Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not recall saying that humans cannot make decisions unaided.
We are consciously aware of influences and constraints but they do not dictate our choices.  There are many paths to choose from in our earthly lives - you are not shackled to a roller coaster, you are the driver.  There is no need for another driver to drive you.

So have you now abandoned your speculation “soul” then?

Your deduction does not reflect the fact that we are able to consciously guide our thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.
This is not a fallacy - it is a demonstrable reality.

No it isn’t. It’s a superficial model of reality that you’d realise cannot be true if you bothered thinking about it

I have consistently pointed out why your attempts to falsify my arguments are wrong because your logic is inherently flawed by failing to explain reality.

You’re just lying now. Your arguments are falsified because they’re shown to be logically false. That’s the beginning and end of it. A fallacy doesn’t magically cease to be fallacy just because you’re using it to justify your personal understanding of reality.
 

Truth does not change.

Yes it does. All the time in fact. It was once true that the world was flat for example; now it isn’t. You’ve missed entirely the point that “truth” is only ever a manifestation of what people think it is, not an inherent property of the universe.

Try to understand why this is the case.
 

There can only be one ultimate truth concerning the origins and purpose of our existence

Possibly to the first part, and that “purpose” is called begging the question – yet another fallacy.
 

It is you who try to make the claim that my arguments are based on mistakes - I have to disagree for very profound reasons which you continue to reject.

You haven’t got any very profound reasons. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. You can’t just wish away that problem because you rely on them for your justifying arguments.

I confidently predicted that you would try to answer these points by using your leprechaun analogy.  The points I made were all based on credible evidence - not so with leprechauns.

Bullshit. “You can’t be absolutely certain that X isn’t true” isn’t an argument for the existence of X. That’s what you tried to do – five times in fact.

You claim to have falsified many of my arguments by comparing them with belief in leprechauns - you really need to do better.

That’s pathetic. When your argument would apply equally well to leprechauns (for example, your repeated “but you can’t disprove it” idiocy) the leprechauns analogy is a conveniently shorthand way of falsifying you. It’s you who needs to do better – much, much better.

What I said was that intelligent design does exist in the form of human creativity - please explain why you can deny this.

There’s nothing to deny – it’s just white noise. If you think “human creativity” is evidence for creationism then you need to explain why. Until you do that there’s nothing to deny, any more than there is if I assert rainbows to be evidence for leprechauns.   

Your ability to deduce anything is entirely dependent on your ability to consciously guide your thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions - which you deem to be a logical impossibility from your apparently unguidable sub conscious brain activity.

No it isn’t. It isn’t for the reasons that have been explained to you perhaps hundreds of times here without rebuttal. Just repeating endlessly a stupidity doesn’t make it any less stupid.   

I think not!

You can say that again. 

[Nearly Sane]

....
 
Yes it does. All the time in fact. It was once true that the world was flat for example; now it isn’t. You’ve missed entirely the point that “truth” is only ever a manifestation of what people think it is, not an inherent property of the universe.


..

This personal definition you have of truth isn't consistent with most definitions. Why should it be accepted as true? Especially since by your own definition, it becomes paradoxically untrue by your own definition?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This personal definition you have of truth isn't consistent with most definitions. Why should it be accepted as true? Especially since by your own definition, it becomes paradoxically untrue by your own definition?

Because “true” is an epistemological statement that expresses only our understanding of how things are. It’s a model, a narrative, a construction that’s only as robust as our ability to determine that it’s robust. When everyone thought the world was flat (yes, I know that’s a bit of a myth but it’ll do for this purpose) then it was epistemically “true” for them that the world was flat. That we now have a more robust truth doesn’t change that, any more than saying our current truth isn’t true for us because one day it may generally be believed that the world is cuboid.

As for “by your own definition, it becomes paradoxically untrue by your own definition?” no – it’s still true for me that the world is round no matter what some long future civilisation may have better evidence to believe. Truths are still truths – but they’re necessarily delimited by our ability to discern such things, which – absent omniscience – we can never be certain of. Short version: while the map may be the best one we have, we shouldn't mistake it for the territory.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Because “true” is an epistemological statement that expresses only our understanding of how things are. It’s a model, a narrative, a construction that’s only as robust as our ability to determine that it’s robust. When everyone thought the world was flat (yes, I know that’s a bit of a myth but it’ll do for this purpose) then it was epistemically “true” for them that the world was flat. That we now have a more robust truth doesn’t change that, any more than saying our current truth isn’t true for us because one day it may generally be believed that the world is cuboid.

As for “by your own definition, it becomes paradoxically untrue by your own definition?” no – it’s still true for me that the world is round no matter what some long future civilisation may have better evidence to believe. Truths are still truths – but they’re necessarily delimited by our ability to discern such things, which – absent omniscience – we can never be certain of. Short version: while the map may be the best one  have, we shouldn't mistake it for the territory.   

And yet if we aren't marking it against the territory then it's just stuff pulled out of your arse.

It's paradoxically untrue because your definition of truth in terms of flat earth was based on it being the popular belief. If that applies to your definition, then it isn't the popular definition so it would mean your definition is untrue.

You've gone so relativist on the word truth that you've made discussion pointless. There are no such things as more robust truths in your approach 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And yet if we aren't marking it against the territory then it's just stuff pulled out of your arse.

Not at all. First, that’s not what I said. We are “marking it against the territory”, but only to the best our our ability to do so. So were the flat earthers before us.

What I actually said is that we shouldn’t treat the map and the territory as the same thing – the map will always be our best approximation of the territory, but that’s all it is.

Second, we still have the useful distinctions of subjective and objective, which function perfectly well without overreaching into categoric certainties.

It's paradoxically untrue because your definition of truth in terms of flat earth was based on it being the popular belief. If that applies to your definition, then it isn't the popular definition so it would mean your definition is untrue.

Popular belief built on their best ability to interpret the best available data at that time. That’s just what we do now too. That’s why its true for me (and for you) that the earth is round, but on what basis could I be absolutely certain that I’m not as wrong about that as my ancestors were?

You've gone so relativist on the word truth that you've made discussion pointless. There are no such things as more robust truths in your approach 

Nonsense – of course there are. The truth belief that pine martens live in Scotland is more robust than the truth belief that unicorns do. Why? Because that’s what the most robust evidence and reasoning available to me tells me.

Your mistake here is to assume a binary epistemological model – it’s quite possible to have verifiable and useful truths we call “objective” (Scottish pine martens for example – strong evidence) that we can distinguish from subjective truths (AB’s god for example – no evidence) without also requiring the former to be absolute.

You for example (presumably) think some things to be true. You also (presumably) don’t claim to be omniscient. How so given your clam that in that model discussions are pointless? I’m quite happy to argue some things to be true and some things to be not true, and to act accordingly. I just don’t overreach into epistemic certainties is all – about anything.         

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not at all. First, that’s not what I said. We are “marking it against the territory”, but only to the best our our ability to do so. So were the flat earthers before us.

What I actually said is that we shouldn’t treat the map and the territory as the same thing – the map will always be our best approximation of the territory, but that’s all it is.

Second, we still have the useful distinctions of subjective and objective, which function perfectly well without overreaching into certainties.

Popular belief built on their best ability to interpret the best available data at that time. That’s just what we do now too. That’s why its true for me (and for you) that the earth is round, but on what basis could I be absolutely certain that I’m not as wrong about that as my ancestors were?

[quoe]You've gone so relativist on the word truth that you've made discussion pointless. There are no such things as more robust truths in your approach 

Nonsense – of course there are. The truth belief that pine martens live in Scotland is more robust than the truth belief that unicorns do. Why? Because that’s what the most robust evidence and reasoning available to me tells me.

Your mistake here is to assume a binary epistemological model – it’s quite possible to have verifiable and useful truths we call “objective” (Scottish pine martens for example) that we can distinguish from subjective truths (AB’s god for example) without also requiring the former to be absolute.

You for example (presumably) think some things to be true. You also (presumably) don’t claim to be omniscient. How so given your clam that in that model discussions are pointless? I’m quite happy to argue some things to be true and some things to be not true, and to act accordingly. I just don’t overreach into epistemic certainties is all – about anything.       

No, the point is that if there are multiple truths, there is nothing to mark them against. Your position  is just a mess in terms of how to have a discussion since there is no word for the territory, there is only a word for subjectivity. Being aware that I may not have omniscience does not mean that I should say that there isn't a thing that there is knowledge to have of, and by going for your idiosyncratic definition of truth that's exactly what you are doing. You've become confused by worrying about epistemology above the logic its based on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, the point is that if there are multiple truths, there is nothing to mark them against.

There aren’t “multiple truths” now in the sense I think you mean (I’m using “truth” here in the sense of “supported by incontrovertible evidence” rather than “competing hypotheses”). What you can’t know though is whether today’s truth will also be true tomorrow. That’s the point.

And what we mark them against is our best interpretation of the observable world. There's no reason though to think our best interpretation is also infallible.   

Your position  is just a mess in terms of how to have a discussion since there is no word for the territory, there is only a word for ubjectivity.

Nonsense. “The Earth is round” is a “word” for the territory, and it’s true too according to the incontrovertible evidence available to me. That’s why I can call it “objectively” true without collapsing into unjustifiable claims of absolute certainty. On the other hand I have no evidence at all for the claim that unicorns roam the streets of Paisley, so even though I may believe it to be true as strongly as AB believes his god to be true that’s just my subjective truth and no more (as is AB’s). 

Being aware that I may not have omniscience does not mean that I should say that there isn't a thing that there is knowledge to have of, and by going for your idiosyncratic definition of truth that's exactly what you are doing.

No it isn’t. I’m just not as certain of it as you seem to be. The universe has no mandate to present us with “truths” – all we can do is to reason and deduct and generally scramble our way to constructing them for ourselves, but remain mindful too that they could be swept away like a sandcastle on a beach in favour of a stronger one that’s just been built further from the waves.   

You've become confused by worrying about epistemology above he logic its based on.

Actually I think you have, but ok.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

There aren’t “multiple truths” now in the sense I think you mean (I’m using “truth” here in the sense of “supported by incontrovertible evidence” rather than “competing hypotheses”). What you can’t know though is whether today’s truth will also be true tomorrow. That’s the point.   

Nonsense. “The Earth is round” is a “word” for the territory, and it’s true too according to the incontrovertible evidence available to me. That’s why I can call it “objectively” true without collapsing into unjustifiable claims of absolute certainty. On the other hand I have no evidence at all for the claim that unicorns roam the streets of Paisley, so even though I may believe it to be true as strongly as AB believes his god to be true that’s just my subjective truth and no more (as is AB’s). 

No it isn’t. I’m just not as certain of it as you seem to be. The universe has no mandate to present us with “truths” – all we can do is to reason and deduct and generally scramble our way to constructing them for ourselves, but remain mindful too that they could be swept away like a sandcastle on a beach in favour of a new one that’s just been built further from the waves.   

Actually I think you have, but ok.

'imcontrovertible' seems to be another word that you have an idiosyncratic definition for. That would in most uses I have seen be a claim to epistemic certainty bit you don't mean that, so what do you think it means.

You seem to think that other than definitional truths, I think it would claim anything to be true, but no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My view is that there are at least as many problems with a necessary entity as with infinite contingency.

My view is that there isn’t. There is the issue of physical evidence shared by both necessary entity and infinite contingency but there are arguments for both for why that could be.Aside from issues surrounding real infinities, how is infinite contingency different from an infinite necessary entity? why, being contingent it wouldn’t be infinitely dependent on anything? The term infinite contingency might make the word contingency redundant. All these are problems a necessary entity does not suffer.

If there was a necessary entity I tend to think that it would be natural rather than supernatural because I have no evidence that the supernatural exists at all. As I also have no evidence whatever that any godlike being exists, then, if a necessary entity exists, I tend to think it would be some sort of inanimate thing/process/whatever. The bottom line for me is I don't know if it(or they) exist or if it does, then I don't know what form it takes.

There is a school of thought that would say anything that is true or logical or has reason behind it is natural, another school states that nature is unconscious, Another that says anything which doesn’t fit the natural can be discarded etc. So It does not surprise me that you might like to label the necessary as natural.

The key point though imho is not the label but logically what it’s attributes must be.
It must be unique, fundamental, ultimate, independent I.e logically preceed any laws or actualisations( Here I mean logical precedence rather than necessarily temporal ) and of course, there is no greater law, dimension or anything else to dictate to it what it does.

[Nearly Sane]

My view is that there isn’t. There is the issue of physical evidence shared by both necessary entity and infinite contingency but there are arguments for both for why that could be.Aside from issues surrounding real infinities, how is it different from an infinite necessary entity, why, being contingent it wouldn’t be infinitely dependent on anything, The term infinite contingency might make the word contingency redundant. All these are problems a necessary entity does not suffer.There is a school of thought that would say anything that is true or logical or has reason behind it is natural, another school states that nature is unconscious, Another that says anything which doesn’t fit the natural can be discarded etc. So It does not surprise me that you might like to label the necessary as natural.

The key point though imho is not the label but logically what it’s attributes must be.
It must be unique, fundamental, ultimate, independent I.e logically preceed any laws or actualisations( Here I mean logical precedence rather than necessarily temporal ) and of course, there is no greater law, dimension or anything else to dictate to it what it does.

Oh look lots and lots of assertions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh look lots and lots of assertions

How are questions assertions?
Feel free to debunk. But as usual all we will we get is  “They were, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”. Ha ha ha.

[Nearly Sane]

How are questions assertions?
Feel free to debunk. But as usual all we will we get is  “They we’re, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”. Ha ha ha.

Distinct lack of question  marks in your post, surfeit of statements with no back up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

'imcontrovertible' seems to be another word that you have an idiosyncratic definition for. That would in most uses I have seen be a claim to epistemic certainty bit you don't mean that, so what do you think it means.

Why have you just ignored everything I said? There’s nothing idiosyncratic about my use of “incontrovertible” here – it just means a body of reasoning and evidence that (currently) you have no means to controvert. On that basis you accept the explanatory narrative it provides – “the Earth is round” for example – as true. That’s your “map”, but you cannot know that different data arriving tomorrow won’t cause you to re-draw it so it can’t also necessarily be the territory too. It’s just a persuasive or convincing approximation of it.     

That’s what “truths” are – human-made narratives that comport with the data we have to hand and with our ability to organise it into a compelling story. That’s all they are though. 

You seem to think that other than definitional truths, I think it would claim anything to be true, but no.

What does this mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just an addendum.
A so called "Necessary entity" on which all contingency ultimately depended would not be subject to the laws of nature since that then makes the laws of nature the final necessary entity.

[Nearly Sane]

Just an addendum.
A so called "Necessary entity" on which all contingency ultimately depended would not be subject to the laws of nature since that then makes the laws of nature the final necessary entity.

Further additional assertion

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just an addendum.
A so called "Necessary entity" on which all contingency ultimately depended would not be subject to the laws of nature since that then makes the laws of nature the final necessary entity.

Why can't the laws of nature be their own "necessary entity"?

Anyway, any progress yet on addressing your reliance on the fallacy of faulty generalisation, the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of special pleading? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why can't the laws of nature be their own "necessary entity"?

Anyway, any progress yet on addressing your reliance on the fallacy of faulty generalisation, the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of special pleading?

The laws of nature could be but which law has precedence?
That"Law" would then be 'The necessary entity".

The law would be existent rather than merely a description of what the physical world was doing since it has logical precedence.

I think our friend Lawrence Krauss when his thoughts are analysed comes out as a laws of nature as a necessary entity man... Which may be why some in the atheist camp snigger at him.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The laws of nature could be…

In which case, whence your confidence in your assertion that something else must necessarily be involved?

…but which law has precedence?
That"Law" would then be 'The necessary entity".

No idea, but as you’re the one asserting that something else must be the “necessary entity”, it’s still your job to justify that claim. 

The law would be existent rather than merely a description of what the physical world was doing since it has logical precedence.

Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?

I think our friend Lawrence Krauss when his thoughts are analysed comes out as a laws of nature as a necessary entity man... Which may be why some in the atheist camp snigger at him.

Does Dawkins know you’ve got a side hustle going here?

Anyway, back to your reliance on the fallacies of faulty generalisation, composition and special pleading. Do you not think you should address these foundational problems with your sandcastle of cosmological piffle before troubling yourself with what colour flag to put on the top of it?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So have you now abandoned your speculation “soul” then?

No - I was simply reminding you of the power of our human soul to enable us to choose our path in life.

No it isn’t. It’s a superficial model of reality that you’d realise cannot be true if you bothered thinking about it

It is my ability to think about it that confirms the reality.

You’re just lying now. Your arguments are falsified because they’re shown to be logically false. That’s the beginning and end of it. A fallacy doesn’t magically cease to be fallacy just because you’re using it to justify your personal understanding of reality.

The logical argument you continue to espouse is inherently flawed because it denies your own ability to think logically.
Do you honestly believe that logical arguments just drop out of uncontrollable sub conscious brain activity?

Yes it does. All the time in fact. It was once true that the world was flat for example; now it isn’t. You’ve missed entirely the point that “truth” is only ever a manifestation of what people think it is, not an inherent property of the universe.

Truth is there to be discovered, it cannot change - why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

..... that “purpose” is called begging the question – yet another fallacy.

It is a difference of opinion.  You believe there is no purpose behind our existence - I believe there is purpose.

 
You haven’t got any very profound reasons. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. You can’t just wish away that problem because you rely on them for your justifying arguments.

My arguments are based on demonstrable reality - not flawed logic.

Bullshit. “You can’t be absolutely certain that X isn’t true” isn’t an argument for the existence of X. That’s what you tried to do – five times in fact.

I did not claim absolute certainty - just high probability based on evidence.

That’s pathetic. When your argument would apply equally well to leprechauns (for example, your repeated “but you can’t disprove it” idiocy) the leprechauns analogy is a conveniently shorthand way of falsifying you. It’s you who needs to do better – much, much better.

My arguments are not applicable to your leprechaun analogy because there is no viable evidence for the existence of leprechauns.
The evidence for the points I made are derived from a multitude of personal witness claims in addition to verifiable historical facts.

There’s nothing to deny – it’s just white noise. If you think “human creativity” is evidence for creationism then you need to explain why. Until you do that there’s nothing to deny, any more than there is if I assert rainbows to be evidence for leprechauns.   

There you go again - trying to use your ridiculous leprechauns to argue against the mountain of evidence behind intelligent design.

No it isn’t. It isn’t for the reasons that have been explained to you perhaps hundreds of times here without rebuttal. Just repeating endlessly a stupidity doesn’t make it any less stupid.   

Your faith in what can be achieved from uncontrollable material reactions knows no bounds.

[Gordon]

Having read the last post, I'm so glad I was never contaminated by Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In which case, whence your confidence in your assertion that something else must necessarily be involved?

Ah, I see, when you suggested the laws of nature could be the necessary entity you did so with your fingers crossed behind your back vainly hoping that it wouldn’t involve your suggestion having to be unique, fundamental or ultimate, real or indeed necessary. I shouldn’t wonder if you hoped to smuggle everything contingent in under the umbrella.

You know what the club regulations are for being the necessary being are Hillside.

As they used to say on the Fast Show, your trying to be a “Little bit worrrrgghhhh, a little bit waaayyygh”

[Enki]

My view is that there isn’t. There is the issue of physical evidence shared by both necessary entity and infinite contingency but there are arguments for both for why that could be.Aside from issues surrounding real infinities, how is infinite contingency different from an infinite necessary entity? why, being contingent it wouldn’t be infinitely dependent on anything? The term infinite contingency might make the word contingency redundant. All these are problems a necessary entity does not suffer.

Whereas, for me, I see just as many problems with the idea that one thing is contingent upon another ad infinitum as the idea that it all starts with a necessary entity. Neither can be adequately explained or identified, in my view.

There is a school of thought that would say anything that is true or logical or has reason behind it is natural, another school states that nature is unconscious, Another that says anything which doesn’t fit the natural can be discarded etc. So It does not surprise me that you might like to label the necessary as natural.

As I said, as I have no evidence of anything which isn't natural, that leads me to think that if there is a necessary entity which we can identify, then that too would be natural.

The key point though imho is not the label but logically what it’s attributes must be.
It must be unique, fundamental, ultimate, independent I.e logically preceed any laws or actualisations( Here I mean logical precedence rather than necessarily temporal ) and of course, there is no greater law, dimension or anything else to dictate to it what it does.

Alternatively I see no reason why it must be unique, or ultimate rather than basic or that it may not encompass such things as laws of nature or different dimensions. Indeed I see no reason why there couldn't be more than one necessary entity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No - I was simply reminding you of the power of our human soul to enable us to choose our path in life.

That’s not a reminder – it’s just a blind faith claim. More to the point, you’re contradicting yourself. Do you think we can make decisions for ourselves (as you recently claimed) or do you think we need to have “souls” to do the job for us (as you’re claiming now). Which is it?

It is my ability to think about it that confirms the reality.

It’s your ability to think only incompetently that disconfirms it.

The logical argument you continue to espouse is inherently flawed because it denies your own ability to think logically.

Why are you repeating the same stupidity once more?

Do you understand that there are such things as logical fallacies?

Do you understand that a logically false argument is a wrong argument?

Do you understand that a logical fallacy doesn’t magically become logically sound only when you attempt it to support your faith beliefs about reality, but remains a fallacy when it’s used to justify a different belief?
 

Do you honestly believe that logical arguments just drop out of uncontrollable sub conscious brain activity?

Your terminology is wrong, but essentially yes – no third party agency (“soul” etc) is necessary for consciousness to function as an integrated whole.

Truth is there to be discovered, it cannot change - why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Because it’s not true. It’s bollocks in fact. “Truth” is a description of human understanding, which is why it often changes over time when new data becomes available. There aren’t lumps of truth lying about the place waiting for us pick them up. That’s what the whole field of epistemology is about ffs.

Try at least to understand where you keep going wrong here.     

It is a difference of opinion.  You believe there is no purpose behind our existence - I believe there is purpose.

Wrong again. If you want to express your subjective opinion about that then that’s fine – just as my subjective opinion about leprechauns is fine too. Where you go wrong is to overreach by insisting “purpose” is an objective fact for other people too but with no sound reasoning to justify your claim. 

My arguments are based on demonstrable reality - not flawed logic.

Your arguments are always logically false. That you attempt them to justify your beliefs about reality doesn’t change that. Nor will it no matter how many times you repeat the same fallacies.   

I did not claim absolute certainty - just high probability based on evidence.

You were the one telling me I couldn’t be absolutely certain that your various blind faith claims aren’t true. I merely corrected you by telling you that, while true, that tells us nothing at all about whether they are true, just as you not being absolutely certain that leprechauns don’t exist tells you nothing about whether they do exist.

My arguments are not applicable to your leprechaun analogy because there is no viable evidence for the existence of leprechauns.

Yes they are, and that’s a non sequitur. Could you try at least to keep up?
 

The evidence for the points I made are derived from a multitude of personal witness claims in addition to verifiable historical facts.

All of which fail when you subject them to logical analysis.

There you go again - trying to use your ridiculous leprechauns to argue against the mountain of evidence behind intelligent design.

There is no such mountain. Nor is there even a grain of sand. That’s the point – when what you misdescribe as “evidence” justifies equally well my claims about leprechauns that should tell you that your evidence isn’t evidence at all.

Your faith in what can be achieved from uncontrollable material reactions knows no bounds.

Reasoned deduction, not “faith”. I leave faith to theists like you and to leprechaunists alike.

Have you any sense at all of how badly out of your depth you are here?

Any sense at all? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas, for me, I see just as many problems with the idea that one thing is contingent upon another ad infinitum as the idea that it all starts with a necessary entity. Neither can be adequately explained or identified, in my view.

As I said, as I have no evidence of anything which isn't natural, that leads me to think that if there is a necessary entity which we can identify, then that too would be natural.

Alternatively I see no reason why it must be unique, or ultimate rather than basic or that it may not encompass such things as laws of nature or different dimensions. Indeed I see no reason why there couldn't be more than one necessary entity.

Could you share your issues with the necessary entity beyond the lack of physical evidence?
Why must there just be one final necessary entity?
Ockam's razor suggests a final entity.
If you have two entities, the question that remains is why two?
The answer or reason for two then occupies the role of the necessary entity since it logically preceeds the two.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah, I see, when you suggested the laws of nature could be the necessary entity you did so with your fingers crossed behind your back vainly hoping that it wouldn’t involve your suggestion having to be unique, fundamental or ultimate, real or indeed necessary. I shouldn’t wonder if you hoped to smuggle everything contingent in under the umbrella.

Why is it that when you run out of road you so often try to lie your way out of it?

I haven’t suggested that at all. You were the one asserting that the universe could not be its own cause (albeit that you now seem to have reverse ferreted on that), so I merely asked you how you made that claim without relying on one or several false arguments.

So far answer have I none.

Just to save you the trouble of lying about it again, my position here has consistently been that I have no idea whether or not the universe is its own cause because I don’t have enough data to take a position on that.

As you’ve never grasped it, here again is a link to an explanation of the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. You’re welcome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

You know what the club regulations are for being the necessary being are Hillside.

What are you trying to say?

As they used to say on the Fast Show, your trying to be a “Little bit worrrrgghhhh, a little bit waaayyygh”

Have you forgotten to take the blue pills with the orange ones again?