Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Those six words include so many presumptions and circularity it beggars belief.

Surely if you assert that necessary entities cannot be contingent then you can replace 'god' with anything and it makes just as much sense, or rather just as little sense. So:

A necessary universe cannot be contingent
A necessary sub-atomic particle cannot be contingent
A necessary flying spaghetti monster cannot be contingent
A necessary invisible flying teapot cannot be contingent

What is it about the universe then that is necessary?
What aspect tells us that it is necessary?

The term the universe as a whole sounds tautological. It suggests a concession that the universe has contingent parts.
And at that point we have to end it there since a Necessary entity cannot have parts....well we've been this way before.

It would be of great value if Hillside explained what he meant by universe as a whole.

The universe as a whole sounds like an emergent and an emergent entity cannot be a necessary entity.

If you read up on necessary entities might find also a more basic objection to the universe being the NE, that is something would have had to actualise the universe as one of four possible entities, one which has no beginning or end, one which has no beginning but an end, one which has a beginning or an end and one which has a beginning and no end.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That is incorrect.

Please state what you mean by the ''universe as a whole''.

“The universe as a whole” was used in the context of explaining to you the fallacy of composition you fell into, but in any case I don’t need to “state” that at all. You were the one who told us the “the universe” is “necessarily” contingent on something else (therefore a “necessary entity”) so whatever you meant when you said “the universe” is what I meant by it too. You won’t get a fag paper between us on that, no matter how much you try it as a deflection.

   

It is.

It isn’t. Try reading the last few pages of posts.

I have at all times factored in an unobservable universe in my statement that the necessary entity could exist in the universe.

Fine – so no need for “necessary entity” outwith the universe in that case at all then right?

How would it? If you are saying that because God would then have to be physical, you undo your own suggestion that physical things can be Necessary entities.

Because if you "factor in" that “the necessary entity could exist in the universe” there’s no need for your god who's not in the universe is there.

A necessary God cannot be contingent. that's the main consideration.

Why not? Why could this supposed “god” not be contingent on something else, or why could two "causeless causes" (or a million of them) not have got together for a spot of universe creating? “Cannot be” is just an unqualified assertion.
 

If that then renders other arguments or scenarios invalid then tough...on you since most of the scenarios have been originally suggested by you and Davey. Namely the universe as a whole(whatever that means) is the necessary entity or that it is contingent and necessary or way back that there is or could be no necessary entity just contingency.

You’re all over the place here. In one breath you allow that “the universe” “could be” non-contingent, and in the next you assert it to be “necessarily” contingent.

I’m getting dizzy watching you endlessly alternate between the two – which one do you eventually intend to settle on?   

If you wish to withdraw any of these suggestions feel free.

What is it that prevents you from reading up on the subject?

Very funny.

What is it about the universe then that is necessary?
What aspect tells us that it is necessary?

Who can possibly say, but if you “allow for” the possibility that “the universe” could be non-contingent (as you do in the brief but intermittent times you settle for that option) then these are questions for you aren’t they?

In any case though, when you also but intermittently decide instead that “the universe” must be contingent, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that rather than just to express your incredulity about what it is about “the universe” that could be “necessary”.     

The term the universe as a whole sounds tautological. It suggests a concession that the universe has contingent parts.

Hardly a concession is it? After all, you were the one just a few posts back telling us that contingency was “fucking everywhere” or some such weren’t you?

And at that point we have to end it there since a Necessary entity cannot have parts....well we've been this way before.

Yes, you have asserted that before. No idea why though, and nor it seems do you have any interest in justifying that claim. You’ve also now though detonated your intermittent concession that “the universe” “could be” non-contingent. Ah well.

It would be of great value if Hillside explained what he meant by universe as a whole.

Already have – see above and previously.

The universe as a whole sounds like an emergent and an emergent entity cannot be a necessary entity.

So now you’re abandoning your concession that “the universe” “could be” non-contingent after all? 

If you read up on necessary entities might find also a more basic objection to the universe being the NE, that is something would have had to actualise the universe as one of four possible entities, one which has no beginning or end, one which has no beginning but an end, one which has a beginning or an end and one which has a beginning and no end.

Surely the “more basic” objection to the “necessary entity” is that, so far at least, you’ve not managed an argument to indicate that it would be “necessary”. I suggest you start with that before concerning yourself too much with “the four possible entities”.

Good luck with it though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“The universe as a whole” was used in the context of explaining to you the fallacy of composition you fell into, but in any case I don’t need to “state” that at all. You were the one who told us the “the universe” is “necessarily” contingent on something else (therefore a “necessary entity”) so whatever you meant when you said “the universe” is what I meant by it too. You won’t get a fag paper between us on that, no matter how much you try it as a deflection.

Fallacy of composition applies to that which is composed of parts. Anything composed of parts is contingent and cannot be the Necessary entity.Therefore your "Universe as a whole cannot be the necessary entity"

   
It isn’t. Try reading the last few pages of posts.

Fine – so no need for “necessary entity” outwith the universe in that case at all then right?

Because if you "factor in" that “the necessary entity could exist in the universe” there’s no need for your god who's not in the universe is there.

Why not? Why could this supposed “god” not be contingent on something else, or why could two "causeless causes" (or a million of them) not have got together for a spot of universe creating? “Cannot be” is just an unqualified assertion.
 
You’re all over the place here. In one breath you allow that “the universe” “could be” non-contingent, and in the next you assert it to be “necessarily” contingent.

I’m getting dizzy watching you endlessly alternate between the two – which one do you eventually intend to settle on?   

Very funny.


Who can possibly say, but if you “allow for” the possibility that “the universe” could be non-contingent (as you do in the brief but intermittent times you settle for that option) then these are questions for you aren’t they?

In any case though, when you also but intermittently decide instead that “the universe” must be contingent, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that rather than just to express your incredulity about what it is about “the universe” that could be “necessary”.     

Hardly a concession is it? After all, you were the one just a few posts back telling us that contingency was “fucking everywhere” or some such weren’t you?

Yes, you have asserted that before. No idea why though, and nor it seems do you have any interest in justifying that claim. You’ve also now though detonated your intermittent concession that “the universe” “could be” non-contingent. Ah well.

Already have – see above and previously.

So now you’re abandoning your concession that “the universe” “could be” non-contingent after all? 

Surely the “more basic” objection to the “necessary entity” is that, so far at least, you’ve not managed an argument to indicate that it would be “necessary”. I suggest you start with that before concerning yourself too much with “the four possible entities”.

Good luck with it though.

Non sequitur to the impossibility of your universe as a whole being the necessary entity on account of it being composed of parts.

I think you failed to notice that Russell didn't propose the universe as the necessary entity but as brute fact.

[Sebastian Toe]

Fallacy of composition applies to that which is composed of parts. Anything composed of parts is contingent and cannot be the Necessary entity

Isn't your god composed of three parts?

[Dicky Underpants]

Isn't your god composed of three parts?

But that is a mystery, beyond the reach of logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Fallacy of composition applies to that which is composed of parts.

And that’s why your pointing to contingent events in the observable universe as evidence for a property of the universe itself failed. So far, so good though…

Anything composed of parts is contingent and cannot be the Necessary entity.Therefore your "Universe as a whole cannot be the necessary entity"

Couple of problems there. First, you’re overreaching. Sure anything composed of parts is contingent on (some or all of) its parts (and their interactions), but who’s to say that the resulting system couldn’t have brought about the existence of those parts by some process as yet unknown to science? The best you could say here perhaps is something like, “based on our current understanding of physics, it seems improbable that an emergent system could not be contingent on its interacting parts” but that’s about it.

Notwithstanding that though, even if for now we accept your unverifiable assertion presumably then you’ll now abandon your previous (intermittent) position that “the universe” “could be” non-contingent right? So, if you no longer “allow” for that, “factor that in” etc that means you can stop flip-flopping and instead settle consistently on your opening claim that “the universe” is necessarily contingent on something other than itself.

Is that right?

OK then. So, your argument to justify that position would be what exactly?     

Non sequitur to the impossibility of your universe as a whole being the necessary entity on account of it being composed of parts.

Ah, and yet again I see you’ve just ignored the various arguments that undid your various assertions concerning matters other than “a system of parts must be contingent”, which I’ve also addressed above.

Ah well.   

I think you failed to notice that Russell didn't propose the universe as the necessary entity but as brute fact.

No, I failed to notice nothing. BR was simply saying that our current knowledge and methods mean that all we can say is that the universe is a “brute fact” etc. No part of that requires BR (or me) to assert that the universe is its own necessary entity – that’s just you straw manning again.     

[Alan Burns]

But you need to factor in the fact that the car designer's mind evolved over billions of years, a consequence of blind undirected evolution.  Car designers do not just spontaneously pop into existence, they are complex beings that derive from simpler origins.  Top down design would run into an infinite regress of more complex things being needed to design the previous level of complexity.  Doesn't work as a general principle of logic.

Your implication that your existence is just an unintended consequence of blind undirected evolution is a presumption.
How can you be certain that the process of evolution is totally unguided?

The concept of God being the ultimate source of all that exists is not an infinite regress.  The true nature of God is beyond human comprehension.

Human beings had the capacity to consciously conceive of a goal - automated cars.  And they had the ability to consciously manipulate the existing forces of nature in order to achieve that goal.  How can you be so certain that this all occurs within subconscious brain activity before it enters our conscious awareness?

I believe that our creative ability is a reflection of God's creative ability which brought us into existence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your implication that your existence is just an unintended consequence of blind undirected evolution is a presumption.

No it isn’t. It’s a reasoned and reasonable deduction based on overwhelming evidence from multiple independent disciplines that indicates that to be the case.

How can you be certain that the process of evolution is totally unguided?

No, you’re straw manning him. He didn’t claim certainty – science itself doesn’t claim certainty. What he (and anyone who’s looked at the evidence) can be though is reasonably confident of evolution being “totally unguided” because the hugely well-tested explanatory model we have – the theory of evolution – does not require guidance.   

The concept of God being the ultimate source of all that exists is not an infinite regress.  The true nature of God is beyond human comprehension.

An unqualified faith assertion is not an argument. Try again.

Human beings had the capacity to consciously conceive of a goal - automated cars.  And they had the ability to consciously manipulate the existing forces of nature in order to achieve that goal.  How can you be so certain that this all occurs within subconscious brain activity before it enters our conscious awareness?

See above. Certainty is for logic and mathematics – reasonable confidence in the model we have already and the complete absence of evidence for your speculation (plus the inherent contradictions it gives you) is enough to opt for the reason- and evidence-based answer rather that for the blind faith one.   

I believe that our creative ability is a reflection of God's creative ability which brought us into existence.

And I believe there are tap-dancing aliens on Alpha Centauri. So what?

[Maeght]

Your implication that your existence is just an unintended consequence of blind undirected evolution is a presumption.
How can you be certain that the process of evolution is totally unguided?

The concept of God being the ultimate source of all that exists is not an infinite regress.  The true nature of God is beyond human comprehension.

Human beings had the capacity to consciously conceive of a goal - automated cars.  And they had the ability to consciously manipulate the existing forces of nature in order to achieve that goal.  How can you be so certain that this all occurs within subconscious brain activity before it enters our conscious awareness?

I believe that our creative ability is a reflection of God's creative ability which brought us into existence.

There is no evidence that evolution is guided.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

There is no evidence that evolution is guided.

It's worse than that in a way - not only is there no evidence of guidance, there's no need for it either in the ToE explanatory model.

[Sebastian Toe]

How can you be so certain that this all occurs within subconscious brain activity before it enters our conscious awareness?

My subconscious has emerged to let me know that the evidence leads to that conclusion.

[torridon]

Your implication that your existence is just an unintended consequence of blind undirected evolution is a presumption.
How can you be certain that the process of evolution is totally unguided?

That evolution is a blind undirected process is evident, and we have no reason or evidence to suggest otherwise.  Apart from which, the suggestion that an intelligent designer would use employ a design process based based on random mutations is an oxymoron.  This is the opposite of design. Even worse still, this designer is in other places claimed to be benevolent, wise and compassionate; yet this design process has resulted in 99% of all species going extinct and this, not to mention the suffering inflicted on countless organisms who suffered the consequences of somatic mutations along the way, what were they, just collateral damage, a necessary evil, the price paid for beneficial germline mutations to accrue ?  This is not the design of a wise and compassionate designer; it is the scheme of a designer that cares nothing whatsoever for its creations.

[Alan Burns]

It's worse than that in a way - not only is there no evidence of guidance, there's no need for it either in the ToE explanatory model.

Do you ever have a hint of doubt about the feasibility of the unfathomable complexity and capability of the human mind emerging from unguided, random, inherently destructive forces of nature?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Do you ever have a hint of doubt about the feasibility of the unfathomable complexity and capability of the human mind emerging from unguided, random, inherently destructive forces of nature?

I have a “hint of a doubt” about everything – as for that matter does science itself, which is why the most confident it gets is theories. I have no more reason to doubt the theory of evolution though than I have to doubt the theory of gravity, the theory of natural childbirth or the oxygen theory of combustion.

What point do you think you’re making here (and why have you ignored everything that's been explained to you)?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I have a “hint of a doubt” about everything – as for that matter does science itself, which is why the most confident it gets is theories. I have no more reason to doubt the theory of evolution though than I have to doubt the theory of gravity, the theory of natural childbirth or the oxygen theory of combustion.

What point do you think you’re making here (and why have you ignored everything that's been explained to you)?   

Occurrences and consequences of gravity, childbirth and combustion can all be reliably reproduced at various times within our lifetime.
It requires an act of faith to conclude that the human mind was an unintended consequence of unguided, random forces.

[Sebastian Toe]

It requires an act of faith to conclude that the human mind was an intended consequence of guided forces.

FIFY

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Occurrences and consequences of gravity, childbirth and combustion can all be reliably reproduced at various times within our lifetime.
It requires an act of faith to conclude that the human mind was an unintended consequence of unguided, random forces.

Wrong again. The theory that the Egyptians built the pyramids seems pretty strong to me too so I see no good reason to thinks that gods or aliens did it instead – and yet I cannot “reliably reproduce” Egyptians building pyramids “within our lifetime” to test that theory either.

Would you agree?   

You seem very confused. It requires no “faith” to follow reason and evidence to a conclusion, but when you abandon both faith is all you have for the claim “godiddit” instead.

And again: why do you keep ignoring the explanations and corrections that are given to you?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong again. The theory that the Egyptians built the pyramids seems pretty strong to me too so I see no good reason to thinks that gods or aliens did it instead – and yet I cannot “reliably reproduce” Egyptians building pyramids “within our lifetime” to test that theory either.

Would you agree?   

You seem very confused. It requires no “faith” to follow reason and evidence to a conclusion, but when you abandon both faith is all you have for the claim “godiddit” instead.

And again: why do you keep ignoring the explanations and corrections that are given to you?   

We know what the pyramids are made of, and if needed we could reproduce them using existing knowledge.
We do not know what comprises the human mind.
We do not know how it works.
We have no knowledge of how it can be reproduced.
So I feel justified in claiming that you need an act of faith to believe that the human mind is an unintended consequence of unguided forces acting on material elements.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We know what the pyramids are made of, and if needed we could reproduce them using existing knowledge.

We could do but we don’t because there's no particular need.

We do not know what comprises the human mind.
We do not know how it works.
We have no knowledge of how it can be reproduced.

Actually we know quite a lot about those things, but that’s not the point. The point is that there’s nothing in the exceptionally well-evidenced theory of evolution that requires guidance toward a directed goal.   

So I feel justified in claiming that you need an act of faith to believe that the human mind is an unintended consequence of unguided forces acting on material elements.

Then you feel wrongly about that. “Faith” is what you need when you don’t have reason or evidence to bridge the gap between guessing and assertion (see “god”, “soul” etc). Conversely, when you do have reason and evidence for support then “faith” is precisely the thing that you don’t need, albeit provided you don’t overreach into certainty.   

You really should understand this by now.

[Maeght]

We know what the pyramids are made of, and if needed we could reproduce them using existing knowledge.
We do not know what comprises the human mind.
We do not know how it works.
We have no knowledge of how it can be reproduced.
So I feel justified in claiming that you need an act of faith to believe that the human mind is an unintended consequence of unguided forces acting on material elements.

The only evidence we have is that humans evolved without an guidance but based on natural processes. The evidence is that the brain developed as part of that evolution.

[Alan Burns]

Actually we know quite a lot about those things, but that’s not the point. The point is that there’s nothing in the exceptionally well-evidenced theory of evolution that requires guidance toward a directed goal.   

You appear to presume that anything which turns up in reality must have emerged as a consequence of natural unguided forces - regardless of how complex, regardless of how impossible it would be to replicate, regardless of the fact that no one understands what it comprises or how it works.

Your problem is that you start from a premiss that there is nothing else but material elements acting according to the laws of physics, then you use your conscious freedom find reasons to shoe horn reality to fit in with this premiss - and in doing so you find that you have to deny the reality of your own gift of free thinking which you use to direct your own thoughts to come up with these reasons.

[torridon]

You appear to presume that anything which turns up in reality must have emerged as a consequence of natural unguided forces - regardless of how complex, regardless of how impossible it would be to replicate, regardless of the fact that no one understands what it comprises or how it works.

Why would a designer who wants to be known to his creations disguise his design method as copying errors.  Why the subterfuge, why the needless suffering this design methodology inevitably entails ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't your god composed of three parts?

No he is indivisible since he is the necessary being. So when he is experienced as father, son and holy spirit it is the same God. Any 'differences' are not empirical differences or substantial as found in composite entities.

[ProfessorDavey]

No he is indivisible since he is the necessary being.

You really are the master of the unjustified circular argument, aren't you Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really are the master of the unjustified circular argument, aren't you Vlad.

I'm not really because I'm not really.