The nomological argument for god

[Stranger]

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.

So, since all the things you've proposed as necessary are just made up, we have no chance of ever answering the question. So when you answered my point that there were no 'religious solutions' to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, with 'argument from contingency', that was just bullshit?

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.

Hilarious.

The necessity cannot be observed since observation affects that which is observed and thus renders it contingent.

It just gets more an more daft. Observation doesn't actually necessarily affect what is observed, even within the universe, and even if it always did within the universe, extrapolating it into the unknown is unjustified. You also haven't made an argument that something that can be affected by something else must be 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

And off we go into Vlad's fantasy world again...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am not speculating on what a necessary entity is but defining it.

Yes you are – here for example:

… Stronger still: Finite chain of contingent Universal simulators(god)1 to infinity -1 with God at the end.

(Reply 84)
 

It is a fact of logic rather than sience and it starts with observable contingency and we have a universe of examples of those.

But your “logic” fails for the reasons you keep being given and you keep ignoring. Yet again: you cannot just assume that a property of the universe as a system (ie, determinism) must also apply to the universe itself.

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.

“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you are – here for example:
 (Reply 84)
 
But your “logic” fails for the reasons you keep being given and you keep ignoring. Yet again: you cannot just assume that a property of the universe as system (ie, determinism) applies to the universe itself.

“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I think the Hillside paralegal turdpolishing that has emptied this board of contributors for it's playing of the man instead of the ball is getting a bit played out. Grandstanding and shoeboating and ''Look I'm an expert at winning hopeless cases''
is no substitute for a proper discussion.

It's not about my competence, it's about logic. It's not about science, It's about logic. Where not being able to study something scientifically means just that and is not an excuse to worm in some justification for physicalism, empiricism and naturalism.

In logic Hillside these are not a default positions.

Your position is empiricism plus use of ignorance with a flip flop in and out of science and for all we know doing the hokey cokey.

Once again then, with feeling..... you start from contingency and follow the logic.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnBMAEA3AM

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It just gets more an more daft. Observation doesn't actually necessarily affect what is observed, even within the universe, and even if it always did within the universe, extrapolating it into the unknown is unjustified..

That isn't even scientific. The scientific view point is that observation increases entropy of the universe. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that renders the universe contingent or necessary but to me that seems massively contingent.

if you are saying that observation doesn't always affect what is observed then of course we should be able to observe that which makes the universe necessary and you should be out looking for it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the Hillside paralegal turdpolishing that has emptied this board of contributors for it's playing of the man instead of the ball is getting a bit played out. Grandstanding and shoeboating and ''Look I'm an expert at winning hopeless cases''
is no substitute for a proper discussion.

You’ve been given “proper discussion” – ie reasoned arguments. Over and over again in fact. In response you routinely just ignore or misrepresent them or plunge immediately into a bewildering array of logical fallacies that you appear not to understand (burden of proof, ad hom, Occam’s razor etc) no matter how many times they’re explained to you.

Then having the sheer front to complain that someone else doesn’t offer "proper discussion" is way, way beyond ironic. 

It's not about my competence, it's about logic.

Yes it is – it’s about your incompetence when you attempt logic. That’s your problem.

It's not about science, It's about logic.

Ditto.

Where not being able to study something scientifically means just that and is not an excuse to worm in some justification for physicalism, empiricism and naturalism.

Again you’re lumping together different concepts here apparently with no understanding of their differences, and in any case if you want to argue that there even is a “something” and you don’t like science as a means to investigate the claim then the job is all yours to propose another way to do it – which is precisely the point at which you always run away remember?     

In logic Hillside these are not a default positions.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, and nor it seems have you. Of course there are “default positions” in logic – that logically false arguments are not reliable for example. 

Your position is empiricism plus use of ignorance with a flip flop in and out of science and for all we know doing the hokey cokey.

Incoherence won't dig you out the hole you've dug for yourself here either.

Once again then, with feeling..... you start from contingency and follow the logic.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drnBMAEA3AM

Once again, with greater feeling – finally, after all these years, try at least just for once to engage with the arguments that show you to be wrong.

[Stranger]

The scientific view point is that observation increases entropy of the universe.

Which has nothing to do with what you said. You said "observation affects that which is observed". If I observe a star or a planet, then I'm detecting light that was coming from it anyway, so the observation doesn't affect that which is observed, it affects the observer.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether that renders the universe contingent or necessary but to me that seems massively contingent.

It doesn't say anything one way or the other about the universe being necessary, contingent, or possibly neither (you still haven't made any sort of argument that there is no other option).

I already explained how the universe as a whole -- the entire space-time manifold -- can 'just be' and also, of course, never changes (and, for what it's worth, can't be observed).

if you are saying that observation doesn't always affect what is observed then of course we should be able to observe that which makes the universe necessary and you should be out looking for it.

You really should learn some basic logic. You have yet to establish any sort of logical connection between being changed by observation and being necessary or contingent. Even if you had, just because something wouldn't be changed by being observed doesn't tell us anything at all about whether we can actually observe it or not.

Yet again you've got the problem that you haven't set out a coherent argument. You seem (as usual) to be just throwing lots of half thought through, half understood, and half baked nonsense at everybody and hoping nobody will notice the lack of coherence.

[jeremyp]

1: There is no sign of necessity in the entity known as the universe.

What is a "sign of necessity"

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

The Statement ''God 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.

Any explanation for God 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.

Is that why nobody has ever observed God? Or is it just that he doesn't exist

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

You haven't shown that the Universe is contingent yet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Is that why nobody has ever observed God?

Oh but they have if the "holy" texts are to be believed: he's shown up we're told variously as a burning bush, as a whisper, as assorted angels etc.

It's the same phenomenon with leprechauns by the way - immaterial for the most part, but popping up as little men dressed in green when they feel like it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is a "sign of necessity"

something which shows us that it's (The universe's) existence is not dependent on anything else.

The Statement ''God just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all.

Nobody is saying that though. What is being said is that the Necessary being whatever it is has justification within itself. Sufficient reason.

Any explanation for God in practice demands another explanation beyond it.

or an explanation within it i.e. sufficient reason

Is that why nobody has ever observed God?

Is that why no one has observed sufficient reason for the universe within the universe?

Or is it just that he doesn't exist

The necessary must exist otherwise contingency is an absurd idea. That is based on observation of contingency and that whatever the explanation that is, in itself the necessary entity.

[jeremyp]

something which shows us that it's (The universe existence is not dependent on anything else.)

What sort of thing is a sign of that?

The Statement ''God just is'' not only not sufficient reason but gives no reasons at all. Nobody is saying that though.

Yes they are. That, in fact, seems to be your only argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What sort of thing is a sign of that?

I think we've been through the properties we are looking for in an actual necessary explanation or entity and that they do not fulfil the categories for a contingent entity.

Yes they are. That, in fact, seems to be your only argument.

Utterly wrong. Please read the post again.

''Just is'' statements are made by people who just want the questioning to stop before it gets to the point of sufficient reason or explanation. Not guilty.

It is plain that when you mean evidence or explanation you mean empirical evidence.

What then is your physical evidence that the universe Just is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I already explained how the universe as a whole -- the entire space-time manifold -- can 'just be' and also, of course, never changes (and, for what it's worth, can't be observed).

If you are saying the evidence for the necessary entity/explanation cannot be observed i'd agree.

1:What then is the evidence for it
2: What then is the empirical evidence for it
3:Remind me of why it cannot be observed
4: er, remind me what the explanation was.

I'm surprised Jeremy didn't you pick you up on this, or maybe he did.

[jeremyp]

I think we've been through the properties we are looking for in an actual necessary explanation or entity and that they do not fulfil the categories for a contingent entity.Utterly wrong. Please read the post again.

The only property a necessary entity has that is relevant is that it doesn't have a cause. How are you going to verify that any specific entity does or doesn't have a cause?

''Just is'' statements are made by people who just want the questioning to stop before it gets to the point of sufficient reason or explanation. Not guilty.

It's exactly what you are doing. You are as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

It is plain that when you mean evidence or explanation you mean empirical evidence.

No, I mean evidence.

What then is your physical evidence that the universe Just is?

I haven't got any. What's your evidence that God just is? Actually, let's start simpler. What's your evidence that God is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only property a necessary entity has that is relevant is that it doesn't have a cause. How are you going to verify that any specific entity does or doesn't have a cause? It's exactly what you are doing. You are as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
No, I mean evidence.

The evidence is observed contingency.

I haven't got any.

You make evidence the most important demand of your credo and then just flippantly own up to not having any?

What's your evidence that God just is? Actually, let's start simpler. What's your evidence that God is?

My evidence is observed contingency and following that through logically.
I have told you I don't propose that God just is. I propose he has sufficient reason within himself and that a just is statement i.e. Russell, Is just an attempt to stifle the very notion of sufficient reason. And here's the thing. Russells action in that respect was deliberate to prevent everyone seeing that his wagon had no wheels, that the emperor had now clothes and that the type of atheism that descends from him looks like just one massive courtiers reply.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only property a necessary entity has that is relevant is that it doesn't have a cause.

Is that the case - maybe I am thinking about this in a different way.

I would have though that a necessary entity is one that were it to be removed (or not exist) would prevent or preclude the outcome from happening. So it is on the critical path, so to speak. It might be one element in a chain of events or entities, and in which case be caused by the event or entity before it. However the point is that were is not to exist that chain would be broken in such a manner that the eventual outcome of that chain could no longer happen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that the case - maybe I am thinking about this in a different way.

I would have though that a necessary entity is one that were it to be removed (or not exist) would prevent or preclude the outcome from happening. So it is on the critical path, so to speak. It might be one element in a chain of events or entities, and in which case be caused by the event or entity before it. However the point is that were is not to exist that chain would be broken in such a manner that the eventual outcome of that chain could no longer happen.

But anything in that chain would be contingent and therefore not necessary. However you cut it what is necessary about something is unobservable. We have to look at the end of a chain to find pure necessity as it were. Infinite chains would suffer from being unobservable and therefore their infinity could not be proven. One would therefore have to come up with a reason why they should be preferred...

[ProfessorDavey]

But anything in that chain would be contingent and therefore not necessary.

I think you are misinterpreting necessary as being sufficient - certainly in my world they aren't the same. All sorts of things may be necessary but not sufficient for an outcome, and therefore may well be contingent on other (also necessary elements).

Just because something is necessary does not imply that it isn't contingent - that makes no sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are misinterpreting necessary as being sufficient - certainly in my world they aren't the same. All sorts of things may be necessary but not sufficient for an outcome, and therefore may well be contingent on other (also necessary elements).

Just because something is necessary does not imply that it isn't contingent - that makes no sense.

Something may be necessary for a specific purpose and not be what is known as a necessary entity. In other words you are using one sense of the word necessary. When it comes to the universe we have to ask ourselves is it necessary, in the sense that everything that is within it dependent on it, while being final or is it the type of necessary entity you are talking about necessary for a specific as part of a chain but contingent.....and if it is your type of necessary entity what is it contingent on?

I think we need to look at what it is people mean when they talk about necessary entities. And obviously Jeremy and I see a necessary entity as meaning something which hasn't got a cause or to put it another way has no contingency about it.

With your model we could therefore point to any necessity you are suggesting and ultimately ask what is actually necessary about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you are misinterpreting necessary as being sufficient - certainly in my world they aren't the same. All sorts of things may be necessary but not sufficient for an outcome,

I'm surprised you haven't noticed my appeals for the sufficent reason for the universe to be the necessary entity for it self.

[ProfessorDavey]

Something may be necessary for a specific purpose and not be what is known as a necessary entity. In other words you are using one sense of the word necessary. When it comes to the universe we have to ask ourselves is it necessary, in the sense that everything that is within it dependent on it, while being final or is it the type of necessary entity you are talking about necessary for a specific as part of a chain but contingent.....and if it is your type of necessary entity what is it contingent on?

I think we need to look at what it is people mean when they talk about necessary entities. And obviously Jeremy and I see a necessary entity as meaning something which hasn't got a cause or to put it another way has no contingency about it.

With your model we could therefore point to any necessity you are suggesting and ultimately ask what is actually necessary about it?

But I think your definition is more akin to philosophy - and the universe is not a philosophic construct. It is a real physical thing - therefore the notions of necessary, sufficient and contingent need to be those associated with physical relationships, not philosophical constructs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The evidence is observed contingency.

First, you’re still stuck in the unqualified assumption that that which operates within “the universe” must also apply to the universe itself. You keep ignoring this, but that doesn't make it go away.

Second, it’s by no means certain that the universe functions entirely on a “contingent” (ie deterministic) basis in any case – “true” randomness for example is a real possibility at the quantum field level.

Third, your argument is structured the same way that black swans were said not to exist because none had been observed…until some were. You cannot just jump from the current state of knowledge (even leaving aside the quantum field evidence) to a categoric statement of the non-existence of something. An orbiting teapot hasn't been observed either - does that fact justify the claim that there categorically isn't one?

As so often before, you're all over the place here.     
 

You make evidence the most important demand of your credo and then just flippantly own up to not having any?

Yet again: if you don’t like evidence as the means to justify beliefs, what method would you propose instead?

Do you intend to run away from this problem forever too, or what?

My evidence is observed contingency…

Which fails as “evidence” – se above…

…and following that through logically.

Which fails as “logic” – see above.

I have told you I don't propose that God just is.

Yes you do. Why god rather than not god is your problem here.

I propose he has sufficient reason within himself…

Sorry, if you want to deny that the universe could be “sufficient reason within itself” for its existence then you can’t just special plead the identical argument to be legitimate for the “explanation” you want to fill the gap.   

…and that a just is statement i.e. Russell, Is just an attempt to stifle the very notion of sufficient reason.

Still you don’t understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. Not sure why given how often it’s been explained to you, but you can’t move forward on this until it finally sinks in.

And here's the thing. Russells action in that respect was deliberate to prevent everyone seeing that his wagon had no wheels, that the emperor had now clothes and that the type of atheism that descends from him looks like just one massive courtiers reply.

If by “Russell’s action” you actually meant his comment that the universe is a “brute fact” then it’s none of these things. Rather it’s the statement that we have no choice but to accept the universe as a fact even if we cannot (yet at least) answer the deepest questions about it. By contrast, there’s no such basis to accept the various claims and assertions of supernatural answers some would attempt to answer those questions that actually have no explanatory value at all.

Apart from all that though…     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But I think your definition is more akin to philosophy - and the universe is not a philosophic construct. It is a real physical thing - therefore the notions of necessary, sufficient and contingent need to be those associated with physical relationships, not philosophical constructs.

Yes but it can be physical and contingent.

I have already asked this once. What is the physical evidence that it is a) contingent or b) Necessary in that it has no cause, no contingency.

Your post is itself of course deeply philosophical. In fact it is philosophically physicalist.

It is a real physical thing - therefore the notions of necessary, sufficient and contingent need to be those associated with physical relationships, not philosophical constructs.

Your assertion. You know what you have to do.

Secondly The contingency from which the argument from contingency is derived is Observed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


If by “Russell’s action” you actually meant his comment that the universe is a “brute fact” then it’s none of these things. Rather it’s the statement that we have no choice but to accept the universe as a fact .   

Then he's guilty of a straw man argument since nobody I believe doesn't accept the universe as a fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes but it can be physical and contingent.

Indeed it can - it can also be physical, contingent and necessary.

[Stranger]

If you are saying the evidence for the necessary entity/explanation cannot be observed i'd agree.

I'm saying what I actually said - try reading it.

1:What then is the evidence for it
2: What then is the empirical evidence for it
3:Remind me of why it cannot be observed
4: er, remind me what the explanation was.

For fuck's sake, why don't you ever pay attention:-

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).