Disproofs of God.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh I see sir You need the science and technology section  this is religion and ethics.

What you need to do sir is go down the fucking corridor
Stop at the pissing lift go down to the arsholing fifth floor where you'll find the shitting general department Now go straight ahead past the ladies and gents shithouse and it's the sodding second on the farting left.

A post in which the sophistication of Vlad's argument reaches rock bottom.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, the definition you put up covers nothing about the necessary entity for existence.

I think it does - or rather it certainly does in the way I am reading it.

According to the definition a necessary entity is that could not have failed to exist. That is put in the context of other things we know exist, e.g. the universe, a synapse, a bicycle. So a necessary entity is something that could not have failed to exist or the universe, bicycle, synapse (that we know exist) could not have come into existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A post in which the sophistication of Vlad's argument reaches rock bottom.

All you have done is to try and change the question. Your justification was a strange mix of ad hominem and a paeon to science and the great cosmic unconsciousness. As fascinating as your new question is there is a board for it in this forum.

My suggested approach for further investigation into my question is too backtrack any hierarchies of dependency or contingency.

As far as your question "what things would stop the universe being the universe if they were removed" I'm going to open a new thread.

[Stranger]

My suggested approach for further investigation into my question is too backtrack any hierarchies of dependency or contingency.

The problem remains that you have yet to provide anything like an argument that we should take any sort of god seriously as where such a hierarchy ends, and that any sort of thinking being, in any normal sense, appears to be in contradiction with what little you've done in defining what such an entity would be like. See #106.

[ProfessorDavey]

All you have done is to try and change the question.

No I haven't - you were the one who raised the notion of a necessary entity and all I have done is engage in the discussion on what a necessary entity is (in other words a definition), whether a necessary entity is actually required for the universe (I'm not convinced it is), if there is one could there be more than one (I think there could be) and finally whether god meets the criteria for a necessary entity (I don't believe it does as there are plenty of explanations for the universe that do not require god and indeed god has never been demonstrated event to exist).

Your justification was a strange mix of ad hominem and a paeon to science and the great cosmic unconsciousness. As fascinating as your new question is there is a board for it in this forum.

By a paeon to science all you really mean is arguments based on logic and evidence - yup, that's the best type of argument rather than unevidenced and illogical supposition.

As far as your question "what things would stop the universe being the universe if they were removed" I'm going to open a new thread.

Why is there a need for a new thread - this discussion simply follows naturally from your proposition of a necessary entity for the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem remains that you have yet to provide anything like an argument that we should take any sort of god seriously as where such a hierarchy ends, and that any sort of thinking being, in any normal sense, appears to be in contradiction with what little you've done in defining what such an entity would be like. See #106.

Theologians have realised for centuries that many human labels and natural processes are merely metaphor. So when you use a term like thinking, in normal sense you are being appropriate. We would say therefore that what God does is not think in the normal.sense. His thinking is unlimited, it is not evolved and I think a chief difference is that his thinking is in no way shaped by the need to survive.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I haven't - you were the one who raised the notion of a necessary entity and all I have done is engage in the discussion on what a necessary entity is (in other words a definition), whether a necessary entity is actually required for the universe (I'm not convinced it is), if there is one could there be more than one (I think there could be) and finally whether god meets the criteria for a necessary entity (I don't believe it does as there are plenty of explanations for the universe that do not require god and indeed god has never been demonstrated event to exist).
By a paeon to science all you really mean is arguments based on logic and evidence - yup, that's the best type of argument rather than unevidenced and illogical supposition.
Why is there a need for a new thread - this discussion simply follows naturally from your proposition of a necessary entity for the universe.

I have outlined some of the conflicts that would ensue with two necessary beings with universe forming abilities and that the terms of conflict or in fact agreement constitute a third entity and  render the whole arrangement contingent.

You on the other hand have merely discussed a mechanism of parts.

In short there would either be conflict and resultant chaos in the universe or there would be cooperation in which the two would have to act as parts of a greater whole. Contingency is introduced and the result cannot be necessity.

[Stranger]

Theologians have realised for centuries that many human labels and natural processes are merely metaphor. So when you use a term like thinking, in normal sense you are being appropriate. We would say therefore that what God does is not think in the normal.sense. His thinking is unlimited, it is not evolved and I think a chief difference is that his thinking is in no way shaped by the need to survive.

None of this had-waving actually constitutes either an argument for a god or a definition that doesn't conflict with what you've previously stated about necsssity, or, for that matter, explain how anything can be necessary in the sense you seem to mean.

Specifically, not being evolved, being unlimited, and not for survival, in no way removes the necessity of existing in time dimension in order to think at all or make any choices. A thinking entity must be contingent on time unless you're going to stretch the notion to the absurd an comical extent that Feser attempts - which would mean, for example, that mathematics can think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of this had-waving actually constitutes either an argument for a god or a definition that doesn't conflict with what you've previously stated about necsssity, or, for that matter, explain how anything can be necessary in the sense you seem to mean.

Specifically, not being evolved, being unlimited, and not for survival, in no way removes the necessity of existing in time dimension in order to think at all or make any choices. A thinking entity must be contingent on time unless you're going to stretch the notion to the absurd an comical extent that Feser attempts - which would mean, for example, that mathematics can think.

I'm sorry but if you insist on talking science, science cannot deal with an infinite universe.......where would it set up it's equipment? Nor can it deal with things popping out of nothing. Again, where would it set up its equipment.

So as far as the big question is concerned that seems to wrap it up for science.

We are therefore very much on our own

[SteveH]

Think in terms of possible worlds: one could imagine (and some people on here probably do, wistfully) a world in which I never existed, and ditto for anyone and anything else. If there are an infinite number of alternative universes, then such universes presumably exist. However, one can't imagine a situation in which God exists in some universes but not in others: if there's a God then God made the whole multi-shebang, and therefore exists in all possible universes. On the other hand, if God does not exist in this universe, God doesn't exist in any. In that sense, God is necessary - if God exists at all. The question of God's existence, however, is left entirely open.

[Stranger]

I'm sorry but if you insist on talking science...

I was talking about logic, actually. Specifically the contradictions that appear to exist between any normal notion of a thinking entity and what little you've said about necessity.

...science cannot deal with an infinite universe...

It already does. The simplest topological interpretation of a universe with zero or negative spatial curvature is that it is infinite in volume. We also treat space-time as a continuum, which involves the infinitesimal - there are actually more points in space between any two locations (continuum infinity) than there are integers (countable infinity).

Nor can it deal with things popping out of nothing.

Vacuum fluctuations. However, as far as the universe goes, this idea of popping out of nothing appears to be nothing but one of your straw men. Who do you think is putting forward this idea?

[Nearly Sane]

Think in terms of possible worlds: one could imagine (and some people on here probably do, wistfully) a world in which I never existed, and ditto for anyone and anything else. If there are an infinite number of alternative universes, then such universes presumably exist. However, one can't imagine a situation in which God exists in some universes but not in others: if there's a God then God made the whole multi-shebang, and therefore exists in all possible universes. On the other hand, if God does not exist in this universe, God doesn't exist in any. In that sense, God is necessary - if God exists at all. The question of God's existence, however, is left entirely open.

No, that's you just using the circularity of your definition in a more long winded way.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was talking about logic, actually. Specifically the contradictions that appear to exist between any normal notion of a thinking entity and what little you've said about necessity.

It already does. The simplest topological interpretation of a universe with zero or negative spatial curvature is that it is infinite in volume. We also treat space-time as a continuum, which involves the infinitesimal - there are actually more points in space between any two locations (continuum infinity) than there are integers (countable infinity).

Vacuum fluctuations. However, as far as the universe goes, this idea of popping out of nothing appears to be nothing but one of your straw men. Who do you think is putting forward this idea?

what is the empirical evidence that the universe is infinite? Where is the imaging of an infinite volume?

Regarding continuum infinity........what has that got to do with anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was talking about logic, actually.

Is that what it was......

Vacuum fluctuations. However, as far as the universe goes, this idea of popping out of nothing appears to be nothing but one of your straw men. Who do you think is putting forward this idea?

apparently the energy produced comes from somewhere and some time. It is borrowed.

Although it does offer support to those who think the universe is being recreated moment by moment and certainly if whatever it is these things are popping out of is the necessary entity then it could demonstrate that a contingent universe could have existed forever AND need a source to create it....OUTRIDER take note.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, that's you just using the circularity of your definition in a more long winded way.

It is also entirely dependent on your definition of god - it is possible to define god in a manner which means that he/she/it only exists in a particular universe or even a part of that universe. Indeed most purported gods have been defined in largely that manner by original believers as they had no concept of the extent of our universe, let alone multiverses.

Also not all purported gods are considered to be omnipotent universe creators.

[Nearly Sane]

It is also entirely dependent on your definition of god - it is possible to define god in a manner which means that he/she/it only exists in a particular universe or even a part of that universe. Indeed most purported gods have been defined in largely that manner by original believers as they had no concept of the extent of our universe, let alone multiverses.

Also not all purported gods are considered to be omnipotent universe creators.

While true, I think Steve (WM) would distinguish between gods and God. Whether there is any good reason to do so other than the definitional claims is another matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

what is the empirical evidence that the universe is infinite?

It's a plausible hypothesis, not a claim of fact and in any case what is the evidence of any kind that your speculation "god" is infinite?

Answering one unknown with another unknown doesn't help you one bit no matter how much special pleading you do for it, which amounts only to "it's magic innit". You know this already though don't you so presumably you keep trolling because it excites you in some way.   

[ProfessorDavey]

While true, I think Steve (WM) would distinguish between gods and God. Whether there is any good reason to do so other than the definitional claims is another matter.

But it is all definitional.

If you define god or God as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers who created the universe and without which the universe could not exist, then of course if the universe exists then so must God, by that definition. But the point is that the definition has no substance to it - there is no evidence that this definition defines a real rather than an imaginary entity.

[Stranger]

what is the empirical evidence that the universe is infinite? Where is the imaging of an infinite volume?

It's the simplest model, using our best tested theory of space-time, that fits with what we observe. Anyway, it wasn't a claim, it was about the fact that science can deal with the notion.

Is that what it was......

Yes - and I'm still waiting from you to produce some, or to provide any answers to the contradictions you seem to have set up from what little you have said.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

It is also entirely dependent on your definition of god -...

He doesn't have one - or at least not one that's coherent, cogent or consistent. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the simplest model, using our best tested theory of space-time, that fits with what we observe. Anyway, it wasn't a claim, it was about the fact that science can deal with the notion.

empirical evidence please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's a plausible hypothesis,

it is falsified and or verified in what way?

[Nearly Sane]

But it is all definitional.

If you define god or God as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers who created the universe and without which the universe could not exist, then of course if the universe exists then so must God, by that definition. But the point is that the definition has no substance to it - there is no evidence that this definition defines a real rather than an imaginary entity.

  Yes, it's all definitional - we are agreeing on that. But that's not what Steve is claiming. He's merely taking the definition of 'God' and discussing it circularly - he's not claiming that because the universe exists, god does. It's not at the stage of claiming the universe as evidence.

[Stranger]

empirical evidence please.

I'll and that to the list of things you don't understand.   

[Nearly Sane]

Prof,

He doesn't have one - or at least not one that's coherent, cogent or consistent.

Just for clarity here, 'he' here is Steve not Vlad, and I don't think he's actually put forward a definition, rather made a statement that is dependent on a circular definition