Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is different about that nature of that thing that it isn't contingent? Why does it need to be not contingent upon something for the account to work?

O.

It is unique.After it no other entities are necessary vis Ockhams razor.
It is not dependent on having parts, it isn’t a mechanism
It is not existentially dependent on externals
It is not directed by externals
It is at the bottom of all physical hierarchies whether temporal or existential.

To answer the second part of your question. Let me take an example that was offered in order to have a system without any non contingent entities.

A gives rise to B
B gives rise to C
C gives rise to D
D gives rise to A

This makes each actually non contingent since they are dependent on their own existence. The argument is therefore self defeating.
Secondly it gives rise to the problem of “why that number of entities”?
There also remains

[jeremyp]

It is unique.After it no other entities are necessary vis Ockhams razor.
It is not dependent on having parts, it isn’t a mechanism
It is not existentially dependent on externals
It is not directed by externals
It is at the bottom of all physical hierarchies whether temporal or existential

Ockham's razor tells us that the obvious choice for the non contingent thing is the Universe itself. Positing a god is multiplying entities.

To answer the second part of your question. Let me take an example that was offered in order to have a system without any non contingent entities.

A gives rise to B
B gives rise to C
C gives rise to D
D gives rise to A

This makes each actually non contingent since they are dependent on their own existence. The argument is therefore self defeating.

Incorrect analysis.

All it shows is that the necessary/contingent division is a false dichotomy and that there are other options.

Secondly it gives rise to the problem of “why that number of entities”?

So what?

There also remains

Indeed there does.

[Alan Burns]

Why has the "Searching for God" topic attracted magnitudes more posts than any other thread on this forum?
Could it be that many of these posters are actually searching for God - even if they do not realise it?

[Nearly Sane]

Why has the "Searching for God" topic attracted magnitudes more posts than any other thread on this forum?
Could it be that many of these posters are actually searching for God - even if they do not realise it?

It could. Could it mean that there is nothing to find?

[SteveH]

Why has the "Searching for God" topic attracted magnitudes more posts than any other thread on this forum?
Could it be that many of these posters are actually searching for God - even if they do not realise it?

Because the whole thread just goes round and round and round and round in circles, ad bloody infinitum, the same old arguments being made and refuted again and again.

[ProfessorDavey]

A gives rise to B
B gives rise to C
C gives rise to D
D gives rise to A

This makes each actually non contingent since they are dependent on their own existence. The argument is therefore self defeating.

No it isn't - it is perfectly plausible to have a net-work of interdependent entities, none of which is non contingent, but all are necessary for the existence of the others.

[Outrider]

It is unique.After it no other entities are necessary vis Ockhams razor.
It is not dependent on having parts, it isn’t a mechanism
It is not existentially dependent on externals
It is not directed by externals
It is at the bottom of all physical hierarchies whether temporal or existential.

So you don't have any evidence for this thing, you are deducing its existence here, unless I'm mistaken? In which case your argument lacks two critical elements - you've not shown that it's necessary to have a non-contingent 'start point', and even if you accept that there is/might be one, you've failed to demonstrate why it should be this.

To answer the second part of your question. Let me take an example that was offered in order to have a system without any non contingent entities.

A gives rise to B
B gives rise to C
C gives rise to D
D gives rise to A

This makes each actually non contingent since they are dependent on their own existence.

Surely, it makes them contingent, because if any element of the loop were missing it wouldn't work.

The argument is therefore self defeating.

I don't see why, it's an explanation that doesn't require a start point but doesn't appear to fall foul of the 'infinite regress' that seems to cause such consternation.

Secondly it gives rise to the problem of “why that number of entities”?

Only if the claim is that there is are definitively four - if it's a conceptual demonstration of a loop of causality it's representative, not definitive.

There also remains

There does, but it either rides a bicycle...

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Surely, it makes them contingent, because if any element of the loop were missing it wouldn't work.

They are all both necessary and contingent at the same time. Perfectly plausible in a network.

[Nearly Sane]

They are all both necessary and contingent at the same time. Perfectly plausible in a network.

Part of the problem here is that Vlad uses terms that he doesn't define, and appears not to understand. Given he's trying to use the argument from contingency, if one is applying that logic something cannot be necessary and contingent.

[Spud]

But if you're going to continue this bizarre episode of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, you might compare the narratives in Mark 16 and Matthew 28, where Mark states that the women were "bewildered and afraid", whereas Matthew also has the words "but joyful". The fact that the women were filled with joy is quite obviously the central idea in the significance of the Resurrection for Christians, but Mark leaves it out. According to your ideas on the order of the gospels, Mark would have had to deliberately suppress it. Unlikely, I think.

I can't answer this point yet, but I will say this: like Luke, Mark says that the women entered the tomb. Matthew doesn't explicitly say that they entered it, though he implies that they saw where the body had been.
Accordingly, in Mark 16:8 the women 'went out' from the tomb, and in Matthew they 'went away' from the tomb
So if Matthew was dependent on Mark, why this difference, why doesn't he describe them going in and going out of the tomb. But if Mark is dependent on Matthew and Luke, then this is evident in the way he has conflated them, taking from Luke that they went in (and subsequently went out), and from Matthew that they went away (but changing it to 'went out').
In other words, Mark writes 'exelthousai': this being a conflation of Luke's reference to the women entering the tomb, and of Matthew's word for going from the tomb,  'apelthousai'.
It is unlikely that if Luke and Matthew used Mark, Luke would chose to include the women going into the tomb, and not chose to include Mark's verb erchomai, while Matthew would chose the opposite.
Mark's omission of the women's joy is puzzling, but not indicative of Markan priority.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ockham's razor tells us that the obvious choice for the non contingent thing is the Universe itself. Positing a god is multiplying entities.Incorrect analysis.

It does not tell us that. Your definition of the razor is incomplete since the razor actually tells us not to multiply entities beyond necessity.
You are actually contending that the universe is that final, necessary entity. So far you have not demonstrated how the universe is that final, ultimate entity or even how it can be counted as an entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is perfectly plausible to have a net-work of interdependent entities, none of which is non contingent, but all are necessary for the existence of the others.

Demonstrate such a network.

One immediate issue here is the application of Ockhams razor. Is the network one entity or is it several. Is there sleight of hand where it’s one or the other as it suits your argument?

What this network demonstrates, is things,simultaneously, existing because they exist (things never cause themselves, they don’t need to) and are somehow dependent on another entity for their existence. That all seems doubly absurd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It does not tell us that. Your definition of the razor is incomplete since it actually tells us not to multiply entities beyond necessity.
You are actually contending that the universe is that final, necessary entity. So far you have not demonstrated how the universe is that final, ultimate entity or even how it can be counted as an entity.

Yes,I may have “misspoke”. I am using the argument from contingency which clearly differentiates between contingent and non contingent.

Davey’s scheme has things giving rise to themselves and simultaneously existing because of something other than themselves. The two problems with that should be plain and plainly having your cake and eat it.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes,I may have “misspoke”. I am using the argument from contingency which clearly differentiates between contingent and non contingent.

Davey’s scheme has things giving rise to themselves and simultaneously existing because of something other than themselves. The two problems with that should be plain and plainly having your cake and eat it.

I think you were trying to reply to my reply to Prof D?
If so then I suggest you drop the term non contingent since in terms of the much flawed argument by contingency there is only contingent and necessary things, and non contingent just adds confusion. I'd also suggest you lay out a clear definition of contingent and necessary since dependent on the formulation of the arguments by contingency necessary things can be caused by other necessary things.

Note, the problems with Prof D's extrapolation of what was your scheme are circularly created by definition rather than demonstrated. The basic problem with the argument from contingency is it's a set of assertions, and nothing more.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you were trying to reply to my reply to Prof D?
If so then I suggest you drop the term non contingent since in terms of the much flawed argument by contingency there is only contingent and necessary things, and non contingent just adds confusion. I'd also suggest you lay out a clear definition of contingent and necessary since dependent on the formulation of the arguments by contingency necessary things can be caused by other necessary things.

Note, the problems with Prof D's extrapolation of what was your scheme are circularly created by definition rather than demonstrated. The basic problem with the argument from contingency is it's a set of assertions, and nothing more.

Another attempt to debunk the principle of sufficient reason by means of the principle of sufficient reason?

[Nearly Sane]

Another attempt to debunk the principle of sufficient reason by means of the principle of sufficient reason?

No. Just pointing out that the principle of sufficient reason is an assertion. That isn't using the principle of sufficient reason. If you think it is, you don't sufficiently understand reason.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you don't have any evidence for this thing, you are deducing its existence here, unless I'm mistaken? In which case your argument lacks two critical elements - you've not shown that it's necessary to have a non-contingent 'start point', and even if you accept that there is/might be one, you've failed to demonstrate why it should be this.

The ‘evidence’ is the existence of contingent things. That’s why it’s called the argument from contingency Contingency demands an answer to the question ‘contingent on what’. Others have suggested that the thing which is non contingent is the universe. I didn’t see you come in on that.
you haven’t seemed to have noticed being in a loop makes them contingent on themselves and you cannot be contingent on yourself( you must exist anyway) AND be existentially contingent on something other than yourself.
Surely, it makes them contingent, because if any element of the loop were missing it wouldn't work.

I don't see why, it's an explanation that doesn't require a start point but doesn't appear to fall foul of the 'infinite regress' that seems to cause such consternation.

No it doesn’t depend on infinite regress but introduces a couple of absurdities.

[jeremyp]

It does not tell us that. Your definition of the razor is incomplete since the razor actually tells us not to multiply entities beyond necessity.

Well done for actually knowing the correct definition.

If I arbitrarily imbue the Universe itself with not needing to be created (as you do with your god), I have a hypothesis with exactly as much explanatory power as yours but with one less entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well done for actually knowing the correct definition.

If I arbitrarily imbue the Universe itself with not needing to be created (as you do with your god), I have a hypothesis with exactly as much explanatory power as yours but with one less entity.

You haven't eliminated the possibility that you are just calling a contingent a necessary entity , the intellectual equivalent of pointing to something and saying "necessary entity.". Just having the least number of steps isn't Ockham's razor, it's eliminative reductionism of the worst kind.
And that's before we get to you not defining what you mean by the universe or whether we are to treat it as one entity or several entities.

There are several features of a necessary being

There can only be one ultimate one.
Being made of parts compromises that ultimate.


So those two conditions disqualify the universe.

[Nearly Sane]

You haven't eliminated the possibility that you are just calling a contingent a necessary entity , the intellectual equivalent of pointing to something and saying "necessary entity.". Just having the least number of steps isn't Ockham's razor, it's eliminative reductionism of the worst kind.
And that's before we get to you not defining what you mean by the universe or whether we are to treat it as one entity or several entities.

There are several features of a necessary being

There can only be one ultimate one.
Being made of parts compromises that ultimate.


So those two conditions disqualify the universe.

Oh look, more assertions.

[Outrider]

The ‘evidence’ is the existence of contingent things. That’s why it’s called the argument from contingency Contingency demands an answer to the question ‘contingent on what’.

I'm aware of the argument from contingency, and one of the weaknesses of it has always been the fact that it just asserts that contingency can't keep going back - it might just be turtles all the way down.

Others have suggested that the thing which is non contingent is the universe. I didn’t see you come in on that.

I don't need to, it's not my argument, and is addressing a different aspect of your case that I'm not trying to deal with. I'm suggesting that, before we consider what the necessary element might be, we need to establish that there is a need for a necessary element in the first place.

you haven’t seemed to have noticed being in a loop makes them contingent on themselves and you cannot be contingent on yourself( you must exist anyway) AND be existentially contingent on something other than yourself.

I can see the argument, and I can see that it might be interpreted either way, but that was an aside on my part, it's not really a large part of the case I'm trying to make here.

Surely, it makes them contingent, because if any element of the loop were missing it wouldn't work.

It would stop working, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been working previously.

No it doesn’t depend on infinite regress but introduces a couple of absurdities.

That it feels absurd isn't necessarily a strong argument, given how far outside of the bounds of what our brains have evolved to consider these sorts of concepts lie.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh look, more assertions.

That there is a final ultimate entity is implied in Ockham’s razor. There is an appeal by others to Ockham’s razor for that singular entity to be the universe. You have let that pass.
The principle of sufficient reason would have us ask, if we were down to two entities, “why two entities?” The effective reason for that would then be the final, ultimate entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm aware of the argument from contingency, and one of the weaknesses of it has always been the fact that it just asserts that contingency can't keep going back - it might just be turtles all the way down.

No, contingency always demands the question contingent on what. That introduces necessity but not the requirement for everything to be contingent. Where do you get that from?

[ProfessorDavey]

That there is a final ultimate entity is implied in Ockham’s razor. There is an appeal by others to Ockham’s razor for that singular entity to be the universe. You have let that pass.
The principle of sufficient reason would have us ask, if we were down to two entities, “why two entities?” The effective reason for that would then be the final, ultimate entity.

But that ends up in either infinite regress or special pleading.

I suspect we need more nuanced and sophisticated thinking than the simplistic and unevidenced assertions of Ockham and sufficient reason. As I have been banging on for ages, both are predicated on the naive notion of 'before'/'after' which assumes time to be constant and unilinear and we have considerable evidence that it is not.

[Nearly Sane]

That there is a final ultimate entity is implied in Ockham’s razor. There is an appeal by others to Ockham’s razor for that singular entity to be the universe. You have let that pass.
The principle of sufficient reason would have us ask, if we were down to two entities, “why two entities?” The effective reason for that would then be the final, ultimate entity.

Oh look, whataboutery, and assertion.