Disproofs of God.

[Nearly Sane]

Because dear boy, only a Moderator: quoted content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
 Oh........you done exactly that again.

You still haven't provided any real definition of necessary in this context, or shown that it is coherent.

[ProfessorDavey]

I’m afraid this looks very much like a “He can’t be a boy because he’s called Sue” argument.. You need to look at the implications of what it is to be the necessary entity rather than a contingent one. Those implications are independent on whether we are talking about a source or creator. The source of the universe has those implications. So no redundancy of argument there i’m Afraid.

And to remind you of the argument.
I was answering the query as to why I was arguing that the necessary entity is God. My answer is that aspects of it’s nature fit those of God rather than yet another,natural and contingent thing.

You are talking complete non-sense.

From:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

'It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings'

So firstly for an entity to make it off the starting grid it needs to exist. There is no evidence that god exists so the notion of god doesn't really fit the argument at all.

But beyond that you cannot reasonably conclude that god (or a creator), even were it to exist, is a necessary entity as you have quite reasonably accepted that other non-creator 'sources' for the universe are available (and so the universe can exist without god or a creator) and therefore, at best god or a creator is merely a contingent entity but  in reality isn't even that as there is no evidence for the existence of god or a creator in the first place.

[ProfessorDavey]

You still haven't provided any real definition of necessary in this context, or shown that it is coherent.

Use my definition (see above) - it seems clear and from a credible source.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because dear boy, only a moron would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.

And as there are perfectly plausible explanations for the universe, that are based on evidence and do not require god, it seems pretty well impossible to cogently argue that god is a necessary entity for the universe to exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because dear boy, only a Moderator: quoted content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
 Oh........you done exactly that again.

So you've been found out again then. Fair enough.

Oh, by the way - I think I found you on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k1EhYj7YEk[/quote]

[Stranger]

Because dear boy, only a Moderator: quoted content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.

Since you haven't explained how it's possible for anything to be necessary, let alone how we should 'treat' such a thing, this is nothing but childish name-calling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Oh, by the way - I think I found you on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k1EhYj7YEk

People in glasshouses Hillside, people in glasshouses.......any way you put forward that guys behaviour as if it was a bad or sad thing.

I can’t be the only guy who has radio mast enthusiasts shouting at them to get life.

[Nearly Sane]

Use my definition (see above) - it seems clear and from a credible source.

Despite the source it seems based on a begging of the question that there are such things as necessary entities, and it backs that up with a ad populum 'commonly.

ETA The idea of contingent entities is also begging the question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And as there are perfectly plausible explanations for the universe, that are based on evidence and do not require god, it seems pretty well impossible to cogently argue that god is a necessary entity for the universe to exist.

And the band played on.,

Do you do requests?

Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations

[ProfessorDavey]

Despite the source it seems based on a begging of the question that there are such things as necessary entities, and it backs that up with a ad populum 'commonly.

Not sure it really does - I think all it is saying (at least in the definition) is that a necessary entity both exists and must exist. It may well be that no entities fulfilled that definition and therefore that there are no necessary entities.

ETA The idea of contingent entities is also begging the question.

Again not sure I agree - in definitional terms a contingent entity is merely something that exists, but doesn't need to exist. I think we can comfortable feel assured that the universe if stuffed with contingent entities (based on that definition).

[ProfessorDavey]

And the band played on.,

Would you like to actually engage in the discussion, or are you content to make meaningless, pointless and, in my view, diversionary, comments.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure it really does - I think all it is saying (at least in the definition) is that a necessary entity both exists and must exist. It may well be that no entities fulfilled that definition and therefore that there are no necessary identities.
Again not sure I agree - in definitional terms a contingent entity is merely something that exists, but doesn't need to exist. I think we can comfortable feel assured that the universe if stuffed with contingent entities (based on that definition).

Disagree. If the universe(s) are deterministic then all entities (and non entities) are necessary.
And your first point is wrong because of the start saying

 'It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities' - not 'possibly existent', existent

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the band played on.,

Do you do requests?

Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Disagree. If the universe(s) are deterministic then all entities (and non entities) are necessary.
And your first point is wrong because of the start saying

 'It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities' - not 'possibly existent', existent

Isn’t the assumption of determinism just as begging of the question as the assumption of contingency or any assumption you care to mention?

[Stranger]

Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations

Once again, the burden of proof sails majestically about 30,000ft above Vlad's head...   

Isn’t the assumption of determinism just as begging of the question as the assumption of contingency or any assumption you care to mention?

And yet again....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Would you like to actually engage in the discussion, or are you content to make meaningless, pointless and, in my view, diversionary, comments.

Prof, meet Vlad - that's what he does. Hell, that's all he does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again, the burden of proof sails majestically about 30,000ft above Vlad's head...   

And yet again....

If they are perfectly plausible explanations for the whole universe he should have no problem in showing how they are full and final explanations for the universe.

He’s the one stating these exist....... let us feast on the analysis of his contention!!!!

[Nearly Sane]

Isn’t the assumption of determinism just as begging of the question as the assumption of contingency or any assumption you care to mention?

Not assuming it. You will see the word 'if' in my post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If they are perfectly plausible explanations for the whole universe he should have no problem in showing how they are full and final explanations for the universe.

He’s the one stating these exist....... let us feast on the analysis of his contention!!!!

I don't suppose there's any point in asking why you jumped from what he actually said ("perfectly plausible") to your misrepresentation ("full and final explanations") is there?

Thought not.   

What do you get from your trolling? Seriously though, what?

[Nearly Sane]

If they are perfectly plausible explanations for the whole universe he should have no problem in showing how they are full and final explanations for the universe.

He’s the one stating these exist....... let us feast on the analysis of his contention!!!!

A possible explanation is not the same as a full and final one so your demand here is nonsensical.

[SteveH]

IF God exists, then God exists necessarily, but that leaves entirely unanswered the question of whether God exists. It's like the ontological argument, which fails because it is purely deductive, and deductive arguments can say nothing about the material world.

[Nearly Sane]

IF God exists, then God exists necessarily, but that leaves entirely unanswered the question of whether God exists. It's like the ontological argument, which fails because it is purely deductive, and deductive arguments can say nothing about the material world.

Surely the  'If God exists, then God exists necessarily' is simply a circular statement based on your definition of 'God'?

[ProfessorDavey]

Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations

Firstly there is no requirement for there to be anything that is a necessary entity (see my comment 134).

But if you pushed me, I'd say that energy comes pretty close to being a required entity for those explanations. Could the universe exist without energy - discuss.

But as others have pointed out - I'm not the one making a claim for necessary entities, let alone specifying that god is one - that's you making those claims and the onus therefore rests with you to justify those claims.

[Stranger]

IF God exists, then God exists necessarily, but that leaves entirely unanswered the question of whether God exists. It's like the ontological argument, which fails because it is purely deductive, and deductive arguments can say nothing about the material world.

Apart from, as NS pointed out, the circularity, a valid deductive argument can tell us about the material world if and only if its premises can be shown to be true. If can tell us probabilistically about the material world if there is reasonably good evidence that its premises are true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly there is no requirement for there to be anything that is a necessary entity (see my comment 134).

You came to this party a bit later than everyone else.
Let me spell it out. The necessary entity as far as the contingent universe is concerned is the final and full explanation for the contingent universe.

So if you say it’s energy then definitionally that is your offer of the necessary entity. But then, I can ask. Why a fixed amount of energy as suggested in the conservation of energy and why a certain amount of energy. I could also ask why does it start of maximally ordered. I could ask has it been around for ever and even , if it is the necessary entity.......How come Missus Higgins at the Duracell factory put it into tins. In other words if we examine energy it looks more like a contingent thing.

Why don’t birds get electrocuted on power lines but a giraffe, if it sticks it’s neck out sufficiently can electrocute itself on a tramline? Answer potential difference.