Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I think that has been answered for us. As an external reason must exist for why the universe is as it is and not as some other universe so a reason must exist for why there is something rather than nothing...

So, yet again, why do you think this applies to the universe but not to some made up god-thingy? Why not: "...an external reason must exist for why the god-thingy is as it is and not as some other god-thingy so a reason must exist for why there is something rather than nothing..."?

Just special pleading.

...as logically, a reason must exist as to why the necessary being must exist. Since we are at the end of the line and there isn't nothing, That has to be a necessary entity which necessarily exists and is it's own reason for why there isn't nothing.

Except the existence of a 'necessary entity' is nothing more than a blind guess as to the answer to the fundamental questions of why things exist and are the way they are, and appears to be a nonsensical one, because nobody (that I know of) can explain how it is logically possible for something to exist whose non-existence would be impossible.

[I]'m sorry but infinite regress or contingency only or Brute fact are the blind guesses...

Of course they are blind guesses. The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that any answer to the fundamental questions of existence is a blind guess, because we have no relevant evidence and all the proposals have associated logical problems.

The sovereignty, the uniqueness, the finality of the necessary being all fall out of the argument from contingency so that isn't true.

Except there is no logically sound argument from contingency, at least none that I've ever seen, and certainly not in all your vague hand-waving and unsupported assertions about it here. Even if we were to accept the assumptions involved, the connections to 'sovereignty' and anything remotely like the religious conceptions of 'god' are just laughable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, yet again, why do you think this applies to the universe but not to some made up god-thingy? Why not: "...an external reason must exist for why the god-thingy is as it is and not as some other god-thingy so a reason must exist for why there is something rather than nothing..."?

Just special pleading.

Except the existence of a 'necessary entity' is nothing more than a blind guess as to the answer to the fundamental questions of why things exist and are the way they are, and appears to be a nonsensical one, because nobody (that I know of) can explain how it is logically possible for something to exist whose non-existence would be impossible.

Of course they are blind guesses. The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that any answer to the fundamental questions of existence is a blind guess, because we have no relevant evidence and all the proposals have associated logical problems.

Except there is no logically sound argument from contingency, at least none that I've ever seen, and certainly not in all your vague hand-waving and unsupported assertions about it here. Even if we were to accept the assumptions involved, the connections to 'sovereignty' and anything remotely like the religious conceptions of 'god' are just laughable.

Looking at what you think I don't think it provides any trouble for the argument from contingency whatsoever.

[Stranger]

Looking at what you think I don't think it provides any trouble for the argument from contingency whatsoever.

Oh well then, that settles it, if Vlad thinks it, that is obviously the ultimate arbiter of absolute truth.

Just one tiny, almost insignificant (when compared to your unsupported opinion, obviously), little point: what argument from contingency?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So, yet again, why do you think this applies to the universe but not to some made up god-thingy? Why not: "...an external reason must exist for why the god-thingy is as it is and not as some other god-thingy so a reason must exist for why there is something rather than nothing..."?

Just special pleading.

Except the existence of a 'necessary entity' is nothing more than a blind guess as to the answer to the fundamental questions of why things exist and are the way they are, and appears to be a nonsensical one, because nobody (that I know of) can explain how it is logically possible for something to exist whose non-existence would be impossible.

Of course they are blind guesses. The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that any answer to the fundamental questions of existence is a blind guess, because we have no relevant evidence and all the proposals have associated logical problems.

Except there is no logically sound argument from contingency, at least none that I've ever seen, and certainly not in all your vague hand-waving and unsupported assertions about it here. Even if we were to accept the assumptions involved, the connections to 'sovereignty' and anything remotely like the religious conceptions of 'god' are just laughable.

Yeah - makes sense why religions are so varied and change over time - the religious concepts are due to the human brain of those who connect with and express themselves through religious terminology trying to make sense of unknowable abstract ideas. As our nature/ nurture changes - e.g. as different cultural and environmental influences on our nurture interact with our biology, we come up with differing concepts of 'gods', 'souls' etc which represent the unknowable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh well then, that settles it, if Vlad thinks it, that is obviously the ultimate arbiter of absolute truth.

Just one tiny, almost insignificant (when compared to your unsupported opinion, obviously), little point: what argument from contingency?

From the question ''How is this or that thing here?'' we can move to the question ''what is the reason any thing is here?''. We may not know the reason but we know there is a reason. Infinite regress is not a reason. Contingency only is absurd. So logically we have to go to necessary entity....and the position that holds gives it and us it's necessary attributes. Abrahamic religions are distinctive for other reasons but related in this respect.

[Stranger]

From the question ''How is this or that thing here?'' we can move to the question ''what is the reason any thing is here?''. We may not know the reason but we know there is a reason. Infinite regress is not a reason. Contingency only is absurd. So logically we have to go to necessary entity....

The problem is that a 'necessary entity' is just as absurd as the possibilities you dismiss. Yet again: how do we even imagine something whose non-existence would cause some sort of contradiction? It's just nonsensical.

...and the position that holds gives it and us it's necessary attributes.

Without an answer to the above question, you have no basis for the attributes you've chosen. And listing things like "sovereignty" and the other supposed attributes of an Abrahamic sort of god is just way beyond stupid.

Abrahamic religions are distinctive for other reasons but related in this respect.

Unmitigated drivel.

[Stranger]

From the question ''How is this or that thing here?'' we can move to the question ''what is the reason any thing is here?''. We may not know the reason but we know there is a reason. Infinite regress is not a reason. Contingency only is absurd. So logically we have to go to necessary entity....

Just to also point out that this doesn't even have the form of a logical argument (deduction). Listing all the things that you can think of (while neglecting the possibility that the answer may be something that nobody has thought of yet), offering an opinion about what you personally find unconvincing, and concluding that the answer is what's left, is not a logical argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to also point out that this doesn't even have the form of a logical argument (deduction). Listing all the things that you can think of (while neglecting the possibility that the answer may be something that nobody has thought of yet), offering an opinion about what you personally find unconvincing, and concluding that the answer is what's left, is not a logical argument.

And yet you seem to want to neglect any answer. The argument doesn't pre empt or propose a reason but says merely there is one. However we can deduce that whatever it is....... in the question of being that something on which the universe was contingent it logically follows that it is independent in being and independent in respect of agency. Play me if you will. But that remains.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem is that a 'necessary entity' is just as absurd as the possibilities you dismiss.

Feel free to demonstrate.

[Stranger]

And yet you seem to want to neglect any answer.

If all the proposed answers you have are equally problematic, then the only rational response is an honest "we don't know".

The argument doesn't pre empt or propose a reason but says merely there is one.

Except that it does. In fact, as you have presented it here, it is logically identical to a brute fact. All you've done is said that the hierarchy of explanation terminates at something, and then slapped the label 'necessary entity' on it in order to pretend to yourself that it isn't a brute fact for which you have no explanation.

As I keep saying, without a logical explanation as to how anything might cause a logical problem if it didn't exist, it's all basically bullshit.

However we can deduce that whatever it is in the question of being that something on which the universe was contingent it logically follows that it is independent in being and independent in respect of agency.

How? Why should it have any 'agency' at all? You haven't provided the actual logical steps by which it "follows" and it looks very much as if you don't know how to even try...

Feel free to demonstrate.

See above, and above that, and above that too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If all the proposed answers you have are equally problematic, then the only rational response is an honest "we don't know".

What is it you don't know and at what point in the argument did you start to not know it?

Except that it does. In fact, as you have presented it here, it is logically identical to a brute fact.

No, saying the universe just is is brute fact. The arguments put before you establish why there is a necessary entity. It is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Since there is something it cannot fail to exist indeed it would be logical nonsense for it not to. That argument provides sufficient reason rather than brute fact.

But don't take my word for it, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje4ProbConcNeceBein to get yourself up to speed.

[Stranger]

What is it you don't know and at what point in the argument did you start to not know it?

Jeez, reading English for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? I don't know why things exist and are as they are because all of the proposed solutions have logical problems.

I've already explained, several times now, what I consider problematic with the idea of a necessary entity.

No, saying the universe just is is brute fact. The arguments put before you establish why there is a necessary entity.

What argument? Everything you've said just leads me to the conclusion that, as you have presented it here, a 'necessary entity' is only necessary because you've arbitrarily labelled some supposed end to the explanatory hierarchy, as such.

It is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Since there is something it cannot fail to exist indeed it would be logical nonsense for it not to. That argument provides sufficient reason rather than brute fact.

Just repeating yourself isn't going to suddenly turn baseless, unargued assertions into logic, you do understand that, don't you? Yet again: how do you know that there is something that cannot fail to exist, and, perhaps more to the point, what is it about this something that would make its non-existence logically impossible?

But don't take my word for it, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje4ProbConcNeceBein to get yourself up to speed.

Which, rather bizarrely, leads to a section of an article titled "Objection 4: Problems with the Concept of a Necessary Being", which, err, contains a whole load of problems with the concept of a necessary being - which just emphasises that the "argument from contingency" is highly problematic for any number of reasons.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jeez, reading English for comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? I don't know why things exist and are as they are because all of the proposed solutions have logical problems.

I've already explained, several times now, what I consider problematic with the idea of a necessary entity.

What argument? Everything you've said just leads me to the conclusion that, as you have presented it here, a 'necessary entity' is only necessary because you've arbitrarily labelled some supposed end to the explanatory hierarchy, as such.

Just repeating yourself isn't going to suddenly turn baseless, unargued assertions into logic, you do understand that, don't you? Yet again: how do you know that there is something that cannot fail to exist, and, perhaps more to the point, what is it about this something that would make its non-existence logically impossible?

Which, rather bizarrely, leads to a section of an article titled "Objection 4: Problems with the Concept of a Necessary Being", which, err, contains a whole load of problems with the concept of a necessary being - which just emphasises that the "argument from contingency" is highly problematic for any number of reasons.

I'm not sure even you know what you mean by the concept of a necessary being being highly problematic is.

All you seem to be saying is the most rational thing to say is ''we don't know.''
At what point in the argument from contingency do you propose that comes in? Hence my first question what is it you don't know and at what point do we not know.

Let me run through the argument again.

Here is an object what is the reason it exists? Here is the universe, what is the reason it exists? Whatever the reason is it must exist independently of the universe and it must have acted independently of the universe. Where is the problem?

The argument is based on the principle of sufficient reason so that to my mind is where you have to find any highly problematic problems.

But let us consider the problems that threaten the argument.....The universe could just be. The problem here is that it arbitrarily suspends the principle of sufficient reason in a special plead.

 

[Stranger]

I'm not sure even you know what you mean by the concept of a necessary being being highly problematic is.

Since I've explained several times now, what the problems are with it, I suppose that if it hasn't sunk in by now, it probably never will.

All you seem to be saying is the most rational thing to say is ''we don't know.''

FFS, yes.

At what point in the argument from contingency do you propose that comes in? Hence my first question what is it you don't know and at what point do we not know.

It's not that I don't know something about the argument from contingency, it's that I don't know which, if any, of the proposed solutions to the question of why things exist and are the way they are, is right, because they all come with logical problems.

Let me run through the argument again.

Here is an object what is the reason it exists? Here is the universe, what is the reason it exists? Whatever the reason is it must exist independently of the universe and it must have acted independently of the universe. Where is the problem?

That's not even in the form of a logical argument - it's just two questions and an unargued assertion. What's more it never even reaches the conclusion of a necessary entity. You haven't said why the universe necessarily needs an explanation for its existence. You haven't said why, if it does have a reason, that that reason is something that can 'act' in some way, rather than just be some sort of static principle, for example.

There simply isn't an argument there to refute.

...The universe could just be. The problem here is that it arbitrarily suspends the principle of sufficient reason in a special plead.

Yes, in exactly the same way as you do, one step removed from the universe, when you imagine that you've reached something that you might be able to label 'god'. It's all comically contrived: "Oh no, we can't possibly just suspend the PSR for the universe, but we can once we've got to the reason for it, because I like that better, 'cos I might get away with calling it 'god', with the excuse of calling in 'necessary' first, and then pretending that I haven't suspended the PSR at all."

I'd say you couldn't make it up, but you did.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since I've explained several times now, what the problems are with it, I suppose that if it hasn't sunk in by now, it probably never will.

Well I certainly know people find problems with it so i'll put a menu. Please tell me if I've missed any of yours.

What caused the first cause?
Not evidence for a theistic God
Existence of causal loops
Existence of infinite causal chains
Big Bang cosmology
Why is the necessary entity, necessary?
Is it brute fact?

And I can say, hand on heart, I have attempted to address all of these on this forum.

So really it should be me claiming that i've explained these things several times before.

[Stranger]

Well I certainly know people find problems with it so i'll put a menu. Please tell me if I've missed any of yours.

What caused the first cause?
Not evidence for a theistic God
Existence of causal loops
Existence of infinite causal chains
Big Bang cosmology
Why is the necessary entity, necessary?
Is it brute fact?

The last two come closest. Let's put it this way: it is nowhere near enough to argue that you reject an infinite regress, therefore conclude that the hierarchy of explanations has a starting point and that starting point cannot be contingent. That just gets you to a brute fact (and it's not even clear that there is an unquestionably sound argument even for getting that far).

In order for something to be necessary, it must also have some feature or aspect of it that would make its non-existence, or replacement by something even slightly different, impossible, i.e. it would lead to a logical contradiction.

I have never seen anything remotely resembling a credible description of what such a feature could possibly be. I can't even imagine something whose non-existence would be impossible.

Neither is it anywhere near enough to simply appeal to the principle of sufficient reason to claim that the thing that is not contingent on anything else must contain its own reason for its existence because otherwise the PSR would get all cross and throw all its toys out of the pram. The PSR is, at best, an extrapolation of our experience of the being in the universe. It's not even clear it if can really be said to apply to events involving quantum uncertainty, let alone be extended to the basis of existence itself. You'd basically just be putting blind faith in its universal applicability.

Even if you somehow managed to get over those hurdles, by which point you'd be in Nobel prize territory, you'd then have to further convince us of your second item, and somehow identify it with a theistic god.

Good luck with all that...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The last two come closest. Let's put it this way: it is nowhere near enough to argue that you reject an infinite regress, therefore conclude that the hierarchy of explanations has a starting point and that starting point cannot be contingent. That just gets you to a brute fact (and it's not even clear that there is an unquestionably sound argument even for getting that far).

Infinite regress offers no solution....although many offer it as a solution.

''the universe just is and there's the end to it'' Russell is Brute fact. ''There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing and that reason cannot be nothing'' is a reason, not a brute (just is) fact. It is based on a bottom up approach.
Even if the necessary being were brute fact that would not detract from it's necessity in the case of something rather than nothing.

Quantum uncertainty? Are you claiming that as the necessary entity? Why quantum uncertainty and not nothing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why quantum uncertainty and not nothing?

FFS – surely you’re not still trying your dog’s breakfast mash up of logical fallacies are you? Shifting of the burden of proof, special pleading, argument from incredulity, endless non sequiturs – they’re all present and (in)correct with you aren’t they.

Tell you what – perhaps we should add a new one: VDF (Vlad’s Displacement Fallacy). Each time you try “why the universe then?” or similar, the automatic fallacy detector will be be programmed to reply: “VDF! VDF! VDF! – Why “god” then?” until it finally sinks in.

Sound like a plan to you?     

[Stranger]

Infinite regress offers no solution...

Quite possibly not, but at least it's a coherent idea, so has a distinct advantage over all the pointless, illogical, incoherent, rambling nonsense you've posted here to date.

''the universe just is and there's the end to it'' Russell is Brute fact.

So is anything else you arbitrarily stop the hierarchy of explanation at, if there is nothing in its definition that, exactly and explicitly, explains why it would be impossible for it not to exist or be replaced without causing a logical contradiction.

''There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing and that reason cannot be nothing'' is a reason...

Nope. That's what is called a 'claim' or a 'proposition'.

Even if the necessary being were brute fact that would not detract from it's necessity in the case of something rather than nothing.

Gibberish.

Quantum uncertainty? Are you claiming that as the necessary entity?

I haven't the first clue how you managed to read that into what I said...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

FFS – surely you’re not still trying your dog’s breakfast mash up of logical fallacies are you? Shifting of the burden of proof, special pleading, argument from incredulity, endless non sequiturs – they’re all present and (in)correct with you aren’t they.

Tell you what – perhaps we should add a new one: VDF (Vlad’s Displacement Fallacy). Each time you try “why the universe then?” or similar, the automatic fallacy detector will be be programmed to reply: “VDF! VDF! VDF! – Why “god” then?” until it finally sinks in.

Sound like a plan to you?     

How and why would you shift the burden of proof onto someone who has announced they don't know? In other words Stranger admits he hasn't a clue.

Stranger is not just against God but the notion of a necessary entity and sufficient reason. He and you I suppose are proponents of infinite regress, contingency only, composite necessities, and your other ''Little helpers'' are causal loopers and just is-ers and unknown unknowners. And you support all these mad cap ideas with a straight face.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How and why would you shift the burden of proof onto someone who has announced they don't know? In other words Stranger admits he hasn't a clue.

Shouldn’t you be asking yourself “How and why would you shift the burden of proof” given your fondness for doing it?

Stranger is not just against God…

Two problems there: he’s never said any such thing (straw man); and you’ve just reified the belief in “god” to “God” (another fallacy).

…but the notion of a necessary entity and sufficient reason. He and you I suppose are proponents of infinite regress, contingency only, composite necessities, and your other ''Little helpers'' are causal loopers and just is-ers and unknown unknowners. And you support all these mad cap ideas with a straight face.

More lying doesn’t help you here. What I (and I think Stranger) actually say is that when a “don’t know” is reached that’s the end of the matter until and unless verifiable explanations are found. There are various conjectures and speculations that may or may not provide such explanations, but a “it’s magic innit” god doesn’t seem terribly likely to be one of them.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Shouldn’t you be asking yourself “How and why would you shift the burden of proof” given your fondness for doing it?

Two problems there: he’s never said any such thing (straw man); and you’ve just reified the belief in “god” to “God” (another fallacy).

More lying doesn’t help you here. What I (and I think Stranger) actually say is that when a “don’t know” is reached that’s the end of the matter until and unless verifiable explanations are found. There are various conjectures and speculations that may or may not provide such explanations, but a “it’s magic innit” god doesn’t seem terribly likely to be one of them.   

I did ask Stranger at what point in the argument from contingency his ''don't know'' became operative.
What was it about observing that objects have reason for why they exist or whether there is a reason that is unknowable, for instance?
I found no response from him so I have no reason to judge the validity of his agnosticism or even know what part of the argument from contingency he is agnostic about.

Where do you think the argument falls down?

[Stranger]

Stranger is not just against God but the notion of a necessary entity and sufficient reason. He and you I suppose are proponents of infinite regress, contingency only, composite necessities, and your other ''Little helpers'' are causal loopers and just is-ers and unknown unknowners. And you support all these mad cap ideas with a straight face.

It really is quite remarkable how you manage to misunderstand, err..., well, pretty much everything, come to think of it.

In particular, you seem to find the position of being unconvinced by some argument for something or other, because said argument is basically crap, particularly incompressible. More generally, finding that all the arguments put forward for something are crap and therefore concluding that there is not reason to accept the proposition concerned, seems totally beyond your comprehension.

Here is a hint to help you: such a position is not the same thing as being against the proposition (for which only crap arguments exist) nor is it the same as supporting some alternative propositions or believing some other arguments for those propositions, which might, in fact, be just as crap.

When there are simply no explanations that have good arguments to support them, then the rational conclusion is to say that we simply don't know, which, if any, of the proposed explanations are true.

Is that really too hard for you to grasp? Are you so frightened of uncertainty that you simply can't accept that it might be the only rational position to take?

[Stranger]

I did ask Stranger at what point in the argument from contingency his ''don't know'' became operative.

Which kind of, rather spectacularly, misses the point entirely. Further, the moment you put forward something that remotely resembles a logical argument, I might be able to tell you at what point it breaks down. Not that that should be necessary, as I have explained endlessly why you haven't provided even a coherent idea of what a necessary entity might be like and what would make it necessary.

What was it about observing that objects have reason for why they exist or whether there is a reason that is unknowable, for instance?

No.

I found no response from him...

Need an optician, perhaps?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Where do you think the argument falls down?

There're barely an argument at all, but in any case your reliance on "it's magic innit" is a useful shortcut answer to that.