Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Again, no inkling from you where the PSR is being thrown away.
If the sufficient reason is within the necessary entity that does not mean there is no sufficient reason.
I think we agree that the necessary entity supplies the sufficient reason for the contingency and visa versa when it comes to the reason for positing the necessary entity.

[jeremyp]

Don't be daft. An infinite chain of causes unnecessarily multiplies entities infinitely...what are you thinking of?

 In what way does the universe provide sufficent reason for itself?

In what way does God provide sufficient reason for itself?

[jeremyp]

If you think an infinite regress is in any way a better option

Why is it a worse option?

[jeremyp]

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

That's not a demonstration. It's an assertion.

And who, by the way has observed that the Universe is contingent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way does God provide sufficient reason for itself?

Firstly the argument from contingency supplies sufficient reason to assume the necessary entity which we assign the name God.
Sufficient reason must lie in God because there is no where else for it to lie. It cannot be elsewhere since God is the end of the line. Can we know why God? We could ask him or he could reveal it

There is no end of the line in an infinite chain of causation so we can never reach sufficient reason. An infinite chain of contingency renders no necessity therefore we are left with the question why an infinite chain and not a finite chain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not a demonstration. It's an assertion.

And who, by the way has observed that the Universe is contingent?

No an assertion is something like The universe just is.
The universe as observed by science is contingent and nothing necessary has been found. I am also doubtful if science even allows itself the study of anything that isn't contingent.

If you are suggesting the universe is part contingent then there is a necessary part that is necessary from which all contingency can be traced to. Necessary things are not part of anything nor made of parts because we have necessity from contingency which is nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If you think an infinite regress is in any way a better option you are an idiot. Both you and Vlad use cause and effect idiotically. He then throws it away like a moron but that's useless as well.

Charming. It’s a “better option” (actually, the question was which option I “prefer” but ok) inasmuch as, however unlikely, illogical, whatever it might be as a conjecture it requires fewer assumptions than an explanation into which a magic god is inserted. 

I’m just advocating for Occam’s razor – not making a comment on whether I think infinite regress is plausible, bonkers or something in between. If nonetheless you want to keep straw manning me I suggest you find a post in which I have argued for infinite regress.

Thank you for reminding my why in part I left this mb though.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But same is true for bluehillside's infinite regression.

Bluehillside doesn’t have an infinite regression. Bluehillside merely says that, IF given a binary choice between infinite regression and a god who’s magic, of the only two options on the table he “prefers” the one with the fewer assumptions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No an assertion is something like The universe just is.

Yes, just like “god just is” is an assertion – only it’s one that requires more assumptions than "the universe just is". 

The universe as observed by science is contingent and nothing necessary has been found. I am also doubtful if science even allows itself the study of anything that isn't contingent.

That’s a doubtful claim given that we don’t know whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level in particular, but in any case “the universe as observed by science” is not a comprehensive picture of how the universe necessarily is. That’s why people keep doing science. You cannot just assume that that the cause and effect we observe as a property of the observed universe must also apply to the universe itself.     

If you are suggesting the universe is part contingent then there is a necessary part that is necessary from which all contingency can be traced to. Necessary things are not part of anything nor made of parts because we have necessity from contingency which is nonsense.

Gibberish. If you want to insert a god as a “necessary thing” then you merely transfer the same incredulity about the universe’s “justisness” to that god. “There must be a creator and it’s magic” is the antithesis of an answer – it explains nothing.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, just like “god just is” is an assertion – only it’s one that requires more assumptions than "the universe just is". 

That’s a doubtful claim given that we don’t know whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level in particular, but in any case “the universe as observed by science” is not a comprehensive picture of how the universe necessarily is. That’s why people keep doing science. You cannot just assume that that the cause and effect we observe as a property of the observed universe must also apply to the universe itself.     

Gibberish. If you want to insert a god as a “necessary thing” then you merely transfer the same incredulity about the universe’s “justisness” to that god. “There must be a creator and it’s magic” is the antithesis of an answer – it explains nothing.   

No because the universe has an observable contingent component. Where as the necessary entity does not. If the universe has parts then it cannot be necessary because of it's dependency on those parts. If it is contingent then it could have been other wise.

I have nowhere proposed God just is. I.e.absolute zero reason to propose his existence. The argument from contingency makes God reasonable. The necessary nature makes God reasonable, I Say that the cause of God lies within God because there is nowhere else for it to lie.

If you want an infinite regress then I would say it's down to you to demonstrate any sufficient reason about it by argument.
Can you for instance describe an infinite regression of causes a single entity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No because the universe has an observable contingent component. Where as the necessary entity does not.

Only if you want to assert that to be case though. How would you know that the god you’ve asserted into existence doesn’t itself have some contingent component? 

If the universe has parts then it cannot be necessary because of it's dependency on those parts. If it is contingent then it could have been other wise.

Again, you’re just conflating an observable property of the universe (contingency) with the universe itself. If you want to make an argument for phenomena we see in the universe as necessarily applying to the universe itself by all means try it, but so far at least all you’ve done it to assert that to be the case.

I have nowhere proposed God just is.

Yes you have. If you want instead to propose a caused god though, then you need something to have caused it and so on forever – ie, infinite regress.   

I.e.absolute zero reason to propose his existence.

Your “ie” is a non sequitur. Your reason (however bad) still requires a god that just is – ie, has no antecedent. 

The argument from contingency makes God reasonable.

No it doesn’t, because it relies on magic – ie, an uncaused god. 

The necessary nature makes God reasonable…

Still no – see above.

, I Say that the cause of God lies within God because there is nowhere else for it to lie.

So magic then. There’s only “nowhere else for it to lie” if you want hand wave away the problem of contingency for your god. 

If you want an infinite regress then I would say it's down to you to demonstrate any sufficient reason about it by argument.

I haven’t argued for an infinite regress (that was NS’s straw man).

Can you for instance describe an infinite regression of causes a single entity?

Can you? Again, all inserting “god” into the story does is to avoid infinite regress with special pleading. If you’re incredulous about a non-created universe, then you have to address the same question about a supposed creator. Using magic as your way out is just adding more assumptions to the options.     

[jeremyp]

Firstly the argument from contingency supplies sufficient reason to assume the necessary entity which we assign the name God.

How does it do that?

Sufficient reason must lie in God because there is no where else for it to lie.

It could lie in the Universe itself.

It cannot be elsewhere since God is the end of the line. Can we know why God? We could ask him or he could reveal it

How do you know God is the end of the line? How d you know the line doesn't top before God or that it doesn't continue on beyond God?

There is no end of the line in an infinite chain of causation so we can never reach sufficient reason. An infinite chain of contingency renders no necessity therefore we are left with the question why an infinite chain and not a finite chain.

How can you discount the infinite chain?

[jeremyp]

No an assertion is something like The universe just is.
The universe as observed by science is contingent and nothing necessary has been found. I am also doubtful if science even allows itself the study of anything that isn't contingent.

"God just is" is also an assertion. Where's your evidence that it is a true assertion?

If you are suggesting the universe is part contingent then there is a necessary part that is necessary from which all contingency can be traced to. Necessary things are not part of anything nor made of parts because we have necessity from contingency which is nonsense.

You said somebody observed that the Universe is contingent. I want to know who that person is. I don't want more of your word salad.

[Alan Burns]

Trying to extrapolate the "cause and effect" scenario we see in our observable universe to whatever is outside our universe will inevitably lead to an infinite regress.  Whatever exists outside this universe will be beyond human understanding, because our understanding is entirely based on what we can perceive within our universe.  We can use our freedom to think and "invent" many possible explanations for how our universe came into existence, but there can be only one truth.  Our yearning to seek the truth behind our existence would appear to be unique in the animal kingdom - could this yearning be more than just an unintended consequence of an unguided evolutionary process?

The concepts of purpose and design and intention are not found in the observable mechanics of our material universe - these concepts only exist in the human mind.  Our human minds would appear to be not of this universe, and are capable of reaching out to what may lie beyond our material universe - our true home?

To gain insight into what lies beyond, we need look no further than the divine revelations given to us by the entity of "what lies beyond" coming to exist with us in human form as Jesus Christ.

[jeremyp]

Trying to extrapolate the "cause and effect" scenario we see in our observable universe to whatever is outside our universe will inevitably lead to an infinite regress.

Will it? Why?

Whatever exists outside this universe will be beyond human understanding, because our understanding is entirely based on what we can perceive within our universe.

How come Christians (and adherents of other religions, to be fair) seem so certain they understand their god then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Trying to extrapolate the "cause and effect" scenario we see in our observable universe to whatever is outside our universe will inevitably lead to an infinite regress.

You have to show first that there is such a thing as “outside our universe”. 

Whatever exists outside this universe will be beyond human understanding, because our understanding is entirely based on what we can perceive within our universe.

No it isn’t. We can deduce “understanding” without observation – observation is how we validate that understanding. 

We can use our freedom to think and "invent" many possible explanations for how our universe came into existence, but there can be only one truth.  Our yearning to seek the truth behind our existence would appear to be unique in the animal kingdom - could this yearning be more than just an unintended consequence of an unguided evolutionary process?

It “could be” anything, but you’ve provided no cogent arguments to indicate that it is “more than just an unintended consequence of an unguided evolutionary process” as you put it.   

The concepts of purpose and design and intention are not found in the observable mechanics of our material universe - these concepts only exist in the human mind.

Nonsense. How do you think it is that birds build nests for example? 

Our human minds would appear to be not of this universe, and are capable of reaching out to what may lie beyond our material universe - our true home?

Our “human minds” don’t appear to be “not of this universe” all. To the contrary, the appear to be very much of this universe, but also to be extraordinarily complex. That’s why people called neuroscientists invest so much effort trying to understanding them. 

To gain insight into what lies beyond, we need look no further than the divine revelations given to us by the entity of "what lies beyond" coming to exist with us in human form as Jesus Christ.

Mindless proselytising – “the divine revelations given to us” isn’t an explanation, it’s white noise ¬– not even wrong. 

[Alan Burns]

Will it? Why?
How come Christians (and adherents of other religions, to be fair) seem so certain they understand their god then?

Because it is God who has made Himself known to us in the form of Jesus Christ, and given insight into the true reason for our existence.  This makes far more sense than any of the man made attempts to seek the truth behind our existence.

[Enki]

Trying to extrapolate the "cause and effect" scenario we see in our observable universe to whatever is outside our universe will inevitably lead to an infinite regress.  Whatever exists outside this universe will be beyond human understanding, because our understanding is entirely based on what we can perceive within our universe.  We can use our freedom to think and "invent" many possible explanations for how our universe came into existence, but there can be only one truth.  Our yearning to seek the truth behind our existence would appear to be unique in the animal kingdom - could this yearning be more than just an unintended consequence of an unguided evolutionary process?

I very much doubt it. It would seem to be a consequence of our innate curiosity and the sophisticated makeup of our brains, most probably explainable by evolutionary forces.

The concepts of purpose and design and intention are not found in the observable mechanics of our material universe - these concepts only exist in the human mind.  Our human minds would appear to be not of this universe, and are capable of reaching out to what may lie beyond our material universe - our true home?

Rubbish. These concepts are found to a greater or lesser degree in all animals.

To gain insight into what lies beyond, we need look no further than the divine revelations given to us by the entity of "what lies beyond" coming to exist with us in human form as Jesus Christ.

The main insight I gain from the Jesus story is how naturally gullible we all are.

[Alan Burns]

    The concepts of purpose and design and intention are not found in the observable mechanics of our material universe - these concepts only exist in the human mind.

Nonsense. How do you think it is that birds build nests for example? 
 

They simply comply with the instinctive behaviour bestowed upon them from the natural selection process of evolution - no need to "think" about the concepts of purpose, design or intention.

[jeremyp]

Because it is God who has made Himself known to us in the form of Jesus Christ, and given insight into the true reason for our existence.  This makes far more sense than any of the man made attempts to seek the truth behind our existence.

It doesn't make any sense at all because there are other people in the World who seem to have a very different idea of what God is and what God wants.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

They simply comply with the instinctive behaviour bestowed upon them from the natural selection process of evolution - no need to "think" about the concepts of purpose, design or intention.

Really? How about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVSr22kqSOs

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because it is God who has made Himself known to us in the form of Jesus Christ, and given insight into the true reason for our existence.  This makes far more sense than any of the man made attempts to seek the truth behind our existence.

You can’t just use an unqualified faith claim as an answer. If you think any of this is objectively true (rather than just your personal opinion on the matter) then you need to make some validating arguments that aren’t hopelessly wrong – something you’ve yet to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"God just is" is also an assertion. Where's your evidence that it is a true assertion?You said somebody observed that the Universe is contingent. I want to know who that person is. I don't want more of your word salad.

I'm not making the claim that God just is but thatGod is because he necessarily exists.
Now if you say the universe necessarily exists we would then have to ask about the presence in part of the universe which is contingent. Unable to dismiss the presence of the contingent we are then forced into accepting a necessary part which is er, not contingent and not contingent on it.

So there is all that reasoning for the necessary entity I.e.God .....against the universe just is or to go the full Bertrand on it, the universe just is and there's an end to it.

If challenged further we know there can be no reason for the necessary entity outside the necessary entity so the reason must be within what God is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't make any sense at all because there are other people in the World who seem to have a very different idea of what God is and what God wants.

I don't think that's the argument for atheism that it seems.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not making the claim that God just is…

Yes you are. Your reasoning of “most of what we observe so far about the universe is determinative, therefore the universe itself must have been caused” is, no matter how poor, just a rationale for why there's a just is creator. You’re still asserting a just is creator though, no matter what your rationale for it.