Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But there is the question why the space-time manifold and not nothing?

The same question you have totally failed to answer about your made up 'necessary entity'. You can't just make something up and give it sufficient reason by just asserting that it has one, or that it is the reason why there is something rather than noting. I could make exactly the same claims about the space-time manifold, with the added advantage that we know it exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The same question you have totally failed to answer about your made up 'necessary entity'. You can't just make something up and give it sufficient reason by just asserting that it has one, or that it is the reason why there is something rather than noting. I could make exactly the same claims about the space-time manifold, with the added advantage that we know it exists.

It isn't made up because it is the reason as called for by the question, why something and not nothing.

Are you saying that the space time manifold is the answer to why something rather than nothing? That it is the reason for everything rather than nothing? That it is the reason that everything is real?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Again: if you want to assert “god” to be a necessary causal agency for the universe because it’s the answer to “why a universe rather than not a universe?” then you just relocate exactly the same question to this god: “why god rather than not god?”.

No amount of special pleading, “it’s magic innit” etc gets you off that hook. “God” doesn’t answer the question, it just relocates it.

Now write that down so it doesn’t have to be explained to you again.   

The reason is the principle of sufficient reason. There has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing and there are no more questions heirarchically after why something rather than nothing. Try it. The clue is in the word reason. And the question makes it the final reason in the heirarchy. It must exist. It must exist in it's own right, independently of what it makes real and independently of any other concept. The principle of sufficient reason has been satisfied.

Let us not forget that Russell and Dawkins settled for Brute fact very early on in the game.

[Stranger]

It isn't made up because it is the reason as called for by the question, why something and not nothing.

But it isn't an answer to the question, you just keep on asserting that it is. As it stands you are just asserting that there is something apart from the universe that is the answer but you can't say how it answers the question or why it is different from a brute fact. It just a gibberish label for our ignorance of the answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing, you might as well call it "jorxedreypi" as "necessary entity". It's just a meaningless assertion.

Are you saying that the space time manifold is the answer to why something rather than nothing? That it is the reason for everything rather than nothing? That it is the reason that everything is real?

No, but I could do with exactly as much reason as you have given for your jorxedreypi, in fact more, because we know it actually exists.

[Stranger]

The reason is the principle of sufficient reason.

Which you yourself are not following.

There has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing...

And we simply don't know what it is.

It must exist. It must exist in it's own right, independently of what it makes real and independently of any other concept.

Baseless assertions.

The principle of sufficient reason has been satisfied.

Except it obviously hasn't. "Jorxedreypi" "Necessary entity" is just a meaningless label that answers nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it isn't an answer to the question, you just keep on asserting that it is. As it stands you are just asserting that there is something apart from the universe that is the answer but you can't say how it answers the question or why it is different from a brute fact. It just a gibberish label for our ignorance of the answer to the question of why something exists rather than nothing, you might as well call it "jorxedreypi" as "necessary entity". It's just a meaningless assertion.

No, but I could do with exactly as much reason as you have given for your jorxedreypi, in fact more, because we know it actually exists.

There has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing, You would agree since you are hectoring me for sufficient reason. So we aren't doubting that. What do we know about it? 1: It exists 2: it exists in it's own right independently of anything else 3: It has the power to actualise or make real 4: Because it is independent it must be self directed. 5: It cannot fail to exist since there is no other possible position to be held. Nothing not being anything.

Now you seem to be saying that the space time manifold fits all these aspects.

[Stranger]

There has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing, You would agree since you are hectoring me for sufficient reason.

It's a question we simply don't know the answer to. I keep asking you for sufficient reason because you insist that the principle must apply and then ignore it when it comes to your god.

What do we know about it? 1: It exists 2: it exists in it's own right independently of anything else 3: It has the power to actualise or make real 4: Because it is independent it must be self directed. 5: It cannot fail to exist since there is no other possible position to be held. Nothing not being anything.

Utterly baseless assertions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a question we simply don't know the answer to. I keep asking you for sufficient reason because you insist that the principle must apply and then ignore it when it comes to your god.

Utterly baseless assertions.

No, these are based on where the reason lies in the heirarchy i.e. between what it has made real and nothing. So to repeat, it must be, it must be independent of everything else, it must be able to ''realise/actualize stuff''.....we know this much about it.

[Stranger]

No, these are based on where the reason lies in the heirarchy i.e. between what it has made real and nothing. So to repeat, it must be, it must be independent of everything else, it must be able to ''realise/actualize stuff''.....we know this much about it.

Nonsense. These are just assertions and you still haven't given a sufficient reason why something exists rather that nothing, just slapped a meaningless label on it and attempted to assert it into being like your god.

[jeremyp]

Trinity means ''triunity''.

Yes, that's what I said: threesome.

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

Well obviously Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, that's what I said: threesome.
Well obviously Christianity.

what do you then mean by threesome.
In what way are these three gods?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The reason is the principle of sufficient reason. There has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing and there are no more questions heirarchically after why something rather than nothing. Try it. The clue is in the word reason. And the question makes it the final reason in the heirarchy. It must exist. It must exist in it's own right, independently of what it makes real and independently of any other concept. The principle of sufficient reason has been satisfied.

Utter gibberish. “The reason” (ie, the answer to “why a universe rather than not a universe?”) is either that the universe is its own explanation, or that something else is. Either is possible, but claiming the latter as “necessary” has no justification, and in any case merely relocates the same question to that something else (ie, “why the something else rather than not the something else?”). You can’t just hand wave that away (“there are no more questions”) no matter how much special pleading you want to try.     

Let us not forget that Russell and Dawkins settled for Brute fact very early on in the game.

Let us not forget that you either fail to grasp or choose to misrepresent the “brute fact” idea. Russell was only saying that even when the answer to “why a universe rather not a universe” is “don’t know”, still we have the brute fact of the universe nonetheless. There’s no brute fact of your god (because the reasons used to justify that claim are hopeless), but if you want to posit it as a brute fact nonetheless then “why god rather than not god?” will hit you smack in the face just as it does for the universe.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter gibberish. “The reason” (ie, the answer to “why a universe rather than not a universe?”) is either that the universe is its own explanation, or that something else is. Either is possible, but claiming the latter as “necessary” has no justification, and in any case merely relocates the same question to that something else (ie, “why the something else rather than not the something else?”). You can’t just hand wave that away (“there are no more questions”) no matter how much special pleading you want to try.     

Let us not forget that you either fail to grasp or choose to misrepresent the “brute fact” idea. Russell was only saying that even when the answer to “why a universe rather not a universe” is “don’t know”, still we have the brute fact of the universe nonetheless. There’s no brute fact of your god (because the reasons used to justify that claim are hopeless), but if you want to posit it as a brute fact nonetheless then “why god rather than not god?” will hit you smack in the face just as it does for the universe.     

If you are saying the universe is the reason for itself I would question that because of contingency. Looped causation just creates the absurd situation of any component being totally dependent on it's own existence while being simultaneously totally dependent on other components which is absurd.
So I'm asking how the universe can be necessary rather than there being something necessary amongst all the contingency.

Regarding Russell. It is impossible to misinterpret what he is saying but you seemed to have managed it....either that or you are gaslighting.

[jeremyp]

what do you then mean by threesome.
In what way are these three gods?

There's three of them: the Father (1), the Son (2) and the Holy Spirit (3).

I've helpfully counted them for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's three of them: the Father (1), the Son (2) and the Holy Spirit (3).

I've helpfully counted them for you.

But you unhelpfully failed to answer the second question. As well as unhelpfully not making it clear what you mean by ''the universe''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are saying the universe is the reason for itself…

Yet another straw man. I didn’t say that at all. What I actually said was that you have no grounds to dismiss the possibility that it is. Once again, your pathological inability to distinguish possibility from probability is your problem here.
 

I would question that because of contingency.

Have you not read anything at all here? Once again: how would you propose to find your way from the contingency of observed constituents of the universe to the universe itself also therefore being contingent?   

Looped causation just creates the absurd situation of any component being totally dependent on it's own existence while being simultaneously totally dependent on other components which is absurd.

And here's yet another straw man. No-one has proposed “any component being totally dependent on it's (sic) own existence while being simultaneously totally dependent on other components”. 

So I'm asking how the universe can be necessary rather than there being something necessary amongst all the contingency.

And here comes the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy again. You’re the one claiming that the universe must be contingent on something else remember so it’s your job to justify that claim. All I need to argue is that you have no grounds to assert causality to apply to the universe as a whole merely on the ground that some of its components are caused.     

Regarding Russell. It is impossible to misinterpret what he is saying…

And yet you seem to have managed it.

…but you seemed to have managed it....either that or you are gaslighting.

Yet again, it’s you who’s misunderstand it. Russell was merely saying than when explanations for something run out, still nonetheless we have the brute fact of it. He wasn’t claiming bruteness to be its own explanation as you have consistently wrongly said.

[jeremyp]

But you unhelpfully failed to answer the second question. As well as unhelpfully not making it clear what you mean by ''the universe''.

It's Christians that claim that Jesus is a god. It's Christians that claim God the Father is a god (it's even in the name). Is it your contention that the Hoy Spirit is not a god? Why attributes does it lack that disqualifies it from the definition of "god" in your opinion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's Christians that claim that Jesus is a god. It's Christians that claim God the Father is a god (it's even in the name). Is it your contention that the Hoy Spirit is not a god? Why attributes does it lack that disqualifies it from the definition of "god" in your opinion?

Christians claim that Jesus is God(not just a god)and make the same claim for both the Father and the Holy spirit.
Regarding the definition of god(Just another god), you haven't defined what this is yet so I am not able to venture my opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Christians claim that Jesus is God(not just a god)...

So "God" was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again according to this doctrine and to the resurrection story right?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So "God" was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again according to this doctrine and to the resurrection story right?

Yes he was born God incarnate, Lived as God incarnate, Died as God incarnate and was resurrected as God incarnate.

[Outrider]

Christians claim that Jesus is God(not just a god)and make the same claim for both the Father and the Holy spirit.

But they maintain that the three are independent and separate, and that there are therefore at least three. Or is the divinity just invested in the Board, like a limited liability company set up?
 
And then there's ample historical evidence that the Christian God, an evolution of the Jewish interpretation of the Canaanite storm-deity Yahweh was one of a pantheon of deities...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes he was born God incarnate, Lived as God incarnate, Died as God incarnate and was resurrected as God incarnate.

So the story goes. So we have an immortal, then not immortal for a bit (ie, dead), then immortal again "god incarnate" then right?

And that seems coherent to you does it?

Hmmm...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So the story goes. So then, we have immortal, then not immortal for a bit (ie, dead), then immortal again right?

And that seems coherent to you does it?

Hmmm...

What we had was God incarnate for a while. Nothing strange about a contingent being being temporary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What we had was God incarnate for a while. Nothing strange about a contingent being being temporary.

Riiight...

You do know that your god is supposed to be immortal right, and that "immortal" means "not capable of dying"? So we have a "god incarnate" (but not the immortal type), who was then dead for a bit (and presumably not a god incarnate when dead, or maybe not, or...er...something...), and then resurrected as a god incarnate again, only this time as the immortal version.

Or something.

Is that dog's breakfast of a claim where you want to pitch your tent now?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Riiight...

You do know that your god is supposed to be immortal right, and that "immortal" means "not capable of dying"? So we have a "god incarnate" (but not the immortal type), who was then dead for a bit (and presumably not a god incarnate when dead, or maybe not, or...er...something...), and then resurrected as a god incarnate again, only this time as the immortal version.

Or something.

Is that dog's breakfast of a claim where you want to pitch your tent now?   

Jesus, God incarnated, was born, lived died and was resurrected. He ascended to heaven and that is the point where observational data ceased. He is not, biblically any way a unique resurrected.

Our own story is that we are born, die and then are resurrected to eternal life or eternal damnation

 dependent on our choices.