The nomological argument for god

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.

I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".

In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.

You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350, so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-

Where is your argument?

How does something appear to be "just is?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.

I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".

In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.

You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350, so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-

Where is your argument?

1)I'm glad you acknowledge that things may not be subject to time. However the argument from contingency does not depend on time but being. In other words a contingent being may exist eternally.

[Stranger]

You are saying that the space time manifold has no cause or no sufficient reason. Again, on what warrant are you claiming this?

I'm saying it has no obvious cause or reason. This is a simple refutation of your claim that everything in the universe is obviously contingent. What warrant do you have to make the claim about your made up god-thingy?

How does something appear to be "just is?"

By not being subject to time.

1)I'm glad you acknowledge that things may not be subject to time. However the argument from contingency does not depend on time but being. In other words a contingent being may exist eternally.

We aren't really talking about existing eternally but being timeless. However, so what? You still haven't produced any argument for any sort of separate 'necessary entity', explained how anything at all can possibly be necessary, or connected any supposed necessity to any sort of god-concept, so the question still remains:

Where is your argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm saying it has no obvious cause or reason. This is a simple refutation of your claim that everything in the universe is obviously contingent. What warrant do you have to make the claim about your made up god-thingy?

By not being subject to time.

We aren't really talking about existing eternally but being timeless. However, so what? You still haven't produced any argument for any sort of separate 'necessary entity', explained how anything at all can possibly be necessary, or connected any supposed necessity to any sort of god-concept, so the question still remains:

Where is your argument?

Would the space time manifold exist if there were no space time?

[Stranger]

Would the space time manifold exist if there were no space time?

No. Would your god-thingy exist if there were no god-thingy? Rather than asking silly questions, how about putting forward an actual argument?

We've now had Aquinas' original (#183) which is full of flaws and nothing like what you seem to be hinting at. We also had the one from Stanford (#350) which you mentioned, which is also full of flaws, and which you also seem to be departing from. So, yet again:

Where is your argument?

[jeremyp]

Not dependent for being on contingent things.

That's pretty much the definition.

Unique.

Why can there be only one necessary being?

Necessary.

It should have been obvious to you that we are looking for attributes other than the one in its name.

Maximally potent.

What does that even mean? And why does a necessary entity need to be it, whatever it means?

Actually actual.

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Would your god-thingy exist if there were no god-thingy? Rather than asking silly questions, how about putting forward an actual argument?

We've now had Aquinas' original (#183) which is full of flaws and nothing like what you seem to be hinting at. We also had the one from Stanford (#350) which you mentioned, which is also full of flaws, and which you also seem to be departing from. So, yet again:

Where is your argument?

Oh dear, the closest we get to you justifying the space time manifold is that it just is. Oh well. So we have a laddie, you, screaming for an argument while reluctant to put his own because what he claims is necessary ''just is''. What a complete waste of time and space.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's pretty much the definition.Why can there be only one necessary being?It should have been obvious to you that we are looking for attributes other than the one in its name.What does that even mean? And why does a necessary entity need to be it, whatever it means?What?

You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying I only mention it is not affected by contingent things and that I argue uniqueness.

The status of two necessary beings in our context is that neither would be fully contingent and each would be responsible for a part of the total contingency. Their own part in that being dependent on the other and that would disqualify them from being necessary beings.

In terms of physical hiddenness there existence does not depend on physical elucidation.

[Stranger]

Oh dear, the closest we get to you justifying the space time manifold is that it just is.

Which is actually a great deal more coherent than anything your vague hand-waving and baseless assertion has produced.

Oh well. So we have a laddie, you, screaming for an argument while reluctant to put his own because what he claims is necessary ''just is''. What a complete waste of time and space.

More misrepresentation (I've never claimed anything is necessary) and again failing to appreciate the burden of proof. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking:

• The space-time manifold is just a technical objection to your claim that everything about the universe is obviously contingent.
  
  
• I don't need to make an argument because I'm not proposing anything. It is you who are claiming a 'necessary' god-thingy.

So, yet again, this is your burden of proof, so...

Where is your argument?

[jeremyp]

You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying I only mention it is not affected by contingent things and that I argue uniqueness.

You give a list of attributes of a necessary being, two of which  amounted to "it's necessary". You didn't argue its uniqueness, you asserted it.

this is the problem. You keep making assertions without any justification for any of them.

The status of two necessary beings in our context is that neither would be fully contingent

If they are necessary, neither of them are partially contingent.

and each would be responsible for a part of the total contingency. Their own part in that being dependent on the other and that would disqualify them from being necessary beings.

Why would that be the case?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You give a list of attributes of a necessary being, two of which  amounted to "it's necessary". You didn't argue its uniqueness, you asserted it.

this is the problem. You keep making assertions without any justification for any of them. If they are necessary, neither of them are partially contingent.

But neither of them are necessary for ''everything'' therefore they are not the necessary being.

Why would that be the case?

See above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is actually a great deal more coherent than anything your vague hand-waving and baseless assertion has produced.

More misrepresentation (I've never claimed anything is necessary) and again failing to appreciate the burden of proof. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking:

You have and indeed doubled up on it by stating the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason.

• The space-time manifold is just a technical objection to your claim that everything about the universe is obviously contingent.
  
  
• I don't need to make an argument because I'm not proposing anything. It is you who are claiming a 'necessary' god-thingy.

So, yet again, this is your burden of proof, so...

Where is your argument?

Handwaving. You came to a dead end and just claimed you don't need to explain anything. Whereas you previously stated that the space time manifold needs neither a cause nor sufficient reason.

[Stranger]

Handwaving. You came to a dead end and just claimed you don't need to explain anything. Whereas you previously stated that the space time manifold needs neither a cause nor sufficient reason.

Please stop lying. I simply pointed out that the space-time didn't have any obvious cause or need for one and therefore wasn't obviously contingent. This was a response to your claim that everything about the universe was clearly contingent.

I didn't come to a dead end - that was the point I wanted to make and I made it.

The other (and more important) point is that I don't need to make an argument because it's you who are making claims that you haven't even tried to support with a coherent argument.

This is simply the burden of proof. You're making claims, so you need to back them up, so you need an argument.

Where is your argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please stop lying. I simply pointed out that the space-time didn't have any obvious cause or need for one and therefore wasn't obviously contingent. This was a response to your claim that everything about the universe was clearly contingent.

I didn't come to a dead end - that was the point I wanted to make and I made it.

The other (and more important) point is that I don't need to make an argument because it's you who are making claims that you haven't even tried to support with a coherent argument.

This is simply the burden of proof. You're making claims, so you need to back them up, so you need an argument.

Where is your argument?

If you say the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason then that is a claim. You know what you have to do.

[Stranger]

If you say the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason then that is a claim. You know what you have to do.

More lies and blatant hypocrisy.

What is it about "the space-time didn't have any obvious cause or need for one" are you having trouble understanding? Are you really too dim to see that that is nothing like making the claim that it "needs neither cause nor sufficient reason"?

Even if I had made such a claim (which I didn't), you would be prize hypocrite to ask for me to back it up after totally and repeatedly failing to back up any aspect of your multiple claims about some supposed 'necessary being' despite being asked to multiple times.

Stop running scared for once in your life and actually attempt to put forward an argument for your claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you say the space time manifold needs neither cause nor sufficient reason…

He hasn’t – that’s just you misrepresenting him again. What he actually says is that you’ve provided no reason to think the spacetime manifold needed a cause. If you think he’s wrong about that then, finally, you need actually to argue your assertion that it does require a cause. The cosmological argument (whichever version of it you turn out to prefer, albeit wish to keep a secret) relies on establishing that the universe itself must have been caused. This is the claim you keep being asked to justify – but keep running away from.

…then that is a claim.

NTtS’s only claim is that you’ve provided no reason to think the universe must have been caused by something else. And he’s right about that.

You know what you have to do.

He’s already done it. You on the other hand make the positive claim that the universe was necessarily caused by something other than itself, so far with no justifying argument of any kind.

You know what you have to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

He hasn’t – that’s just you misrepresenting him again. What he actually says is that you’ve provided no reason to think the spacetime manifold needed a cause. If you think he’s wrong about that then, finally, you need actually to argue your assertion that it does require a cause. The cosmological argument (whichever version of it you turn out to prefer, albeit wish to keep a secret) relies on establishing that the universe itself must have been caused. This is the claim you keep being asked to justify – but keep running away from.

NTtS’s only claim is that you’ve provided no reason to think the universe must have been caused by something else. And he’s right about that.

He’s already done it. You on the other hand make the positive claim that the universe was necessarily caused by something other than itself, so far with no justifying argument of any kind.

You know what you have to do.

If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.

He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.

[Stranger]

If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.

He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.

No, I am NOT. This appears to be nothing but a barefaced lie on your part. I've lost count of how many times I've explained this to you. I'm merely pointing out that one of the very few things you've actually pointed to to support your little flight of fantasy (that everything about the universe is clearly contingent) is incorrect because the space-time appears to 'just be'.

I am not making an argument that it is therefore necessary, I'm no even saying that it needs no cause (in some sense - it obviously can't have one in the usual sense of a preceding event) because I'm not the one trying to make an argument - you are. Just raising the possibility is all that is needed to undermine your statement.

All you have put forward in support of your 'necessary god-thingy' fantasy has been vague hand-waving, hints at some 'argument from contingency' (that you won't post or reference a version of that you consider valid), and endless baseless assertions.

So we are still right back at the question of you blatant hypocrisy in asking me to justify an argument I haven't made, while you keep claiming to have an argument that you have said literally nothing of substance to support (you haven't even supported the statement in the quote above that everything must be either contingent or necessary).

So, Vlad, yet again:

Where is your argument?

[jeremyp]

If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.

The only person making an assertion is you. You are claiming that the Universe needs a cause. Everybody else on this thread says they don't know if the Universe needs a cause. Nobody is making a positive assertion but you. Everybody else is trying to get you to justify your positive assertion.

Then, when you've done that, there are two more things you need to justify.

2. The cause of the Universe does not itself need a cause.

3. The cause of the Universe is the experience in your head that you claim is the Christian god.

He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.

There's a problem with arguing that the space-time manifold needs a cause: having a cause implies that something came before the space-time manifold and it's not clear that temporal relationships make any sense outside of time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, Vlad, I'm pointing out two glaring faults in what you're saying.

The first is a technicality: your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.

[Stranger]

Vlad, you appear to have quoted two of the times I said what I just said I said, rather than your lies about what I said.

No, Vlad, I'm pointing out two glaring faults in what you're saying.

The first is a technicality: your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.

Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only person making an assertion is you. You are claiming that the Universe needs a cause. Everybody else on this thread says they don't know if the Universe needs a cause. Nobody is making a positive assertion but you. Everybody else is trying to get you to justify your positive assertion.

I have reposted his post where he says ''The universe as a whole (the space time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.

Then, when you've done that, there are two more things you need to justify..

2. The cause of the Universe does not itself need a cause.

I have only spoken about the possible necessity of the universe and the necessary entity being called God.

3. The cause of the Universe is the experience in your head that you claim is the Christian god.(/quote) I do believe in God, the maker of heaven and earth (and understand this as being the universe and Jesus Christ of logos theology through whom all things were made.(quote)
There's a problem with arguing that the space-time manifold needs a cause: having a cause implies that something came before the space-time manifold and it's not clear that temporal relationships make any sense outside of time.

Does this problem occur with types of maintained waves for instance if we imputing one thing with timelessness how can we reserve it for one thing. If something timeless can be, what warrant do we have to prevent it from causing things to happen?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, you appear to have quoted two of the times I said what I just said I said, rather than your lies about what I said.

No you said that contingency was ''actually false''.

and that the universe has ''No need'' of a cause.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If he is saying the universe needs no cause then that is a positive assertion and he needs to justify it.

He also is saying that space time is not contingent. How then does he reckon he isnt saying it is necessary. When it's either contingent or Necessary.

In Reply 388 you straw manned NTtS. In Reply 390 I corrected you on it. In Reply 391 you copied and pasted the correction I gave you, then repeated exactly the same straw man.

Why? Are you struggling with basic comprehension? Are you deliberately lying? What?

This is the same perennial mistake/straw man you make about atheism – ie, that “I have no good reasons to believe in god(s)” is epistemically the same statement as “there are no gods”.

Yet again, at no time has NTtS ever said “the universe needs no cause”. What he actually says is that you’ve failed to show that it must have had a cause, on which positive claim all versions of the cosmological version rest (including therefore whichever version of it you prefer but are determined to keep secret). You've been asked numerous times to justify this premise, but as you've ignored the question every time it's been asked presumably you intend to keep on ignoring it now.