In what way is or isn't the multiverse a single entity?
It seems to me we can consider, in various contexts, the multiverse to be a singular entity or multiple entities, whatever suits your argument at whatever time.
There are many hypotheses and conjectures that lead to different ideas of what we might call a multiverse, to which are you referring? What exactly do you mean by "single entity"? Why does it matter?Yes and my point is in some theories the universe are separate in all ways and in others they still retain common features an example here would be Penrose's idea of the relics of previous universes.
No idea what you mean by that. Examples, perhaps?I’m thinking here of opposites and alternatives to Plantigna’s ontological argument which broadly claims a unitary source for all possible universes.
I’m thinking here of opposites and alternatives to Plantigna’s ontological argument which broadly claims a unitary source for all possible universes.
Don't, off the top of my head, recall that particular variant of ontological argument (which are generally very silly) so if you want to talk about the specifics, then I suggest a summary - either by a link or in your own words.Don't worry a lack of information on philosophical debate is I think par for the course for online atheists. Basically Plantigna argues that if God (being something that could possibly exist) exists in one universe then, and here's where the multiverse comes in, he exists in all of them. The argument is easily accessed online
As for any relevance of a multiverse, since they are all logical possibilities, but none has supporting evidence, a logical argument (of any kind) would become unsound as soon as it either assumed or dismissed any of them.No, i'd say that's scientism. if something is logically sound then the evidence or lack of it has no bearing on that.
Don't worry a lack of information on philosophical debate is I think par for the course for online atheists.
The argument is easily accessed online
No, i'd say that's scientism. if something is logically sound then the evidence or lack of it has no bearing on that.
Exactly the kind of atheist troll we've come to expect
::) You seem to have completely misunderstood (what a surprise).
If one (or more) of the premises of a logical argument are questionable, because there is a logically possible alternative, then it is unsound. Since the various multiverse ideas are possibilities and none of them can be ruled in or out with evidence, making assumptions about the truth or falsity or any of them would make such a premiss questionable and the argument unsound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness).Careful now or I might just apply this ''schooling'' to some of Bluehillside's logic. I thought soundness depended on true and false premise. I take it then that you think the case for a universe where God doesn't exist is as good or better than a case for a universe where God does exist and therefore that universes in the multiverse are discreet.
Exactly the kind of atheist troll we've come to expect
I thought soundness depended on true and false premise.
I take it then that you think the case for a universe where God doesn't exist is as good or better than a case for a universe where God does exist and therefore that universes in the multiverse are discreet.
The trouble with your response was though was your use of the word evidence, which is an appeal to science in the exercise of logic.......and that could be classed as scientism.
Here though is Plantigna, his ontological theory which is under the microscope. I don't think anyone who's heard of him and it sounds as though you hadn't, considers him an online theist
https://joshualrasmussen.com/articles/an-ontological-argument-from-value.pdf#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20intriguing%20contemporary%20defences%20of,God%3A%20maximal%20knowledge%2C%20maximal%20power%2C%20and%20moral%20perfection.
Accusing other people of trolling instead of addressing the point is the sort of thing we've come to expect from yourself.
It depends on premises being true. If we can't be sure, then the argument cannot be considered sound.
Non-sequitur of the week (at least). What I think about the various multiverse ideas is irrelevant to the how good a case I think can be made for some god(s).Well, you should know all about non sequiturs with your block universes and all.
Still going way over your head. If an argument is based on a premiss about the universe, or any idea of a multiverse, then the only way in which we can assess its truth is via science and evidence. Those are the relevant tools for examining physical reality.Now that is scientism and probably untrue at that given empiricism's precarious position in the truth stakes
Well, at least it gave me a laugh. What a pile of shit. Even the linked document points out some of the massive gaping holes it the 'argument'. Anyway, here is the summary (don't know why you couldn't be bothered to post this yourself):The piece made it clear that it was talking about power, knowledge, morality. To suggest it didn't, as you have here tells me either a) you didn't read it properly or b) you didn't understand it.
C1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
C2. A being has maximal greatness in a possible world only if it has maximal greatness
in every possible world, including the actual world.
C3. Therefore, there is a being with maximal greatness in the actual world.
First of all, how the hell are you going to define a nebulous idea like 'greatness' in an exact, and therefore logically relevant, way?
Secondly, what exactly is meant by a 'possible world'?You've just lost your credibility in terms of following philosophy and logic. Possible worlds include counterfactuals, alternative scenarios and other alternatives and have been referred to for centuries in philosophy.
There is no reference to a multiverse hypothesis,Multiverse theories are obvious examples of possible worlds in philosophy
so I have no idea why you were gibbering about them.yes we've established you are not a follower of philosophy o
I would regard a 'possible world' as any self-consistent (contradiction free) 'world' that anybody could imagine.Yes I would as well except i'm a bit down on involving your imagination because I think this is where Anselm and Hume go a bit wrong
Since it is perfectly self-consistent to imagine a world that has nothing but empty Newtonian space in it, with do idea of any 'be didn'tings' at all, the idea of a being that exists in 'every possible world' becomes incoherent in itself. If the idea was to restrict the 'possible worlds' in some way, then how, and why isn't it in the argument?Have to work through this one, Is a world that has nothing but empty newtonian space possible? That depends on whether newtonian space can be empty I suppose and whether that necessary rules out occupation by any entity and if nothing exists in this universe can the universe itself be rightly described to exist at all?
Since it looks as though you are proposing that truth is established by empiricism I wonder if that isn't fallaciously unsound in itself since logical arguments frequently involve possible ''worlds'' as a matter of course and empiricism itself is probably unsound.
Well, you should know all about non sequiturs with your block universes and all.
The piece made it clear that it was talking about power, knowledge, morality.
Possible worlds include counterfactuals, alternative scenarios and other alternatives and have been referred to for centuries in philosophy.
Multiverse theories are obvious examples of possible worlds in philosophy
yes we've established you are not a follower of philosophy...
Yes I would as well except i'm a bit down on involving your imagination because I think this is where Anselm and Hume go a bit wrong
Is a world that has nothing but empty newtonian space possible? That depends on whether newtonian space can be empty I suppose and whether that necessary rules out occupation by any entity and if nothing exists in this universe can the universe itself be rightly described to exist at all?
As far as the real, physical world is concerned, we have the methodology of empirical science or guessing. Since empiricism isn't a logical argument, it's rather difficult to see how it can be unsound.Not denying that methodological empiricism doesn't produce empirical facts but the difference between yourself and myself is that you are promoting physicalism. Empiricism undercuts itself and you cannot physically put before me an idea, in this case physicalism. Methodological empiricism has never revealed the notion that it is the only way to know what is true, If you think it has where is that empirical and physical kept?
Morality is subjective and it doesn't make the argument any better if you manage to quantify the others.And yet we see people of your stripe bring up omnibenevolence all the time. Quantifying of knowledge , power etc makes your argument of nebulousness questionable.
You don't understand the philosophical concept of ''possible worlds''
To an extent. However, as I said, as soon as an argument is based on the existence or non-existence of some type of multiverse, it breaks down on the grounds of soundness because we don't know whether they exist or not. So we are only left with imagined 'other worlds' that are unrestricted but may well be unreal too.
eh?
What's really funny is that you think that you are and yet fail to grasp basic logic and many of the arguments you try to use.
But that is literally all you have left, if you're not going to fall into unsoundness by assuming some version of a multiverse.
We can easily imagine a universe that consists of nothing but empty space. There is nothing contradictory about it. Whether it's a physical possibility or not is something that only science can tell you (sorry), and anyway if we're talking about unrestricted imagined worlds (or even some multiverse ideas, for that matter), we can easily imagine different physics.Allowable in multiverse thinking
an existing world of non existence is an absurdity
The fatal flaw is therefore that a world in which no beings at all exist, let alone one with 'maximal greatness', is possible
unless you're going to try to restrict the notion of 'possible worlds' somehow.Yes, to worlds that are possible. Universes that have absolutely nothing but non existence don't exist definitionally and are probably a logical absurdity.
...you are promoting physicalism.
Yes, to worlds that are possible. Universes that have absolutely nothing but non existence don't exist definitionally and are probably a logical absurdity.
So what then is the maximal entity in this universe? Your move.
Of course for a multiverse the PSR still operates...
...and we ask why does this universe not exist, or has purple monkeys, or has nothing but empty space?
Not denying that empiricism doesn't produce empirical facts but the difference between yourself and myself is that you are promoting physicalism.
Empiricism undercuts itself...
...and you cannot physically put before me an idea, in this case physicalism.
And yet we see people of your stripe bring up omnibenevolence all the time. IQuantifying makes your argument of nebulousness questionable.
First of all then, why are you referring to nothing but empty space? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? But wait, you have a little trick up your sleeve because science says that empty space isn't empty and that's why you referred to Newtonian space'' what a wag you turn out to be. So what then is the maximal entity in this universe? Your move.
Of course for a multiverse the PSR still operates and we ask why does this universe not exist, or has purple monkeys, or has nothing but empty space?
No evidence of that anywhere i'm afraid Hillside. You are utterly deluded....but then you were the bloke who thought Naturalism was the default position and then crapped himself when that turned out to mean that a contingent universe was also the default position.......You cannot rebut the PSR with composite necessities, infinite regressions, causal loops, ad hominem, contingent necessities and the daddy of all fallacies, trying to rebut the PSR with the PSR etc to which Stranger has added a few more classic howling absurdities in this thread.
The PSR is a busted flush for reasons that have been explained to you many time now without rebuttal.
I feel the dead hand of Lawrence Krauss is upon your argument and you are handwaving between a philosophers nothing and a physicists empty space.
Except I didn't actually say nothing at all or non-existence, I said empty space. If you can't see the difference then a world with just space and (say) two particles, would do just as well.
No evidence of that anywhere i'm afraid Hillside.
You are utterly deluded....
…but then you were the bloke who thought Naturalism was the default position and then crapped himself when that turned out to mean that a contingent universe was also the default position.......
You cannot rebut the PSR with composite necessities, infinite regressions, causal loops, ad hominem, contingent necessities etc to which Stranger has added a few more classic howling absurdities in this thread.
Vlad,The universe is contingent is the default because the universe isn’t supernatural is the default
The evidence is that whenever you’re invited to justify your assertion that the universe must have been caused by something else you head for the nearest exit.
Running away isn’t a rebuttal - try to remember this.
Wrong again – see above.
More lying won’t help you here. Materialism is the “default” position inasmuch as the only truths we’ve ever verifiably demonstrated have been materialistic in character. The universe being necessarily contingent on something else on the other hand runs into problems immediately you bother thinking about it (something you resolutely refuse to do), not least because it leans heavily on the fallacy of composition.
And the lying continues apace. The only rebuttal needed here is your utter inability even to propose a logical path from “universe” to “contingent thing”, no matter how many times you’ve been asked to try at least.
The universe is contingent is the default because the universe isn’t supernatural is the default
The default is what is observed and what is not observed has the burden of proof, and as it is the default, according to you, it has no burden of proof.
But it is not my position which is the universe is possibly
1: A contingent thing in need of a necessary entity
2 The sum of contingent things and the necessary entity on which all contingent things are dependent for their existence.
Then there are the absurd alternatives you have come out with.
Vlad,Not only bullshit, but weird turdpolishing Bullshit. There is nothing necessary observed by science in the universe therefore contingency is the default. There is nothing supernatural observed i.e. necessary entities so contingency is again the default.
Dear god but you struggle. One person standing at a cricket match has a better view, therefore everyone standing at a cricket match will have a better view too because a cricket crowd isn’t supernatural.
Does anything strike you as problematic about that statement? Anything?My point is to impress upon you the contingency of the universe as the default position and that I personally am prepared to accept there are two possible definitions of the universe which contradicts your claim of me jumping straight to one of them.
Your problem here with observing contingent stuff in the universe and jumping straight to the universe itself therefore being a “contingent thing” with no connecting logic to get you there is that you run immediately slap bang into the fallacy of composition.
Try to remember this.
No, the default is what can reasonably but provisionally be concluded because the hypothesis is coherent and does not rely on fallacies.
Try to remember this too.
No-one says that the universe isn’t “possibly” anything. Your mistake here is to take an ”if, then” statement (“if the universe is contingent, then it must be contingent on something else”) for a proof (in this case, for “god”). Proofs cannot rely on “if, then” statements; they require “is” statements (“the universe is a contingent thing”), which claim so far at least you’ve utterly failed to justify.
You might want to remember this too.
First, I haven’t “come out with” (ie, argued for) these hypotheses at all; I’ve merely noted that they exist and that they’re coherent. It would help if you stopped lying about this.
Second though, to dismiss out of hand these hypotheses as “absurd” while relying on a “it’s magic innit” god for your alternative is beyond absurd by comparison don’t you think?
Indefinitely?
I have no choice but to ignore you.
Indefinitely?You'll now have more time with me Seb.
::)
Not only bullshit, but weird turdpolishing Bullshit. There is nothing necessary observed by science in the universe therefore contingency is the default. There is nothing supernatural observed i.e. necessary entities so contingency is again the default.
My point is to impress upon you the contingency of the universe as the default position and that I personally am prepared to accept there are two possible definitions of the universe which contradicts your claim of me jumping straight to one of them.
Since I have pointed this out to you several times the fault lies with you and in that respect I am prepared to accept the following possibilities some of which are not mutually exclusive
1: You are Bullshitting
2:You are Gaslighting
3: You are mindgaming
4: You are pigeon chessing
5: You are turdpolishing
1: You are Bullshitting
2:You are Gaslighting
3: You are mindgaming
4: You are pigeon chessing
5: You are turdpolishing
6. You are arguing much more coherently and cogently than I’m capable of responding to, so I’ll spit the dummy instead and hope no-one notices while I make my retreat.
I have no choice but to ignore you.
It seems to me we can consider, in various contexts, the multiverse to be a singular entity or multiple entities, whatever suits your argument at whatever time.
In what way is a tree a singular entity or a collection of multiple branches and root?I'm not sure care to enlightenment me?
I'm not sure care to enlightenment me?
I'm not sure care to enlightenment me?
Vlad,Your projecting again.
No-one can do that. I could stand you in front of the Beachy Head lighthouse with a 1,000 lumen torch pointing up your hooter and a quasar ten feet behind you
Your projecting again.
I feel the dead hand of Lawrence Krauss is upon your argument and you are handwaving between a philosophers nothing and a physicists empty space.
There is nothing necessary observed by science in the universe therefore contingency is the default.
Once again ignoring the questions of what you think the entire space-time is contingent on, and how it is logically possible for anything to be its own reason for existing?Again you are taking your cue from Hillside.
Lost count of how many times you've run away from those questions. Intellectual cowardice at its worst.
Once again ignoring the questions of what you think the entire space-time is contingent on, and how it is logically possible for anything to be its own reason for existing?Arguments logically show that it must exist.
Lost count of how many times you've run away from those questions. Intellectual cowardice at its worst.
Again you are taking your cue from Hillside.
Here is what I am saying.
If we go by the default burden of proof line of argument then a contingent universe is the default...
...and if it is the default we are then entitled to ask what it is necessarily contingent on.
Now you can make a case for space time to be that necessary entity...
Arguments logically show that it must exist.
Your question is based on not recognising that in some matters there is a final question e.g.Why something and not nothing beyond which questions are non sequitur.
No.It's ironic that a post which starts with a plea of psychological independence from Hillside ends with an appeal to a hillsidean accusation.
Why? Yet again: What do you think the whole space-time is contingent on?
Even if I was to accept the idiocy of it being the default, then the answer to this is: we don't know.
I didn't. Do try to pay attention. I can't see how a necessary entity is even logically possible. To repeat the same question you keep running away from: in what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing? How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it weren't to exist?
The whole 'argument' that insists upon a necessary entity totally collapses without answers to those questions.
What arguments? A 'necessary entity' can be replaced with a 'magic entity' in all the arguments you've put forward to date, and make just as much/little sense.
Questions can't be non-sequiturs. Do learn some basic logic, FFS! None of what you've proposed would make the answer to the question "Why something and not nothing?" any more meaningful than "it's magic, innit?"
It's ironic that a post which starts with a plea of psychological independence from Hillside ends with an appeal to a hillsidean accusation.
You ask how space time is contingent?
You then go on to suggest that necessary entities don't exist.
Do you not even glimpse the contradiction here?
I would be most grateful if you could tell me
If space time is composite or could be.
If space time has been observed scientifically.
If space time could be different.
Do try to get over your bizarre obsession with Blue. I haven't even read in any detail what he's said here yet.Non contingent equates to necessary. They are the same thing.
No, because you seem incapable of separating not contingent from necessary. The first could be a brute fact, the second seems to be incoherent gibberish akin to magic.
So I'll ask yet again:Until and unless you can answer those questions, your whole argument is nothing but an appeal to magic.
- In what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing?
- How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't to exist?
Why should I answer your questions when you keep running away from mine?
Non contingent equates to necessary. They are the same thing.
Drivel. What's more, drivel which makes your entire 'argument' a case of begging the question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). You want there to be a necessary entity, so you can pretend it must be like your god (which is equally absurd), so you're just ignoring other possibilities, such as, for example, a brute fact.No, It's perfectly possible to be agnostic of all this and be a faithful and saved Christian of the truest and fullest variey and agnosticism is of course apparently in the DNA of atheism.
::)
If we go by the default burden of proof line of argument then a contingent universe is the default and if it is the default we are then entitled to ask what it is necessarily contingent on.
But the fact remains, you cannot have contingency alone and the question remains why something and not nothing?
But the fact remains, you cannot have contingency alone...
...and the question remains why something and not nothing?
So all in all a position that wants to eliminate necessity and the PSR and have some strange absurd mode of existence that isn't quite contingent and isn't quite necessary is far more redolent of NOT WANTING A NECESSARY ENTITY.
Assertion.You can not logically go back further than the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Nor do I have to even if there was another reason for the reason. We have however reached metaphysical necessity. You have arrived at the final reason. If it did not exist nothing would so it necessarily exists. You are at the south Pole as it were. Nothing does not exist.
And the answer is that we don't know.
The PSR is just another assertion that doesn't seem to even universally apply within the universe, and you have yet to show that a 'necessary entity' even makes sense. As far as I can see it's just magical gibberish. Yet again:Until and unless you can answer those questions, your whole argument is nothing but an appeal to magic. You literally might as well just say "it's magic, innit?"
- In what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing?
- How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't to exist?
You can not logically go back further than the reason why there is something rather than nothing.
We have however reached metaphysical necessity. You have arrived at the final reason.
If it did not exist nothing would so it necessarily exists.
I didn't claim that you could.If you have reached the final reason in a hierarchy then the PSR has been satisfied and that is the reason for why something and not nothing. The reason for that must be within that entity because there is no where else for the reason to reside. There is no external so there cannot be an external reason. It must necessarily exist for it's own sake and not fail to exist.
Not in the sense that it couldn't have failed to exist and that would satisfy the PSR that you're so keen on putting blind faith in, i.e. that it contains within itself the reason for its own existence - which is no better than claiming magic.
Which still doesn't make it necessary in the sense of satisfying the PSR. You have given no reason why it couldn't have been different and have led to an entirely different reality or might not have existed at all and so nothing would.
Without such a reason, it's just a brute fact and the PSR doesn't apply.
This really isn't hard. Either you can answer my questions or you have nothing but an unexplained brute fact.
You can not logically go back further than the reason why there is something rather than nothing.
Nor do I have to even if there was another reason for the reason. We have however reached metaphysical necessity. You have arrived at the final reason. If it did not exist nothing would so it necessarily exists. You are at the south Pole as it were. Nothing does not exist.
Sound familiar? Hawking uses the analogy.
Vlad,Sorry but it's about external reasons Hillside.
Yes you can – you can just as logically ask why that reason rather than not that reason. Inserting an “it’s magic innit” god merely relocates the question to a different object (god rather than the universe) but it answers nothing.
Drivel. Why cannot the universe itself be that “South Pole” answer? As you’re unable to tell us why the universe must be contingent on something else (opting instead just to declare it to be the “default position” with no justification at all). Just adding another layer that’s confronted with the same basic question falls foul of Occam’s razor.
But appropriately – that’s the difference.
Sorry but it's about external reasons Hillside.
Once you have arrived at the final and sole entity. I.e. the reason why there is something rather than nothing The only place in which a reason can be is in that entity.
You're welcome.
PS Occams razor means not multiplying entities beyond necessity NOT beyond what you'd actually prefer yourself.
If you have reached the final reason in a hierarchy then the PSR has been satisfied...
The reason for that must be within that entity because there is no where else for the reason to reside. There is no external so there cannot be an external reason.
If you can't give sufficient reason why it had to exist and couldn't have been different, then it obviously hasn't. Why is this so hard?You are once again trying to disprove the PSR using the PSR and you and Hillside are confusing PSR with whatever it is you appeal to to justify infinite regress.
Which is nothing but blind faith in the PSR, which doesn't even seem to universally apply within the universe and leads you to the absurdity of something that is its own reason for existing.
Blind faith in the PSR is no better than blind faith in magic, or just direct blind faith in a god. All equally idiotic.
You are once again trying to disprove the PSR using the PSR...
...and you and Hillside are confusing PSR with whatever it is you appeal to to justify infinite regress.
It doesn't there can be a final reason for something and the ultimate something is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. There can be no other external reason because there is nothing external to the final reason. It is it's own reason as it were.
It has sufficient reason because we have reached it logically.
Hillside of course wants to dispense with the PSR at a way too premature stage.
(https://c.tenor.com/QGIRZvNZeiwAAAAd/tenor.gif)I'm not here to say exactly what these reasons are. That's you asking me for something it is apparent you don't have balls to ask yourself.
I'm doing no such thing. I'm am showing that your own blind faith in it is all you have to support your foolish claim that it is automatically satisfied when you reach the end of the hierarchy of explanation (if such a thing exists).
Neither am I trying to justify infinite regress. You really are totally out of your intellectual depth here, aren't you?
Just repeating the same idiotic argument, won't magically make it non-idiotic.
No, we have not. If you can't explain exactly why it had to be the way it is and not different (and hence why reality couldn't possibly have been different), you have not arrived at anything but a brute fact. This isn't difficult. Either you have a reason why reality couldn't have been different (or not at all), or you have no 'necessary entity'.
More obsession with Blue ::) And, as I keep on pointing out, the PSR doesn't even seem to universally apply within the universe, so trying to claim that it must apply to the basis of existence is totally absurd.
I'm not here to say exactly what these reasons are.
That's you asking me for something it is apparent you don't have balls to ask yourself.
You seem to be saying that there is a reason for the reason there is something rather than nothing.
So that reason must be something rather than nothing and since there is nothing does not exist the reason must contain it's own raison d'etre BECAUSE THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE FOR THAT REASON TO RESIDE/BE LOCATED.
On what warrant SHOULD we accept that the universe just is? Not from naturalism. why is ''the universe Just is'' not a blind faith assertion? Also, not Blind faith since I argue from contingency so your argument falls there,
- I refuse to accept that the universe 'just is' (blind faith assertion).
Which is why you feel justified in asking me whether there is a reason for the reason why there is something rather than nothing. The reason you feel justified in asking it is that it is the PSR. The justification for saying the necessary entity exists comes from the argument from contingency. Follow that and you get to something not dependent on anything for it's existence. You are arguing on the principle of sufficient reason until you switch to the principle of external reason at a very suspicious point, Exactly where atheism comes under criticism. speeeeeeeecccccccccciiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaalllllllll ppppppplllllllllllllleeeeeeeaaaaaaadddddddiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggggg.
- Therefore there must be a reason for its existence.
You haven't given us the warrant why we should consider that the universe ''just is'' yet!!!!!!!!!!!
- That must be the reason why there is something rather than nothing (more blind faith).
(https://c.tenor.com/QGIRZvNZeiwAAAAd/tenor.gif)In response to your Star trek reference and your logic.........I think we can safely say ''You are not Spock.''
On what warrant SHOULD we accept that the universe just is?
Also, not Blind faith since I argue from contingency so your argument falls there,
Which is why you feel justified in asking me whether there is a reason for the reason why there is something rather than nothing. The reason you feel justified in asking it is that it is the PSR. The justification for saying the necessary entity exists comes from the argument from contingency. Follow that and you get to something not dependent on anything for it's existence. You are arguing on the principle of sufficient reason until you switch to the principle of external reason at a very suspicious point, Exactly where atheism comes under criticism. speeeeeeeecccccccccciiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaalllllllll ppppppplllllllllllllleeeeeeeaaaaaaadddddddiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggggg.
You haven't given us the warrant why we should consider that the universe ''just is'' yet!!!!!!!!!!!
How is it a logical impossibility! You keep asserting it but never show your working!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a case of ''I don't know but it can't be.''
...and what with the weight of logic against atheism...
You are simultaneously arguing a principle of external reason and The principle of brute fact.......which denies the external reason.
In response to your Star trek reference and your logic.........I think we can safely say ''You are not Spock.''
When will it finally dawn on you that saying "You have no reason to conclude A" is not the same as the proposition "not A"?I'll say it again slowly this time.
This is basic logic 101.
Except you haven't ever given the slightest hint (let alone logic - if you even understood what that meant) as to why you conclude that the whole space-time is contingent.
Gibberish.
See above regarding your inability to grasp the basics of logic.
I didn't assert it - do you know what prima facie (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prima-facie) means?
The basis for the prima facie conclusion is that is that you are totally incapable of even beginning to explain how it might work, as is everybody else that I've talked to. It would have to involve something that would cause a logical contradiction if it didn't exist or was different. I'm not the first person to point out that this seems to be unimaginable, let alone something we might expect. It would also seem to involve an explanatory loop - something you seem to be against yourself.
So you don't do English comprehension any better that you do logic. I specifically said that I was open to persuasion, given a credible explanation.
Pretty much everything else you've said is just more silly foot-stamping and assumptions about my position that I've already specifically addressed.
Go away and learn some basic logic and English comprehension (or perhaps, just to read a post before trying to reply to it).
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d8/27/fe/d827fe112256adc7cb4eee6e884754e0.gif)
Just love to see some of that logic. Please feel free to present some, even the first hint of the tiniest smidgen of such logic - because you've never presented any here before.
And, of course, you've just explicitly admitted to your own biased approach to the idea of a 'necessary entity'. Priceless.
Again, see my first answer above. Please get it through your skull:I'm not arguing for any specific solution here - just pointing out the flaws in your 'reasoning'.
To be even clearer: there might be a necessary entity, just as there might be a god, but you are light years away from a logical argument for either.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=Quote from: Walt Zingmatilder on Today at 10:12:03 AMYou are unable to mind meld (and not because you can't meld either)
In response to your Star trek reference and your logic.........I think we can safely say ''You are not Spock.''https%3A%2F%2Fi.postimg.cc%2FXvhb0R9F%2Firony.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=eb32c7097c57bdbf20efa8a775ae2162c88b98ca8ae0b220ace594580f7d38dd&ipo=images)
For those to whom defaults and burdens of proof are important.... A contingent universe is the default position and a necessary universe or necessary space time has the burden of proof.
For those for whom real or good reasons are important. There are no reasons or good reasons to believe that the universe just is...
For you, once again, what is the warrant for postulating it?
Both a baseless assertion and a false dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). ::)well let's start with the contention that space time is.
- You have not established that a 'necessity' is even a logical possibility.
[/list]You're shifting the burden of proof now away from having to prove Brute fact. But I am not only asking for proof, I am asking for warrant and Good reason.
Nor for it being contingent.
Anything is a possibility until we can eliminate it. At least "just is" doesn't appear to involve a contradiction, unlike it the existence of a 'necessary entity'. NOT, of course, that I am supporting one or totally dismissing the other.
You just haven't made your case.
For those to whom defaults and burdens of proof are important.... A contingent universe is the default position...
well let's start with the contention that space time is.
well let's start with the contention that space time is.
I rather think the burden is on a reason to include one. You know what you have to do.
Hang on don't you have to demonstrate 'necessity' to claim that, If it's more than a theory? In what way is it brute fact?
It's funny because according to atheists, the default is NOT AGNOSTICISM but atheism...
You're shifting the burden of proof now away from having to prove Brute fact.
The argument for necessity is the argument for necessity.
Of course a contingent universe is the default position since it comes out of naturalism being the default position.
I can't follow the logic of necessity because it threatens my atheism but i'll cheerfully accept Brute fact because it doesn't seems then to be your position.
How is the principle of external reason possibly logical?
You seem to be saying that things can be contingent but we must not extend this to the universe. What is your warrant for this? The statement also suggests contingency only which is absurd.
We must believe though that there may be brute facts. On no warrant?
You don't want any explanatory responsibility and that is a character fault IMHO.
Vlad,OK, I'll take it slowly. What is the warrant to even consider it might be ''necessary'' or ''brute fact?''
No-one has made that contention. The only contention that has been made is your contention that spacetime must be contingent on something else, but you'll never justify it with an argument.
Why do you think it is, then?The argument '' Anything is possible'' really is a busted flush.
For the simple, logical reason that anything we can dream up or imagine remains a possibility unless there is some reason to dismiss it.
Oh, for fuck's sake, I'm not going to just go on repeating myself. Learn to read!
Which is another false dilemma. Most atheists here are agnostic atheists. Agnostic because we can't know and atheists because we have no reason to believe.
I am agnostic about the reason why the universe exists, and I have been given no good reason to accept any of the proposed solutions so far given, so don't believe in any of them. Hence my attitude is identical to all proposed answers to "why is there something rather than nothing?" and "why does the universe exist?", as it is to god(s).
Again, you're failing logic 101.
It's not my burden of proof because I'm not saying it is the case. Its mere existence, as a possibility, however, undermines your claim of contingency.
...and a pile of illogical shite and baseless assertions.
More drivel.
More logic 101 failings. How many times do I need to point out that I DON'T ACCEPT EITHER A 'NECESSARY ENTITY' OR A BRUTE FACT? However, since they are both possible (assuming somebody can make some sense of how something can be necessary in the sense required), you cannot rule one in and dismiss the other, just because you like it better.
More logic 101 failings.
For fuck's sake, learn the difference between "you have not made a case for A" and "not A", and between "you can't claim A is the answer because you haven't eliminated B" and "B is true".
This really shouldn't be hard, even for you...
What is the warrant to even consider it might be ''necessary'' or ''brute fact?''
As there are no good reasons for believing this is even possible.
You have given no reason or argument to rule them out ("I don't like them", or personal incredulity don't count).Rule them out? They haven't even been ruled in?
Baseless assertion and hypocritical to boot, since you have continually failed to even attempt an explanation of how a 'necessary entity' might exist without introducing an apparent absurdity.
OK, I'll take it slowly. What is the warrant to even consider it might be ''necessary'' or ''brute fact?''
As there are no good reasons for believing this is even possible.
I'm afraid that will require you and that other bloke explaining what ''necessary'' and ''brute fact'' mean.
The argument '' Anything is possible'' really is a busted flush.
Why should we believe that ''contingency only'' or ''brute fact'' are even possible?...
... and explain why you appeal to them only when atheism or you feel atheism, is challenged?
Baseless drive. If something cannot be ruled out, either on logical or evidential grounds, it remains possible, even if you don't consider it probable.Justify, thank you. I shan't hold my breath, but would be keen on your take on where the absurdity lies and your warrant for calling it absurd.
Try ruling them out, then.
I don't. Please don't lie. Atheism is not in the least bit challenged by a necessary entity anyway, because all the attempts to link any notion of such to a theistic god are even more comically absurd than the arguments for the necessary entity itself.
Baseless drive. If something cannot be ruled out, either on logical or evidential grounds, it remains possible, even if you don't consider it probable.What is the logic then and evidence for Brute facts.
Justify, thank you. I shan't hold my breath, but would be keen on your take on where the absurdity lies and your warrant for calling it absurd.
I'm not a Brute fact agnostic or a contingency only agnostic because there are no good reasons available for either of them.
As far as you are concerned I don't need to demonstrate a contingent universe is the default position because Naturalism is your default position.
Brute fact doesn't save you from the existence of contingent things and all that entails. Because if it's contingent, we are entitled to ask of course ''on what is it contingent?''.
I am waiting on you to justify even proposing 'Brute fact' and why the reason for something has to be external to it.
What is the logic then and evidence for Brute facts.
Vlad,Because a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe Hillside, The same reason why you claim all your default positions. Nothing can be deemed beyond that and all we see is contingent. To allow something supernatural for nature is special pleading.
I'll say it again slowly this time: why?
Because a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe...
(https://i1.wp.com/themadtruther.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/bullshit_meter.gif?fit=480%2C242&ssl=1)Demonstrate empirically that something is the necessary entity or brute fact then.
Demonstrate empirically that something is the necessary entity or brute fact then.
Because a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe Hillside,Are you an empiricist Vlad?
Why? It has literally nothing to do with the fact that your claim was bullshit.When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.
You said "a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe" but we can't empirically observe "a universe" (in its entirety) at all, so we can't possibly know empirically whether it's contingent or not.
What we do know, is that our best (empirically) tested theory on the subject, tells us that there is no reason to assume that it (the whole space-time) is contingent. There appears to be no need for an external reason for its existence.
Are you an empiricist Vlad?I'm a methodological empiricist Seb. Not a philosophical empiricist nor still one of those strange philosophical empiricist who reckons that in some mystical way you become a philosophical empiricist when you use methodological empiricism.
When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.
And that has been good enough for every man woman and trans atheist on this forum at least to claim atheism and naturalism as the default position.
And now this business of default positions like so many others is dropped to suit your, well I won't call it an argument.
Also dropped because it doesn't suit. PSR, And now I am supposed to disprove Brute fact.....what happened to showing it's logical. A reversal of burden of proof.......quietly dropped because it no longer suits.
And that is before the bullshit about having done all that's been asked or I'm required, or the absurd rules or the string of courtiers replies.about science and logic.
So in conclusion. The universe in one sense can have a necessary entity in it.
In another sense I.e.the empirical sense on which your default position of atheism is based it is a contingent universe.
Have a supernatural providence of the universe if you wish but be prepared to loose your default position and your immunity from burden of proof.
Even on this basis (which is wrong), we couldn't possibly say if the universe (the whole thing) was contingent. The description is also wrong because our intuitive notions of space and time (as formalised by Newton) were shown to be fundamentally wrong by Einstein. Every time you use a device with GPS, you are basically providing evidence that it is wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xKf93xOLTk
Utter drivel. That is nowhere near being the basis for the default position of atheism or naturalism.
When you've dug yourself into a deep, dark pit of confusion and misunderstanding, the best advice is always to stop digging.
This isn't difficult. You have made the claim that there must be a 'necessary entity' (in the sense of something that is its own reason for existing), so it's clearly your burden of proof because nobody else is claiming, either that there is some other position that they are claiming is right instead, or that you are definitely wrong.
The other thing that you really need to understand is that, if we do a 'brainstorming' session on some difficult problem and come up with a set of possible (i.e. not obviously impossible, no matter how improbably they may seem) solutions, say A, B, C, and D, and if you say that (for example) "the answer is clearly B", then it is part of your job, if you want to use a sound logical deduction, to prove that A, C, and D are all, in fact, impossible. This is because the mere existence of these alternatives would undermine your deduction. It is not up to anybody else to show that any of them are right, it is you that must eliminate them.
As for the PSR, it's not something that is dropped when we don't like it, quantum mechanics pretty much forces us to at least dilute its meaning, if not drop it altogether as anything other than an approximation that is good enough for 'everyday' life, rather than something fundamental. It was only ever a philosophical principle - nobody can prove it, yet you seem to want to make it more fundamental than even your own god.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xKf93xOLTk
Some seed fell on the stony ground... ;)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FWyLiHq2O4
When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.
And that has been good enough for every man woman and trans atheist on this forum at least to claim atheism and naturalism as the default position.
And now this business of default positions like so many others is dropped to suit your, well I won't call it an argument.
Also dropped because it doesn't suit. PSR, And now I am supposed to disprove Brute fact.....what happened to showing it's logical. A reversal of burden of proof.......quietly dropped because it no longer suits.
And that is before the bullshit about having done all that's been asked or I'm required, or the absurd rules or the string of courtiers replies.about science and logic.
So in conclusion. The universe in one sense can have a necessary entity in it.
In another sense I.e.the empirical sense on which your default position of atheism is based it is a contingent universe.
Have a supernatural providence of the universe if you wish but be prepared to loose your default position and your immunity from burden of proof.
Stranger and Hillside. The Phil and Don Everley of Atheist Street fighting.
I'm a methodological empiricist Seb. Not a philosophical empiricist nor still one of those strange philosophical empiricist who reckons that in some mystical way you become a philosophical empiricist when you use methodological empiricism.
You don't know how good it felt using all those Isms.
When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.
Vlad,You've watched too much Z Cars mate. That wouldn't be my claim. It would be, how would you say?, one of yours you've fitted me up with.
Wouldn’t it save you time just to say instead, “yes my claim rests on the fallacy of composition”?
First, you’ve switched horses here from “deterministic” to “naturalistic”. A non-determinative phenomenon could still be naturalistic.No, I'm referring here to naturalism and you've just included Determinism as a red herring.
Second, naturalism being the default position for observed phenomena tells you fuck all about whether or not the universe is contingent on something else.Except when it forms the basis of the atheist and naturalistic ''default'' position.
Vlad,Thanks for that. First of all inferring the universe is true from the part we empirically observe forms the basis of the atheist claim to holding the default position. Namely yourself. So each time you claim the default position you are making the fallacy of composition.
“The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition#See_also
You’re welcome.
You've watched too much Z Cars mate. That wouldn't be my claim. It would be, how would you say?, one of yours you've fitted me up with.
No, I'm referring here to naturalism and you've just included Determinism as a red herring.
Except when it forms the basis of the atheist…
…and naturalistic ''default'' position.
Brute fact and necessary entities are not part of the stock of naturalism, because they aren't found in nature materially or empirically. You've got to ditch something important for your self here Hillside. Your default position or your argument against a necessary entity. Leave one at the door.
So the next time you claim atheism as the default position it will be on the strength that necessary entities and brute facts are not part of the grounds of atheism which are a rejection of such things leaving the default view of the universe as contingent.
Also since you do not believe that phenomena are more than their components…
…the sum of all the contingent things must equal the sum of all contingent things. Where does necessity come in? It would be magic wouldn't it.
And even if you did some magic and got necessity. You wouldn't have a universe that was necessary only something in it that was.
Thanks for that. First of all inferring the universe is true from the part we empirically observe forms the basis of the atheist claim to holding the default position.
This brings us round to composition, specifically composite entities. They cannot be necessary since the depend on parts so the entity is dependent on others and therefore cannot be necessary.
The atheist makes the error if they propose that what they can see is the universe is all there is and that it is solely contingent.
The theist makes no error because the contingent universe is one grouping which exists with another ontological entity which is singular.
Thanks for that. First of all inferring the universe is true from the part we empirically observe forms the basis of the atheist claim to holding the default position. Namely yourself. So each time you claim the default position you are making the fallacy of composition.
Secondly' This fallacy doesn't apply to a claim that contingent things depend on other things for their existence. To think that a contingent thing was something other than a contingent thing is an absurdity.
That only contingent things can exist is another absurdity.
My case…
… is that if we say the universe equals all existing things then the universe would contain the some of contingent entities plus the entity on which they were contingent on. The necessity of the necessary entity cannot be confused with the contingent existence of those things ultimately contingent on it.
This brings us round to composition, specifically composite entities. They cannot be necessary since the depend on parts so the entity is dependent on others and therefore cannot be necessary.
The atheist…
…makes the error if they propose that what they can see is the universe is all there is and that it is solely contingent. But then you've already nicked yourself on that charge.
The theist makes no error because the contingent universe is one grouping which exists with another ontological entity which is singular.
Vlad,I think you'll find anything that suggests that a contingency can also be a necessity is an absurdity Hillside. Any rule suggested by an informal fallacy isn't going to change that.
You’ve just crashed through the fallacy of composition again here. Yet again: the fact that the “entity” “depends” on its “parts” does not imply that the properties of those “parts” must also therefore be properties of the “entity” itself.
I think you'll find anything that suggests that a contingency can also be a necessity is an absurdity Hillside. Any rule suggested by an informal fallacy isn't going to change that.
A group of spades could collectively be the necessary entity and therefore have created themselves because the fallacy of composition allows it? Seriously.
A necessary entity cannot have parts in any case in a way I outlined to you but you are weren't intelligent enough to spot it.
It's good to see you acknowledge necessity though so now I can ask you where and what is this necessary aspect of the universe?
And for his next trick Hillside will now produce a house made of rubber out of clay bricks.
Hillside mate...........It's magic innit?
Vlad,oooh, Essex boy get mighty
"It's magic innit" is your claim remember, not mine.
Try not to make this mistake again.
oooh, Essex boy get mighty
I'm not the one suggesting by my employment of composition that a house mage of clay bricks can end up being made of rubber. A collection of philosophical arguments for a contingent universe and what they mean for composition can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Website
But since you seem to understand the principle of necessity perhaps you could now point to it in the universe where this is.
Also we need to see what Russell and Hume implied by stating that everything in the universe could have a cause but the universe itself doesn't have to have a cause.
Since you are on the side of these ''angels'' perhaps you could tell us what you mean by it.
Aside from cosmological arguments, were the fallacy of composition successful in it's own right though what are the implications for reductionism including reductionist views?
The sum of all contingencies equals necessity still looks like the ultimate in absurdity........There, I left you an opportunity for another courtiers reply.
Vlad,Oh dear I hope we aren't back into your uncanny ability to rebut arguments you claim I never made.
As I’ve taken the time to falsify your various lies and mistakes here without rebuttal rather than just do it again point-by-point only for you to ignore again the schooling you’re given let’s try a different approach.
My position: “I don’t know whether the universe is a necessary thing or a contingent thing. Therefore I have no burden of proof to demonstrate either of those possibilities to be true.”
Your position: “I do know whether the universe is a necessary thing or a contingent thing – it is a contingent thing. Therefore the burden of proof is with me to justify my claim. I shall justify it as follows…”
OK, I'm nice and comfy and I’ve got the Tizer and Twiglets in – all you have to do now is to complete that last sentence of your claim.
Good luck!
Oh dear I hope we aren't back into your uncanny ability to rebut arguments you claim I never made.
No, still no defence or explanation of the claim that ''Everything in the universe could have a cause but the universe doesn't need a cause'' Second time of asking Hillside what does it mean.
And how is it different from my claim. That the universe, according to your atheist default position, could be contingent or if we talk about the universe as the sum of contingent things and the necessary thing then the universe could be said to have a contingent aspect.
In any case Hillside what is that aspect, where is it and if you don't know how are you proposing to find out?
The argument from contingency and the PSR have been outlined to you. They will become clear to you when you stop feigning ignorance of them.
Vlad,Good to see you still have a sense of humour.
And yet again – I’m not making a claim here, you are. You can try to shift the burden of proof all you like, but as I’m not claiming anything I have nothing to justify.
You on the other hand think you have a proof for “god”, and that proof rests on the premise that the universe must be a contingent thing. OK then – finally stop fucking around and justify your premise.
WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE MUST BE A CONTINGENT THING?
Last chance, or you're out of here.
Good to see you still have a sense of humour.
Agnosticism is now the default position now is it? What happened to the heady days when Atheism was the default position?
No, still no defence or explanation of the claim that ''Everything in the universe could have a cause but the universe doesn't need a cause'' .
Not that I've actually seen this claim being made,...
It hasn't been...
What!? Vlad just making shit up? Never thought I'd see the day. Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!