Disproofs of God.

[Stranger]

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

Possibly, or the entire thing is necessary because there was no other way for it to be, or it's just one of many other possibilities that are all realised simply because there is no reason for them not to exist.

Once again: it is you who are proposing a specific answer here, one that you have made no serious attempt to justify and one that you continually refuse to address objections to. It's not up to other people to propose and defend alternatives to an incoherent, apparently contradictory, notion that you have made no serious attempt to argue for or defend yourself. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

I never said I was in the dark - I said it was meaningless to describe anything as a necessary entity, let alone the necessary entity unless you also state what it is a necessary entity for. There is a difference.

But nonetheless in the current thread we've discussed necessary entities for:

The universe (brought up by you)
A bicycle (brought up by you)
Neurotransmission (brought up be me), and most recently
Children (brought up by you)

The broader point is that the necessary entity or entities for each are different and therefore the context of the discussion is important particularly when you are clearly trying to guide the discussion towards a purported THE necessary entity - implying a universality, with a objective in trying to imply this to be god.

But we can see through your wheeze - and of course there is no such things as THE necessary entity, because as I have pointed out this is entirely context specific. So there are only context specific necessary entities and there may be more than one of these for any given context (children being a very obvious example).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possibly, or the entire thing is necessary because there was no other way for it to be, or it's just one of many other possibilities that are all realised simply because there is no reason for them not to exist.

OK let’s factor that in. Vlad, in one heirarchy of dependency is a contingent being on his parents who in turn are contingent on there parents. Now, nothing about that changes in the face of determinism, does it. I think therefore that determinist line is a bit of a cul de sac although i’ve Seen even respectable atheist debaters drop it in. Hierarchies of contingency still remain.

Once again: it is you who are proposing a specific answer here, one that you have made no serious attempt to justify and one that you continually refuse to address objections to. It's not up to other people to propose and defend alternatives to an incoherent, apparently contradictory, notion that you have made no serious attempt to argue for or defend yourself. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite.

I have two entities
The contingent
The necessary
People are trying without any force from me to eliminate one or the other. That they do that with the necessary tells me that they themselves have spotted the divine attributes that come with being the necessary entity.

[Stranger]

OK let’s factor that in. Vlad, in one heirarchy of dependency is a contingent being on his parents who in turn are contingent on there parents. Now, nothing about that changes in the face of determinism, does it. I think therefore that determinist line is a bit of a cul de sac although i’ve Seen even respectable atheist debaters drop it in. Hierarchies of contingency still remain.

Regardless of all that, there still doesn't appear to be any external explanation for the whole of space-time and its contents, so it could easily fit one of your definitions of necessity.

And you didn't addresses the possibility that things may exist simply because there is no reason they can't.

I have two entities
The contingent
The necessary
People are trying without any force from me to eliminate one or the other. That they do that with the necessary tells me that they themselves have spotted the divine attributes that come with being the necessary entity.

Drivel. People are pointing that you haven't made an argument for any of this, you've just asserted it and what little you said about it is full of holes and contradictions - none of which, it would seem, you are prepared to even try to defend, while at the same time trying to put everything anybody else even suggests under a microscope as if it was a solid counter-claim, rather than just a alternative possibility.

You haven't even shown that what you regard as necessary even makes coherent sense, let alone shown any "divine attributes". You won't even address the obvious glaring contradiction in identifying a "necessary entity" with anything like most conceptions of gods.

As I said: stop being a hypocrite and defend your own positive claim at least to the degree you seem to want other people to defend mere alternative suggestions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Regardless of all that, there still doesn't appear to be any external explanation for the whole of space-time and its contents, so it could easily fit one of your definitions of necessity.

I fear you are making the fallacy of division here by imbuing the components of a thing with a property of the whole. If something is dependent on something else it is contingent.

And you didn't addresses the possibility that things may exist simply because there is no reason they can't.

sounds like you are talking about necessary entities there. When haven’t I been talking about the possibility of those?

[Enki]

...... I have two entities
The contingent
The necessary
People are trying without any force from me to eliminate one or the other. That they do that with the necessary tells me that they themselves have spotted the divine attributes that come with being the necessary entity.

I find there are multiple examples of contingency, but I haven't a clue whether there is a necessary at all. For me, postulating one(or more than one) has as many problems as not having a necessary as I have no idea how a necessary can be its own reason for existing.

As to divine attributes, you would have to tell me first as to why it has to be an entity, and then tell me what these attributes were. I can only think of one, which is the idea that the necessary is essential for creation. You yourself have already accepted that the divine doesn't have to be good, omnipotent(except for our universe) or even singular. It does seem to be a shaky edifice to hang the divine idea on.

[Stranger]

I fear you are making the fallacy of division here by imbuing the components of a thing with a property of the whole. If something is dependent on something else it is contingent.

You're pissing about with definitions here. If the whole of the space-time manifold has no external explanation, it fits one of your definitions of necessity and any notion of contingency would be internal to it.

sounds like you are talking about necessary entities there. When haven’t I been talking about the possibility of those?

Once again, your refusing to defend your own claims and simply ignoring or criticising other suggestions. If everything that is self-consistent exists, simply because there is no reason for it not to, does that make everything "God"? If the whole of space-time is necessary does that make it "God".

More to the point, where the hell is anything remotely like an argument for your claim?

How can you make the idea of necessity logically self-consistent? What is your definition of "God" and why would something necessary be anything like it?

Why are you so afraid of actually producing an argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're pissing about with definitions here. If the whole of the space-time manifold has no external explanation, it fits one of your definitions of necessity and any notion of contingency would be internal to it.

Once again, your refusing to defend your own claims and simply ignoring or criticising other suggestions. If everything that is self-consistent exists, simply because there is no reason for it not to, does that make everything "God"? If the whole of space-time is necessary does that make it "God".

More to the point, where the hell is anything remotely like an argument for your claim?

How can you make the idea of necessity logically self-consistent? What is your definition of "God" and why would something necessary be anything like it?

Why are you so afraid of actually producing an argument?

I am making a few points here

1) It should be clear to thread participants what the argument from contingency is.

2)It should be clear how contingent entities and non contingent or necessary entities come out of that discussion.

3) These arguments have been put in different ways with multiple analogies

4) People instinctively suspect talk of necessary entities as being God talk

5) The characteristics of necessary beings are different from contingent being.

6) some have acknowledged that a necessary entity is logical and the debate here is what it is using the painful process of discounting constraints on contingent beings for necessary entities.

So please dont complain that there isnt argument going on here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Argument: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

Assertion: a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.

Vlad’s scores:

Assertions: 5,621; Arguments: 0 

[Stranger]

1) It should be clear to thread participants what the argument from contingency is.

Why? Where is the specific argument you are referring to?

2)It should be clear how contingent entities and non contingent or necessary entities come out of that discussion.

Since you haven't explicitly given an argument or referenced one, it isn't clear at all.

3) These arguments have been put in different ways with multiple analogies

So where is one of them that you are prepared to defend?

4) People instinctively suspect talk of necessary entities as being God talk

Do they?

5) The characteristics of necessary beings are different from contingent being.

In what way, exactly? What are the characteristics of something necessary? How would we recognise it? Why are you calling it a "being"?

6) some have acknowledged that a necessary entity is logical and the debate here is what it is using the painful process of discounting constraints on contingent beings for necessary entities.

But you're not even doing that. You're refusing to support what few claims that you have explicitly made and then raising rather silly objections to other possibilities.

So please dont complain that there isnt argument going on here.

You haven't made an argument and you will not defend what few claims you have made. As usual, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.

So, once again, stop being a hypocrite, put forward a specific argument so that others can subject to the same sort of scrutiny that you seem to want to apply to even the most casual alternative suggestions.

[ProfessorDavey]

5) The characteristics of necessary beings are different from contingent being.

Utter and complete garbage.

Let's first remind ourselves of the definitions we are using for necessary and contingent beings or entities:

A necessary entity is something that exists and could not have failed to exist

A contingent entity is something that exists and could have failed to exist

So lets look at the example you raised of children and parents.

If I exist then my parents could not have failed to exist - they are necessary entities. However if I do not exist (and nor do any of my siblings) then my parents could have failed to exist - they are contingent entities.

The characteristics of the people who are my parents are identical in each case - it is the context (in this case the presence of a child) that determines whether they are necessary or contingent entities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter and complete garbage.

Let's first remind ourselves of the definitions we are using for necessary and contingent beings or entities:

A necessary entity is something that exists and could not have failed to exist

A contingent entity is something that exists and could have failed to exist

So lets look at the example you raised of children and parents.

If I exist then my parents could not have failed to exist - they are necessary entities. However if I do not exist (and nor do any of my siblings) then my parents could have failed to exist - they are contingent entities.

The proporties of the people who are my parents are identical in each case - it is the context (in this case the presence of a child) that determines whether they are necessary or contingent entities.

You see Never Talk......argument around issues regarding argument from contingency.
Here you see Professor Davey on about a particular definition of necessity against which all other understandings are wrong so he is leading me to believe. I will examine this therefore to see if it actually negates anything I’ve said"

[ProfessorDavey]

You see nearly Sane.......argument around issues regarding argument from contingency.
Here you see Professor Davey on about a particular definition of necessity against which all other understandings are wrong. I will examine this therefore to see if it actually negates anything I’ve said"

This is the only definition that has been proposed on this thread that has any kind of external validity.

Your suggestion that the characteristics of necessary entities are different from contingent entities is non-sense on stilts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is the only definition that has been proposed on this thread that has any kind of external validity.

Your suggestion that the characteristics of necessary entities are different from contingent entities is non-sense on stilts.

Don’t think so.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

[Stranger]

You see Never Talk......argument around issues regarding argument from contingency.
Here you see Professor Davey on about a particular definition of necessity against which all other understandings are wrong so he is leading me to believe. I will examine this therefore to see if it actually negates anything I’ve said"

Don’t think so.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

What's actually quite amusing here is that you and the Prof clearly are talking about different definitions but using the same web page, so you, Vlad, are you going to have to have the intellectual courage to actually explain the concept of necessity you're talking about. Somehow I doubt you will do that because that would mean you actually being explicit about at least part of the argument you keep hinting at but are avoiding at all costs stating in any way - because then people could challenge it and your attempt to reverse the burden of proof might unravel......

[ProfessorDavey]

Don’t think so.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

What are you on about Vlad.

That is the definition that I provided and that I am using.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

What's actually quite amusing here is that you and the Prof clearly are talking about different definitions but using the same web page, so you, Vlad, are you going to have to have the intellectual courage to actually explain the concept of necessity you're talking about. Somehow I doubt you will do that because that would mean you actually being explicit about at least part of the argument you keep hinting at but are avoiding at all costs stating in any way - because then people could challenge it and your attempt to reverse the burden of proof might unravel......

It should be apparent by now that not only will Vlad never make an argument but that he seems not to grasp even what the term “argument” requires. As you’ve observed, his MO is only to critique the arguments he doesn’t like by mischaracterising or just insulting them, and to scatter his posts with various references and terms he clearly doesn’t understand. He's either an intelligent person pretending to be stupid, or the other way around. My money's on the latter. 

Vlad: never explain, never apologise. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you on about Vlad.

That is the definition that I provided and that I am using.

No Davey, what are YOU on about ?The piece distinctly qualifies what can be a candidate for the necessary being. If any one was still in doubt that a necessary being and a contingent being are the same thing  It would save time if you could point out where you cited the self same piece on this board.

[Stranger]

No Davey, what are YOU on about ?The piece distinctly qualifies what can be a candidate for the necessary being. If any one was still in doubt that a necessary being and a contingent being are the same thing  It would save time if you could point out where you cited the self same piece on this board.

#126.

Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#126.

Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...

Thank you. It seems that having quoted that there are two types of entities. Davey now seems to be informing us that there is no difference between them. That which he quotes clearly gives the distinction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#126.

Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...

Ah the old "you haven't made an argument  AND NOT ONLY THAT your argument isn't clear" Gambit

[Stranger]

Thank you. It seems that having quoted that there are two types of entities. Davey now seems to be informing us that there is no difference between them. That which he quotes clearly gives the distinction.

Off you go then and explain your point of view....

Ah the old "you haven't made an argument  AND NOT ONLY THAT your argument isn't clear" Gambit

Don't be silly - all you've done is make a few disjointed claims that you utterly refuse to either defend or put into a coherent and complete argument. Why are you so terrified of committing to an actual argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...

Good luck with that – he’s cost me a fortune in twiglets and tizer over the years waiting in vain for an actual argument for whatever it is he believes in.

He’ll duck and dive
And twist and turn
Or just act all aloof
But never, ever will he accept
That his is the burden of proof

He’ll lie about the arguments
Or make shit up
On the hoof
But he’ll never address his problem
That his is the burden of proof

He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof

[Stranger]

He’ll duck and dive
And twist and turn
Or just act all aloof,
But never, ever will he accept
That his is the burden of proof

He’ll lie about the arguments
Or make shit up
On the hoof
But he’ll never address his problem
That his is the burden of proof

He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

Good luck with that – he’s cost me a fortune in twiglets and tizer over the years waiting in vain for an actual argument for whatever it is he believes in.

Was this the argument which never happened but was really awful?

He’ll duck and dive
And twist and turn
Or just act all aloof
But never, ever will he accept
That his is the burden of proof

He’ll lie about the arguments
Or make shit up
On the hoof
But he’ll never address his problem
That his is the burden of proof

He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof

They seek him here, They seek him there
Is he in Heaven, Is he in Hell
That Damned evasive Pimp!

Well done Hillside.
When every body's agreed we are in unfalsifiable and speculation country can Burden of proof really be used as a get out of jail free card if your speculation goes tits up? I'm not sure.