Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

In a circular hierarchy they are all contingent and necessary at least for themselves. They are all in affect self created entities.

You invalidate that objection to God.

Also there is no explanation for why any of them are there apart from the argument from necessity which is undermined by the absurdity and impossibility of being self necessary and utterly dependent on other entities simultaneously.

What do you mean by "self necessary"?

I think you need to think things through more carefully - you are getting confused.

E.g I existed before my father and he begat me and I begat him and he begat me and I begat him(into infinity)
Is I would move a far stranger proposition than anything in theology.

We are not talking about humans and cause and effect. The relationship between you and your father relies on the existence of time. Time is a property of a Universe, so a circular "hierarchy" of Universes is outside time and cause and effect have no meaning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Is there any part of that that doesn’t apply as equally to your god as it does to the universe?

Anyway – I dismantled the cosmological argument for you back in Reply 44160. Not sure why you’re still clinging to the wreckage therefore?

Which cosmological argument? And how deluded are you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep begging the question by asking 'why' as though it were an intent. There may not be a why, just a how.

Established idea of cause and effect extended vs magic. I don't agree with your estimation of relative likelihood.

O.

Davey's argument boils down to an Infinite regression.
Yours boils down to an eternal substance.
Infinite regression does not provide sufficient reason.
The eternal substance of your argument is contingent and we are also entitled to ask what it is contingent on.

When you defend Daveys Infinite cyclical argument, let's see what it is you are defending.
Here are two of Davies cyclical hierarchies
A gives rise to B, B to C, C to D, D to A , A to B, B to C, C to D, D to A

A is necessary for itself, as is B and C.
They need no further explanation since they explain themselves

And yet you argue that this is insufficient for God...when you've just argued that A is self necessary.

A ceases to be and yet you have A resurrected in the next cycle. You are therefore making an argument for physical resurrection.

Finally you have both argumented for each as necessary in that without themselves they cannot B and yet simultaneously contingent on other entities. This is where the absurdity is since they are contradictory ideas

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. OK, let’s dispense with the cosmological argument once and for all:

1. Everything we observe in the universe is contingent on something else.

     A dubious claim at best. Already it seems “true” randomness is a possibility:

    “So it’s likely that before too long, we will be able to have copious bits whose randomness is guaranteed by the causal
     structure of spacetime itself, should we want that.”

    https://www.americanscientist.org/article/quantum-randomness

2. Therefore everything that exists in the universe must be contingent on something else.

     That’s an unsupportable claim – basically the black swan error of inductive reasoning. How would you know
     that, even if 1. was not the case, there are no non-contingent events that haven’t been observed?

3. Total contingency within the universe must also be a property of the universe as a whole.

     Why? Speculations about the universe in toto inhabit a model in which there’s no reason to think the laws of
     physics (or of anything else) apply. Why then just assume that contingency within the universe must
     also apply to the universe?

4.  Therefore a universe creator.

     Except hypothesising a “creator” merely displaces the same unanswered questions about the universe (Did it
     begin? How did it begin? etc) to that creator. “It’s a mystery” (ie, “it’s magic innit”) isn’t an answer to that –
     it’s the abnegation of an answer. It has no useful function and it’s where you end up when you’ve given up
     looking for a meaningful explanation.

5.  Therefore god.

     No, because you have no basis to call something a “god” when other possibilities exist. How for example
     would you know that super advanced aliens able to manipulate time (“time loops”) hadn’t brought about their
     own existence and then embarked on universe creation?

6. Therefore a theistic god.

    No. Nothwithstanding all the multiple failures in the chain of reasoning, at best – at very best – all the
    cosmological argument would give you is deism. That is, one (or more than one) indifferent god who wound up
    the cosmic clock and then vanished.  

7. Therefore the Christian god.
 
    First, which Christian god as there seem to be as many descriptions as there are Christians? Loving?
    Vengeful? Concerned with what people do in bed? Pick any one you like as all types are equally (in)valid.

    Second, seriously? Why your god rather than any of the plethora of other creator gods that countless faiths have
    asserted into existence over the millennia?

So now the cosmological argument is dead and buried, it’s worth asking why such obviously flawed thinking has persisted for so long in the popular discourse. My guess is that it’s because it's simple, and that it appeals to our intuition – “that tree didn’t just fall over, the wind blew it – therefore etc”. In other words its very superficiality is its strength. Provided you don’t think about it, at first pass it’s quite persuasive right? Your problem though is that some people have thought about it, and so have sound reasons to dismiss it.

You won’t reply openly or honestly to any of this of course (you never do) but consider it a public service nonetheless – if ever you’re tempted again to try the cosmological argument you can quickly refer to this post to see where you’ve gone wrong.

You’re welcome.       

Randomness is non sequitur to the question why something and not nothing.
We can also ask "Why randomness?"
So no sufficient reasons here I'm afraid.
If you are saying as you seem to be that there might be a necessary entity in the universe then identify it. There must be a necessity however it will not itself be contingent on the contingent things in the universe.
If you believe as you seem to that there is a necessary aspect of the universe then you are now in disagreement with Infinite regress.

The necessary entity therefore is sovereign, non contingent on contingent things, is not influenced in activity by another entity, not dependent for its existence on anything else and is the fundamental basis for all hierarchies of existence and their maintainer.

That entity doesn't fit any atheism I know, or that you know either Hillside

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Randomness is non sequitur to the question why something and not nothing.
We can also ask "Why randomness?"
So no sufficient reasons here I'm afraid.
If you are saying as you seem to be that there might be a necessary entity in the universe then identify it. There must be a necessity however it will not itself be contingent on the contingent things in the universe.
If you believe as you seem to that there is a necessary aspect of the universe then you are now in disagreement with Infinite regress.

The necessary entity therefore is sovereign, non contingent on contingent things, is not influenced in activity by another entity, not dependent for its existence on anything else and is the fundamental basis for all hierarchies of existence and their maintainer.

That entity doesn't fit any atheism I know, or that you know either Hillside

Your trademark slipperiness is noted. Now try at least to address the rebuttals you were actually given.

[Dicky Underpants]

I have an idea. Why not the pituitary gland? Oh, damn, it's already been suggested. 

Wasn't it the pineal gland that Mr. Maps was interested in? Not that it makes a blind bit of difference.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your trademark slipperiness is noted. Now try at least to address the rebuttals you were actually given.

You cannot rebut an explanation for the universe including quantum randomness which has sufficient reason with an argument from quantum randomness which has insufficient reason.

Your trademark handwaving has been noted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You cannot rebut an explanation for the universe including quantum randomness which has sufficient reason with an argument from quantum randomness which has insufficient reason.

Your trademark handwaving has been noted.

Porridge: “No Way Out” (Christmas special, 1979)

Some prisoners have dug an escape tunnel, and Fletcher has fallen into it. He’s hurt and sent to the infirmary, where Mr McKay visits him on Christmas Eve.

Mr McKay: “There IS one question I’d like to ask. Where’s the soil that was excavated?”

Fletcher: “Ah, now, however you see our relationship do not presume I’m an informer. It’s still them and us, and I’m on the US side.”

Mr McKay: “A harmless question for future reference. I just want to know how they disposed of the soil. I can’t help…” (produces small bottle of Scotch)

Fletcher: “Scotland’s finest. With a couple of nips gone I see. It’s still a treat. Bribe is it?”

Mr McKay: “Christmas present. Come along – just between you and me.”

Fletcher: “Is the door shut?”

Mr McKay: “Oh yes, and there’s nobody outside.”

Fletcher: “I’ll tell you.”

Mr McKay: “Yes? (Hands over Scotch)”

Fletcher (Calls Mr McKay over to whisper in his ear): “They dug another tunnel and put the earth down there. Merry Christmas!” 

Game over Vladdo. You lost. Again. By all means try again though if ever you manage to find an argument not so egregiously hopeless.

[jeremyp]

You cannot rebut an explanation for the universe including quantum randomness which has sufficient reason with an argument from quantum randomness which has insufficient reason.

Your trademark handwaving has been noted.

Well, of course, in quantum mechanics, there is no cause and effect. The whole idea that things are contingent on other things is just meaningless.

[Dicky Underpants]

Well, of course, in quantum mechanics, there is no cause and effect. The whole idea that things are contingent on other things is just meaningless.

Isn't that all that needs to be said to end this interminable word-spinning? Of course, there might be an argument that quantum mechanics is just wrong (I'm not the one to make it)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, of course, in quantum mechanics, there is no cause and effect. The whole idea that things are contingent on other things is just meaningless.

But you aren't proposing that contingency of entities doesn't exist are you?

You seem to be starting from a physicists nothing. Which, as many are agreed is not a nothing but a something.

I think Hillside is proposing a quantum borrowing in which particles can  be borrowed from the future as it were to form the universe. Two things here. There is cause and effect because without a source for these particles there is no universe.

They are not actually sourced ex nihilo.

The question remains then, how come there is this source of particles.

Swinburne. A Christian philosopher, might argue that this quantum world is God, but that is predicated that it is the necessary entity....and if it is , it cannot be contingent.

If however it can be manipulated then it is contingent and we are looking for something else. For example, is the quantum level affected by observation? If so....it is contingent.

[jeremyp]

But you aren't proposing that contingency of entities doesn't exist are you?

You seem to be starting from a physicists nothing. Which, as many are agreed is not a nothing but a something.

I think Hillside is proposing a quantum borrowing in which particles can  be borrowed from the future as it were to form the universe. Two things here. There is cause and effect because without a source for these particles there is no universe.

They are not actually sourced ex nihilo.

The question remains then, how come there is this source of particles.

Swinburne. A Christian philosopher, might argue that this quantum world is God, but that is predicated that it is the necessary entity....and if it is , it cannot be contingent.

If however it can be manipulated then it is contingent and we are looking for something else. For example, is the quantum level affected by observation? If so....it is contingent.

You were the one who brought up quantum mechanics, not me. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t help you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But you aren't proposing that contingency of entities doesn't exist are you?

You seem to be starting from a physicists nothing. Which, as many are agreed is not a nothing but a something.

I think Hillside is proposing a quantum borrowing in which particles can  be borrowed from the future as it were to form the universe. Two things here. There is cause and effect because without a source for these particles there is no universe.

They are not actually sourced ex nihilo.

The question remains then, how come there is this source of particles.

Swinburne. A Christian philosopher, might argue that this quantum world is God, but that is predicated that it is the necessary entity....and if it is , it cannot be contingent.

If however it can be manipulated then it is contingent and we are looking for something else. For example, is the quantum level affected by observation? If so....it is contingent.

Hillside is “proposing” no such thing. Hillside has no idea whether the universe began, what “began” would mean in this context, whether and how the universe is its own explanation etc. Nor have you. Nor has anyone else. What Hillside actually does is to refer to quantum borrowing as one speculative explanation that’s had some discussion in the scientific community.

Your solution to unanswered questions about the universe is essentially “Fletcher’s god” – you just displace the same questions about the universe to a postulated god as if that answers anything at all. It doesn’t though – it just relocates the questions.

The difference between unanswered questions about the universe and the same unanswered questions about a god however is that I can at least demonstrate that there is a universe, whereas you can’t do that about your god so postulated universe-only answers require fewer assumptions than postulated answers requiring a god …

…which brings us to Occam’s razor again.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Hillside is “proposing” no such thing. Hillside has no idea whether the universe began, what “began” would mean in this context, whether and how the universe is its own explanation etc. Nor have you. Nor has anyone else. What Hillside actually does is to refer to quantum borrowing as one speculative explanation that’s had some discussion in the scientific community.

Your solution to unanswered questions about the universe is essentially “Fletcher’s god” – you just displace the same questions about the universe to a postulated god as if that answers anything at all. It doesn’t though – it just relocates the questions.

The difference between unanswered questions about the universe and the same unanswered questions about a god however is that I can at least demonstrate that there is a universe, whereas you can’t do that about your god so postulated universe-only answers require fewer assumptions than postulated answers requiring a god …

…which brings us to Occam’s razor again.     

Incorrect the argument from contingency posits something quite different from naturalism which you and your colleagues have been at pains to maintain by cheering on infinite regressions, circular hierarchies, the suspension of sufficient reason and the like.

Of course the other thing in your argument is to make God a faery, leprechaun or sprite with all the comedy that carries. I cannot help it if the necessary entity destroys the plea of No reasons to believe. Perhaps you shouldn't have been so swivelly eyed stupid to propose such a thing.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’re contradicting yourself here. If you accept that the brain has internal feedback mechanisms(s), then you know that there are “physical means” by which it happens.

You misunderstood.
I implied that if consciousness is an emergent property of physical reactions, there can be no means of feedback from what we are aware of to the reactions from which our consciousness emerges.

And emergence as a phenomenon is very robust – it’s observed all over nature, and has been thoroughly documented. There’s no good reason to exclude consciousness from that model in principle – you’re just assuming that its complexity must in some unexplained way exclude it, but that’s just a question of scale rather than of the basic phenomenon.
 

As I implied, the degree of complexity in a material brain makes no difference to the fact that the end result from which our conscious awareness emerges will be just another unavoidable reaction.

Your use of terminology is all over the place here, but essentially yes to the first part. That’s not to say though that there is no “you” – there is, but your sense of being “you” is actually just what thinking feels like as an integrated experience rather than evidence of a separate little man called “soul” or some such pulling the levers.   
 And there it was. Try to grasp something actually very simple here – our sense of agency, of making choices as if somehow untethered from a priori events is palpably impossible.

Past events can certainly influence our conscious choices, but they do not dictate them - otherwise it would be no choice, just an unavoidable reaction.

... your notion of a stand-alone decision-making entity (“soul”) would itself require some process of thinking to make its decisions. And if you were to be consistent in your reasoning, that entity too would then require another little man (Soul 2) to tell it what to do. And that little man would in turn etc forever in an infinite regress. This is why you have to cheat your way out with magic – ie, a little man at the controls that breaks all the rules of logic.

Our human soul exists and acts in the present - it defines the present, and as such it is not subject to the endless chains of cause and effect we perceive in material entities.

Can you see now why your solution gives you far more intractable problems than just accepting the evidence that feeling as though we float free of prior conditions when making decisions is just the way decision-making feels as an experience rather than way it must be?

You seem to be implying that your freedom to make conscious choices is just a feeling rather than a reality.  It is a mystery to me how you can come to this conclusion without the conscious freedom to guide your own thoughts.  Can you not contemplate that your perceived freedom is a reality?  Are you afraid of facing the consequence of it being a reality?  The most common phrase in the Christian bible is "do not be afraid".

So let me ask you again: why in principle do you think you have a better chance of identifying the picture on a jig-saw when you have none of the pieces than you do when you have some of the pieces, even if you don’t understand how those pieces fit together?

I have more pieces than you 

[torridon]

Past events can certainly influence our conscious choices, but they do not dictate them - otherwise it would be no choice, just an unavoidable reaction.

I think you are hung up on this word, 'dictate'.  It is better expressed as 'our choices in the present are a consequence of events in the past. For our choices not to be random, there must be some reason giving rise to whatever preference we have in the present moment.

[ekim]

I think you are hung up on this word, 'dictate'.  It is better expressed as 'our choices in the present are a consequence of events in the past. For our choices not to be random, there must be some reason giving rise to whatever preference we have in the present moment.

'Thy Will be done' seems to imply that a Christian should surrender to the dictates of his God so that the only choice is to be choice-less.  AB's conscious 'free' choices are most likely driven by personal desires.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Incorrect the argument from contingency posits something quite different from naturalism which you and your colleagues have been at pains to maintain by cheering on infinite regressions, circular hierarchies, the suspension of sufficient reason and the like.

Do you have anything to say that actually relates to the post you think you were replying to?

Again: if you think the absence of answers to deep questions about the universe can be answered by introducing a creator god, then you merely relocate exactly the same questions to that god. It’s Fletcher’s god.   

Of course the other thing in your argument is to make God a faery, leprechaun or sprite with all the comedy that carries. I cannot help it if the necessary entity destroys the plea of No reasons to believe. Perhaps you shouldn't have been so swivelly eyed stupid to propose such a thing.

I once wondered whether you were a stupid person trying to look intelligent, or the other way around. I’m still not entirely sure, but in any case the point about referencing leprechauns and the like is that their very ridiculousness makes the argument, namely that an argument for god that works equally for leprechauns is probably a bad argument.

Really, really try finally to understand this because if you do it’ll save you the effort of further misunderstanding or lies about it in your future efforts.

So anyway: your attempt at the cosmological effort is still an argument for Fletcher’s god (for the reasons I’ve set out and you have failed to address). Is that really where you want to be?       

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You misunderstood.
I implied that if consciousness is an emergent property of physical reactions, there can be no means of feedback from what we are aware of to the reactions from which our consciousness emerges.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Simply though: consciousness as an emergent property of vast numbers of interacting component parts would feel just as if there was a separate “you”, even though it’s an integrated single entity process.     
   

Past events can certainly influence our conscious choices, but they do not dictate them - otherwise it would be no choice, just an unavoidable reaction.

Your use of “dictate” is poisoning the well somewhat, but essentially “determined by prior events” does the job. Again though, so what? All that would mean (and likely does mean) is that your experience of “choice” isn’t somehow untethered from antecedent events. This seems to offend you in some way because you prefer the narrative your decision-making feels like over the way it is – which is an error in reasoning called the argumentum ad consequentiam (as has been explained to you many times here).   

Our human soul exists and acts in the present - it defines the present, and as such it is not subject to the endless chains of cause and effect we perceive in material entities.

It would have been quicker for you to have typed “it’s magic innit”. If you want to assert into existence a “soul” for which there’s no evidence at all and which by some unexplained means makes decisions of its own and then tells a sort of zombie “you” what to do then you have an epic job to make the case for it. Good luck with it though. 

You seem to be implying that your freedom to make conscious choices is just a feeling rather than a reality.  It is a mystery to me how you can come to this conclusion without the conscious freedom to guide your own thoughts.  Can you not contemplate that your perceived freedom is a reality?  Are you afraid of facing the consequence of it being a reality?  The most common phrase in the Christian bible is "do not be afraid".

The irony of that being that you seem to be terrified of actually addressing the arguments that falsify the various faith claims you try to justify with very bad reasoning. Yes, our experience of decision-making at one level of abstraction is “free – which is why for example we have legal systems that judge us for the decisions we make – but at a deeper level of abstraction it’s quickly apparent (at least to some of us) that "the way it feels” cannot be the way it is without collapsing immediately into various intractable logical contradictions.   

I have more pieces than you

Very funny. I can tell you lot about evidence-based explanations – or at least neuroscientists, logicians and the like can. These are pieces of the jig-saw. You on the other hand can tell us precisely nothing about your notion “soul” – what it’s made of, where it lives, how it makes decisions without antecedent reasons, how it interacts with “you”. You have no answers at all about these and many other questions – that is, you have no pieces of the jig-saw at all (other than the word “soul”).

Again then: why do you think having no pieces of the jig-saw gives you a better shot at seeing the picture than having some of the pieces?       

[Outrider]

Davey's argument boils down to an Infinite regression.

Which I know you take issue with, but I've never understood any of your attempts to explain why you see it as untenable.

Yours boils down to an eternal substance.

I'd argue mine was just a variant of infinite regression as well.

Infinite regression does not provide sufficient reason.

Again, you beg the question - if it goes back forever, there doesn't need to be a sufficient reason, there just needs to be one more proximate cause.

When you defend Daveys Infinite cyclical argument, let's see what it is you are defending.
Here are two of Davies cyclical hierarchies
A gives rise to B, B to C, C to D, D to A , A to B, B to C, C to D, D to A

I don't know about Davey's argument particularly, I'll let him defend his ideas, but infinite regression is not (necessarily) cyclic - there might be a pattern, there might be periods of recurrence in a broader reach.

And yet you argue that this is insufficient for God...when you've just argued that A is self necessary.

No, you're coming at this from the wrong end, you're presuming a start and trying to justify it. We don't know that there was a start, we know that there's a now. We know that our 'B' had a cause 'A', but we have to try to determine whether that 'A' was the effect of something or the start of something. So far, all our 'A' except one have been the result of something, and none of those 'A's have been gods. There might have been a god, but there might equally have been some entirely 'natural' cause that we, currently, just don't understand.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which I know you take issue with, but I've never understood any of your attempts to explain why you see it as untenable.

Keeps kicking the can of sufficient reason down the road and thus never provides it. I don’t understand why this is preferable to having an argument from contingency which does provide sufficient reason. In other words it deliberately evades it.

I certainly see no reason why it is preferable to sufficient reason except in the domain of hard atheism.

I'd argue mine was just a variant of infinite regression as well.

An infinite chain of transformations implies an infinite substance which doesn’t actually regress. Fine, but a) we need to see this infinite substance b)it’s form is contingent on what ever it is that is the reason for the transformations and c)why the infinite substance and not nothing e) if it transforms infinitely , like triggers broom can we call it the same substance.

Again, you beg the question - if it goes back forever, there doesn't need to be a sufficient reason, there just needs to be one more proximate cause.

No because it raises questions, why an infinite regress! Why something and not nothing. God has sufficient reason through the argument from contingency. Your contingent only substance....it isn’t. You suggest it is self existent and self transforming. Doesn’t that sound like something in theism? It certainly doesn’t sound....natural.

I don't know about Davey's argument particularly, I'll let him defend his ideas, but infinite regression is not (necessarily) cyclic - there might be a pattern, there might be periods of recurrence in a broader reach.

No, you're coming at this from the wrong end, you're presuming a start and trying to justify it. We don't know that there was a start, we know that there's a now. We know that our 'B' had a cause 'A', but we have to try to determine whether that 'A' was the effect of something or the start of something. So far, all our 'A' except one have been the result of something, and none of those 'A's have been gods. There might have been a god, but there might equally have been some entirely 'natural' cause that we, currently, just don't understand.

O.

No, the argument works just as well for an infinitely old universe. If God is infinite there is no reason why he cannot have been actualising throughout infinity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Keeps kicking the can of sufficient reason down the road and thus never provides it. I don’t understand why this is preferable to having an argument from contingency which does provide sufficient reason. In other words it deliberately evades it.

I certainly see no reason why it is preferable to sufficient reason except in the domain of hard atheism.

The reason is that your unwitting attempt at Fletcher’s god just relocates the same unanswered questions about the universe to that god. If you want arbitrarily to assert the buck to stop there you may as well say the same about the universe and thereby avoid the Occam’s razor problem that a god gives you. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The reason is that your unwitting attempt at Fletcher’s god just relocates the same unanswered questions about the universe to that god. If you want arbitrarily to assert the buck to stop there you may as well say the same about the universe and thereby avoid the Occam’s razor problem that a god gives you.

Not really, the argument from contingency supplies sufficient reason for a necessary entity. An infinitely existent entity which self transforms is not a description which fits the universe as it is observed. Those entities are contingent. Necessity, and infinite existence need to be transferred to an entity other than observed contingent things.

You seem to be saying that the Universe is necessary and is contingent on nothing.

This is patently false since that of the universe that we observe is contingent.

Contingency without necessity is absurd. Infinite regression answers nothing. A necessary infinite substance carries sufficient reason.

If you think you are part of an infinite self transforming necessary thing I would say you are a Hindu.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not really, the argument from contingency supplies sufficient reason for a necessary entity. An infinitely existent entity which self transforms is not a description which fits the universe as it is observed. Those entities are contingent. Necessity, and infinite existence need to be transferred to an entity other than observed contingent things.

Have you spilt your alphabet soup again? Try very hard to focus here: if you think the answer to unanswerable questions about the universe to insert a creator god, then you had to address exactly the same question about that god. Capiche? Something? Anything?     

You seem to be saying that the Universe is necessary and is contingent on nothing.

Shifting the burden of proof again doesn’t help you. You’re the one insisting that the universe cannot be its own justification remember? It’s your job therefore to explain why it can’t be, not mine to demonstrate that it is.   

This is patently false since that of the universe that we observe is contingent.

It’s not patently false at all, but as it’s not a claim I’m making I don’t have to defend it. Burden of proof again remember?   

Contingency without necessity is absurd. Infinite regression answers nothing. A necessary infinite substance carries sufficient reason.

A creator claim that relies on “it’s magic innit” is what “answers nothing”. 

If you think you are part of an infinite self transforming necessary thing I would say you are a Hindu

And misrepresenting me doesn’t help you either. All I say – all I need to say in fact – is that I don’t know whether the universe is its own explanation but, so far at least, you’ve given no good reason to show that it can’t be. Worse still, you then assert into existence a god without troubling to tell us why that god should not itself be subject to exactly the same questions you ask about the universe. And no, more special pleading won’t help you here either.

By all means give it a go though. I’ll get the popcorn…
     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Have you spilt your alphabet soup again? Try very hard to focus here: if you think the answer to unanswerable questions about the universe to insert a creator god, then you had to address exactly the same question about that god. Capiche? Something? Anything?     

Shifting the burden of proof again doesn’t help you. You’re the one insisting that the universe cannot be its own justification remember? It’s your job therefore to explain why it can’t be, not mine to demonstrate that it is.   

It’s not patently false at all, but as it’s not a claim I’m making I don’t have to defend it. Burden of proof again remember?   

A creator claim that relies on “it’s magic innit” is what “answers nothing”. 
 
And misrepresenting me doesn’t help you either. All I say – all I need to say in fact – is that I don’t know whether the universe is its own explanation but, so far at least, you’ve given no good reason to show that it can’t be. Worse still, you then assert into existence a god without troubling to tell us why that god should not itself be subject to exactly the same questions you ask about the universe. And no, more special pleading won’t help you here either.

By all means give it a go though. I’ll get the popcorn…
     

It should be obvious even to you that the unanswered questions posed by the universe as it is observed do not transfer to the necessary entity the argument for which carries sufficient reason. Explanation trumps zero explanation in the field of explanation, particularly when you specially plead that something needs no explanation.

I have to admit that because your posts are largely ad hominem I've lost track of what's left of your manifold yet conflicting arguments. Is the universe here because of a non explanatory infinite regression? Is the universe brute fact? Is it the necessary entity? Are you ignorant of the explanation for the universe but you know it can't be God? Where are you on this one?

I think you may be suffering from a limited understanding of contingency and seem to understand only temporal dependency. There is of course more ways than that to be dependent on something else e.g. simultaneously dependent heirarchies depending on a ground entity

The argument from contingency is not magic. Contingency without necessity is not only not as good as magic, it is an absurdity.

As for giving no reason, that is cobblers, the argument from contingency provides the reason, that is why you brought a paper by Carroll to say he is on a quest to disprove the PSR, so I would hazard that you know you are talking crap when you plead no reason.

Finally ''Capiche''? You Edward G Robinson or something?

Eat popcorn if it helps.