The nomological argument for god

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Firstly you have made a positive assertion effectively that the universe just is and needs no explanation.

How on earth did you derive that straw men version from what he actually said ("The argument in the article fails under Occam as it adds an additional complexity and entities that have not been demonstrated to be necessary. Hence it moves beyond the simplest explanation")?

That's wrong......

You’re telling me. He said no such thing.

…it needs an explanation. In other words what is it about the universe that makes it necessary rather than contingent? The puzzle that this raises is then what are atheists doing arguing against necessary entities in the necessity/contingent sense while supporting the idea when it comes to explaining the universe?

Not even close. “Atheists” merely explain to you why the cosmological argument fails. No more, no less.

Wow....two birds ,one stone.

Wow – one stone, two misses. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What are you trying to say here?

You've fucked up again.

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly you have made a positive assertion effectively that the universe just is and needs no explanation.

No I'm not - I am saying that the equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe. That isn't close to suggesting that the universe just is and needs no explanation, merely indicating that the explanation doesn't necessarily require the equivalent of a card dealer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You've fucked up again.

Neither lie helps you. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not - I am saying that the equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe. That isn't close to suggesting that the universe just is and needs no explanation, merely indicating that the explanation doesn't necessarily require the equivalent of a card dealer.

And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.

A necessary creator is your claim. You know what you have to do.

[Stranger]

And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.

   The existence of many other hypotheses (with far better reasoning, as it happens) are evidence that the statement is correct.

[ProfessorDavey]

And THAT is a positive assertion. You know what you have to do.

Oh dear Vlad, you really don't get it do you.

Eric Clapton is necessarily the best guitarist in the world - positive claim
Eric Clapton is not necessarily the best guitarist in the world - not a positive claim

Messi is necessarily the best footballer in the world - positive claim
Messi is not necessarily the best footballer in the world - not a positive claim

The equivalence of a card dealer is necessarily required to explain the universe - positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe - not a positive claim

The reason being that the former posits a specific claim and discounts all the others. The latter does not posit a single claim and does not actually rule out the specific claim posited by the former wording.

Onus is on you chum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear Vlad, you really don't get it do you.

Eric Clapton is necessarily the best guitarist in the world - positive claim
Eric Clapton is not necessarily the best guitarist in the world - not a positive claim

Messi is necessarily the best footballer in the world - positive claim
Messi is not necessarily the best footballer in the world - not a positive claim

The equivalence of a card dealer is necessarily required to explain the universe - positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe - not a positive claim

The reason being that the former posits a specific claim and discounts all the others. The latter does not posit a single claim and does not actually rule out the specific claim posited by the former wording.

Onus is on you chum.

Sorry I'm not your Chum, Pal.

Onus is on me? It's not my argument and It isn't the part I said I found attractive. In fact I said I understood the cards objection.

I've said the person who says the universe is the last step in an occam's razor because it is is wrong.

Since they need to go on and explain what it is about the universe that makes it the final step. That is really the final step and is one more than they thought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear Vlad, you really don't get it do you.

Eric Clapton is necessarily the best guitarist in the world - positive claim
Eric Clapton is not necessarily the best guitarist in the world - not a positive claim

Messi is necessarily the best footballer in the world - positive claim
Messi is not necessarily the best footballer in the world - not a positive claim

The equivalence of a card dealer is necessarily required to explain the universe - positive claim
The equivalence of a card dealer is not necessarily required to explain the universe - not a positive claim

The reason being that the former posits a specific claim and discounts all the others. The latter does not posit a single claim and does not actually rule out the specific claim posited by the former wording.

Onus is on you chum.

No....as previously explained. Unfortunately you used the word IS in your argument..........You know what you have to do.

[ProfessorDavey]

No....as previously explained. Unfortunately you used the word IS in your argument..........You know what you have to do.

That has to be the most appalling bit of quote mining in a long long time.

You have selectively quoted a single word, IS from my argument. I will remind you of the full version:

"I am saying that the equivalence of a card dealer IS NOT necessarily required to explain the universe." - my emphasis.

You do understand that IS and IS NOT are diametrically opposite in terms of their meaning - hence to quote just ISrather than IS NOT is an attempt to completely reverse the meaning of what I actually said.

Back to the case in point - you have made a positive claim, I have no - the onus is on you Vlad.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've said the person who says the universe is the last step in an occam's razor because it is is wrong.

Oh another positive claim, using IS (well actually twice but we'll excuse the typo) rather than IS NOT.

Onus on you Vlad - prove that the universe is not the last step as you have (positively claimed).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh another positive claim, using IS (well actually twice but we'll excuse the typo) rather than IS NOT.

Onus on you Vlad - prove that the universe is not the last step as you have (positively claimed).

You are the one that proposes that the universe is the last step in an Occam's razor without any justification.

When Bertrand Russell added that to atheist doctrine he also REFUSED to justify. To quote: ''The universe just is and that's it.

That must be the mother and father of all positive assertions without justification.

What then is your justification for saying the universe is the last step? How does that square with simulated universe theory? How do you know that you don't need a ''dealer''? What is it about the universe that makes it the last step?

And while we are at it how does a universe that just is square with claims of infinite regression?

Do people prefer Russell's unjustified assertion or infinite regress because there is no judgment of them in these models?

[ProfessorDavey]

You are the one that proposes that the universe is the last step in an Occam's razor without any justification.

No I haven't - stop lying Vlad.

And I think you fundamentally misunderstand Occam - it isn't about determine which of two or more explanation is correct, it is about determining which of two or more equally plausible explanations is more likely to be correct. There is an important distinction between is correct and more likely to be correct. And under Occam that is the explanation with the least necessary entities, steps or complexity. Adding a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' as a necessary step clearly falls foul of Occam as there are other plausible explanations that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' and therefore have fewer necessary entities, steps or complexity.

But under Occam that does not prove that an explanation without a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' is correct, merely that it is more likely to be correct.

And the purpose of Occam is not as an end in itself but to help guide further research aimed at providing evidence for one or more of those explanations. And while we are still a long way from fully understanding the universe there is significant evidence to support theories that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer'. There is, of course, no evidence for a creator though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I haven't - stop lying Vlad.

And I think you fundamentally misunderstand Occam - it isn't about determine which of two or more explanation is correct, it is about determining which of two or more equally plausible explanations is more likely to be correct. There is an important distinction between is correct and more likely to be correct. And under Occam that is the explanation with the least necessary entities, steps or complexity. Adding a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' as a necessary step clearly falls foul of Occam as there are other plausible explanations that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' and therefore have fewer necessary entities, steps or complexity.

But under Occam that does not prove that an explanation without a 'creator' or a 'card dealer' is correct, merely that it is more likely to be correct.

And the purpose of Occam is not as an end in itself but to help guide further research aimed at providing evidence for one or more of those explanations. And while we are still a long way from fully understanding the universe there is significant evidence to support theories that do not require a 'creator' or a 'card dealer'. There is, of course, no evidence for a creator though.

Necessity is not complexity. Plausibility is to do with belief. Why is ''The universe just is and that's that'' plausible? It is not even an explanation since we can still ask why is it the way it is. More importantly, what warrant do you have of depriving anything else of the statement just is, what are these theories that do not require an explanation and explain why the universe just is and that's that? You are merely waffling.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why is ''The universe just is and that's that'' plausible?

Why is ''God just is and that's that'' plausible?

[BeRational]

I suppose the Universe just is, because it is a fact. We see it, we experience it. The universe is a hard fact.

God's etc are not the same.

[ProfessorDavey]

Necessity is not complexity. Plausibility is to do with belief. Why is ''The universe just is and that's that'' plausible? It is not even an explanation since we can still ask why is it the way it is. More importantly, what warrant do you have of depriving anything else of the statement just is, what are these theories that do not require an explanation and explain why the universe just is and that's that? You are merely waffling.

But once again I have never said that The universe just is and that's that, stop putting words into my mouth that I never said.

I said that there are plausible explanations for the universe which do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' and applying Occam those explanations are preferred (although not proven) compared to an explanation that does necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' as the latter adds additional necessary entities, steps or complexity.

Indeed to apply Occam we need, as our starting point, to accept a number of plausible explanations for the universe and in the case in point we are taking starting assumptions that explanations for the universe necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' and others that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are plausible starting points for us to consider under Occam.

You seem to fail to even accept that explanations for the universe that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are even plausible and therefore you cannot apply Occam, as that is an approach to determine which of several plausible explanations are preferred.

But as I've said before Occam is merely a starting point and proves nothing - it does however guide further evidence gathering that may prove one explanation to be wrong or likely to be right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why is ''God just is and that's that'' plausible?

I think plausibility itself is an unreliable measure here.

The trouble is that everything in the universe which we can observe is contingent in some way. But Russell is declaring the universe necessary rather than contingent since no contingent thing '' just is ''.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying the universe might not just be I'm saying that whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' doesn't seem to be being observed.

So whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' is not observable and a ''God who just is'' also not observable. In other words whatever it is that is really ''just is'' and not contingent on anything is not observable.

So why is what is necessary or ''just is'' not observable? Because observability involves that which is observed being contingent in that it would be affected by the observation.

In conclusion then is that Russell is wrong to suggest the universe ''just is'' without an internal explanation. It's status as the necessary entity would be that explanation. However we observe the universe, so whatever it is which is necessary about the universe is unobserved and therefore we have a second reason to charge Russell with being unwarranted in his claim.

And so a universe which is in some way necessary has to have a necessary entity and thus we end up with the same number of entities involved in Russell's declaration as we do in a created universe, which brings us to another problem.

Russell's declaration is the opposite of the proposal that a creator must have a creator who must have a creator which seems to be one belief that atheists hold while subscribing also to Occam's razor.

So there are obvious problems in Russell's declaration, There are problems for the necessity of the universe when all we can observe is contingency and there are problems with an infinite chain of creators.

The only explanation that avoids these issues is one necessary creator.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I said that there are plausible explanations for the universe which do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer'

Yes so what are they?

and applying Occam those explanations are preferred

Or would be if you could provide them

(although not proven) compared to an explanation that does necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' as the latter adds additional necessary entities, steps or complexity.

Provide them.

Indeed to apply Occam we need, as our starting point, to accept a number of plausible explanations for the universe and in the case in point we are taking starting assumptions that explanations for the universe necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' and others that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are plausible starting points for us to consider under Occam.

You seem to fail to even accept that explanations for the universe that do not necessarily require a 'creator' or 'card dealer' are even plausible

I can neither accept or not accept them unless you provide them

and therefore you cannot apply Occam, as that is an approach to determine which of several plausible explanations are preferred.

But as I've said before Occam is merely a starting point and proves nothing - it does however guide further evidence gathering that may prove one explanation to be wrong or likely to be right.

That last remark sounds innocent enough.

[Stranger]

The trouble is that everything in the universe which we can observe is contingent in some way. But Russell is declaring the universe necessary rather than contingent since no contingent thing '' just is ''.

Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying the universe might not just be I'm saying that whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' doesn't seem to be being observed.

So whatever it is about the universe that ''just is'' is not observable and a ''God who just is'' also not observable. In other words whatever it is that is really ''just is'' and not contingent on anything is not observable.

So why is what is necessary or ''just is'' not observable? Because observability involves that which is observed being contingent in that it would be affected by the observation.

In conclusion then is that Russell is wrong to suggest the universe ''just is'' without an internal explanation. It's status as the necessary entity would be that explanation. However we observe the universe, so whatever it is which is necessary about the universe is unobserved and therefore we have a second reason to charge Russell with being unwarranted in his claim.

I don't really get why you're arguing against a proposition that nobody has put forward in this thread (except you, when you misrepresented what the prof said) but I'm sure I recall explaining to you elsewhere how the universe might 'just be'.

It's right there at the very centre of our best discretion of the universe as a whole: general relativity. What that describes is a four-dimensional space-time manifold, which would, as a whole, be timeless because time is internal to it. It would therefore not be subject to change and cannot have started to exist, nor will it ever cease to exist. That sounds pretty much like 'just being' to me. Oh, and, of course, nobody can observe the whole thing because all observers are necessarily embedded in it (not that I quite see why something 'necessary' has to be unobservable).

And so a universe which is in some way necessary has to have a necessary entity and thus we end up with the same number of entities involved in Russell's declaration as we do in a created universe, which brings us to another problem.

Russell's declaration is the opposite of the proposal that a creator must have a creator who must have a creator which seems to be one belief that atheists hold while subscribing also to Occam's razor.

If the reasons given for positing a creator would apply just as much to the proposed creator (as they do in the argument linked to in the OP), then infinite regress is the logical conclusion. Occam can't be used to trump straightforward logic.

The only explanation that avoids these issues is one necessary creator.

Which is the very epitome of special pleading. You arbitrarily decide that you need something 'necessary' and the declare that you can't see what it is about the universe that might be, so you just make up something, that by some staggering coincidence just happens to be what you want to believe in already, and simply assert it into being 'necessary'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes so what are they?

Are you really telling me that you are unaware of the various theories that explain the original and existence of the universe, that don't involve a creator? Where have you been Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you really telling me that you are unaware of the various theories that explain the original and existence of the universe, that don't involve a creator?

Are you?

[Sriram]

Are you really telling me that you are unaware of the various theories that explain the original and existence of the universe, that don't involve a creator? Where have you been Vlad?

Are you objecting only to a creator God like Jehovah for example.....or are you objecting to any form of intelligent design or a multi layered universe?

[Sriram]

Occams razor cannot be a reason to accept or reject any hypothesis. It is just an opinion and a thumb rule of sorts....not some sort of an immutable law of nature.

The world is already proving to be much more complex than we had ever imagined. "Simplest explanation is usually the right one"...What exactly is meant by 'simple' here?   

Occam (a friar) was in fact, advocating this thumb rule to defend the idea of divine intervention...