Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Good evening sir,
I've pulled you over tonight because we are doing spotchecks on bullshitting in your area.

Could you please blow into this and give us the three fallacies?

Given that you’ve clearly borrowed your Dad’s old parking attendant uniform, there’s Wotsits dust all over your mug and your “walkie-talkie” is actually and Early Learning Centre toy I call foul on your claim.

Oh, and as I’ve explained the fallacies you rely on for the “necessary entity” bollocks you’ve peddled so often here before now with no sign that you’ve understood a word of it there’s not a lot of point in repeating it I’d have thought.

That said, and in the well-founded expectation that it’ll fall on deaf ears yet again:

Fallacy 1: misplaced specificity. Even if the argument wasn’t a busted flush there’s no reason to think that the “creator” was a god, nor that it was any particular god, or nor for that matter that there weren’t ten, a hundred or a million such creators kicking around.

Fallacy 2: fallacy of composition. That the stuff you’re aware of in the universe is deterministic in character does not imply that the universe itself must share the same property.     

Fallacy 3: fallacy of infinite regress. All the ontological argument does is relocate the same question of “what caused it?” from the universe to the supposed god. In other words, a “he’s magic inne?” god doesn’t explain anything.

There’s more by the way – how for example would you propose to demonstrate that the existence of the universe is less likely the its non-existence? You may need some extra paper to show your workings out for that one… 
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Given that you’ve clearly borrowed your Dad’s old parking attendant uniform, there’s Wotsits dust all over your mug and your “walkie-talkie” is actually and Early Learning Centre toy I call foul on your claim.

Oh, and as I’ve explained the fallacies you rely on for the “necessary entity” bollocks you’ve peddled so often here before now with no sign that you’ve understood a word of it there’s not a lot of point in repeating it I’d have thought.

That said, and in the well-founded expectation that it’ll fall on deaf ears yet again:

Fallacy 1: misplaced specificity. Even if the argument wasn’t a busted flush there’s no reason to think that the “creator” was a god, nor that it was any particular god, or nor for that matter that there weren’t ten, a hundred or a million such creators kicking around.

Of course there is reason since creator is an attribute of a God. With multiple creators we are left with the question “Why that many?”

Fallacy 2: fallacy of composition. That the stuff you’re aware of in the universe is deterministic in character does not imply that the universe itself must share the same property.

Fallacy 3: fallacy of infinite regress. All the ontological argument does is relocate the same question of “what caused it?” from the universe to the supposed god. In other words, a “he’s magic inne?” god doesn’t explain anything.

There’s more by the way – how for example would you propose to demonstrate that the existence of the universe is less likely the its non-existence? You may need some extra paper to show your workings out for that one…

The fallacy of composition merely states that a composite does not necessarily have the properties of the parts. Not that it definitely doesn’t share the same properties.
So a wall made of a million small bricks will be large.

Of course when you use the fallacy of composition you are saying the equivalent of “A wall made of red bricks is not necessarily red, it can be blue”.

A necessary composite is as absurd but that is exactly what you are trying to fob people off with.

[Gordon]

Of course there is reason since creator is an attribute of a God.

So the story goes, but you'd first need to established that there is this 'God' before you investigate it so as to determine what attributes it has - remember to show your workings.
 

With multiple creators we are left with the question “Why that many?”

There is also the question of 'why any?'

The fallacy of composition merely states that a composite does not necessarily have the properties of the parts. Not that it definitely doesn’t share the same properties.
So a wall made of a million small bricks will be large.

All you're doing here is giving an example of scale, since (presumably) all the bricks are identical.

Of course when you use the fallacy of composition you are saying the equivalent of “A wall made of red bricks is not necessarily red, it can be blue”.

That isn't what is being said though - if, according to your example, all the bricks are identical (and red) then any resulting wall using just those bricks will be red too. It seems you don't understand what the fallacy of composition entails.

A necessary composite is as absurd but that is exactly what you are trying to fob people off with.

I think it's more the case that you reed to revisit what you're saying here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the story goes, but you'd first need to established that there is this 'God' before you investigate it so as to determine what attributes it has - remember to show your workings.
 
There is also the question of 'why any?'

All you're doing here is giving an example of scale, since (presumably) all the bricks are identical.

That isn't what is being said though - if, according to your example, all the bricks are identical (and red) then any resulting wall using just those bricks will be red too. It seems you don't understand what the fallacy of composition entails.

I think it's more the case that you reed to revisit what you're saying here.

You've misunderstood what I've said. I agree that a wall using just red bricks will be red.

Using the fallacy of composition argument in the way Hillside uses it allows for the bricks to be blue......which is absurd.

Similarly his understanding of the fallacy allows for a necessary composite, similarly absurd.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course there is reason since creator is an attribute of a God. With multiple creators we are left with the question “Why that many?”

So creation is an attribute of a god, there must be a creator, therefore a creator god...creation is an attribute of a god, therefore there must be a creator, therefore a creator god...creation is an attribute of a god etc (repeat endlessly).

Not sure why you think circular reasoning helps you here, but careful you don’t get dizzy...

The fallacy of composition merely states that a composite does not necessarily have the properties of the parts. Not that it definitely doesn’t share the same properties.
So a wall made of a million small bricks will be large.

You’re the one arguing that the determinism of the observable universe is a proof for a creator god remember? It’s your job therefore to demonstrate that the determinism of the universe means it too must have been created, not mine to show that it necessarily wasn’t.

Not sure why you think the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy helps you here, but I guess that notion has always had you foxed hasn’t it.       

Of course when you use the fallacy of composition you are saying the equivalent of “A wall made of red bricks is not necessarily red, it can be blue”.

A necessary composite is as absurd but that is exactly what you are trying to fob people off with.

No I’m not. What I actually saying when I explain on your use o the fallacy of composition is just what it actually means – ie, inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. If you want to have a go at falsifying the fallacy itself though, by all means give it a try. Doubtless logicians around the world await your thesis…     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So creation is an attribute of a god, there must be a creator, therefore a creator god...creation is an attribute of a god, therefore there must be a creator, therefore a creator god...creation is an attribute of a god etc (repeat endlessly).

Not sure why you think circular reasoning helps you here, but careful you don’t get dizzy...

You’re the one arguing that the determinism of the observable universe is a proof for a creator god remember? It’s your job therefore to demonstrate that the determinism of the universe means it too must have been created, not mine to show that it necessarily wasn’t.

Not sure why you think the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy helps you here, but I guess that notion has always had you foxed hasn’t it.       

No I’m not. What I actually saying when I explain on your use o the fallacy of composition is just what it actually means – ie, inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. If you want to have a go at falsifying the fallacy itself though, by all means give it a try. Doubtless logicians around the world await your thesis…   

I leave words like proof and QED to people like yourself.
 I’m quite happy to settle for my argument being superior to yours which  allows for walls made of red bricks to mysteriously turn blue and composites to mysteriously become necessities. This makes your accusations of others saying “it’s magic innit” yet another example of projection on your part.

[Steve H]

Vlad,

So creation is an attribute of a god, there must be a creator, therefore a creator god...creation is an attribute of a god, therefore there must be a creator, therefore a creator god...creation is an attribute of a god etc (repeat endlessly).

It's an obviously flawed argument, but not because it's circular, so your usual tiresome sarcasm is misplaced. It's flawed because creation is obviously not restricted to God.

[Stranger]

I’m quite happy to settle for my argument...

What argument is that? Please outline it so we know what we're talking about.

....and composites to mysteriously become necessities.

Have you actually found a way to make a 'necessary entity' logically meaningful since we last visited this, or is it still just "it's magic"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What argument is that? Please outline it so we know what we're talking about.

Have you actually found a way to make a 'necessary entity' logically meaningful since we last visited this, or is it still just "it's magic"?

I think you aren’t up to speed here. I’m suggesting that the universe isn’t the necessary entity and Hillside is saying it could be.

You seem to be wanting physical evidence for one to which I am suggesting there might never be any.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Actually there are various hypotheses about that, but in any case there’s no reason to think that consciousness isn’t another example of the same phenomenon. You however assert with no reasoning or evidence at all for support that consciousness cannot be an emergent property too. All you’re being asked to do is to justify your argument-free claim.   

What it does is to propose a model seen everywhere we look in nature. There’s no reason that you’ve been able to provide to indicate that the explanation for consciousness should be any different from the same generalised phenomenon of emergence.   

No, the problem you have is that you keep making that assertion but never justify it with reasons. What’s stopping you?
 
And nor does there need to be if it’s an emergent property. 

Mindless, evidence- and argument-free blind faith claim.

Try again.

You seem content to believe that you are something which emerges from physically driven material reactions over which you have no conscious control, yet you do not seem to realise how illogical it is to come to any confirmed belief without conscious control of your thoughts.  You believe that your brain was the result of a mindless unguided process, so how can you trust what it produces?  American philosopher Thomas Nagel has explored this topic extensively and concludes: "consciousness and subjective experience cannot, at least with the contemporary understanding of physicalism, be satisfactorily explained with the concepts of physics."

I am aware that Nagel is an atheist, but a somewhat troubled one: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. "

[Stranger]

I’m suggesting that the universe isn’t the necessary entity and Hillside is saying it could be.

How is it logically possible for anything to be 'necessary', i.e. its own reason for existing?

You seem to be wanting physical evidence for one to which I am suggesting there might never be any.

No. I want some logical explanation that makes 'necessary entity' anything more than "it's necessary because it's magic, innit?"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I leave words like proof and QED to people like yourself.
 I’m quite happy to settle for my argument being superior to yours which  allows for walls made of red bricks to mysteriously turn blue and composites to mysteriously become necessities. This makes your accusations of others saying “it’s magic innit” yet another example of projection on your part.

Very funny. An argument that relies on the fallacy of composition is not superior to the argument that tells you why the fallacy of composition is a fallacy.

You assert that the fact of determinism in the universe implies that the universe as a whole must be dependent on something other than itself. That’s the fallacy of composition. You can obfuscate that all you like, but it’s still your fallacy to address.

Good luck with it though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

It's an obviously flawed argument, but not because it's circular, so your usual tiresome sarcasm is misplaced. It's flawed because creation is obviously not restricted to God.

A few posts ago I explained that the cosmological arguments rests on multiple fallacies. Vlad’s recent effort was circular (his conclusion of a creator god was also his premise) but it also relied on the fallacy of false specificity (as I explained).       

[Stranger]

You seem content to believe that you are something which emerges from physically driven material reactions over which you have no conscious control, yet you do not seem to realise how illogical it is to come to any confirmed belief without conscious control of your thoughts.

"Conscious control of your thoughts" doesn't even mean anything, Alan. You keep refusing to explain it. It's gibberish.

FALLACY: Argument by assertion.

You cannot assert something into being illogical. You need to actually do the work and provide the logic.

You believe that your brain was the result of a mindless unguided process, so how can you trust what it produces?

FALLACY: Personal incredulity.

American philosopher Thomas Nagel has explored this topic extensively and concludes: "consciousness and subjective experience cannot, at least with the contemporary understanding of physicalism, be satisfactorily explained with the concepts of physics."

FALLACY: Argument from ignorance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How is it logically possible for anything to be 'necessary', i.e. its own reason for existing?

No. I want some logical explanation that makes 'necessary entity' anything more than "it's necessary because it's magic, innit?"

The alternative to existence is non existence. Since non existence can produce nothing what exists fundamentally must always exist since there is no context from which it can have come from.

It needs nothing therefore but itself for it’s existence.

[Stranger]

The alternative to existence is non existence. Since non existence can produce nothing what exists fundamentally must always exist since there is no context from which it can have come from.

It needs nothing therefore but itself for it’s existence.

That would be a brute fact, then, that could easily be the whole universe (space-time).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem content to believe that you are something which emerges from physically driven material reactions over which you have no conscious control, yet you do not seem to realise how illogical it is to come to any confirmed belief without conscious control of your thoughts.  You believe that your brain was the result of a mindless unguided process, so how can you trust what it produces?  American philosopher Thomas Nagel has explored this topic extensively and concludes: "consciousness and subjective experience cannot, at least with the contemporary understanding of physicalism, be satisfactorily explained with the concepts of physics."

Whether or not he’s right about that doesn’t help you. The (current) “concepts of physics” may be inadequate for a robust theory of consciousness, but so were the contemporaneous concepts of physics inadequate for a robust theory of the quantum before Einstein came along. That didn’t though mean that magic pixies were the explanation.

In other words, you’re just reaching the god of gaps fallacy again.       

I am aware that Nagel is an atheist, but a somewhat troubled one: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. "

I’d be surprised if he fell for the fallacy of authority, but in any case the point isn’t how “intelligent and well-informed” they may have been - the point is whether or not their reasoning was sound. So far at least, none that I’m aware of has been.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would be a brute fact, then, that could easily be the whole universe (space-time).

Not sure that is brute fact since the explanation is reasonable.

 Brute fact would be

God is suck it up
Or
The universe just is and there’s an end to it. Bertrand Russell.

I don’t think you can compare that with the sufficient reason for why something can be it’s own explanation as given.

You probably haven’t noticed your own leanings toward the universe being the necessary entity but the universe suffers from being a suspected finite thing, a composite, the lucky candidate in a range of
Possible universe in fact a whole host of reasons it might be unnecessary.

In short the necessary entity is it’s own explanation because there is nothing else to explain it.

There was a big clue in occam’s Razor which talked of not going beyond necessity. Scientism loved Occam’s but never properly heeded him.

[Stranger]

I don’t think you can compare that with the sufficient reason for why something can be it’s own explanation as given.

You haven't given s sufficient reason. All you said is that nothing can't produce anything so something must exist. That isn't a reason why it's that something, rather than something else, nor does it explain what contradiction would follow if it didn't exist.

That's before we get into the fact that you seem to have slipped back into a Newtonian idea of time...

You probably haven’t noticed your own leanings toward the universe being the necessary entity...

I have never made such a claim. I think the whole idea of a 'necessary entity' is illogical garbage.

...but the universe suffers from being a suspected finite thing, a composite, the lucky candidate in a range of
Possible universe in fact a whole host of reasons it might be unnecessary.

How do you know what universes are possible?

In short the necessary entity is it’s own explanation because there is nothing else to explain it.

Which could not apply to the universe, because.......?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not sure that is brute fact since the explanation is reasonable.

 Brute fact would be

God is suck it up
Or
The universe just is and there’s an end to it. Bertrand Russell.

Yet again, Russell wasn’t claiming “brute fact” as an explanation for the brute fact – he was just saying that that’s as much as can be said about it. 

I don’t think you can compare that with the sufficient reason for why something can be it’s own explanation as given.

Gibberish.

You probably haven’t noticed your own leanings toward the universe being the necessary entity but the universe suffers from being a suspected finite thing, a composite, the lucky candidate in a range of
Possible universe in fact a whole host of reasons it might be unnecessary.

In short the necessary entity is it’s own explanation because there is nothing else to explain it.

What “leanings”? The universe exists. That’s the brute fact part. Why it exists (assuming “why” is even a legitimate question) is unknown and, currently at least, unknowable.   

There was a big clue in occam’s Razor which talked of not going beyond necessity. Scientism loved Occam’s but never properly heeded him.

Occam’s razor works against you here. We know the laws of nature to exist as a brute fact, which therefore requires fewer assumptions than conjuring up an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent personal creator as another brute fact to explain it.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which could not apply to the universe, because.......?

It is a composite
Because of the presence of contingency
The universe could be different
It may have had a start
It may be finite
All these things militate against it being it’s own explanation.........or even brute fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is a composite
Because of the presence of contingency
The universe could be different
It may have had a start
It may be finite
All these things militate against it being it’s own explanation.........or even brute fact.

"Could be", "may be" etc is not "is". It "could be" that leprechauns leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows too. Is that a sound argument for leprechauns? If you can work out why the answer to that is "no" you should be able to work our why your case for the cosmological argument is a crock too.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yet again, Russell wasn’t claiming “brute fact” as an explanation for the brute fact – he was just saying that that’s as much as can be said about it. 

Gibberish.

What “leanings”? The universe exists. That’s the brute fact part. Why it exists (assuming “why” is even a legitimate question) is unknown and, currently at least, unknowable.   

Occam’s razor works against you here. We know the laws of nature to exist as a brute fact, which therefore requires fewer assumptions than conjuring up an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent personal creator as another brute fact to explain it.   

We know existence is brute. Things which exist are. But they aren’t “Just are” there is a reason.
Occam’s razor doesn’t work against me it works against those who say there is no necessity just contingency to which the next step is to ask contingent on what.

When Russell declared the universe just is he alienated science and philosophy and chucked guff about fallacy of composition shamanically at the hole he had dug himself with Copplestone.

[Stranger]

It is a composite
Because of the presence of contingency

So what? Neither of these contradict your supposed reason.

The universe could be different

So what, and how do you know?

It may have had a start

Get your head out of the 19th century view of time.

It may be finite

So what?

All these things militate against it being it’s own explanation.........or even brute fact.

Why? None of those things stop it from being something that exists otherwise nothing would, which is the only 'reasoning' you've provided. You have still not explained exactly how anything can be its own explanation, except the lame "there would be nothing else".

You really don't appear to have thought this through at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We know existence is brute.

No, the “brute” part refers to the fact that that’s all we can reasonably say about it. It’s a statement about the epistemology, not about the universe itself.     

Things which exist are. But they aren’t “Just are” there is a reason.

There may be “a reason” that explains the current “don’t know”, but just guessing about what it might be is worthless.

Occam’s razor doesn’t work against me it works against those who say there is no necessity just contingency to which the next step is to ask contingent on what.

A straw man doesn’t help you here either. Occam’s razor works against you because “the universe exists” is the demonstrable fact, but positing a magic god as its explanation requires multiple assumptions that aren't.   

When Russell declared the universe just is…

He didn’t. Yet again – what he actually “declared” was that that’s all that can be said about it. Try to understand the difference – it’ll help you stop crashing and burning if you can.   

…he alienated science and philosophy and chucked guff about fallacy of composition shamanically at the hole he had dug himself with Copplestone.

Utter bollocks. Reaching a “don’t know” didn’t alienate science or philosophy at all, and the fallacy of composition on which you rely is still a fallacy no matter how much drivel you throw at the (ie, your) problem.