Disproofs of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More gibberish.

You're still studiously ignoring the actual points being made here. Yet again: the space-time manifold doesn't obviously depend on anything else for its existence, so, if it were necessary, would that make it "God"? Would it need extra properties? If so, what are they?

How can we tell if anything is necessary?

I’m afraid it’s the takeaway message of what people on here have been arguing for the Uncreated creator.

Regarding the space time manifold, which because of the madness and hellish tipsy turkey universe the atheists here are building,now looks like an oasis of sanity, how does the manifold account for the contingent universe?

[ProfessorDavey]

Utterbollocks. You are saying that that which is necessary is only necessary because that which is contingent on it exists.

That is arse about face.

No it isn't - it is merely stating the obvious fact that the necessity relates only to the contingent state.

That’s like saying without me my mum and dad wouldn’t exist.

No it isn't - it is like saying that the existence of your mum and dad is only necessary if a child exists. If you didn't exist, then nor would the existence of your mother and father be necessary and they could also not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is merely stating the obvious fact that the necessity relates only to the contingent state.
No it isn't - it is like saying that the existence of your mum and dad is only necessary if a child exists. If you didn't exist, then nor would the existence of your mother and father be necessary and they could also not exist.

I hope you are saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.

[Outrider]

No it’s been demonstrated how an infinite contingent universe of temporary particles can be has been and been created from a quantum foam.

Infinite in terms of space, but not an infinitely old universe, and I'm not talking about the universe anway, I'm considering the broader physical reality in which our universe (possibly) resides.

We cannot go back now and pretend that cannot be.

We don't need to, we just to remain clear on what it is that's being demonstrated - I appreciate that you're fielding commentary from at least three different sources, and it can be difficult to keep them straight sometimes, I do that myself on occasion.

O.

[Stranger]

I’m afraid it’s the takeaway message of what people on here have been arguing for the Uncreated creator.

You're once again forgetting that it's you who are trying to make an argument here - write out 100 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".

Regarding the space time manifold, which because of the madness and hellish tipsy turkey universe the atheists here are building,now looks like an oasis of sanity, how does the manifold account for the contingent universe?

Again, people are suggesting alternatives to your argument. Of course you cannot put them all together and make something coherent, that's the point - there are many, many different possibilities, which means you have not made your case.

Regarding the manifold, it (and its contents), in and of themselves, don't appear to depend on anything external. Contingency, like time itself, is entirely internal to it. It (assuming general relativity is at least approximately correct) is a four-dimensional object. It didn't start to exist and it won't ever cease to exist because time is internal to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Infinite in terms of space, but not an infinitely old universe, and I'm not talking about the universe anway, I'm considering the broader physical reality in which our universe (possibly) resides.

We don't need to, we just to remain clear on what it is that's being demonstrated - I appreciate that you're fielding commentary from at least three different sources, and it can be difficult to keep them straight sometimes, I do that myself on occasion.

O.

Are you saying that the quantum foam could not have been producing virtual particles for an infinite time then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're once again forgetting that it's you who are trying to make an argument here - write out 100 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".

Again, people are suggesting alternatives to your argument. Of course you cannot put them all together and make something coherent, that's the point - there are many, many different possibilities, which means you have not made your case.

Regarding the manifold, it (and its contents), in and of themselves, don't appear to depend on anything external. Contingency, like time itself, is entirely internal to it. It (assuming general relativity is at least approximately correct) is a four-dimensional object. It didn't start to exist and it won't ever cease to exist because time is internal to it.

im not really interested in something existing for ever. I’m interested in whether it can produce contingent things. For example the number four is an abstract necessity which produces nothing at all. So what is it within the manifold which gives rise to contingent things.......and don’t just say the manifold did it.

[Stranger]

im not really interested in something existing for ever. I’m interested in whether it can produce contingent things. For example the number four is an abstract necessity which produces nothing at all. So what is it within the manifold which gives rise to contingent things.......and don’t just say the manifold did it.

It really isn't up to me to make an argument for this. I pointed at something that doesn't appear to have an external explanation for it, which is pretty much all you've said about a necessity entity yourself. And it doesn't exist forever - it just exists. Time is something inside it.

If you'd actually try to make an argument and resolve the contradictions in your own position, you'd be in a position in which other people would have to point out flaws and logical alternatives. As it is, you're just trying to shift the burden of proof and get other people to come up with complete explanations that you can then pick issues with.

Matthew 7:5

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Regarding the manifold, it (and its contents), in and of themselves, don't appear to depend on anything external. Contingency, like time itself, is entirely internal to it.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand There we go again with the uncreated created Schlick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It really isn't up to me to make an argument for this. I pointed at something that doesn't appear to have an external explanation for it, which is pretty much all you've said about a necessity entity yourself. And it doesn't exist forever - it just exists. Time is something inside it.

If you'd actually try to make an argument and resolve the contradictions in your own position, you'd be in a position in which other people would have to point out flaws and logical alternatives. As it is, you're just trying to shift the burden of proof and get other people to come up with complete explanations that you can then pick issues with.

Matthew 7:5

If you can say the manifold is not created, but it contains created things , say they are all necessary and say it isn’t necessary to explain how that happens. You cannot rightly expect further explanation from someone who merely proposes something that is not created.

You have a duty to explain your notion of the uncreated created You also need to explain what the non contingent parts are......or give up.

So nothing wrong with not knowing a lot about a lot wrong slagging someone of for not knowing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I hope you are saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.

Is that supposed to be a joke? In which case don't you mean:

I hope you aren't saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.

Frankly I often struggle with the coherence of your posts Vlad so it is difficult to know what on earth you mean.

[Outrider]

Are you saying that the quantum foam could not have been producing virtual particles for an infinite time then?

No, I'm saying that it could have been doing so outside of the universe but inside the broader, infinite reality that I've been depicting as a viable prospect.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that supposed to be a joke? In which case don't you mean:

I hope you aren't saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.

Frankly I often struggle with the coherence of your posts Vlad so it is difficult to know what on earth you mean.

Can we just clarify..........are you saying that if you didn’t exist the people who would have been your parents wouldn’t exist. Try a yes no answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm saying that it could have been doing so outside of the universe but inside the broader, infinite reality that I've been depicting as a viable prospect.

O.

I’m happy with the term broader, infinite reality. But obviously it’s existence is not dependent on the temporary part. In other words it is complete without the temporary bit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Can we just clarify..........are you saying that if you didn’t exist the people who would have been your parents wouldn’t exist. Try a yes no answer.

No - I am saying that if I didn't exist the people who are my parents wouldn't have necessarily needed to exist - they could have existed, they could not have. It is only if I exist that they necessarily have to exist also.

Parents are only a necessary entity if there is a child.

[Stranger]

If you can say the manifold is not created, but it contains created things , say they are all necessary and say it isn’t necessary to explain how that happens. You cannot rightly expect further explanation from someone who merely proposes something that is not created.

You have a duty to explain your notion of the uncreated created You also need to explain what the non contingent parts are......or give up.

So nothing wrong with not knowing a lot about a lot wrong slagging someone of for not knowing.

You are making the specific (even if somewhat meaningless) claim that something called "God" is a necessary being. You have not explained how it is possible for anything to be necessary, pretty much all you've said is that it would have no external explanation. Neither have you explained how something that is anything like most conceptions of gods (as thinking beings that make choices) can exist without depending on time.

It really isn't up to other people to create anything any more coherent than your undefined and incoherent nonsense. So, no, I have no duty at all to explain anything. I've pointed out that there is something (which we have strong evidence for) that doesn't appear to have an external explanation. That, in and of itself, is far more credible, coherent, and meaningful than your vague hand-waving about some undefined "God".

Write out 500 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are making the specific (even if somewhat meaningless) claim that something called "God" is a necessary being. You have not explained how it is possible for anything to be necessary, pretty much all you've said is that it would have no external explanation. Neither have you explained how something that is anything like most conceptions of gods (as thinking beings that make choices) can exist without depending on time.

It really isn't up to other people to create anything any more coherent than your undefined and incoherent nonsense. So, no, I have no duty at all to explain anything. I've pointed out that there is something (which we have strong evidence for) that doesn't appear to have an external explanation. That, in and of itself, is far more credible, coherent, and meaningful than your vague hand-waving about some undefined "God".

Write out 500 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".

I have stated what I mean by necessity, necessary and necessary entity 500 times now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

Phew, I was worried for you.

[Stranger]

I have stated what I mean by necessity, necessary and necessary entity 500 times now.

You've actually defined it two ways: something for which there is no external explanation and something which is its own explanation. You have not said how it is possible for anything to have these characteristics or how we would recognise it (or them).

I've provided you with what appears to meet your first definition. You have provided nothing but hand-waving about an undefined notion of "God".

As I said, nobody is under any obligation to try to provide you with an alternative to your vague hand-waving that is anything more than other vague hand-waving. Nevertheless, myself, and others, have done so.

It really is about time you applied the same criteria for explanation to yourself that you are attempting to apply to other people's ideas and stop being such a hypocrite.

[ProfessorDavey]

Phew, I was worried for you.

Thanks for the majoring editing of my response.

To be clear - parents are only a necessary entity if there is a child. If there is no child then those same people could exist or could not exist - those people are no longer a necessary entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've actually defined it two ways: something for which there is no external explanation and something which is its own explanation. You have not said how it is possible for anything to have these characteristics or how we would recognise it (or them).

I think this is a huge problem but it needn’t stop us saying it is illogical for there not to be one since in any case if we are saying the universe didn’t need one then that definitionally makes the universe the necessary thing. However we can discount things which are contingent as being the necessary entity.

If we are arguing that the universe is the necessary entity then that entity has to be in the universe but not a part of the contingent universe. If

We still have an issue because we do not know what it is like.
However Logic dictates it must be there and our inability to recognise it or even detect or measure it does  not I’m afraid have any bearing on whether it exists or not.

[Stranger]

I think this is a huge problem but it needn’t stop us saying it is illogical for there not to be one since in any case if we are saying the universe didn’t need one then that definitionally makes the universe the necessary thing.

Why? Where is this argument? Why do we need one necessary thing? Perhaps, for example, literally everything that is logically self-consistent exists. We know nothing about the basis for existence or the extent of what might exists outside of this bubble of space-time we are able to directly observe.

If we are arguing that the universe is the necessary entity then that entity has to be in the universe but not a part of the contingent universe.

I gave the entire space-time manifold and its contents as a possibility because it doesn't appear to need an external reason to exist. That doesn't mean that there is some necessary part of it (something that is inside it).

We still have an issue because we do not know what it is like.
However Logic dictates it must be there and our inability to recognise it or even detect or measure it is not I’m afraid have any bearing on whether it exists or not.

Regardless of the fact that you haven't provided a proper argument for necessity, it's you who is trying to claim it is something specific that is called "God". Instead of trying to support your own claim, or addressing its apparent contradictions, you seem intent on arguing (from ignorance) against other people's ideas.

Write out 500 more times: "I must remember the burden of proof".

[ProfessorDavey]

If we are arguing that the universe is the necessary entity ...

It is completely meaningless to describe anything as a necessary entity, let alone the necessary entity unless you also state what it is a necessary entity for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is completely meaningless to describe anything as a necessary entity, let alone the necessary entity unless you also state what it is a necessary entity for.

I think it is fairly obvious what THE necessary entity is necessary for. And it has been stated in the context of the universe and reality. To pretend you are in the dark on that is pretty disingenuous IMHO.

It is also a convention to talk about abstract necessities. Things that are there no matter what but don't actually do anything. These would be mathematical necessities.
One can envisage something that exists without external reasons but with reasons of there own. Just because someone doesn't like the handle or name doesn't mean it's existence is jeapordised. It might be meaningless to you because of your brain architecture or you've got yourself into fixed or sloppy ways of thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I gave the entire space-time manifold and its contents as a possibility because it doesn't appear to need an external reason to exist. That doesn't mean that there is some necessary part of it (something that is inside it).

So are you  suggesting it as a kind of shell of necessity around contingency?