Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Brute fact does not detonate anything for it denies the principle of sufficient reason, perhaps by dint of the principle of sufficient reason.

First, brute fact was one suggestion, not a claim, just one of the many ideas you failed to take into account in your so called 'argument'. Second, since you were never able to say what the sufficient reason for your god would be, it would be indistinguishable from a brute fact anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First, brute fact was one suggestion, not a claim, just one of the many ideas you failed to take into account in your so called 'argument'. Second, since you were never able to say what the sufficient reason for your god would be, it would be indistinguishable from a brute fact anyway.

Not if it can be established as a necessary entity. You still don't understand what brute fact is...Brute fact is something that ''just is'' with no reason. Being the logical answer to the question why something and not nothing and the logical conclusion to argument from contingency both confer necessary entity status.

There is a problem with a circle of causation suggested by someone which is that entities become both critically dependent on their existence on other entities and on their own existence! which is contradictory to say the least.

[Stranger]

Not if it can be established as a necessary entity.

Which you've not only failed totally to do, you can't even explain how such a thing is even logically possible. How is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist?

You still don't understand what brute fact is...Brute fact is something that ''just is'' with no reason.

I know, just like your supposed god.

Being the logical answer to the question why something and not nothing and the logical conclusion to argument from contingency both confer necessary entity status.

I've still yet to see, from you or anybody else, a logically sound argument along these lines. Your attempts have been pathetic. Nothing you've said goes gets us one iota closer to answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing, nor did any of it distinguish your proposed god from a brute fact.

You can't just assert something into being necessary. If there is a reason why something exists, then it must be contingent on that reason. If there isn't, then it's just a brute fact.

There is a problem with a circle of causation suggested by someone which is that entities become both critically dependent on their existence on other entities and on their own existence! which is contradictory to say the least.

But that's effectively what a 'necessary' entity would involve, if it is its own reason for existing, then it's contingent on itself, and you have exactly the same cycle of contingency as you've just called contradictory.

[Outrider]

Oh Dear perpetuation of the myth that a bit of quantum phenomena allows you into the debate on any subject under the sun.

Oh dear, dismissing an entire field of science because it has some hard words in it? Or because you don't like the conclusion?

Now I have stated the reasons I believe that the trinity is one God. I think you now need to explain why you don't.

Maths. There are three of them. Three (and this shouldn't be controversial, but brace yourself) does not equal one.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In terms of your oft stated desire to remove religion from all public forums I think you deserve a medal...but also to be completely ignored for the unsubtlety of it all.

Just to nail this latest lie, I've never said any such thing. What I've actually said (consistently so) is that in my view, religious institutions shouldn't enjoy special privileges in the public square - a very different thing. Not sure what you get from your near-pathological dishonesty, but you're showing no signs of stopping it.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which you've not only failed totally to do, you can't even explain how such a thing is even logically possible. How is it possible for something to exist that couldn't have failed to exist?

I know, just like your supposed god.

I've still yet to see, from you or anybody else, a logically sound argument along these lines. Your attempts have been pathetic. Nothing you've said goes gets us one iota closer to answering the question of why there is something rather than nothing, nor did any of it distinguish your proposed god from a brute fact.

You can't just assert something into being necessary. If there is a reason why something exists, then it must be contingent on that reason. If there isn't, then it's just a brute fact.

But that's effectively what a 'necessary' entity would involve, if it is its own reason for existing, then it's contingent on itself, and you have exactly the same cycle of contingency as you've just called contradictory.

Of course it's logically possible and the reason is contingency would be nonsense without necessity.
An infinite regress answers nothing especially the question contingency automatically raises on what? The necessary therefore has to exist. An infinite regression also bucks Ockham's razor.

Weirdly enough Krauss and co are trying to establish that there cannot be nothing. They have missed that there is already a solution to this established by the principle of sufficient reason which Carroll is seeking to disprove.

If we ask why something and not nothing the explanation for that is the necessary entity and since it could not have been derived from nothing then it must necessarily have always existed or alternatively after the explanation for why something rather than nothing there are no more pertinent questions on the subject. The explanation for necessity is down to where it lies in the heirarchy

Now it seems to me that Russell's use of Brute fact has no explanation at all and is a consequence of no logical pathway at all. As he says himself the universe just is and there's an end to it.
Prior to this he accuses his interlocutors of the fallacy of composition, but he knows that although for example a wall made of small bricks can be huge, a wall made of red bricks is still red.

Now he makes a fallacy of composition himself. We observe facts and the universe is the last/greatest fact we observe and somehow that covers it and he announces ''The universe Just is'' and there's an end to it.

And that leans heavily on empiricism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear, dismissing an entire field of science because it has some hard words in it? Or because you don't like the conclusion?

Am I dismissing quantum phenomena as an express pass into any topic under the sun?.....we'll yes I suppose I am guilty of that.

Maths. There are three of them. Three (and this shouldn't be controversial, but brace yourself) does not equal one.
O.

There is the id, ego and superego but three people are never suggested.
There is the subconscious and the conscious but two people. not really.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course it's logically possible and the reason is contingency would be nonsense without necessity.
An infinite regress answers nothing especially the question contingency automatically raises on what? The necessary therefore has to exist. An infinite regression also bucks Ockham's razor.

Weirdly enough Krauss and co are trying to establish that there cannot be nothing. They have missed that there is already a solution to this established by the principle of sufficient reason which Carroll is seeking to disprove.

If we ask why something and not nothing the explanation for that is the necessary entity and since it could not have been derived from nothing then it must necessarily have always existed or alternatively after the explanation for why something rather than nothing there are no more pertinent questions on the subject. The explanation for necessity is down to where it lies in the heirarchy

Now it seems to me that Russell's use of Brute fact has no explanation at all and is a consequence of no logical pathway at all. As he says himself the universe just is and there's an end to it.
Prior to this he accuses his interlocutors of the fallacy of composition, but he knows that although for example a wall made of small bricks can be huge, a wall made of red bricks is still red.

Now he makes a fallacy of composition himself. We observe facts and the universe is the last/greatest fact we observe and somehow that covers it and he announces ''The universe Just is'' and there's an end to it.

And that leans heavily on empiricism.

So why “god” rather than not god again?

Oh, yeah right – I forgot: magic right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

PS Naturally you'll want to apologise for and withdraw your latest lie about something I've never actually said at all right? 

[Stranger]

Of course it's logically possible and the reason is contingency would be nonsense without necessity.

This is just pathetic. You're basically saying that you can't imagine why stuff exists and is as it is, so you're just going to make up something really, really magical, that magically doesn't need a reason to exist, but somehow does have a reason to exist as well, by magical, magic, magically. There is no hint of logic or reasoning involved.

Unless you can give an actual sufficient reason as the why a 'necessary entity' couldn't not exist, then you're just playing silly games with words. What you've got is no different to a brute fact.

Weirdly enough Krauss and co are trying to establish that there cannot be nothing. They have missed that there is already a solution to this established by the principle of sufficient reason which Carroll is seeking to disprove.

But your magical magic, magically necessary entity doesn't follow the PSR because you can't give a sufficient reason for its existence, at least in any why that distinguishes it from a brute fact or isn't entirely circular, i.e. by seeing that things exist, and thinking there must be something with sufficient reason to explain it, because you can't imagine/won't accept anything else. And even if we followed that circularity, it would tell us exactly nothing about what said 'entity' would be like.

If we ask why something and not nothing the explanation for that is the necessary entity...

Except it doesn't answer that question.

...and since it could not have been derived from nothing then it must necessarily have always existed...

Back to Newtonian thinking about time. The universe has 'always' existed because time is part of the universe, so it has existed at every point in time.

...or alternatively after the explanation for why something rather than nothing...

Still waiting for anything remotely like that explanation. You're just going round in circles.

Now it seems to me that Russell's use of Brute fact has no explanation at all...

Exactly like your 'necessary entity'. The only difference is that you're trying to assert that it does have sufficient reason without actually being able to say what it is.

...and is a consequence of no logical pathway at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So why “god” rather than not god again?

Oh, yeah right – I forgot: magic right?

No, let's forget God for a bit and just consider what a necessary entity responsible for everything must be like.
Self directed, sovereign, independent, eternal, creative. Remind you of anything?

[Stranger]

No, let's forget God for a bit and just consider what a necessary entity responsible for everything must be like.
Self directed, sovereign, independent, eternal, creative. Remind you of anything?

You making utterly baseless, unsupported, logic-free assertions. Oh, no, that's exactly what it actually is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Back to Newtonian thinking about time. The universe has 'always' existed because time is part of the universe, so it has existed at every point in time.

That, i'm afraid, has no bearing on the question why something and not nothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, let's forget God for a bit and just consider what a necessary entity responsible for everything must be like.
Self directed, sovereign, independent, eternal, creative. Remind you of anything?

No, let’s not. Replacing a don’t know answer about the universe with another don’t know answer about “god” is just a dead end.

And no, ”it’s magic innit?” is not a get out of jail card to the problem this gives you. 

PS Any news about your apology for and withdrawal of your last lie about something I’ve never actually said at all by the way?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

PS Naturally you'll want to apologise for and withdraw your latest lie about something I've never actually said at all right?

Hillside, Do you or do you not want to see religion removed/become extinct from politics, the public forum and the public consciousness if not the whole world?

[Stranger]

That, i'm afraid, has no bearing on the question why something and not nothing.

Neither has any of your nonsensical and circular gibbering about 'necessary entities'.   

[jeremyp]

Trinity equals three separate Gods......I don't think so.
Supernatural equals divinity....ditto.

Trinity means threesome. If they are not separate, how can you claim there are three of them?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trinity means threesome. If they are not separate, how can you claim there are three of them?

Trinity means ''triunity''. While we are at it, can anybody state where the pantheon religions ever talk about the gods being the one god?.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, Do you or do you not want to see religion removed/become extinct from politics, the public forum and the public consciousness if not the whole world?

So just you remind you, you’re actual lie was “…your oft stated desire to remove religion from all public forums…”. I’ve never said any such thing. What I’ve actually said (“oft” times in fact) is that, in my view, religions shouldn’t have special privileges in public fora. If religious organisations want to argue their case be recognised in such fora like any other private members’ club would though I’d see nothing wrong with that.

So all you need to do now is apologise for and withdraw your lie and we’ll be square right?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So just you remind you, you’re actual lie was “…your oft stated desire to remove religion from all public forums…”. I’ve never said any such thing. What I’ve actually said (“oft” times in fact) is that, in my view, religions shouldn’t have special privileges in public fora. If religious organisations want to argue their case be recognised in such fora like any other private members’ club would though I’d see nothing wrong with that.

So all you need to do now is apologise for and withdraw your lie and we’ll be square right?   

No, my recollection is you have said it in the past but my recollection is also that those posts have been cleared from the record and to me they have no special privilages that others don't have for example there are allowed to be tory peers and labour peers and inherited peers and I cannot see where else they are priviliged but if it helps....I'm soooooooooo sooooooooooo soooorry. Private members clubs putting their case? I've no idea what you mean. Can religions be counted as private members clubs, i'm not sure.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So just so we understand your “argument” then:

Step 1: Assert that the universe must have been caused by something other than itself.

Step 2: Justify this assertion with the fallacy of composition.

Step 3: Install a cause (that just happens to be the deity to which you’re enculturated).

Step 4: Special plead your supposed cause to exempt it from a necessary cause of its own.

Step 5: Justify your special pleading with, “it’s magic innit”.

Have I misunderstood anything here?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, my recollection is you have said it in the past but my recollection is also that those posts have been cleared from the record and to me they have no special privilages that others don't have for example there are allowed to be tory peers and labour peers and inherited peers and I cannot see where else they are priviliged but if it helps....I'm soooooooooo sooooooooooo soooorry. Private members clubs putting their case? I've no idea what you mean. Can religions be counted as private members clubs, i'm not sure.

And my recollection is that you claimed (oft times) to have an unhealthy sexual interest in sheep (but my recollection is also that those posts have been cleared from the record).

See, we can each claim to “recollect” something that isn’t true at all can’t we?

Oh, and I assume you’re joking re the special privileges denial? 

[Outrider]

Maths. There are three of them. Three (and this shouldn't be controversial, but brace yourself) does not equal one.
O.
 There is the id, ego and superego but three people are never suggested.
There is the subconscious and the conscious but two people. not really.

So your take on the Trinity is that it's not really three and one, it's just one... When it comes to 'knowing the Christian arguments' I'd have to suggest that take isn't that common, where God is somehow in contravention of any sense depicted as both one God and three entirely separate independent entities. Hey ho... all you need do now is account for Satan, the angels, the demons, the Nepheliem and the rest, and you can claim a monotheism.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So your take on the Trinity is that it's not really three and one, it's just one... When it comes to 'knowing the Christian arguments' I'd have to suggest that take isn't that common, where God is somehow in contravention of any sense depicted as both one God and three entirely separate independent entities. Hey ho... all you need do now is account for Satan, the angels, the demons, the Nepheliem and the rest, and you can claim a monotheism.

O.

You still haven't said why you think the doctrine of the trinity is the same as a pantheon of multiple Gods.

I don't have to account for Satan, Angels, Demons, the Nephelim etc because  as i've said they are not divine in Christianity. They are not minor deities , you seem to think they are and I am asking why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So just so we understand your “argument” then:

Step 1: Assert that the universe must have been caused by something other than itself.

Don't think so one STARTS with contingent things with the argument FROM contingency and ends with that, One starts with the idea of simulated universes then progresses to a cause other than the universe, One starts with something and ends with the explanation why there must be a necessarily existing entity.

Step 2: Justify this assertion with the fallacy of composition.

It's true that because a brick wall is made of small bricks that doesn't mean the wall is small but then it's true that if it is made from red bricks the whole wall will be red

Step 3: Install a cause (that just happens to be the deity to which you’re enculturated).

No, Aquinus describes the nature of the necessary being and says ''this we call God'' and unfortunately something which is self directing, sovereign, and creative is a better fit for the abrahamic god than any other model of divinity and certainly isn't natural

Step 4: Special plead your supposed cause to exempt it from a necessary cause of its own.

It has sufficient reason Brute facts, infinite regression of entities do not although it would as far as we are concerned not matter if it had. Also the question why something rather than nothing demands a reason when we have come to this reason that's it, there cannot be any pertinent question beyond this. The reason exists therefore necessarily

Step 5: Justify your special pleading with, “it’s magic innit”.

That statement isn't the equivalent of what I have put forward so you are talking bollocks.

Have I misunderstood anything here?

Probably more than could be humanly dealt with in one session.