Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

Could you share your issues with the necessary entity beyond the lack of physical evidence?

Perhaps then you could tell me how it actually works that something could be its own reason for existing?

Why must there just be one final necessary entity?
Ockam's razor suggests a final entity.

Firstly, there is no finality associated with Ockham's razor, it is simply a preferred option when faced with competing hypotheses. What we are dealing with here is not an hypothesis but conjecture. For instance, It is a possible conjecture that the universe itself is a necessary entity. It is also possible that there are multiple parallel universes and therefore possible that there are multiple necessary entities.

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.

See above.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps then you could tell me how it actually works that something could be its own reason for existing?

Firstly, there is no finality associated with Ockham's razor, it is simply a preferred option when faced with competing hypotheses. What we are dealing with here is not an hypothesis but conjecture. For instance, It is a possible conjecture that the universe itself is a necessary entity. It is also possible that there are multiple parallel universes and therefore possible that there are multiple necessary entities.

See above.

And it is possible that there are no necessary entities

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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)

What are you trying to say?

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

The laws of nature cannot be a) merely a description of what the universe does b) Be the universe AND be the necessary being.
I'm defining the universe here as the ensemble of necessary being and contingent things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And it is possible that there are no necessary entities

Positive assertion.
Please state then, how it is possible.

[Gordon]

The laws of nature cannot be a) merely a description of what the universe does

Why not?

b) Be the universe AND be the necessary being.

Why not? I don't think there are enough good reasons as yet to conclude that there is a 'necessary being', but since you've already concluded that it (if it exists) and the universe are mutually exclusive then presumably you can explain why you've concluded that - and by explain I don't mean your usual mix of hand-waving or kite flying.
 

I'm defining the universe here as the ensemble of necessary being and contingent things.

Super - but to accept your definition we'd need to see how you got to that point. It seems to me all you're doing is generalising along the lines that 'the universe consists of everything it consists of', which is an obviously simplistic, fallacious and circular statement. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not?

We are describing what contingent things are doing not why there are contingent things in the first place. This does not get us to a description being the necessary entity.

The laws of nature. To satisfy the requirements have to exist independently from contingent things, not just describe contingent things

Why not? I don't think there are enough good reasons as yet to conclude that there is a 'necessary being', but since you've already concluded that it (if it exists) and the universe are mutually exclusive then presumably you can explain why you've concluded that - and by explain I don't mean your usual mix of hand-waving or kite flying.
 
Super - but to accept your definition we'd need to see how you got to that point. It seems to me all you're doing is generalising along the lines that 'the universe consists of everything it consists of', which is an obviously simplistic, fallacious and circular statement.

I disagree. Contingency points to a necessary entity.
Contingency without necessity is absurdity. There is no good reason not to conclude it. Indeed opponents of it not only suspend the principle of sufficient reason at this point but actively seek to to overturn the principle of sufficient reason...often trying to use the principle of sufficient reason to disprove itself.

[Nearly Sane]

Positive assertion.
Please state then, how it is possible.

Because the idea of a necessary entity itself is an unevidenced assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

We are describing what contingent things are doing not why there are contingent things in the first place. This does not get us to a description being the necessary entity.

The laws of nature. To satisfy the requirements have to exist independently from contingent things, not just describe contingent things  I disagree. Contingency points to a necessary entity.
Contingency without necessity is absurdity. There is no good reason not to conclude it. Indeed opponents of it not only suspend the principle of sufficient reason at this point but actively seek to to overturn the principle of sufficient reason...often trying to use the principle of sufficient reason to disprove itself.

He asserted.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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?

There is only one "you".
The whole argument revolves around what comprises "you" and how it manifests and works.
You claim that everything can be explained as something which magically emerges from the consequences of physically controlled reactions.
But your explanation fails to acknowledge the source and control needed to form reasoned arguments.  Your materialistic model can have no ultimate control because everything is attributed to the unavoidable consequences of material reactions over which we have no control.

The truth is that reasoned arguments cannot just fall out from the consequences of uncontrollable reactions.  They need a source of conscious control and verification, otherwise they can have no validity.  You are the source of control.  You are the conscious awareness.  There is only one "you" and you comprise more than the consequences of material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is only one "you".

So my wife tells me.

The whole argument revolves around what comprises "you" and how it manifests and works.

There isn’t an argument – an argument requires opposing sets of logically sound reasoning. What we have here is one set of those running up against (apparently) wilful indifference to sound reasoning. 

You claim that everything can be explained as something which magically emerges from the consequences of physically controlled reactions.

No, I “claim” that there’s no good reason that you’ve been able to produce to exclude consciousness from the category of emergent properties that we see everywhere in nature. You don’t like that because it contradicts the house of sand that supports you’re a priori faith beliefs, so you’re forced to post dishonest mush to defend that…   

But your explanation fails to acknowledge the source and control needed to form reasoned arguments.  Your materialistic model can have no ultimate control because everything is attributed to the unavoidable consequences of material reactions over which we have no control.

… like this. There’s no particular reason that I know of to exclude the possibility of a self-self-evaluating and self-regulating system of separate but integrated components that does that – and nor have you been able to provide one.

The truth is that reasoned arguments cannot just fall out from the consequences of uncontrollable reactions.

Just calling something “the" truth doesn’t make it so. It may be your truth, but you a have all your work ahead of you still to demonstrate that it’s also “the” truth. Try to remember this.

They need a source of conscious control and verification, otherwise they can have no validity.

Argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

Again.

You are the source of control.  You are the conscious awareness.  There is only one "you" and you comprise more than the consequences of material reactions.

So what happened to your magic wee man at the controls “soul” then? Has he now left the stage?

[Outrider]

We are describing what contingent things are doing not why there are contingent things in the first place. This does not get us to a description being the necessary entity.

That this line of discourse doesn't prove that it is the case isn't the same thing as therefore being a demonstration that this definitively isn't the case. Saying that bees look black and yellow isn't proof that they're insects, but the fact it isn't proof they are obviously isn't strong evidence, let alone proof, that they aren't.

The laws of nature. To satisfy the requirements have to exist independently from contingent things, not just describe contingent things

And describing their effects on the physical universe doesn't nothing to to say whether they exist independently of those physical things or are a manifestation of those physical things - they may be either.

I disagree. Contingency points to a necessary entity.

How? How does '1 because 2' and '2 because 3' intrinsically lead to 'therefore x is independent'?

Contingency without necessity is absurdity.

Necessity is also absurdity - this exists, without basis is counter to any sort of understanding we have of anything. It turns out, when considering possibilities this far outside of the circumstances for which our brains have evolved to fathom, our sense of personal incredulity is not a good guide.

There is no good reason not to conclude it. Indeed opponents of it not only suspend the principle of sufficient reason at this point but actively seek to to overturn the principle of sufficient reason...often trying to use the principle of sufficient reason to disprove itself.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason, succinctly, is that everything must have a reason, cause or ground. Source. Your suggestion of an 'uncaused cause' is the most explicity breach of that notion possible - a definitively uncaused event. The Principle of Sufficient Reason, if universally applied, inevitably leads to an infinite chain of events, whether a closed loop or eternal in scope. To arbitrarily impose 'a start point' and then cite the Principle of Sufficient Reason as somehow the basis of that is just unfathomable.

O.

[Enki]

And it is possible that there are no necessary entities

Indeed, as I have made clear to Vlad on more than one occasion.

[jeremyp]

The important part here is “The word(Jesus, God the Son)was God”
Which is as clear as it gets.

Words are units of language. It's utterly stupid to think that a word can be a god. That aside, the quote is internally self contradictory. It's nonsense to talk about something that can be with itself.

[jeremyp]

Yes it does. All the time in fact. It was once true that the world was flat for example; now it isn’t.

It was never true that the World is flat. Where did you get that idea from. It was once true that people believed the World is flat, but they were just wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear, oh dear. You've failed basic logic.

The fallacy of composition merely says that you cannot infer a property of an object from the fact that its component parts have the property in the general case.

You can't infer that the wall is yellow from the fact that the bricks are yellow without some extra information e.g. the way colour works. You know as a general fact that things made up of components all of one colour generally have that same colour.

Here's another one for you. If you have cubic bricks, does that mean the wall you build will be a cube?

The necessary entity is not composed or composite.
How is a fallacy about composition appropriate?

[ekim]

Words are units of language. It's utterly stupid to think that a word can be a god. That aside, the quote is internally self contradictory. It's nonsense to talk about something that can be with itself.

Yes.  'Word' is, in my opinion,  a poor translation of the Greek 'Logos'.  I suspect that John's Gospel was written under the influence of the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo who lived at about the same time as Jesus.  There is something about 'Logos' and its meaning further down in this Wikipedia article for anybody who might be interested.  ...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp

It was never true that the World is flat. Where did you get that idea from. It was once true that people believed the World is flat, but they were just wrong.

Yes I know (obviously), but that wasn’t the point. The point is that truths are human constructions (rather than properties of the universe) and that at one time the prevailing “truth” was different from the truth now. Similarly there’s no way to eliminate some future civilisation saying we were just wrong about the truths that we consider to be correct now.     

[Outrider]

The necessary entity is not composed or composite.

What necessary entity? You've not explained the need for one - you've not, in particular, explained how your interpretation of the concept that you keep bringing up (Sufficient Reason) directly contradicts itself in this instance. Running it away to a different thread doesn't change that - it's almost like this thread is contingent on the last one, or something.

You might say it's all a little unnecessary...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What necessary entity? You've not explained the need for one - you've not, in particular, explained how your interpretation of the concept that you keep bringing up (Sufficient Reason) directly contradicts itself in this instance. Running it away to a different thread doesn't change that - it's almost like this thread is contingent on the last one, or something.

You might say it's all a little unnecessary...

O.

I think you’ll find that you have a necessary entity in your arguments when it comes down to it, namely some entity that is unique, can exist independently, gives rise to contingent things etc...
Otherwise, it’s infinite regression.

The main problem here is, I think, treating the universe as a composite which makes an individual entity. Simultaneous composition and simplicity is mystical woo isn’t it?

Actually I think the “I was created by the universe and all contingent things make up the universe” Has been suggested.

[Alan Burns]

So what happened to your magic wee man at the controls “soul” then? Has he now left the stage?

That was your interpretation.
Just to clarify:
You are not a biological machine.
You have conscious control of a biological machine

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That was your interpretation.
Just to clarify:
You are not a biological machine.
You have conscious control of a biological machine

Your really need to make up your mind about this. According to your beliefs, is there an invisible and undetectable wee homunculus called a "soul" doing the decision-making or not? 

[jeremyp]

jeremyp

Yes I know (obviously), but that wasn’t the point. The point is that truths are human constructions

No they aren't. At least, they are not if you believe there is an objective reality out there. Humans make statements that may be truths or maybe not and in the general case, we do not know if a statement we construct is true, but we can assign a probability to a particular statement t being true. For example, "the Earth is approximately a sphere" has an extremely high probability of being true. No alien is ever likely to prove it wrong.

I want to get away from this "it's true for me" bullshit. That's just a sop to people who are wrong to not hurt their feelings.

[jeremyp]

You are not a biological machine.

Yes he is. So am I. So are you.

You have conscious control of a biological machine

But the entity that has control of the biological machine is itself biological and is part of that biological machine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

No they aren't. At least, they are not if you believe there is an objective reality out there. Humans make statements that may be truths or maybe not and in the general case, we do not know if a statement we construct is true, but we can assign a probability to a particular statement t being true. For example, "the Earth is approximately a sphere" has an extremely high probability of being true. No alien is ever likely to prove it wrong.

Do you not think that a flat earther back in the day would have assigned the same probability to his beliefs? How about pre-Copernican astronomers - after all, they could actually see the sun rising and setting every day, so they had incontrovertible evidence for their geocentric universe model right?

I’m not suggesting that there isn’t an “out there” reality, and nor that reliance on evidence and reason doesn’t give us an essential difference between subjective and objective. I am saying though that history tells us that there have often been paradigm shifts that upended previous high probabilities and replaced them with new ones.   

I want to get away from this "it's true for me" bullshit. That's just a sop to people who are wrong to not hurt their feelings.

Why? I’m content to say that there’s no sound justifying reasoning for a “true for me” belief so there’s no reason for me to believe it too (AB’s god for example), but it’s still true for him nonetheless. He really, really believes it to be true apparently so from his perspective it is true. For more rational people though it’s just his subjective truth (same as my beliefs about leprechauns) that we can ignore or reject for ourselves accordingly. 

[Outrider]

I think you’ll find that you have a necessary entity in your arguments when it comes down to it, namely some entity that is unique, can exist independently, gives rise to contingent things etc...

I know  you think that, you keep telling us that you think that, but you keep failing to explain the 'why' bit. Why do you think that? Why do you presume there has to be some stop to the chain of causation?

Otherwise, it’s infinite regression.

Yes. And...

The main problem here is, I think, treating the universe as a composite which makes an individual entity. Simultaneous composition and simplicity is mystical woo isn’t it?

No, the main problem here is that every time someone makes a point that you don't have an answer to you slide off onto a tangent, or drop into ad hominems about 'scientism' or some such, or just flit off and take the one element of the argument you think you're currently comfortable with and start a new thread on, pretending the old one never happened.

WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR PRESUMING THAT A CHAIN OF CONTINGENT CAUSES MUST HAVE AN INITIAL TERMINUS?

O.