Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

Why can't there be more than one necessary entity because there would have to be a framework or context in which there could be more than one  and that framework would be the necessary entity on which the number of multiple necessary entities would be dependent

You cannot have contingency without necessity, you cannot have more than one necessary entity. There is no zero option because that would be the necessary and patently isn't A necessary entity is not subject to anything including zero.You would need a framework in which there was zero or god and zero is not a thing.so the framework equals God.

Why not - as I have indicated numerous times it is perfectly possible to create a network of contingent entities which are all inter-linked in such a manner that none are not contingent on at least one other, but similarly all are necessary for at least one other entity. And that every entity is necessary in so far as if any one were removed the ability of the whole to function would be negated.

In this case every entity is at one and the same time necessary and contingent.

Perhaps you are agreeing with me but then going ... woosh, look squirrel ... ta-ra god. Doesn't work Vlad. All you appear to be suggesting is that if you put together enough contingent entities you get to a point where you can argue that they become a single necessary entity - but I don't think that works as by defining the combination of everything as one entity you have, at one fell swoop, removed all the contingent entities, so there is nothing for the necessary entity to be ... err ... necessary for.

Back to the drawing board Vlad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So Hillside you won't give evidence but you expect it...same old Gaslighting essex shitas per usual.

You’ve always struggled with the meaning of “evidence”, but this is bonkers now. BR said: “I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all". So far as I know he didn’t produce a clarification of that, presumably because it’s so clear. What he didn’t say though was something like, “humankind already knows everything, therefore “the universe is just there” is the definitive answer rather than all we can reasonably say at this time”.

What further evidence than the plain words he chose do you think there could be, even conceptually?       

God is the necessary entity.

Yes I know what your special pleading is, but how do you intend to justify it?

The universe shows contingency. That's why your argument fails.

Er, no – that’s just another non sequitur. That the universe “shows contingency” tells you nothing at all about whether or not the universe itself is therefore contingent on something else. That’s not why your argument fails though – your “argument” fails because it isn’t even an argument. You’re marooned in not even wrong territory, and will remain there until you can finally find an argument to take you from “the universe shows contingency” to the “therefore the universe must be contingent too”.

Good luck with it though.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not - as I have indicated numerous times it is perfectly possible to create a network of contingent entities which are all inter-linked in such a manner that none are not contingent on at least one other, but similarly all are necessary for at least one other entity.

And I have indicated numerous times that you've failed to see the irony of using the word ''create''. Where do these networks arise from?
Why these networks(if they exist without being as you say created) and not other networks.

In this case every entity is at one and the same time necessary and contingent.[And I have pointed out that they are in the absurd situation of being necessary for themselves and contingent on themselves in other words they end up only existing because the exist...as in the circular heirarchy you proposed.

If there is such a heirarchy you have never demonstrated it, perpetual motion machines are quite valuable I understand. So, over to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’ve always struggled with the meaning of “evidence”, but this is bonkers now. BR said: “I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all". So far as I know he didn’t produce a clarification of that, presumably because it’s so clear. What he didn’t say though was something like, “humankind already knows everything, therefore “the universe is just there” is the definitive answer rather than all we can reasonably say at this time”.

What further evidence than the plain words he chose do you think there could be, even conceptually?       

Yes I know what your special pleading is, but how do you intend to justify it?

Er, no – that’s just another non sequitur. That the universe “shows contingency” tells you nothing at all about whether or not the universe itself is therefore contingent on something else. That’s not why your argument fails though – your “argument” fails because it isn’t even an argument. You’re marooned in not even wrong territory, and will remain there until you can finally find an argument to take you from “the universe shows contingency” to the “therefore the universe must be contingent too”.

Good luck with it though.   

Call the necessary entity what you like Hillside it's not going to change it's attributes. It's not going to suddenly become another thing you can hang over your inglenook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’ve always struggled with the meaning of “evidence”, but this is bonkers now. BR said: “I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all". So far as I know he didn’t produce a clarification of that, presumably because it’s so clear. What he didn’t say though was something like, “humankind already knows everything, therefore “the universe is just there” is the definitive answer rather than all we can reasonably say at this time”.

What further evidence than the plain words he chose do you think there could be, even conceptually?       

Yes I know what your special pleading is, but how do you intend to justify it?

Er, no – that’s just another non sequitur. That the universe “shows contingency” tells you nothing at all about whether or not the universe itself is therefore contingent on something else. That’s not why your argument fails though – your “argument” fails because it isn’t even an argument. You’re marooned in not even wrong territory, and will remain there until you can finally find an argument to take you from “the universe shows contingency” to the “therefore the universe must be contingent too”.

You can't be a little bit contingent or necessary because necessary entities don't have parts

Good luck with it though.   

Ok let's run with your notion that the universe is part contingent part necessary. How then does science go about finding what is necessary about the universe?Any ideas?
Surely science studies contingent things and is not well placed in this search.
We could take the path of scientism as you seem to and say because science doesn't concern itself with the necessary entity, there can't be one. Oh, 'scuse me, that, or something similar, is your position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Call the necessary entity what you like Hillside it's not going to change it's attributes. It's not going to suddenly become another thing you can hang over your inglenook.

Fine. Let’s call it “the universe” then. What need therefore for your god, let alone for your special pleading for it?

You can't be a little bit contingent or necessary because necessary entities don't have parts

So you’re trying the fallacy of composition then?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Ok let's run with your notion that the universe is part contingent part necessary.

Sorry, whose “notion” exactly? Surely it’s your notion is it not that because the (observable) universe “shows contingency”, therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something else?

So why don’t we run with your notion about that, and try to get you to justify it with an argument of some kind at least?   

How then does science go about finding what is necessary about the universe?Any ideas?

No, but not my problem remember? You make the claim – you justify it. 

Surely science studies contingent things and is not well placed in this search.
We could take the path of scientism as you seem to and say because science doesn't concern itself with the necessary entity, there can't be one. Oh, 'scuse me, that, or something similar, is your position.

No, that’s just another of your straw men. My position is that I see contingency in the observable universe, but I have no reason to think that that therefore necessitates a universe as a whole that is itself contingent. As that’s your claim though the job of finding a logical path from the former to the latter is all yours.

Like I said though: good luck with it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fine Let’s call it “the universe” then. What need therefore for your god, let alone for your special pleading for it?

Oh dear you seem to have forgotten about necessity and contingency...or never knew about them in the first place

So you’re trying the fallacy of composition then?:

No because I asked you what it is about the universe that is necessary? Is it you? Is it the stars? Is it the tiny snowdrop in the field? If it's necessary, it can't be contingent though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

No, i'm saying there could be something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe so I can't see that that is the fallacy of composition here. .

So what you are saying is that all observed things could be contingent but taken as a whole it is necessary? And that would be emergent would it? If so the universe cannot be necessary. Can you see why? That's right it's necessity would have to be explicable by reference to it's components. In any case if the necessity of the universe were dependent on it's components it couldn't be the necessary entity.

And again there could be something necessary in or about the universe. What it cannot be is contingent. So again Hillside you are saying that there is something necessary and not contingent about the universe, what is it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh dear you seem to have forgotten about necessity and contingency...or never knew about them in the first place

No, before we get there you seem to have forgotten about establishing a priori that the universe itself must be contingent. Suggest you start with that as, so far at least, all you’ve done is to assert it. 

No because I asked you what it is about the universe that is necessary? Is it you? Is it the stars? Is it the tiny snowdrop in the field? If it's necessary, it can't be contingent though

You can try to shift the burden of proof by asking me anything you like but, so far at least, all you seem to have is the fallacy of composition. You see contingency in the observable universe, and then jump straight to the assumption that the universe as a whole must therefore also be contingent. Your problem remains though justifying your assumption.   

No, i'm saying there could be something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe so I can't see that that is the fallacy of composition here. What is it that is necessary about the universe?

No, you’re saying an awful lot more than “there could be something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe”. What you’re actually saying is that there is “something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe”, and then using that reason-free assumption as the justification for your god (who then by the way gets a free pass from the same question).

Fucking hell, he's surrounded by contingency and he still thinks the whole universe could be the necessary being.

I’d also be surrounded by spectators at a cricket match. Does that mean that if we all stood up we’d all get a better view?

Oh wait – that’s just your fallacy of composition problem again.   

So what you are saying is that all observed things could be contingent but taken as a whole it is necessary?

Er, that would be not necessary remember? (See above re cricket spectators.)
 

And that would be emergent would it?

No, emergence has nothing to do with it. You’re flailing now.

If so the universe cannot be necessary. Can you see why? That's right it's necessity would have to be explicable by reference to it's components. In any case if the necessity of the universe were dependent on it's components it couldn't be the necessary entity.

You’ve collapsed into gibberish again. Take a deep breath, and try again: why do you think contingent events in the observable universe tells you something about the contingency of the universe as a whole? 

Just spell it out: start with some premises, then suggest some reasoning, then draw your conclusions. So far your “I see contingent stuff in the universe, therefore the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else (which is also magic)" doesn’t come even close to that.   

And again there could be something necessary in or about the universe. What it cannot be is contingent. So again Hillside you are saying that there is something necessary and not contingent about the universe, what is it?

Yes, there “could be” anything. As it’s your claim that there must be (ie, not "could be" at all) a necessary entity to cause the universe though then it’s still all your problem to tell us first why you think that, and second how that entity would avoid the same challenges.

As I may have mentioned - good luck with it though.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, before we get there you seem to have forgotten about establishing a priori that the universe itself must be contingent. Suggest you start with that as, so far at least, all you’ve done is to assert it. 

You can try to shift the burden of proof by asking me anything you like but, so far at least, all you seem to have is the fallacy of composition. You see contingency in the observable universe, and then jump straight to the assumption that the universe as a whole must therefore also be contingent. Your problem remains though justifying your assumption.   

No, you’re saying an awful lot more than “there could be something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe”. What you’re actually saying is that there is “something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe”, and then using that reason-free assumption as the justification for your god (who then by the way gets a free pass from the same question).

I’d also be surrounded by spectators at a cricket match. Does that mean that if we all stood up we’d all get a better view?

Oh wait – that’s just your fallacy of composition problem again.   

Er, that would be not necessary remember? (See above re cricket spectators.)
 
No, emergence has nothing to do with it. You’re flailing now.

You’ve collapsed into gibberish again. Take a deep breath, and try again: why do you think contingent events in the observable universe tells you something about the contingency of the universe as a whole? 

Just spell it out: start with some premises, then suggest some reasoning, then draw your conclusions. So far your “I see contingent stuff in the universe, therefore the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else (which is also magic)" doesn’t come even close to that.   

Yes, there “could be” anything. As it’s your claim that there must be (ie, not "could be" at all) a necessary entity to cause the universe though then it’s still all your problem to tell us first why you think that, and second how that entity would avoid the same challenges.

As I may have mentioned - good luck with it though.     

Features of the necessary entity

Singular: Two would be affected by each other, whatever decided there would be two would be the necessary entity.
Not dependent on anything but itself.
No parts: since that suggests assembly so you can't be contingent in part.
Not affected by anything: So fundamental particles would have a hard time qualifying.
Cannot be reduced:
Cannot be fully explained by anything other than itself.
Cannot be emergent: since it has no parts and emergent entities are dependent on their components.

It seems obvious that neither you or Davey are properly read in the subject.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Features of the necessary entity

Singular: Two would be affected by each other, whatever decided there would be two would be the necessary entity.
Not dependent on anything but itself.
No parts: since that suggests assembly so you can't be contingent in part.
Not affected by anything: So fundamental particles would have a hard time qualifying.
Cannot be reduced:
Cannot be fully explained by anything other than itself.
Cannot be emergent: since it has no parts and emergent entities are dependent on their components.

It seems obvious that neither you or Davey are properly read in the subject.

Again:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

You’ve fallen into the fallacy of composition – either address that or don’t, but listing features that a necessary entity (supposedly) would have if there was a reason to think there must be such a thing is just avoidance. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, before we get there you seem to have forgotten about establishing a priori that the universe itself must be contingent. Suggest you start with that as, so far at least, all you’ve done is to assert it. 

You can try to shift the burden of proof by asking me anything you like but, so far at least, all you seem to have is the fallacy of composition. You see contingency in the observable universe, and then jump straight to the assumption that the universe as a whole must therefore also be contingent. Your problem remains though justifying your assumption.   

No, you’re saying an awful lot more than “there could be something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe”. What you’re actually saying is that there is “something necessary that isn't contingent about the universe”, and then using that reason-free assumption as the justification for your god (who then by the way gets a free pass from the same question).

I’d also be surrounded by spectators at a cricket match. Does that mean that if we all stood up we’d all get a better view?

Oh wait – that’s just your fallacy of composition problem again.   

Er, that would be not necessary remember? (See above re cricket spectators.)
 
No, emergence has nothing to do with it. You’re flailing now.

You’ve collapsed into gibberish again. Take a deep breath, and try again: why do you think contingent events in the observable universe tells you something about the contingency of the universe as a whole? 

Just spell it out: start with some premises, then suggest some reasoning, then draw your conclusions. So far your “I see contingent stuff in the universe, therefore the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else (which is also magic)" doesn’t come even close to that.   

Yes, there “could be” anything. As it’s your claim that there must be (ie, not "could be" at all) a necessary entity to cause the universe though then it’s still all your problem to tell us first why you think that, and second how that entity would avoid the same challenges.

As I may have mentioned - good luck with it though.     

You aren't sure whether the universe is contingent or necessary are you.
You'd like it to be both but it cannot be. And then there is all this fucking contingency lying around.
Stop fannying around with the impossible and illogical and then accusing others of believing the fantastical.

A universe of parts whose necessity is derived from the contingency of those parts is magical Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You aren't sure whether the universe is contingent or necessary are you.

No. Nor should anyone be. That’s not a problem for me though, but it is for the person who asserts it to be the former with no argument for support.

You'd like it to be both but it cannot be.

I wouldn’t “like it to be" anything. I’m just pointing out to you that when you collapse into assertion in place of argument you have nothing of value to say.

And then there is all this fucking contingency lying around.

Relevance?

Stop fannying around with the impossible and illogical and then accusing others of believing the fantastical.

A necessarily contingent universe is your claim, so that makes the burden of proof for it all yours. I don’t have to “fanny around” with anything – I just have to show you that you have no argument to support it, or at best that you have only a very bad one (the fallacy of composition).

A universe of parts whose necessity is derived from the contingency of those parts is magical Hillside.

What are you even trying to say here?

Anyway, and yet again:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

You’ve fallen into the fallacy of composition – either address that or don’t, but listing features that a necessary entity (supposedly) would have if there was a reason to think there must be such a thing is just avoidance.

[ProfessorDavey]

Singular: Two would be affected by each other, whatever decided there would be two would be the necessary entity.
Not dependent on anything but itself.

No necessarily - surely if it is possible for one universe to arise due to the actions of a necessary entities then it, theoretically, must be possible for another universe to be able to arise completely independently without any interaction one to the other. In which case there would be two necessary entities. Or five, or ten, or ten million. So unless you are able to argue logically for this to be an impossibility (which given that your necessary entity appears to be little more than magic seems challenging) then you cannot argue that there can only be one necessary entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

No parts: since that suggests assembly so you can't be contingent in part.

Now you seem to be arguing against yourself as in an earlier post you implied that that sum of an interacting network or framework would be the necessary entity - hence:

"Why can't there be more than one necessary entity because there would have to be a framework or context in which there could be more than one  and that framework would be the necessary entity on which the number of multiple necessary entities would be dependent"

[Alan Burns]

Your incredulity really is chronic these days, Alan - your biology does all that is required, even if aspects of it operate subconciously and is not yet fully understood: but you simply can't handle the consequences of this because it negates the 'god/soul' notion that you're so personally invested in.

If you were correct then neurologists studying consciousness and the brain would be factoring in the 'soul' interactions you claim - and as far as I can see they aren't, presumably because there is no testable hypothesis and, anyway, I doubt many would regard your ideas as being a serious proposition in the first place.

That should indicate to you that trying to ram unevidenced religious superstitions into biology is a fools errand.

Dear Gordon,
You put a lot of faith in what can be accomplished by the physically controlled reactions in our brain cells.  Neurologists do know much about the physical workings of the brain, just as a car mechanic knows about the working parts of a car.   But the mechanic has no knowledge about the driver, just as the neurologist will have no knowledge of the human soul.  And I can assure you that nothing on earth could possibly negate my God/soul relationship.  How could I possibly doubt the existence of a being with whom I have a personal relationship?

[Dicky Underpants]

Dear Gordon,
You put a lot of faith in what can be accomplished by the physically controlled reactions in our brain cells.  Neurologists do know much about the physical workings of the brain, just as a car mechanic knows about the working parts of a car.   But the mechanic has no knowledge about the driver, just as the neurologist will have no knowledge of the human soul.  And I can assure you that nothing on earth could possibly negate my God/soul relationship.  How could I possibly doubt the existence of a being with whom I have a personal relationship?

Hello Alan
A mechanic may have no knowledge of any specific driver (unless it be himself), but he certainly knows there will be one, and he can see for himself who it is, often enough, when Mr Jones comes to collect his vehicle in the hope that the faulty clutch mechanism has been repaired.

As for this 'personal relationship' affair, and the possibility of your doubting it. First of all, I didn't think it was an especially Catholic thing - something the Evangelicals tend to bang on about more. The scriptural basis for it seems to be pretty tenuous anyway - a single verse from the most dodgy book in the NT - The Revelation. To my mind it seems fairly presumptuous anyway, that you could be on intimate terms with the vastness represented by the creative power behind the universe (if there be one).
In any case, there are numerous cases of people who've been fully convinced of their 'personal relationship with Jesus' in their early adulthood, and who have later realised it was all a load of hooey (the Reverend Richard Holloway and the scholar Bart D. Ehrman come to mind). Strangely enough, they've managed to function as perfectly rational and fulfilled human beings after they realised the hollowness of their 'personal relationship' pretensions.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Gordon,
You put a lot of faith in what can be accomplished by the physically controlled reactions in our brain cells.  Neurologists do know much about the physical workings of the brain, just as a car mechanic knows about the working parts of a car.   But the mechanic has no knowledge about the driver, just as the neurologist will have no knowledge of the human soul.  And I can assure you that nothing on earth could possibly negate my God/soul relationship.  How could I possibly doubt the existence of a being with whom I have a personal relationship?

So you don't have any 'free will' as regards your belief in a god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You put a lot of faith in what can be accomplished by the physically controlled reactions in our brain cells.

No he doesn’t. What he actually does is to reason his way to the conclusion that there’s no good reason to assume there to be a “non-physical” in play (or even that there is such a thing as the non-physical).

Neurologists do know much about the physical workings of the brain, just as a car mechanic knows about the working parts of a car.

Why do I sense another false analogy coming here…?

But the mechanic has no knowledge about the driver, just as the neurologist will have no knowledge of the human soul.

And sure enough there it is. Yet again you just assume that an independent “driver” is necessary, and then ascribe the same role to your conjecture “soul”. If you really want to try a car analogy nonetheless, you’d be better advised to think of a fully automated car with no driver, but enough interacting parts to get you safely from A to B.   

And I can assure you that nothing on earth could possibly negate my God/soul relationship.  How could I possibly doubt the existence of a being with whom I have a personal relationship?

Simply because your faith belief that you have a “personal relationship” is only that – a faith belief. If you expect anyone else to take it seriously though, then you have to do a lot more than just assert it to be so.

Good luck with it though.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No. Nor should anyone be. That’s not a problem for me though, but it is for the person who asserts it to be the former with no argument for support.

I wouldn’t “like it to be" anything. I’m just pointing out to you that when you collapse into assertion in place of argument you have nothing of value to say.

Relevance?

A necessarily contingent universe is your claim, so that makes the burden of proof for it all yours. I don’t have to “fanny around” with anything – I just have to show you that you have no argument to support it, or at best that you have only a very bad one (the fallacy of composition).

What are you even trying to say here?

Anyway, and yet again:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

You’ve fallen into the fallacy of composition – either address that or don’t, but listing features that a necessary entity (supposedly) would have if there was a reason to think there must be such a thing is just avoidance.

You need to reread where I have accepted there could be something in the universe which could be the Necessary entity. You then need to reread what I have said about the properties of the necessary entity to remind your self that the necessary entity can in no way be contingent, or be made up of parts. Regarding the fallacy of composition you need to reread the wikipedia entry and associate entries and finally you should reread your own views on the nature of emergent properties. For if the universe as a whole was the necessary entity it would either be emergent or the property appears as if by magic.

Let us look at the fallacy of composition. My housebricks are small so my house is small. Ah says Bertrand Russell but the house is tall. Ah but that's because there are a lot of bricks. So what you are saying in effect is that the universe is necessary because there is a lot of contingency.....Hate to say it Hillside ...but...it doesn't quite ''stack up'' Ha Ha Ha.
 

To add to that the necessary being is necessary and can exist alone. There is no possibility of it being anything other than what it is it is immutable. Is that true of the universe or are there parts of it that could be dispensed with without it ceasing to be a universe?

  We have to ask, what is it the reason it was the universe, out of either the universe or nothing and what is it the reason that the universe fits one of the following has a beginning and an end, has no beginning and an end, has a beginning but no end, has no beginning and no end? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You need to reread where I have accepted there could be something in the universe which could be the Necessary entity. You then need to reread what I have said about the properties of the necessary entity to remind your self that the necessary entity can in no way be contingent, or be made up of parts.

No I don’t because your claim isn’t a “could be” at all, it’s an “is”. That’s why you use terms like “necessary” – you assert that the universe necessarily must be contingent on something else (and then call that something else “god”), but you have no argument to support the claim. That’s your problem remember? 

Regarding the fallacy of composition you need to reread the wikipedia entry and associate entries and finally you should reread your own views on the nature of emergent properties. For if the universe as a whole was the necessary entity it would either be emergent or the property appears as if by magic.

What part of the Wiki entry on the fallacy of composition do you think I need to re-read, and why in your opinion is your assumption that contingent events in the observable universe necessarily imply that the universe itself is contingent not a prime example of the fallacy of composition? 

Let us look at the fallacy of composition.

Yes let’s…

[My housebricks are small so my house is small. Ah says Bertrand Russell but the house is tall. Ah but that's because there are a lot of bricks. So what you are saying in effect is that the universe is necessary because there is a lot of contingency.....Hate to say it Hillside ...but...it doesn't quite ''stack up'' Ha Ha Ha.

When you get stuff arse backwards there are no half measures are there. What you do is point to contingent events in the universe, and then take their existence to mean necessarily that the universe itself must also be contingent. That’s called the fallacy of composition. QED.   

To add to that the necessary being is necessary and can exist alone. There is no possibility of it being anything other than what it is it is immutable. Is that true of the universe or are there parts of it that could be dispensed with without it ceasing to be a universe?

And that “necessary” flatly contradicts your opening line about a “could be”. You need to make your mind up here: are you arguing (actually asserting, but ok…) that there could be a cause for the universe, or that there necessarily is one? 

We have to ask, what is it the reason it was the universe, out of either the universe or nothing and what is it the reason that the universe fits one of the following has a beginning and an end, has no beginning and an end, has a beginning but no end, has no beginning and no end? 

At this juncture no we don’t. All we actually “have to ask” is the question you keep running away from, namely:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No I don’t because your claim isn’t a “could be” at all, it’s an “is”. That’s why you use terms like “necessary” – you assert that the universe necessarily must be contingent on something else (and then call that something else “god”), but you have no argument to support the claim. That’s your problem remember? 

What part of the Wiki entry on the fallacy of composition do you think I need to re-read, and why in your opinion is your assumption that contingent events in the observable universe necessarily imply that the universe itself is contingent not a prime example of the fallacy of composition? 

Yes let’s…

When you get stuff arse backwards there are no half measures are there. What you do is point to contingent events in the universe, and then take their existence to mean necessarily that the universe itself must also be contingent. That’s called the fallacy of composition. QED.   

And that “necessary” flatly contradicts your opening line about a “could be”. You need to make your mind up here: are you arguing (actually asserting, but ok…) that there could be a cause for the universe, or that there necessarily is one? 

At this juncture no we don’t. All we actually “have to ask” is the question you keep running away from, namely:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

Physical things are contingent since they are subject to the laws of physics. Quantum science tells us that objects are affected by observation so anything that is observed is thus contingent by default.
I am considering here the universe to be the physical universe. I could also invoke the principle of mediocrity. The sum of all contingency is a lot of contingency not Pure necessity, that is plainly absurd. The appearance of necessity at any stage of the game would be magic.

The fallacy of composition doesn't always get it right of course since if all the materials
in a house were red I could safely predict that the house would be red

If you think there is more than the physical in the universe then Alleluia! Since I have allowed for that.

And with that Grand piss en votre Bonfeueille I shall bid you goodday.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Physical things are contingent since they are subject to the laws of physics. Quantum science tells us that objects are affected by observation so anything that is observed is thus contingent by default.

Not necessarily (unless you’re claiming to have complete knowledge of all “physical things” in the universe), but for now let’s just go with “the stuff we observe in the universe appears to be contingent on other stuff”. Fair enough?
 

I am considering here the universe to be the physical universe. I could also invoke the principle of mediocrity. The sum of all contingency is a lot of contingency not Pure necessity, that is plainly absurd. The appearance of necessity at any stage of the game would be magic.

Whether or not it would be “magic” is doubtful, though it’s odd that you have no problem with special pleading magic to get your god speculation off the same hook. In any case, let’s just go with something like “the current knowledge and methods of enquiry we have indicate that all we observe so far in the universe is contingent on something else (though that may not be the case at the quantum level)”. Fair enough?

So, so far at least, we're firmly in "the only swans I've seen so far have all been white" territory aren't we.

Can you see any problem with deducing from that that all swans are therefore necessarily white? 

Anything?

The fallacy of composition doesn't always get it right of course since if all the materials in a house were red I could safely predict that the house would be red

Ah, now you’ve misunderstood the fallacy of composition again. The fallacy of composition doesn’t mean that the entity as a whole cannot have the properties of its constituent parts – rather it just means that you cannot rely on the fact of the properties of the constituent parts to justify the claim that the entity as a whole must also therefore have the same properties. This is the mistake you were making with your “Fucking hell, he's surrounded by contingency and he still thinks the whole universe could be the necessary being” (Reply 44682).

Try to understand this.   

If you think there is more than the physical in the universe then Alleluia! Since I have allowed for that.

I don’t think that because I have no idea what “non-physical” would even mean, but in any case what I think about the universe is neither here nor there. What we’re about here is understanding whether or not you have any justification for your claim of a necessary cause.

And so far at least, you’ve shown no sign of that.   

And with that Grand piss en votre Bonfeueille I shall bid you goodday.

Yes, its probably a good idea for you to make a hasty retreat at this point. All that leaves for me then is to ask you yet again the same question that you keep running away from:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No I don’t because your claim isn’t a “could be” at all, it’s an “is”. That’s why you use terms like “necessary” – you assert that the universe necessarily must be contingent on something else (and then call that something else “god”), but you have no argument to support the claim. That’s your problem remember? 

What part of the Wiki entry on the fallacy of composition do you think I need to re-read, and why in your opinion is your assumption that contingent events in the observable universe necessarily imply that the universe itself is contingent not a prime example of the fallacy of composition? 

Yes let’s…

When you get stuff arse backwards there are no half measures are there. What you do is point to contingent events in the universe, and then take their existence to mean necessarily that the universe itself must also be contingent. That’s called the fallacy of composition. QED.   

No, I allow for a necessary entity as well as contingent ones. It would then be a mistake to talk of the universe as a whole being contingent or Necessary as you are doing here. To suggest that we could is absurd as.

What on earth do you mean then by the universe as a whole? a whole in the context of what?

All we could say is that the contingent is dependent on the necessary but not visa versa

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, I allow for a necessary entity as well as contingent ones.

No, you don’t just “allow” for anything – instead you assert it as a fact (“necessary entity” etc). Worse still, you then rely on a logical fallacy for your justification for it.   

It would then be a mistake to talk of the universe as a whole being contingent or Necessary as you are doing here. To suggest that we could is absurd as.

Wow – even for you that’s a pretty epic straw man. The only one of us talking “of the universe as a whole being contingent or Necessary” is you with your "necessary being" assertion. I make no claims of any sort re necessary, contingent etc – I just explain to you that your positive position about that has no justification.   

What on earth do you mean then by the universe as a whole? a whole in the context of what?

You tell me. You’re the one claiming “the universe” to be necessarily contingent on something else remember, not me. I’m just dismembering your “argument” (such as it is) using your terms. 

All we could say is that the contingent is dependent on the necessary but not visa versa

But that’s not all you say is it? What you actually say (ie, assert), is that the “the universe” is necessarily contingent on something else. The closest you’ve come to justifying that assertion though is the fallacy of composition.

By all means if you finally want to have a go at a justification that isn’t false though then give it a try.   

Tell you what - let's start wit this shall we?:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not necessarily (unless you’re claiming to have complete knowledge of all “physical things” in the universe), but for now let’s just go with “the stuff we observe in the universe appears to be contingent on other stuff”. Fair enough?
 
Whether or not it would be “magic” is doubtful, though it’s odd that you have no problem with special pleading magic to get your god speculation off the same hook. In any case, let’s just go with something like “the current knowledge and methods of enquiry we have indicate that all we observe so far in the universe is contingent on something else (though that may not be the case at the quantum level)”. Fair enough?

So, so far at least, we're firmly in "the only swans I've seen so far have all been white" territory aren't we.

Can you see any problem with deducing from that that all swans are therefore necessarily white? 

Anything?

Ah, now you’ve misunderstood the fallacy of composition again. The fallacy of composition doesn’t mean that the entity as a whole cannot have the properties of its constituent parts – rather it just means that you cannot rely on the fact of the properties of the constituent parts to justify the claim that the entity as a whole must also therefore have the same properties. This is the mistake you were making with your “Fucking hell, he's surrounded by contingency and he still thinks the whole universe could be the necessary being” (Reply 44682).

Try to understand this.   

I don’t think that because I have no idea what “non-physical” would even mean, but in any case what I think about the universe is neither here nor there. What we’re about here is understanding whether or not you have any justification for your claim of a necessary cause.

And so far at least, you’ve shown no sign of that.   

Yes, its probably a good idea for you to make a hasty retreat at this point. All that leaves for me then is to ask you yet again the same question that you keep running away from:

WHY

DO

YOU

THINK

PROPERTIES

OBSERVED

IN

THE

UNIVERSE

TELL

YOU

SOMETHING

ABOUT

A

PROPERTY

OF

THE

UNIVERSE

AS

A

WHOLE?

I'm not making any fallacy to do with black swans since i've stated there could be a necessary entity in the universe. I don't know why you are pursuing your argument on the basis that I haven't. That means you're just Gaslighting.

I am not a physicalist, You are, surely a physical universe cannot contain anything that doesn't conform to the laws of physics. A necessary entity does not conform to anything but itself. It is not affected by anything and observation affects the physical.  In your own belief system therefore the physical universe can be nothing but contingent.