The Kalam-ing presence of Doctor Lane Craig.

[Stranger]

My objection to those has been they just argue that the universe could have been around an infinite time. Not whether it is necessary.

Time is internal to the universe, so whether it's infinite in extent or not is simply irrelevant to any concept of 'necessity'.

As NS said, you first need to establish how 'necessity' makes any sense at all and then say why it could apply to your favourite version of deity and not to the universe (the space-time manifold).

Until you can explain exactly what would make something 'necessary', it's a toatlly meaningless term.

[Nearly Sane]

Why just in this context? Are you not specially pleading?

I didn'y say 'just in this context'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Time is internal to the universe, so whether it's infinite in extent or not is simply irrelevant to any concept of 'necessity'.

As NS said, you first need to establish how 'necessity' makes any sense at all and then say why it could apply to your favourite version of deity

Until you can explain exactly what would make something 'necessary', it's a toatlly meaningless term.

No NS asked how necessity makes any sense at all in this context.

We are talking about the universe and whether it is necessary. Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.

Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of the universe?

You cannot junk contingency. That is like having a square circle.

[Nearly Sane]

No NS asked how necessity makes any sense at all in this context.

We are talking about the universe and whether it is necessary. Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.

Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of the universe?

You cannot junk contingency. That is like having a square circle.

Actually can you show 'Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.' As a definition makes sense in any context?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually can you show 'Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.' As a definition makes sense in any context?

I'm sorry Sane, your now talking from a place where not only do I not want to climb in with you.......I wouldn't. Know how to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nigh on 27000 posts isnt a bad gift to humanity.

[Stranger]

We are talking about the universe and whether it is necessary. Necessity defined as something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is.

So how do you propose we could recognise "something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is"?

I mean, I guess you could say "the whole of reality" necessarily falls into that category, since, by definition, there is nothing external to it, but it tells us nothing whatsoever about what it contains or if there is anything specific within it that could be identified as 'necessary'.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry Sane, your now talking from a place where not only do I not want to climb in with you.......I wouldn't. Know how to.

So you can't justify it in any context.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So how do you propose we could recognise "something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is"?

I mean, I guess you could say "the whole of reality" necessarily falls into that category, since, by definition, there is nothing external to it, but it tells us nothing whatsoever about what it contains or if there is anything specific within it that could be identified as 'necessary'.

Yes plus the trouble with the whole of reality is the overwhelming bulk of contingency going on. That immediately fucks up any notion of saying the whole of reality is necessary as a serious prospect.

But I think you’ve touched on a problem which is ours rather than necessity’s. How do you recognise something which is necessary?

No answer yet? That’s because modern people haven’t been taught to consider this stuff IMHO.

[Stranger]

Yes plus the trouble with the whole of reality is the overwhelming bulk of contingency going on. That immediately fucks up any notion of saying the whole of reality is necessary as a serious prospect.

Of course it doesn't. Your definition was: "something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is" [emphasis added].

Since, by definition, there is nothing at all that is external to the whole of reality, there can be no external explanation and no external reason for it to be any different. Hence, by your own definition, it must be necessary. QED.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course it doesn't. Your definition was: "something for which has no external explanation for its being or the way it is and no external reason to be possibly different from how it is" [emphasis added].

Since, by definition, there is nothing at all that is external to the whole of reality, there can be no external explanation and no external reason for it to be any different. Hence, by your own definition, it must be necessary. QED.

Great, so the explanation and reasons must be internal to the whole of reality.
What is it?

[Stranger]

Great, so the explanation and reasons must be internal to the whole of reality.

Assuming there are any.

What is it?

I haven't a clue - and why do you think it's just one thing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assuming there are any.

I haven't a clue - and why do you think it's just one thing?

There is a reason which needs  no other reasons. Now we know there are other reasons for things in reality.
Also let's look at the history of the contingency argument.
Bertrand Russell when confronted with the evidence of contingency of things stated that to extend that to the whole of the universe is the fallacy of composition. Of course envisaging an external to the universe has become respectable.

The fallacy of composition has its opposite called the fallacy of division.
So where the fallacy of composition is wrong because it imbues
The whole with the property of the parts fallaciously, the fallacy of division imbues the parts with the property of the whole.
Secondly it looks from observation that the parts are contingent and since it is illogical to have contingency without necessity. But not the other way round we must have in the whole of reality a necessary in other words the final the ultimate the fundamental reason.......whatever you want to call it.

So I dont think I've ever said that the whole of reality does not contain the necessary.
Which is why I say the necessary is in the whole of reality, it could even be in the universe or maybe in your little toe. The question remains ........what is it?

[SteveH]

IF there is a God, then no doubt that God exists necessarily, but that tells us nothing about whether God exists at all.

[Stranger]

The question remains ........what is it?

And the answer remains...... we don't know.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

IF there is a God, then no doubt that God exists necessarily, but that tells us nothing about whether God exists at all.

I think the argument points out that there is an explanation for which there are no other explanations. That there is contingency. We know that from observation. The alternative comes down to popping out of nowhere but even that winds up as being the necessary. Talking of believing that things might pop up from nowhere there seems to be a lot more takers for that here......and they accuse Alan of believing in magic.
Anyway something winds up as being necessary. Aquinas called this God and it turns out the necessary on reflection seems to have many of the properties of the abrahamic God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the answer remains...... we don't know.

And what do we do if we dont know something?

[jeremyp]

Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of the universe?

Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of God?

If you want to know how the Universe could be necessary, the answer is "in exactly the same ways a god could be necessary".

[Stranger]

And what do we do if we dont know something?

Rather depends on whether there is a feasible way to investigate it or not. What we don't do is make up an answer we happen to like.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should the principle of necessity be discarded in the case of God?

If you want to know how the Universe could be necessary, the answer is "in exactly the same ways a god could be necessary".

I can't disagree with that, however the universe still has this mountain of contingency in fact the necessary has a particular specification.

That's not to say that the necessary isn't here. In fact logic dictates it must reside somehow. Perhaps it is in a thing science hasn't yet discovered, perhaps it is in everything, perhaps it is immaterial. It's this mountain of contigency that we need to somehow clear out the way or at least put to one side somehow.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rather depends on whether there is a feasible way to investigate it or not. What we don't do is make up an answer we happen to like.

Unhappily for you and some of the colleagues have been speculating like good'uns and by your own admission sought to come up with several alternatives that you hope rule to out God.
(VIRTUE SIGNALLING ALERT)I ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE NOT ONLY SOUGHT TO INTELLECTUALLY TRAVEL WITH YOU AND HAVE AGREED THAT THE NECESSARY ULTIMATE REASON IS INTERNAL TO ALL OF REALITY, I WAS ALSO ONCE AN ACTUAL FELLOW AGNOSTIC ATHEIST TRAVELLER.(VIRTUE SIGNALLING ALERT)
So less of the piety please. You, IMHO, are as guilty of seeking an atheist answer ( God dodging) as anybody is seeking a divine answer.

Another way we might know the necessary reason is if it reveals itself to us.....just sayin'

[Stranger]

Unhappily for you and some of the colleagues have been speculating like good'uns and by your own admission sought to come up with several alternatives that you hope rule to out God.

Again, you don't seem to understand that if you are trying to argue for some specific answer, then offering alternatives is one way in which to counter it. It does not mean that they are somehow omitting to those alternatives.

For example, on the other thread, I offered Penrose's conjecture as one of the possibilities for an infinitely old universe. That doesn't mean that I'm committed to the idea - it could easily be wrong.

So less of the piety please. You, IMHO, are as guilty of seeking an atheist answer ( God dodging) as anybody is seeking a divine answer.

I'm not seeking an answer. I don't think there is a reasonable way to investigate the problem. I've also said all along that I can't rule out some sort of god(s), but I see no reason to take any of them seriously. If there is something within the whole of reality that is necessary, then I don't see any argument that it is likely to be some sort of god, let alone one (or more) of the thousands that humans have believed in.

And you're still using the word "God" as if it was a well defined term. I'm ignostic, with regard to the unqualified term "God".

Another way we might know the necessary reason is if it reveals itself to us.....just sayin'

Again, where is the evidence or reasoning? Even if something revealed itself somehow, how could you tell if it was necessary?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, you don't seem to understand that if you are trying to argue for some specific answer, then offering alternatives is one way in which to counter it. It does not mean that they are somehow omitting to those alternatives.

For example, on the other thread, I offered Penrose's conjecture as one of the possibilities for an infinitely old universe. That doesn't mean that I'm committed to the idea - it could easily be wrong.

I'm not seeking an answer. I don't think there is a reasonable way to investigate the problem. I've also said all along that I can't rule out some sort of god(s), but I see no reason to take any of them seriously. If there is something within the whole of reality that is necessary, then I don't see any argument that it is likely to be some sort of god, let alone one (or more) of the thousands that humans have believed in.

And you're still using the word "God" as if it was a well defined term. I'm ignostic, with regard to the unqualified term "God".

Again, where is the evidence or reasoning? Even if something revealed itself somehow, how could you tell if it was necessary?

I think we are evolved to recognise the necessary entity and funnily those who have a reluctance to the necessary entity like their reluctance to God provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid.

[Nearly Sane]

I think we are evolved to recognise the necessary entity and funnily those who have a reluctance to the necessary entity like their reluctance to God provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid.

all of the wrong words necessarily in the wrong order.

[Stranger]

I think we are evolved to recognise the necessary entity and funnily those who have a reluctance to the necessary entity like their reluctance to God provide evidence of that. They seem to instinctively know they are one and the same and that explains the lengths people go to to avoid.

Apart from this being an all but meaningless expression of your faith, it is actually rather funny. We evolved to be over sensitive to agency where there is none - hyperactive agency detection - due to the fact that false positives are far less dangerous than false negatives. It doesn't much matter if you think a storm is some god being angry, whereas failing to think that a predator wants to eat you could easily be fatal.

Apart from that, you didn't actually address any of my points. For example, you haven't explained how we could even recognise something as necessary nor have you addressed the essentially meaningless term "God" that requires further defintion in order to mean anything at all.