Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No my contention is that all we see is contingent and all we are predicting to see is contingent and demonstrates no necessity. In other words science deals with contingency

It’s by no means certain that “all we see” is contingent, but even if it was so what?

And to throw your obvious error into the mix, I do not propose that God created himself, creating yourself may be as absurd as some of the other stuff you come out with. God necessarily exists. Nothing comes from nothing, since there is something it must have always existed.

Straw manning me isn’t identifying an “obvious error”. I’ve made no comment at all on the (supposed) characteristics of your faith belief “god”.   

So it is down to existence or non existence Hillside. There are undoubtedly things you are looking at which were at one point non existent, everything in fact...unless you can point to something that cannot fail to have existed. Similarly all you can observe may not exist in future, science tells us that.. That is the universe i'm talking about.....The contingent universe...what universe are you talking about?

The argument from contingency nor PSR argue that there need be a first cause as in say, the Kalam Cosmological and is as good for a universe that has been there forever as one that hasn't since God is the answer to why something rather than nothing?

The question remains then what is the reason for the contingent universe? On what is it contingent? Oh it's the contingency of things which is hard for you to get round.

Your repeated ducking and diving is noted. Back to the point though, I have no obligation to argue for a contingent universe, a sufficient one or anything in between. The problem here remains that you’re the one asserting that the universe must be contingent on something else remember?

As that’s your claim, then it’s your job to justify it. If you can do that without collapsing into fallacies again then well and good. If you can't do that or if you keep running away from the problem though that tells us all we need to know.

It’s your call.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How can that be my contention when I concede that the universe could have a necessary aspect?

Nice weasel wording: by "I concede that the universe could have a necessary aspect" are you saying that some part of it may be necessary but still asserting some other part necessarily must be contingent on something else, or are you now conceding that the universe itself could be its own explanation after all?   

The trouble is that if it is a necessary aspect it  it is not contingent and that is your problem since you propose a universe as defined by science and physics

Could you try at least to lie a little less - it's just tedious. I'm content to phrase it as Russell did: why can't the universe be its own explanation? It's your assertion that it can't be so it's (still) your job to justify your claim.

Why is this burden of proof thing so hard for you to grasp?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s by no means certain that “all we see” is contingent, but even if it was so what?

Straw manning me isn’t identifying an “obvious error”. I’ve made no comment at all on the (supposed) characteristics of your faith belief “god”.   

Your repeated ducking and diving is noted. Back to the point though, I have no obligation to argue for a contingent universe, a sufficient one or anything in between. The problem here remains that you’re the one asserting that the universe must be contingent on something else remember?

As that’s your claim, then it’s your job to justify it. If you can do that without collapsing into fallacies again then well and good. If you can't do that or if you keep running away from the problem though that tells us all we need to know.

It’s your call. 

There is no ducking and diving on my part You have evaded committing to a definition of the universe Is it the contingent universe? Is it a universe of contingency and necessity is it a universe of where the contingent is also necessary (absurd) is it a composite necessity (absurd) did it create itself(absurd) Is it an infinite regression( Not any kind of solution) This evasion is what's dodgy what's wheeler dealer whats so very Essex what looks like you hardly know what you are talking about

Let me say this again The universe under some kind of definition may have a necessary aspect but that cannot be contingent

I'm afraid I'm going to have to check out My fullstop has stopped working       

[Stranger]

No my contention is that all we see is contingent and all we are predicting to see is contingent and demonstrates no necessity. In other words science deals with contingency

Firstly, you have still never answered the question as to what you think the whole space-time is contingent on, and, secondly, the whole concept of a 'necessary entity' is just pointless intellectual masturbation, until and unless, somebody explains exactly how it is possible for something to be its own reason for existing.

It is at least as much of an absurdity as all the other things you keep on telling other people that they support, like infinite regress, causal loops, etc..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no ducking and diving on my part…

There absolutely is. Look, I’ll show you (again):

Justify your assertion "the universe must have been caused by something other than itself" without collapsing into fallacies or just running away.

Go!

Let the ducking and diving (re)commence…!

You have evaded committing to a definition of the universe Is it the contingent universe? Is it a universe of contingency and necessity is it a universe of where the contingent is also necessary (absurd) is it a composite necessity (absurd) did it create itself(absurd) Is it an infinite regression( Not any kind of solution) This evasion is what's dodgy what's wheeler dealer whats so very Essex what looks like you hardly know what you are talking about

Let me say this again The universe under some kind of definition may have a necessary aspect but that cannot be contingent

I'm afraid I'm going to have to check out My fullstop has stopped working

Trying to shift the burden of proof again doesn’t get you off the hook. All I need is a “don’t know” (because I'm not the one making the claim needing justification here remember?); what you need on the other hand though is an argument to justify your claim.

Try to remember this.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem here remains that you’re the one asserting that the universe must be contingent on something else remember?
 

No I am saying contingent things have to be contingent on something else and all of what we observe is contingent If we can observe anything quantum theory tells us that if we observe something we affect it

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I am saying contingent things have to be contingent on something else and all of what we observe is contingent If we can observe anything quantum theory tells us that if we observe something we affect it

Yet still you can't muster up even a scintilla of an argument to demonstrate that the universe itself is contingent.

That's your problem remember?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There absolutely is. Look, I’ll show you (again):

Justify your assertion "the universe must have been caused by something other than itself" without collapsing into fallacies or just running away.

Go!

Let the ducking and diving (re)commence…!

Trying to shift the burden of proof again doesn’t get you off the hook. All I need is a “don’t know” (because I'm not the one making the claim needing justification here remember?); what you need on the other hand though is an argument to justify your claim.

Try to remember this.   

I am not on the hook and I've justified everything i've said You misrepresented my position and goodness knows what the default position you are claiming is What is it I have I got to prove? That everything contingent depends for it's existence on something else Don't be stupid

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am not on the hook…

For as long as you assert that the universe itself must be contingent on something else but cannot justify that assertion then yes you are.

…and I've justified everything i've said…

Very funny. You can’t just lie your way out of the problem either. I’ve asked you several times now to justify your assertion, so far with no success at all.

You misrepresented my position and goodness knows what the default position you are claiming is

I’ve done no such thing. Either you think the universe itself must be caused by something else or you don’t. I think you do, albeit that you can’t tell us why – where’s the misrepresentation there? 

What is it I have I got to prove?

Justify, not prove – and you need to justify your assertion “the universe itself must be contingent on something other than itself” without collapsing into one or more fallacious arguments.

That everything contingent depends for it's existence on something else…

No, that the universe itself necessarily is contingent. Do try to follow this will you?

Don't be stupid

That’s another irony meter in tiny pieces all over the floor then…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

For as long as you assert that the universe itself must be contingent on something else but cannot justify that assertion then yes you are.

Very funny. You can’t just lie your way out of the problem either. I’ve asked you several times now to justify your assertion, so far with no success at all.

I’ve done no such thing. Either you think the universe itself must be caused by something else or you don’t. I think you do, albeit that you can’t tell us why – where’s the misrepresentation there? 

Justify, not prove – and you need to justify your assertion “the universe itself must be contingent on something other than itself” without collapsing into one or more fallacious arguments.

No, that the universe itself necessarily is contingent. Do try to follow this will you?

That’s another irony meter in tiny pieces all over the floor then…

I can't make out whether you are proposing that a contingent is contingent on itself.i.e.necessary without actually committing yourself  to saying it or what.

The default position here is surely that the universe is contingent rather than the universe is necessary.

No one has demonstrated anything in the universe that necessarily exists.

But you keep misrepresenting my position which is all we can observe is contingent. There might be something necessary. But it cannot be contingent.

If the observable universe is contingent then you cannot turdpolish away the inevitable question, not even with all the turdpolish in the oasthouses of Saffron Waldon......
"On what is it all contingent?

Have a nice day.

[Stranger]

The default position here is surely that the universe is contingent rather than the universe is necessary.

The default position is that a 'necessary entity' means about as much as a 'magic entity' until and unless you can explain exactly how something can be its own reason for existing. Otherwise, it's just so much white noise, not even wrong gibberish.

And you still haven't said what you think the whole universe (space-time) is supposed to be contingent on. The universe does not appear to be contingent at all, as far as I can see. neither do I accept "it must be magic, innit?" as an answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can't make out whether you are proposing that a contingent is contingent on itself.i.e.necessary without actually committing yourself  to saying it or what.

That’s because I’m not proposing anything – you are. I don’t know whether the universe is its own explanation, or whether it was caused by something else (though I do know that “it’s magic innit” wouldn’t get you off the hook of the same question about a “something else”) and nor so far as I’m aware does anyone else know that either. You on the other hand claim that you do know – your first cause “argument” rests fundamentally on your claim that the universe necessarily was caused by something else, albeit that no matter how many times you’re asked you’ll never tell us why you think that.

In other words the burden of proof here is yours, not mine. Try to remember this.

The default position here is surely that the universe is contingent rather than the universe is necessary.

Not without relying on the fallacy of composition it isn’t. If you think you have a non-fallacious argument to support that contention though (you know – the thing I keep asking you for and you keep running way from) then why not finally tell us what it is?

No one has demonstrated anything in the universe that necessarily exists.

That’s debatable, but in any case so what?

But you keep misrepresenting my position which is all we can observe is contingent. There might be something necessary. But it cannot be contingent.

I haven’t misrepresented your position at all, and it would help if you would stop misrepresenting me by claiming that I have. If you persist in thinking I’m wrong about that though, then just find even one example of me doing it (clue: there aren’t any).

If the observable universe is contingent then you cannot turdpolish away the inevitable question, not even with all the turdpolish in the oasthouses of Saffron Waldon......
"On what is it all contingent?

And IF my Auntie had wheels she’d be a bicycle. You’re not attempting an “if” though are you – you’re attempting an “is”: “the universe IS caused by something else”.

Your continuing problem though remains that, no matter how often you’re asked for it, you won’t even try to justify that assertion. 

Have a nice day.

Always.

[Alan Burns]

Again, I'll ask the question: what do you imagine you're achieving here with all this mindless repetition? Are you actually trying to make yourself look like an idiot and your faith look absurd?

My intention is simply to remove the false barrier to faith in thinking that current scientific knowledge can be used to dismiss the need for God.  I am not trying to use science to prove God's existence - I am simply offering a means to open the door to allow God into your life and not use false ideas to dismiss the possibility that God exists.  God does not force Himself on us - we need to use our gift of free will to freely accept Him into our lives.  So I will continue to suffer the accusations of being an idiot, dim, stupid, mindless ... etc in my endeavour to witness to the simple truth that we have the God given freedom to choose our own destiny and that science offers no barriers to our Christian faith.

In essence, I am trying to open the door to belief in the eternal salvation of the human soul.

Out of interest, what is your ultimate intention for posting on this forum?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My intention is simply to remove the false barrier to faith in thinking that current scientific knowledge can be used to dismiss the need for God.

“Current scientific knowledge” doesn’t do that. It just shows the claims of the religious to be wrong when those claims rely on faith for scientific statements.

I am not trying to use science to prove God's existence –

No, but you are attempting to use logic to do that (albeit incompetently), and when that fails you simply claim that logic itself isn’t up to the job but never tell us what method to justify the claim "God" you’d propose to use instead.

I am simply offering a means to open the door to allow God into your life…

What “means”? Just repeating your unqualified assertions that there is a god at all isn’t a means, it’s just assertions.

…and not use false ideas to dismiss the possibility that God exists.

Have you ever known anyone here to “dismiss the possibility that God exists”? I haven’t.

God does not force Himself on us - we need to use our gift of free will to freely accept Him into our lives.

Blind faith claims.

So I will continue to suffer the accusations of being an idiot, dim, stupid, mindless ... etc in my endeavour to simply witness to the simple truth that we have the God given freedom to choose our own destiny and that science offers no barriers to our Christian faith.

You’re not “witnessing”, you’re asserting and that’s not a “simple truth” either – it’s just another of your blind faith claims. And accusations of idiocy etc are made in sheer exasperation at your dishonesty when refusing ever to engage with the arguments that undo you.

Try to understand this. It might help you avoid more mistakes in future.   

[Stranger]

My intention is simply to remove the false barrier to faith in thinking that current scientific knowledge can be used to dismiss the need for God.

Once again you seem to have no grasp at all of what people are saying - or perhaps you're just not paying attention. I have literally never seen anybody here claim that science can dismiss the idea of a god. Never. Your problem is that you, and other theists, have given us no reason at all to take the idea of a god at all seriously.

Belief in god(s), or anything else, for that matter, is not a question of finding reasons not to believe in, it's a question of what reason do we have to accept them or take them at all seriously.

I mean, do you just accept anything anybody claims until you've found some reason to dismiss it? If so, you must be very busy dismissing all the various conspiracy theories, quack medicine, fake moon landing, alien abductions, and so on.

What's more, you have made ambitious claims of having "sound logic" to support the idea that minds must involve god-magic, so your statement here doesn't actually align with your other posts in which you claim evidence and logic can lead people to your conclusion.

As if that wasn't bad enough, your comical and inept attempts at justification are a massive reason to run a mile from your notion of god, because it appears to require you to believe nonsense and has clearly reduced somebody who is supposed to have a doctorate and be a Mensa member to posting illogical drivel.

...we need to use our gift of free will to freely accept Him into our lives.

Regardless of all the other problems with 'free will', I most definitely have no free will at all to do that, as you've made the idea even less believable to me than it was before. I can't force myself to believe something I find absurd. Just try to use your 'free will' to 'accept' that (say) the Earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese, to get some idea of why I have no 'free will' to accept the absurdities of your version of god.

In essence, I am trying to open the door to belief in the eternal salvation of the human soul.

You're achieving exactly the opposite. Posting idiotic 'arguments', and avoiding at all costs answering simple questions, is only going to put thinking people off. Why, for example, did you claim "sound logic" to support your arguments and are now running away from even confirming if you still think that you do have such logic or not?

In what way, in your bizarre world, do you think posting nonsense 'arguments' while claiming logic, vacuous claims of 'evidence', and endless evasion of anything you find difficult to answer, is ever going to 'open the door' to people accepting what you say?

[ProfessorDavey]

... and not use false ideas to dismiss the possibility that God exists.

Is there anyone on this MB that dismissed the possibility that god exists. Certainly not me - that's why I describe myself as both agnostic - in other words I do not know that god does not exist, but I am also atheist - I do not believe that god exists on the basis that I have never seen any credible evidence to support the notion that god exists.

So I do not dismiss the possibility that god exists.

So over to you AB, for balance. Do you accept the possibility that god does not exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Is there anyone on this MB that dismissed the possibility that god exists. Certainly not me - that's why I describe myself as both agnostic - in other words I do not know that god does not exist, but I am also atheist - I do not believe that god exists on the basis that I have never seen any credible evidence to support the notion that god exists.

So I do not dismiss the possibility that god exists.

So over to you AB, for balance. Do you accept the possibility that god does not exist?

Assuming he hasn’t changed his mind, I can answer that. He’s told us before that he doesn’t accept that possibility at all, no matter what arguments are put to him. His is the very definition of a closed mind.

One of the various contradictions in Alan’s position though is that he says he can use argument (ie, logic) to demonstrate his “god” (albeit that his grasp of logic is too poor to construct a cogent argument for that) but in the same breath he’ll dismiss out of hand the conclusions that sound arguments lead to if they contradict his faith beliefs. It’s all a bit rum, but there it is nonetheless.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

Assuming he hasn’t changed his mind, I can answer that. He’s told us before that he doesn’t accept that possibility at all, no matter what arguments are put to him. His is the very definition of a closed mind.

Indeed - it was somewhat a rhetorical question.

But important to pose as unless AB indicates that he is willing to accept the possibility that god does not exist then he is demonstrating gross double standards. Effectively chastising atheists for not being prepared to accept the possibility that god does exist, while himself refusing to accept the possibility that god does not exist.

And, of course, he is also badly wrong on his assumption that people like me, and I think others on this MB, aren't prepared to accept the possibility that god exists. I am prepared to accept that as a possibility, but until or unless credible evidence arises for the existence of god I will continue not to believe in the existence of god or gods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s because I’m not proposing anything – you are. I don’t know whether the universe is its own explanation, or whether it was caused by something else (though I do know that “it’s magic innit” wouldn’t get you off the hook of the same question about a “something else”) and nor so far as I’m aware does anyone else know that either. You on the other hand claim that you do know – your first cause “argument” rests fundamentally on your claim that the universe necessarily was caused by something else, albeit that no matter how many times you’re asked you’ll never tell us why you think that.

In other words the burden of proof here is yours, not mine. Try to remember this.

Not without relying on the fallacy of composition it isn’t. If you think you have a non-fallacious argument to support that contention though (you know – the thing I keep asking you for and you keep running way from) then why not finally tell us what it is?

That’s debatable, but in any case so what?

I haven’t misrepresented your position at all, and it would help if you would stop misrepresenting me by claiming that I have. If you persist in thinking I’m wrong about that though, then just find even one example of me doing it (clue: there aren’t any).

And IF my Auntie had wheels she’d be a bicycle. You’re not attempting an “if” though are you – you’re attempting an “is”: “the universe IS caused by something else”.

Your continuing problem though remains that, no matter how often you’re asked for it, you won’t even try to justify that assertion. 

Always.

It seems to me Hillside that you are saying you have no burden here. But a contingent universe is the default position here. Indeed it is an implication of that other great default position, the non existence of the supernatural. Since you are opposing the default position here then you know what you have to do.
Having got over that one can legitimately ask the questions what is it about the universe that is necessary?
What is the universe contingent on?

A prior question could be what do you mean by the universe. Since you've declined responsibility to provide this I guess it may be on me to define what I mean by it......and what I mean by it is the contingent universe.....which happens to be the default universe anyway.

Fallacy of composition? sometimes the whole does share the property of the parts. So that isn't much help to you. You cannot have an emerged necessary entity which would be more than the sum of it's parts, that would be an absurdity under your own view of how emergence works.
A universe which has contingent and necessary elements does not produce the fallacy of composition but the contingent and the necessary cannot be the same entity. All in all things favour a contingent universe.......which is the default in any case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It seems to me Hillside that you are saying you have no burden here.

Finally!

But a contingent universe is the default position here.

Again, without collapsing once more into the fallacy of composition WHY do you think that?

Just telling us what you think but never why you think it is worthless. Try to remember this.

Indeed it is an implication of that other great default position, the non existence of the supernatural.

No it isn’t – they’re two different categories of statement, and in any case it's irrelevant to your claim about a necessarily contingent universe remember?

Since you are opposing the default position here then you know what you have to do.

I don’t have to do anything. You on the other hand are claiming that the universe must be caused by something else, so it’s STILL your job to justify your claim.

Having got over that one can legitimately ask the questions what is it about the universe that is necessary?

You can ask that if you want to but, as I explained to you very clearly, that’s not a position I take so you’re on your own with it.
 

What is the universe contingent on?

As you’ve yet to justify your claim that it is contingent (despite numerous times of asking) the question is meaningless.

A prior question could be what do you mean by the universe. Since you've declined responsibility to provide this I guess it may be on me to define what I mean by it......and what I mean by it is the contingent universe.....which happens to be the default universe anyway.

So the universe is contingent because you choose to define it as contingent? Give your head a wobble willya?

So after you latest bout of ducking and diving, and yet again (albeit with increasing weariness): DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT ASSERT THE UNIVERSE ITSELF TO BE NECESSARILY CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

If no, that’s your first cause argument dead in the water.

If yes, then FINALLY put us out of our misery and justify the assertion (preferably without collapsing into one or several logical fallacies).

Why is this so difficult for you to answer?   

[Alan Burns]

Is there anyone on this MB that dismissed the possibility that god exists. Certainly not me - that's why I describe myself as both agnostic - in other words I do not know that god does not exist, but I am also atheist - I do not believe that god exists on the basis that I have never seen any credible evidence to support the notion that god exists.

So I do not dismiss the possibility that god exists.

So over to you AB, for balance. Do you accept the possibility that god does not exist?

In retrospect I used poor wording - I should have used "probability" rather than "possibility" - apologies for this.

In answer to your question, I would say that the probability that God does not exist is an excellent definition of absolute zero.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Fallacy of composition? sometimes the whole does share the property of the parts.

Yes, but your claim isn’t a “sometimes”, it’s a “this time” as in “the universe is necessarily contingent on something other than itself”. It's a definite claim, not a might be claim.

Try to remember this.

So that isn't much help to you.

Yes it does – see above. You blundered into and were schooled on the fallacy of composition when you tried it a while back, so now you’re sufficiently aware of it to avoid the same trap twice but at the same time you have nothing else to justify your claim (which is why you’re reduced to “surelys” etc).

You cannot have an emerged necessary entity which would be more than the sum of it's parts the sum of it's parts, that would be an absurdity under your own view of how emergence works.

You’ve collapsed int gibberish again. An emergent phenomenon merely has characteristics that its components do not have (“the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” in colloquial parlance). This doesn’t help you here though.
 

A universe which has contingent and necessary elements does not produce the fallacy of composition but the contingent and the necessary cannot be the same entity. All in all things favour a contingent universe.......which is the default in any case.

What on earth are you even trying to say here? Either you assert the universe to be contingent on something else or you don’t. If you don’t, that's your first cause argument for god  gone; if you do, then why not FINALLY tell us why.

Put up or shut up – you choose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In retrospect I used poor wording - I should have used "probability" rather than "possibility" - apologies for this.

In answer to your question, I would say that the probability that God does not exist is an excellent definition of absolute zero.

Or, to put it another way, no argument no matter how sound could ever be allowed to shake you from your faith belief about that.

Is that right?

[ProfessorDavey]

In answer to your question, I would say that the probability that God does not exist is an excellent definition of absolute zero.

So you expect atheists to accept the possibility of god existing (which by the way by and large we all do) yet you refuse to accept (i.e. a probability of zero) the possibility that god does not exist.

Astonishing double standards and also astonishingly levels of arrogance as you approach is effectively 'I am right and you all must accept that I am right too'.

At least the rest of us have the humility to accept that we could be wrong (i.e. that god does exist) while you refuse to accept that you might be wrong (i.e. that god does not exist). Hmmm.

[ProfessorDavey]

In retrospect I used poor wording - I should have used "probability" rather than "possibility" - apologies for this.

But that makes no sense as probability ranges from 0 (i.e. god definitely does not exist) through to 1 (i.e. god definitely does exist). So both you and I both have to accept that there is a probability (somewhere between 0 and 1) that god exists.

The issue is possibility - in other words do I accept that the probability that god exists might be greater than 0 (i.e. the possibility that god could exist). And indeed I do - I do not believe that god exists but I have no proof of that so the probability isn't definitely 0. The corollary being whether you accept that the probability that god exists might be less that 1. Yet despite the fact that you have no more proof than I do you arrogantly assert that this probability is definitely 1.

Hey, ho - blind faith and humility don't go hand in hand.