Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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.

No Hillsides it's the hierarchy of reasons for being culminating in the reason why there is something rather than nothing making a necessary entity unavoidable except by psychological denial resulting in non answers and kicking the can down an infinite road.

Any magic is found in the statement The universe just is.

[Stranger]

No Hillsides it's the hierarchy of reasons for being culminating in the reason why there is something rather than nothing making a necessary entity unavoidable except by psychological denial resulting in non answers and kicking the can down an infinite road.

You don't even seem to have the first idea about the concept you're trying to argue for. What you've 'argued' (to the extent one can dignify it with the term) for here is merely a brute fact.

A necessary being is one whose non-existence is supposed to be impossible, inconceivable even (that's backed up by the article you yourself linked to before). Something just sitting at the base of the hierarchy of explanation is something that just is, i.e. a brute fact.

The definition is an attempt to get over the apparent impossibility of something that explains why there is something rather than nothing - because if that something exists, it is going to have to explain why it exists as well as everything else. The problem being that nobody (that I've seen) has managed to explain exactly what sort of entity could possibly have the property that its non-existence would be impossible or inconceivable. This basically leaves the argument from contingency with a gaping hole at its very centre that is just as serious as the problem it sets out to solve. It doesn't explain existence at all, it just moves the problem to some unexplained 'necessary entity'.

There is a weaker notion of the 'necessary being' but it's based on the Newtonian view of time, and neatly applies to the whole space-time (i.e. the concept of time given by relativity) without introducing anything else: "A necessary being is one that if it exists, it neither came into existence nor can cease to exist, and correspondingly, if it does not exist, it cannot come into existence" (again from the link you provided: Cosmological Argument - Objection 4: Problems with the Concept of a Necessary Being.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't even seem to have the first idea about the concept you're trying to argue for. What you've 'argued' (to the extent one can dignify it with the term) for here is merely a brute fact.

Firstly, you haven't demonstrated why a necessary entity is a brute fact. Secondly there is a categoric difference between what Russell says ''The universe just is and that's it'' and'' There is an infinity of causes and that's it'' and ''There is a heirarchy of explanation and reasons which logically end with the reason for why there is a universe and not nothing''.

A necessary being is one whose non-existence is supposed to be impossible, inconceivable even (that's backed up by the article you yourself linked to before). Something just sitting at the base of the hierarchy of explanation is something that just is, i.e. a brute fact.

No since there is a reason why there is not nothing( absolute non existence)something must necessarily exist.

The existence of this necessary entity has been explained and there is no warrant to call it inexplicable or unexplained as you seem to keep calling it.

And finally why do you guys have no trouble with Russell or Hume or Sean Carroll using brute fact or the universe being brute fact but wet your intellectual pants over the Necessary entity being brute fact?.........To which we can add you guys wanting sufficient reason for everything except the reason for everything rather than nothing? That is special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No Hillsides it's the hierarchy of reasons for being culminating in the reason why there is something rather than nothing making a necessary entity unavoidable except by psychological denial resulting in non answers and kicking the can down an infinite road.

Any magic is found in the statement The universe just is.

VDF! VDF! VDF!

So (according to you) “Any magic is found in the statement The universe just is”, whereas the statement “God just is” isn’t just as much a statement of magic, only with a whole extra set of assumptions thrown in too.

Is that where you want to be?

Really though?

Looks like the Vlad Displacement Fallacy is getting another run out here doesn’t it.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Firstly, you haven't demonstrated why a necessary entity is a brute fact.

As it’s your claim, why should he?

Secondly there is a categoric difference between what Russell says ''The universe just is and that's it'' and'' There is an infinity of causes and that's it'' and ''There is a heirarchy of explanation and reasons which logically end with the reason for why there is a universe and not nothing''.

As you haven’t told us, what do you think is the difference epistemologically between “the universe is a brute fact” and “god is a brute fact”?

Oh, and you’re misquoting Russell in any case. What he actually said was something like “all that can be said about the universe is that it’s a brute fact”, which is statement about our state of knowledge of the universe rather than about the universe itself. The difference will likely be lost on you, but it’s an important one nonetheless.

No since there is a reason why there is not nothing( absolute non existence)something must necessarily exist.

So why is there not no god then?

The existence of this necessary entity has been explained and there is no warrant to call it inexplicable or unexplained as you seem to keep calling it.

A big and, so far, entirely unsubstantiated claim. Explained where and by whom?

And finally why do you guys have no trouble with Russell or Hume or Sean Carroll using brute fact or the universe being brute fact but wet your intellectual pants over the Necessary entity being brute fact?.........To which we can add you guys wanting sufficient reason for everything except the reason for everything rather than nothing? That is special pleading.

Because, obviously, just inserting “god” to explain away a brute fact universe merely transfers the same brute fact problem to that god. It’s Vlad’s Displacement Fallacy again remember?   

So how does that answer anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

VDF! VDF! VDF!

Nurse! I think Hillside has caught a sexually transmitted disease.......again.

[Sebastian Toe]

Nurse! I think Hillside has caught a sexually transmitted disease.......again.

Vladius Dickyis Floppyius?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nurse! I think Hillside has caught a sexually transmitted disease.......again.

You stop trotting out the Vlad Displacement Fallacy and I'll stop pointing it out when you do.   

[Stranger]

Firstly, you haven't demonstrated why a necessary entity is a brute fact.

Probably because I didn't try to. Is English not your first language? What I pointed out is that your 'argument' (to the extent it can be dignified with the term) results in a brute fact and not a necessary entity.

Secondly there is a categoric difference between what Russell says ''The universe just is and that's it'' and'' There is an infinity of causes and that's it'' and ''There is a heirarchy of explanation and reasons which logically end with the reason for why there is a universe and not nothing''.

No there isn't. They both assert brute facts without any basis. What the argument from contingency needs, in order to be categorically different, is an exact and explicit explanation of exactly what the necessary entity is, at least to the extent that we know exactly why it would be impossible for it not to exist (or be replaced by something else).

Essentially, what you've said starts out with not knowing why the universe exists, asserting that the hierarchy of explanation has a base, and then just slapping the label 'necessary' on it, while totally ignoring the fact that we have no idea how it is possible to even imagine something whose non-existence would be impossible and inconceivable. Without that, it's nothing but a pointless moving of the problem because the thing you've just arbitrarily labelled 'necessary' is every bit as unexplained as the universe was before you started. It is not a solution.

The existence of this necessary entity has been explained...

No, it has not. It will remain nothing but "it's magic, innit?" until somebody can come up with an exact description of something that tells us explicitly why it would be impossible for it not to exist.

And finally why do you guys have no trouble with Russell or Hume or Sean Carroll using brute fact or the universe being brute fact but wet your intellectual pants over the Necessary entity being brute fact?....

I never said that I didn't have problems with those things. In fact, I keep on telling you that I see problems with all the proposed explanations as to why there is something rather than nothing and why things are as they are. I have yet to be in the least bit convinced by any of them. All I'm pointing out is that your favourite option (because you can then pretend it's 'god') is just as bad as all the others.

Again, you seem totally baffled by somebody saying that they simply don't know because none of the arguments on offer are convincing. What's so hard?

....To which we can add you guys wanting sufficient reason for everything except the reason for everything rather than nothing?

I never said that either.   

It would really help if you could actually be arsed to read and at least try to understand what has been said to you before attempting an answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

All I'm pointing out is that your favourite option (because you can then pretend it's 'god') is just as bad as all the others.

Sorry get all pedantic on yo ass, but is that right? Isn’t Vlad’s god speculation more problematic than the various competing hypotheses because, well, they are hypotheses (ie, falsifiable and testable, at least in principle), whereas “god” is just white noise and so would require the establishment of entirely new ontology just to get its hypothesis trousers on?   

[Stranger]

Sorry get all pedantic on yo ass, but is that right? Isn’t Vlad’s god speculation more problematic than the various competing hypotheses...

Well, if we're being pedantic,    that's not what I suggested. I was saying that Vlad's favourite explanation for why stuff exists and is as it is, i.e. a necessary entity (rather than a god), was as bad as the rest and that the reason he liked it was that he could then pretend that it referred to his god.

...because, well, they are hypotheses (ie, falsifiable and testable, at least in principle), whereas “god” is just white noise and so would require the establishment of entirely new ontology just to get its hypothesis trousers on?   

Also a bit unsure that we can count any of them as hypotheses either. I'm not sure, even in principle, if we could ever test, for example, that the universe 'just is' (a brute fact). I mean, what possible testable predictions could you deduce from that? I guess it would predict that we'd never find a further layer of explanation but that could take the entire of the rest of human history to be sure, and even then, we couldn't say that there definitely isn't something that we just failed to find.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Probably because I didn't try to. Is English not your first language? What I pointed out is that your 'argument' (to the extent it can be dignified with the term) results in a brute fact and not a necessary entity.

No there isn't. They both assert brute facts without any basis. What the argument from contingency needs, in order to be categorically different, is an exact and explicit explanation of exactly what the necessary entity is, at least to the extent that we know exactly why it would be impossible for it not to exist (or be replaced by something else).

Essentially, what you've said starts out with not knowing why the universe exists, asserting that the hierarchy of explanation has a base, and then just slapping the label 'necessary' on it, while totally ignoring the fact that we have no idea how it is possible to even imagine something whose non-existence would be impossible and inconceivable. Without that, it's nothing but a pointless moving of the problem because the thing you've just arbitrarily labelled 'necessary' is every bit as unexplained as the universe was before you started. It is not a solution.

No, it has not. It will remain nothing but "it's magic, innit?" until somebody can come up with an exact description of something that tells us explicitly why it would be impossible for it not to exist.

I never said that I didn't have problems with those things. In fact, I keep on telling you that I see problems with all the proposed explanations as to why there is something rather than nothing and why things are as they are. I have yet to be in the least bit convinced by any of them. All I'm pointing out is that your favourite option (because you can then pretend it's 'god') is just as bad as all the others.

Again, you seem totally baffled by somebody saying that they simply don't know because none of the arguments on offer are convincing. What's so hard?

I never said that either.   

It would really help if you could actually be arsed to read and at least try to understand what has been said to you before attempting an answer.

The argument explains exactly what the necessary entity is. It is the reason why there is a universe rather than non existence. It doesn't tell us how many legs it has or whether it has a favourite football team. It explains exactly what is relevant to the argument. What is the heirarchy of reasons for contingent and does it have a final, necessary rather than contingent entity and why? And that's what it does.

Your argument is spurious therefore on those grounds. Secondly you guys have to justify why you suspend the principle of sufficient reason, at what stage and your preference for potentially absurd solutions some of which actually stand as contenders for necessary entity. It may  well be that you fear the necessary entity is the gateway to God and you are Goddodging if I can quote a brilliant contributer to Religion Ethics.

[Stranger]

The argument explains exactly what the necessary entity is. It is the reason why there is a universe rather than non existence.

That's just asserting that it provides an explanation, not an actual explanation. Why is this so difficult for you?

It explains exactly what is relevant to the argument.

No, it doesn't. It misses out the entire explanation it's supposed to provide, FFS!

What is the heirarchy of reasons for contingent and does it have a final, necessary rather than contingent entity and why? And that's what it does.

You can't just put a label on something that turns it into an explanation. Without any explanation at all of how this 'necessary entity' could not have failed to exist, you're just playing mindless word games.

You've actually explained exactly nothing.

Secondly you guys have to justify...

Exactly nothing except why we find your miserable excuse for an argument totally unconvincing. Nobody here, as far as I've seem, is saying that they prefer another proposal or that they find the arguments for those proposals any more convincing than yours.

What is the matter with you? Why can't you grasp the simple fact that people can reject all the arguments available for every proposal that has been put forward to date, and conclude that we just don't know?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's just asserting that it provides an explanation, not an actual explanation. Why is this so difficult for you?

It states that there is an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing and also that that something is the final reason and self inclusive reason in the matter of something rather than nothing. So what's your difficulty? It can't be that this thing has no attributes, because of it's ontological position it cannot fail to exist.....otherwise there would be nothing. It must act independently, All other things must be contingent on it, it exists independently, it is outside time and space etc. etc.

No, it doesn't. It misses out the entire explanation it's supposed to provide, FFS!

You haven't explained what you mean by this. You seem here to be dismissing the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason and that absurdity invalidates your argument.

You can't just put a label on something that turns it into an explanation. Without any explanation at all of how this 'necessary entity' could not have failed to exist, you're just playing mindless word games.

You cannot put a name on the explanation? Wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Well, if we're being pedantic,     that's not what I suggested. I was saying that Vlad's favourite explanation for why stuff exists and is as it is, i.e. a necessary entity (rather than a god), was as bad as the rest and that the reason he liked it was that he could then pretend that it referred to his god.

Yes, but the hair-splitting I’m doing here (!) is between “as bad as” and “even worse than”. There seems to me to be a qualitative difference between hypotheses that are argued and reasoned (albeit with no means of resolution, at least currently) and the white noise, “not even wrong” of “god” that he seems to use as a place marker for an explanation with none of the hard yards necessary for an explanation, even in principle. 

Also a bit unsure that we can count any of them as hypotheses either. I'm not sure, even in principle, if we could ever test, for example, that the universe 'just is' (a brute fact). I mean, what possible testable predictions could you deduce from that? I guess it would predict that we'd never find a further layer of explanation but that could take the entire of the rest of human history to be sure, and even then, we couldn't say that there definitely isn't something that we just failed to find.

Russel’s point I think wasn’t that the universe is a brute fact, but rather that (given our current state of knowledge about it) a “brute fact” is all we can reasonably say about it. It's an epistemic point, not a scientific one.

As for the difference between hypotheses and the conjecture “god” there still seems to me to be a qualitative difference, whether or not the former could ever be tested. That difference is coherence – the various hypotheses give those who understand them a common language to debate and discuss at least in the abstract, whereas “god” is just white noise – what would that term even mean as a common language for rational contemplation? It’s epistemically equivalent to uh076y^^(O*&T07tyygou – there’s nothing there. 

[Stranger]

It states that there is an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing and also that that something is the final reason and self inclusive reason in the matter of something rather than nothing. So what's your difficulty?

  Sorry but this is just getting hilariously stupid.

Yes it "states that there is an explanation", but withou telling us the actual explanation, i.e. the exact reason why it is the supposed 'necessary entity' couldn't have failed to exist. Without that, such a claim is worthless hot air.

It can't be that this thing has no attributes, because of it's ontological position it cannot fail to exist.....otherwise there would be nothing.

Quite apart from the fact that this is a non-sequitur, it's supposed to explain why nothing was impossible. What you seem to have got into is an entirely circular argument, that it's necessary because otherwise there would be nothing, and there isn't, so there must be something that explains that, so it's necessary because otherwise there'd be nothing... All of which is exactly the same as a brute fact; there is not nothing because of this fact.

It must act independently, All other things must be contingent on it, it exists independently, it is outside time and space...

Contradiction alert! Not that it really matters in this sea of gibberish, but something that's outside time, cannot possibly act.

You haven't explained what you mean by this.

Untrue. I have explained it multiple times and have just done so again, above. I suggest trying to work out why you find my explanation so difficult to understand, and asking appropriate questions, rather than making false claims that I haven't explained it.

You seem here to be dismissing the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason and that absurdity invalidates your argument.

No. If you were honest enough to admit that your own 'argument' totally fails to provide a sufficient reason (for exactly why the necessary entity could not have failed to exist, that is, what feature or attribute it has that makes non-existence impossible), then that would mean that you just had a brute fact, which would at least mean something, rather then the endless circles of nonsense you have at the moment, that just claims to have sufficient reason without having provided any.

You cannot put a name on the explanation? Wrong.

Again, reading for comprehension is letting you down. I said no such thing, I said "You can't just put a label on something that turns it into an explanation.", in other words naming it, in this case 'necessary', can't magically turn something that is not an explanation into an explanation. Once you have an explanation (which you don't) you are. of course, free to name it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,



Russel’s point I think wasn’t that the universe is a brute fact, but rather that (given our current state of knowledge about it) a “brute fact” is all we can reasonably say about it. It's an epistemic point, not a scientific one.
 

I think that's your point not his since you are leaving room for there to be a reason. I believe Russell's full phrase was ''The universe just is and there's an end to it. He certainly didn't mean that the reason you suggest was outside the universe.....in which case he would be de facto proposing the universe as having a necessary aspect rather than being entirely contingent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It states that there is an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing...

But somehow it doesn't state the same thing for "god" eh?

VDF!

[Stranger]

Yes, but the hair-splitting I’m doing here (!) is between “as bad as” and “even worse than”. There seems to me to be a qualitative difference between hypotheses that are argued and reasoned (albeit with no means of resolution, at least currently) and the white noise, “not even wrong” of “god” that he seems to use as a place marker for an explanation with none of the hard yards necessary for an explanation, even in principle. 

Yes, I agree that a 'god' claim is different in that it's basically white noise but I only referred to 'god' as Vlad's reason for preferring a necessary entity explanation, so that he can then pretend that the two concepts are the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Sorry but this is just getting hilariously stupid.

Yes it "states that there is an explanation", but withou telling us the actual explanation, i.e. the exact reason why it is the supposed 'necessary entity' couldn't have failed to exist. Without that, such a claim is worthless hot air.

Quite apart from the fact that this is a non-sequitur, it's supposed to explain why nothing was impossible. What you seem to have got into is an entirely circular argument, that it's necessary because otherwise there would be nothing, and there isn't, so there must be something that explains that, so it's necessary because otherwise there'd be nothing... All of which is exactly the same as a brute fact; there is not nothing because of this fact.

Contradiction alert! Not that it really matters in this sea of gibberish, but something that's outside time, cannot possibly act.

Untrue. I have explained it multiple times and have just done so again, above. I suggest trying to work out why you find my explanation so difficult to understand, and asking appropriate questions, rather than making false claims that I haven't explained it.

No. If you were honest enough to admit that your own 'argument' totally fails to provide a sufficient reason (for exactly why the necessary entity could not have failed to exist, that is, what feature or attribute it has that makes non-existence impossible), then that would mean that you just had a brute fact, which would at least mean something, rather then the endless circles of nonsense you have at the moment, that just claims to have sufficient reason without having provided any.

Again, reading for comprehension is letting you down. I said no such thing, I said "You can't just put a label on something that turns it into an explanation.", in other words naming it, in this case 'necessary', can't magically turn something that is not an explanation into an explanation. Once you have an explanation (which you don't) you are. of course, free to name it.

Nothing rather than the universe is a possibility. A Nothing though would have to be a permanent situation though there has to be a reason then why there is a universe and not nothing(non existence). So that establishes a non contingent reason. That reason must be permanent or eternal and not something contingent. And if it isn't contingent then it must be...

It cannot fail to exist because there is no alternative, and because it is eternal and because non existence is only possible if there is this, the reason for it's possibility. I think you have been treating non existence as some kind of default, starting, baseline condition here. Where it is an alternative there has to be a reason why it hasn't occurred. It is not an alternative to that reason.

You should have worked all that out yourself instead of pulling my plonker all this time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

Contradiction alert! Not that it really matters in this sea of gibberish, but something that's outside time, cannot possibly act..

Mere assertion, Kindly demonstrate.

[Stranger]

Nothing rather than the universe is a possibility. A Nothing though would have to be a permanent situation though there has to be a reason then why there is a universe and not nothing(non existence). So that establishes a non contingent reason. That reason must be permanent or eternal and not something contingent. And if it isn't contingent then it must be...

Perfect description of an unexplained brute fact. The only reason that there is not nothing (even though you claim it was possible) is because of something (that might not have have existed because of the possibility of nothing). Once again you've misunderstood the concept you're trying to argue for. A 'necessary entity' is supposed to make nothing an impossibility - go back and look at the link you provided. And, of course, the existence of the universe itself would do just fine by itself as the (unexplained, might not have existed) reason that something exists rather than nothing.

[Stranger]

Mere assertion, Kindly demonstrate.

You can 'easily' refute it. All you have to do is perform some action, say replying to this post, without using any time. I recognise that some of your posts look as if you've not used any time to think about them, but you would certainly have required time to type and press 'Post'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perfect description of an unexplained brute fact. The only reason that there is not nothing (even though you claim it was possible) is because of something (that might not have have existed because of the possibility of nothing). Once again you've misunderstood the concept you're trying to argue for. A 'necessary entity' is supposed to make nothing an impossibility - go back and look at the link you provided.

How might the necessary entity not exist since it is the necessary reason for why non existence doesn't exist. it isn't possible for nonexistence to exist. If you think it is go ahead.

In any case if it were a brute fact and I don't agree it is.(I've given you a demonstration of a brute fact in Russell) so what?

You are prepared to accept Russell's brute fact.

It is after all the argument from contingency or the principle of sufficient reason. It establishes a non contingent entity on which all things are dependent and that's as far as a non naturalistic philosophy need to go

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can 'easily' refute it. All you have to do is perform some action, say replying to this post, without using any time. I recognise that some of your posts look as if you've not used any time to think about them, but you would certainly have required time to type and press 'Post'.

But God is at the base of all heirarchies, the ground of our being on which everything depends moment by moment. So how can he fail to act through anything?