Are we now agreed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is also purpose.

By that Spud do you mean reason?

[jeremyp]

And you can absolutely justify that remark?

I don't have to. Your inability to justify the original claim and your transparent attempts to deflect the burden of proof are all the justification I need.

I'm glad you find the first premise in my and probably others version of the Kalam cosmological business not unreasonable.

Reasonableness is not at stake. It's whether the premise is a solid basis for the rest of the argument that counts. If you want the KCA to be considered seriously by me, showing that the first premise is true is just the first of a number of hurdles you must negotiate.

Is it more reasonable then than saying there is no reason for the universe particularly when reason seems to be a fundenental aspect of the universe?

In this context, I don't care whether it is more or less reasonable than some other idea. If you want me to accept the KCA, you have to show that the premises are true.

Also, if you are trying to convince me of something "it seems to be" is a combination of words that raises a red flag. Seeming to be is not the same as actually being.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have to. Your inability to justify the original claim and your transparent attempts to deflect the burden of proof are all the justification I need. Reasonableness is not at stake. It's whether the premise is a solid basis for the rest of the argument that counts. If you want the KCA to be considered seriously by me, showing that the first premise is true is just the first of a number of hurdles you must negotiate.In this context, I don't care whether it is more or less reasonable than some other idea. If you want me to accept the KCA, you have to show that the premises are true.

Also, if you are trying to convince me of something "it seems to be" is a combination of words that raises a red flag. Seeming to be is not the same as actually being.

I take it then that you are not bothered about a justified argument for naturalism or Godfree.

Reasonableness matters when you try to argue that there are no good reasons for theism.....

And indeed when you are prepared to take a bet in favour of there being no reason for the universe....a conclusion which is in itself an act of special pleading and an act that diminishrs the value of reason.

[jeremyp]

I take it then that you are not bothered about a justified argument for naturalism or Godfree.

Nope.

Reasonableness matters when you try to argue that there are no good reasons for theism.....

But since we are arguing about the soundness of the KCA, that's not relevant.

And indeed when you are prepared to take a bet in favour of there being no reason for the universe....a conclusion which is in itself an act of special pleading and an act that diminishrs the value of reason.

I'd take that bet but I doubt if you are I will be around to collect when the question is finally resolved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope.
But since we are arguing about the soundness of the KCA, that's not relevant.
I'd take that bet but I doubt if you are I will be around to collect when the question is finally resolved.

Name something then that has a beginning and does not have a reason or explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope.
But since we are arguing about the soundness of the KCA, that's not relevant.
I'd take that bet but I doubt if you are I will be around to collect when the question is finally resolved.

I see you dont deny special pleading then.

[Spud]

By that Spud do you mean reason?

I loved NS's comment but wanted to elaborate on the something that is, as he reminds us, there. The something apparently isn't just there - it's there for a purpose.

[SteveH]

Name something then that has a beginning and does not have a reason or explanation.

The universe, as far as we know. Even if everything in the universe has a pre-existent cause (and that appears not to be the case at the quantum level), it may not be true of the universe itself. "The universe just is, and that's all", as Bertie Russell put it.

[Spud]

Where?

Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.

The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".

[BeRational]

Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.

The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".

It does not imply purpose at all.

It simply shows reaction.

This does not happen on the Moon, so does this mean there is no purpose?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.

The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".

You're making a basic error in reasoning called the reference point error, or sometimes the lottery winner's fallacy (in which the lottery winner says, "the chances of me winning were 100m to one, I won, therefore purpose" whereas the so far as the lottery organiser was concerned the probability of a winner was one - they just didn't know or care who it would be).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The universe, as far as we know. Even if everything in the universe has a pre-existent cause (and that appears not to be the case at the quantum level), it may not be true of the universe itself. "The universe just is, and that's all", as Bertie Russell put it.

But if even proposing that the universe has a reason for its existence is unjustified.A universe which begins for no reason is unjustified and I .aintain it either has a reason or it doesnt and if one wants to remain non committal that state is not expressed in the screaming antitheism of this forum.

If the universe had a beginning and popped out of nothing that equals an argument that the universe is necessary rather than contingent now who would bet on this universe being necessary?

That of course is immediately undone by the question why this universe and not another or even why the u iverse and not a train set.

And yet we find people like JeremyP,  Gordon and Bluehillside et cie willing to take a punt on all of this.

If to avoid this you want to appeal to an infinite universe an infinite chain of conti gency doesnt produce a universe.

If I asked to borrow a fiver from you and you had to borrow a fiver from a friend who had to borrow it ad i fi itum you wouldnt get your fiver. If you get the goods its because someone actually had produced one

[Spud]

It does not imply purpose at all.

It simply shows reaction.

This does not happen on the Moon, so does this mean there is no purpose?

There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.

If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.

If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?

Yes. That only works if you persist in looking through the wrong end of the telescope for the reason I explained in my last post. If you can demonstrate first that little old you were the intended outcome all along then – but only then – can you marvel at a universe that organised itself just right for you. But then you’d be lost in circular reasoning (“god intended me, the universe is just right for me, therefore god, god intended me, the universe…" etc), which doesn’t help you at all.

[torridon]

There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.

If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?

It is safe to assume a house roof was made on purpose - its manufacture arose out of the conscious intention of the builder.  The Sun and Moon arose naturally, there is no evidence of conscious intention at work.

Do you think the purpose of cancer is to make people suffer and die ?

[Spud]

But I'm pretty sure we can get beyond the statement, "there is something" (#58). There is something and it works, in the same sense that a ticking clock isn't just a non-functional random arrangement of bits of metal but is doing something.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

But I'm pretty sure we can get beyond the statement, "there is something" (#58). There is something and it works, in the same sense that a ticking clock isn't just a non-functional random arrangement of bits of metal but is doing something.

What do you mean by "works"?

I suspect that what you think you mean isn't what you should mean, which is that the organism you are is relatively well adapted by natural selection to suit the environment it occupies.

[Spud]

Spud,

What do you mean by "works"?

I suspect that what you think you mean isn't what you should mean, which is that the organism you are is relatively well adapted by natural selection to suit the environment it occupies.

I'm talking about the state of the matter that exists: formless or with form. That it has form can be explained either as a coincidence or by there being a reason for its form. Even so, if matter had no form there would still be the question of why it exists, as matter nowadays doesn't just appear out of nothing.
Winnie the Pooh claimed that the only reason for being a bee was making honey, so that he could eat it. He was partly right in that bees pollinate plants while feeding themselves.

[jeremyp]

Name something then that has a beginning and does not have a reason or explanation.

The Universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I'm talking about the state of the matter that exists: formless or with form. That it has form can be explained either as a coincidence or by there being a reason for its form.

Or by the laws of physics working consistently.

Even so, if matter had no form there would still be the question of why it exists, as matter nowadays doesn't just appear out of nothing.

Your terminology is wrong and that’s not what physics currently tells us is the only option (quantum borrowing etc).   
 

Winnie the Pooh claimed that the only reason for being a bee was making honey, so that he could eat it. He was partly right in that bees pollinate plants while feeding themselves.

No, he was wholly wrong. Bees make honey but that’s not the “reason” for their existence at all; rather bears evolved to eat honey.

Really try to grasp the point here: the state of the universe looks miraculous to us because the bit of it we occupy seems to fit us so well, just as a puddle might marvel at the chances of the hole it occupies fitting it just so. That’s very bad thinking though for the reason that should be obvious: circular argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Universe.

Only in the sense that we dont seem to have it at the moment. Even the most hardened scientismatist would agree that nothing guarantees that to be the case.

What is it about the universe that has no and cannot have an explanation? Since when I look out of my castle window across our beautiful transylvanian countryside.....I see a universe of explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Universe.

Sorry that collapses because it cannot be justified.

[Maeght]

Well, the sun illuminates the earth. It also heats the sea enough to make some of it evaporate and form clouds, which then cool and drop rain on the land which can be very useful.

On this planet at the moment. How does that imply purpose rather than chance?

The "something" isn't just floating around willy nilly, it has form. That implies purpose, which implies a "will".

No idea what you mean there.

[jeremyp]

Only in the sense that we dont seem to have it at the moment.

I look forward to you bring the evidence to the table that explains the Universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I look forward to you bring the evidence to the table that explains the Universe.

And I am looking forward to see you justify your assertion that the universe has no explanation.