Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Stranger]

But again either we question why stuff of a certain type invariably does and is....and not something else or we just resign ourself to saying the universe just does what it does as someonehas already resorted to in this thread.

The point you keep on ignoring is that if we decide to "explain" why stuff does what it does with rules that have an existence apart from the universe and a rule maker that decided what they were going to be, you haven't actually explained anything because there is no logical reason to then not ask the same question about the rule maker. Why does it exist and do as it does and not something else?

You've got to the conclusion you like and then arbitrarily stopped asking questions. Just slapping the label "necessary" on it, is equally arbitrary. How can you tell that the universe (as a whole) isn't necessary but some rule maker would be?

As things stand, you've just added the stuff you like without any hint of justification.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course you can

How - simple understanding of relativity make this very challenging.

Take a classic example - from the perspective of a person stood on the earth it may appear that they are still and the sun is moving overhead. While from the perspective of the sun the reverse is the case - that the entity that is moving is the person on a rotating planet.

You really do struggle with things being relative and potentially elastic and flexible, rather than fixed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point you keep on ignoring is that if we decide to "explain" why stuff does what it does with rules that have an existence apart from the universe and a rule maker that decided what they were going to be, you haven't actually explained anything because there is no logical reason to then not ask the same question about the rule maker. Why does it exist and do as it does and not something else?

You've got to the conclusion you like and then arbitrarily stopped asking questions. Just slapping the label "necessary" on it, is equally arbitrary. How can you tell that the universe (as a whole) isn't necessary but some rule maker would be?

As things stand, you've just added the stuff you like without any hint of justification.

Your logic sounds as if it has never come across contingency and necessity. If you had a private education perhaps you can sue for being short changed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How - simple understanding of relativity make this very challenging.

Take a classic example - from the perspective of a person stood on the earth it may appear that they are still and the sun is moving overhead. While from the perspective of the sun the reverse is the case - that the entity that is moving is the person on a rotating planet.

You really do struggle with things being relative and potentially elastic and flexible, rather than fixed.

You've completely ignored my question about what you think a hierarchy is.

[Gordon]

As far studying ''stuff'' is concerned I tend to use the words how and why interchangeably. I'm not an anally retentive atheist you see.

In which case you'll forego clarity and risk descending into the chasm of equivocation - that said, you'll be company for Alan.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case you'll forego clarity and risk descending into the chasm of equivocation - that said, you'll be company for Alan.

Aye, you'll be doomed to the chasm of equivocation, where there will be a great gnashing o' teeth and if ye ha'no teeth then truly, teeth will be provided.Aye.

[ProfessorDavey]

Citation?

Standard definitions

Why - the cause, reason, or purpose for which (i.e. purpose/reasons implying motive)

How - in what way or manner; by what means (i.e. manner/means implying mechanism).

Are you unable to recognise the completely different meaning of:

How did you kill Jack vs Why did you kill Jack

[Gordon]

Aye, you'll be doomed to the chasm of equivocation, where there will be a great gnashing o' teeth and if ye ha'no teeth then truly, teeth will be provided.Aye.

Thank you, Pike.

[ProfessorDavey]

You've completely ignored my question about what you think a hierarchy is.

Hierarchy is a statement of direction - but direction is in itself a relative concept, not an absolute one.

[Stranger]

Your logic sounds as if it has never come across contingency and necessity. If you had a private education perhaps you can sue for being short changed.

Any idiot can pretend to have superior knowledge or understanding. I'm still waiting for you to produce or cite any actual argument that isn't laughable.

Why would a rule maker be necessary? Why couldn't the universe as a whole be necessary? How do you know what is necessary? You have produced nothing at all that resembles logical reasoning. All you seem to be doing is pointing at something nobody actually knows the anwer to and trying to populate the unknown with your favourite myth - without the slightest hint of a logical justification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any idiot can pretend to have superior knowledge or understanding. I'm still waiting for you to produce or cite any actual argument that isn't laughable.

Why would a rule maker be necessary? Why couldn't the universe as a whole be necessary? How do you know what is necessary? You have produced nothing at all that resembles logical reasoning. All you seem to be doing is pointing at something nobody actually knows the anwer to and trying to populate the unknown with your favourite myth - without the slightest hint of a logical justification.

The universe could be necessary but there would have to be something discovered about the universe which wasn't contingent. What would that be like? Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.

[ProfessorDavey]

The universe could be necessary but there would have to be something discovered about the universe which wasn't contingent. What would that be like? Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.

Isn't that what people have considered energy to be for centuries - effectively that is cannot be created or destroyed and within a closed system universe the total amount is constant. Therefore the energy is not contingent on something else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't that what people have considered energy to be for centuries - effectively that is cannot be created or destroyed and within a closed system universe the total amount is constant. Therefore the energy is not contingent on something else.

If it can be changed then I suppose it is contingent.

[ProfessorDavey]

If it can be changed then I suppose it is contingent.

It can only be converted in form but energy itself would appear not to be contingent on anything else - it exists in a fixed amount in the universe and can neither be created nor destroyed - or so standard orthodox physics thinking has considered to be the case since about 1840.

[Stranger]

The universe could be necessary but there would have to be something discovered about the universe which wasn't contingent.

Why do you think the whole of space-time and all its contents can't possibly be necessary? As I've been trying to explain, the whole lot is just a four-dimensional object.

What would that be like? Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science...

I have no idea.

...or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.

Trying to read your favourite myth into an unknown again...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you think the whole of space-time and all its contents can't possibly be necessary? As I've been trying to explain, the whole lot is just a four-dimensional object.

I don't, but how can the whole universe be necessary when what we observe is contingent?

You might argue that necessity emerges as a property from the ensemble of contingent things but then that necessity would itself then be contingent on something else.

Necessity cannot be affected by anything else or it becomes contingent on other things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It can only be converted in form but energy itself would appear not to be contingent on anything else - it exists in a fixed amount in the universe and can neither be created nor destroyed - or so standard orthodox physics thinking has considered to be the case since about 1840.

Energy exists in a fixed amount suggests fine tuning. Could the amount have been different?

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe we will never know because it may be impervious to science ...

To misquote Dillahunty - an entity that does not manifest is in reality indistinguishable to an entity that does not exist.

or maybe we could know if it chose to reveal itself to us.

Here we go again - you cannot get away from the anthropomorphising and applying consciousness to everything - why is choice relevant here. Did energy 'choose' to reveal itself to us ... now about gravity, did it 'choose' to reveal itself to us. Nope - they were always there, unthinking, unconscious and one day humans discovered them. They just as much exist even if humans hadn't discovered them or even if there were no intelligent life or even any life in the universe.

You cannot stop yourself seeing the world through your own human-created god-shaped blinkers, can you Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

Energy exists in a fixed amount suggests fine tuning.

No it doesn't - the fixed amount derives from its inability to be created nor destroyed rather than fine tuning.

Could the amount have been different?

I've no idea, do you? Point is it cannot be created nor destroyed and therefore always did and always will exist.

[Stranger]

Isn't that what people have considered energy to be for centuries - effectively that is cannot be created or destroyed and within a closed system universe the total amount is constant. Therefore the energy is not contingent on something else.

Energy isn't stuff though, it's a property of stuff, there has to be something (or system of things) that has energy. No stuff, no energy. See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy.

[Stranger]

I don't, but how can the whole universe be necessary when what we observe is contingent?

The point is Vlad, that it's you who are trying to draw conclusions from unknowns. I don't know, and I don't think anybody else knows, what is necessary (if anything) or why, in the context of what exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To misquote Dillahunty - an entity that does not manifest is in reality indistinguishable to an entity that does not exist.

There is an entertaining video of an interview with Dillahunty asking him what level of ''manifestation'' would clinch God for him.

An asteroid mysteriously plucked out of orbit crashing into the moon and the debris spelling out the name of God in every language was offered. He still couldn't bring himself to say he would then believe saying something like ''it would have to happen more than once'' or something. That made me smile.

I have no doubt that God has made himself manifest in Jesus Christ.

[ProfessorDavey]

Energy isn't stuff though, it's a property of stuff, there has to be something (or system of things) that has energy. No stuff, no energy. See: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy.

I don't think I said it was stuff - I think that might have been Vlad.

My point is that energy (as as property) does not seem to be contingent on something else as it is effectively constant within the universe and is unable to be created nor destroyed. And given that we have spent much of this thread discussing basic physical laws, which are human descriptions of physical properties and relationships, then I'd have thought discussion of energy as a property that seems not to be contingent on anything else seems highly relevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't - the fixed amount derives from its inability to be created nor destroyed rather than fine tuning.
I've no idea, do you? Point is it cannot be created nor destroyed and therefore always did and always will exist.

1) Inability? for whom?
2) If it is unable to be created, how come it's there?

[ProfessorDavey]

I have no doubt that God has made himself manifest in Jesus Christ.

An assertion without evidence.

And only a fool claims to have no doubt in an assertion, without any evidence to back up their assertion.