The nomological argument for god

[Stranger]

Argument from contingency.

Which, certainly as far as you have presented it, is laughable and amounts to little more than an assertion that there must be something 'necessary' that isn't the universe and then an even more comical attempt to make it into something like your favourite idea of god (which, as far as you are concerned, seems to change minute to minute).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Argument from contingency.

It's no such thing. All positing "god" does is to transfer the same question to that god. So now you need another god for that contingency, and so on through infinite regress.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's no such thing. All positing "god" does is to transfer the same question to that god. So now you need another god for that contingency, and so on through infinite regress.

And that goes to show you don't understand it. The argument from contingency includes a necessity not an impossible infinite chain of contingency.

If you are saying we only need the universe just to be like Russell then you've already chosen your necessity and to argue for an infinite chain of contingency is self-contradictory.

If you are saying it's just the universe that is necessary but other entities can't possibly be, especially God, that is the Fred and Ginger of special pleading.

Expecting to utter the claim the universe just is and for all people to fall down before it is Shamanism.

What is it about the universe which is necessary anyway?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which, certainly as far as you have presented it, is laughable and amounts to little more than an assertion that there must be something 'necessary' that isn't the universe

I don't think I have presented it thus, I think I have said that if the universe is necessary what is it about it that is necessary because everything we observe about it is contingent....in fact even the observation of something affects that which can be observed so there can be nothing observed that is not contingent.

You can bring up the fallacy of composition if you wish but in all proper examples of this, the fallacy can be demonstrated.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And that goes to show you don't understand it.

Given our big ol' number-to-nil scores on who’s been right and wrong so far here that seems unlikely, but let's see shall we?

The argument from contingency includes a necessity not an impossible infinite chain of contingency.

Yes, that’s the special pleading part. You assume ab initio that the universe itself must be contingent on something else, then you insert your something else (that just happens to be the one with which you're most familiar) that for some unstated reason is not itself contingent on something else in turn.

You do know by the way that even Aquinas dismissed the cosmological argument too?   

If you are saying we only need the universe just to be like Russell then you've already chosen your necessity and to argue for an infinite chain of contingency is self-contradictory.

Actually Russell said that the universe was “an unexplainable brute fact”. That the universe “just is” is as much as, currently at least, we can sensibly say about it. Just assuming that a property we observe in the universe (determinism) must apply to the universe and then special pleading a putative cause that somehow exempt from the same property is a logical dead end. If you seriously think “why the universe?” is a legitimate question, then so is “why god?”.

Short version: you’re stuck in Fletcher’s tunnel again.     

If you are saying it's just the universe that is necessary but other entities can't possibly be, especially God, that is the Fred and Ginger of special pleading.

No, it’s the Fred and Ginger of straw men. Absent a sound reason for thinking that the universe itself must have had cause, there’s no necessity for assuming there to be cause. You can conjecture “god” if you want to nonetheless just as I can conjecture invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings, but neither conjecture is necessary.     

Expecting to utter the claim the universe just is and for all people to fall down before it is Shamanism.

And not true. It’d help if you stopped misrepresenting me about this.

What is it about the universe which is necessary anyway?

I don’t know that it is: that’s the “unexplainable’ part. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t: if nonetheless you want to assert the latter then the burden of proof (that always trips you up) is with you to explain why, and to explain too both why your god rather than something is the cause and also why this god is exempt from the same question.   

[Stranger]

I don't think I have presented it thus, I think I have said that if the universe is necessary what is it about it that is necessary because everything we observe about it is contingent....in fact even the observation of something affects that which can be observed so there can be nothing observed that is not contingent.

It's not even clear that there need be anything that is 'necessary' and what would make it so, so we don't even know what to look for. Also, I've already explained how the universe might 'just be' (#45).

And even if we did somehow conclude that something 'necessary' must exist that isn't the universe, that's still light years away from any of your many god-concepts. You're just piling up unsupported assumptions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not even clear that there need be anything that is 'necessary' and what would make it so, so we don't even know what to look for. Also, I've already explained how the universe might 'just be' (#45).

And even if we did somehow conclude that something 'necessary' must exist that isn't the universe, that's still light years away from any of your many god-concepts. You're just piling up unsupported assumptions.

Is a necessary an unnecessary step to explain the universe? If not you are suggesting the universe is the necessary or you are suggesting an infinite chain of entities.
Both might be counted as Goddodging.

It may also be that an infinite chain is the necessary here.

To recap, if you are saying that the universe just is then you have a necessity in any case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Is a necessary an unnecessary step to explain the universe?

Gibberish.

If not you are suggesting the universe is the necessary or you are suggesting an infinite chain of entities.

He’s not suggesting either. He’s telling you that you have yet to make a case for the universe not being its own explanation.   

Both might be counted as Goddodging.

Not even close, for several reasons.

It may also be that an infinite chain is the necessary here.

Or no chain at all.

To recap, if you are saying that the universe just is then you have a necessity in any case.

To re-cap, he isn’t. 

[Stranger]

Is a necessary an unnecessary step to explain the universe?

I don't know. I'm waiting for something that even remotely resembles some logical reasoning from you.

If not you are suggesting the universe is the necessary or you are suggesting an infinite chain of entities.

What's the argument that these are the only options?

Both might be counted as Goddodging.

Comical. As I said (why do you never pay attention?) even if we get to a conclusion that we need a necessary something that isn't the universe, we are still a very long way from any of your ever-changing god-concepts.

It may also be that an infinite chain is the necessary here.

Maybe or maybe not. Until you can come up with something a little more coherent in the way of definitions are reasoning, who can say?

To recap, if you are saying that the universe just is then you have a necessity in any case.

Why? You need to do what you never ever seem to have the confidence to do and actually present a logical argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know. I'm waiting for something that even remotely resembles some logical reasoning from you.

Ditto.

What's the argument that these are the only options?

Things are either contingent or necessary.
Candidates for necessary entity regarding the universe:

weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.

[jeremyp]

Ditto.
 Things are either contingent or necessary.

Are they? Can you show that to be true?

Candidates for necessary entity regarding the universe:

weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.

I think your ranking is based on your personal preference. I'd say "the Universe is the end of the chain" is stronger because we know the Universe exists and there's no evidence that a longer chain exists.

[Stranger]

Ditto.

You seem to have forgotten that it's you who are proposed "argument from contingency" as a way in which we could explain why there is something rather than nothing. I'm waiting for this argument. The only proposal I've made here is that the universe might 'just be' and I've given detailed reasons why that might be so from a scientific point of view.

Things are either contingent or necessary.

Now can anything necessarily exist and how would we recognise it? Without those answers, this takes us nowhere.

Candidates for necessary entity regarding the universe:

weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.

Without an answer to the above questions, how on earth do you decide what's strong or weak? And your last suggestion ("Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.") is incoherent let alone riddled with unsupported assumptions.

None of the proposals get us anywhere near an answer to the question as to why there is something rather than nothing. You seem to be simply asserting that what you want to be true is 'necessary', without any attempt at saying how or why.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are they? Can you show that to be true?

I think your ranking is based on your personal preference. I'd say "the Universe is the end of the chain" is stronger because we know the Universe exists and there's no evidence that a longer chain exists.

Are they? Can you show that to be true?

Unless you have a specific definition of 'shown' In the case of the universe, a statement that the universe just is renders the universe as the necessary entity. A statement that the universe has existed for ever and therefore needs no causal agent renders the universe as, the necessary entity. A statement that there is an infinite chain of contingent causes, then the infinite chain is the necessary entity.

An infinite chain of contingency it seems suffers from the problems with an infinite causal chain not actually coming up with anything and objections to there being real rather than mathematical infinities.

The word contingency means dependent on something rather than nothing. It is difficult to say where a something would come from in an infinite chain.

I think your ranking is based on your personal preference. I'd say "the Universe is the end of the chain" is stronger because we know the Universe exists and there's no evidence that a longer chain exists.

Fine, you have your necessary entity.......Trouble is there is nothing in the universe that has been definitely defined as necessary and since you talk of it being the necessary entity a) You accept them and b) you need to demonstrate necessity rather than contingency. If you decide that the universe is contingent then the chain must continue. And in a chain that necessarily continues one more step than'' the universe just is'' seems the most parsimonious and certainly more so than the infinite chain.

Now since you have chosen your necessary entity there must be sufficient reason for that choice being necessary, ''the universe just is'' doesn't cut it.
There are some definitions of contingency which say that the universe could have been another way. The extra step beyond the universe just being is therefore that which makes this universe this way. And you have to demonstrate what that is.

Over to you.

2 Are the rankings down to my personal preference?

You might think it's based on personal preference but I could say that about you.
For me it's down to this:
1: There is no sign of necessity in the entity known as the universe.
2: The Statement the ''universe just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.
3: Infinite chains of causation are not observed nor probably can be.
4: Any natural explanation for the universe in practice demands another explanation beyond it.
5: Since observation affects the observed, the status of the observed depends on the observer therefore if something is observed it is contingent and cannot by definition be a necessary entity.
6: There is a case for abstract necessities and therefore necessary entities probably exist. In fact is there any argument against Abstract necessities.

[Stranger]

Trouble is there is nothing in the universe that has been definitely defined as necessary...

Until you can tell us how anything at all can be necessary in this sense, and how we would know it was just by speculation about the universe and what might exist that isn't the universe, then all your talk about it is just meaningless babble.

What's more none of this hand-waving has got anywhere near explaining why there is something rather than nothing, that can only be answered if you can answer the question above. You can't simply assert that something you've basically made up, is necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

weak: An infinite chain of contingencies.
Stronger: The universe just is
Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.

You're just making up probabilities with no reasoning to support you here. Actually the "strong" answer at this point is "don't know".   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Until you can tell us how anything at all can be necessary in this sense, and how we would know it was just by speculation about the universe and what might exist that isn't the universe, then all your talk about it is just meaningless babble.

What's more none of this hand-waving has got anywhere near explaining why there is something rather than nothing, that can only be answered if you can answer the question above. You can't simply assert that something you've basically made up, is necessary.

And the weird thing is I'm wondering how anyone can be as clueless on the concept of contingency. I put it down to philosophy not being taught in schools. It kinda of ends up with faulty thinking which allows one to say, "I see no necessary things only contingent things therefore I can take it that there aren't any necessary entities"

But there are plenty of abstract necessities in mathematics, and that is why your pleas fail.

If something is shown not to be contingent then it is by definition a necessary.

So, if your final explanation is that the universe just is (barely an explanation if it even is. ) then that is definitionally your claimed necessary entity. If for instance you want to go with an infinite chain of contingency as your final explanation then that becomes the necessary entity, though what you are saying is that everything in that infinite chain is contingent but collectively it is necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For me it's down to this:
1: There is no sign of necessity in the entity known as the universe.

“Sigs of necessity” not being observed doesn’t mean they don’t exit, and in any case again you’re conflating the way the universe appears to function as a system with the universe itself.

2: The Statement the ''universe just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.

Yes, that’s what “don’t know” means. The statement “disease just is” was once the same, and people then were as inclined to claim evil spirits to fill the knowledge gap as you are to claim “god” here. “God” though is no more an explanation now than evil spirits were there – these things are place markers for explanations that actually explain nothing.     

3: Infinite chains of causation are not observed nor probably can be.

Infinite chains of events would require a time dimension in which to occur; time itself is a property of the universe we observe. If there is an “outside” the universe (whatever that would mean) there’s no guessing what properties might apply that could allow anything so your “nor probably can be” is not even wrong.     

4: Any natural explanation for the universe in practice demands another explanation beyond it.

A dubious claim given what we’re discovering at the quantum field level, but in any case your way out of that (“god”) is still effectively “it’s magic innit”, which has no explanatory value at all. 

5: Since observation affects the observed, the status of the observed depends on the observer therefore if something is observed it is contingent and cannot by definition be a necessary entity.

And yet you claim a god who's also “observed” in fact (burning bushes, angels etc), and in deed (“miracles” etc). Does not the same apply to our observation of these supposed phenomena? 

6: There is a case for abstract necessities and therefore necessary entities probably exist. In fact is there any argument against Abstract necessities.

Whoa there! How on earth did you just jump straight from to “there is a case for abstract necessities” to “therefore necessary entities probably exist”? There are “cases” for lots of things – we call these cases “conjectures” or “hypotheses”. Pending reason or evidence to justify them though, there’s no basis at all just to skip all the hard yards to go straight to a “probably”. Oh, and even is you had done that part that’d still tell you nothing whatsoever about what that “entity” (or entities) might be.

Short version: I suggest you go back to wherever you cut and pasted this list from and ask for your money back.       

[Stranger]

And the weird thing is I'm wondering how anyone can be as clueless on the concept of contingency. I put it down to this philosophy not being taught in schools.

Irony overload.

It kinda of ends up with faulty thinking which allows one to say, "I see no necessary things only contingent things therefore I can take it that there aren't any necessary entities"

Which isn't what I said. I said that you need to explain how anything can be necessary and, perhaps more importantly, how we can conclude that something we are speculating might exist (i.e. we've made up) is or isn't necessary.

But there are plenty of abstract necessities in mathematics, and that is why your please fail.

Actually you have to start with certain axioms.

If something is shown not to be contingent then it is by definition a necessary.

So how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent, especially if you've just made it up? Your 'argument' appears to consist of baseless storytelling. You're just making things up and then claiming necessity for them.

Yet again: if you're going to explain why there is something rather than nothing you need to explain how something can be necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Irony overload.

Which isn't what I said. I said that you need to explain how anything can be necessary and, perhaps more importantly, how we can conclude that something we are speculating might exist (i.e. we've made up) is or isn't necessary.

I cannot tell if this person is genuinely perplexed at the definition of necessary or whether he is merely pulling chains. Is his demand for an explanation of what these things mean(He's had several) rhetorical i.e. He feels he knows that nothing can be deemed necessary or is he genuinely perplexed by ideas such as Abstract necessity or the idea that something is either contingent or necessary(non contingent)

How does he come up with the idea that speculating that something might exist means that we have made that thing up. Again it's necessary if it isn't contingent...How is that hard? There is no hybrid position

Actually you have to start with certain axioms.

Yes. here's one If something is not contingent, it is necessery.

Something is only deemed necessary if it has sufficient reason to be necessary

So how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent,

Are you saying therefore that we cannot possibly show that the universe is not contingent and therefore it is probably contingent? That's my point not yours.

if you've just made it up?

Made up what, the concept of the necessary?

Your 'argument' appears to consist of baseless storytelling. You're just making things up and then claiming necessity for them.

So here, is this person NTTS acknowledging he knows the concept of necessity or what?. What is the made up thing here? Does he not mind there being a necessity but it must not be called God ( a case of petty linguistic fascism and indeed petty and vindictive special pleading). Does he not know that Aquinus arrives at the concept of the necessity regarding the universe and it's attributes and says ''and that is what we call God'' rather than making something up and just saying that that is the necessity. Aquinus merely gives a name to what he has argued for i.e. the necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How does he come up with the idea that speculating that something might exist means that we have made that thing up.

Because, obviously, you consistently jump from a speculation that something might exist to a claim that it does exist with no logical path from the former to the latter.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Because, obviously, you consistently jump from a speculation that something might exist to a claim that it does exist with no logical path from the former to the latter.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

That's me, or what you think I am Hillside but why does he write it as a general truth.

something we are speculating might exist (i.e. we've made up)

.

Do you actually read his posts?

Which might be an ample time to say that I don't write my posts mainly for you guys.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's me, or what you think I am Hillside but why does he write it as a general truth.

Because it is a general truth. If you speculate about something – anything – and also assert the speculation to be a fact, then you’ve made something up.

Do you actually read his posts?

Yes – that’s how I know you’re out of your depth.

Which might be an ample time to say that I don't write my posts mainly for you guys.

There’s no guessing why you write your posts given your refusal ever to address the arguments that undo you. Trolling presumably.

[Stranger]

I cannot tell if this person is genuinely perplexed at the definition of necessary or whether he is merely pulling chains. Is his demand for an explanation of what these things mean(He's had several) rhetorical i.e. He feels he knows that nothing can be deemed necessary or is he genuinely perplexed by ideas such as Abstract necessity or the idea that something is either contingent or necessary(non contingent)

Once again the point sails majestically about 30,000ft over Vlad's head. So, let's just let our imaginations run wild and assume we've found something and somehow or other we've managed to ascertain that it isn't contingent on anything. We still wouldn't have answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing unless you can say why this thingy we've found had to exist.

How does he come up with the idea that speculating that something might exist means that we have made that thing up.

That's kind of what speculation about the existence of something entails, doubly so if you're not actually basing it on something known.

Again it's necessary if it isn't contingent...How is that hard? There is no hybrid position
...
Yes. here's one If something is not contingent, it is necessery.

This is actually your claim. Where's the argument? Why can't something just exist for no reason without being necessary? And yet again: unless you can logically explain why something is necessary (it couldn't have been otherwise), then you haven't answered the question about why there is something rather than nothing.

The mere absence of contingency isn't an explanation.

Something is only deemed necessary if it has sufficient reason to be necessary

Such as what?

Are you saying therefore that we cannot possibly show that the universe is not contingent and therefore it is probably contingent?

No - I'm saying what I actually said, which was a question: so how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent, especially if you've just made it up?

Made up what, the concept of the necessary?

You need to brush up on reading for comprehension (again).

What is the made up thing here?

In your case, your various versions of god. However, anything we speculate about that isn't the universe or a part thereof.

Does he not mind there being a necessity but it must not be called God ( a case of linguistic fascism and special pleading).

As I keep pointing out - I'm still actually waiting for some sort of coherent argument from you. Maybe there's something that isn't the universe, that caused it and is necessary, maybe not. And it's labelling it 'god' that is totally unjustified, since you haven't actually deduced anything about it, even if it exists.

Does he not know that Aquinus arrives at the concept of the necessity regarding the universe and it's attributes and says ''and that is what we call God'' rather than making something else and just saying that that is the necessity. Aquinus merely gives a name to what he has argued for i.e. the necessary.

So many supposed arguments for god, even if they were sound (which they aren't) would be arguments for something but then identifying it with god is just comically desperate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again the point sails majestically about 30,000ft over Vlad's head. So, let's just let our imaginations run wild and assume we've found something and somehow or other we've managed to ascertain that it isn't contingent on anything. We still wouldn't have answered the question of why there is something rather than nothing unless you can say why this thingy we've found had to exist.

That's kind of what speculation about the existence of something entails, doubly so if you're not actually basing it on something known.

This is actually your claim. Where's the argument? Why can't something just exist for no reason without being necessary? And yet again: unless you can logically explain why something is necessary (it couldn't have been otherwise), then you haven't answered the question about why there is something rather than nothing.

The mere absence of contingency isn't an explanation.

Such as what?

No - I'm saying what I actually said, which was a question: so how do you go about showing that something cannot possibly be contingent, especially if you've just made it up?

You need to brush up on reading for comprehension (again).

In your case, your various versions of god. However, anything we speculate about that isn't the universe or a part thereof.

As I keep pointing out - I'm still actually waiting for some sort of coherent argument from you. Maybe there's something that isn't the universe, that caused it and is necessary, maybe not. And it's labelling it 'god' that is totally unjustified, since you haven't actually deduced anything about it, even if it exists.

So many supposed arguments for god, even if they were sound (which they aren't) would be arguments for something but then identifying it with god is just comically desperate.

And the answer is that if we find something that is necessary. It will not be contingent but will  have sufficient reason for being and by dint of that it will be the answer to why there is something and not nothing.

But some of your premises still show you have some way to go with this although I think some of this is beginning to chime with you.

The necessity cannot be observed since observation affects that which is observed and thus renders it contingent. It would  have to reveal itself say, as an avatar in a simulation.
If it comes from nowhere then it must still have sufficient reason of itself and if it comes from nowhere it is not contingent and therefore necessary

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Because it is a general truth. If you speculate about something – anything – and also assert the speculation to be a fact, then you’ve made something up.

I am not speculating on what a necessary entity is but defining it.
It is a fact of logic rather than science and it starts with observable contingency and we have a universe of examples of those.

I would hazard that now we are in the realm of philosophy rather than exemplifying that which you may have been told....a brilliant boy , good at everything...(which wouldn't be true since no one gets this stuff at state school) your lack of training is obvious.