumptions.
The trouble with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that you end up trying to give one anyway.
Vis naturalistic solutions these are often either wildly unfalsifiable or invite their own need for explanation.
-
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has spotted the shift from number of necessary assumptions to merely the number of assumptions.
But part of Occam is to determine whether assumptions are necessary or not. If an outcome can be explained just as well using assumptions A, B and C as with assumptions A, B, C and D it tells you that assumption D is not necessary for the explanation. And under Occam the explanation with assumptions A, B and C is preferred.
So realistically the notion of number of assumptions and number of necessary assumptions are both linked and a key part of the purpose of Occam.
-
Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?! It is an assumption by itself.
As blue has already succinctly explained, the fewer assumptions that you make the fewer the opportunities to be wrong.
It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.
There are usually far better ways to approach a philosophical argument that makes assumptions, like simply pointing out that they have no basis or that they are unnecessary. Occam is not something you can use to dismiss a well argued case and neither is is very useful in making a case, especially when it's applied in a subjective way (as it the dreadful original argument here).
-
But part of Occam is to determine whether assumptions are necessary or not. If an outcome can be explained just as well using assumptions A, B and C as with assumptions A, B, C and D it tells you that assumption D is not necessary for the explanation. And under Occam the explanation with assumptions A, B and C is preferred.
So realistically the notion of number of assumptions and number of necessary assumptions are both linked and a key part of the purpose of Occam.
Yes, but frequently the latter part is overlooked hence Russell and his universe that just is.
-
Sriram,
Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?! It is an assumption by itself.
No it isn’t. Let’s say that you apply for the job of astronaut on the first SpaceX rocket to the moon. Elon calls you to say you’ve got the gig, and explains that they’ve had their finest engineers, software specialists, aeronauticists etc draw up the designs, which have now been used to build the rocket to their exact specifications. You have been specially selected for the first launch, and you can either jump straight in and head off or, if your prefer, they’ll try a few unmanned test flights first just in case.
Which option would you select?
Why?
That’s Occam’s razor in its practical application.
There is no data to back up the idea that fewer assumptions make a theory correct.
Of course there is. There’s data from just about every field of human endeavour.
It just doesn't make sense.
If you really think that, take the untested rocket option then.
It depends on the nature of the assumptions.
No it doesn’t. Any additional assumption relevant to the truthfulness of the statement (or to the rocket design for that matter) adds to the risk of mistake. Assumptions that are not relevant to that on the other hand – assuming that Elon likes cheese for example – are neither here nor there for the purpose of the truth that’s being established.
Might have been useful from a theological point of view...perhaps.
And science, and engineering, and…pretty much every activity that entails establishing the truthfulness of something.
It is just something people find convenient to throw at anyone who makes a philosophical argument.
Remember that statement as you’re being strapped in to your untested rocket…
-
Is it some kind of a proclamation or mandate that 'a hypothesis with fewer assumptions should be accepted as more correct'?!
No. The mandate is that if you have two hypotheses with the same explanatory power you should accept the one with the fewest assumptions.
As an example: in the Twentieth Century there were two hypotheses that sought to explain the observed expansion of the Universe: the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory. Arguably the Big Bang Theory makes more assumptions e.g. the Universe had a beginning and there has to be some, as yet unexplained, mechanism whereby all the mass came into existence. The Steady State theory assumes the Universe has always been here and matter just pops into existence every now and again at almost undetectable rates. We discard the Steady State Model though because it doesn't have the same explanatory power as the Big Bang Model. It doesn't explain the cosmic microwave background radiation and it doesn't explain why there's so much helium in the Universe.
-
Vlad,
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has spotted the shift from number of necessary assumptions to merely the number of assumptions.
There is no shift.
The trouble with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that you end up trying to give one anyway.
No, the problem with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that that’s not the argument. The problem is actually that sometimes we reach a “don’t know”, and just filling that space with whatever notions come to mind (eg gods) adds no knowledge at all.
Vis naturalistic solutions these are often either wildly unfalsifiable or invite their own need for explanation.
You’ve been corrected on this countless times before so I don’t see any point in doing it again. Naturalistic “solutions” are not unfalsifiable at all. Naturalistic conjectures and hypotheses on the other hand are unfalsifiable, which is why they’re called “conjectures” and “hypotheses”.
-
Vlad,
There is no shift.
No, the problem with arguing that the universe doesn't need an explanation is that that’s not the argument. The problem is actually that sometimes we reach a “don’t know”, and just filling that space with whatever notions come to mind (eg gods) adds no knowledge at all.
You’ve been corrected on this countless times before so I don’t see any point in doing it again. Naturalistic “solutions” are not unfalsifiable at all. Naturalistic conjectures and hypotheses on the other hand are unfalsifiable, which is why they’re called “conjectures” and “hypotheses”.
So I agree that there are no actual scientific solutions to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
-
Vlad,
So I agree that there are no actual scientific solutions to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
As you know full well, "why" is an invalid question - it implies purpose or intent (which would require first the demonstration of something to have that purpose). The valid question is "how" or "by what process", and of course there are lots of questions science cannot answer. That's why so many people called scientists keep doing it - to find answers we don't have yet.
As for the origins of the universe, "god" as your answer is epistemically the same as claiming that evil spirits caused diseases.
-
So I agree that there are no actual scientific solutions to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
As far as I know, there are no 'religious solutions' either.
-
Vlad,
As you know full well, "why" is an invalid question - it implies purpose or intent (which would require first the demonstration of something to have that purpose).
No it doesn't The valid question is "how" or "by what process",
That is just begging the question since it assumes naturalism.
-
As far as I know, there are no 'religious solutions' either.
Argument from contingency.
-
Vlad,
No it doesn't
Yes it does.
That is just begging the question since it assumes naturalism.
That's not what begging the question means, and it assumes no such thing. If you want to ask about a process ("how?"), that's fine; if you want to ask about a purpose ("why?"), then you need to establish first something capable of intent.
-
Argument from contingency.
Which, certainly as far as you have presented it, is laughable and amounts to little more than an assertion that there must be something 'necessary' that isn't the universe and then an even more comical attempt to make it into something like your favourite idea of god (which, as far as you are concerned, seems to change minute to minute).
-
Vlad,
Argument from contingency.
It's no such thing. All positing "god" does is to transfer the same question to that god. So now you need another god for that contingency, and so on through infinite regress.
-
Vlad,
It's no such thing. All positing "god" does is to transfer the same question to that god. So now you need another god for that contingency, and so on through infinite regress.
And that goes to show you don't understand it. The argument from contingency includes a necessity not an impossible infinite chain of contingency.
If you are saying we only need the universe just to be like Russell then you've already chosen your necessity and to argue for an infinite chain of contingency is self-contradictory.
If you are saying it's just the universe that is necessary but other entities can't possibly be, especially God, that is the Fred and Ginger of special pleading.
Expecting to utter the claim the universe just is and for all people to fall down before it is Shamanism.
What is it about the universe which is necessary anyway?
-
Which, certainly as far as you have presented it, is laughable and amounts to little more than an assertion that there must be something 'necessary' that isn't the universe
I don't think I have presented it thus, I think I have said that if the universe is necessary what is it about it that is necessary because everything we observe about it is contingent....in fact even the observation of something affects that which can be observed so there can be nothing observed that is not contingent.
You can bring up the fallacy of composition if you wish but in all proper examples of this, the fallacy can be demonstrated.
-
Vlad,
And that goes to show you don't understand it.
Given our big ol' number-to-nil scores on who’s been right and wrong so far here that seems unlikely, but let's see shall we?
The argument from contingency includes a necessity not an impossible infinite chain of contingency.
Yes, that’s the special pleading part. You assume ab initio that the universe itself must be contingent on something else, then you insert your something else (that just happens to be the one with which you're most familiar) that for some unstated reason is not itself contingent on something else in turn.
You do know by the way that even Aquinas dismissed the cosmological argument too?
If you are saying we only need the universe just to be like Russell then you've already chosen your necessity and to argue for an infinite chain of contingency is self-contradictory.
Actually Russell said that the universe was “an unexplainable brute fact”. That the universe “just is” is as much as, currently at least, we can sensibly say about it. Just assuming that a property we observe in the universe (determinism) must apply to the universe and then special pleading a putative cause that somehow exempt from the same property is a logical dead end. If you seriously think “why the universe?” is a legitimate question, then so is “why god?”.
Short version: you’re stuck in Fletcher’s tunnel again.
If you are saying it's just the universe that is necessary but other entities can't possibly be, especially God, that is the Fred and Ginger of special pleading.
No, it’s the Fred and Ginger of straw men. Absent a sound reason for thinking that the universe itself must have had cause, there’s no necessity for assuming there to be cause. You can conjecture “god” if you want to nonetheless just as I can conjecture invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings, but neither conjecture is necessary.
Expecting to utter the claim the universe just is and for all people to fall down before it is Shamanism.
And not true. It’d help if you stopped misrepresenting me about this.
What is it about the universe which is necessary anyway?
I don’t know that it is: that’s the “unexplainable’ part. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t: if nonetheless you want to assert the latter then the burden of proof (that always trips you up) is with you to explain why, and to explain too both why your god rather than something is the cause and also why this god is exempt from the same question.
-
I don't think I have presented it thus, I think I have said that if the universe is necessary what is it about it that is necessary because everything we observe about it is contingent....in fact even the observation of something affects that which can be observed so there can be nothing observed that is not contingent.
It's not even clear that there need be anything that is 'necessary' and what would make it so, so we don't even know what to look for. Also, I've already explained how the universe might 'just be' (#45 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg831932#msg831932)).
And even if we did somehow conclude that something 'necessary' must exist that isn't the universe, that's still light years away from any of your many god-concepts. You're just piling up unsupported assumptions.
-
It's not even clear that there need be anything that is 'necessary' and what would make it so, so we don't even know what to look for. Also, I've already explained how the universe might 'just be' (#45 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg831932#msg831932)).
And even if we did somehow conclude that something 'necessary' must exist that isn't the universe, that's still light years away from any of your many god-concepts. You're just piling up unsupported assumptions.
Is a necessary an unnecessary step to explain the universe? If not you are suggesting the universe is the necessary or you are suggesting an infinite chain of entities.
Both might be counted as Goddodging.
It may also be that an infinite chain is the necessary here.
To recap, if you are saying that the universe just is then you have a necessity in any case.
-
Vlad,
Is a necessary an unnecessary step to explain the universe?
Gibberish.
If not you are suggesting the universe is the necessary or you are suggesting an infinite chain of entities.
He’s not suggesting either. He’s telling you that you have yet to make a case for the universe not being its own explanation.
Both might be counted as Goddodging.
Not even close, for several reasons.
It may also be that an infinite chain is the necessary here.
Or no chain at all.
To recap, if you are saying that the universe just is then you have a necessity in any case.
To re-cap, he isn’t.
-
Is a necessary an unnecessary step to explain the universe?
I don't know. I'm waiting for something that even remotely resembles some logical reasoning from you.
If not you are suggesting the universe is the necessary or you are suggesting an infinite chain of entities.
What's the argument that these are the only options?
Both might be counted as Goddodging.
Comical. As I said (why do you never pay attention?) even if we get to a conclusion that we need a necessary something that isn't the universe, we are still a very long way from any of your ever-changing god-concepts.
It may also be that an infinite chain is the necessary here.
Maybe or maybe not. Until you can come up with something a little more coherent in the way of definitions are reasoning, who can say?
To recap, if you are saying that the universe just is then you have a necessity in any case.
Why? You need to do what you never ever seem to have the confidence to do and actually present a logical argument.
-
I don't know. I'm waiting for something that even remotely resembles some logical reasoning from you.
Ditto.
What's the argument that these are the only options?
Things are either contingent or necessary.
Candidates for necessary entity regarding the universe:
weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.
-
Ditto.
Things are either contingent or necessary.
Are they? Can you show that to be true?
Candidates for necessary entity regarding the universe:
weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.
I think your ranking is based on your personal preference. I'd say "the Universe is the end of the chain" is stronger because we know the Universe exists and there's no evidence that a longer chain exists.
-
Ditto.
You seem to have forgotten that it's you who are proposed "argument from contingency" as a way in which we could explain why there is something rather than nothing. I'm waiting for this argument. The only proposal I've made here is that the universe might 'just be' and I've given detailed reasons why that might be so from a scientific point of view.
Things are either contingent or necessary.
Now can anything necessarily exist and how would we recognise it? Without those answers, this takes us nowhere.
Candidates for necessary entity regarding the universe:
weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.
Without an answer to the above questions, how on earth do you decide what's strong or weak? And your last suggestion ("Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.") is incoherent let alone riddled with unsupported assumptions.
None of the proposals get us anywhere near an answer to the question as to why there is something rather than nothing. You seem to be simply asserting that what you want to be true is 'necessary', without any attempt at saying how or why.
-
Are they? Can you show that to be true?
I think your ranking is based on your personal preference. I'd say "the Universe is the end of the chain" is stronger because we know the Universe exists and there's no evidence that a longer chain exists.
Are they? Can you show that to be true?
Unless you have a specific definition of 'shown' In the case of the universe, a statement that the universe just is renders the universe as the necessary entity. A statement that the universe has existed for ever and therefore needs no causal agent renders the universe as, the necessary entity. A statement that there is an infinite chain of contingent causes, then the infinite chain is the necessary entity.
An infinite chain of contingency it seems suffers from the problems with an infinite causal chain not actually coming up with anything and objections to there being real rather than mathematical infinities.
The word contingency means dependent on something rather than nothing. It is difficult to say where a something would come from in an infinite chain.
I think your ranking is based on your personal preference. I'd say "the Universe is the end of the chain" is stronger because we know the Universe exists and there's no evidence that a longer chain exists.
Fine, you have your necessary entity.......Trouble is there is nothing in the universe that has been definitely defined as necessary and since you talk of it being the necessary entity a) You accept them and b) you need to demonstrate necessity rather than contingency. If you decide that the universe is contingent then the chain must continue. And in a chain that necessarily continues one more step than'' the universe just is'' seems the most parsimonious and certainly more so than the infinite chain.
Now since you have chosen your necessary entity there must be sufficient reason for that choice being necessary, ''the universe just is'' doesn't cut it.
There are some definitions of contingency which say that the universe could have been another way. The extra step beyond the universe just being is therefore that which makes this universe this way. And you have to demonstrate what that is.
Over to you.
2 Are the rankings down to my personal preference?
You might think it's based on personal preference but I could say that about you.
For me it's down to this:
1: There is no sign of necessity in the entity known as the universe.
2: The Statement the ''universe just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.
3: Infinite chains of causation are not observed nor probably can be.
4: Any natural explanation for the universe in practice demands another explanation beyond it.
5: Since observation affects the observed, the status of the observed depends on the observer therefore if something is observed it is contingent and cannot by definition be a necessary entity.
6: There is a case for abstract necessities and therefore necessary entities probably exist. In fact is there any argument against Abstract necessities.
-
Trouble is there is nothing in the universe that has been definitely defined as necessary...
Until you can tell us how anything at all can be necessary in this sense, and how we would know it was just by speculation about the universe and what might exist that isn't the universe, then all your talk about it is just meaningless babble.
What's more none of this hand-waving has got anywhere near explaining why there is something rather than nothing, that can only be answered if you can answer the question above. You can't simply assert that something you've basically made up, is necessary.
-
Vlad,
weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.
You're just making up probabilities with no reasoning to support you here. Actually the "strong" answer at this point is "don't know".
-
Until you can tell us how anything at all can be necessary in this sense, and how we would know it was just by speculation about the universe and what might exist that isn't the universe, then all your talk about it is just meaningless babble.
What's more none of this hand-waving has got anywhere near explaining why there is something rather than nothing, that can only be answered if you can answer the question above. You can't simply assert that something you've basically made up, is necessary.
And the weird thing is I'm wondering how anyone can be as clueless on the concept of contingency. I put it down to philosophy not being taught in schools. It kinda of ends up with faulty thinking which allows one to say, "I see no necessary things only contingent things therefore I can take it that there aren't any necessary entities"
But there are plenty of abstract necessities in mathematics, and that is why your pleas fail.
If something is shown not to be contingent then it is by definition a necessary.
So, if your final explanation is that the universe just is (barely an explanation if it even is. ) then that is definitionally your claimed necessary entity. If for instance you want to go with an infinite chain of contingency as your final explanation then that becomes the necessary entity, though what you are saying is that everything in that infinite chain is contingent but collectively it is necessary.
-
Vlad,
For me it's down to this:
1: There is no sign of necessity in the entity known as the universe.
“Sigs of necessity” not being observed doesn’t mean they don’t exit, and in any case again you’re conflating the way the universe appears to function as a system with the universe itself.
2: The Statement the ''universe just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.
Yes, that’s what “don’t know” means. The statement “disease just is” was once the same, and people then were as inclined to claim evil spirits to fill the knowledge gap as you are to claim “god” here. “God” though is no more an explanation now than evil spirits were there – these things are place markers for explanations that actually explain nothing.
3: Infinite chains of causation are not observed nor probably can be.
Infinite chains of events would require a time dimension in which to occur; time itself is a property of the universe we observe. If there is an “outside” the universe (whatever that would mean) there’s no guessing what properties might apply that could allow anything so your “nor probably can be” is not even wrong.
4: Any natural explanation for the universe in practice demands another explanation beyond it.
A dubious claim given what we’re discovering at the quantum field level, but in any case your way out of that (“god”) is still effectively “it’s magic innit”, which has no explanatory value at all.
5: Since observation affects the observed, the status of the observed depends on the observer therefore if something is observed it is contingent and cannot by definition be a necessary entity.
And yet you claim a god who's also “observed” in fact (burning bushes, angels etc), and in deed (“miracles” etc). Does not the same apply to our observation of these supposed phenomena?
6: There is a case for abstract necessities and therefore necessary entities probably exist. In fact is there any argument against Abstract necessities.
Whoa there! How on earth did you just jump straight from to “there is a case for abstract necessities” to “therefore necessary entities probably exist”? There are “cases” for lots of things – we call these cases “conjectures” or “hypotheses”. Pending reason or evidence to justify them though, there’s no basis at all just to skip all the hard yards to go straight to a “probably”. Oh, and even is you had done that part that’d still tell you nothing whatsoever about what that “entity” (or entities) might be.
Short version: I suggest you go back to wherever you cut and pasted this list from and ask for your money back.
-
And the weird thing is I'm wondering how anyone can be as clueless on the concept of contingency. I put it down to this philosophy not being taught in schools.
Irony overload.
It kinda of ends up with faulty thinking which allows one to say, "I see no necessary things only contingent things therefore I can take it that there aren't any necessary entities"
Which isn't what I said. I said that you need to explain how anything can be necessary and, perhaps more importantly, how we can conclude that something we are speculating might exist (i.e. we've made up) is or isn't necessary.
But there are plenty of abstract necessities in mathematics, and that is why your please fail.
Actually you have to start with certain axioms.
If something is shown not to be contingent then it is by definition a necessary.
So how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent, especially if you've just made it up? Your 'argument' appears to consist of baseless storytelling. You're just making things up and then claiming necessity for them.
Yet again: if you're going to explain why there is something rather than nothing you need to explain how something can be necessary.
-
Irony overload.
Which isn't what I said. I said that you need to explain how anything can be necessary and, perhaps more importantly, how we can conclude that something we are speculating might exist (i.e. we've made up) is or isn't necessary.
I cannot tell if this person is genuinely perplexed at the definition of necessary or whether he is merely pulling chains. Is his demand for an explanation of what these things mean(He's had several) rhetorical i.e. He feels he knows that nothing can be deemed necessary or is he genuinely perplexed by ideas such as Abstract necessity or the idea that something is either contingent or necessary(non contingent)
How does he come up with the idea that speculating that something might exist means that we have made that thing up. Again it's necessary if it isn't contingent...How is that hard? There is no hybrid position
Actually you have to start with certain axioms.
Yes. here's one If something is not contingent, it is necessery.
Something is only deemed necessary if it has sufficient reason to be necessary
So how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent,
Are you saying therefore that we cannot possibly show that the universe is not contingent and therefore it is probably contingent? That's my point not yours. if you've just made it up?
Made up what, the concept of the necessary? Your 'argument' appears to consist of baseless storytelling. You're just making things up and then claiming necessity for them.
So here, is this person NTTS acknowledging he knows the concept of necessity or what?. What is the made up thing here? Does he not mind there being a necessity but it must not be called God ( a case of petty linguistic fascism and indeed petty and vindictive special pleading). Does he not know that Aquinus arrives at the concept of the necessity regarding the universe and it's attributes and says ''and that is what we call God'' rather than making something up and just saying that that is the necessity. Aquinus merely gives a name to what he has argued for i.e. the necessary.
-
Vlad,
How does he come up with the idea that speculating that something might exist means that we have made that thing up.
Because, obviously, you consistently jump from a speculation that something might exist to a claim that it does exist with no logical path from the former to the latter.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
-
Vlad,
Because, obviously, you consistently jump from a speculation that something might exist to a claim that it does exist with no logical path from the former to the latter.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
That's me, or what you think I am Hillside but why does he write it as a general truth. something we are speculating might exist (i.e. we've made up)
.
Do you actually read his posts?
Which might be an ample time to say that I don't write my posts mainly for you guys.
-
Vlad,
That's me, or what you think I am Hillside but why does he write it as a general truth.
Because it is a general truth. If you speculate about something – anything – and also assert the speculation to be a fact, then you’ve made something up.
Do you actually read his posts?
Yes – that’s how I know you’re out of your depth.
Which might be an ample time to say that I don't write my posts mainly for you guys.
There’s no guessing why you write your posts given your refusal ever to address the arguments that undo you. Trolling presumably.
-
I cannot tell if this person is genuinely perplexed at the definition of necessary or whether he is merely pulling chains. Is his demand for an explanation of what these things mean(He's had several) rhetorical i.e. He feels he knows that nothing can be deemed necessary or is he genuinely perplexed by ideas such as Abstract necessity or the idea that something is either contingent or necessary(non contingent)
Once again the point sails majestically about 30,000ft over Vlad's head. So, let's just let our imaginations run wild and assume we've found something and somehow or other we've managed to ascertain that it isn't contingent on anything. We still wouldn't have answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing unless you can say why this thingy we've found had to exist.
How does he come up with the idea that speculating that something might exist means that we have made that thing up.
That's kind of what speculation about the existence of something entails, doubly so if you're not actually basing it on something known.
Again it's necessary if it isn't contingent...How is that hard? There is no hybrid position
...
Yes. here's one If something is not contingent, it is necessery.
This is actually your claim. Where's the argument? Why can't something just exist for no reason without being necessary? And yet again: unless you can logically explain why something is necessary (it couldn't have been otherwise), then you haven't answered the question about why there is something rather than nothing.
The mere absence of contingency isn't an explanation.
Something is only deemed necessary if it has sufficient reason to be necessary
Such as what?
Are you saying therefore that we cannot possibly show that the universe is not contingent and therefore it is probably contingent?
No - I'm saying what I actually said, which was a question: so how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent, especially if you've just made it up?
Made up what, the concept of the necessary?
You need to brush up on reading for comprehension (again).
What is the made up thing here?
In your case, your various versions of god. However, anything we speculate about that isn't the universe or a part thereof.
Does he not mind there being a necessity but it must not be called God ( a case of linguistic fascism and special pleading).
As I keep pointing out - I'm still actually waiting for some sort of coherent argument from you. Maybe there's something that isn't the universe, that caused it and is necessary, maybe not. And it's labelling it 'god' that is totally unjustified, since you haven't actually deduced anything about it, even if it exists.
Does he not know that Aquinus arrives at the concept of the necessity regarding the universe and it's attributes and says ''and that is what we call God'' rather than making something else and just saying that that is the necessity. Aquinus merely gives a name to what he has argued for i.e. the necessary.
So many supposed arguments for god, even if they were sound (which they aren't) would be arguments for something but then identifying it with god is just comically desperate.
-
Once again the point sails majestically about 30,000ft over Vlad's head. So, let's just let our imaginations run wild and assume we've found something and somehow or other we've managed to ascertain that it isn't contingent on anything. We still wouldn't have answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing unless you can say why this thingy we've found had to exist.
That's kind of what speculation about the existence of something entails, doubly so if you're not actually basing it on something known.
This is actually your claim. Where's the argument? Why can't something just exist for no reason without being necessary? And yet again: unless you can logically explain why something is necessary (it couldn't have been otherwise), then you haven't answered the question about why there is something rather than nothing.
The mere absence of contingency isn't an explanation.
Such as what?
No - I'm saying what I actually said, which was a question: so how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent, especially if you've just made it up?
You need to brush up on reading for comprehension (again).
In your case, your various versions of god. However, anything we speculate about that isn't the universe or a part thereof.
As I keep pointing out - I'm still actually waiting for some sort of coherent argument from you. Maybe there's something that isn't the universe, that caused it and is necessary, maybe not. And it's labelling it 'god' that is totally unjustified, since you haven't actually deduced anything about it, even if it exists.
So many supposed arguments for god, even if they were sound (which they aren't) would be arguments for something but then identifying it with god is just comically desperate.
And the answer is that if we find something that is necessary. It will not be contingent but will have sufficient reason for being and by dint of that it will be the answer to why there is something and not nothing.
But some of your premises still show you have some way to go with this although I think some of this is beginning to chime with you.
The necessity cannot be observed since observation affects that which is observed and thus renders it contingent. It would have to reveal itself say, as an avatar in a simulation.
If it comes from nowhere then it must still have sufficient reason of itself and if it comes from nowhere it is not contingent and therefore necessary
-
Vlad,
Because it is a general truth. If you speculate about something – anything – and also assert the speculation to be a fact, then you’ve made something up.
I am not speculating on what a necessary entity is but defining it.
It is a fact of logic rather than science and it starts with observable contingency and we have a universe of examples of those.
I would hazard that now we are in the realm of philosophy rather than exemplifying that which you may have been told....a brilliant boy , good at everything...(which wouldn't be true since no one gets this stuff at state school) your lack of training is obvious.
-
And the answer is that if we find something that is necessary. It will not be contingent but will have sufficient reason for being and by dint of that it will be the answer to why there is something and not nothing.
So, since all the things you've proposed as necessary are just made up, we have no chance of ever answering the question. So when you answered my point that there were no 'religious solutions' to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, with 'argument from contingency', that was just bullshit?
But some of your premises still show you have some way to go with this although I think some of this is beginning to chime with you.
Hilarious.
The necessity cannot be observed since observation affects that which is observed and thus renders it contingent.
It just gets more an more daft. Observation doesn't actually necessarily affect what is observed, even within the universe, and even if it always did within the universe, extrapolating it into the unknown is unjustified. You also haven't made an argument that something that can be affected by something else must be contingent.
It would have to reveal itself say, as an avatar in a simulation.
If it comes from nowhere then it must still have sufficient reason of itself and if it comes from nowhere it is not contingent and therefore necessary
And off we go into Vlad's fantasy world again...
-
Vlad,
I am not speculating on what a necessary entity is but defining it.
Yes you are – here for example:
… Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.
(Reply 84)
It is a fact of logic rather than sience and it starts with observable contingency and we have a universe of examples of those.
But your “logic” fails for the reasons you keep being given and you keep ignoring. Yet again: you cannot just assume that a property of the universe as a system (ie, determinism) must also apply to the universe itself.
I would hazard that now we are in the realm of philosophy rather than exemplifying that which you may have been told....a brilliant boy , good at everything...(which wouldn't be true since no one gets this stuff at state school) your lack of training is obvious.
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.
As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
-
Vlad,
Yes you are – here for example:
(Reply 84)
But your “logic” fails for the reasons you keep being given and you keep ignoring. Yet again: you cannot just assume that a property of the universe as system (ie, determinism) applies to the universe itself.
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.
As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I think the Hillside paralegal turdpolishing that has emptied this board of contributors for it's playing of the man instead of the ball is getting a bit played out. Grandstanding and shoeboating and ''Look I'm an expert at winning hopeless cases''
is no substitute for a proper discussion.
It's not about my competence, it's about logic. It's not about science, It's about logic. Where not being able to study something scientifically means just that and is not an excuse to worm in some justification for physicalism, empiricism and naturalism.
In logic Hillside these are not a default positions.
Your position is empiricism plus use of ignorance with a flip flop in and out of science and for all we know doing the hokey cokey.
Once again then, with feeling..... you start from contingency and follow the logic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnBMAEA3AM
-
It just gets more an more daft. Observation doesn't actually necessarily affect what is observed, even within the universe, and even if it always did within the universe, extrapolating it into the unknown is unjustified..
That isn't even scientific. The scientific view point is that observation increases entropy of the universe. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that renders the universe contingent or necessary but to me that seems massively contingent.
if you are saying that observation doesn't always affect what is observed then of course we should be able to observe that which makes the universe necessary and you should be out looking for it.
-
Vlad,
I think the Hillside paralegal turdpolishing that has emptied this board of contributors for it's playing of the man instead of the ball is getting a bit played out. Grandstanding and shoeboating and ''Look I'm an expert at winning hopeless cases''
is no substitute for a proper discussion.
You’ve been given “proper discussion” – ie reasoned arguments. Over and over again in fact. In response you routinely just ignore or misrepresent them or plunge immediately into a bewildering array of logical fallacies that you appear not to understand (burden of proof, ad hom, Occam’s razor etc) no matter how many times they’re explained to you.
Then having the sheer front to complain that someone else doesn’t offer "proper discussion" is way, way beyond ironic.
It's not about my competence, it's about logic.
Yes it is – it’s about your incompetence when you attempt logic. That’s your problem.
It's not about science, It's about logic.
Ditto.
Where not being able to study something scientifically means just that and is not an excuse to worm in some justification for physicalism, empiricism and naturalism.
Again you’re lumping together different concepts here apparently with no understanding of their differences, and in any case if you want to argue that there even is a “something” and you don’t like science as a means to investigate the claim then the job is all yours to propose another way to do it – which is precisely the point at which you always run away remember?
In logic Hillside these are not a default positions.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, and nor it seems have you. Of course there are “default positions” in logic – that logically false arguments are not reliable for example.
Your position is empiricism plus use of ignorance with a flip flop in and out of science and for all we know doing the hokey cokey.
Incoherence won't dig you out the hole you've dug for yourself here either.
Once again then, with feeling..... you start from contingency and follow the logic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnBMAEA3AM
Once again, with greater feeling – finally, after all these years, try at least just for once to engage with the arguments that show you to be wrong.
-
The scientific view point is that observation increases entropy of the universe.
Which has nothing to do with what you said. You said "observation affects that which is observed". If I observe a star or a planet, then I'm detecting light that was coming from it anyway, so the observation doesn't affect that which is observed, it affects the observer.
I'll leave it to you to decide whether that renders the universe contingent or necessary but to me that seems massively contingent.
It doesn't say anything one way or the other about the universe being necessary, contingent, or possibly neither (you still haven't made any sort of argument that there is no other option).
I already explained how the universe as a whole -- the entire space-time manifold -- can 'just be' and also, of course, never changes (and, for what it's worth, can't be observed).
if you are saying that observation doesn't always affect what is observed then of course we should be able to observe that which makes the universe necessary and you should be out looking for it.
You really should learn some basic logic. You have yet to establish any sort of logical connection between being changed by observation and being necessary or contingent. Even if you had, just because something wouldn't be changed by being observed doesn't tell us anything at all about whether we can actually observe it or not.
Yet again you've got the problem that you haven't set out a coherent argument. You seem (as usual) to be just throwing lots of half thought through, half understood, and half baked nonsense at everybody and hoping nobody will notice the lack of coherence.
-
1: There is no sign of necessity in the entity known as the universe.
What is a "sign of necessity"
2: The Statement the ''universe just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.
The Statement ''God just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.
3: Infinite chains of causation are not observed nor probably can be.
4: Any natural explanation for the universe in practice demands another explanation beyond it.
Any explanation for God in practice demands another explanation beyond it.
5: Since observation affects the observed, the status of the observed depends on the observer therefore if something is observed it is contingent and cannot by definition be a necessary entity.
Is that why nobody has ever observed God? Or is it just that he doesn't exist
6: There is a case for abstract necessities and therefore necessary entities probably exist. In fact is there any argument against Abstract necessities.
You haven't shown that the Universe is contingent yet.
-
jeremy,
Is that why nobody has ever observed God?
Oh but they have if the "holy" texts are to be believed: he's shown up we're told variously as a burning bush, as a whisper, as assorted angels etc.
It's the same phenomenon with leprechauns by the way - immaterial for the most part, but popping up as little men dressed in green when they feel like it.
-
What is a "sign of necessity"
something which shows us that it's (The universe's) existence is not dependent on anything else.The Statement ''God just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.
Nobody is saying that though. What is being said is that the Necessary being whatever it is has justification within itself. Sufficient reason.Any explanation for God in practice demands another explanation beyond it.
or an explanation within it i.e. sufficient reasonIs that why nobody has ever observed God?
Is that why no one has observed sufficient reason for the universe within the universe? Or is it just that he doesn't exist
The necessary must exist otherwise contingency is an absurd idea. That is based on observation of contingency and that whatever the explanation that is, in itself the necessary entity.
-
something which shows us that it's (The universe existence is not dependent on anything else.)
What sort of thing is a sign of that?
The Statement ''God just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all. Nobody is saying that though.
Yes they are. That, in fact, seems to be your only argument.
-
What sort of thing is a sign of that?
I think we've been through the properties we are looking for in an actual necessary explanation or entity and that they do not fulfil the categories for a contingent entity. Yes they are. That, in fact, seems to be your only argument.
Utterly wrong. Please read the post again.
''Just is'' statements are made by people who just want the questioning to stop before it gets to the point of sufficient reason or explanation. Not guilty.
It is plain that when you mean evidence or explanation you mean empirical evidence.
What then is your physical evidence that the universe Just is?
-
I already explained how the universe as a whole -- the entire space-time manifold -- can 'just be' and also, of course, never changes (and, for what it's worth, can't be observed).
If you are saying the evidence for the necessary entity/explanation cannot be observed i'd agree.
1:What then is the evidence for it
2: What then is the empirical evidence for it
3:Remind me of why it cannot be observed
4: er, remind me what the explanation was.
I'm surprised Jeremy didn't you pick you up on this, or maybe he did.
-
I think we've been through the properties we are looking for in an actual necessary explanation or entity and that they do not fulfil the categories for a contingent entity.Utterly wrong. Please read the post again.
The only property a necessary entity has that is relevant is that it doesn't have a cause. How are you going to verify that any specific entity does or doesn't have a cause?
''Just is'' statements are made by people who just want the questioning to stop before it gets to the point of sufficient reason or explanation. Not guilty.
It's exactly what you are doing. You are as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
It is plain that when you mean evidence or explanation you mean empirical evidence.
No, I mean evidence.
What then is your physical evidence that the universe Just is?
I haven't got any. What's your evidence that God just is? Actually, let's start simpler. What's your evidence that God is?
-
The only property a necessary entity has that is relevant is that it doesn't have a cause. How are you going to verify that any specific entity does or doesn't have a cause? It's exactly what you are doing. You are as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
No, I mean evidence.
The evidence is observed contingency.I haven't got any.
You make evidence the most important demand of your credo and then just flippantly own up to not having any? What's your evidence that God just is? Actually, let's start simpler. What's your evidence that God is?
My evidence is observed contingency and following that through logically.
I have told you I don't propose that God just is. I propose he has sufficient reason within himself and that a just is statement i.e. Russell, Is just an attempt to stifle the very notion of sufficient reason. And here's the thing. Russells action in that respect was deliberate to prevent everyone seeing that his wagon had no wheels, that the emperor had now clothes and that the type of atheism that descends from him looks like just one massive courtiers reply.
-
The only property a necessary entity has that is relevant is that it doesn't have a cause.
Is that the case - maybe I am thinking about this in a different way.
I would have though that a necessary entity is one that were it to be removed (or not exist) would prevent or preclude the outcome from happening. So it is on the critical path, so to speak. It might be one element in a chain of events or entities, and in which case be caused by the event or entity before it. However the point is that were is not to exist that chain would be broken in such a manner that the eventual outcome of that chain could no longer happen.
-
Is that the case - maybe I am thinking about this in a different way.
I would have though that a necessary entity is one that were it to be removed (or not exist) would prevent or preclude the outcome from happening. So it is on the critical path, so to speak. It might be one element in a chain of events or entities, and in which case be caused by the event or entity before it. However the point is that were is not to exist that chain would be broken in such a manner that the eventual outcome of that chain could no longer happen.
But anything in that chain would be contingent and therefore not necessary. However you cut it what is necessary about something is unobservable. We have to look at the end of a chain to find pure necessity as it were. Infinite chains would suffer from being unobservable and therefore their infinity could not be proven. One would therefore have to come up with a reason why they should be preferred...
-
But anything in that chain would be contingent and therefore not necessary.
I think you are misinterpreting necessary as being sufficient - certainly in my world they aren't the same. All sorts of things may be necessary but not sufficient for an outcome, and therefore may well be contingent on other (also necessary elements).
Just because something is necessary does not imply that it isn't contingent - that makes no sense.
-
I think you are misinterpreting necessary as being sufficient - certainly in my world they aren't the same. All sorts of things may be necessary but not sufficient for an outcome, and therefore may well be contingent on other (also necessary elements).
Just because something is necessary does not imply that it isn't contingent - that makes no sense.
Something may be necessary for a specific purpose and not be what is known as a necessary entity. In other words you are using one sense of the word necessary. When it comes to the universe we have to ask ourselves is it necessary, in the sense that everything that is within it dependent on it, while being final or is it the type of necessary entity you are talking about necessary for a specific as part of a chain but contingent.....and if it is your type of necessary entity what is it contingent on?
I think we need to look at what it is people mean when they talk about necessary entities. And obviously Jeremy and I see a necessary entity as meaning something which hasn't got a cause or to put it another way has no contingency about it.
With your model we could therefore point to any necessity you are suggesting and ultimately ask what is actually necessary about it?
-
I think you are misinterpreting necessary as being sufficient - certainly in my world they aren't the same. All sorts of things may be necessary but not sufficient for an outcome,
I'm surprised you haven't noticed my appeals for the sufficent reason for the universe to be the necessary entity for it self.
-
Something may be necessary for a specific purpose and not be what is known as a necessary entity. In other words you are using one sense of the word necessary. When it comes to the universe we have to ask ourselves is it necessary, in the sense that everything that is within it dependent on it, while being final or is it the type of necessary entity you are talking about necessary for a specific as part of a chain but contingent.....and if it is your type of necessary entity what is it contingent on?
I think we need to look at what it is people mean when they talk about necessary entities. And obviously Jeremy and I see a necessary entity as meaning something which hasn't got a cause or to put it another way has no contingency about it.
With your model we could therefore point to any necessity you are suggesting and ultimately ask what is actually necessary about it?
But I think your definition is more akin to philosophy - and the universe is not a philosophic construct. It is a real physical thing - therefore the notions of necessary, sufficient and contingent need to be those associated with physical relationships, not philosophical constructs.
-
Vlad,
The evidence is observed contingency.
First, you’re still stuck in the unqualified assumption that that which operates within “the universe” must also apply to the universe itself. You keep ignoring this, but that doesn't make it go away.
Second, it’s by no means certain that the universe functions entirely on a “contingent” (ie deterministic) basis in any case – “true” randomness for example is a real possibility at the quantum field level.
Third, your argument is structured the same way that black swans were said not to exist because none had been observed…until some were. You cannot just jump from the current state of knowledge (even leaving aside the quantum field evidence) to a categoric statement of the non-existence of something. An orbiting teapot hasn't been observed either - does that fact justify the claim that there categorically isn't one?
As so often before, you're all over the place here.
You make evidence the most important demand of your credo and then just flippantly own up to not having any?
Yet again: if you don’t like evidence as the means to justify beliefs, what method would you propose instead?
Do you intend to run away from this problem forever too, or what?
My evidence is observed contingency…
Which fails as “evidence” – se above…
…and following that through logically.
Which fails as “logic” – see above.
I have told you I don't propose that God just is.
Yes you do. Why god rather than not god is your problem here.
I propose he has sufficient reason within himself…
Sorry, if you want to deny that the universe could be “sufficient reason within itself” for its existence then you can’t just special plead the identical argument to be legitimate for the “explanation” you want to fill the gap.
…and that a just is statement i.e. Russell, Is just an attempt to stifle the very notion of sufficient reason.
Still you don’t understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. Not sure why given how often it’s been explained to you, but you can’t move forward on this until it finally sinks in.
And here's the thing. Russells action in that respect was deliberate to prevent everyone seeing that his wagon had no wheels, that the emperor had now clothes and that the type of atheism that descends from him looks like just one massive courtiers reply.
If by “Russell’s action” you actually meant his comment that the universe is a “brute fact” then it’s none of these things. Rather it’s the statement that we have no choice but to accept the universe as a fact even if we cannot (yet at least) answer the deepest questions about it. By contrast, there’s no such basis to accept the various claims and assertions of supernatural answers some would attempt to answer those questions that actually have no explanatory value at all.
Apart from all that though…
-
But I think your definition is more akin to philosophy - and the universe is not a philosophic construct. It is a real physical thing - therefore the notions of necessary, sufficient and contingent need to be those associated with physical relationships, not philosophical constructs.
Yes but it can be physical and contingent.
I have already asked this once. What is the physical evidence that it is a) contingent or b) Necessary in that it has no cause, no contingency.
Your post is itself of course deeply philosophical. In fact it is philosophically physicalist.
It is a real physical thing - therefore the notions of necessary, sufficient and contingent need to be those associated with physical relationships, not philosophical constructs.
Your assertion. You know what you have to do.
Secondly The contingency from which the argument from contingency is derived is Observed.
-
Vlad,
If by “Russell’s action” you actually meant his comment that the universe is a “brute fact” then it’s none of these things. Rather it’s the statement that we have no choice but to accept the universe as a fact .
Then he's guilty of a straw man argument since nobody I believe doesn't accept the universe as a fact.
-
Yes but it can be physical and contingent.
Indeed it can - it can also be physical, contingent and necessary.
-
If you are saying the evidence for the necessary entity/explanation cannot be observed i'd agree.
I'm saying what I actually said - try reading it.
1:What then is the evidence for it
2: What then is the empirical evidence for it
3:Remind me of why it cannot be observed
4: er, remind me what the explanation was.
For fuck's sake, why don't you ever pay attention:-
It's right there at the very centre of our best discretion of the universe as a whole: general relativity. What that describes is a four-dimensional space-time manifold, which would, as a whole, be timeless because time is internal to it. It would therefore not be subject to change and cannot have started to exist, nor will it ever cease to exist. That sounds pretty much like 'just being' to me. Oh, and, of course, nobody can observe the whole thing because all observers are necessarily embedded in it (not that I quite see why something 'necessary' has to be unobservable).
-
What is the physical evidence that it is a) contingent or b) Necessary in that it has no cause, no contingency.
But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.
-
Secondly The contingency from which the argument from contingency is derived is Observed.
Ah yes, this argument you keep referring to but have never actually outlined in full or referenced some version of it you agree with. This always seems to be your MO.
-
Vlad,
Then he's guilty of a straw man argument since nobody I believe doesn't accept the universe as a fact.
It's not a straw man argument at all, for reasons you should understand by now (and which is deeply ironic by the way given your heavy reliance on straw men arguments).
Anyway, I just took the time (yet again) to dismantle your efforts here. Until and unless you try at least to deal with rebuttals you've been given they stand.
-
Vlad,
First, you’re still stuck in the unqualified assumption that that which operates within “the universe” must also apply to the universe itself. You keep ignoring this, but that doesn't make it go away.
Are you talking about the fallacy of composition? Isn't there are fallacy of doing the opposite of that?
Anyway let's play it your way, so, all things in the universe are contingent but if we look at the universe from the outside as a whole we might see it is necessary.
Hillside you haven't been keeping up. I am saying that if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which makes it necessary? or to put it another way. What is the sufficient reason that makes the universe necessary?
I am also saying that if the universe is contingent what is it that it is dependent on?
-
Vlad,
It's not a straw man argument at all,
Anyone in agreement?
-
But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.
And are you saying the universe is one of them?
-
But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.
Vlad's using 'necessity' in a different sense ("[something] of which it is impossible that it should not exist" according to one source), which comes from an argument for god originally from Thomas Aquinas. I'd give you a link but I'm trying to get Vlad to actually commit to a specific version of it, so we can clarify what he thinks he's talking about.
-
But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.
I don't agree with you so what is it which makes your definition superior. So far you have only offered on this score an argument from philosophical physicalism. Can you do better?
-
Vlad's using 'necessity' in a different sense ("[something] of which it is impossible that it should not exist" according to one source), which comes from an argument for god originally from Thomas Aquinas. I'd give you a link but I'm trying to get Vlad to actually commit to a specific version of it, so we can clarify what he thinks he's talking about.
Get me to commit to a specific version of it or steer me into the version the atheists like (Their own caricature)?
Caveat emptor, Prof make sure you are getting a link to the real thing.
-
I have told you I don't propose that God just is. I propose he has sufficient reason within himself
I may be reading this wrong but is that saying that God is necessary but that the "necessariness" is contingent upon something (sufficient reason), "within himself"?
In other words if said sufficient reason did not exist then God could not be necessary?
..or is the sufficient reason, the Necessary perhaps?
I'm confused!
-
Get me to commit to a specific version of it or steer me into the version the atheists like (Their own caricature)?
Good grief, this is absurd even by your standards. I'm inviting you to provide a link or, for that matter, your own full exposition of the argument and you accuse me of trying to steer people to a version I like!
What's the matter with you?
Caveat emptor, Prof make sure you are getting a link to the real thing.
The floor is yours, please do provide the 'real thing'..............
-
I don't agree with you so what is it which makes your definition superior.
Because I can back it up with evidence.
Here is one of a huge number of examples of something which is a necessary entity for something, but which is clearly contingent on something else.
The sun is a necessary entity for the life on our planet to have evolved and to exist. Without the sun life on earth could not have developed, therefore it is necessary. However the sun is clearly itself a contingent entity, being itself dependent on and caused by the physical factors within the universe which cause the formation of stars.
-
Vlad's using 'necessity' in a different sense ("[something] of which it is impossible that it should not exist" according to one source), which comes from an argument for god originally from Thomas Aquinas. I'd give you a link but I'm trying to get Vlad to actually commit to a specific version of it, so we can clarify what he thinks he's talking about.
Indeed - which is a philosophical, or even a theological, construct. This approach doesn't really sit properly with discussions on how physical entities (e.g. the universe) are formed and exist.
-
Vlad,
Are you talking about the fallacy of composition?
No.
Isn't there are fallacy of doing the opposite of that?
No idea.
Anyway let's play it your way, so, all things in the universe are contingent…
Actually no – we cannot rule out the possibility of non-contingent properties of the universe because we happen not to have observed them (while quantum mechanics hints at it, we can’t rule out the possibility of hidden determinism behind that).
…but if we look at the universe from the outside as a whole we might see it is necessary.
Forget the “if we look at” bit, but basically yes – you cannot rule out the possibility that “the universe” is its own explanation.
Hillside you haven't been keeping up.
That’s another irony meter shattered to a million pieces then…
I am saying that if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which makes it necessary? or to put it another way. What is the sufficient reason that makes the universe necessary?
Leaving aside for now that exactly the same question could be asked about your assertion “god”, the question is meaningless. The universe as Russell said is a “brute fact”. There’s not a piece of “necessariness” we could observe even if the question had meaning – rather the burden of proof (as ever) is with you to explain why it can’t be its own explanation.
I am also saying that if the universe is contingent what is it that it is dependent on?
If the moon is made of cheese, where did the cheese come from? Unless you can demonstrate first that the universe must be contingent on something, there’s no point speculating about what the “something” might be.
Oh, and still your stuck with the same question about your superstitious “answer”: why god rather than not god?
-
I may be reading this wrong but is that saying that God is necessary but that the "necessariness" is contingent upon something (sufficient reason), "within himself"?
In other words if said sufficient reason did not exist then God could not be necessary?
..or is the sufficient reason, the Necessary perhaps?
I'm confused!
sufficient reason would be not being dependent on anything else. That is the sufficient reason and that would have to be the sufficient reason for the universe too to be The Necessary entity.
-
Because I can back it up with evidence.
Here is one of a huge number of examples of something which is a necessary entity for something, but which is clearly contingent on something else.
The sun is a necessary entity for the life on our planet to have evolved and to exist. Without the sun life on earth could not have developed, therefore it is necessary. However the sun is clearly itself a contingent entity, being itself dependent on and caused by the physical factors within the universe which cause the formation of stars.
Can't disagree with that just your definition of necessity which doesn't take into account whether something has/needs no cause or explanation.
I asked whether the universe is therefore a being which is contingent and necessary in your terms.
In the context of your own definitions you look as though you are straw manning to avoid the question.
Is the universe both necessary and contingent and if it is both on what is it contingent on?
-
Vlad,
No.
No idea.
Actually no – we cannot rule out the possibility of non-contingent properties of the universe because we happen not to have observed them (while quantum mechanics hints at it, we can’t rule out the possibility of hidden determinism behind that).
Forget the “if we look at” bit, but basically yes – you cannot rule out the possibility that “the universe” is its own explanation.
So is this determinism 'part' of the universe? If yes it suffers from being a part because a necessary being would then be dependent or contingent on the parts and therefore not be the necessary being. If determinism is just a part and the other part is Randomness then something had to er, determine what was to be determined and what was to be random. Therefore if we are pitching determinism as a part then we cannot also claim it as this ''Hidden determinism''. Unless it is possible to determine something which is random which seems contradictory to me.
For once I am looking forward to a reply. Please, Pleazzzze don't make it personal.
-
Vlad,
Can't disagree with that just your definition of necessity which doesn't take into account whether something has/needs no cause or explanation.
Yes it does. “Cause” and “explanation” are different matters, but if it turns out that the universe needs no cause other than itself then that’d be an end to it. So far at least there’s no cogent reason to rule that out (let alone to transfer the same problem to a different entity).
I asked whether the universe is therefore a being which is contingent and necessary in your terms.
You can ask all you like, but no-one knows the answer to that. Even less for that matter does anyone know whether, even if there is a cause other than the observable universe itself, that cause wouldn’t itself be contingent on something else.
In the context of your own definitions you look as though you are straw manning to avoid the question.
Would it really kill you actually to look up what “straw man” means. (Ironically, an actual version of it is what you’re doing here by the way.)
Is the universe both necessary and contingent and if it is both on what is it contingent on?
Again, if the moon is made of cream cheese then where did the cream cheese come from? You have all your work ahead of you to get past your initial “if” before speculating on a cause (and more work still even if you could get that far to explain why that cause wouldn’t itself be contingent on something else).
-
sufficient reason would be not being dependent on anything else. That is the sufficient reason and that would have to be the sufficient reason for the universe too to be The Necessary entity.
Ok, so it might be the case that , what I am calling, the laws of nature, are the Necessary. (I think I may have read this somewhere and it obviously stuck as a plausible arguement)
Without them, our universe cannot "function" and therefore exist, but they could exist whether or not there is a universe/matter like our's to utilise them?
-
sufficient reason would be not being dependent on anything else. That is the sufficient reason and that would have to be the sufficient reason for the universe too to be The Necessary entity.
The problem is that you've just made up god and made up the idea that it would not depend on anything else. I can just make the idea that the universe doesn't depend on anything and is therefore (by your dodgy logic) necessary. Now what?
You appear to have nothing but a fantasy. How about linking to or putting forward an actual logical argument?
-
Vlad,
So is this determinism 'part' of the universe?
Determinism (cause and effect) is a phenomenon we see in the observable universe, yes – if that’s what you’re trying to say?
If yes it suffers from being a part because a necessary being would then be dependent or contingent on the parts and therefore not be the necessary being.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. What are you trying to say here?
You seem to be implying that the fact of determinism within a system would rule out the system as a whole being non-deterministic in character. I have no idea why though, and nor it seems have you.
If determinism is just a part and the other part is Randomness then something had to er, determine what was to be determined and what was to be random.
Why? Why for example could not randomly generated phenomena produce deterministic systems? Even if we allow for "true" randomness at a fundamental level, that's basically what nature is.
Therefore…
Very funny…
… if we are pitching determinism as a part then we cannot also claim it as this ''Hidden determinism''. Unless it is possible to determine something which is random which seems contradictory to me.
You’re lost in straw man again. I didn’t say I “claimed” hidden determinism at all. What I actually said is that, even when evidence implies “true” randomness within the universe at the quantum level, we cannot rule out the possibility that there may be a deeper, non-apparent deterministic process behind that that means the apparent randomness isn’t “truly” random after all.
For once I am looking forward to a reply. Please, Pleazzzze don't make it personal.
Logic and reason are all that's necessary (see above).
-
Vlad,
Determinism (cause and effect) is a phenomenon we see in the observable universe, yes – if that’s what you’re trying to say?
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. What are you trying to say here?
You seem to be implying that the fact of determinism within a system would rule out the system as a whole being non-deterministic in character. I have no idea why though, and nor it seems have you.
Why? Why for example could not randomly generated phenomena produce deterministic systems? Even if we allow for "true" randomness at a fundamental level, that's basically what nature is.
Very funny…
You’re lost in straw man again. I didn’t say I “claimed” hidden determinism at all. What I actually said is that, even when evidence implies “true” randomness within the universe at the quantum level, we cannot rule out the possibility that there may be a deeper, non-apparent deterministic process behind that that means the apparent randomness isn’t “truly” random after all.
Logic and reason are all that's necessary (see above).
You seem to have abandoned the context of the discussion and imposed your own.
-
Vlad,
You seem to have abandoned the context of the discussion and imposed your own.
I did no such thing. What I actually did was to correct your various misunderstandings, straw men and collapses into incoherence. Why you will never even try to address the arguments and rebuttals you’re given though is beyond me.
Seriously, what’s stopping you? You implied for example that a random system couldn’t produce deterministic phenomena. I asked you why you think that – ie, I responded specifically to your agenda rather than imposed my own – and in reply you've just made another false accusation and run away again.
Why?
-
Vlad,
I did no such thing. What I actually did was to correct your various misunderstandings, straw men and collapses into incoherence. Why you will never even try to address the arguments and rebuttals you’re given though is beyond me.
Seriously, what’s stopping you? You implied for example that a random system couldn’t produce deterministic phenomena.
Where did I do that ? As for you changing the context I'm talking about contingency and necessity without having specified that a random event or determinism is contingent or necessary. You seem to be hedging wanting randomness to have the flexibility to be deterministic and visa versa.
Indeed You have run the following ideas: The bits of the universe are contingent and somehow the final step in the chain of it's own explanation, There is a hidden determinism, Determinism could arise from randomness, randomness may really not be randomness at all but determinism.
Either you can fit these into a context of contingency and necessity or the rest of us will have the pleasure of trying.
-
The problem is that you've just made up god and made up the idea that it would not depend on anything else. I can just make the idea that the universe doesn't depend on anything and is therefore (by your dodgy logic) necessary. Now what?
You appear to have nothing but a fantasy. How about linking to or putting forward an actual logical argument?
Forget the word God if you like. If you feel better then I suggest that the word God is, for some strange reason having an effect on you. Now since we are just looking at the necessary entity does eliminating the word actually change anything?
Let me take you to the final words of Aquinus argument after he has arrived at the necessary entity.
'' and THAT'' he says '' Is what we call God. That ought to tell you that God is not just an extra entity but the name given to the necessary entity.
-
Can't disagree with that just your definition of necessity which doesn't take into account whether something has/needs no cause or explanation.
But you are trying to redefine what 'necessary' actually means. Go look at any number of dictionary definitions - here's a good example:
1. ADJECTIVE
Something that is necessary is needed in order for something else to happen.
2. ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun]
A necessary consequence or connection must happen or exist, because of the nature of the things or events involved.
In other words it is about whether one thing is needed for something else to happen. Nowhere in these definitions is there the suggestion that something that is necessary doesn't have a cause - you are just making stuff up.
-
Vlad,
Where did I do that ?
Here:
If yes it suffers from being a part because a necessary being would then be dependent or contingent on the parts and therefore not be the necessary being.
(Though to be fair your attempts are expressing thoughts are often so garbled that it’s hard to tell what you do intend, which is why I expressed my reply initially as a question).
As for you changing the context…
You meant to say there, “as for my accusation that you…” etc, but ok…
I'm talking about contingency and necessity without having specified that a random event or determinism is contingent or necessary.
If an event is “truly” random than it can’t be contingent. Whatever might be sitting behind it cannot know what the outcome will be. That’s what "random" requires.
You seem to be hedging wanting randomness to have the flexibility to be deterministic and visa versa.
And now you’re doing it again! Try to understand here – really try: so far as I can tell there’s no reason a random process could not produce an outcome that’s deterministic. If, just for sake of discussion, we allow for some randomness at a base level of reality we still see everywhere deterministic outcomes in nature.
If you seriously think though that a non-deterministic process cannot produce deterministic outcomes then explain why rather than just assert it.
Indeed You have run the following ideas: The bits of the universe are contingent and somehow the final step in the chain of it's own explanation, There is a hidden determinism, Determinism could arise from randomness, randomness may really not be randomness at all but determinism.
As so often, your inability to distinguish between a discussion of possibilities and making claims of probabilities is letting you down.
Either you can fit these into a context of contingency and necessity or the rest of us will have the pleasure of trying.
Or you could try reading what I’ve actually said and then addressing that rather than misrepresenting it.
It’s your call though.
-
Forget the word God if you like. If you feel better then I suggest that the word God is, for some strange reason having an effect on you. Now since we are just looking at the necessary entity does eliminating the word actually change anything?
Nope - it's still just you making shit up.
Let me take you to the final words of Aquinus argument after he has arrived at the necessary entity.
It would be much more use to post the whole thing because it surely must be better than the "Vlad's little fantasy" version here.
'' and THAT'' he says '' Is what we call God. That ought to tell you that God is not just an extra entity but the name given to the necessary entity.
As I said before, many of the so-called god arguments are utterly absurd precisely because, even if they were sound, they are arguments for something that just arbitrarily (or through some absolutely laughable additional steps) gets identified with 'god'.
In this instance, of course, it's you adopting yet another version of god, even further undermining any hope of any sort of sensible discussion with you about its existence.
-
But you are trying to redefine what 'necessary' actually means. Go look at any number of dictionary definitions - here's a good example:
1. ADJECTIVE
Something that is necessary is needed in order for something else to happen.
2. ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun]
A necessary consequence or connection must happen or exist, because of the nature of the things or events involved.
In other words it is about whether one thing is needed for something else to happen. Nowhere in these definitions is there the suggestion that something that is necessary doesn't have a cause - you are just making stuff up.
I think Aquinas definition predates your dictionaries by a good few centuries. Stop talking bollocks.
-
Vlad’s recently been rapidly reframing whatever it is he believes in. He’s gone from Christian to theist to deist to alien worshipper to “call it whatever you like-ist” in the last few days alone.
His “argument” here is precisely that of people who argued for evil spirits causing diseases: “diseases happen”; “diseases must have a cause”; “I can’t observe the cause”; “therefore the cause isn’t material”; “therefore evil spirits”.
You would think the obvious problems with this approach would trouble him as they should, but it doesn’t seem to.
Ah well.
-
Vlad,
I think Aquinas definition predates your dictionaries by a good few centuries.
Relevance?
Stop talking bollocks.
If you think someone is talking bollocks wouldn't it be better for explain why rather than just to assert it? (See also "waffle" and various other pejorative hand waving when you don't like an argument but can't address it.)
-
Vlad,
Relevance?
If you think someone is talking bollocks wouldn't it be better for explain why rather than just to assert it? (See also "waffle" and various other pejorative hand waving when you don't like an argument but can't address it.)
He, Professor Davey I take it is employed in Higher Education. All he has to do is trot down to his institution's Philosophy department and have a chat.
-
I think Aquinas definition predates your dictionaries by a good few centuries. Stop talking bollocks.
I think you will find that the word necessary and its accepted meaning predates your chap Aquinas by well over a thousand years.
It's origin is from the classical latin 'necessarius', meaning (guess what) unavoidable, requisite or indispensable - not having no cause. And the origin of the word and its current dictionary definitions (such as the ones I gave) are effectively identical.
Vlad - stop making stuff up.
-
Vlad,
He, Professor Davey I take it is employed in Higher Education. All he has to do is trot down to his institution's Philosophy department and have a chat.
I'm sure he'd be pleased to on your behalf, but sadly I fear you'd have an awful lot of basic orientation courses to take before they let you anywhere near their august halls of learning.
-
I think you will find that the word necessary and its accepted meaning predates your chap Aquinas by well over a thousand years.
It's origin is from the classical latin 'necessarius', meaning (guess what) unavoidable, requisite or indispensable - not having no cause. And the origin of the word and its current dictionary definitions (such as the ones I gave) are effectively identical.
Vlad - stop making stuff up.
we have been talking about what is necessary for the universe to be here so even under your definition the debate is.Is the universe necessary for itself or is it contingent on itself or on something else. Now go and read Aquinas.
-
Vlad,
I'm sure he'd be pleased to on your behalf, but sadly I fear you'd have an awful lot of basic orientation courses to take before they let you anywhere near their august halls of learning.
I think you've made some atheists "Come"....and many atheists who might have joined this forum "Go".
-
Vlad’s recently been rapidly reframing whatever it is he believes in. He’s gone from Christian to theist to deist to alien worshipper to “call it whatever you like-ist” in the last few days alone.
His “argument” here is precisely that of people who argued for evil spirits causing diseases: “diseases happen”; “diseases must have a cause”; “I can’t observe the cause”; “therefore the cause isn’t material”; “therefore evil spirits”.
You would think the obvious problems with this approach would trouble him as they should, but it doesn’t seem to.
Ah well.
we are not talking about the origin of material things
We are talking about the origin of material. Is it existent because it is contingent or does it have sufficient reason in itself?
Well, Does it?
-
Vlad,
I'm sure he'd be pleased to on your behalf, but sadly I fear you'd have an awful lot of basic orientation courses to take before they let you anywhere near their august halls of learning.
Really, that's fascinating. My own take is that, having read what he has to say he wont go down to the Philosophy department in case they start to giggle uncontrollably.
-
Now go and read Aquinas.
And still no link or exposition of what you consider to be the argument as you see it. There seem to be some problems with interpretation of the original (and obvious flaws if taken at face value), and there are also other versions, for example by Samuel Clarke, according to the limited search and reading I could be bothered to do, but you're obviously an expert and must therefore have a version in mind that you think is sound, so of you go.....
-
Really, that's fascinating. My own take is that, having read what he has to say he wont go down to the Philosophy department in case they start to giggle uncontrollably.
I'd be more than happy to pop down to our philosophy department ... except we don't have one. Philosophy is a niche discipline and not all Universities have one, and that includes many 'top' Russell Group institutions.
However mid way through my academic career I did study philosophy as part of a Masters degree in ethics, at an institution in the top three for research in philosophy in the UK. And I was taught by a world renowned philosopher.
That said, if I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe I will pop down to our highly regarded School of Physics and Astronomy - and chat to the folks in the astronomy and astrophysics group, or perhaps have a coffee with some of the particle physicists too. Indeed, seeing as I used to have overall responsibility for our Faculty's research I used to do this regularly.
And I think most people wanting to know more about the nature and origins of the universe would also pop down to the physics and astronomy department, not the philosophy department.
-
Now go and read Aquinas.
Beyond parody.
If I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe why should I take notice of a person who was writing at a time when virtually nothing was know about the universe, and was aligned with an organisation that considered it heretical to even suggest that the earth went around the sun.
What next - check out Francis of Assisi for his views on epigenetic regulation of gene expression.
-
I'd be more than happy to pop down to our philosophy department ... except we don't have one. Philosophy is a niche discipline and not all Universities have one, and that includes many 'top' Russell Group institutions.
However mid way through my academic career I did study philosophy as part of a Masters degree in ethics, at an institution in the top three for research in philosophy in the UK. And I was taught by a world renowned philosopher.
That said, if I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe I will pop down to our highly regarded School of Physics and Astronomy - and chat to the folks in the astronomy and astrophysics group, or perhaps have a coffee with some of the particle physicists too. Indeed, seeing as I used to have overall responsibility for our Faculty's research I used to do this regularly.
And I think most people wanting to know more about the nature and origins of the universe would also pop down to the physics and astronomy department, not the philosophy department.
You would be going down to the philosophy department to gain some understanding of an argument you have involved yourself in.
''Most people wanting to know more about the....... origins of the universe'' is fine to get information from that philosophy which says we can find the origin of nature by studying things within nature.
-
Beyond parody.
If I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe why should I take notice of a person who was writing at a time when virtually nothing was know about the universe, and was aligned with an organisation that considered it heretical to even suggest that the earth went around the sun.
What next - check out Francis of Assisi for his views on epigenetic regulation of gene expression.
If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.
Philosophical arguments remain and are often revisited time and time again. Some argue that methodological materialism or science arises out of philosophical materialism and extremists have used that belief to suggest religion in a scientist is a professional handicap.
There isn't much warrant or virtue of flip flopping back into science when the philosophy get's tough.
-
If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.
But, as I have pointed out several times, discussion of the nature and origins of the universe isn't fundamentally a philosophical discussion, but one of physics - hence why if you want to know more you should pop down to the physics department, not the philosophy department.
Indeed in a university with both departments I imagine were you to pitch up to the reception of the philosophy department and say you wanted to talk to someone who could tell you more about the the nature and origins of the universe, they'd probably reply 'sorry I think you are in the wrong place - head over the road to the big building with the telescope on the top - that's physics and astronomy.
-
If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.
Indeed it is - which is why when I was studying ethics, I wrote a highly regarded piece that negatively critiqued the doctrine of double effect - something I regard as one of the most disingenuous and dangerous pieces of ethical sophistry and dishonesty created to get deontologists out of a hole of declaring clearly desirable acts as being unethical.
And guess who was the original author of this piece of nonsense with holes so big in it you might be able to pass the universe through them ... step forward one Thomas Aquinas.
-
Beyond parody.
Begging the question, horses laugh.
If I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe why should I take notice of a person who was writing at a time when virtually nothing was know about the universe, and was aligned with an organisation that considered it heretical to even suggest that the earth went around the sun.
Fallacy of modernity, Generic fallacy, intellectual imperialism for arguing the supremacy of science over philosophy, fake battle between science and philosophy.
What next - check out Francis of Assisi for his views on epigenetic regulation of gene expression.
Horses laughAnd I think most people wanting to know more about the nature and origins of the universe would also pop down to the physics and astronomy department, not the philosophy department.
Most people might be doing both, watching the science and discussing philosophy in an informed way. It's called being a rounded individual.
-
If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.
It's also impossible to argue against a philosophical argument that hasn't been clearly presented. I've found the same text (translation) on multiple sites of Aquinas' third of the Five Ways (argument from contingency or possibility). Do you really want to go with that? Firstly, it really isn't much like what you've been wittering on about here, and secondly, it's shit.
-
Fallacy of modernity, Generic fallacy, intellectual imperialism for arguing the supremacy of science over philosophy, fake battle between science and philosophy.
Rubbish - how can anyone have anything valuable to say about the universe if (through no fault of their own) they knew pretty well zero about the universe. That isn't intellectual imperialism, merely stating as a fact that people in the 13thC were ignorant of what we know now about the universe. But there is also a heavy dollop of wilful ignorance - plenty of people in those days (and before) had worked out that the earth went around the sun - the catholic church refused to accept the truth for theological reasons.
-
Most people might be doing both, watching the science and discussing philosophy in an informed way. It's called being a rounded individual.
Oh dear the weasle words that imply equivalence. Sure there are some interesting philosophical discussions to be had (one of the reasons I studies philosophy and ethics) but there are nothing without understanding of the nature of the universe - in other words what it is. If you try to philosophise about something that you don't actually understand then the discussion is completely pointless.
No doubt our redoubtable 13thC philosophers philosophised greatly as to the importance of the earth at the centre of things, with the sun and other heavenly bodies going around it. But guess what, they were wrong in fact, and therefore their philosophy, for all its beautiful wording, is build on sand, and quick-sand at that.
-
It's also impossible to argue against a philosophical argument that hasn't been clearly presented. I've found the same text (translation) on multiple sites of Aquinas' third of the Five Ways (argument from contingency or possibility). Do you really want to go with that? Firstly, it really isn't much like what you've been wittering on about here, and secondly, it's shit.
I wonder if it is as useless as the doctrine of double effect, which is also shit.
The problem with the doctrine of double effect is that it tries (and fails) to ram a 'fix' into a pre-decided conclusion on the ethics of certain acts to try to get out of a hole in that the predetermined doctrine wont allow certain acts that are clearly desirable (and the fix tries to get around that uncomfortable truth). Rather than apply a fix, perhaps better to conclude that your basic approach is wrong in the first place. But of course Aquinas couldn't do that as he thought the basic approach came from god.
-
Vlad,
we are not talking about the origin of material things
We are talking about the origin of material. Is it existent because it is contingent or does it have sufficient reason in itself?
Well, Does it?
You’re not going to get a different answer just because the you ask the same question over and again.
Once more (with feeling):
1. I have no idea whether the universe is its own explanation. Nor though have you.
2. I do know that there are hints in the observable universe of possibly non-determinative processes.
3. I do know that your reasoning that a universe that appears to function deterministically must therefore itself have been determined by something else is a crude non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
4. I do know that, if nonetheless you want to posit a cause outwith the observable universe, you have no grounds to say anything about what that cause would be, and nor do you have grounds to know that it in turn wasn’t caused by something else.
5. I do know that essentially all you have here is a god of the gaps. You're using a “don’t know” in our current state of knowledge to insert whatever shit tales your fancy in exactly the way that people used to make up evil spirits to “explain” the "don’t know" about what caused disease.
Clear enough now?
-
Vlad,
Now go and read Aquinas.
Now go and read Galen - he had a lot to say about diseases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
-
Vlad,
Now go and read Galen - he had a lot to say about diseases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
Non sequitur.
-
But, as I have pointed out several times, discussion of the nature and origins of the universe isn't fundamentally a philosophical discussion, but one of physics - hence why if you want to know more you should pop down to the physics department, not the philosophy department.
That is just philosophical physicalism. Which doesn't actually have the physics to back it up.
-
Non sequitur.
::) You really do need to learn what these terms mean.
-
Vlad,
You’re not going to get a different answer just because the you ask the same question over and again.
Once more (with feeling):
1. I have no idea whether the universe is its own explanation. Nor though have you.
what I can say though is it is either it's own explanation or it isn't and having it's own explanation has less going for it and infinite regressions of causation don't have much going for them either
2. I do know that there are hints in the observable universe of possibly non-determinative processes.
And what do you think these suggest about theorigin of the universe?3. I do know that your reasoning that a universe that appears to function deterministically must therefore itself have been determined by something else is a crude non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
You have introduced determinism. How do you fit determinism and randomness into contingency and necessity. So far you just seem to be moving the goalposts........Like Prof Davey you just seem to be giving it the old ''Naah, I don't want to talk about this.''
4. I do know that, if nonetheless you want to posit a cause outwith the observable universe, you have no grounds to say anything about what that cause would be, and nor do you have grounds to know that it in turn wasn’t caused by something else.
5. I do know that essentially all you have here is a god of the gaps. You're using a “don’t know” in our current state of knowledge to insert whatever shit tales your fancy in exactly the way that people used to make up evil spirits to “explain” the "don’t know" about what caused disease.
Nope, I've been the one inviting people to demonstrate what it is about the universe that makes it self explicable Not God of the Gaps although the Gap in question is obvious confirmed by an ''I don't know'' from your good self. The gap is that which is between the universe just is and the universe just is because it has no cause and we know that because sufficient reason is, Hillside?
-
Vlad,
Where is your argument?
All your pointless and vague hand-waving doesn't amount to a structured argument. Either put one forward, reference one, or shut the fuck up.
If you don't, I'll post the translation of Aquinas' original and we can all have a good laugh...
-
Vlad,
Where is your argument?
All your pointless and vague hand-waving doesn't amount to a structured argument. Either put one forward, reference one, or shut the fuck up.
If you don't, I'll post the translation of Aquinas' original and we can all have a good laugh...
Do what you have to do.
I am flying the flag for Aquinas but an even bigger flag for arguments from contingency.
-
Do what you have to do.
I am flying the flag for Aquinas...
Okay, here's what I found on several sites (for example: here (https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html)):
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be or not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be, at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if these were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exists begins to exists only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it is impossible for anything to have begun to exist; thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
Which is comical in the extreme. The first (of many) problems is that things may stop existing but they don't leave nothing and, as the wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Tertia_Via:_The_Argument_from_Contingency) points out, Aquinas also had a "...principle that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."
The other problems are equally obvious, as is the fact that it clearly differs from what you've been vaguely hinting at here.
...but an even bigger flag for arguments from contingency.
So how about posting one you actually agree with?
-
The evidence is observed contingency.
Can you point to the thing that you have observed that the Universe is contingent on?
I have told you I don't propose that God just is.
I have told you that you do and I'm right.
I propose he has sufficient reason within himself and that a just is statement i.e. Russell, Is just an attempt to stifle the very notion of sufficient reason.
"he has sufficient reason within himself" is just a wordier version of "he just is".
-
Is that the case - maybe I am thinking about this in a different way.
I would have though that a necessary entity is one that were it to be removed (or not exist) would prevent or preclude the outcome from happening. So it is on the critical path, so to speak. It might be one element in a chain of events or entities, and in which case be caused by the event or entity before it. However the point is that were is not to exist that chain would be broken in such a manner that the eventual outcome of that chain could no longer happen.
You're using the term "necessary" in the normal way. Vlad is using it in a specific technical philosophical way. A contingent entity is one that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary entity is one that doesn't depend on something else for its existence. Life on Earth depends on the Sun for its existence but the Sun isn't "necessary" in the sense that Vlad means it because it depends on various other entities and processes for its existence - mostly the large cloud of gas that it and the solar system are formed of..
-
Can you point to the thing that you have observed that the Universe is contingent on?
I'm not sure if I've strayed into that territory. The Prof asked what evidence is there for Necessity and , believing that the argument from contingency starts with the contingency we can see any way seems like evidence when combined with Logic.I have told you that you do and I'm right.
Is God just is the same as God exists due to sufficient reason within himself mmmmmmmmmmm ''just is'' sounds a tad informal. What I am convinced at is that Russell was at this point in the discussion a bit on the back foot.
"he has sufficient reason within himself" is just a wordier version of "he just is".
yyyyyyyyyeno. Just is stops us dead where as we wanna talk about what it is about God that makes him necessary i.e. the argument from contingency......or if the universe is offered as the Necessary being, what is it about the universe that makes it necessary i.e. the argument from contingency?
-
I'm not sure if I've strayed into that territory. The Prof asked what evidence is there for Necessity and , believing that the argument from contingency starts with the contingency we can see any way seems like evidence when combined with Logic.
So where is the logic of which you speak? Yet again:
Where is your argument?
The argument from Aquinas himself is comically absurd (#183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270)) and you have provided nothing but vague hand-waving and make-believe.
-
Okay, here's what I found on several sites (for example: here (https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html)):
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be or not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be, at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if these were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exists begins to exists only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it is impossible for anything to have begun to exist; thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
Which is comical in the extreme. The first (of many) problems is that things may stop existing but they don't leave nothing and, as the wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)#Tertia_Via:_The_Argument_from_Contingency) points out, Aquinas also had a "...principle that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."
The other problems are equally obvious, as is the fact that it clearly differs from what you've been vaguely hinting at here.
So how about posting one you actually agree with?
I can probably find another one of aquinas.
Just of the Bat is he suggesting that the destruction of things give rise to contingent things. Supernovae, geological processes, nuclear decay, Chemistry, Conservation of matter and energy, erosion?............we are star stuff are we not.
-
I'm not sure if I've strayed into that territory.
No. That's the problem. You are claiming the "observed contingency" of the Universe, but I see no evidence that you have observed whatever it is the Universe is contingent on.
-
I can probably find another one of aquinas.
Just find an argument that you think is valid (or post your own). Without that starting point, all we have is your vague hand-waving and make-believe.
Just of the Bat is he suggesting that the destruction of things give rise to contingent things.
Not in the argument, no. Did you actually read it? He's arguing that if everything was 'possible' (contingent) then we'd expect nothing to exist: "Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence." (which in itself is a non sequitur). This directly contradicts his other principle "that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."
Basically, the whole thing is a car crash of illogical nonsense.
-
Just find an argument that you think is valid (or post your own). Without that starting point, all we have is your vague hand-waving and make-believe.
Not in the argument, no. Did you actually read it? He's arguing that if everything was 'possible' (contingent) then we'd expect nothing to exist: "Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence." (which in itself is a non sequitur). This directly contradicts his other principle "that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."
Basically, the whole thing is a car crash of illogical nonsense.
Focussing on what he said ''If everything cannot be....Then at one time there was nothing in existence''
He is talking about natural objects and surmises that while they are they ''be'' but there is a time when they do not exist. Before they existed and after they existed. Since he uses the world natural. I don't know where he has got the idea that there would be a time when nothing existed you've only put a part of his argument, but what we can glean is that the existence of these things is not necessary.
What he is challenging us to is asking if all natural things are contingent where is the necessary entity that gives rise to them? He is reinforcing that in naturalism all things are formed from something else.
Since all natural things can be destroyed and change into other things they cannot be necessary and if nature is a process of destruction and reformation there is a case that nature is also contingent on something .
-
Focussing on what he said ''If everything cannot be....Then at one time there was nothing in existence''
He is talking about natural objects and surmises that while they are they ''be'' but there is a time when they do not exist. Before they existed and after they existed. Since he uses the world natural. I don't know where he has got the idea that there would be a time when nothing existed you've only put a part of his argument, but what we can glean is that the existence of these things is not necessary.
Jeez, why don't you pay attention? The entire 'third way' argument is in #183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270) and if you follow the link (https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html) you can see all five.
What he is challenging us to is asking if all natural things are contingent where is the necessary entity that gives rise to them? He is reinforcing that in naturalism all things are formed from something else.
Which isn't actually what it says - you're back to your own hand-waving.
Since all natural things can be destroyed and change into other things they cannot be necessary and if nature is a process of destruction and reformation there is a case that nature is also contingent on something .
Is there? Then make it.
Where is your argument?
-
No. That's the problem. You are claiming the "observed contingency" of the Universe, but I see no evidence that you have observed whatever it is the Universe is contingent on.
Well I am claiming that I can observe (by empirical means) contingency within the universe...In fact I can see loads of contingency as far as the human race can see. But there are two things I detect nothing that is there by necessity namely nothing that will not have an end. I can also find myself daring to think that that might be the case for the universe but certainly any universe which can be observed. But hey, let's snap out of that.
What we must do is to stop and think why it might be that we are not observing what it is that provides the universe with it's necessity.
1: We haven't observed it yet.
2: It is hidden
3: It's about the size of a teapot.
4: It cannot be observed...i.e. it has not physical properties
At this point we might conclude that non of these applies to the universe and so the universe cannot be what it is we are looking for.
There are other things though A necessary entity doesn't philosophically like having bits since if it is dependent on bits that makes it contingent on the bits.
The universe is nothing but bits.
If we are arguing that the bits are contingent but the whole is necessary, then we are saying that necessary properties emerge. If universal necessity of this type emerges then i'm afraid our universal necessity is you've guessed it Contingent on what it emerges out of.
And because of all this the universe is a poorer candidate for necessary entity than something that avoids contingency altogether.
So Jeremy I haven't observed the necessary being for the universe or the necessary being in the universe because there is nothing physical about it's existence.
Total contingency is not possible because it is an absurd idea.
-
Jeez, why don't you pay attention? The entire 'third way' argument is in #183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270) and if you follow the link (https://web.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/st2.html) you can see all five.
Which isn't actually what it says - you're back to your own hand-waving.
Well, i've given my translation of it. Let's have yours. So far we've just heard you assert that this is illogical nonsense.
let us have your translation and we'll see.
In terms of a time when no natural objects that we see exist, I can see how you can arrive at that scenario
-
Well, i've given my translation of it. Let's have yours.
It doesn't need translating, Vlad, it already is a translation; it's written in English. What you did was attempt to make it mean something it didn't say.
So far we've just heard you assert that this is illogical nonsense.
Simply untrue. I pointed out one problem when I first quoted it (#183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270)) and another in #190 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832288#msg832288).
I'm still waiting for some properly stated coherent argument from you. Yet again: your vague hand-waving and fantasies are not an argument.
-
Well I am claiming that I can observe (by empirical means) contingency within the universe...
But that's not the same thing. You need to observe contingency of the Universe.
Think of it this way. If I tell you that everybody in the bus is wearing red clothes. Does that tell you anything about the colour of the bus itself? No.
-
Vlad,
what I can say though is it is either it's own explanation or it isn't and having it's own explanation has less going for it and infinite regressions of causation don't have much going for them either
Why has the universe being its own explanation “less going for it”?
And what do you think these suggest about theorigin of the universe?
They give the lie to your “argument” that because the universe is wholly determinative as a system, so therefore the universe itself must be determined by something else. The possibility of a non-determinative process within the universe throws doubt on the first part of that assertion (which is a non sequitur in any case).
You have introduced determinism. How do you fit determinism and randomness into contingency and necessity. So far you just seem to be moving the goalposts........Like Prof Davey you just seem to be giving it the old ''Naah, I don't want to talk about this.''
No, you have. Your non sequitur here is to say, “everything I observe in the universe seems to be caused by something else, therefore the universe itself must be caused by something else”. Cause and effect systems are called “determinative”; needing no cause is called “necessary”.
Nope, I've been the one inviting people to demonstrate what it is about the universe that makes it self explicable…
And you’ve been corrected on exactly that mistake several times now. No-one says that the universe necessarily is “self-explicable”: it may be, it may not be. That’s called a “don’t know”. You on the other hand are making the express claim that it isn’t self-explicable, so you cannot just shift the burden of proof to others to show you to be wrong about that.
If you want to make that claim, then (finally) make an argument to justify it.
What’s stopping you?
Not God of the Gaps although the Gap in question is obvious confirmed by an ''I don't know'' from your good self.
So you’re filling the space created by the “don’t know” with an answer with no explanatory value at all, ie “god”. That’s what “god of the gaps” means ffs.
The gap is that which is between the universe just is and the universe just is because it has no cause and we know that because sufficient reason is, Hillside?
No, the gap is between “the universe had no cause” and “the universe had a cause”. No-one know which it is, though you claim it’s the latter but cannot make an argument to justify that claim. Having made it though nonetheless, you then seek to fill the knowledge gap re what that supposed cause was with the term “god”. You know, exactly the same reasoning that led people to fill the knowledge gap they had about disease with “evil spirits”.
You really are the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect here: deep and profound ignorance matched only by your overwhelming conviction that you know it all. It’s frankly weird to see a real life example of it though.
-
What we must do is to stop and think why it might be that we are not observing what it is that provides the universe with it's necessity.
No, what you need to do is to stop and think about what your premises are and how you establish this dichotomy between contingency and necessity, what would make something necessary, which would have to answer the question of how anything can be such that it couldn't fail to exist. We may then be in some sort of position where we can bring some logic into your (so far) baseless fantasies.
-
You're using the term "necessary" in the normal way. Vlad is using it in a specific technical philosophical way. A contingent entity is one that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary entity is one that doesn't depend on something else for its existence. Life on Earth depends on the Sun for its existence but the Sun isn't "necessary" in the sense that Vlad means it because it depends on various other entities and processes for its existence - mostly the large cloud of gas that it and the solar system are formed of..
I do understand that, and that is why I am challenging Vlad.
He is using 'necessary' in a very niche manner, and one that necessarily (see what I did there) should be prefaced clearly to indicate that it isn't being used in the standard manner. Indeed the Wiki article about it does just that - making it clear that we are discsussing:
metaphysical necessity
factual necessity
causal necessity
logical necessity
Rather than just plain old necessity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity
So what Vlad is doing is (I suspect deliberately) blurring the distinctions between necessary in its normal meaning and applied to causal relationships between entities and a philosophical meaning. Given that the universe is clearly something that exists, that we can observe, that has, as a whole and in parts, physical relationships that we try to understand through physics then the primary method to understand the nature and origins of the universe is via physics, not philosophy. As such the appropriate use of the word 'necessary' should be the standard meaning as applied to physics nor the philosophical meaning.
Frankly until we really understand the physical relationships within the universe, adding a layer of speculative philosophy seems pretty pointless to me.
-
But that's not the same thing. You need to observe contingency of the Universe.So are you saying that the money is on the universe being the necessary being. Where has this necessity been observed? Think of it this way. If I tell you that everybody in the bus is wearing red clothes. Does that tell you anything about the colour of the bus itself? No.
Are you saying then that the contingency is contained within in some sense a necessary surrounding, context or environment? The problem here of course is buses are observable and I would look for a bus to check it's colour rather than it's contents. Where is the equivalent of the bus in the universe. According to your logic it must be there but there is no empirical evidence. We've come, if you'll pardon the pun, the circular route back to if the universe is the necessary entity etc, etc. since the passenger only comprise part of the bus. If you are saying the universe is what we have no evidence for (the equivalent of the bus) well that is plainly absurd.
Funnily enough, Jacques and Sykes covered this very bus dilemma, ''what constitutes a bus?'' back in the 1960's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuO05QBB4yU
.
-
No, what you need to do is to stop and think about what your premises are and how you establish this dichotomy between contingency and necessity, what would make something necessary, which would have to answer the question of how anything can be such that it couldn't fail to exist. We may then be in some sort of position where we can bring some logic into your (so far) baseless fantasies.
Somehow somehow, some strange how establish the difference between the necessary and the contingent? Your taking the piss Pal
-
Somehow somehow, some strange how establish the difference between the necessary and the contingent? Your taking the piss Pal
I rather suspect that you're taking the piss actually - unless you really are too dim to understand that all you've said is just hot air unless you produce a proper argument based on accepted premises, and above all explain how it is even possible for something to have the property that it couldn't not exist.
You seem to be trying to pretend that the most fundamental question about all this (the one that would actually answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing) is some trivial detail that you can dismiss by just saying it's "not contingent". I mean, is this your idea of a joke?
-
Are you saying then that the contingency is contained within in some sense a necessary surrounding, context or environment? The problem here of course is buses are observable and I would look for a bus to check it's colour rather than it's contents. Where is the equivalent of the bus in the universe. According to your logic it must be there but there is no empirical evidence. We've come, if you'll pardon the pun, the circular route back to if the universe is the necessary entity etc, etc. since the passenger only comprise part of the bus. If you are saying the universe is what we have no evidence for (the equivalent of the bus) well that is plainly absurd.
Funnily enough, Jacques and Sykes covered this very bus dilemma, ''what constitutes a bus?'' back in the 1960's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuO05QBB4yU
.
You’re the one who keeps claiming he has observed the cause of the Universe. Give us some evidence of that.
-
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870?utm_hp_ref=religion
-
You’re the one who keeps claiming he has observed the cause of the Universe. Give us some evidence of that.
No......I have only argued on this thread for the necessary being. Being observable empirically is not something I would expect from the cause of the universe and THIS is what I have said in many posts on this thread.
I claim to have experienced God in a life changing way and I use those words because God is revealing himself to everybody and we react to that part of my experience of God was the realisation of the evasions I put against him.
-
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870?utm_hp_ref=religion
I'm pretty sure I've addressed all of this drivel before. The first (three point argument) is based on the assertion that the universe began to exist which is nonsensical in any normal sense of 'began'.
The second part is just Feser's base of hierarchy, which is can basically be summed up as "there must be a fundamental basis for existence and I'm desperate enough to believe in my god, I'll go to comical lengths to try and bash the round peg of the idea of the monotheistic god into the square hole I've just set up."
-
Vlad,
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870?utm_hp_ref=religion
This is poor stuff indeed. Try this for example:
“1. It does not rest on the premise that “everything has a cause” which would leave open the question of what caused God. Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause. Therefore, to ask “what caused God?” is really to ask “what caused the thing that cannot in principle have a cause?””
So now all you have to do is to demonstrate that the universe did “come into existence”, and to explain why it necessarily cannot be its own cause.
Good luck with that though.
-
Vlad,
No......I have only argued on this thread for the necessary being.
Asserted, not argued. You’ve been asked many times for an argument, but have never produced one.
Being observable empirically is not something I would expect from the cause of the universe and THIS is what I have said in many posts on this thread.
So the Bible is wrong about that (burning bushes, angels etc)?
I claim to have experienced God in a life changing way…
Yes, we know you do. The problem for the rest of us though is that lots of people claim to have “experienced” lots of different ghosts, ghoulies and supernatural whatnots too (often in life changing ways no doubt). When asked how anyone should distinguish epistemically the narrative you tell yourself about your experience from the narratives they tell themselves about their experiences you always run away though.
…and I use those words because God is revealing himself to everybody and we react to that part of my experience of God was the realisation of the evasions I put against him.
Unqualified faith claim and fallacy of reification.
Apart from all that though…
-
No......I have only argued on this thread for the necessary being. Being observable empirically is not something I would expect from the cause of the universe and THIS is what I have said in many posts on this thread.
I claim to have experienced God in a life changing way and I use those words because God is revealing himself to everybody and we react to that part of my experience of God was the realisation of the evasions I put against him.
I have little doubt that you believe this.
Do you think I should also believe it?
If you do, do you accept that I will not believe something just because you do?
-
Vlad,
This is poor stuff indeed. Try this for example:
“1. It does not rest on the premise that “everything has a cause” which would leave open the question of what caused God. Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause. Therefore, to ask “what caused God?” is really to ask “what caused the thing that cannot in principle have a cause?””
So now all you have to do is to demonstrate that the universe did “come into existence”, and to explain why it necessarily cannot be its own cause.
Good luck with that though.
I have not said here it cannot be it's own cause.( a clumsy way of putting it, if not down right wrong and certainly worse than exist without external reason) But I am glad you acknowledge that at least something could be. You say this could be the universe. I have previously mentioned the arguments that make that look less certain firstly, most if not all the universe you refer to is contingent, Secondly you cannot ultimately be The necessary with contingent parts since you are dependent on the parts.
Necessary and contingent here meaning how an entity comes into being. That is binary.
I agree the author did stray linguistically into what looks like a Kalam but such phrasing was not necessary since there is plenty in the article that is not a Kalam namely it posits an analogy an infinite number of freight cars moving.
I have already said that things within the universe are affected by observation. That may make them contingent. To show the universe is the necessary entity you must must demonstrate what is necessary about it...... Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
-
I have little doubt that you believe this.
Do you think I should also believe it?
If you do, do you accept that I will not believe something just because you do?
Yes.
Believing it because I believe it is to me is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and never a good idea.
Could it influence your beliefs? that would depend on what you have in you already. I don't suppose I would ever be as influential as if your partner or best friend came to believe it.
-
Vlad,
I have not said here it cannot be it's own cause.( a clumsy way of putting it, if not down right wrong and certainly worse than exist without external reason)
Yes you have. It’s the crux of your non sequitur: “The universe cannot be its own cause therefore something else must have caused it”.
But I am glad you acknowledge that at least something could be.
That’s the “don’t know” part I’ve said all and that you then try to shift the burden toward to disprove your express claims that the universe a) must have begun, and b) must have been caused to begin by something other than itself.
You say this could be the universe
Yes you could. You could also say the concept of “beginning” is meaningless in any case when time itself is a property of the universe.
I have previously mentioned the arguments that make that look less certain…
No-one claims it to be certain. You on the other hand assert it to be not the case, though you cannot justify that claim.
… firstly, most if not all the universe you refer to is contingent,
Relevance to the universe as a whole? You know, another of the questions you keep dodging.
Secondly…
You cannot have a “secondly” when your firstly has no substance, but ok…
…you cannot ultimately be The necessary with contingent parts since you are dependent on the parts.
Which is incoherent. Even if something as an entity is “the necessary” as you put it, you’ve provided no argument at all to justify the claim that it cannot contain contingent phenomena – another of the questions you just run away from.
Necessary and contingent here meaning how an entity comes into being. That is binary.
And potentially meaningless unless you can show first that entity did “come into being” – yet another of the question you just run away from.
I agree the author did stray linguistically into what looks like a Kalam but such phrasing was not necessary since there is plenty in the article that is not a Kalam namely it posits an analogy an infinite number of freight cars moving.
The author has much bigger problems than straying into the Kalam – like justifying his a priori assumption that the universe necessarily came into being at all.
I have already said that things within the universe are affected by observation. That may make them contingent.
An effort that NTTS more than adequately detonated.
To show the universe is the necessary entity you must must demonstrate what is necessary about it......
Who has made that claim? The only claim I have made about that is a “don’t know”. The claim you’ve made on the other hand is an “I do know”, so the burden of proof is to justify it is yours – which would be the final of the questions in this set that you just run away from.
Good luck with that.
Why would I need luck to respond to (yet another of) your straw men?
-
I have previously mentioned the arguments that make that look less certain...
What you've actually done is some vague hand-waving and equally vague mentions of unreferenced arguments. The only one you've explicitly mentioned is Aquinas' argument from contingency which has very little in common with said hand-waving.
...firstly, most if not all the universe you refer to is contingent, Secondly you cannot ultimately be The necessary with contingent parts since you are dependent on the parts.
Therein lies another problem. Sure, while we're embedded in the universe's time dimension, then things seem contingent, but if the whole space-time is itself necessary (although you still haven't said how anything can possibly be necessary) or 'just is', then all of its contents could, despite appearances, be necessary or 'just be' too.
This is another problem with thinking vague hand-waving is as good as a proper argument - it simply isn't.
I have already said that things within the universe are affected by observation. That may make them contingent.
You made the baseless assertion that things are necessarily affected by observation and, even if it wasn't just an assertion, the reasoning from that to contingency is still missing.
To show the universe is the necessary entity you must must demonstrate what is necessary about it...... Good luck with that.
Why should anybody bother? Yet again: you have provided no argument that needs refuting.
-
Vlad,
Yes you have. It’s the crux of your non sequitur: “The universe cannot be its own cause therefore something else must have caused it”.
That’s the “don’t know” part I’ve said all and that you then try to shift the burden toward to disprove your express claims that the universe a) must have begun, and b) must have been caused to begin by something other than itself.
Yes you could. You could also say the concept of “beginning” is itself meaningless too when time itself is a property of the universe.
Yes but that is the Kalam, which I certainly am not arguing here.
In an argument where the analogy is that the universe is an infinite number of freight trucks in motion we are not proposing a finite universe with a beginning or end (first or last freight car). We are proposing a universe without beginning or end.
There are two questions we can ask. We know that freight cars do not move by themselves so however long the train is it needs some kind of locomotion.
If The universe is operating and dynamic then it needs something which keeps it going for ever.
I'll let you work out what the second question that can be asked of our scenario.
-
Vlad,
In an argument where the analogy is that the universe is an infinite number of freight trucks in motion we are not proposing a finite universe with a beginning or end 9 first or last freight car). We are proposing a universe without beginning or end.
If you're proposing a universe without a beginning, then it couldn't have come into being - which is the cornerstone of your non sequitur.
There are two questions we can ask. We know that freight cars do not move by themselves so however long the train is it needs some kind of locomotion.
There are lots of questions "we" can ask, none of which you will ever answer - and a freight train is a false analogy in any case.
If The universe operating and dynamic then it needs something which keeps it going for ever.
I'll let you work out what the second question that can be asked of our scenario.
So now you're shifting ground from "the universe must have begun, therefore god" to "the universe needs an everlasting battery, therefore god". Well, that's new at least - now all you have to do is to justify your claim that the universe "needs something to keep it going" that couldn't be just a property of the universe itself.
Perhaps if you stopped thinking of the universe as a giant wind up toy you'd be less inclined to dig the holes into which you then routinely fall?
-
In an argument where the analogy is that the universe is an infinite number of freight trucks in motion we are not proposing a finite universe with a beginning or end (first or last freight car). We are proposing a universe without beginning or end.
There are two questions we can ask. We know that freight cars do not move by themselves so however long the train is it needs some kind of locomotion.
If The universe is operating and dynamic then it needs something which keeps it going for ever.
Simply doesn't follow. An infinite freight doesn't actually work, and even if it did, you have provided to reason to assume that the analogy would extend to the universe. Additionally, from the relativity point of view, the universe isn't dynamic (B-theory of time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time)).
-
You made the baseless assertion that things are necessarily affected by observation and, even if it wasn't just an assertion, the reasoning from that to contingency is still missing.
I mean empirical observation of course.
Supposing we have a material object If I can see it then it is because it has contact with light and presumably absorbed some of the energy which is then transferred within it. If I touch it there is presumably some energetic interaction, if I can smell or taste it it is made of parts. which says to me that it could have been constituted differently into a different form. So it has all the hallmarks of contingency
-
Yes.
Believing it because I believe it is to me is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and never a good idea.
Could it influence your beliefs? that would depend on what you have in you already. I don't suppose I would ever be as influential as if your partner or best friend came to believe it.
You would be just as influential as my partner or best friend.
I would not believe something just because they do, not matter how passionately they believed it.
Do you think my belief should be influenced simply by what they believe?
-
Supposing we have a material object If I can see it then it is because it has contact with light...
Or it's emitting its own. Either way, you making the observation doesn't affect it at all. It's reflecting or emitting light regardless of your observation.
..which says to me that it could have been constituted differently into a different form.
How can you possibly tell? Again, you're just waffling, hand-waving, and (apparently) making shit up as you go along. You need to post (or link to) and actual coherent and logical argument.
-
You would be just as influential as my partner or best friend.
I would not believe something just because they do, not matter how passionately they believed it.
Do you think my belief should be influenced simply by what they believe?
Simply doesn't follow. An infinite freight doesn't actually work, and even if it did, you have provided to reason to assume that the analogy would extend to the universe.So why do atheists tend to think the universe might be infinite in time and extent then and therefore not need an external explanation? Also, are you saying that an infinity of freight cars doesn't work BECAUSE A REAL INFINITY COULD NOT WORK? Additionally, from the relativity point of view, the universe isn't dynamic (B-theory of time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time)).
And who or what could have that point of view?
-
Or it's emitting its own. Either way, you making the observation doesn't affect it at all. It's reflecting or emitting light regardless of your observation.
But then it's energy level are being transferred out or in, changing it's energy status which is derived externally. Take a candle. Light is not derived until there is an energy input. The candle flame is therefore dependent for it's status on an external factor.
-
You would be just as influential as my partner or best friend.
I would not believe something just because they do, not matter how passionately they believed it.
Isn't that just atheistic bravado, God shall not pass stuff? As it is belief doesn't always manifest itself consciously, we would have to keep it topped up by reasons and reminder all the time. It often expresses itself in one's reaction. So we can believe something is wrong intellectually but not actually react to it by feeling it's wrong or doing anything about it and I suppose we can react to something emotionally because of beliefs and not articluate what it is.
Do you think my belief should be influenced simply by what they believe?
Who ever wants you to believe anything that way? If I ran up to you in the foyer of a cinema and said don't go in there there is a man with a machete hacking the audience would I want you to believe simply on what I said. I would hope so. I would hope you did, for your sake.
-
Who ever wants you to believe anything that way? If I ran up to you in the foyer of a cinema and said don't go in there there is a man with a machete hacking the audience would I want you to believe simply on what I said. I would hope so. I would hope you did, for your sake.
This is completely different. If you tell me you have a pet dog, I will tentatively believe you.
if you tell me you have a pet unicorn, then I will not believe you simply because you say so.
The statements are completely different. I have seen dogs, I know people that have pet dog. I have never seen a unicorn!
-
So why do atheists tend to think the universe might be infinite in time and extent then and therefore not need an external explanation?
It's a possibility and it's one answer to daft theists arguing that something that has a start needs a cause.
Also, are you saying that an infinity of freight cars doesn't work BECAUSE A REAL INFINITY COULD NOT WORK?
No.
And who or what could have that point of view?
Obviously nobody, since observers need to be embedded in time.
But then it's energy level are being transferred out or in, changing it's energy status which is derived externally. Take a candle. Light is not derived until there is an energy input. The candle flame is therefore dependent for it's status on an external factor.
And....?
Yet again: you need a coherent and complete argument. Piffling around with individual 'points' is worthless because you've provided no logical structure that needs to be refuted. All we are doing is pointing to poor thinking in your individual posts.
-
Vlad,
If you're proposing a universe without a beginning, then it couldn't have come into being - which is the cornerstone of your non sequitur.
There are lots of questions "we" can ask, none of which you will ever answer - and a freight train is a false analogy in any case.
So now you're shifting ground from "the universe must have begun, therefore god" to "the universe needs an everlasting battery, therefore god". Well, that's new at least - now all you have to do is to justify your claim that the universe "needs something to keep it going" that couldn't be just a property of the universe itself.
Perhaps if you stopped thinking of the universe as a giant wind up toy you'd be less inclined to dig the holes into which you then routinely fall?
No Hillside. I am saying the universe must have an everlasting battery. Find it or think through what it could be.
On this thread I was never on the universe must have begun schtick. So I couldn't shift the ground from that.
The argument does not depend on the universe having a beginning.
Your embarrassment here comes from yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaars of straw manning.(sorry about that , my cat thought he would contribute to this post. Since I thought it appropriate, I left it in)
-
I am saying the universe must have an everlasting battery.
Yes you are - what's missing, however, is the first hint of the tiniest morsel of actual reasoning to back up this assertion.
-
This is completely different. If you tell me you have a pet dog, I will tentatively believe you.
if you tell me you have a pet unicorn, then I will not believe you simply because you say so.
The statements are completely different. I have seen dogs, I know people that have pet dog. I have never seen a unicorn!
Yes I get that and would certainly like to discuss ''Tentative belief'' with you.
Just as a matter of interest If I ran up and told you there was a mad unicorn running towards us round the corner trampling on people what would be your reaction?
-
Yes you are - what's missing, however, is the first hint of the tiniest morsel of actual reasoning to back up this assertion.
No, to keep going forever the universe must have an eternal power source otherwise it will go past the point where any energy can be used usefully , a point an infinite universe should have reached an infinitely long time ago.
-
No, to keep going forever the universe must have an eternal power source otherwise it will go past the point where any energy can be used usefully , a point an infinite universe should have reached an infinitely long time ago.
And Vlad jumps to a different point entirely. Ho hum. So.... entropy. Firstly it's a statistical law, so given an infinite amount of time it will decrease to any arbitrarily low level one cares to define. Secondly, it depends on the concept of phase space and if the total volume is restricted and then expanded, you'd also (potentially) get a high entropy value turning into a low entropy (which is how conformal cyclic cosmology works). Thirdly, we don't know whether the universe (or multiverse) has a finite or infinite past anyway. There are even other possibilities like being able to follow our past time direction back indefinitely but having time reverse direction at the BB, so we end up going into the future of 'another universe'.
Again - there are many, many hypotheses (Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.0) topic).
And we also have to face the fact that we know that we don't have a full picture what is physically possible (no theory that unifies general relativity with quantum field theory).
Your problem is still that you haven't presented an actual coherent and consistent argument, so we end up going round and round in circles because you make one claim, it gets refuted and you just move the goalposts to something else.
Perhaps that's why you so studiously avoid presenting anything remotely like a full argument.....?
-
And Vlad jumps to a different point entirely. Ho hum. So.... entropy. Firstly it's a statistical law, so given an infinite amount of time it will decrease to any arbitrarily low level one cares to define.
No, I talked about the amount of useful energy available. You seem to have factored that out.
-
No, I talked about the amount of useful energy available. You seem to have factored that out.
Energy stops being 'useful' because of entropy. ::)
And, of course, I forgot to mention that conservation of energy is entirely because of physical laws not changing over time. If the laws changed for any reason, all arguments about amounts of energy would fall apart.
-
Vlad,
No Hillside. I am saying the universe must have an everlasting battery. Find it or think through what it could be.
What would be the point of that as you haven’t made an argument to justify the claim?
The moon is made of cheese that must have been put there by something. Find it or think through what it could be.
Can you see what’s wrong with this? Could it perhaps be the unqualified assertion that's its premise?
On this thread I was never on the universe must have begun schtick. So I couldn't shift the ground from that.
Yes you were. It’s also central to the face-palming attempt at an argument you linked to, presumably approvingly (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”). If it didn’t begin, you wouldn’t need a cause to make it begin now would you.
Even you should be able to grasp this.
The argument does not depend on the universe having a beginning.
Yes it does – see above (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”).
Your embarrassment…
? You screw up over and over again, then claim my embarrassment? Wow.
…here comes from yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaars of straw manning.(sorry about that , my cat thought he would contribute to this post. Since I thought it appropriate, I left it in)
First, you haven’t identified any straw manning from me, and second as you’re the undisputed, unified belt, all time world champion of straw manning do you not think you should maybe give yourself a good talking to about this latest piece of dishonesty?
-
Yes I get that and would certainly like to discuss ''Tentative belief'' with you.
Just as a matter of interest If I ran up and told you there was a mad unicorn running towards us round the corner trampling on people what would be your reaction?
Simple my belief is proportional to the evidence, and nature of the claim. Like I suspect yours is for most things other than a god
-
Yes I get that and would certainly like to discuss ''Tentative belief'' with you.
Just as a matter of interest If I ran up and told you there was a mad unicorn running towards us round the corner trampling on people what would be your reaction?
I would assume you were wrong about it being a unicorn, but perhaps you had seen something else. But with no other evidence I would not believe you at all
-
I would assume you were wrong about it being a unicorn, but perhaps you had seen something else. But with no other evidence I would not believe you at all
You can now hear the sound of hooves............. What would you do?
-
You can now hear the sound of hooves............. What would you do?
Assume it was a hooved animal.
I have seen hooved animals, big ones too
-
Assume it was a hooved animal.
I have seen hooved animals, big ones too
Right, the moment is almost upon you it looks like a horse with a browny horn coming out of it's forehead...Too late... you feel a huge weight on your chest which completely winds you as you are butted head on. You are laying dazed , struggling for breath, extreme pain in the ribs you put your hand on your chest and feel it is all wet.
What can you ascertain from your predicament?
-
Right, the moment is almost upon you it looks like a horse with a browny horn coming out of it's forehead...Too late... you feel a huge weight on your chest which completely winds you as you are butted head on. You are laying dazed , struggling for breath, extreme pain in the ribs you put your hand on your chest and feel it is all wet.
What can you ascertain from your predicament?
I was hit by a big animal, possibly a horse.
What do you think I should ascertain?
-
Vlad,
What would be the point of that as you haven’t made an argument to justify the claim?
The moon is made of cheese that must have been put there by something. Find it or think through what it could be.
Can you see what’s wrong with this? Could it perhaps be the unqualified assertion that's its premise?
Yes you were. It’s also central to the face-palming attempt at an argument you linked to, presumably approvingly (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”). If it didn’t begin, you wouldn’t need a cause to make it begin now would you.
Even you should be able to grasp this.
Yes it does – see above (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”).
? You screw up over and over again, then claim my embarrassment? Wow.
First, you haven’t identified any straw manning from me, and second as you’re the undisputed, unified belt, all time world champion of straw manning do you not think you should maybe give yourself a good talking to about this latest piece of dishonesty?
You are still making a Kalam type argument. There, there is a straw man!
Why is this? is it the only version of the Game you think you can win at?.......or do you really not understand the argument from contingency
I am not using the word ''cause'' in the sense of something having a beginning. I am using it in terms of explanation, reason, entity responsible for it's existence. There is no time element here.
Therefore an eternal universe could be there because of an eternal creator.
How are you going to show that the universe is eternal anyway?
Secondly, How are you going to show that it is necessary and not contingent?
-
No......I have only argued on this thread for the necessary being. Being observable empirically is not something I would expect from the cause of the universe and THIS is what I have said in many posts on this thread.
I claim to have experienced God in a life changing way and I use those words because God is revealing himself to everybody and we react to that part of my experience of God was the realisation of the evasions I put against him.
When I asked you how you knew the Universe was not necessary, you talked about it’s observed contingency. That can only mean you have observed it’s cause. Show us it.
-
You are still making a Kalam type argument. There, there is a straw man!
You linked, without comment, to a page that included a section that what was effectively Kalam - and you haven't put forward a coherent argument of your own at all, ever.
Why is this? is it the only version of the Game you think you can win at?.......or do you really not understand the argument from contingency
What argument from contingency? The version from Aquinas is nothing like what you've been vaguely hinting at and is riddled with flaws. There are other versions and modern interpretations. Until you specify a particular argument "the argument from contingency" is meaningless.
I am not using the word ''cause'' in the sense of something having a beginning. I am using it in terms of explanation, reason, entity responsible for it's existence. There is no time element here.
Therefore an eternal universe could be there because of an eternal creator.
When you use 'therefore' it conventional precede it with a reason for what comes after. Using the word 'creator' is begging the question.
How are you going to show that the universe is eternal anyway?
Secondly, How are you going to show that it is necessary and not contingent?
Nobody needs to show anything. You haven't posted anything remotely like an argument that needs refuting. Yet again:
Where is your argument?
-
Vlad,
You are still making a Kalam type argument.
No, you linked to an argument (presumably approvingly) that did. Here in fact:
“1. It does not rest on the premise that “everything has a cause” which would leave open the question of what caused God. Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause…”
Can you see that “..comes into existence”? Can you though?
What do you suppose those words mean?
There, there is a straw man!
Yes, but it’s your straw man. Either you approve of the argument you linked to or you don’t – perhaps if you made your mind up about that?
Why is this? is it the only version of the Game you think you can win at?.......or do you really not understand the argument from contingency
If you link to an argument, that’s the one I’ll demolish. I really don’t care much whether you though are in thrall to the Kalam or the cosmological argument, they’re both shit. If you’re now backing away from the argument you linked to though, then I’ll take it off the list.
I am not using the word ''cause'' in the sense of something having a beginning. I am using it in terms of explanation, reason, entity responsible for it's existence. There is no time element here.
Well, that’s not the argument you linked to and now you’re trying to bend the word “cause” to mean something other than its conventional sense: if you no longer care about the “comes into existence” part how could something (ie “the universe”) that (presumably) always existed have been caused by something else when there was no dimension in which the universe ever didn’t already exist? “Cause” here becomes incoherent.
Therefore an eternal universe could be there because of an eternal creator.
“Therefore”? Very funny. Much as you enjoy throwing in a false therefore without bothering to define your term or to argue your way to justify your conclusion perhaps you might like to turn your attention to why an eternal universe would require a creator at all, and for that matter why your eternal creator wouldn’t need an eternal creator of its own?
How are you going to show that the universe is eternal anyway?
I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I don’t need to show that the universe is eternal because that’s not a claim that I make. The only “claim” I make about an eternal vs a finite universe is that I don’t know. And nor do you.
You’ve never understood (or have always lied about) the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof but there are only so many times it can be explained to you.
Secondly, How are you going to show that it is necessary and not contingent?
See above. I don’t need to “show” anything: it’s your assertion – it’s your job to make argument to justify it. So far though, you haven’t even tried.
-
Vlad,
No, you linked to an argument (presumably approvingly) that did. Here in fact:
“1. It does not rest on the premise that “everything has a cause” which would leave open the question of what caused God. Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause…”
Can you see that “..comes into existence”? Can you though?
Whatever comes into existence is contingent yes what is remarkable about that?, that is a Komponent of a Kalam argument and a definition of a contingent thing.
If you link to an argument, that’s the one I’ll demolish.
What have your strengths as some kind of Legal got to do with philosophical argument. That's boasting isn't it? In this case there are two elements in this debate a kalam cosmological argument and a Thomistic cosmological argument, which argument do you think you have demolished
Well, that’s not the argument you linked to and now you’re trying to bend the word “cause” to mean something other than its conventional sense:
No. I am using the word in a technical sense which happens not to be the way people normally mean it, but as always, there are dictionaries. if you no longer care about the “comes into existence”
In my younger days I might have thought that the universe must have had a past cause and causes come sequenced in time but no longer.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I don’t need to show that the universe is eternal because that’s not a claim that I make. The only “claim” I make about an eternal vs a finite universe is that I don’t know. And nor do you.
I cannot know that the universe is infinite because I can never show that it is. ''I don't know whether the universe is eternal'' means that it cannot be unreasonable to say that it may not be, that it may be contingent and need a cause.
But even if it has been around for ever it does not necessarily mean it is not contingent on something else because we have to ask how come this and not nothing. In fact arguments for infinite regression show that because they posit an infinite chain of eternal creators from which an eternal God proceeds.
Further there is nothing natural that we cannot observe empirically. That is a foundation principle of science.
We only can and do observe contingent things.
You, Hillside have said that abstract necessities are contingent on matter.
Would you agree that Laws of nature are abstract necessities?
-
Whatever comes into existence is contingent yes what is remarkable about that?, that is a Komponent of a Kalam argument and a definition of a contingent thing.
But even if it has been around for ever it does not necessarily mean it is not contingent...
Contradicting yourself in the space of one post... ::)
In fact arguments for infinite regression show that because they posit an infinite chain of eternal creators from which an eternal God proceeds.
How?
Further there is nothing natural that we cannot observe empirically. That is a foundation principle of science.
Patently false.
We only can and do observe contingent things.
Baseless assertion. And still not the slightest hint of anything remotely like a single, coherent argument that you will commit to supporting. Until you provide such, nobody has to explain or show anything.
Where is your argument?
-
Vlad,
Whatever comes into existence is contingent yes what is remarkable about that?, that is a Komponent of a Kalam argument and a definition of a contingent thing.
So again – are you endorsing the argument you linked to or aren’t you?
Make your mind up.
What have your strengths as some kind of Legal got to do with philosophical argument. That's boasting isn't it? In this case there are two elements in this debate a kalam cosmological argument and a Thomistic cosmological argument, which argument do you think you have demolished
You’ve missed the point – why not finally tell us which argument(s) you’re attempting here and I’ll tell you why it/they fail? Just ducking and diving around that is wasting everyone’s time.
No. I am using the word in a technical sense which happens not to be the way people normally mean it, but as always, there are dictionaries.
There is no technical sense in which “cause” applies to something that exists already. What you’re actually doing is corrupting a simple word to the point of incoherence.
In my younger days I might have thought that the universe must have had a past cause and causes come sequenced in time but no longer.
So you prefer incoherence instead? How can something “cause” something else that’s already there?
I cannot know that the universe is infinite because I can never show that it is.
You never “show” anything – you just assert stuff to be so.
''I don't know whether the universe is eternal'' means that it cannot be unreasonable to say that it may not be, that it may be contingent and need a cause.
But that’s not your claim. Anything “may” be: your claim though is that something is remember?
But even if it has been around for ever it does not necessarily mean it is not contingent on something else because we have to ask how come this and not nothing.
Then the same question applies to “god” does it not? How does that help you?
Further there is nothing natural that we cannot observe empirically. That is a foundation principle of science.
No, it’s stupid. There are lots of natural phenomena we cannot observe, at least currently.
We only can observe contingent things.
A dubious claim given what physics is hinting at at least, but in any case so what?
You , Hillside have said that abstract necessities are contingent on matter.
Seems unlikely given that I don’t collapse into gibberish as you do.
Would you agree that Laws of nature are abstract necessities?
I have no idea what you’re trying to ask here, and nor it seems have you.
-
A dubious claim given what physics is hinting at at least, but in any case so what?
What is it they are hinting at and how are they going to observe them and how are they going to show they are necessary and not contingent.
-
What is it they are hinting at and how are they going to observe them and how are they going to show they are necessary and not contingent.
Nobody has to show anything, Vlad, until and unless you finally have the courage of your convictions and come up with (or link to) an actual, complete and logical argument that you are prepared to defend.
Why do you seem to be too scared to do so?
-
Vlad,
What is it they are hinting at and how are they going to observe them and how are they going to show they are necessary and not contingent.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/quantum-randomness
More to the point though, why have you just ignored (yet again) every point-by-point rebuttal and question you’ve been given?
Why not finally actually try at least to answer something? Try these for starters:
1. Are you or are you not an advocate for the argument for god you linked that states expressly: “…Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause”?
2. Do you have an argument to support your assertion that something that’s always existed must nonetheless have been caused by something else?
3. Can you now grasp that a person saying “don’t know” to a question (ie, whether the universe is its own explanation of was caused by something else) doesn’t have to demonstrate anything, whereas the person asserting that it definitely had a cause other than itself has the burden of proof to justify his claim?
There – three plainly expressed and reasonable questions. Rather than revert to ducking and diving type, why not actually try to answer them?
What’s stopping you?
-
Nobody has to show anything, Vlad,
Well that is unfortunate for anyone wanting to use those findings to demonstrate that it is completely unreasonable to think that the universe might not be the necessary entity.
Look Prof Davey has already excused himself because he's only interested in that which can be empirically tested. He didn't pretend that there was a natural explanation for nature.
-
Vlad,
Well that is unfortunate for anyone wanting to use those findings to demonstrate that it is completely unreasonable to think that the universe might not be the necessary entity.
No-one says that the universe might not anything. You're straw manning again.
Look Prof Davey has already excused himself because he's only interested in that which can be empirically tested. He didn't pretend that there was a natural explanation for nature.
...and again
-
Well that is unfortunate for anyone wanting to use those findings to demonstrate that it is completely unreasonable to think that the universe might not be the necessary entity.
Nobody has to address an argument that hasn't been presented. You have made no coherent case for the universe being or not being 'necessary'. You haven't made a case for a 'necessary entity'. You haven't even attempted to explain how anything can be such that it couldn't fail to exist. You haven't made a case that 'necessary' and 'contingent' are the only options and you even haven't properly separated them (for example, what about something the is necessarily the consequence of something necessary?)
Your incoherent prattling does not need any answers. You need to produce an actual argument.
-
Your incoherent prattling does not need any answers. You need to produce an actual argument.
For the Goddess's sake don't hold your breath waiting for the requested argument.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Nobody has to address an argument that hasn't been presented. You have made no coherent case for the universe being or not being 'necessary'.
There is no other way of being. The universe being necessary is basic to a reasonable atheism. A contingent universe leads to the question how nature itself comes to be.
That is why the question should be asked and why you should consider it.
Message Ends.
-
For the Goddess's sake don't hold your breath waiting for the requested argument.
Of course not. However, it will be interesting to see to what absurd lengths he'll go to to avoid providing one or what a mess he'll make if he tries....
-
There is no other way of being.
Other than what?
The universe being necessary is basic to a reasonable atheism.
Without saying how anything can be 'necessary' (cannot fail to exist) this is meaningless and certainly not a basis for atheism. "We don't know" is perfectly good enough for reasonable atheism.
A contingent universe leads to the question how nature itself comes to be.
We don't know.
Again: there is no case to answer until you produce or link to a coherent argument.
-
That is why the question should be asked and why you should consider it.
You haven't posed a well enough defined question to properly consider.
-
Vlad,
The universe being necessary is basic to a reasonable atheism.
No it isn’t. Despite the what – thousands maybe? – of times you’ve been corrected on this you still return to exactly the same mistake over and over again. I sometimes wonder whether you do understand the difference between the sufficient and the necessary conditions for atheism but choose to pretend otherwise for your own amusement, or instead you just find the concept is simply too difficult to process so you’re stuck with incomprehension.
Once again…
…all’s that’s sufficient for atheism is a “don’t know”. Absent a sound reason to accept there must be a contingent universe (or anything else attempted to justify the claim “god”), there’s no need to accept that claim. That is, a “don’t know” is sufficient for atheism.
Atheism does not though need to claim or justify non-contingency as necessary for its justification.
No matter how many times you try the same misguided, dim-witted, uncomprehending “so how would you justify the universe being non-contingent to justify your atheism then?” question it remains utterly irrelevant.
You on the other hand assert there to be something you call “god”, which is a positive claim of knowledge. A “don’t know” in response to the arguments you think justify the claim is not therefore sufficient: you actually need to make rational, coherent, defensible argument to justify it – something is which you appear to have no interest whatsoever.
Now, has this finally sunk in?
Has it?
-
For the Goddess's sake don't hold your breath waiting for the requested argument.
Owlswing
)O(
You do understand that everybody already knows that, don't you?
-
Vlad,
No it isn’t. Despite the what – thousands maybe? – of times you’ve been corrected on this you still return to exactly the same mistake over and over again. I sometimes wonder whether you do understand the difference between the sufficient and the necessary conditions for atheism but choose to pretend otherwise for your own amusement, or instead you just find the concept is simply too difficult to process so you’re stuck with incomprehension.
Once again…
…all’s that’s sufficient for atheism is a “don’t know”. Absent a sound reason to accept there must be a contingent universe (or anything else attempted to justify the claim “god”), there’s no need to accept that claim. That is, a “don’t know” is sufficient for atheism.
Atheism does not though need to claim or justify non-contingency as necessary for its justification.
No matter how many times you try the same misguided, dim-witted, uncomprehending “so how would you justify the universe being non-contingent to justify your atheism then?” question it remains utterly irrelevant.
You on the other hand assert there to be something you call “god”, which is a positive claim of knowledge. A “don’t know” in response to the arguments you think justify the claim is not therefore sufficient: you actually need to make rational, coherent, defensible argument to justify it – something is which you appear to have no interest whatsoever.
Now, has this finally sunk in?
Has it?
Again, with feeling, The universe is either contingent or necessary. Arguments that the universe could be necessary are weaker.
Therefore the first argument that there are no good reasons for theism is a poor argument.
Secondly you are confusing agnosticism with atheism. You cannot know you are living as if there is no God more like consciously living and acting against what you see as religious conventions.
I'll leave that to sink in.
-
Again, with feeling, The universe is either contingent or necessary.
Meaningless assertion. Where is the reasoning? How can anything be 'necessary' (couldn't fail to exist)?
Where is your argument?
Therefore the first argument that there are no good reasons for theism is a poor argument.
Your total inability to come up with one adds to the (already impressive) evidence that there aren't any.
Secondly you are confusing agnosticism with atheism.
One can easily be both - as I'm sure has been explained to you many times before.
-
For those interested in an intelligent approach to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, I found this by Sean M. Carroll: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (pdf) (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02231.pdf). He talks about the arguments concerning necessity and contingency and why they really aren't convincing.
-
Vlad,
Again, with feeling, The universe is either contingent or necessary….
Or is some other model we haven’t envisaged yet, but ok…
Arguments that the universe could be necessary are weaker.
“Weaker” according to whom? You? Why do you think that? Why not finally try at least to try to make an argument to justify that so far entirely unqualified assertion?
Therefore…
The moon is made of cream cheese, therefore…
See? If you can’t justify your premise, you cannot develop from it a “therefore”: "rubbish in, rubbish out".
…the first argument that there are no good reasons for theism is a poor argument.
If you think there is such an argument why not finally tell us what is rather than make mindless assertions as your place marker for it in the hope that no-one notices?
Secondly…
As so often before, you can’t have a “secondly” when your firstly has collapsed again but ok…
…you are confusing agnosticism with atheism.
No, you are (ironically). Atheism and agnosticism are in different epistemic categories, and it’s quite possible to be an agnostic atheist – indeed many of us who actually think about it are.
You cannot know you are living as if there is no God more like consciously living and acting against what you see as religious conventions.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. Is there a cogent thought there somewhere that you’re at least trying to express?
I'll leave that to sink in.
Until you finally manage an argument worthy of the name, there’s nothing to sink in.
Oh, and as (predictably) you just ignored them, here again are the three question I asked you a couple of posts ago:
1. Are you or are you not an advocate for the argument for god you linked that states expressly: “…Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause”?
2. Do you have an argument to support your assertion that something that’s always existed must nonetheless have been caused by something else?
3. Can you now grasp that a person saying “don’t know” to a question (ie, whether the universe is its own explanation of was caused by something else) doesn’t have to demonstrate anything, whereas the person asserting that it definitely had a cause other than itself has the burden of proof to justify his claim?
What's stopping you?
-
NTTS,
For those interested in an intelligent approach to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, I found this by Sean M. Carroll: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (pdf). He talks about the arguments concerning necessity and contingency and why they really aren't convincing.
Thanks for this - it's a well-argued and persuasive paper I think. Be nice if Vlad actually tried to address it rather than ignore it or go straight for the ad hom, but I don't hold out much hope of that.
-
For those interested in an intelligent approach to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, I found this by Sean M. Carroll: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (pdf) (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.02231.pdf). He talks about the arguments concerning necessity and contingency and why they really aren't convincing.
Any peer reviews of this paper? Starting with Hume and Russell on the subject isn't promising. Neither is the dismissal of reason for something like reality. If we can dismiss reason then anything goes.
-
Any peer reviews of this paper?
No, it's a draft of a chapter for a forthcoming book The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Physics.
Starting with Hume and Russell on the subject isn't promising.
Because you don't like what they have to say?
Neither is the dismissal of reason for something like reality. If we can dismiss reason then anything goes.
Were you deliberately using two meanings of the word 'reason (https://www.lexico.com/definition/reason)' here? There may not be a reason (sense 1) for reality. That isn't dismissing reason (sense 2).
I also note the continued total lack of any actual reasoning on the subject from yourself or any answers to the points raised in the chapter.
-
Vlad,
Any peer reviews of this paper?
Why not review it yourself? If you think he's wrong, explain why.
Starting with Hume and Russell on the subject isn't promising.
Ah, so you think you have more profound philosophical insights than Hume and Russell then. Well, theoretically that could be the case I suppose (though if it is it's disappointing that you've never published your critique of either). As you've never shown any indication here that you have the first understanding of any philosophical precepts or principles at all though, perhaps you could take this opportunity finally to attempt at least an argument to justify your hitherto entirely unqualified assertions?
Neither is the dismissal of reason for something like reality. If we can dismiss reason then anything goes.
Which he didn't do of course.
-
Vlad,
Why not review it yourself? If you think he's wrong, explain why.
I'm picking over it carefully, Carroll has form on betraying an atheists vested interest and has been picked up on it before by his referral to the fine tuning problem.
Just on face one wonders why he needs to right a hybrid philosophical scientific hybrid paper where he looks like he is trying to clutch at tenuous avenue rather than accept the reasonableness of other arguments like contingency and necessity.
Carroll also contrasts the purposes of philosophy and science, fine, but he is implying greater virtue and value(with no explanation) to science rather than just saying they do different things.
-
...rather than accept the reasonableness of other arguments like contingency and necessity.
Where is the 'reasonable' version of this argument? We have the absurd version from Aquinas and we have endless vague hand-waving and assertions about it from yourself. What we don't have is anything remotely like a coherent and logical argument (or reference to same).
Neither do we have answer to the points from the chapter, for example: "The skeptics seem to be on firm ground; as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed."
This is basically why I keep on asking you how anything can be necessary.
-
Vlad,
I'm picking over it carefully,…
Good to know. I await your detailed, considered and non-fallacy-ridden reply.
Carroll has form on betraying an atheists vested interest and has been picked up on it before by his referral to the fine tuning problem.
Not true, fallacy of poisoning the well and an ad hom to boot. You're reverting to type here already.
Just on face one wonders why he needs to right a hybrid philosophical scientific hybrid paper where he looks like he is trying to clutch at tenuous avenue rather than accept the reasonableness of other arguments like contingency and necessity.
A supposed “reasonableness” you’ve been entirely unable to justify with an argument, and which he rather adroitly demolishes piecemeal in any case in my view.
Carroll also contrasts the purposes of philosophy and science, fine, but he is implying greater virtue and value(with no explanation) to science rather than just saying they do different things.
An implication you’ve failed to demonstrate. Where does he do that in your opinion?
-
"The skeptics seem to be on firm ground; as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed."
But then he demonstrates ''no difficulty'' in failing to conceive of a world with no entities i.e. nothing. It seems he can only handle a few beings at a time. What do these worlds he does conceive consist of.........Contingent beings. Beings which are caused by something. It seems he wants contingency without necessity.
I get the impression that Carroll's argument is theatrical. He has props or ideas that are just moved around to make an impression.
-
Vlad,
"The skeptics seem to be on firm ground; as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed."
But then he demonstrates ''no difficulty'' in failing to conceive of a world with no entities i.e. nothing. It seems he can only handle a few beings at a time. What do these worlds he does conceive consist of.........Contingent beings. Beings which are caused by something. It seems he wants contingency without necessity.
That’s not what he says at all.
I get the impression that Carroll's argument is theatrical. He has props or ideas that are just moved around to make an impression.
Your unqualified feelings are neither here nor there. If you think his arguments are wrong then tell us why – and do it without egregiously misrepresenting them, collapsing into straw men or resorting to poisoning the well with ad homs.
-
Vlad,
That’s not what he says at all.
Your unqualified feelings are neither here nor there. If you think his arguments are wrong then tell us why – and do it without egregiously misrepresenting them, collapsing into straw men or resorting to poisoning the well with ad homs.
As you know I am looking at Carroll's paper but it may be faulty on his understanding of the necessary being. In that he states we must not treat reality as a normal thing. I notice he flip flops between the word universe and reality. But then it looks as though a) we must treat the necessary being as just another thing.
This goes back to his opening where he says we make god the necessary being rather than the necessary being being called God. b) He doesn't seem to recognise that he is effectively arguing the universe as the necessary being. It looks then as if he is using the word being in the sense of a sentient conscious intelligent being.
I think though it might be better if I didn't comment on this paper until I have reviewed each section.
-
Vlad,
As you know I am looking at Carroll's paper but it may be faulty on his understanding of the necessary being. In that he states we must not treat reality as a normal thing. I notice he flip flops between the word universe and reality. But then it looks as though a) we must treat the necessary being as just another thing.
This goes back to his opening where he says we make god the necessary being rather than the necessary being being called God. b) He doesn't seem to recognise that he is effectively arguing the universe as the necessary being. It looks then as if he is using the word being in the sense of a sentient conscious intelligent being.
I think though it might be better if I didn't comment on this paper until I have reviewed each section.
I think it might be better still if you trouble actually to cite the parts you comment on.
-
Vlad,
I think it might be better still if you trouble actually to cite the parts you comment on.
Ah yes, for those who have yet to read it, ;) eh Hillside
-
Vlad,
Ah yes, for those who have yet to read it, ;) eh Hillside
No - for those (whether or not they've read it) who cannot be expected to scour the document to guess which parts you may be referring to when you claim "Carroll says X", "Carroll says Y" etc.
This is the basic protocol when critiquing arguments: if you want to discuss honestly what Carroll says then the onus is on you to tell us where he said it, preferably with quotes. When you don't do that you just invite an endless stream of "where does he say the thing you claim he says?" responses.
You really should know this by now.
-
Vlad,
No - for those (whether or not they've read it) who cannot be expected to scour the document to guess which parts you may be referring to when you claim "Carroll says X", "Carroll says Y" etc.
This is the basic protocol when critiquing arguments: if you want to discuss honestly what Carroll says then the onus is on you to tell us where he said it, preferably with quotes. When you don't do that you just invite an endless stream of "where does he say the thing you claim he says?" responses.
You really should know this by now.
Rich coming from the guy who said ''Thanks for this - it's a well-argued and persuasive paper I think.'' with no justification whatsoever.
-
Vlad,
Rich coming from the guy who said ''Thanks for this - it's a well-argued and persuasive paper I think.'' with no justification whatsoever.
You really are quite remarkably clueless aren’t you. If you find a paper to be persuasive there’s no onus on you to cite the bits you think are super persuasive. When you want to critique it though, then you need to tell us which bits you think the author has got wrong and why. Given your notoriety here for routine misrepresentation, this principle should apply to you more than most.
-
Vlad,
You really are quite remarkably clueless aren’t you. If you find a paper to be persuasive there’s no onus on you to cite the bits you think are super persuasive. When you want to critique it though, then you need to tell us which bits you think the author has got wrong and why. Given your notoriety here for routine misrepresentation, this principle should apply to you more than most.
Super persuasive is a positive statement and therefore you know what you have to do instead of trying to gaslight your way out of it.
I already have told you the bits where the author has got it wrong. You were upset at me stating Carroll's previous form and yet are quite happy to do the same here.
So then what part is super persuasive?
Your gaslighting or should I say super Gaslighting just shows how bankrupt your arguments are.
-
Vlad,
You’ve managed to pack a lot of wrong into a short post here.
Super persuasive is a positive statement and therefore you know what you have to do instead of trying to gaslight your way out of it.
Oh dear. Carroll wrote a paper – in it I find him to be correct in his reasoning and in his conclusions. That is, I can’t find fault with it so there’s nothing for me to add.
You on the other hand seem to think he’s wrong in some (so far unknown) way(s). The onus is on you therefore to bring something new to the table – ie, some reasoning supported by evidence that he said what you claim he said (especially so in this case given your notoriety for relentless straw manning).
So far though, you have nothing.
I already have told you the bits where the author has got it wrong.
No you haven’t. You’ve made various and vague claims of supposed wrongness, but that’s all you’ve done.
You were upset at me…
No, I merely pointed out your poisoning of the well and use of the ad hom with no evidence at all to justify your claims.
…stating Carroll's previous form…
You didn’t state it, you alleged it – again with no evidence at all to support the claim.
…and yet are quite happy to do the same here.
I’ve done no such thing.
So then what part is super persuasive?
I didn’t say some of it was – I merely explained the stupidity of your complaint that I hadn’t included citations as if “super persuasive” was some kind of an added component (which of course it isn’t), forgetting that even the mildest irony passes you by completely.
Your gaslighting or should I say super Gaslighting just shows how bankrupt your arguments are.
More lying won’t get you out of the hole here.
If you think Carroll is wrong, then it’s your job to tell us why and to cite specifically the parts you think are mistaken. That’s called making an argument – something you’ve resolutely refused to do before, but nonetheless it’s what you should do if you want to be taken seriously.
-
Vlad,
You’ve managed to pack a lot of wrong into a short post here.
Oh dear. Carroll wrote a paper – in it I find him to be correct in his reasoning and in his conclusions. That is, I can’t find fault with it so there’s nothing to add.
You on the other hand seem to think he’s wrong in some (so far unknown) way(s). The onus is on you therefore to bring something new to the table – ie, some reasoning supported by evidence that he said what you claim he said (especially so in this case given your notoriety for relentless straw manning).
So far though, you have nothing.
No you haven’t. You’ve made various and vague claims of supposed wrongness, but that’s all you’ve done.
No, I merely pointed out your poisoning of the well and use of the ad hom with no evidence at all to justify your claims.
You didn’t state it, you alleged it – again with no evidence at all to support the claim.
I’ve done no such thing.
I didn’t say some of it was – I merely explained the stupidity of your complaint that I hadn’t included citations as if “super persuasive” was some kind of an added component (which of course it isn’t), forgetting that even the mildest irony passes you by completely.
More lying won’t get you out of the hole here.
If you think Carroll is wrong, then it’s your job to tell us why and to cite specifically the parts you think are mistaken. That’s called making an argument – something you’ve resolutely refused to do before, but nonetheless it’s what you should do if you want to be taken seriously.
Let's try another way....Hillside, what was it in Carroll's paper that ''super persuaded'' you?
-
Vlad,
Your unqualified feelings are neither here nor there.
But your unqualified feelings are?
-
Vlad,
Let's try another way....Hillside, what was it in Carroll's paper that ''super persuaded'' you?
Again, nothing "super persuaded" me - as ever, the mild irony I used went about 30,000 ft over your head.
Once again: I cannot fault Carroll's reasoning and conclusions, so there's nothing extra for me to bring to the table.
You on the other hand seem to think he's wrong, so it's your job to bring something new to the table - ie, your reasons and some references to what he actually said.
What you're doing here is your standard MO of avoiding justifying your claims and assertions by attempting to shift the burden of proof. It doesn't wash though.
-
…all’s that’s sufficient for atheism is a “don’t know”.
I'm talking about a reasonable atheism. ''I believe God doesn't exist because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable. and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself! Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?
-
I'm talking about a reasonable atheism. ''I believe God doesn't exist because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable. and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself! Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?
Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know leprechauns exist. Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know The Great Green Arkelseizure exists?
There's no evidence for God. We don't have to justify our non belief to you or anybody else.
-
I'm talking about a reasonable atheism. ''I believe God doesn't exist because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable. and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself! Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?
Oh dear - yet more Vlad twisting of definitions.
I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence if god or gods.
I am agnostic because I do not know whether god or gods exist.
The latter is a statement of fact, and indeed is the same for everyone. The former is a statement of a lack of belief and the reason that I do not believe in god or gods is that there is insufficient evidence for their existence to support a belief in their existence. And on that basis I live my life on the basis that god or gods do not exist.
That is a perfectly reasonable set of positions.
-
Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know leprechauns exist. Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know The Great Green Arkelseizure exists?
There's no evidence for God. We don't have to justify our non belief to you or anybody else.
You are at liberty not to. I think we can work out the reasonableness of it ourselves.
-
Oh dear - yet more Vlad twisting of definitions.
I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence if god or gods.
I am agnostic because I do not know whether god or gods exist.
I think you need to be following the thread to see what I was replying to.
-
Oh dear - yet more Vlad twisting of definitions.
I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence if god or gods.
I am agnostic because I do not know whether god or gods exist.
The latter is a statement of fact, and indeed is the same for everyone. .
That depends of your definition of knowledge. I suppose.
But even if say, a Christian's faith were the same manner of thing as an atheists belief, why is it right to go with an atheist belief?......particularly, after reading Carroll?
-
Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know leprechauns exist. Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know The Great Green Arkelseizure exists?
If one is dodging God then one is not acting as if God doesn't exist.
-
If one is dodging God then one is not acting as if God doesn't exist.
Then, following on from what you say, one who proceeds on the basis that there are no good reasons for thinking that 'God' does exist cannot possibly be accused of 'God dodging': you must surely be running out of feet to shoot yourself in.
-
Then, following on from what you say, one who proceeds on the basis that there are no good reasons for thinking that 'God' does exist cannot possibly be accused of 'God dodging': you must surely be running out of feet to shoot yourself in.
You don't look at the stated beliefs of someone you look at their acts and the pattern of their acts. That is how we know Hillside not to believe in leprechauns. Now he relates Leprechauns to God but weirdly is not as vehemently antileprechaun as he is antigod.
-
That depends of your definition of knowledge. I suppose.
Not really as typically theism is based on faith or belief - if you know something exists then you don't need faith or belief.
And of course if you know something exists then you'll be able to provide credible evidence for that existence.
-
But even if say, a Christian's faith were the same manner of thing as an atheists belief, why is it right to go with an atheist belief?......particularly, after reading Carroll?
I'm not suggesting you do.
But the very fact that you use the term faith implies lack of knowledge, as otherwise you would need faith, merely knowledge.
So the reality is that we are all agnostic, in that we do not know that god or god exists. Some people however, believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic theists), others do not believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic atheists), while there are others who do not wish to come down on the side of believe or lack of belief and are merely agnostic.
-
Vlad,
I'm talking about a reasonable atheism.
So is everyone else.
“I believe God doesn't exist…
…is not a statement atheism requires, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times before.
… because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable.
No, it’s a non sequitur – which is why no atheists I know of say that.
…and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself!
It’s not “an atheism" anyone here tries though. You're just straw morning again.
Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?
I do, just as I act as someone who doesn’t know that leprechauns exists.
Do you seriously fail to grasp after all these time of it being explained to you the difference between “I do not believe that X exists” and “I believe that X does not exist”?
Seriously though?
-
Vlad,
But even if say, a Christian's faith were the same manner of thing as an atheists belief...
Atheism isn't a belief - it's the absence of a belief. You have no excuse for not knowing this by now.
-
Vlad,
You don't look at the stated beliefs of someone you look at their acts and the pattern of their acts.
Which tell you nothing at all about whether or not the objects of their beliefs are real.
That is how we know Hillside not to believe in leprechauns.
Which is not something Hillside has ever claimed to do.
Now he relates Leprechauns to God...
Just repeating one of your bigger lies does not make it less of a lie. You do know that right?
...but weirdly is not as vehemently antileprechaun as he is antigod.
It's not "antigod", it's the anti the real world effects consequent on the claim "god", and so far as I know leprechaunists do none of the damage in the name of their faith that theists do in the name of theirs.
-
It's not "antigod", it's the anti the real world effects consequent on the claim "god", and so far as I know leprechaunists do none of the damage in the name of their faith that theists do in the name of theirs.
I welcome your conversion to moral realism.
Isn't there an argumentum ad consequentium in there as well?
-
Vlad,
I welcome your conversion to moral realism.
As you can neither argue justifications for your opinions nor it seems apply the terms you attempt correctly, you're in no position to welcome anyone to anything.
Isn't there an argumentum ad consequentium in there as well?
QED, and no.
-
I'm not suggesting you do.
But the very fact that you use the term faith implies lack of knowledge, as otherwise you would need faith, merely knowledge.
So the reality is that we are all agnostic, in that we do not know that god or god exists. Some people however, believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic theists), others do not believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic atheists), while there are others who do not wish to come down on the side of believe or lack of belief and are merely agnostic.
I would disagree a little there.
You either believe something or you do not, there is no halfway house. These are direct negations so there are only 2 possibilities, no middle ground.
If you believe a god exists, you are a theist, anything would be atheist.
-
Carroll highlighted in blue
Science and philosophy are concerned with asking how things are, and why they are the way they are. It therefore seems natural to take the next step and ask why things are at all – why the universe exists, or why there is something rather than nothing [1, 2].
It seems Carroll has asked the ‘’why?’’ question Hillside. Without criticism of it. It was Leibniz, in the eighteenth century, who first explicitly asked “Why is there something rather than nothing?” in the context of discussing his Principle of Sufficient Reason (“nothing is without a ground or reason why it is”) [5]. By way of an answer, Leibniz appealed to what has become a popular strategy: God is the reason the universe exists, but God’s existence is its own reason,
The critical word here is God has a reason rather than just ''is'' the reason[/quote] since God exists necessarily. Subsequent thinkers
Fallacy of modernity were less impressed by this move. Hume [7] explicitly dismissed the idea of a necessary being, and both he [8] and Kant [9] doubted that the intellectual tools we have developed to understand the world of experience could sensibly be extended to an explanation for existence itself
Irrelevant. In fact later Carroll suggests that science gives us an insight into that explanation! In their inimitable styles
Irrelevant and sycophantic.
-
Vlad,
Did you have anything to say that relates in any way to the comments I made to you?
-
The critical word here is God has a reason rather than just ''is'' the reason since God exists necessarily.
"God exists necessarily" is just an inane assertion, without further explanation are to how such anything can exist necessarily.
Fallacy of modernity
Ignorant drivel. Just referring to something more recent is not a fallacy in itself. Why can't you ever be bothered to learn anything about fallacies?
Are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.
-
"God exists necessarily" is just an inane assertion, without further explanation are to how such anything can exist necessarily.
Ignorant drivel. Just referring to something more recent is not a fallacy in itself. Why can't you ever be bothered to learn anything about fallacies?
Are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.
We reason that something exists necessarily and to declare that everything is contingent is nonsense. It's God or the universe. But declared philosophical naturalist Carroll is confronted with the problem that nothing in the universe seems necessary and to bypass this appeals to the universe being a necessary entity with no explanation or sufficient reason and imho this is handwaving waffle.
Although this is preferable to your hysterical rhetoric.
-
Vlad,
We reason that something exists necessarily and to declare that everything is contingent is nonsense.
Who reasons that, and on what basis?
It's God or the universe.
Er, no. It’s “the universe” or any possible agent other than the universe.
But declared philosophical naturalist Carroll is confronted with the problem that nothing in the universe seems necessary and to bypass this appeals to the universe being a necessary entity with no explanation or sufficient reason and imho this is handwaving waffle.
More gibberish. You cannot just assume that properties of the universe must also apply to the universe itself, and in any event when you invent a “necessary being” to do the universe creating you have all you work ahead of you to explain why it wasn’t caused by something else. Until you do that, that’s the only “handwaving waffle” on show here.
Although this is preferable to your hysterical rhetoric.
None of which supposed “hysterical rhetoric” you seem to be able to cite though.
Funny that.
-
Vlad,
Who reasons that, and on what basis?
Er, no. It’s “the universe” or any possible agent other than the universe.
More gibberish. You cannot just assume that properties of the universe must also apply to the universe itself, and in any event when you invent a “necessary being” to do the universe creating you have all you work ahead of you to explain why it wasn’t caused by something else. Until you do that, that’s the only “handwaving waffle” on show here.
None of which supposed “hysterical rhetoric” you seem to be able to cite though.
Funny that.
The universe just is is a statement that undermines scientific endeavour. Indeed Carroll seems a bit double minded declaring that the universe as necessity without explanation is the better idea(when it's an obvious philosophical naturalistic wishful thought) while stating in the same paper that science is contributing to the future answer to why something rather than nothing.
In terms of never talks hysterical rhetoric most of his posts comprise of him experiencing some over the top outrage and declaring offence at something or other....often on your behalf.
The reserve position of Carroll, that we don't have the intellectual wherewithal for the question is irrelevant.
-
Vlad,
The universe just is is a statement that undermines scientific endeavour.
Wrong again. It’s a conjecture regarding what's beyond science’s current reach, and it has the advantage of fewer assumptions than inventing something else that just is as its cause.
Indeed Carroll seems a bit double minded declaring that the universe as necessity without explanation is the better idea…
Occam’s razor
…(when it's an obvious philosophical naturalistic wishful thought)…
It’s just the conjecture that requires the fewest assumptions. You really should be able to understand this simple point by now.
…while stating in the same paper that science is contributing to the future answer to why something rather than nothing.
What’s wrong with that? Science is contributing to future answers about all sorts of things, and there’s no reason to think that the origin of the universe should be exempt from its remit.
In terms of never talks hysterical rhetoric most of his posts comprise of him experiencing some over the top outrage and declaring offence at something or other....often on your behalf.
No, at worst he’s expressing his frustration at your inability ever to frame a cogent argument of your own about anything, your constant misunderstanding and misuse of the various terms you attempt, and your point blank refusal ever, ever, ever to address that arguments that are put to you.
Can you blame him?
The reserve position of Carroll, that we don't have the intellectual wherewithal for the question is irrelevant.
No, it’s entirely relevant. Why do you think otherwise?
-
We reason that something exists necessarily and to declare that everything is contingent is nonsense. It's God or the universe.
More meaningless foot-stamping. We (as Carroll points out) don't even know if we can frame the same sort of questions about reality itself as we can about things within it.
It's God or the universe.
Drivel. 'God' is meaningless waffle without further qualification and this, even if we accept that something must be necessary, is (regardless of which definition you choose today) a false dichotomy. It would be the universe or something else.
But declared philosophical naturalist Carroll is confronted with the problem that nothing in the universe seems necessary...
Do I really need to explain yet again how the universe (the space-time manifold) might 'just be'?
...and to bypass this appeals to the universe being a necessary entity with no explanation or sufficient reason and imho this is handwaving waffle.
It make far, far more sense than just making up something you desperately want to believe in and then declaring it necessary with with no explanation or sufficient reason.
Although this is preferable to your hysterical rhetoric.
Comical.
And yet again (as you ignored it): are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.
-
More meaningless foot-stamping. We (as Carroll points out) don't even know if we can frame the same sort of questions about reality itself as we can about things within it.
Drivel. 'God' is meaningless waffle without further qualification and this, even if we accept that something must be necessary, is (regardless of which definition you choose today) a false dichotomy. It would be the universe or something else.
Do I really need to explain yet again how the universe (the space-time manifold) might 'just be'?
It make far, far more sense than just making up something you desperately want to believe in and then declaring it necessary with with no explanation or sufficient reason.
Comical.
And yet again (as you ignored it): are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.
Of course it isn't meaningless. The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''
Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.
-
Of course it isn't meaningless.
Assertion.
The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''
Two assertions, one using the argument from authority
Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.
Assertion
-
Of course it isn't meaningless. The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason...
What argument (Aquinas' original is plainly silly - see #183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270)) and what is the 'sufficient reason'?
...and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''
Which in itself is daft in the extreme. Where is your definition of 'god' and the full argument?
Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.
Why? How do you know there are only two options when it comes to reality itself? How do you know the question is even applicable?
Again:-
Where is your argument?
Until you come up with a proper definition of 'god' and a complete, coherent argument, the statement "we don't know" is perfectly good enough and quite sufficient to dismiss your inane hand-waving assertions.
-
Vlad,
Of course it isn't meaningless.
Then where is your argument to show it to be meaningful?
The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''
Why does it end with that when we cannot know what conditions apply to the universe itself rather than just within it, and why “God” rather than any other of the unlimited possibilities? Oh, and while you’re at it how does this “god” get to be causeless in any case without introducing more assumptions than a causeless universe would require?
Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.
Why is it absurd? Could this be the first time in your entire history here you can be tempted to essay an actual argument rather than just an unqualified assertion? How exciting!
-
Vlad,
Then where is your argument to show it to be meaningful?
That would be the argument from contingency
Why does it end with that when we cannot know what conditions apply to the universe itself rather than just within it, and why “God” rather than any other of the unlimited possibilities? Oh, and while you’re at it how does this “god” get to be causeless in any case without introducing more assumptions than a causeless universe would require?
It doesn't matter if the universe has been around as long as that which maintains it and is the reason for it or not. The argument from contingency covers both eventualities. In terms of other possibilities, give us but one half dozen of them and we will see if we cannot further categorise them. Causelessness is part of the argument from contingency. If you think it is the universe which has no cause, how do you arrive at that and given that all of it seems contingent? Where is your justification to say that the whole lot together is uncreated? As I say to Jeremy P, I would accept that there may be something about the universe that is necessary but nothing which manifests itself as such and blow me if it isn't therefore hidden in the way God is (i.e. from science).
Why is it absurd? Could this be the first time in your entire history here you can be tempted to essay an actual argument rather than just an unqualified assertion? How exciting!
It is absurd because the statement 'everything is contingent' automatically elicits the question 'on what is everything contingent on?'
-
If you think it is the universe which has no cause, how do you arrive at that and given that all of it seems contingent?
Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.
That would be the argument from contingency
What argument from contingency?
Where is it?
You haven't defined what you mean by 'god' and you haven't posted or linked to specific argument. Until you do so, there is no case to answer. I don't know whether anything can be or is necessary. If there is, I don't know if it's the universe or something else. I see no reason at all to accept your simplistic and inane storytelling about some undefined thingy called 'god'.
Without you posting a coherent argument, that's all that needs to be said.
-
Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one. You can not give evidence for any of that.
Secondly you are proposing the universe as a whole is ''necessary'' i.e. without cause. Now here's the thing what is the reason that it needs no cause (i.e. The sufficient reason )
What argument from contingency?
Where is it?
The extrapolation of finding something and asking the reason for it until we reach the point of asking the reason for everything.
I have focussed on the characteristics of the necessary entity which happen to coincide with theological descriptions of God.
-
I have focussed on the characteristics of the necessary entity which happen to coincide with theological descriptions of God.
You've made a lot of vague and unsupported assertions. What you haven't done is produce (or reference) anything remotely like an actual argument - let alone one that leads to something that coincides with any theological description of any god. You haven't even clearly defined what you think counts as the characteristics of a god - you keep changing your mind about it.
Where is your argument?
-
Sorry, you've made such a mess of your quite boxes it's difficult to even see what you've written...
You can not give evidence for any of that.
Is this a joke? You have given bugger all evidence of anything you've proposed. Yet again: the evidence for my suggestion is the evidence for general relativity and the way it is mathematically formulated. That is, space-time is a manifold and that time is a direction through it. Causality can only apply internally, not to the manifold as a whole.
Secondly you are proposing the universe as a whole is ''necessary'' i.e. without cause. Now here's the thing what is the reason that it needs no cause (i.e. The sufficient reason )
Same question for your made up god-thingy. At least we know the universe actually exists.
The extrapolation of finding something and asking the reason for it until we reach the point of asking the reason for everything.
Then we admit we don't know - and don't even know if it's a valid question. No argument for any made up beings.
-
Let's summarise the situation.
Vlad has proposed that
1 the Universe required a creator
2 this creator did not itself require creating
3 this creator is identical with the Christian god.
The evidence he has provided so far seems to me to be: "things in the Universe are "contingent" i.e. did not create themselves". This evidence I admit to finding to be a bit of a stretch even to justify point 1.
If anybody thinks we have progressed beyond that, I'll gladly stand corrected.
-
Let's summarise the situation.
Vlad has proposed that
1 the Universe required a creator
2 this creator did not itself require creating
3 this creator is identical with the Christian god.
The evidence he has provided so far seems to me to be: "things in the Universe are "contingent" i.e. did not create themselves". This evidence I admit to finding to be a bit of a stretch even to justify point 1.
If anybody thinks we have progressed beyond that, I'll gladly stand corrected.
A better summary would be that either the universe itself is the necessary entity or it is contingent on something else.
If either God or the universe is the necessary entity they either have sufficient reason in themselves or they just are.
Necessity for everything is not observed in the universe. Sufficient reason for the necessity of the universe is not given.
Sufficient reason is not the same as cause.
-
...either the universe itself is the necessary entity or it is contingent on something else.
Assertion. No reasoning has been provided. How is it possible for anything to be 'necessary' in this sense?
If either God or the universe is the necessary entity they either have sufficient reason in themselves or they just are.
No definition of 'god' has been given and no reasoning has been provided as to why it would be an alternative, let alone the only one.
Necessity for everything is not observed in the universe.
Gibberish. Reasoning that the universe might 'just be' has been provided multiple times and you've just ignored it.
Sufficient reason for the necessity of the universe is not given.
Sufficient reason is not the same as cause.
Sufficient reason as to why anything might just exit has not been given. Not the universe and not your baseless little god-fantasy.
Yet again:
Where is your actual argument?
-
Gibberish. Reasoning that the universe might 'just be' has been provided multiple times and you've just ignored it.
Where is your actual argument?
If anybody says the universe 'just is', how can they be providing a reason for it? Don't be silly.
How can the universe just be without a reason and there be a reason for it!?! Total Bullshit....Again.
-
If anybody says the universe 'just is', how can they be providing a reason for it? Don't be silly.
How can the universe just be without a reason and there be a reason for it!?! Total Bullshit....Again.
how can god just be without a reason?
-
If anybody says the universe 'just is', how can they be providing a reason for it? Don't be silly.
How can the universe just be without a reason and there be a reason for it!?! Total Bullshit....Again.
Both bullshit and hypocrisy.
Nobody said anything about a reason and not a reason - you've just made that up. Also, as Jeremy said, and I said previously, exactly the same questions apply to your made up god-thingy as you can ask about a universe that 'just is'. You have never even attempted an explanation of how something can be its own reason and be 'necessary' in this sense.
And, yet again, all we have to say is "we don't know" because you have provided not the first hint of the merest suggestion of the smallest scintilla of a coherent argument for any god - or even defined what you mean by the term in this context (you've been know to change your definition during the course of a single post).
-
Both bullshit and hypocrisy.
Nobody said anything about a reason and not a reason - you've just made that up. Also, as Jeremy said, and I said previously, exactly the same questions apply to your made up god-thingy as you can ask about a universe that 'just is'. You have never even attempted an explanation of how something can be its own reason and be 'necessary' in this sense.
And, yet again, all we have to say is "we don't know" because you have provided not the first hint of the merest suggestion of the smallest scintilla of a coherent argument for any god - or even defined what you mean by the term in this context (you've been know to change your definition during the course of a single post).
And again you are giving a double response. The universe just is without sufficient reason and we dont know what the sufficient reason is.
I made it clear that cause is not the sufficient reason.
In the argument from contingency we arrive at a necessary being which, by dint of the universe being apparently all contingent is a cause and a separate necessary entity which we call God.
And that constitutes the sufficient reason. The universe just is...does not offer any sufficient reason. In fact it emphatically refuses one.
-
And again you are giving a double response. The universe just is without sufficient reason and we dont know what the sufficient reason is.
No, Vlad, I'm pointing out two glaring faults in what you're saying.
The first is a technicality: your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.
-
No, Vlad, I'm pointing out two glaring faults in what you're saying.
The first is a technicality: your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.
Then God has sufficient reason but the universe lacks one. In what way is space time the necessary entity?
-
Then God has sufficient reason but the universe lacks one.
Meaningless gibberish. You haven't defined 'god', you haven't given an argument that even suggests we should consider it, and you haven't given a "sufficient reason".
In what way is space time the necessary entity?
I didn't say it was necessary (and you still haven't said how anything can possibly be necessary). I said that it didn't appear to be contingent (there is no possibility that it was caused in any usual sense of the word).
Jeez, Vlad, will you just stop pretending that you've established things that you haven't even attempted. You haven't defined 'god', you haven't given an argument for it, you haven't established a reason why it might, or even could be, necessary. You've established exactly bugger all about it.
-
This was added after my reply...
In the argument from contingency we arrive at a necessary being which...
What argument from contingency? You still haven't given one or referenced one. What are the premises? What are the logical steps? What, exactly, is the conclusion?
...by dint of the universe being apparently all contingent...
Plain false for the reasons already given.
...is a cause and a separate necessary entity which we call God.
Baseless storytelling. Where is the reasoning? Even if you'd made an argument for something necessary and separate (which you haven't) just calling anything you might find 'god' is stupid, illogical, and dishonest.
And that constitutes the sufficient reason.
What does? You've just made some shit up. There isn't the first hint of a 'sufficient reason' in any of what you've said.
The universe just is...does not offer any sufficient reason. In fact it emphatically refuses one.
Why? In what way does a universe that just is not offer a reason but something you've just made up a story about, that (if it existed) just is, somehow does?
Do you have the first inkling of an idea of the difference between an actual argument and baseless storytelling and assertion?
-
Vlad,
As with many other terms you attempt but don’t understand, your problem here seems to be that you’re not aware of the rhetorical use of the term “argument”. In rhetoric, an argument requires that you set out your premises, apply to them cogent reasoning, and thereby produce justifiable conclusions.
To the best of my recollection this isn’t something you’ve ever done on any subject (unqualified assertions, straw men, various logical fallacies etc is all you have) and it’s certainly not something you seem able or willing to do with respect to your assertions here about contingency and necessity. So, why don’t I set out the best version of what your unspoken argument seems to be so you can see for yourself where it goes wrong.
Your premises are:
1. The universe I observe is determinative in character.
2. Everything in the universe is determinative in character.
3. The universe was caused by something other than itself.
Your reasoning is:
1. To avoid infinite regress, that something else must itself be non-determinative in character.
2. The only entity I can envisage that’s conceptually capable of being non-determinative in character and is in the universe creating business is “God”.
Your conclusion is:
1. Therefore God.
Is that a fair summary? If it is, can you see anything wrong with it?
-
Vlad,
Your premises are:
1. The universe I observe is determinative in character.
I use the word contingent, why have you changed this to determinative. Looks like you've introduced an obvious and blatant misrepresentor
2. Everything in the universe is determinative in character.[/quote] see above
3. The universe was caused by something other than itself.[/quote] No, as I have said what I want from proponents of the universe being the uncreated necessity, that about it which makes it necessary. The sufficient reason.
Your reasoning is:
1. To avoid infinite regress, that something else must itself be non-determinative in character. And what is wrong with avoiding infinite regress since no real infinities are observed. Even one of the infinite 'points' in a finite distance is a mathematical hypothesis. Also it is unlikely that an infinite regression in time could produce anything. Also, heat death of the universe would have happened an infinitely long time ago and finally the infinite regression would be happening in an infinite medium and mechanism for things to happen in contravention to thermodynamic laws in other words for things to be perpetually changed, and we might call that thing God.
2. The only entity I can envisage that’s conceptually capable of being non-determinative in character and is in the universe creating business is “God”. No, we are calling this entity ''God''...rather than ''the universe.''
Your conclusion is:
1. Therefore God.
Is that a fair summary?
No I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
-
Vlad,
And what is wrong with avoiding infinite regress since no real infinities are observed. Even one of the infinite 'points' in a finite distance is a mathematical hypothesis. Also it is unlikely that an infinite regression in time could produce anything. Also, heat death of the universe would have happened an infinitely long time ago and finally the infinite regression would be happening in an infinite medium and mechanism for things to happen in contravention to thermodynamic laws in other words for things to be perpetually changed,
Except for the reasons NTtS keeps explaining to you and you keep ignoring, none of this has any relevance to arguments about the universe itself. Just referencing characteristics of the way the universe appears to function as if by some entirely un-argued, unqualified and unexplained way that means the same determinative property must also apply to the universe itself is no argument at all.
…and we might call that thing God.
We might also call that thing (for which you’ve so far shown no necessity at all) anything at all. We might also call it something with most of the properties you think to be required for “God” (whatever they may be) stripped out. This is just a repetition of your “hoof marks in the sand, therefore unicorns” mistake.
No, we are calling this entity ''God''...rather than ''the universe.''
“You”, not “we” – and you can call it whatever you like as a vague, un-defined concept. What you can’t do though is to Trojan Horse that into all the other stuff you think “God” entails when none of it is required for the speculation.
No I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
You seem to have forgotten that it’s yourdrawing board. I was just helping you out given your absolute refusal or inability to tell us what it contains, no matter how many times you’re asked. If you think my summary is wrong though, then – finally – tell us why.
What’s stopping you?
-
No I think you need to go back to the drawing board.
No, Vlad, it's you who need to go to the drawing board (not back to it, because you've never put forward anything coherant in the first place).
This is just more hand-waving waffle.
We don't know if the universe requires something else or not.
We don't know if a real infinite past (or anything else) is possible or not (and it's irrelevant to the space-time view anyway).
We can't rule things out based on (what we know is) an incomplete notion of physics - especially when the known unknowns are directly relevant.*
YET AGAIN: You have produced no argument for god and neither have you defined it (except in the dishonest and frankly stupid sense of "whatever it is I think I've argued for").
Where is your argument?
* Additional note: an aside on the car-crash of illogical, scientifically illiterate nonsense about thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are statistical and so not only could be reversed in an infinite amount of time but would inevitably be reversed, to an unlimited degree, an infinite number of times, even without unknown physics.
-
Then God has sufficient reason but the universe lacks one. In what way is space time the necessary entity?
In what way is God the necessary entity?
-
Meaningless gibberish. You haven't defined 'god', you haven't given an argument that even suggests we should consider it, and you haven't given a "sufficient reason".
Vlad wants it to be true that God exists. What more sufficient reason does anybody need?
-
In what way is God the necessary entity?
We call the necessary entity God.
-
Vlad wants it to be true that God exists. What more sufficient reason does anybody need?
I find I cannot say that God's existence is false experience I have found trumps vague intellectual assent.
-
We call the necessary entity God.
No, you call "the necessary entity" "god" because that's what you desperately want to believe. In reality, of course, "the necessary entity" is nothing but a vague and undefined conjecture that you haven't produced a coherent argument for (and might even be the universe) but keep asserting that it exists, and that, in any case, you have not connected in any way to any of the popular god-concepts.
So you're trying to arbitrarily label something, that you haven't defined and haven't properly argued for, as the 'god' you want to believe in. That's intellectually dishonest, totally illogical, and frankly stupid if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Unless you fix what you mean by 'god', and stop trying to slap the label on anything you think you can get away with, arguing with you about its existence is pointless.
I find I cannot say that God's existence is false experience I have found trumps vague intellectual assent.
At least most people's 'experience' of 'god(s)' is wrong because they disagree with each other. In any event, either you have an argument to support your interpretation of your experience or you don't. It's rather pointless (and counterproductive if you want to convince anybody) to start out saying that there's this great argument and then collapsing into "but it's what I've experienced" when you find you can't actually produce said argument.
-
No, you call "the necessary entity" "god" because that's what you desperately want to believe. In reality, of course, "the necessary entity" is nothing but a vague and undefined conjecture that you haven't produced a coherent argument for (and might even be the universe) but keep asserting that it exists, and that, in any case, you have not connected in any way to any of the popular god-concepts.
So you're trying to arbitrarily label something, that you haven't defined and haven't properly argued for, as the 'god' you want to believe in. That's intellectually dishonest, totally illogical, and frankly stupid if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Unless you fix what you mean by 'god', and stop trying to slap the label on anything you think you can get away with, arguing with you about its existence is pointless.
At least most people's 'experience' of 'god(s)' is wrong because they disagree with each other. In any event, either you have an argument to support your interpretation of your experience or you don't. It's rather pointless (and counterproductive if you want to convince anybody) to start out saying that there's this great argument and then collapsing into "but it's what I've experienced" when you find you can't actually produce said argument.
I call it God because it's attributes match that of the Abrahamic God more than anything else on offer. You don't want to call it God because of deep emotional reasons IMO.
-
No, you call "the necessary entity" "god" because that's what you desperately want to believe. In reality, of course, "the necessary entity" is nothing but a vague and undefined conjecture that you haven't produced a coherent argument for (and might even be the universe) but keep asserting that it exists, and that, in any case, you have not connected in any way to any of the popular god-concepts.
So you're trying to arbitrarily label something, that you haven't defined and haven't properly argued for, as the 'god' you want to believe in. That's intellectually dishonest, totally illogical, and frankly stupid if you want to be taken at all seriously.
Unless you fix what you mean by 'god', and stop trying to slap the label on anything you think you can get away with, arguing with you about its existence is pointless.
At least most people's 'experience' of 'god(s)' is wrong because they disagree with each other. In any event, either you have an argument to support your interpretation of your experience or you don't. It's rather pointless (and counterproductive if you want to convince anybody) to start out saying that there's this great argument and then collapsing into "but it's what I've experienced" when you find you can't actually produce said argument.
You cannot have religion in the sense that you oppose without a huge group of people agreeing that there is such a thing as the divine as opposed to there not being.
-
I call it God because it's attributes match that of the Abrahamic God more than anything else on offer.
Unmitigated drivel. You haven't deduced a single, solitary attribute of this supposed 'necessary entity' - not even its existence.
You don't want to call it God because of deep emotional reasons IMO.
Irony overload.
You cannot have religion in the sense that you oppose without a huge group of people agreeing that there is such a thing as the divine as opposed to there not being.
Yes - and whichever version of god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong - which speaks volumes about the veracity of religious experience - or at least of the interpretations people have of them.
-
Vlad,
I find I cannot say that God's existence is false experience I have found trumps vague intellectual assent.
So your emotional response to an experience also gives you an explanation for it that you cannot justify with argument. Well, that’s fine just for you but it would have been more honest if all along you’d just said, “but I cannot justify my belief such that anyone else should take it seriously”.
I call it God because it's attributes match that of the Abrahamic God more than anything else on offer.
That’s simply not true. The “Abrahamic God” entails and requires all manner of characteristics, behaviours, attributes etc that the cosmological argument (wrong as it is) does not require at all. You may as well claim that the attributes of the unicorn model explain hoof marks better than anything else on offer.
You don't want to call it God because of deep emotional reasons IMO.
Leaving aside the deep irony of that claim, he doesn’t want to call it “god” because there’s no good reason to do so.
You cannot have religion in the sense that you oppose without a huge group of people agreeing that there is such a thing as the divine as opposed to there not being.
I just had a new coffee machine delivered this morning that came with an instruction manual in multiple languages, but also with a separate one for some reason in Finnish. That Finnish manual made more sense than this – and I don’t speak a word of Finnish.
Do you even bother to read your posts for comprehension before you hit “post”? Why not?
-
Vlad,
So your emotional response to an experience also gives you an explanation for it that you cannot justify with argument. Well, that’s fine just for you but it would have been more honest if all along you’d just said, “but I cannot justify my belief such that anyone else should take it seriously”.
The argument from contingency has been given here many times dso you know exactly where I am coming from you. In an unsatisfactory rebuttal you offer Carroll, Russell and Hume and the universe just is.
That’s simply not true. The “Abrahamic God” entails and requires all manner of characteristics, behaviours, attributes etc that the cosmological argument (wrong as it is) does not require at all. You may as well claim that the attributes of the unicorn model explain hoof marks better than anything else on offer.
That is incorrect. Although as I have learnt your desire for God to have no good reason supporting it or to be totally different to the creator of SU renders you invincibly ignorant of the relative importance of divine attributes.
Leaving aside the deep irony of that claim, he doesn’t want to call it “god” because there’s no good reason to do so.
But so vehement is his dislike of God it even prevents him from entertainment something about the universe which is both necessary and with sufficient reason. By definition there is no good reason to accept what you, he and Carroll propose, that the universe ''Just is.''
I just had a new coffee machine delivered this morning that came with an instruction manual in multiple languages,
And I bought a tube of preparation H.
-
A typical Vlad e-mail, all opinion no evidence, much of which is produced by his rear end, no wonder he is in need of preparation H. ;D
-
A typical Vlad e-mail, all opinion no evidence, much of which is produced by his rear end, no wonder he is in need of preparation H. ;D
I bought it today because I knew a pain in the arse was coming.....I wasn't wrong.
-
I bought it today because I knew a pain in the arse was coming.....I wasn't wrong.
I think that title is yours, my dear! ;D
-
Vlad,
The argument from contingency has been given here many times dso you know exactly where I am coming from you.
First, you haven’t set out what your version of it is – so I set that out for you based on best guesses given your endless elusiveness about that, and your response was “back to the drawing board”, presumably to sidestep the problem that it should be your drawing board.
Second, this has bugger all to do with the point you were trying to respond to in any case - namely that your emotional feeling about something provides no reason at all for others to take your consequent beliefs seriously. If you actually want to essay “my Vlad’s feelings about things are a better guide to objective truths than reason and evidence” (which is all you have by the way) then you’re on even thinner ice that you realise.
In an unsatisfactory rebuttal you offer Carroll, Russell and Hume and the universe just is.
Which as you well know isn’t the argument at all. First, the cosmological argument fails because of the inherent flaws, contradictions and leaps of faith it requires that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring. Second, the actual position on the origin of the universe is “don’t know”, but alongside it is, “but we cannot rule out the universe being its own explanation”.
That is incorrect. Although as I have learnt your desire for God to have no good reason supporting it or to be totally different to the creator of SU renders you invincibly ignorant of the relative importance of divine attributes.
Have you deliberately misrepresented the argument that undoes you here, or can you genuinely not grasp it? Yet again, universe creation may be necessary for the “Abrahamic God”, but it’s not sufficient for it for exactly the same reason that hoof marks are necessary for unicorns but are not sufficient for them. Until you finally sort out your necessaries from your sufficients you will continue to make a fool of yourself about this.
But so vehement is his dislike of God it even prevents him from entertainment something about the universe which is both necessary and with sufficient reason. By definition there is no good reason to accept what you, he and Carroll propose, that the universe ''Just is.''
So few words, so many mistakes…
First, his dislike of anything is neither here nor there provided his reasoning about the claims made for it are sound.
Second, (and wearily yet again), it’s not “God” – it’s the claim “God”.
Third, for the reasons he keeps explaining and you keep ignoring, your conjecture “God” is neither necessary nor has sufficient reason.
Fourth, you’ve just misrepresented again the “just is” point (see above).
And I bought a tube of preparation H.
Whoosh!
-
Vlad,
Which as you well know isn’t the argument at all. First, the cosmological argument fails because of the inherent flaws, contradictions and leaps of faith it requires that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring. Second, the actual position on the origin of the universe is “don’t know”, but alongside it is, “but we cannot rule out the universe being its own explanation”.
That isn't so. Since the best recent attempt is Carroll who draws on Russell, Hume is inconclusive..... ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' which just looks like shifting necessity to the universe ''sans explanation'' rather than a rebuttal of the argument from contingency
Unless you can direct me to someone who genuinely has debunked it with a stronger argument. You remain incorrect.
-
The argument from contingency has been given here many times...
Where?
I cited Aquinas' original (#183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270)), which is obviously flawed and nothing much like what you keep hinting at. As far as I've seen, you've never once either referenced or set out a version that you've said you are using or agreeing with.
In an unsatisfactory rebuttal you offer Carroll, Russell and Hume and the universe just is.
Actually, since there is no argument to answer, "we don't know" works as a perfectly good rebuttal to your wild speculation and baseless assertions. On the other had, You have certainly offered nothing better than to make up a 'god' that 'just is' but then pretend, without even trying to justify it, that this is somehow better than a universe that 'just is'.
That is incorrect. Although as I have learnt your desire for God to have no good reason supporting it or to be totally different to the creator of SU renders you invincibly ignorant of the relative importance of divine attributes.
On the contrary, this just shows that you have no consistent idea of what you mean by 'god'. You're just making yourself look stupid with this silly promiscuous approach to what 'god' means, that changes from post to post.
But so vehement is his dislike of God it even prevents him from entertainment something about the universe which is both necessary and with sufficient reason.
You haven't come anywhere near explaining how anything can be 'necessary' and have 'sufficient reason' - certainly not your baseless god-fantasy.
By definition there is no good reason to accept what you, he and Carroll propose, that the universe ''Just is.''
It makes far, far more sense that your made up god-thingy because at least we have reason to think the universe exists.
-
Vlad,
That isn't so. Since the best recent attempt is Carroll who draws on Russell, Hume is inconclusive..... ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' which just looks like shifting necessity to the universe ''sans explanation'' rather than a rebuttal of the argument from contingency
Why on earth is ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' shifting anything rather than just a statement of the current state of knowledge? If you want to argue (finally) for the existence of something else as a necessity, then your first job is to explain why the universe cannot be its own explanation. This is the burden of proof problem you keep running away from (one of several such).
Unless you can direct me to someone who genuinely has debunked it with a stronger argument. You remain incorrect.
Debunked what? The cosmological argument (or whichever version of it you like but are determined to keep a secret)? It has been debunked – over and over and over again in fact. That you routinely either ignore or lie about the falsifications of it that your given doesn’t change the fact of them.
Your further evasion of everything else that undid you is noted too.
-
Vlad,
Why on earth is ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' shifting anything rather than just a statement of the current state of knowledge? If you want to argue (finally) for the existence of something else as a necessity, then your first job is to explain why the universe cannot be its own explanation. This is the burden of proof problem you keep running away from (one of several such).
Debunked what? The cosmological argument (or whichever version of it you like but are determined to keep a secret)? It has been debunked – over and over and over again in fact. That you routinely either ignore or lie about the falsifications of it that your given doesn’t change the fact of them.
Your further evasion of everything else that undid you is noted too.
When last I consulted the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it hadn't been debunked.
Most recent argument apart from Carroll include eliminating necessity by introducing circularity of time. Which with all due respect sounds like a circular argument to me.
-
When last I consulted the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it hadn't been debunked.
I suggest checking it again (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/). It lists four main objections to the "Argument for a Non-contingent Cause" given. But are you saying (at last) that this is a version of the argument you think is valid?
This is the form given:
- A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed) exists.
- All contingent beings have a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for their existence.
- The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the contingent being itself.
- The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
- Contingent beings alone cannot provide a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings.
- Therefore, what sufficiently causes or fully adequately explains the existence of contingent beings must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
- Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
- The universe, which is composed of only contingent beings, is contingent.
- Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.
Are you saying you'll get behind that, because I can see multiple flaws without even bothering to read all the objections in the article?
-
Vlad,
When last I consulted the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it hadn't been debunked.
Try reading it again. Better yet, try reading other sources too. It's been debunked for exactly the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring.
Most recent argument apart from Carroll include eliminating necessity by introducing circularity of time. Which with all due respect sounds like a circular argument to me.
Actually the earlier arguments about its contradictions, unwarranted leaps of faith etc are fine for falsification purposes, and the fact that the "circularity of time" argument sounds like circular reasoning to you just tells us that "circular reasoning" is yet another term you don't understand.
Oh, and once again I see you've just avoided the various arguments that undid you.
-
I suggest checking it again (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/). It lists four main objections to the "Argument for a Non-contingent Cause" given. But are you saying (at last) that this is a version of the argument you think is valid?
This is the form given:
- A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed) exists.
- All contingent beings have a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for their existence.
- The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the contingent being itself.
- The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
- Contingent beings alone cannot provide a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings.
- Therefore, what sufficiently causes or fully adequately explains the existence of contingent beings must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
- Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
- The universe, which is composed of only contingent beings, is contingent.
- Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.
Are you saying you'll get behind that, because I can see multiple flaws without even bothering to read all the objections in the article?
Just because there are objections doesn't make an argument invalid.....or the objections to it for that matter.
Objections to it are paltry and end up emphasising our ignorance, that we may be incompetent(that would be irrelevent and that the idea of sufficient reason may incorrect.
There is no strong argument to settle for the universe ''just is'' . A position which is indistinguishable from having no sufficient reason.
You can see multiple flaws in the argument from contingency please share one or two.
-
NTtS,
Are you saying you'll get behind that...
Vlad has no idea what he gets behind – either that or he's determined to keep it a secret because that leaves him free to keep dicking around rather than address the problems he'd thereby give himself.
-
Vlad,
Try reading it again. Better yet, try reading other sources too. It's been debunked for exactly the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring.
Actually the earlier arguments about its contradictions, unwarranted leaps of faith etc are fine for falsification purposes, and the fact that the "circularity of time" argument sounds like circular reasoning to you just tells us that "circular reasoning" is yet another term you don't understand.
Oh, and once again I see you've just avoided the various arguments that undid you.
There are no contradictions in it. Because you cannot name one.
If you have one yet cannot bring yourself to share it then there is I would move something wrong with you which needs sorting out lest you inflict it any further on the public.
-
Vlad,
Just because there are objections doesn't make an argument invalid.....or the objections to it for that matter.
It does if you can’t rebut the objections. That’s your problem.
Objections to it are paltry and end up emphasising our ignorance, that we may be incompetent(that would be irrelevent and that the idea of sufficient reason may incorrect.
Throwing pejorative adjectives at “objections” (ie, falsifications) does not rebut them. That’s also your problem.
There is no strong argument to settle for the universe ''just is'' . A position which is indistinguishable from having no sufficient reason.
There doesn’t need to be. If you want to argue (finally) for a necessary cause for the universe though then you need a strong argument to show that the universe cannot be “just is”. This is the question – why you think the property of determinism observed within the universe must also therefore apply to the origin of the universe as a whole – you keep running away from. That’s another of your problems.
You can see multiple flaws in the argument from contingency please share one or two.
He has done. Over and over again in fact. You though have consistently just ignored or misrepresented the flaws he’s flagged, while at the same time being careful never to tell us what your version of the cosmological argument might be. This is yet another of your problems.
-
Vlad,
There are no contradictions in it. Because you cannot name one.
Why do you think lying will get you out of the hole you've dug for yourself?
If you have one yet cannot bring yourself to share it then there is I would move something wrong with you which needs sorting out lest you inflict it any further on the public.
Tell you what - you finally tell us which version of the argument you subscribe to, and I'll cut and paste the falsifications to it I've posted so many times before. If you don't do that you'll just keep hiding behind "but that's not my argument" for ever and a day won't you.
-
You can see multiple flaws in the argument from contingency please share one or two.
Most of them have already been mentioned. It's full of blind speculation. Just for starters and even without thinking much about it... Point 1, we don't actually know that anything could have not existed. Point 2 is an intuitive speculation based on our experience within space-time, and there is no particular reason to think it can apply to reality itself. Point 7, the whole idea of something that cannot fail to exist is problematic. What could possibly exist whose non-existence would cause a contradiction or otherwise be impossible? Point 8 is contradicted by the space-time manifold as I've already explained multiple times.
There is no strong argument to settle for the universe ''just is'' . A position which is indistinguishable from having no sufficient reason.
It's exactly as strong (or weak) and has just as much (or little) 'sufficient reason' as anything external to the universe that you want to make up that 'just is'. That is, unless and until you can explain exactly how something can be its own reason to exist and how its non-existence would be impossible.
Added: And, of course, even if we were tempted to accept the entire argument, it isn't an argument for a god - just for some undefined 'something' that couldn't fail to exist...
-
Vlad,
It's exactly as strong (or weak) and has just as much (or little) 'sufficient reason' as anything external to the universe...
And just to add to NTtS's point, "the universe just is" also requires fewer assumptions than "god just is" because we can demonstrate that the universe exists. This is the Occam's razor principle that you didn't (and likely still don't) understand.
-
Most of them have already been mentioned. It's full of blind speculation. Just for starters and even without thinking much about it... Point 1, we don't actually know that anything could have not existed. Point 2 is an intuitive speculation based on our experience within space-time, and there is no particular reason to think it can apply to reality itself. Point 7, the whole idea of something that cannot fail to exist is problematic. What could possibly exist whose non-existence would cause a contradiction or otherwise be impossible? Point 8 is contradicted by the space-time manifold as I've already explained multiple times.
It's exactly as strong (or weak) and has just as much (or little) 'sufficient reason' as anything external to the universe that you want to make up that 'just is'. That is, unless and until you can explain exactly how something can be its own reason to exist and how its non-existence would be impossible.
Added: And, of course, even if we were tempted to accept the entire argument, it isn't an argument for a god - just for some undefined 'something' that couldn't fail to exist...
We do know that things cease to exist demonstrating that their existence is not necessary.
If something has sufficient reason in itself to exist it cannot fail to exist because it does not depend on anything externally for it's existence.
-
We call the necessary entity God.
We do? That seems to be just labelling to me. It doesn't help us to answer the question of whether the Universe is God or whether the Christian god is God.
-
Vlad,
And just to add to NTtS's point, "this banana just is" also requires fewer assumptions than "god just is" because we can demonstrate that bananas exist.
I'm also not arguing that God just is but that God is necessary with sufficient reason.
-
I call it God because it's attributes match that of the Abrahamic God more than anything else on offer. You don't want to call it God because of deep emotional reasons IMO.
What? The only thing you know about the "necessary entity" is that it is not contingent.
There's also nothing to suggest the Abrahamic god is not contingent. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Abrahamic god is contingent on the human imagination.
-
We do? That seems to be just labelling to me. It doesn't help us to answer the question of whether the Universe is God or whether the Christian god is God.
No it's based on the attributes of the necessary entity. There are those who say the universe is God but I think they have disregarded necessity and contingency.
Again...... what is it about the universe that is divine?
-
What? The only thing you know about the "necessary entity" is that it is not contingent.
Yes, but then we have that which proceeds from God that need not proceed (The contingent) Now we are back to the Abrahamic God.
-
No it's based on the attributes of the necessary entity. There are those who say the universe is God but I think they have disregarded necessity and contingency.
Again...... what is it about the universe that is divine?
What are the attributes of the necessary entity? I don't think you have any idea.
-
Yes, but then we have that which proceeds from God that need not proceed (The contingent) Now we are back to the Abrahamic God.
No we aren't. The Abrahamic god is not merely a necessary entity. It has certain attributes that are defined in the Bible, Quran and religious folklore, many of which are mutually contradictory. You have a long way to go to get from "necessary" to "god that arranged for itself to be killed to get around a loophole in its own rules to save the people it loved but had also condemned to death.
-
What are the attributes of the necessary entity? I don't think you have any idea.
Not dependent for being on contingent things.
Unique.
Necessary.
Maximally potent.
Actually actual.
-
We do know that things cease to exist demonstrating that their existence is not necessary.
Non sequitur. Additionally, of course, the space-time manifold cannot possibly cease to exist.
If something has sufficient reason in itself to exist it cannot fail to exist because it does not depend on anything externally for it's existence.
Meaningless truism. It tells us nothing about how it is possible for anything to have "sufficient reason in itself to exist" or even if such a thing is possible.
Evasion of pretty much everything I said, is also noted.
I'm also not arguing that God just is but that God is necessary with sufficient reason.
You still seem to be confused about the difference between an argument and a baseless assertion.
-
Vlad,
I'm also not arguing that God just is but that God is necessary with sufficient reason.
Well, that's incoherent. First, you are claiming that "god" "just is" because that's the only answer you have to "why god?" Second, you've failed again to explain the necessity part because you cannot or will not explain why it's necessary for the universe as a whole to have a cause. Third, if you won't provide any of these supposed reasons how is anyone to tell whether or not they're "sufficient"?
Oh, and I see that yet again you've just slid away from the last set of falsifications you were given. Oh well, as I guess we'll never know which version of the cosmological argument you prefer there's nothing to rebut.
-
Yes, but then we have that which proceeds from God that need not proceed (The contingent) Now we are back to the Abrahamic God.
You've just gotta laugh at the incoherence of it all. If things that proceed from this supposed god, need not have done so, that implies that this supposed god could have been different, which undermines the whole idea that it is uniquely necessary and could not have been otherwise....
-
NTtS,
You've just gotta laugh at the incoherence of it all. If things that proceed from this supposed god, need not have done so, that implies that this supposed god could have been different, which undermines the whole idea that it is uniquely necessary and could not have been otherwise....
To be frank I've never yet worked out whether Vlad is a clever person pretending to be stupid, or a stupid person who thinks he's clever. My sense is that he knows just enough though never actually to answer a question or to argue for something because at some level he realises the effort would be taken apart.
-
Non sequitur. Additionally, of course, the space-time manifold cannot possibly cease to exist.
Not at all, if it ceases to exist then it has proven it's contingency as indeed if it begins to existMeaningless truism. It tells us nothing about how it is possible for anything to have "sufficient reason in itself to exist" or even if such a thing is possible.
On what warrant then are you claiming then that the universe has sufficient reason in itself for it to exist. Also you have claimed a lot for the space time manifold without substantiation.
-
Not at all, if it ceases to exist then it has proven it's contingency as indeed if it begins to exist
It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.
On what warrant then are you claiming then that the universe has sufficient reason in itself for it to exist. Also you have claimed a lot for the space time manifold without substantiation.
I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".
In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.
You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg833049#msg833049), so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-
Where is your argument?
-
It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.
I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".
In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.
You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg833049#msg833049), so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-
Where is your argument?
You are saying that the space time manifold has no cause or no sufficient reason. Again, on what warrant are you claiming this?
-
It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.
I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".
In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.
You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg833049#msg833049), so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-
Where is your argument?
How does something appear to be "just is?"
-
It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.
I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".
In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.
You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg833049#msg833049), so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-
Where is your argument?
1)I'm glad you acknowledge that things may not be subject to time. However the argument from contingency does not depend on time but being. In other words a contingent being may exist eternally.
-
You are saying that the space time manifold has no cause or no sufficient reason. Again, on what warrant are you claiming this?
I'm saying it has no obvious cause or reason. This is a simple refutation of your claim that everything in the universe is obviously contingent. What warrant do you have to make the claim about your made up god-thingy?
How does something appear to be "just is?"
By not being subject to time.
1)I'm glad you acknowledge that things may not be subject to time. However the argument from contingency does not depend on time but being. In other words a contingent being may exist eternally.
We aren't really talking about existing eternally but being timeless. However, so what? You still haven't produced any argument for any sort of separate 'necessary entity', explained how anything at all can possibly be necessary, or connected any supposed necessity to any sort of god-concept, so the question still remains:
Where is your argument?
-
I'm saying it has no obvious cause or reason. This is a simple refutation of your claim that everything in the universe is obviously contingent. What warrant do you have to make the claim about your made up god-thingy?
By not being subject to time.
We aren't really talking about existing eternally but being timeless. However, so what? You still haven't produced any argument for any sort of separate 'necessary entity', explained how anything at all can possibly be necessary, or connected any supposed necessity to any sort of god-concept, so the question still remains:
Where is your argument?
Would the space time manifold exist if there were no space time?
-
Would the space time manifold exist if there were no space time?
No. Would your god-thingy exist if there were no god-thingy? Rather than asking silly questions, how about putting forward an actual argument?
We've now had Aquinas' original (#183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270)) which is full of flaws and nothing like what you seem to be hinting at. We also had the one from Stanford (#350 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg833049#msg833049)) which you mentioned, which is also full of flaws, and which you also seem to be departing from. So, yet again:
Where is your argument?
-
Not dependent for being on contingent things.
That's pretty much the definition.
Unique.
Why can there be only one necessary being?
Necessary.
It should have been obvious to you that we are looking for attributes other than the one in its name.
Maximally potent.
What does that even mean? And why does a necessary entity need to be it, whatever it means?
Actually actual.
What?
-
No. Would your god-thingy exist if there were no god-thingy? Rather than asking silly questions, how about putting forward an actual argument?
We've now had Aquinas' original (#183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg832270#msg832270)) which is full of flaws and nothing like what you seem to be hinting at. We also had the one from Stanford (#350 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18588.msg833049#msg833049)) which you mentioned, which is also full of flaws, and which you also seem to be departing from. So, yet again:
Where is your argument?
Oh dear, the closest we get to you justifying the space time manifold is that it just is. Oh well. So we have a laddie, you, screaming for an argument while reluctant to put his own because what he claims is necessary ''just is''. What a complete waste of time and space.
-
That's pretty much the definition.Why can there be only one necessary being?It should have been obvious to you that we are looking for attributes other than the one in its name.What does that even mean? And why does a necessary entity need to be it, whatever it means?What?
You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying I only mention it is not affected by contingent things and that I argue uniqueness.
The status of two necessary beings in our context is that neither would be fully contingent and each would be responsible for a part of the total contingency. Their own part in that being dependent on the other and that would disqualify them from being necessary beings.
In terms of physical hiddenness there existence does not depend on physical elucidation.
-
Oh dear, the closest we get to you justifying the space time manifold is that it just is.
Which is actually a great deal more coherent than anything your vague hand-waving and baseless assertion has produced.
Oh well. So we have a laddie, you, screaming for an argument while reluctant to put his own because what he claims is necessary ''just is''. What a complete waste of time and space.
More misrepresentation (I've never claimed anything is necessary) and again failing to appreciate the burden of proof. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking:
- The space-time manifold is just a technical objection to your claim that everything about the universe is obviously contingent.
- I don't need to make an argument because I'm not proposing anything. It is you who are claiming a 'necessary' god-thingy.
So, yet again, this is your burden of proof, so...
Where is your argument?
-
You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying I only mention it is not affected by contingent things and that I argue uniqueness.
You give a list of attributes of a necessary being, two of which amounted to "it's necessary". You didn't argue its uniqueness, you asserted it.
this is the problem. You keep making assertions without any justification for any of them.
The status of two necessary beings in our context is that neither would be fully contingent
If they are necessary, neither of them are partially contingent.
and each would be responsible for a part of the total contingency. Their own part in that being dependent on the other and that would disqualify them from being necessary beings.
Why would that be the case?
-
You give a list of attributes of a necessary being, two of which amounted to "it's necessary". You didn't argue its uniqueness, you asserted it.
this is the problem. You keep making assertions without any justification for any of them. If they are necessary, neither of them are partially contingent. But neither of them are necessary for ''everything'' therefore they are not the necessary being.
Why would that be the case?
See above.
-
Which is actually a great deal more coherent than anything your vague hand-waving and baseless assertion has produced.
More misrepresentation (I've never claimed anything is necessary) and again failing to appreciate the burden of proof. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: You have and indeed doubled up on it by stating the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason.
- The space-time manifold is just a technical objection to your claim that everything about the universe is obviously contingent.
- I don't need to make an argument because I'm not proposing anything. It is you who are claiming a 'necessary' god-thingy.
So, yet again, this is your burden of proof, so...
Where is your argument?
Handwaving. You came to a dead end and just claimed you don't need to explain anything. Whereas you previously stated that the space time manifold needs neither a cause nor sufficient reason.
-
Handwaving. You came to a dead end and just claimed you don't need to explain anything. Whereas you previously stated that the space time manifold needs neither a cause nor sufficient reason.
Please stop lying. I simply pointed out that the space-time didn't have any obvious cause or need for one and therefore wasn't obviously contingent. This was a response to your claim that everything about the universe was clearly contingent.
I didn't come to a dead end - that was the point I wanted to make and I made it.
The other (and more important) point is that I don't need to make an argument because it's you who are making claims that you haven't even tried to support with a coherent argument.
This is simply the burden of proof. You're making claims, so you need to back them up, so you need an argument.
Where is your argument?
-
Please stop lying. I simply pointed out that the space-time didn't have any obvious cause or need for one and therefore wasn't obviously contingent. This was a response to your claim that everything about the universe was clearly contingent.
I didn't come to a dead end - that was the point I wanted to make and I made it.
The other (and more important) point is that I don't need to make an argument because it's you who are making claims that you haven't even tried to support with a coherent argument.
This is simply the burden of proof. You're making claims, so you need to back them up, so you need an argument.
Where is your argument?
If you say the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason then that is a claim. You know what you have to do.
-
If you say the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason then that is a claim. You know what you have to do.
More lies and blatant hypocrisy.
What is it about "the space-time didn't have any obvious cause or need for one" are you having trouble understanding? Are you really too dim to see that that is nothing like making the claim that it "needs neither cause nor sufficient reason"?
Even if I had made such a claim (which I didn't), you would be prize hypocrite to ask for me to back it up after totally and repeatedly failing to back up any aspect of your multiple claims about some supposed 'necessary being' despite being asked to multiple times.
Stop running scared for once in your life and actually attempt to put forward an argument for your claims.
-
Vlad,
If you say the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason…
He hasn’t – that’s just you misrepresenting him again. What he actually says is that you’ve provided no reason to think the spacetime manifold needed a cause. If you think he’s wrong about that then, finally, you need actually to argue your assertion that it does require a cause. The cosmological argument (whichever version of it you turn out to prefer, albeit wish to keep a secret) relies on establishing that the universe itself must have been caused. This is the claim you keep being asked to justify – but keep running away from.
…then that is a claim.
NTtS’s only claim is that you’ve provided no reason to think the universe must have been caused by something else. And he’s right about that.
You know what you have to do.
He’s already done it. You on the other hand make the positive claim that the universe was necessarily caused by something other than itself, so far with no justifying argument of any kind.
You know what you have to do.
-
Vlad,
He hasn’t – that’s just you misrepresenting him again. What he actually says is that you’ve provided no reason to think the spacetime manifold needed a cause. If you think he’s wrong about that then, finally, you need actually to argue your assertion that it does require a cause. The cosmological argument (whichever version of it you turn out to prefer, albeit wish to keep a secret) relies on establishing that the universe itself must have been caused. This is the claim you keep being asked to justify – but keep running away from.
NTtS’s only claim is that you’ve provided no reason to think the universe must have been caused by something else. And he’s right about that.
He’s already done it. You on the other hand make the positive claim that the universe was necessarily caused by something other than itself, so far with no justifying argument of any kind.
You know what you have to do.
If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.
He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.
-
If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.
He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.
No, I am NOT. This appears to be nothing but a barefaced lie on your part. I've lost count of how many times I've explained this to you. I'm merely pointing out that one of the very few things you've actually pointed to to support your little flight of fantasy (that everything about the universe is clearly contingent) is incorrect because the space-time appears to 'just be'.
I am not making an argument that it is therefore necessary, I'm no even saying that it needs no cause (in some sense - it obviously can't have one in the usual sense of a preceding event) because I'm not the one trying to make an argument - you are. Just raising the possibility is all that is needed to undermine your statement.
All you have put forward in support of your 'necessary god-thingy' fantasy has been vague hand-waving, hints at some 'argument from contingency' (that you won't post or reference a version of that you consider valid), and endless baseless assertions.
So we are still right back at the question of you blatant hypocrisy in asking me to justify an argument I haven't made, while you keep claiming to have an argument that you have said literally nothing of substance to support (you haven't even supported the statement in the quote above that everything must be either contingent or necessary).
So, Vlad, yet again:
Where is your argument?
-
If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.
The only person making an assertion is you. You are claiming that the Universe needs a cause. Everybody else on this thread says they don't know if the Universe needs a cause. Nobody is making a positive assertion but you. Everybody else is trying to get you to justify your positive assertion.
Then, when you've done that, there are two more things you need to justify.
2. The cause of the Universe does not itself need a cause.
3. The cause of the Universe is the experience in your head that you claim is the Christian god.
He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.
There's a problem with arguing that the space-time manifold needs a cause: having a cause implies that something came before the space-time manifold and it's not clear that temporal relationships make any sense outside of time.
-
No, Vlad, I'm pointing out two glaring faults in what you're saying.
The first is a technicality: your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.
-
Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.
-
Vlad, you appear to have quoted two of the times I said what I just said I said, rather than your lies about what I said.
No, Vlad, I'm pointing out two glaring faults in what you're saying.
The first is a technicality: your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.
Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.
-
The only person making an assertion is you. You are claiming that the Universe needs a cause. Everybody else on this thread says they don't know if the Universe needs a cause. Nobody is making a positive assertion but you. Everybody else is trying to get you to justify your positive assertion.
I have reposted his post where he says ''The universe as a whole (the space time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.
Then, when you've done that, there are two more things you need to justify..
2. The cause of the Universe does not itself need a cause.
I have only spoken about the possible necessity of the universe and the necessary entity being called God.
3. The cause of the Universe is the experience in your head that you claim is the Christian god.(/quote) I do believe in God, the maker of heaven and earth (and understand this as being the universe and Jesus Christ of logos theology through whom all things were made.(quote)
There's a problem with arguing that the space-time manifold needs a cause: having a cause implies that something came before the space-time manifold and it's not clear that temporal relationships make any sense outside of time.
Does this problem occur with types of maintained waves for instance if we imputing one thing with timelessness how can we reserve it for one thing. If something timeless can be, what warrant do we have to prevent it from causing things to happen?
-
Vlad, you appear to have quoted two of the times I said what I just said I said, rather than your lies about what I said.
No you said that contingency was ''actually false''.
and that the universe has ''No need'' of a cause.
-
Vlad,
If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.
He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.
In Reply 388 you straw manned NTtS. In Reply 390 I corrected you on it. In Reply 391 you copied and pasted the correction I gave you, then repeated exactly the same straw man.
Why? Are you struggling with basic comprehension? Are you deliberately lying? What?
This is the same perennial mistake/straw man you make about atheism – ie, that “I have no good reasons to believe in god(s)” is epistemically the same statement as “there are no gods”.
Yet again, at no time has NTtS ever said “the universe needs no cause”. What he actually says is that you’ve failed to show that it must have had a cause, on which positive claim all versions of the cosmological version rest (including therefore whichever version of it you prefer but are determined to keep secret). You've been asked numerous times to justify this premise, but as you've ignored the question every time it's been asked presumably you intend to keep on ignoring it now.
-
No you said that contingency was ''actually false''.
and that the universe has ''No need'' of a cause.
For fuck's sake, Vlad, you've just quoted it - I said no such things. I said "your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false" and that "the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one".
You really do need to brush up on reading English for comprehension or just stop lying (whichever is appropriate).
-
Vlad,
In Reply 388 you straw manned NTtS. In Reply 390 I corrected you on it. In Reply 391 you copied and pasted the correction I gave you, then repeated exactly the same straw man.
Why? Are you struggling with basic comprehension? Are you deliberately lying? What?
This is the same perennial mistake/straw man you make about atheism – ie, that “I have no good reasons to believe in god(s)” is epistemically the same statement as “there are no gods”.
Yet again, at no time has NTtS ever said “the universe needs no cause”. What he actually says is that you’ve failed to show that it must have had a cause, on which positive claim all versions of the cosmological version rest (including therefore whichever version of it you prefer but are determined to keep secret). You've been asked numerous times to justify this premise, but as you've ignored the question every time it's been asked presumably you intend to keep on ignoring it now.
FFS I've quoted what he said but if you and he now recognise that no one can actually demonstrate the timelessness of the manifold and that actually you don't know that it doesn't need a cause I can accept that conversion
-
I have only spoken about the possible necessity of the universe and the necessary entity being called God.
And "spoken about it" (very vaguely) is about as far as it goes. You have not presented anything remotely like an actual argument as to why or how anything can be necessary or justified that something necessary is needed. And that's before we get to the comically daft attempt to slap the 'god' label on anything you think might be necessary and separate from the universe.
Does this problem occur with types of maintained waves for instance if we imputing one thing with timelessness how can we reserve it for one thing. If something timeless can be, what warrant do we have to prevent it from causing things to happen?
Gibberish.
-
FFS I've quoted what he said...
Yes - and it showed I was right and you had misrepresented me.
...but if you and he now recognise that no one can actually demonstrate the timelessness of the manifold and that actually you don't know that it doesn't need a cause I can accept that conversion
The timelessness of the manifold (as a whole) is obvious from the mathematical description. Time is an observer dependant direction through it. That it doesn't have a cause in the normal sense of a preceding event, follows directly.
The only question is whether we can take the formulation of general relativity as being broadly correct in this sense (we can't be sure without a unification with quantum field theory) or whether there is some other sense in which we might consider it to be caused.
-
Vlad,
FFS I've quoted what he said but if you and he now recognise that no one can actually demonstrate the timelessness of the manifold and that actually you don't know that it doesn't need a cause I can accept that conversion
Yes, you quoted what he said and immediately straw manned it. Several times.
What NTtS has consistently said is fundamentally different from the version you preface with "if..." and then corrupt into something else.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Can you actually not see the difference between “the universe as a whole has no obvious need for a cause” (ie, NTtS’s position) and “the universe needs no cause” (ie, your straw man version of NTtS’s position), or is your need to misrepresent him so great that you just can’t help being dishonest about that?
-
Vlad,
Yes, you quoted what he said and immediately straw manned it. Several times.
What NTtS has consistently said is fundamentally different from the version you preface with "if..." and then corrupt into something else.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Can you actually not see the difference between “the universe as a whole has no obvious need for a cause” (ie, NTtS’s position) and “the universe needs no cause” (ie, your straw man version of NTtS’s position), or is your need to misrepresent him so great that you just can’t help being dishonest about that?
Since I quoted him directly he never used the term obvious need. If he and you are NOW saying there is no obvious need he still needs to justify that with a sufficient reason.
Stop gaslighting.
-
Vlad,
Yes, you quoted what he said and immediately straw manned it. Several times.
What NTtS has consistently said is fundamentally different from the version you preface with "if..." and then corrupt into something else.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Can you actually not see the difference between “the universe as a whole has no obvious need for a cause” (ie, NTtS’s position) and “the universe needs no cause” (ie, your straw man version of NTtS’s position), or is your need to misrepresent him so great that you just can’t help being dishonest about that?
Why do you think there is any difference between the universe and the universe as a whole ffs?More to the point what is the difference? This seems to be you practicing some turdpolishing routine.
-
Since I quoted him directly he never used the term obvious need.
Why do you keep blatantly lying about this? Perhaps more to the point, why do you keep lying to somebody else about what I said? Here again are the two passages you quoted with the relevant words emphasised:-
...your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.
Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.
Are you seriously so bad at understanding English that you can't see that "obvious" applies to "cause or need"? And have the courage to talk to me about if if you have a problem - what's the matter with you?
If he and you are NOW saying there is no obvious need he still needs to justify that with a sufficient reason.
Nobody needs to justify anything until you put forward an argument to refute. All I am pointing out is that your original claim that everything about the universe seems contingent is false. That is a flaw in about the only thing you've actually said to support your necessary god-thingy fantasy.
You have justified fuck all of what you've said with any reason, let alone 'sufficient reason'. Stop being such a hypocrite.
Why do you think there is any difference between the universe and the universe as a whole ffs?More to the point what is the difference? This seems to be you practicing some turdpolishing routine.
It's not blue who put forward this argument, it's me. Have you become afraid of actually talking to me for some reason? I've explained this multiple times. Time is a direction through the space-time manifold (that's how general relativity is formulated). The manifold is a four-dimensional object that cannot itself change exactly because time and causality are played out along its time direction and cannot apply to it as a whole four-dimensional object. It's not even as if time is a unique direction through it, it depends, to an extent, on the observer. This implies the B-theory of time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time).
And, yet again, you haven't put forward an argument that needs refuting. This stuff about the space-time is a side issue at best. Since you haven't got an argument, all anybody needs to do is point out that we don't know why things exist.
-
Vlad,
Since I quoted him directly he never used the term obvious need. If he and you are NOW saying there is no obvious need he still needs to justify that with a sufficient reason.
Stop gaslighting.
Stop lying. He’s consistently used “seems to be” and “no obvious”, which you then straw man with statements beginning “if…” followed by something else entirely. Your enthusiasm for the cosmological argument (albeit in a version you’re determined to keep secret) requires the positive claim, “the universe was necessarily created by something other than itself”. What’s being explained to you over and over again is that that doesn’t seem to be the case, that there’s no obvious reason to think that to be the case etc. As you’re entirely unwilling or unable to demonstrate the claim that the universe necessarily was caused by something other than itself though, there’s nothing wrong with these statements.
You could of course dispense with your straw manning simply by finally attempting at least an argument to show that the universe itself was necessarily caused by something else, but that as we both know is when you always run away.
Funny that.
Why do you think there is any difference between the universe and the universe as a whole ffs?
Now you’re trying your old shifting of the burden of proof stunt again. Determinism is a property of the universe (though not necessarily consistently so). You’re taking that and jumping straight to “therefore the universe as a whole must have been determined by something else” with no justifying argument at all. If you think a property within the universe must also apply to the universe, then the burden of proof remains with you to justify your claim…
…which, as we both know, is when you will disappear again.
…(though More to the point what is the difference? This seems to be you practicing some turdpolishing routine.
The difference you’re either too dim-witted or too dishonest to address is that you have no justification for asserting a property of the universe also necessarily to apply to the universe.
This shouldn’t be hard to understand, even for you.
-
Vlad,
Stop lying. He’s consistently used “seems to be” and “no obvious”, which you then straw man with statements beginning “if…” followed by something else entirely. Your enthusiasm for the cosmological argument (albeit in a version you’re determined to keep secret) requires the positive claim, “the universe was necessarily created by something other than itself”. What’s being explained to you over and over again is that that doesn’t seem to be the case, that there’s no obvious reason to think that to be the case etc. As you’re entirely unwilling or unable to demonstrate the claim that the universe necessarily was caused by something other than itself though, there’s nothing wrong with these statements.
You could of course dispense with your straw manning simply by finally attempting at least an argument to show that the universe itself was necessarily caused by something else, but that as we both know is when you always run away.
Funny that.
Now you’re trying your old shifting of the burden of proof stunt again. Determinism is a property of the universe (though not necessarily consistently so). You’re taking that and jumping straight to “therefore the universe as a whole must have been determined by something else” with no justifying argument at all. If you think a property within the universe must also apply to the universe, then the burden of proof remains with you to justify your claim…
…which, as we both know, is when you will disappear again.
The difference you’re either too dim-witted or too dishonest to address is that you have no justification for asserting a property of the universe also necessarily to apply to the universe.
This shouldn’t be hard to understand, even for you.
Drivel.
-
Vlad,
Drivel.
Yet another cowardly avoidance of the arguments that undo you.
What do you get from this behaviour?
-
Drivel.
Once again running scared of addressing the actual evidence or even talking to me about what I said. Here again is the evidence:-
...your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.
Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.
Those are the quotes you used and then shamelessly misrepresented them.
-
Once again running scared of addressing the actual evidence or even talking to me about what I said. Here again is the evidence:-
Those are the quotes you used and then shamelessly misrepresented them.
What are you counting as the difference between the universe and "The universe as a whole"?
-
What are you counting as the difference between the universe and "The universe as a whole"?
How many more times?
I've explained this multiple times. Time is a direction through the space-time manifold (that's how general relativity is formulated). The manifold is a four-dimensional object that cannot itself change exactly because time and causality are played out along its time direction and cannot apply to it as a whole four-dimensional object. It's not even as if time is a unique direction through it, it depends, to an extent, on the observer. This implies the B-theory of time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time).
Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.
Yet again: the evidence for my suggestion is the evidence for general relativity and the way it is mathematically formulated. That is, space-time is a manifold and that time is a direction through it. Causality can only apply internally, not to the manifold as a whole.
It is a fact that general relativity models space-time as a four dimensional object. There is no passage of time and no notion of the present - in fact the whole idea of defining an instant in time that applies to all observers breaks down even in special relativity, see Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
If you don't understand, then ask a specific question and I'll try to answer it but I've given you the basic introduction many, many times now and I have no idea what it is about it that you are finding hard to grasp.
And it is still the case that this is simply a side issue with about the only thing you've said in support of this supposed "argument from contingency" you keep wittering on about. I'm still waiting for you to post or link to a complete argument that you are prepared to get behind and we can talk about.
-
How many more times?
It is a fact that general relativity models space-time as a four dimensional object. There is no passage of time and no notion of the present - in fact the whole idea of defining an instant in time that applies to all observers breaks down even in special relativity, see Relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
If you don't understand, then ask a specific question and I'll try to answer it but I've given you the basic introduction many, many times now and I have no idea what it is about it that you are finding hard to grasp.
And it is still the case that this is simply a side issue with about the only thing you've said in support of this supposed "argument from contingency" you keep wittering on about. I'm still waiting for you to post or link to a complete argument that you are prepared to get behind and we can talk about.
This information is irrelevant to the question that Carroll seeks to answer in his paper. Your response is the equivalent of a suitcase stuffed with £10 shaped pieces of Newspaper. I am talking about being, not defining an instant in time.
-
This information is irrelevant to the question that Carroll seeks to answer in his paper. Your response is the equivalent of a suitcase stuffed with £10 shaped pieces of Newspaper. I am talking about being, not defining an instant in time.
You really do need to pay more attention. Just how many times do I need to repeat a point before it makes it into your head?
Your reference to a point in time suggests that the whole explanation went way over your head but, whatever, I'm rapidly losing interest in trying to educate somebody who doesn't pay any attention.
Moving on, the point about the space-time manifold isn't really an attempt to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing*. I'm simply pointing out that your statement about everything about the universe being obviously contingent is incorrect in the case of the whole space-time manifold. The sad fact is that that statement is about the only only substantive and coherent point you've made on the subject, and it's simply wrong.
Hence we can see that you have produced a big fat nothing in the way of any answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, let alone an argument that it involves anything like any god-concept.
I'm still waiting for even a hint of a coherent argument from you. Perhaps, at last, you'd stop the endless avoidance tactics, vague hand-waving, and quibbling over side issues and produce (or reference) a complete and coherent argument that you're prepared to support? Until you do so "we don't know" is perfectly good enough to ignore your inane wittering.
* Although it fits with the "universe just is" (brute fact) point of view, which, in turn, makes a lot more sense than anything you've put forward.
-
You really do need to pay more attention. Just how many times do I need to repeat a point before it makes it into your head?
Your reference to a point in time suggests that the whole explanation went way over your head but, whatever, I'm rapidly losing interest in trying to educate somebody who doesn't pay any attention.
Moving on, the point about the space-time manifold isn't really an attempt to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing*. I'm simply pointing out that your statement about everything about the universe being obviously contingent is incorrect in the case of the whole space-time manifold. The sad fact is that that statement is about the only only substantive and coherent point you've made on the subject, and it's simply wrong.
Hence we can see that you have produced a big fat nothing in the way of any answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, let alone an argument that it involves anything like any god-concept.
I'm still waiting for even a hint of a coherent argument from you. Perhaps, at last, you'd stop the endless avoidance tactics, vague hand-waving, and quibbling over side issues and produce (or reference) a complete and coherent argument that you're prepared to support? Until you do so "we don't know" is perfectly good enough to ignore your inane wittering.
* Although it fits with the "universe just is" (brute fact) point of view, which, in turn, makes a lot more sense than anything you've put forward.
There are one or two reasons relating to Carroll's paper which lead me to believe that you may be throwing a favourite bit of physics shamanically at the issue of why something and not nothing which is the issue of contingency and necessity. If the universe is necessary....what is it's sufficient reason? Since it's existence does not seem necessary and as you said the manifold depends on space and time existing.
.
Carroll for instance does not primarily use block universe theory to solve his problem as you do, probably for the reason that how the universe might be does not answer the question of why something and not nothing.
Secondly, The block universe theory where we are observing the whole of the universe from a timeless perspective has been a staple of classical theology for centuries with God as it's creator and observer and there are theologies today which mirror the past being a block, added to by the passage of the physical into the future.
So block universe theory and growing block universe theory still leaves us with several questions e.g ''why this universe and not another universe?''
No. Carroll is trying a philosophical objection to overturn PSR which is based on Russell's notion of ''brute fact'' which IMV needs a bit of explanation to distinguish it from ''what Russell would like to be a Brute fact'''' and Hume's argument of events just happening. Both ideas are not proven and indeed the latter one might be construed as antiscientific.
-
There are one or two reasons relating to Carroll's paper which lead me to believe that you may be throwing a favourite bit of physics shamanically at the issue of why something and not nothing which is the issue of contingency and necessity. If the universe is necessary....what is it's sufficient reason? Since it's existence does not seem necessary...
Well, if you actually bothered to read what I said, you wouldn't fall into endless misunderstandings. I have specifically said, multiple times, that I'm not arguing that the universe is necessary - I'm not even convinced that 'necessary' in this sense is a self-consistent concept. You have certainly made no coherent argument for it. Neither have you provided "sufficient reason" for anything at all that you've proposed.
...and as you said the manifold depends on space and time existing.
The manifold is space and time.
Carroll for instance does not primarily use block universe theory to solve his problem as you do...
PAY SOME FUCKING ATTENTION! I'm not trying to solve a problem with the space-time manifold. I'm just pointing out that it undermines your claim that everything about the universe is obviously contingent.
So block universe theory and growing block universe theory still leaves us with several questions e.g ''why this universe and not another universe?''
In exactly the same way as we could ask of any proposed external 'necessity' or 'god', why this one and not another?
YET AGAIN FOR THE HARD-OF-THINKING and those PAYING NO ATTENTION TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID:
I don't know why there is something rather than nothing.
I don't know why this universe and not another.
I don't know if anything external to the universe is needed or exists.
I don't know if anything at all can be or is 'necessary' in the sense you mean.
I have seen not one hint of an actual argument from you as to why I should adopt a particular point of view about any of those questions. So yet again:
Where is your argument?
-
Well, if you actually bothered to read what I said, you wouldn't fall into endless misunderstandings. I have specifically said, multiple times, that I'm not arguing that the universe is necessary
You are because if it isn't necessary then it has to be by definition contingent. If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.
-
You are because if it isn't necessary then it has to be by definition contingent.
Says who? How have you excluded a third possibility? Where is your reasoning? I also haven't argued that it isn't contingent - just that it isn't obviously contingent.
If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.
My reason is that a 'necessary entity' is not something that has a coherent argument to support it, and, at first sight, seems to be a nonsensical proposition. As was pointed out in the article: how can we even imagine something whose non-existence would cause a contradiction or would otherwise be impossible? ("The skeptics seem to be on firm ground; as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed.")
Again, it's you who need to make an argument here. I don't need to make one for not knowing.
Where is your argument?
-
Says who? How have you excluded a third possibility? Where is your reasoning? I also haven't argued that it isn't contingent - just that it isn't obviously contingent.
Either something has a cause or it doesn't there are no third options.
-
Either something has a cause or it doesn't there are no third options.
It's you who have 'argued' (asserted) that something that 'just is' without a cause (as the space-time appears to be) is not the same a being necessary (couldn't have not existed or has sufficient reason within itself to exist).
-
You are because if it isn't necessary then it has to be by definition contingent. If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.
He also has no reason to assert a necessary cause and neither do you.
-
He also has no reason to assert a necessary cause and neither do you.
There is nothing to support the idea of ''Brute fact''(Russell) or ''popping out of nothing''(Hume) other than a desire to drop PSR. I support a necessary being though. It cannot be the manifold since what never talk proposes is emergent.
-
There is nothing to support the idea of ''Brute fact''(Russell) or ''popping out of nothing''(Hume) other than a desire to drop PSR. I support a necessary being though.
There's nothing to support the the application of PSR to this problem. What's more, nothing you've put forward here even satisfies PSR.
You still haven't even made an attempt at a full and coherent argument for anything.
It cannot be the manifold since what never talk proposes is emergent.
Baseless assertion.
-
You are because if it isn't necessary then it has to be by definition contingent. If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.
I love the smell of false dichotomy in the morning...
O.
-
I support a necessary being though.
We know you support a necessary being, but you haven't given us any reason to agree that such a thing exists.
It cannot be the manifold since what never talk proposes is emergent.
Unfortunately, for me, no coherent meaning emerged from that collection of words.
-
Vlad,
If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.
I don’t suppose there’s any chance is there of you showing us where you think NTtS claimed to have a “reason to deny it a necessary cause”. As ever, you fundamentally misunderstand (or choose to misrepresent) what a “don’t know” entails. “Don’t know” means only “don’t know” – nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean, “your claim X is certainly wrong” as you perennially straw man it to mean.
Are leprechauns real? I don’t know. I can though on the basis of that same “don’t know” reasonably refuse to accept the claim “leprechauns” because what I do know is that there’s no good reason to think they do exist.
You on the other hand are making the positive claims here: according to you, the universe as a whole must be contingent on something other than itself (though you will never tell us why you think that), and according to you that necessary cause must be “God” (though you will also never tell us why you think that too). These are both positive claims though – you’re no longer in “don’t know” territory because such claims rest on “I do knows”. Which is fine, but if you expect anyone to take your “I do know” claims and assertions seriously then, finally, you need to provide some arguments to justify them…
…which is exactly the point at which you always run away, and will do so again now won’t you.
Why is that, and what does your endless evasiveness say about you do you think?
-
IF God exists, then God exists necessarily - the idea of a contingent god makes no sense, because God's necessary existence is one of God's defining characteristics. but that leaves entirely open the question of God's existence. Think of it in terms of possible worlds: it is possible without falling into logical contradiction to imagine a world in which I don't exist (maybe my parents never met), but it doesn't make sense to think of two possible worlds, in one of which God exists, and in the other of which God doesn't. If God exists, God must exist in all possible worlds. If God doesn't, God can't exist in any world.
I dare say NS will think this is drivel, but if so, and he chooses to reply, I'd be grateful if he explains why he thinks so, not just that he does.
-
IF God exists, then God exists necessarily - the idea of a contingent god makes no sense, because God's necessary existence is one of God's defining characteristics. but that leaves entirely open the question of God's existence. Think of it in terms of possible worlds: it is possible without falling into logical contradiction to imagine a world in which I don't exist (maybe my parents never met), but it doesn't make sense to think of two possible worlds, in one of which God exists, and in the other of which God doesn't. If God exists, God must exist in all possible worlds. If God doesn't, God can't exist in any world.
I dare say NS will think this is drivel, but if so, and he chooses to reply, I'd be grateful if he explains why he thinks so, not just that he does.
Define 'God'.
-
Define 'God'.
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of everything else, who exists necessarily. (I'm not saying I believe in God.)
-
The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of everything else, who exists necessarily. (I'm not saying I believe in God.)
So given that makes no sense... and is circular in terms of necessity...
-
IF God exists, then God exists necessarily - the idea of a contingent god makes no sense, because God's necessary existence is one of God's defining characteristics. but that leaves entirely open the question of God's existence. Think of it in terms of possible worlds: it is possible without falling into logical contradiction to imagine a world in which I don't exist (maybe my parents never met), but it doesn't make sense to think of two possible worlds, in one of which God exists, and in the other of which God doesn't. If God exists, God must exist in all possible worlds. If God doesn't, God can't exist in any world.
I dare say NS will think this is drivel, but if so, and he chooses to reply, I'd be grateful if he explains why he thinks so, not just that he does.
As you have defined God as having these characteristics in post 430, I fail to see any problem at all. As you say, the only question that remains is whether such a god actually exists.
-
As you have defined God as having these characteristics in post 430, I fail to see any problem at all. As you say, the only question that remains is whether such a god actually exists.
The law of sufficient reason on which the enterprise of science is based on necessitates a reason for the universe which is sufficient. I suppose that this is what makes me uncomfortable with the demand for an empirical, natural, material, physical sufficient reason.
Yes says the demander I can see the need for sufficient reason but I steadfastly refuse it's existence until I have it here before my very (insert organ or instrument of observation here). Suspending acceptance of the sufficient reason for the universe begins to look a bit like an act of macho defiance
There are of course reasons for why such a reason may not be observable in an empirical sense. Observation would render it contingent since observation as we now know is not a neutral act.
-
The law of sufficient reason on which the enterprise of science is based on necessitates a reason for the universe which is sufficient. I suppose that this is what makes me uncomfortable with the demand for an empirical, natural, material, physical sufficient reason.
Yes says the demander I can see the need for sufficient reason but I steadfastly refuse it's existence until I have it here before my very (insert organ or instrument of observation here). Suspending acceptance of the sufficient reason for the universe begins to look a bit like an act of macho defiance
There are of course reasons for why such a reason may not be observable in an empirical sense. Observation would render it contingent since observation as we now know is not a neutral act.
Glue sniffing again
-
it's existence...
Forgive me being pedantic, but you make this mistake all the time, and it irritates the heck out of me: you mean "its existence". "It's" (with an apostrophe) is short for "it is" or "it has"; "its" (no apostrophe) means "belonging to it".
-
Forgive me being pedantic, but you make this mistake all the time, and it irritates the heck out of me: you mean "its existence". "It's" (with an apostrophe) is short for "it is" or "it has"; "its" (no apostrophe) means "belonging to it".
You don't need forgiveness for trying to save the language from linguistic joyriders like meself.
-
IF God exists, then God exists necessarily - the idea of a contingent god makes no sense, because God's necessary existence is one of God's defining characteristics. but that leaves entirely open the question of God's existence. Think of it in terms of possible worlds: it is possible without falling into logical contradiction to imagine a world in which I don't exist (maybe my parents never met), but it doesn't make sense to think of two possible worlds, in one of which God exists, and in the other of which God doesn't. If God exists, God must exist in all possible worlds. If God doesn't, God can't exist in any world.
I dare say NS will think this is drivel, but if so, and he chooses to reply, I'd be grateful if he explains why he thinks so, not just that he does.
If that's a classic exposition on God's existence, then it is contradicted by another classic description.
Your words above refer to God existing IN worlds. Surely, the main idea is that God's existence is not like that of other beings or objects IN anything. His supposed existence is of a completely different nature to this.
-
If that's a classic exposition on God's existence, then it is contradicted by another classic description.
Your words above refer to God existing IN worlds. Surely, the main idea is that God's existence is not like that of other beings or objects IN anything. His supposed existence is of a completely different nature to this.
Yes, quite. It isn't really accurate to talk of God existing; it'd be better to say that God is existence, in its ultimate meaning. Tillich, and all that.
-
The law of sufficient reason on which the enterprise of science is based on necessitates a reason for the universe which is sufficient. I suppose that this is what makes me uncomfortable with the demand for an empirical, natural, material, physical sufficient reason.
There is not a 'demand' for an empirical reason, there's a demand for a justification for presuming the validity of anything else until a methodology to support it can be justified.
Yes says the demander I can see the need for sufficient reason but I steadfastly refuse it's existence until I have it here before my very (insert organ or instrument of observation here). Suspending acceptance of the sufficient reason for the universe begins to look a bit like an act of macho defiance.
No, saying 'we don't know' just does not lead to 'therefore magic'.
There are of course reasons for why such a reason may not be observable in an empirical sense.
He asserted.
Observation would render it contingent since observation as we now know is not a neutral act.
That rather depends on the method of observation - archaeology, for instance, is not an 'active' observation, it's deduction from available evidence, but the conclusions that are being drawn cannot be affected by the act of observations (subjectivity limitations of interpretation are, of course, always a possibility). Similarly, deducing information regarding the inception of the universe from patterns in matter and energy in the current universe would appear to be divorced from the observer effect in the same way - it's not a guarantee, but it's a least plausible that this is the case.
O.
-
There is not a 'demand' for an empirical reason, there's a demand for a justification for presuming the validity of anything else until a methodology to support it can be justified.
Firstly you have to demonstrate where the virtue is in taking this line since it assumes that everything that is is revealed by this method. That assertion itself is not revealed by the very method it advocates to establish validity. It is time then for one of you to establish the virtue of your assertion.
As I have said before, observation is no longer a neutral act and therefore that which is affected by observation is contingent. The law of sufficient reason logically proposes a necessary as sufficient reason for the universe. That necessary reason cannot logically be a contingent and so even if you propose that in some way the universe itself is the sufficient reason you have to find what that necessary thing is. Unfortunately the atheist cosmologist Sean Carroll declared his intention to try to find a loophole in the principle of sufficient reason and Bertrand Russell just baldly avoided it where the universe was concerned.
No, saying 'we don't know' just does not lead to 'therefore magic'.
Magic is the antithesis of the principle of sufficient reason and yet we have two aforementioned atheists who wished to ditch the principle and it is that attitude which I can't understand.
So on balance saying that the universe just is and there's an end to it(Russell) or suspending sufficient reason in the case of the universe(Carroll) is special pleading and looks suspisciously like sufficient reason for the universe dodging or even Goddodging.
Again if you want to please show the virtue of the Russell or Carroll positions.
That rather depends on the method of observation - archaeology, for instance, is not an 'active' observation, it's deduction from available evidence, but the conclusions that are being drawn cannot be affected by the act of observations (subjectivity limitations of interpretation are, of course, always a possibility). Similarly, deducing information regarding the inception of the universe from patterns in matter and energy in the current universe would appear to be divorced from the observer effect in the same way - it's not a guarantee, but it's a least plausible that this is the case.
And of course all of this will be carried out under the principle of sufficient reason........which Russell sought and Carroll is seeking to suspend in this very investigation.
One can also suppose that as we are talking about a non contingent we are not looking at a past entity here and whatever it is about the universe that is necessary for it (sufficient reason) has not passed.
-
Firstly you have to demonstrate where the virtue is in taking this line since it assumes that everything that is is revealed by this method. That assertion itself is not revealed by the very method it advocates to establish validity. It is time then for one of you to establish the virtue of your assertion.
No, because it's not precluding other systems, it's not saying this is the only way, it's saying if you want to propose another way then it needs a similarly robust justification, or it can be ignored.
As I have said before, observation is no longer a neutral act and therefore that which is affected by observation is contingent.
But the reasons that you give for holding that view aren't convincing anyone.
The law of sufficient reason logically proposes a necessary as sufficient reason for the universe.
Which is begging the question in the first place. We have a universe, yes, but there's nothing in there to show a reason to think that this universe had to happen.
That necessary reason cannot logically be a contingent and so even if you propose that in some way the universe itself is the sufficient reason you have to find what that necessary thing is.
Given that the evidence available suggests that time, as we understand it, is a facet of this universe, and came into being with this universe, then ideas of contingency outside of this universe and causing it don't necessarily follow the same rules as the contingency within the universe. There is no 'before' or 'after' outside of the universe where our time does not exist.
Unfortunately the atheist cosmologist Sean Carroll declared his intention to try to find a loophole in the principle of sufficient reason and Bertrand Russell just baldly avoided it where the universe was concerned.
I'm not familiar enough with either of their works to comment.
So on balance saying that the universe just is and there's an end to it(Russell) or suspending sufficient reason in the case of the universe(Carroll) is special pleading and looks suspisciously like sufficient reason for the universe dodging or even Goddodging.
No, it's not special pleading. If you want to claim that the 'purpose' of reality is our universe you need to justify that. Yes, there's a case for coming up with a sufficient cause for the universe to explain where we come from, but there's no need to try to find a necessary cause until and unless you can justify the claim that we are necessary at all.
Again if you want to please show the virtue of the Russell or Carroll positions.
As I said, I'm not familiar enough with either of their works to know if this supports or is parallel to their takes on things.
O.
-
Given that the evidence available suggests that time, as we understand it, is a facet of this universe, and came into being with this universe, then ideas of contingency outside of this universe and causing it don't necessarily follow the same rules as the contingency within the universe. There is no 'before' or 'after' outside of the universe where our time does not exist.
Since time itself is contingent I don't think what is necessary for existence would be at all subject to it. This point seems a red herring and certainly doesn't answer the question of the virtue of demanding empirical answers to this question.
No, it's not special pleading. If you want to claim that the 'purpose' of reality is our universe you need to justify that. Yes, there's a case for coming up with a sufficient cause for the universe to explain where we come from, but there's no need to try to find a necessary cause until and unless you can justify the claim that we are necessary at all.
Another red herring? I don't believe I've mentioned purpose please explain. I certainly have at no point said that we are necessary.
What I'm talking about is how we are here what is it that was or is necessary for for our contingency.i.e what is the sufficient reason?
-
Since time itself is contingent I don't think what is necessary for existence would be at all subject to it.
Except that your reasoning for needing a necessary cause it based on an understanding of contingency that is based upon cause and effect and the unidirectional arrow of time, which once you move to consideration of elements outside of the universe can't be relied upon.
This point seems a red herring and certainly doesn't answer the question of the virtue of demanding empirical answers to this question.
The demand is not for empirical answers; the demand is that if you're going to recommend answers that don't rely on empricism, then you're going to have to come up with an equally rigorous support for those answers, and I don't see that you do that. You try, it seems to me, to come at things from a pure logic stance, but when that runs up against the rigorously supported evidence you have a tendency to want to dismiss the empiricism rather than accept that there must have been a gap in the logical flow somewhere.
Another red herring? I don't believe I've mentioned purpose please explain. I certainly have at no point said that we are necessary.
If we (or some other element of the universe) aren't necessary, then the universe isn't necessary, in which case why do we need both a sufficient and necessary reason?
What I'm talking about is how we are here what is it that was or is necessary for for our contingency.i.e what is the sufficient reason?
And I still don't see why an infinite reality is not a sufficient reason. Why do you need to presume a conscious intent and a deliberate action, when random activity in an infinite space adequately answers your question.
O.
O.
-
Except that your reasoning for needing a necessary cause it based on an understanding of contingency that is based upon cause and effect and the unidirectional arrow of time, which once you move to consideration of elements outside of the universe can't be relied upon.
That immediately looks like suspending the principle of sufficient reason without grounds. I am not making a Kalam. Cosmological argument with a beginning here or advocating any linear hierarchy. I am arguing rather a finite vertical hierarchy where the status of something is dependent on something lower and so on to the bottom in simultaneous fashion. Temporal beginning being irrelevant to the argument. As a metaphor think of a jenga tower. Cause suggests a physical cause I think reason correctly steals us from an illogical commitment to empiricism here.
If we (or some other element of the universe) aren't necessary, then the universe isn't necessary, in which case why do we need both a sufficient and necessary reason?
The principle of sufficient reason demands that everything has sufficient reason whether necessary or contingent. The argument from contingency leads us to a necessity
And I still don't see why an infinite reality is not a sufficient reason. Why do you need to presume a conscious intent and a deliberate action, when random activity in an infinite space adequately answers your question.
If it is not not a sufficient reason then it must be a sufficient reason so over to you.
If there is an infinite reality the we are still back to the knotty problem of separating the necessary from the contingent.
I move you want to see an infinite reality without God or even the notion of necessity and that is what
puzzles me. It is hard for an ego to accept existential dependence I suppose and your argument does appeal to existential equality.Are you proposing a circular hierarchy of causation perhaps?
-
That immediately looks like suspending the principle of sufficient reason without grounds. I am not making a Kalam. Cosmological argument with a beginning here or advocating any linear hierarchy. I am arguing rather a finite vertical hierarchy where the status of something is dependent on something lower and so on to the bottom in simultaneous fashion. Temporal beginning being irrelevant to the argument. As a metaphor think of a jenga tower. Cause suggests a physical cause I think reason correctly steals us from an illogical commitment to empiricism here.The principle of sufficient reason demands that everything has sufficient reason whether necessary or contingent. The argument from contingency leads us to a necessity. If it is not not a sufficient reason then it must be a sufficient reason so over to you.
If you're trying to conceive of contingency then you need to strongly define the sequencing, because if you're considering potential events outside of the universe then the very notion of 'cause and effect' comes into question without time to set those sequences in. Yes I'm 'suspending the principle of sufficient reason' to an extent, but not without grounds: I'm saying that we can't rely on in-universe assumptions about sufficient reason might work, because outside of the universe the rules that we're used to can't be presumed to apply.
If there is an infinite reality the we are still back to the knotty problem of separating the necessary from the contingent.
No, we aren't. If reality is infinite then it is not contingent upon something else, but the notion of it being 'necessary' is also called into question as what is there outside of it to make it 'necessary', what is the plan that necessitates it?
I move you want to see an infinite reality without God or even the notion of necessity and that is what puzzles me.
It's not what I 'want', it's what I conclude when I look out there.
It is hard for an ego to accept existential dependence I suppose and your argument does appeal to existential equality.
Some people - perhaps I am one - might well find that difficult. I could equally suggest that some people struggle with their cosmic insignificance and try to make the universe about them. We can discuss the psychological influences on various takes on reality if you'd like, but they aren't going to reveal anything about what's actually happening, just about people's nature might influence their opinion. I'm not suggesting that this is an ad hominem, but I can see that others might see it that way.
Are you proposing a circular hierarchy of causation perhaps?
Not actively, just that without our conventional appreciation of a linear-ish timeline it's not something that we can easily rule out.
O.
-
If you're trying to conceive of contingency then you need to strongly define the sequencing,
The argument from contingency is not concerned primarily with sequential events but hierarchies of dependency that may be simultaneous and verticalbecause if you're considering potential events outside of the universe then the very notion of 'cause and effect' comes into question without time to set those sequences in.
Again, the argument from contingency does not depend on sequential event but on contingent dependency so I’m not looking at events outside the universe but the fundamental necessary for contingent entities Yes I'm 'suspending the principle of sufficient reason' to an extent, but not without grounds: I'm saying that we can't rely on in-universe assumptions about sufficient reason might work, because outside of the universe the rules that we're used to can't be presumed to apply.
But those grounds are based on an incorrect understanding of the argument from contingency. We cannot rely on the physics but reason and logic demand either a necessary for the contingency, a sufficient reason for why there is anything or a surrender to magical thinking. Remember, admitting ignorance in what is the necessary is not the same as deliberately suspending the principle of sufficient reason.
No, we aren't. If reality is infinite then it is not contingent upon something else, but the notion of it being 'necessary' is also called into question as what is there outside of it to make it 'necessary', what is the plan that necessitates it?
Firstly you need to rescue your thesis of an infinite reality from the charge of nebulosity, woo and deepity.
The term infinite reality could really be co opted by anyone on this forum....You, Sriram or me.
Secondly, infinite reality stands therefore as your ‘necessary’ whether you like it or not so now all you have to do is to separate the obvious contingency in the universe from the thing which is necessary. Physics won’t help you there imho.
Not actively, just that without our conventional appreciation of a linear-ish timeline it's not something that we can easily rule out.
Ah the old bootstrap idea.
What a circular hierarchy does propose though is something providing its own explanation for itself. Congratulations. You have provided an alternative philosophical explanation for why God doesn’t need a creator.
Joking aside a circular hierarchy would not provide an answer to the question why something and not nothing.