Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you are an idiot.

If you reject what i'm saying then surely you must support Bluehillside in what he is saying.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes and I have demonstrated the sufficient reason for God. God is the necessary for the observed universal contingency.

Circular drivel.

[Nearly Sane]

If you reject what i'm saying then surely you must support Bluehillside in what he is saying.

Oh look a false dichotomy!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not - I'm saying that only in the context that there is a linear progression - i.e. complexity must arise from greater complexity do you enter the world of sufficient reason, to get over the problem of infinite regress. It is logistical sophistry to get over a problem generated by simplistic thinking about the relationship between entities, which is typically highly anthropocentric.

Non sequitur shamanic chucking of random concepts.

Where is the anthropocentrism for goodness sake? Who's talking about complexity or linearity when we are talking about sufficient reason rather than cause and effect.

Simplistic thing as opposed to the noble ignorance of the intellectual ''I don't know what it is but it will be something deeand complex''....That Davey, is just posturing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh look a false dichotomy!

Feel free to demonstrate.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and I have demonstrated the sufficient reason for God.

Laughable - there is no evidence that god even exists.

God is the necessary for the observed universal contingency.

But that is a hand-waving assertion with no weight whatsoever in argument or logic unless you are able to demonstrate why, and before you even start to do that you'd need to demonstrate that god exists - good luck with that Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Laughable - there is no evidence that god even exists.
But that is a hand-waving assertion with no weight whatsoever in argument or logic unless you are able to demonstrate why, and before you even start to do that you'd need to demonstrate that god exists - good luck with that Vlad.

What has no weight in argument or logic is contingency without necessity. You have to disprove the PSR without falling for the rooky logical howler of trying to disprove it by using it to disprove it and then try justifying the use of the word contingency without necessity without specially pleading that the universe is exempt........Good luck with that.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where is the anthropocentrism for goodness sake?

Because the whole notion of 'reason' or 'intention' is highly anthropocentric as it is based on human consciousness and existence. This means nothing at all in the context of a cosmos in which life might or might not exist, let alone human life.

Who's talking about complexity or linearity when we are talking about sufficient reason rather than cause and effect.

You are - because cause/effect isn't necessarily a fixed thing - it might look fixed if we accept uni-directional and linear time. And although time appears as such to humans (back to anthropocentricity) that is necessarily the case. Once you reset the notion that time runs in one direction only at a uniform rate the whole notion of cause/effect begins to break down as we typically consider that an effect cannot happen before a cause, but that is based on unidirectional time.

[Nearly Sane]

Feel free to demonstrate.

Neither an infinite regression nor a belief in a cause and effect until you don't is logical.

[ProfessorDavey]

What has no weight in argument or logic is contingency without necessity.

See my previous post - what might appear to be x contingent on y, i.e. y causes x might be exactly the opposite depending on our temporal perspective. And indeed even in the world of cause and effect within the context of unidirectional linear time networks and systems can exist which are circular and self reinforcing, making it impossible to determine w linear trail of contingency. Bit like taking two points on a circular track and trying to argue which comes first

You have to disprove the PSR ...

Oh dear, rookie failure on burden of proof. I have to disprove nothing. You assert PSR is correct therefore the onus is on you to prove it chum, not on me to disprove it.

Off you go.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because the whole notion of 'reason' or 'intention' is highly anthropocentric as it is based on human consciousness and existence. This means nothing at all in the context of a cosmos in which life might or might not exist, let alone human life.

I don't think I used the word intention. Reason just a subjective human thing? Not sure about that. I did use the term explanation and presumably there are explanations with or without humans or the like

You are - because cause/effect isn't necessarily a fixed thing - it might look fixed if we accept uni-directional and linear time. And although time appears as such to humans (back to anthropocentricity) that is necessarily the case. Once you reset the notion that time runs in one direction only at a uniform rate the whole notion of cause/effect begins to break down as we typically consider that an effect cannot happen before a cause, but that is based on unidirectional time.

Non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See my previous post - what might appear to be x contingent on y, i.e. y causes x might be exactly the opposite depending on our temporal perspective. And indeed even in the world of cause and effect within the context of unidirectional linear time networks and systems can exist which are circular and self reinforcing, making it impossible to determine w linear trail of contingency. Bit like taking two points on a circular track and trying to argue which comes first
Oh dear, rookie failure on burden of proof. I have to disprove nothing. You assert PSR is correct therefore the onus is on you to prove it chum, not on me to disprove it.

Off you go.

You did it again! You are trying to say that the PSR cannot be asserted because I have insufficient reason for the PSR. In other words asserting the principle of sufficient reason whilst denying it can be asserted.

[Nearly Sane]

Because the whole notion of 'reason' or 'intention' is highly anthropocentric as it is based on human consciousness and existence. This means nothing at all in the context of a cosmos in which life might or might not exist, let alone human life.
You are - because cause/effect isn't necessarily a fixed thing - it might look fixed if we accept uni-directional and linear time. And although time appears as such to humans (back to anthropocentricity) that is necessarily the case. Once you reset the notion that time runs in one direction only at a uniform rate the whole notion of cause/effect begins to break down as we typically consider that an effect cannot happen before a cause, but that is based on unidirectional time.

I agree with all of this but Vlad's right about 1 thing. We accept cause and effect as being true in a day to day sense. Your job depends on it. So when we move onto philosophical stuff, it's all a bit odd. Stuff stops making sense,  now what Vlad misses is you can't use cause and effect as an argument until you don't. But same is true for bluehillside's infinite regression.

[ProfessorDavey]

Reason just a subjective human thing? Not sure about that.

Yup I would think so - otherwise we'd just all it a mechanism. Reason implies intent or purpose and intent/purpose is associated with intelligence, which I grant you may not be a purely human feature, but so ascribe it as important as a human sounds pretty darned anthropocentric to me. There is no requirement for intelligence, reason or intent to be features of the universe as far as I can see. And I'd imagine none of these features would have existed in the universe prior to life arising on earth or any other part of the universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

You did it again! You are trying to say that the PSR cannot be asserted because I have insufficient reason for the PSR. In other words asserting the principle of sufficient reason whilst denying it can be asserted.

No I'm not.

If you assert that 15 legged tartan living, flying bagpipes exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate their existence before discussing their relevance. If I say that you haven't demonstrated the existence of 15 legged tartan living, flying bagpipes that clearly does not mean that I am asserting the principle of 15 legged tartan living, flying bagpipes. I'm not, and nor am I asserting the principle of sufficient reason. I may be arguing why your assertions are logically faulty but that is an entirely different matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree with all of this but Vlad's right about 1 thing. We accept cause and effect as being true in a day to day sense. Your job depends on it. So when we move onto philosophical stuff, it's all a bit odd. Stuff stops making sense,  now what Vlad misses is you can't use cause and effect as an argument until you don't. But same is true for bluehillside's infinite regression.

What is your view on the Principle of sufficient reason? How do YOU think it ties in with cause and effect?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not.

If you assert that 15 legged tartan living, flying bagpipes exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate their existence before discussing their relevance. If I say that you haven't demonstrated the existence of 15 legged tartan living, flying bagpipes that clearly does not mean that I am asserting the principle of 15 legged tartan living, flying bagpipes. I'm not, and nor am I asserting the principle of sufficient reason. I may be arguing why your assertions are logically faulty but that is an entirely different matter.

Likening the principle of sufficient reason to 15 legged tartan living bagpipes is the mother and father, the Fred and Ginger, the Rogers and Hammerstein of piss poor analogy. The PSR is the basis of science.

That there is no apparent evidence for a necessary entity for the observed contingency of the universe is rather a limitation of science rather than of me. And the expectation that existence is settled by physical evidence is the height of scientism Since science is by and large the study of change.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is your view on the Principle of sufficient reason?

You are the one wedded to the notion - I don't think my view is relevant, although I will happily point out the errors in your thinking on it.

[ProfessorDavey]

That there is no apparent evidence for a necessary entity for the observed contingency of the universe is rather a limitation of science rather than of me. And the expectation that existence is settled by physical evidence is the height of scientism Since science is by and large the study of change.

The all you are left with is the equivalent of 'it's magic' or 'it is true cos I say it is'. If your arguments of PSR aren't robust enough to still be credible when we remove anthropocentric bias and also naive (an wrong) assumptions on the nature of time, then they are frankly very poor arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The all you are left with is the equivalent of 'it's magic' or 'it is true cos I say it is'. If your arguments of PSR aren't robust enough to still be credible when we remove anthropocentric bias and also naive (an wrong) assumptions on the nature of time, then they are frankly very poor arguments.

It may look that way from the point of view of scientism, but what we are actually left with is philosophy.
The accusation that the PSR is anthropocentric is spurious and rather like saying that there couldn't be maths or logic without people.
There is no anthropocentric bias, that is a straw clutch on your part.
Someone who wants to do away with the PSR and argues that the only way is science is seriously fucked up.

[Nearly Sane]

What is your view on the Principle of sufficient reason? How do YOU think it ties in with cause and effect?

I don't . You do. Ergo you contradict yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't . You do. Ergo you contradict yourself.

I think you wonder why I switch from talking about cause and effect to PSR. I don't feel like one of the boards Mr cause and effect and don't actually mention it that much. This is because one rapidly gets caught up in some pointless debate about the Kalam cosmological argument getting painted as believing everything has a cause.
I rather like to talk about contingency and necessity.
The necessary being doesn't have a cause like a contingent thing but like everything else is open to the principle of sufficient reason.  The argument from contingency provides sufficient reason to posit a necessary being in the strongest of terms.

If you are against this logical termination of all hierarchies of contingency and causation then how can you be anything other than for infinite regression? I don't have an answer to that but I'm certainly ready to listen.

On another point, do you consider yourself antiphilosophical.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you wonder why I switch from talking about cause and effect to PSR. I don't feel like one of the boards Mr cause and effect and don't actually mention it that much. This is because one rapidly gets caught up in some pointless debate about the Kalam cosmological argument getting painted as believing everything has a cause.
I rather like to talk about contingency and necessity.
The necessary being doesn't have a cause like a contingent thing but like everything else is open to the principle of sufficient reason.  The argument from contingency provides sufficient reason to posit a necessary being in the strongest of terms.

If you are against this logical termination of all hierarchies of contingency and causation then how can you be anything other than for infinite regression? I don't have an answer to that but I'm certainly ready to listen.

On another point, do you consider yourself antiphilosophical.

Lots of stuff there. I don't have an answer to anything on cause and effect but I won't cheat and use it as an argument to then abandon it. I question it entirely - see Hume.


Am I antiphilosophical? Not sure what means. It sounds exhausting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lots of stuff there. I don't have an answer to anything on cause and effect but I won't cheat and use it as an argument to then abandon it. I question it entirely - see Hume.

⅚
Am I antiphilosophical? Not sure what means. It sounds exhausting.

The argument from contingency cannot not be made and it arrives at the necessary entity.
The PSR for contingent things is that they owe their existence to something else.
The observed universe is of this nature and that is the problem with positing the universe as the necessary entity.

Since The necessary entity is the end of the line then the answer to the question why God can only lie within God or if you don't accept Aquinus why the necessary entity can only lie in the necessary entity. Given this it's hard to see where any cheating has happened.

I don't find appeals to Hume or persistence in scepticism when faced with the arguments very appealing because it smacks of "Nae boathering yer aerse" but perhaps you can sell it to me.

[Nearly Sane]

The argument from contingency cannot not be made and it arrives at the necessary entity.
The PSR for contingent things is that they owe their existence to something else.
The observed universe is of this nature and that is the problem with positing the universe as the necessary entity.

Since The necessary entity is the end of the line then the answer to the question why God can only lie within God or if you don't accept Aquinus why the necessary entity can only lie in the necessary entity. Given this it's hard to see where any cheating has happened.

I don't find appeals to Hume or persistence in scepticism when faced with the arguments very appealing because it smacks of "Nae boathering yer aerse" but perhaps you can sell it to me.

Don't really care. Your marking your own homework is tedious. You can't use the PSR and then throw it away as that removes your argument. You and the sainted Tom just assert necessity.