Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 notions 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.

special pleading. How can resolution of the absurdity of everything being contingent be an example of special pleading? I view your comment like I would the suggestion that 1+1=2 is specially pleading 2.

Absolutely everything being contingent would end up in an infinite regress but absolutely everything being contingent is an absurdity. What is it that dictates everything is contingent then, if you can’t see how absurd the idea is?

There has been a simple and unnuanced version of Ockham’s razor used here, That of Jeremy P where he left out the term necessary.

Regards to time. The argument from contingency doesn’t depend on time but contingency.
Does it matter which way time’s arrow is going for that? Probably not?

If you think a nuanced rebuttal is available please provide it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Regards to time. The argument from contingency doesn’t depend on time but contingency.
Does it matter which way time’s arrow is going for that? Probably not?

Of course it does - contingency implies that x is required for y to exist and therefore that x needs to exist before y. And clearly y cannot exist 'before' x exists. So in this situation y is contingent on x. But if time runs backwards then y may very well exist before x and indeed you may conclude the reverse - that y is required for x to exist and therefore that x is contingent on y.

Pretty well all the simplistic - x is created by y, y is created by z assertions are based on a fundamental assumption that time is unilinear, when evidence suggests that it isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course it does - contingency implies that x is required for y to exist and therefore that x needs to exist before y. And clearly y cannot exist 'before' x exists.

But in your next sentence you have y clearly existing before x vis

So in this situation y is contingent on x. But if time runs backwards then y may very well exist before x and indeed you may conclude the reverse - that y is required for x to exist and therefore that x is contingent on y.

I see contingency remains untouched then and is not therefore affected by time.... Which is what I said.
I did mention quantum borrowing where contingency remains even if the universe was borrowed from the future.

[ProfessorDavey]

But in your next sentence you have y clearly existing before x vis

To illustrate the basic point that this whole notion is predicated on time running in a particular direction, and indeed on time itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To illustrate the basic point that this whole notion is predicated on time running in a particular direction, and indeed on time itself.

But you did mention that when time ran backwards X was contingent on y so in what way does the notion of contingency depend on time?

[Outrider]

No, contingency always demands the question contingent on what.

Implicitly, yes.

That introduces necessity but not the requirement for everything to be contingent.

How? How do you get from 'this is contingent on something prior' to 'therefore something must be necessary and not contingent'. That's not an inevitable consequence of the line of reasoning.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Implicitly, yes.

How? How do you get from 'this is contingent on something prior' to 'therefore something must be necessary and not contingent'. That's not an inevitable consequence of the line of reasoning.

O.

You seem to be answering a question with another question.to deflect from having to answer a question from me.

So far nobody has said why they assume that everything must be contingent.

Why must there be a necessary entity
I've outlined how a looped heirarchy of contingency gives rise to absurdity.
Nothing comes from nothing so something has to exist, because there is nothing to stop it existing and it has to be singular and it can't be something that doesn't have to exist.

Now would you obliged us with why everything has to be contingent?

[ProfessorDavey]

So far nobody has said why they assume that everything must be contingent.

You are completely misunderstanding what I (and I think others) are saying. Given that it isn't a difficult concept, then I'd go beyond misunderstanding towards misrepresenting.

I am not saying everything must be contingent. What I am saying is that we cannot assume that there must be something that isn't contingent, in other words a situation where every element is contingent is plausible. I've given my network example, which is pretty straightforward to understand. I have no idea whether the universe contains only contingent elements or whether is contains something (or more than one thing) that is not contingent. Both (or is this more than two) possibilities are plausible and in, reality, neither you nor I have a scoobie which is the case.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be answering a question with another question.to deflect from having to answer a question from me.

So far nobody has said why they assume that everything must be contingent.

Why must there be a necessary entity
I've outlined how a looped heirarchy of contingency gives rise to absurdity.
Nothing comes from nothing so something has to exist, because there is nothing to stop it existing and it has to be singular and it can't be something that doesn't have to exist.

Now would you obliged us with why everything has to be contingent?

Outrider hasn't said everything has to be contingent. I'm not aware any one has. Could you point out where someone has said this?

[Outrider]

So far nobody has said why they assume that everything must be contingent.

I'm not sure anyone has assumed that. However, you've started with contingent things and then suggested that there must be some non-contingent thing underlying it all. Extrapolating more contingent things from the existence of contingent things we've already established isn't 'an assumption', it's a deduction from the initial conditions. Supposing a fundamentally different type of entity - a necessary one - without, so far as I can see, any rationale is as assumption.

Why must there be a necessary entity. I've outlined how a looped heirarchy of contingency gives rise to absurdity.

No, you've pointed out that it's not easy to place into the contingent-necessary categorisation within a linear paradigm, but you've not established adequately that this isn't an upshot of a limited understanding of the nature of contingency and necessity rather than not being a viable model of reality.

Nothing comes from nothing

That would seem to preclude your assumption of a necessary thing, or lead to the conclusion of an infinite regression (where that regression can be embodied in an endless chain of causality or an eternal necessary entity) without telling us anything about the nature of that necessary entity.

so something has to exist, because there is nothing to stop it existing

No. Something doesn't have to exist; however, the presence of use discussing it suggests that something already does exist.

and it has to be singular and it can't be something that doesn't have to exist.

That bit just lost me, I'm afraid.

Now would you obliged us with why everything has to be contingent?

I'm not aware I ever suggested it did. We have contingent things, it seems we agree on that. We understand that the contingent things we have now were likely contingent on things that were, themselves, contingent, so the presumption of contingent things not directly in evidence isn't a great leap.

You then want to introduce something different, something new to the model, something necessary. I'm not saying everything has to be contingent, but I am saying that if you want to introduce necessary elements you need to justify them either with a rationale why they must exist, or some sort of evidence that they do.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Outrider hasn't said everything has to be contingent. I'm not aware any one has. Could you point out where someone has said this?

This is exactly my point - no-one is nailing their colours to the mast of 'everything must be contingent', we are keeping our options open, recognising that a universe where everything is contingent is a plausible possibility, as is a universe where one, or more, things are not contingent.

By contrast Vlad is nailing his colours clearly to the mast of 'there must be something (and only one thing) that isn't contingent'. And therefore there is no onus on us to demonstrate why everything must be contingent (because we aren't arguing that), but the onus is clearly on Vlad to justify his argument that there must be one, and only one, non contingent thing.

[Nearly Sane]

This is exactly my point - no-one is nailing their colours to the mast of 'everything must be contingent', we are keeping our options open, recognising that a universe where everything is contingent is a plausible possibility, as is a universe where one, or more, things are not contingent.

By contrast Vlad is nailing his colours clearly to the mast of 'there must be something (and only one thing) that isn't contingent'. And therefore there is no onus on us to demonstrate why everything must be contingent (because we aren't arguing that), but the onus is clearly on Vlad to justify his argument that there must be one, and only one, non contingent thing.

I'm not sure a universe where everything is contingent is plausible. Note I'm not saying that it isn't. It just seems to me to be using a badly defined concept that is based on so many assumptions, that extrapolating that to what is plausible for something where it's not clear if the assumptions we start with still apply doesn't make sense.

[jeremyp]

You haven't eliminated the possibility that you are just calling a contingent a necessary entity

Neither have you. Your god, if it exists, could well be contingent.

, the intellectual equivalent of pointing to something and saying "necessary entity.".

Better than you pretending to point to something and saying "necessary entity".

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.

You haven't defined what you mean by "God" and you explicitly choose to treat it as one entity or several entities depending on how the mood takes you.

There are several features of a necessary being

No there aren't.

Being made of parts compromises that ultimate.


So those two conditions disqualify the universe.

Your god is made of parts, so it's disqualified too.

Your hypocrisy and lack of self awareness should really disqualify you from talking about serious issues like this. Children have a better grasp of what we are talking about than you do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure anyone has assumed that. However, you've started with contingent things and then suggested that there must be some non-contingent thing underlying it all. Extrapolating more contingent things from the existence of contingent things we've already established isn't 'an assumption', it's a deduction from the initial conditions. Supposing a fundamentally different type of entity - a necessary one - without, so far as I can see, any rationale is as assumption.

No, you've pointed out that it's not easy to place into the contingent-necessary categorisation within a linear paradigm, but you've not established adequately that this isn't an upshot of a limited understanding of the nature of contingency and necessity rather than not being a viable model of reality.

That would seem to preclude your assumption of a necessary thing, or lead to the conclusion of an infinite regression (where that regression can be embodied in an endless chain of causality or an eternal necessary entity) without telling us anything about the nature of that necessary entity.

No. Something doesn't have to exist; however, the presence of use discussing it suggests that something already does exist.

That bit just lost me, I'm afraid.

I'm not aware I ever suggested it did. We have contingent things, it seems we agree on that. We understand that the contingent things we have now were likely contingent on things that were, themselves, contingent, so the presumption of contingent things not directly in evidence isn't a great leap.

You then want to introduce something different, something new to the model, something necessary. I'm not saying everything has to be contingent, but I am saying that if you want to introduce necessary elements you need to justify them either with a rationale why they must exist, or some sort of evidence that they do.

O.

Challenging contingency only is not something new to the model. It falls logically out of fully understanding contingency and it's implications.

The philosophical imperative of only accepting empirical evidence even at the expense of logic is a relatively "Johnny come lately."

If everything we observe is contingent, on what is it contingent?
Regarding "networks" as avoiding the necessary entity, let's have an example

[Outrider]

Challenging contingency only is not something new to the model.

The model, no, but at this stage of the argument you need to explain why you feel the need to introduce it.

It falls logically out of fully understanding contingency and it's implications.

Not really. The concept does, but not the need to accept it into the argument. What about 'everything is contingent on something prior' requires something to suddenly be non-contingent?

The philosophical imperative of only accepting empirical evidence even at the expense of logic is a relatively "Johnny come lately."

And if anyone were doing such a thing, that might be relevant, but given that no-one is why don't you pack away the scarecrow head, Mr Gummidge.

If everything we observe is contingent, on what is it contingent?

Prior events.

Regarding "networks" as avoiding the necessary entity, let's have an example

You've already been shown the causal loop before. How about, rather, you explain why you think you need to introduce something necessary into a chain of contingency, seeing as that's what your argument seems to be hinging on?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The model, no, but at this stage of the argument you need to explain why you feel the need to introduce it.

Not really. The concept does, but not the need to accept it into the argument. What about 'everything is contingent on something prior' requires something to suddenly be non-contingent?

And if anyone were doing such a thing, that might be relevant, but given that no-one is why don't you pack away the scarecrow head, Mr Gummidge.

Prior events.

You've already been shown the causal loop before. How about, rather, you explain why you think you need to introduce something necessary into a chain of contingency, seeing as that's what your argument seems to be hinging on?

O.

A causal loop shown before, please reference.
I did put one up which contains the absurdity of something causing itself yet somehow caused by something else.

I

[Outrider]

A causal loop shown before, please reference. I did put one up which contains the absurdity of something causing itself yet somehow caused by something else.

Yes, quite the paradox, isn't it. Whether or not you consider it 'absurd' or merely depicting reality at a scale we're not inherently evolved to conceive is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.

Now, about that jump from 'we have contingent' to 'therefore necessary'?

O.

[jeremyp]

Not really. The concept does, but not the need to accept it into the argument. What about 'everything is contingent on something prior' requires something to suddenly be non-contingent?

And if anyone were doing such a thing, that might be relevant, but given that no-one is why don't you pack away the scarecrow head, Mr Gummidge.

Prior events.

You've already been shown the causal loop before. How about, rather, you explain why you think you need to introduce something necessary into a chain of contingency, seeing as that's what your argument seems to be hinging on?

O.
A causal loop shown before, please reference.
I did put one up which contains the absurdity of something causing itself yet somehow caused by something else.

I

Apparently absurd to humans does not mean the same thing as impossible. At the quantum level, there is no cause and effect, only interactions between particles. I don't think you can discount a "causal loop".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, quite the paradox, isn't it. Whether or not you consider it 'absurd' or merely depicting reality at a scale we're not inherently evolved to conceive is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.

Now, about that jump from 'we have contingent' to 'therefore necessary'?

O.

parking a demand for the demonstration of a time loop
We are left with the question of why a loop, why a loop with so many events and not a different number of events and eventually why does it exist rather than not exist.

The answers to this, namely whatever it is decides it are therefore more ultimate and fundamental, are independent of the loop and constitute the necessary entity.

In other words we are still faced with establishing the necessity of the looped universe. Is it this universe or non existence?

On a more mundane level, 2 questions what keeps it turning?
Doesn't it exist in some kind of mathematical space?

[Outrider]

parking a demand for the demonstration of a time loop

There was no demand, it's already there in the discussion.

We are left with the question of why a loop, why a loop with so many events and not a different number of events and eventually why does it exist rather than not exist.

A loop is suggested because it explains the current state of contingent things without the need to invent another, different kind of thing (i.e. something necessary). As to how many events, I'm reasonably confident no-one was suggesting that they have a definitive number, it's the concept that's being suggested, not a history. As to why... who knows? If it's a closed loop there may very well not be a why, it might be a question that makes no sense.

The answers to this, namely whatever it is decides it are therefore more ultimate and fundamental, are independent of the loop and constitute the necessary entity.

Where did that notion that 'something' needs to 'decide'? Where did you make the leap from 'we have a loop of causality' to 'therefore there must be a conscious designer outside of that which instigated it'? This is the question that people are actually asking you, to justify THIS leap - why do you presume that there has to be some sort of (presumably external?) independent, necessary element?

In other words we are still faced with establishing the necessity of the looped universe. Is it this universe or non existence?

No, we aren't. If it's a closed loop - and this is the point of the closed loop - it doesn't need to have a point at which it was 'established'.

On a more mundane level, 2 questions what keeps it turning?

It is self-perpetuating - the reality of 'state A' inevitably and unavoidable leads to 'state B' and so on. Which, to a certain way of thinking, makes that nature somehow the 'necessary' element, but you appear to be irreparably attached to the idea that the 'necessary' can't be in any way divisible, for reasons that I'm not sure I've seen explained.

Doesn't it exist in some kind of mathematical space?

Perhaps, or perhaps not. It might be that mathematical spaces exists within it.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your advocacy of the cosmological argument relies on three crap arguments, none of which you will address.

Crap argument 1: everything I’ve observed in the universe appears to be contingent on something else, therefore…ooh look, a helicopter… everything else in the universe that I haven't observed must be also contingent on something else too. That's the called the fallacy of faulty generalisation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Crap argument 2: because everything in the universe is (supposedly) contingent, therefore … ooh look, another helicopter… so the universe itself must also be contingent on something else. That's called the fallacy of composition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

Crap argument 3: because the universe is (also supposedly) caused by something else, for reasons I can’t explain right now that something is… ooh look, a third helicopter… also the god in which I just happen to believe, only this god is also uncaused because, you know, he’s magic. That's called the fallacy of special pleading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Apart from all that though…

[Alan Burns]

Still no news on your justifying argument for your “naturalistic consciousness is totally impossible” assertion by the way? Surely you must have something in locker? Anything? No?       

It is not merely as assertion.
Material reactions alone can never generate awareness.
A material reaction can cause further reactions, but this does not define awareness.
A conscious entity is not a reaction - it comprises simultaneous awareness of the current states of many material elements, something which defies any material definition because material elements have no perception of the state of other material elements - all they can do is pass on reactions.  In comparing animal behaviour with human behaviour the big difference is that most animal behaviour can be defined by predictable reactions based on biological instincts and learnt experiences without the need for conscious awareness.  Humans are able to demonstrate their conscious awareness not by mere reactions, but by acts of deliberation to communicate what they are aware of in the forms of art and language.  You may try to argue that some of the higher forms of animals can demonstrate some evidence of conscious awareness, but this still does not comprise evidence of material explanations for awareness - God brought animals into existence as well as humans.  No doubt some humans will endeavour to try to generate conscious awareness from ever more complex material entities but they are doomed to failure because only God can create the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not merely as assertion.
Material reactions alone can never generate awareness.
A material reaction can cause further reactions, but this does not define awareness.
A conscious entity is not a reaction - it comprises simultaneous awareness of the current states of many material elements, something which defies any material definition because material elements have no perception of the state of other material elements - all they can do is pass on reactions.  In comparing animal behaviour with human behaviour the big difference is that most animal behaviour can be defined by predictable reactions based on biological instincts and learnt experiences without the need for conscious awareness.  Humans are able to demonstrate their conscious awareness not by mere reactions, but by acts of deliberation to communicate what they are aware of in the forms of art and language.  You may try to argue that some of the higher forms of animals can demonstrate some evidence of conscious awareness, but this still does not comprise evidence of material explanations for awareness - God brought animals into existence as well as humans.  No doubt some humans will endeavour to try to generate conscious awareness from ever more complex material entities but they are doomed to failure because only God can create the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.

Oh look more assertions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not merely as assertion.

So far, that’s all it’s been.

Material reactions alone can never generate awareness.

That’s just a repetition of the same assertion.

A material reaction can cause further reactions, but this does not define awareness.

So’s this, and “does not define awareness” is incoherent. Presumably what you’re trying to assert here is something like “does not cause awareness”.

A conscious entity is not a reaction - it comprises simultaneous awareness of the current states of many material elements, something which defies any material definition because material elements have no perception of the state of other material elements - all they can do is pass on reactions.

Still more incoherence. How do you know that sufficient “material reactions” of sufficient complexity cannot generate an emergent property of awareness, just as multiple material reactions are observed all over nature to produce emergent properties of other types? 

In comparing animal behaviour with human behaviour the big difference is that most animal behaviour can be defined by predictable reactions based on biological instincts and learnt experiences without the need for conscious awareness.

Utter nonsense. Tell me what a gorilla or an orca or an anteater will do next with any certainty. The only difference between human consciousness and non-human consciousness is perhaps the degree of complexity, but there’s no particular reason to treat the phenomena of human and of non-human consciousness as fundamentally different in principle. 

Humans are able to demonstrate their conscious awareness not by mere reactions, but by acts of deliberation to communicate what they are aware of in the forms of art and language.

That’s called a non sequitur. Art and language could well be the manifestations of “mere reactions”.

You may try to argue that some of the higher forms of animals can demonstrate some evidence of conscious awareness, but this still does not comprise evidence of material explanations for awareness - God brought animals into existence as well as humans.

Blind faith claim. You’ve yet to demonstrate that such a god exists at all, let alone that “He” decided to give humans one type of consciousness and non-human species a different type of consciousness.

No doubt some humans will endeavour to try to generate conscious awareness from ever more complex material entities but they are doomed to failure because only God can create the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.

And another blind faith assertion to finish. You’re unable to demonstrate that any of this is true, so why just assert it again as if it will one day thereby transmogrify into an actual argument?

[Outrider]

It is not merely as assertion. Material reactions alone can never generate awareness. A material reaction can cause further reactions, but this does not define awareness.

OK, that's an attempt at an argument, fair enough. What is it about consciousness, to your understanding, that precludes it being a material reaction to material events, though? You've made that statement like it's readily apparent, but it should be fairly obvious to you that a significant number of people here don't see it that way, so what's your basis for that statement?

A conscious entity is not a reaction - it comprises simultaneous awareness of the current states of many material elements, something which defies any material definition because material elements have no perception of the state of other material elements - all they can do is pass on reactions.

But the consciousness is not the brain, it's a result of the activity of the brain. The brain is not aware, but then we are not just brains, because if we were our consciousness would persist after brain ACTIVITY ceased, and that does not appear to be the case. Consciousness is an element of the patterns of activity - the 'thought' - happening because of the brain.

In comparing animal behaviour with human behaviour the big difference is that most animal behaviour can be defined by predictable reactions based on biological instincts and learnt experiences without the need for conscious awareness.

But not all animal behaviour. And much of human behaviour can be accurately predicted. Is the part that can't a) just more complex, or b) functionally random or c) the result of some non-material aspect of humanity influencing the material in some way that so far has completely defied detection?

Humans are able to demonstrate their conscious awareness not by mere reactions, but by acts of deliberation to communicate what they are aware of in the forms of art and language.

You are begging the question, here. You are citing your understanding of conscious awareness in order to support your contention of what human consciousness is or is not.

You may try to argue that some of the higher forms of animals can demonstrate some evidence of conscious awareness, but this still does not comprise evidence of material explanations for awareness - God brought animals into existence as well as humans.

Except that, in most iterations of the Christian creation mythos the entirety of the rest of the living world is 'spiritually' different to human beings - we're supposed to be special. You might not feel that way, I don't know, but this point is raised as a counter in those circumstances, not as an argument in support of consciousness being a purely material consideration.

No doubt some humans will endeavour to try to generate conscious awareness from ever more complex material entities but they are doomed to failure because only God can create the spiritual entity of awareness which is you.

He asserted. Rather more worrying, in some aspects, than people trying to generate artificial consciousnesses is humans creating artificial consciousness whilst trying to do something else... People deliberately trying to create a consciousness are going to be operating with the idea that they are dealing with something self-aware, but people who do it by accident will not necessarily have those considerations in mind.

O.