Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No you’re not. Identifying your lying isn’t “playing the man” at all. You had explained to you repeatedly that people were positing only one of various possibilities (it was even said in bold, italics and large font size) and you kept telling those same people that instead they’d made an unjustifiable claim of fact (that they wouldn't then "own").

That’s called lying, and you should stop it.

Still lying then. There is no unjustified assertion.

One concerns how the universe functions, the other what the universe is.

I just did.

Your “argument” from contingency asserts that the way the universe itself functions must also to be necessary for it to exist at all. Please justify.

Any one can see that you haven’t answered the questions.

I have no further questions for this witness, Milud.

[Stranger]

Necessity cannot logically be avoided.

Why not?

You keep on saying this, and it may or my not be true, but until you provide a proper argument, it's just a baseless assertion.

How is it logically possible for something to be its own explanation, and why would there need to be such a 'thing'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Any one can see that you haven’t answered the questions.

I have no further questions for this witness, Milud.

... he lied.

Again.

Go on, have another go: why do you think a universe that functions deterministically must also therefore itself have been determined by something else?

It's your claim - why not try a least to justify it?   

[Stranger]

What is the difference between a deterministic universe and the universe itself as a whole?

I've explained this to you multiple times, Vlad. Yet again...

The best theory we have of the whole universe is general relativity, which provides the picture of a 'block universe'. We have the space-time manifold, and time is an observer dependant direction through it. Causality and determinism are properties of how things change if you track along timelike directions through it. The manifold can't change because it contains time. There cannot (if this picture is substantially correct) be a cause, in any normal sense of the word, for the manifold itself because causation requires time and time is internal to the manifold.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not?

You keep on saying this, and it may or my not be true, but until you provide a proper argument, it's just a baseless assertion.

How is it logically possible for something to be its own explanation, and why would there need to be such a 'thing'?

Because if you could get something from nothing there would be an explanation of why something and not nothing. If something has always been there in infinite time and space there is still the,  question of why infinite time and space and the explanation for it. The explanation for why something and not nothing? That explanation has no further explanation and must be its own reason for being since it is not dependent on something for its existence.

[Outrider]

Not really, I think I’ve said repeatedly that if the universe is itself necessary, what is it about the universe that is necessary?

But who is saying that the universe is necessary?  The universe is, I'm not aware of anything that suggests it had to be.

Necessity cannot logically be avoided.

You only need necessity in the past if you have reason to think that something in the present was a requirement; if we are a happy accident, every single one of our potentially infinite antescedant events could be an equally contingent event.

It has nothing to do with any views on extra universal existence.

If you're attempting to suggest that something external to the universe is necessary, it really is.

O.

The subsequent question beyond the existence of the necessity is what is it like not I would have thought whether it is extra or internally universal.
[/quote]

[Stranger]

Because if you could get something from nothing there would be an explanation of why something and not nothing. If something has always been there in infinite time and space there is still the,  question of why infinite time and space and the explanation for it. The explanation for why something and not nothing? That explanation has no further explanation and must be its own reason for being since it is not dependent on something for its existence.

Absolute nothing isn't really a coherent state because time isn't nothing, so there can't have ever been a time at which nothing existed. Apart from that, it makes intuitive sense that there must be a reason why stuff exists and is the way it is and not some other way but even if we discount the idea that our intuition may be simply wrong, you still haven't actually said how it's logically possible for something to be its own explanation, so we can have no idea what sort of something we are looking for. If you add to that that we have no idea of the totality of what exists (we know this bit of expanding space-time exists, but we have no idea whether there is anything else or not), and we seem to have hit a dead end.

You need the rest of the argument that somehow rules out the space-time manifold having no further explanation, or some other (unknown) larger context having no further explanation, and leading to your version of god. Otherwise, we just have an unknown.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You only need necessity in the past if you have reason to think that something in the present was a requirement; if we are a happy accident, every single one of our potentially infinite antescedant events could be an equally contingent event.

O.

sorry, i’m not getting it
Are you saying that necessity was in the past or continuing with contingency only.

Secondly I would think there was a difference between the existence of eternal stuff and an infinite chain of events. This stuff which you have as necessary must be independent of contingency I would have thought.

[Outrider]

sorry, i’m not getting it. Are you saying that necessity was in the past or continuing with contingency only.

I'm not saying anything was demonstrably 'necessary', that's the point. You only need to show that something was necessary if you need to justify the existence of something subsequent to it - otherwise it's just something that happened.  If you think the point of existence was humanity (or conscious life, or whatever) then you need to establish what was necessary in order to start that particular chain and keep it on track.  If, however, you're happy to accept that we're just one particular point on an unguided path of nature, then there is nothing necessary, there's just prior things that happened to occur.

If reality is infinite, that's an infinite number of things that just happened, and none of them had to happen because we weren't a goal.

Secondly I would think there was a difference between the existence of eternal stuff and an infinite chain of events.

It's possible - there could be an extended period of nothing happening. Again, in the absence of any information on extra-universal activities, we have no way to establish if time - or some corollary of time - even has a meaning out there.

This stuff which you have as necessary must be independent of contingency I would have thought.

Depends on what it's necessary or contingent to or for, but importantly I don't see why you need to have anything 'necessary' at all.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not saying anything was demonstrably 'necessary', that's the point. You only need to show that something was necessary if you need to justify the existence of something subsequent to it - otherwise it's just something that happened.  If you think the point of existence was humanity (or conscious life, or whatever) then you need to establish what was necessary in order to start that particular chain and keep it on track.  If, however, you're happy to accept that we're just one particular point on an unguided path of nature, then there is nothing necessary, there's just prior things that happened to occur.

If reality is infinite, that's an infinite number of things that just happened, and none of them had to happen because we weren't a goal.

It's possible - there could be an extended period of nothing happening. Again, in the absence of any information on extra-universal activities, we have no way to establish if time - or some corollary of time - even has a meaning out there.

Depends on what it's necessary or contingent to or for, but importantly I don't see why you need to have anything 'necessary' at all.

O.

Even an unguided path and nature either need or are an explanation but i'm blowed why I should accept them as possibly the ultimate explanation which needs no more explanation especially when you are simultaneously counselling not to.

It sounds like you want an infinite number of contingencies from an infinite number of necessities and if not, why not?

All I can say is that a necessity is something not constrained to do anything apart from what it comes up with. There is no outside space in which it has degrees of freedom in.

It certainly isn't constrained by an infinite time since infinite time has an explanation external to it solicited by the question, why infinite time? As opposed to time starting 13 billion years ago or just finite time.
As for an extended period of time when nothing happened..... that could be infinite time couldn't it, The 'happening' therefore might hardly be said to be necessary then can it since it might have been a 'not happening' for an infinite amount of time.

[Stranger]

All I can say is that a necessity is something not constrained to do anything apart from what it comes up with.

Begging the question and contradicting yourself in the space of one sentence! The whole idea of something necessary being able to "come up with" something is begging the question, by assuming the conclusion you want. You still haven't explained how anything at all can be its own explanation, so you have no basis from which to make deductions about its nature.

Secondly, your previous objections to the universe being necessary is that it could have been different. If this necessary something "comes up with" something, the immediate implication is that it could have come up with something different, implying it would have been different, and leading you right back to the objection you had about the universe.

It's blindingly obvious why you don't want to set out a complete argument, because then you would actually have to defend it and make it self-consistent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Begging the question and contradicting yourself in the space of one sentence! The whole idea of something necessary being able to "come up with" something is begging the question, by assuming the conclusion you want. You still haven't explained how anything at all can be its own explanation, so you have no basis from which to make deductions about its nature.

Secondly, your previous objections to the universe being necessary is that it could have been different. If this necessary something "comes up with" something, the immediate implication is that it could have come up with something different, implying it would have been different, and leading you right back to the objection you had about the universe.

It's blindingly obvious why you don't want to set out a complete argument, because then you would actually have to defend it and make it self-consistent.

Or alternatively because he has no idea what in logic an argument entails, which is why he's never, ever attempted to make one of his own. About anything.

[Outrider]

Even an unguided path and nature either need or are an explanation but i'm blowed why I should accept them as possibly the ultimate explanation which needs no more explanation especially when you are simultaneously counselling not to.

It might be an explanation for what follows, but that doesn't make it necessary.

It sounds like you want an infinite number of contingencies from an infinite number of necessities and if not, why not?

It's not a matter of want, it's a matter of recognising the possibility.

All I can say is that a necessity is something not constrained to do anything apart from what it comes up with.

That's not a necessity - a necessity is something that had to be, and we only have something as a necessity in the past if we need to justify how something in the present that constitutes a goal or intention came to be.  If everything current is an unintended consequence of what came before, if there is no grand plan, then nothing is a necessity, it's just a series of events in block time some of which are subjectively before the present time from where we're looking.

There is no outside space in which it has degrees of freedom in.

We have no information on whether or not there's anything outside of the universe in which to find constraints, or a lack thereof.

It certainly isn't constrained by an infinite time since infinite time has an explanation external to it solicited by the question, why infinite time?

Time is a facet of the universe; the infinite 'regression' is possibly in some corollary of time in the extra-universal reality; with that in mind, how is that a question that makes sense? In order for there to be a why to infinite 'time' there would have to be something outside of that infinite time, but it's infinite so there can't be anything outside of it.

As opposed to time starting 13 billion years ago or just finite time.

Again, important to distinguish between the universe, and any broader reality in which that universe exists.

As for an extended period of time when nothing happened..... that could be infinite time couldn't it,

Depends on how you view time - to my way of thinking, yes, time is a structural component of space-time and is independent of the physical activity within it, but there is a school of thought that time only has meaning as a measurement of change, and in the absence of change there is no time.

The 'happening' therefore might hardly be said to be necessary then can it since it might have been a 'not happening' for an infinite amount of time.

Overall significance is not a measure of necessity.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Outrider.

Time is irrelevant in the question of contingency which is basically about existence rather than how long that existence has happened. By necessity we are talking about what is necessary for there to be something rather than nothing as far as we are concerned.
 A necessary does have to be as the contingency we observe needs an explanation. That said, the explanation is not dependent on that which is contingent.

[Outrider]

Time is irrelevant in the question of contingency which is basically about existence rather than how long that existence has happened. By necessity we are talking about what is necessary for there to be something rather than nothing as far as we are concerned.

We have no information on which to base an understanding of what was necessary for, say, the universe.  However, if reality is infinite there is nothing 'necessary' for reality to be, reality has always been and there was nothing preceding it to be 'necessary'.

If something is infinite back in time, and therefore doesn't have a beginning, how can there be anything before it on which it depends?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have no information on which to base an understanding of what was necessary for, say, the universe.  However, if reality is infinite there is nothing 'necessary' for reality to be, reality has always been and there was nothing preceding it to be 'necessary'.

If something is infinite back in time, and therefore doesn't have a beginning, how can there be anything before it on which it depends?

O.

That would be a reality without God I suppose
Reality contains the contingent so we are back to the question ''What is it about the universe reality that is necessary rather than contingent?

You are bringing time into it again. Contingency isn't about time since you could have an infinite time of nothing if you take one definition or time and events are dependent on change as you have pointed out. And then we are into entropy, maximum order, perpetual motion machines and the like, Prime movers, actualisation and all that.

[Outrider]

Reality contains the contingent so we are back to the question ''What is it about the universe reality that is necessary rather than contingent?

And, again, if reality is infinite then the concept of something being 'necessary' for the universe to be has no meaning.

You are bringing time into it again. Contingency isn't about time since you could have an infinite time of nothing if you take one definition or time and events are dependent on change as you have pointed out.

Both contingency and necessity require time - if there is no before nor after, there is no cause and effect, and therefore there can be nothing that is contingent upon something else, nothing that requires something else to predicate it because there is no 'before' or 'after' no sequence of events to track and show dependency.

And then we are into entropy, maximum order, perpetual motion machines and the like, Prime movers, actualisation and all that.

No, we aren't.  Entropy and maximum order are about the conditions of reality, or of regions within reality.  Perpetual motion is only a problem if you are considering an open component in a wider system; reality is everything, it's the ultimate closed system, and so conservation of energy, momentum and the like (presuming they have corrolaries) are not in any way inconsistent.  An infinite reality does not require a 'prime mover' - indeed, it's fundamentally illogical to try to lever one into the concept because, again, there is no 'outside' of reality for that Prime Mover to exist in to instigate reality.

As to actualisation, you'll have to give me a bit more to go on to understand what you're getting at.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And, again, if reality is infinite then the concept of something being 'necessary' for the universe to be has no meaning.

Bl

Then you have really stated that there is something about reality which is necessary that is it has to be, is no ways contingent and has no possible explanation itself.

You cannot avoid necessity with hand waving Outrider.
So once again if there is something in the universe which is necessary what  must it be like.

To sum up reality cannot be totally necessary since there is contingency. So reality must have something in it which is necessary. What then is it?

It cannot be emergent since that would make it dependent on something.

And lastly that classic 70s hit its magic by pilot is going through my head and lastly ....in an infinity of lastly.....An infinity is unfalsifiable.

After 3 oh oh its magic wo oh...never believe it's not so....

I wonder if Gordon was their lead singer.

[jeremyp]

Then you have really stated that there is something about reality which is necessary that is it has to be, is no ways contingent and has no possible explanation itself.

I don't understand why you think that is a problem?

[Owlswing]

What have the posts on the last 23 (or so) pages got to do with answering the question posed in the Discussion title?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand why you think that is a problem?

Look around you. We are surrounded by contingency.

This 'universe as a whole' shite doesn't go anywhere near saying why the universe or reality requires no explanation (which FYI would make it Necessary) because that sounds like emergence...which is always contingent.

If it isn't an issue for you you must be the victim of some kind of Numbness.

[Stranger]

You cannot avoid necessity with hand waving Outrider.

Why not? You've suggested it with nothing but hand waving. In fact, hand waving and misrepresentation pretty much sums up all that you've posted on the subject.

Still waiting for the first hint of an actual reasoned argument from you....

[Stranger]

This 'universe as a whole' shite doesn't go anywhere near saying why the universe or reality requires no explanation...

And you've gone nowhere near explaining how anything at all can be it's own explanation.

(which FYI would make it Necessary)

Why?

...because that sounds like emergence...

I guess we can add 'emergence' to the long list of things you don't understand.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not? You've suggested it with nothing but hand waving. In fact, hand waving and misrepresentation pretty much sums up all that you've posted on the subject.

Still waiting for the first hint of an actual reasoned argument from you....

If you stop before you meet necessity then you won't end up there. As long as we end with something that has no external explanation, In outriders case, ''reality'' we have come to the necessary whether we wanted to or not. The trouble is reality is at least partly contingent which logically makes something in ''reality'', Necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I guess we can add 'emergence' to the long list of things you don't understand.   

If you are saying that emergent properties are not dependent on anything then it's you who doesn't understand emergence.