Does antitheism exist?

[Nearly Sane]

If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.

Well as much sense as there was before it was removed

I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on  the floor of a rough pub.

You are indeed out of your depth

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on  the floor of a rough pub.

That's as much depth as it takes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a good question to which I do not know the full answer.

Let's have the part answer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Let's have the part answer.

No, let’s have yours: given the current level of understanding that physics gives us, why do you think the universe must be contingent on something else?

You’ve made the assertion often enough – why not try at least finally to justify it with an actual argument?   

[Stranger]

...since that which explains but needs no explanation is definitionally ''The necessary''.

So, what happened to necessity being its own explanation (which isn't the same thing as having no explanation)? When did it become a "the" as in singular?

You are diddling with words to try and airbrush concepts you find inconvenient. 

And you're still diddling around trying to get other people to play silly guessing games instead of you actually producing an argument - with some success it seems, so full marks in the "bullshit baffles brains" department.

However, back in the real world, you still haven't made a logical argument that gets us to some sort of god, so whether or not anybody can or can't define what might or might not be "necessary" is neither here nor there. You still haven't properly and consistently defined the term and neither have you provided any argument based on it.

I don't know if there is anything that is "necessary" and, if there is, I don't know what it is. Now what? Where is your argument?

[Outrider]

You have tried to demonstrate that time is necessary for contingency since that which explains but needs no explanation is definitionally ''The necessary''.

No, you are attempting a false dichotomy where you've decided that anything that isn't contingent is by definition necessary - those restrictions only apply in circumstances where time has any meaning, and if you're considering an infinite reality then attempting to conjure a 'before' doesn't work.  You need a 'before' in order to define anything as either necessary or contingent.

So you haven't got round that. Your timeless reality is actually not far off traditional descriptions for God and God has been comfortably referred to as the necessary being for ages.

It's actually about as far from a spontaneously self-creating complex, conscious, immensely powerful, directed intelligence as you can get, but don't mind quibbling little details like what I've actually suggested get in the way of your attempt to redirect.

Your confusion is that the necessity needs no explanation and is hence the necessity par excellence. You are diddling with words to try and airbrush concepts you find inconvenient.

No, I'm pointing out a viable explanation for our current situation that shows there isn't an absolute need to find a 'necessary' element upon which all else is contingent, directly or indirectly. 

Is time then part of the explanation for all things?

Maybe, maybe not - we need more information on all things before we can make a judgement like that.

For example time does not feature in all scientific formula can you explain then why it is necessary for Necessity?

Some scientific formula describe a state at an instant, and so time is not relevant in that particular formulation - science when you have to try to apply it to real world situations gets involved with time an awful lot.

It also doesn't feature in mathematic reality...or Moral reality(But that is another story)

What relevance to 'mathematical' or 'moral' realities have to the discussion?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you are attempting a false dichotomy where you've decided that anything that isn't contingent is by definition necessary - those restrictions only apply in circumstances where time has any meaning, and if you're considering an infinite reality then attempting to conjure a 'before' doesn't work.  You need a 'before' in order to define anything as either necessary or contingent.

It's actually about as far from a spontaneously self-creating complex, conscious, immensely powerful, directed intelligence as you can get, but don't mind quibbling little details like what I've actually suggested get in the way of your attempt to redirect.

No, I'm pointing out a viable explanation for our current situation that shows there isn't an absolute need to find a 'necessary' element upon which all else is contingent, directly or indirectly. 

Maybe, maybe not - we need more information on all things before we can make a judgement like that.

Some scientific formula describe a state at an instant, and so time is not relevant in that particular formulation - science when you have to try to apply it to real world situations gets involved with time an awful lot.

What relevance to 'mathematical' or 'moral' realities have to the discussion?

O.

Contingency and necessity both involve lots of things you are turdpolishing of definition in pursuit of a 'natural' explanation. What happens in space time is irrelevant to the explanation for the existence of space time. The explanation that needs no explanation is necessary, by definition.

That which changes has an explanation for that change. Is contingent, you'll notice here that time is irrelevant here because it is change which is important. So what is this timeless reality? Can it be demonstrated or is it notional? what are it's notional properties How is it distinguishable from God? What are it's properties? What is it's relationship with infinite time. What is it's relationship with time.

With everything taking time and nothing being instantaneous, what about quantum entanglement? And what about......quantum borrowing?

[Nearly Sane]

Contingency and necessity both involve lots of things you are turdpolishing of definition in pursuit of a 'natural' explanation. What happens in space time is irrelevant to the explanation for the existence of space time. The explanation that needs no explanation is necessary, by definition.

That which changes has an explanation for that change. Is contingent, you'll notice here that time is irrelevant here because it is change which is important. So what is this timeless reality? Can it be demonstrated or is it notional? what are it's notional properties How is it distinguishable from God? What are it's properties? What is it's relationship with infinite time. What is it's relationship with time.

With everything taking time and nothing being instantaneous, what about quantum entanglement?

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com with added vodka

[jeremyp]

If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.

I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on  the floor of a rough pub.

You're not very tall then? Either that or it's a very rough pub, pre lockdown.

[jeremyp]

Let's have the part answer.

It wouldn't help. The part that I know about isn't the part that tells us whether the Universe has a cause or not.

Fortunately, it is not important because I am not claiming either that the Universe is uncaused or caused. I simply don't know. What is at issue is your claim that the Universe must be caused because all the things in it are caused, which is clearly an erroneous argument. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It wouldn't help. The part that I know about isn't the part that tells us whether the Universe has a cause or not.

Fortunately, it is not important because I am not claiming either that the Universe is uncaused or caused. I simply don't know. What is at issue is your claim that the Universe must be caused because all the things in it are caused, which is clearly an erroneous argument.

You simply don't know but it cannot be a simply because you are saying the universe cannot have a cause because everything in it has a cause. What then is it about the universe that doesn't need a cause, either you know or you don't. If you don't then you are not really opposing me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then please cite an example of effect preceding cause. 

Ask BlueHillside about quantum borrowing as a possible solution to the origin of the universe. Yes, the same Bluehillside who is adamant the explanation must come before the effect.

[Stranger]

Contingency and necessity both involve lots of things you are turdpolishing of definition in pursuit of a 'natural' explanation.

Once again you're trying to pretend it's up to other people to solve a silly puzzle you've set up without even bothering to properly define your terms. Until and unless you can offer your own argument, you're just bullshitting.

I don't believe for a nanosecond that you have an answer that isn't subject to exactly the same objections that you're coming up with for other options, but go right ahead and prove me wrong and come up, at last, with your own answer and supporting argument.

That which changes has an explanation for that change. Is contingent...

So that rules out any god that can think and make choices, then.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com with added vodka

www. Humeenjoyedpocketbilliards.com

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Today, I am mostly saying ''I'm not saying timeless things need an explanation just that time isn't er, timeless.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes it is. If A is necessary for B, then A must occur prior to B. Your only way out of that is to invoke magic - "A is outside time" or some such white noise, and if you do that you can assert anything you like. Any attempt at reason or logic is out of the window, and all bets are off. You may as well assert A to be outside geometry too, so square triangles are fine as well.   

Quantum Borrowing[move]

[Nearly Sane]

www. Humeenjoyedpocketbilliards.com

Has Hume taken over from Dawkins as your spunkmeister?

[Gordon]

Quantum Borrowing[move]

So, Professor Al-Khalili, please explain: given your expertise in matters 'quantum' I'm sure you'll be able to easily explain how this fits into your 'necessary vs contingent' theories.

[Stranger]

Why are people playing Vlad's game?

Unless you are claiming to know what, if anything, is 'necessary' (despite the fact Vlad himself seems to be rather confused as to what it means exactly), there is nothing to say until Vlad comes up with some sort of argument that needs to be addressed.

I haven't seem one, has anybody else?

[jeremyp]

What then is it about the universe that doesn't need a cause, either you know or you don't.

I've already told you that I don't.

If you don't then you are not really opposing me.

Yes I am, because you are claiming that the Universe must have a cause, therefore God.

[jeremyp]

there is nothing to say until Vlad comes up with some sort of argument that needs to be addressed.

There's plenty to say like: "Vlad your argument fails because x, y, z.

[Outrider]

Contingency and necessity both involve lots of things you are turdpolishing of definition in pursuit of a 'natural' explanation.

Keep criticising the 'style' of the argument rather than the substance, that lets everyone know what a great point you'll pivot to soon... not right now, obviously, but soon...

What happens in space time is irrelevant to the explanation for the existence of space time.

But it is relevant to the attempted analogy that you dropped on its face.

The explanation that needs no explanation is necessary, by definition.

Except that your definition is implicitly assuming that space-time that you considered wasn't relevant a moment ago.  Without time, the contention 'necessary or contingent' becomes a false dichotomy because without time you can't have either.

That which changes has an explanation for that change.

Yes, but that explanation can be internal - all the changes to the parts of the universe that we see are the result of other parts of the universe.  Changes to a broader reality need not come from outside the reality.

Is contingent, you'll notice here that time is irrelevant here because it is change which is important.

How can time be irrelevant to change when, without time, you cannot have change?

So what is this timeless reality? Can it be demonstrated or is it notional?

It's notional, until and unless we manage to somehow gather some evidence.

what are it's notional properties

For the purposes of this, extra-universality and an infinite age.

How is it distinguishable from God?

It lacks overt homophobia and misogyny? Oh, and consciousness.  And spite.  And any allegations of a long-term plan.  Amongst others.

What are it's properties?

No idea.

What is it's relationship with infinite time. What is it's relationship with time.

Possibly none.

With everything taking time and nothing being instantaneous, what about quantum entanglement?

Nothing within the universe, but we're hypothesising an extra-universal physics where our current understandings may or may not have merit.

And what about......quantum borrowing?

Is that HSBC's new mortgage plan?  Is suspect, in the possible absence of time, they'd be reluctant to lend on a basis of compounding interest for obvious reasons.

O.

[Stranger]

There's plenty to say like: "Vlad your argument fails because x, y, z.

But he hasn't made a coherent argument, he's just wittering about 'necessity', which he hasn't even properly defined, and then getting everybody else to run round saying what they think might be necessary.

[jeremyp]

But he hasn't made a coherent argument,

Errr, yes. I believe that was implicit in my previous answer.

he's just wittering about 'necessity', which he hasn't even properly defined, and then getting everybody else to run round saying what they think might be necessary.

It's like a puzzle. The objective is to get Vlad to understand the basic rules of logical argument; to get him to understand that putting labels on things is not the same as understanding. Some people enjoy doing that and some don't. If you are in the "don't" category... well, there are other threads to amuse yourself with.

[Owlswing]

Why are people playing Vlad's game?

At last - proof that I am not alone!