The nomological argument for god

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the physical evidence that it is a) contingent or b) Necessary in that it has no cause, no contingency.

But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.

[Stranger]

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

Ah yes, this argument you keep referring to but have never actually outlined in full or referenced some version of it you agree with. This always seems to be your MO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

It's not a straw man argument at all, for reasons you should understand by now (and which is deeply ironic by the way given your heavy reliance on straw men arguments).

Anyway, I just took the time (yet again) to dismantle your efforts here. Until and unless you try at least to deal with rebuttals you've been given they stand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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.

Are you talking about the fallacy of composition? Isn't there are fallacy of doing the opposite of that?

Anyway let's play it your way, so, all things in the universe are contingent but if we look at the universe from the outside as a whole we might see it is necessary.

Hillside you haven't been keeping up. I am saying that if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which makes it necessary? or to put it another way. What is the sufficient reason that makes the universe necessary?

I am also saying that if the universe is contingent what is it that it is dependent on?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's not a straw man argument at all,

Anyone in agreement?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.

And are you saying the universe is one of them?

[Stranger]

But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.

Vlad's using 'necessity' in a different sense ("[something] of which it is impossible that it should not exist" according to one source), which comes from an argument for god originally from Thomas Aquinas. I'd give you a link but I'm trying to get Vlad to actually commit to a specific version of it, so we can clarify what he thinks he's talking about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you are basing this on an assumption that something that is necessary has no cause. I don't agree with you and there are countless examples of necessary elements or entities that are clearly contingent on, and caused by, something else.

I don't agree with you so what is it which makes your definition superior. So far you have only offered on this score an argument from philosophical physicalism. Can you do better?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad's using 'necessity' in a different sense ("[something] of which it is impossible that it should not exist" according to one source), which comes from an argument for god originally from Thomas Aquinas. I'd give you a link but I'm trying to get Vlad to actually commit to a specific version of it, so we can clarify what he thinks he's talking about.

Get me to commit to a specific version of it or steer me into the version the atheists like (Their own caricature)?

Caveat emptor, Prof make sure you are getting a link to the real thing.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have told you I don't propose that God just is. I propose he has sufficient reason within himself

I may be reading this wrong but is that saying that God is necessary but that the "necessariness" is contingent upon something (sufficient reason), "within himself"?
In other words if said sufficient reason did not exist then God could not be necessary?
..or is the sufficient reason, the Necessary perhaps?

I'm confused!

[Stranger]

Get me to commit to a specific version of it or steer me into the version the atheists like (Their own caricature)?

Good grief, this is absurd even by your standards. I'm inviting you to provide a link or, for that matter, your own full exposition of the argument and you accuse me of trying to steer people to a version I like!

What's the matter with you?

Caveat emptor, Prof make sure you are getting a link to the real thing.

The floor is yours, please do provide the 'real thing'..............

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree with you so what is it which makes your definition superior.

Because I can back it up with evidence.

Here is one of a huge number of examples of something which is a necessary entity for something, but which is clearly contingent on something else.

The sun is a necessary entity for the life on our planet to have evolved and to exist. Without the sun life on earth could not have developed, therefore it is necessary. However the sun is clearly itself a contingent entity, being itself dependent on and caused by the physical factors within the universe which cause the formation of stars.

[ProfessorDavey]

Vlad's using 'necessity' in a different sense ("[something] of which it is impossible that it should not exist" according to one source), which comes from an argument for god originally from Thomas Aquinas. I'd give you a link but I'm trying to get Vlad to actually commit to a specific version of it, so we can clarify what he thinks he's talking about.

Indeed - which is a philosophical, or even a theological, construct. This approach doesn't really sit properly with discussions on how physical entities (e.g. the universe) are formed and exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you talking about the fallacy of composition?

No.

Isn't there are fallacy of doing the opposite of that?

No idea.

Anyway let's play it your way, so, all things in the universe are contingent…

Actually no – we cannot rule out the possibility of non-contingent properties of the universe because we happen not to have observed them (while quantum mechanics hints at it, we can’t rule out the possibility of hidden determinism behind that).

…but if we look at the universe from the outside as a whole we might see it is necessary.

Forget the “if we look at” bit, but basically yes – you cannot rule out the possibility that “the universe” is its own explanation.

Hillside you haven't been keeping up.

That’s another irony meter shattered to a million pieces then…
 

I am saying that if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which makes it necessary? or to put it another way. What is the sufficient reason that makes the universe necessary?

Leaving aside for now that exactly the same question could be asked about your assertion “god”, the question is meaningless. The universe as Russell said is a “brute fact”. There’s not a piece of “necessariness” we could observe even if the question had meaning – rather the burden of proof (as ever) is with you to explain why it can’t be its own explanation. 

I am also saying that if the universe is contingent what is it that it is dependent on?

If the moon is made of cheese, where did the cheese come from? Unless you can demonstrate first that the universe must be contingent on something, there’s no point speculating about what the “something” might be.

Oh, and still your stuck with the same question about your superstitious “answer”: why god rather than not god? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I may be reading this wrong but is that saying that God is necessary but that the "necessariness" is contingent upon something (sufficient reason), "within himself"?
In other words if said sufficient reason did not exist then God could not be necessary?
..or is the sufficient reason, the Necessary perhaps?

I'm confused!

sufficient reason would be not being dependent on anything else. That is the sufficient reason and that would have to be the sufficient reason for the universe too to be The Necessary entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because I can back it up with evidence.

Here is one of a huge number of examples of something which is a necessary entity for something, but which is clearly contingent on something else.

The sun is a necessary entity for the life on our planet to have evolved and to exist. Without the sun life on earth could not have developed, therefore it is necessary. However the sun is clearly itself a contingent entity, being itself dependent on and caused by the physical factors within the universe which cause the formation of stars.

Can't disagree with that just your definition of necessity which doesn't take into account whether something has/needs no cause or explanation.

I asked whether the universe is therefore a being which is contingent and necessary in your terms.

In the context of your own definitions you look as though you are straw manning to avoid the question.

Is the universe both necessary and contingent and if it is both on what is it contingent on?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No.

No idea.

Actually no – we cannot rule out the possibility of non-contingent properties of the universe because we happen not to have observed them (while quantum mechanics hints at it, we can’t rule out the possibility of hidden determinism behind that).

Forget the “if we look at” bit, but basically yes – you cannot rule out the possibility that “the universe” is its own explanation.

So is this determinism 'part' of the universe? If yes it suffers from being a part because a necessary being would then be dependent or contingent on the parts and therefore not be the necessary being. If determinism is just a part and the other part is Randomness then something had to er, determine what was to be determined and what was to be random. Therefore if we are pitching determinism as a part then we cannot also claim it as this ''Hidden determinism''. Unless it is possible to determine something which is random which seems contradictory to me.

For once I am looking forward to a reply. Please, Pleazzzze don't make it personal.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Can't disagree with that just your definition of necessity which doesn't take into account whether something has/needs no cause or explanation.

Yes it does. “Cause” and “explanation” are different matters, but if it turns out that the universe needs no cause other than itself then that’d be an end to it. So far at least there’s no cogent reason to rule that out (let alone to transfer the same problem to a different entity).   

I asked whether the universe is therefore a being which is contingent and necessary in your terms.

You can ask all you like, but no-one knows the answer to that. Even less for that matter does anyone know whether, even if there is a cause other than the observable universe itself, that cause wouldn’t itself be contingent on something else. 

In the context of your own definitions you look as though you are straw manning to avoid the question.

Would it really kill you actually to look up what “straw man” means. (Ironically, an actual version of it is what you’re doing here by the way.) 

Is the universe both necessary and contingent and if it is both on what is it contingent on?

Again, if the moon is made of cream cheese then where did the cream cheese come from? You have all your work ahead of you to get past your initial “if” before speculating on a cause (and more work still even if you could get that far to explain why that cause wouldn’t itself be contingent on something else).

[Sebastian Toe]

sufficient reason would be not being dependent on anything else. That is the sufficient reason and that would have to be the sufficient reason for the universe too to be The Necessary entity.

Ok, so it might be the case that , what I am calling, the laws of nature, are the Necessary. (I think I may have read this somewhere and it obviously stuck as a plausible arguement)
Without them, our universe cannot "function" and therefore exist, but they could exist whether or not there is a universe/matter  like our's to utilise them?

[Stranger]

sufficient reason would be not being dependent on anything else. That is the sufficient reason and that would have to be the sufficient reason for the universe too to be The Necessary entity.

The problem is that you've just made up god and made up the idea that it would not depend on anything else. I can just make the idea that the universe doesn't depend on anything and is therefore (by your dodgy logic) necessary. Now what?

You appear to have nothing but a fantasy. How about linking to or putting forward an actual logical argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So is this determinism 'part' of the universe?

Determinism (cause and effect) is a phenomenon we see in the observable universe, yes – if that’s what you’re trying to say?

If yes it suffers from being a part because a necessary being would then be dependent or contingent on the parts and therefore not be the necessary being.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. What are you trying to say here?

You seem to be implying that the fact of determinism within a system would rule out the system as a whole being non-deterministic in character. I have no idea why though, and nor it seems have you.

If determinism is just a part and the other part is Randomness then something had to er, determine what was to be determined and what was to be random.

Why? Why for example could not randomly generated phenomena produce deterministic systems? Even if we allow for "true" randomness at a fundamental level, that's basically what nature is. 

Therefore…

Very funny…

… if we are pitching determinism as a part then we cannot also claim it as this ''Hidden determinism''. Unless it is possible to determine something which is random which seems contradictory to me.

You’re lost in straw man again. I didn’t say I “claimed” hidden determinism at all. What I actually said is that, even when evidence implies “true” randomness within the universe at the quantum level, we cannot rule out the possibility that there may be a deeper, non-apparent deterministic process behind that that means the apparent randomness isn’t “truly” random after all. 

For once I am looking forward to a reply. Please, Pleazzzze don't make it personal.

Logic and reason are all that's necessary (see above).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Determinism (cause and effect) is a phenomenon we see in the observable universe, yes – if that’s what you’re trying to say?

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. What are you trying to say here?

You seem to be implying that the fact of determinism within a system would rule out the system as a whole being non-deterministic in character. I have no idea why though, and nor it seems have you.

Why? Why for example could not randomly generated phenomena produce deterministic systems? Even if we allow for "true" randomness at a fundamental level, that's basically what nature is. 

Very funny…

You’re lost in straw man again. I didn’t say I “claimed” hidden determinism at all. What I actually said is that, even when evidence implies “true” randomness within the universe at the quantum level, we cannot rule out the possibility that there may be a deeper, non-apparent deterministic process behind that that means the apparent randomness isn’t “truly” random after all. 

Logic and reason are all that's necessary (see above).

You seem to have abandoned the context  of the discussion and imposed your own.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You seem to have abandoned the context  of the discussion and imposed your own.

I did no such thing. What I actually did was to correct your various misunderstandings, straw men and collapses into incoherence. Why you will never even try to address the arguments and rebuttals you’re given though is beyond me.

Seriously, what’s stopping you? You implied for example that a random system couldn’t produce deterministic phenomena. I asked you why you think that – ie, I responded specifically to your agenda rather than imposed my own – and in reply you've just made another false accusation and run away again.   

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I did no such thing. What I actually did was to correct your various misunderstandings, straw men and collapses into incoherence. Why you will never even try to address the arguments and rebuttals you’re given though is beyond me.

Seriously, what’s stopping you? You implied for example that a random system couldn’t produce deterministic phenomena.

Where did I do that ? As for you changing the context I'm talking about contingency and necessity without having specified that a random event or determinism is contingent or necessary. You seem to be hedging wanting randomness to have the flexibility to be deterministic and visa versa.
Indeed You have run the following ideas: The bits of the universe are contingent  and somehow the final step in the chain of it's own explanation, There is a hidden determinism, Determinism could arise from randomness, randomness may really not be randomness at all but determinism.

Either you can fit these into a context of contingency and necessity or the rest of us will have the pleasure of trying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem is that you've just made up god and made up the idea that it would not depend on anything else. I can just make the idea that the universe doesn't depend on anything and is therefore (by your dodgy logic) necessary. Now what?

You appear to have nothing but a fantasy. How about linking to or putting forward an actual logical argument?

Forget the word God if you like. If you feel better then I suggest that the word God is, for some strange reason having an effect on you. Now since we are just looking at the necessary entity does eliminating the word actually change anything?

Let me take you to the final words of Aquinus argument after he has arrived at the necessary entity.

'' and THAT'' he says '' Is what we call God. That ought to tell you that God is not just an extra entity but the name given to the necessary entity.