The nomological argument for god

[ProfessorDavey]

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

But you are trying to redefine what 'necessary' actually means. Go look at any number of dictionary definitions - here's a good example:

1. ADJECTIVE
Something that is necessary is needed in order for something else to happen.

2. ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun]
A necessary consequence or connection must happen or exist, because of the nature of the things or events involved.

In other words it is about whether one thing is needed for something else to happen. Nowhere in these definitions is there the suggestion that something that is necessary doesn't have a cause - you are just making stuff up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Where did I do that ?

Here:

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.

(Though to be fair your attempts are expressing thoughts are often so garbled that it’s hard to tell what you do intend, which is why I expressed my reply initially as a question).

As for you changing the context…

You meant to say there, “as for my accusation that you…” etc, but ok…

I'm talking about contingency and necessity without having specified that a random event or determinism is contingent or necessary.

If an event is “truly” random than it can’t be contingent. Whatever might be sitting behind it cannot know what the outcome will be. That’s what "random" requires.

You seem to be hedging wanting randomness to have the flexibility to be deterministic and visa versa.

And now you’re doing it again! Try to understand here – really try: so far as I can tell there’s no reason a random process could not produce an outcome that’s deterministic. If, just for sake of discussion, we allow for some randomness at a base level of reality we still see everywhere deterministic outcomes in nature.

If you seriously think though that a non-deterministic process cannot produce deterministic outcomes then explain why rather than just assert it.   

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.

As so often, your inability to distinguish between a discussion of possibilities and making claims of probabilities is letting you down.   

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

Or you could try reading what I’ve actually said and then addressing that rather than misrepresenting it.

It’s your call though.

[Stranger]

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?

Nope - it's still just you making shit up.

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

It would be much more use to post the whole thing because it surely must be better than the "Vlad's little fantasy" version here.

'' 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.

As I said before, many of the so-called god arguments are utterly absurd precisely because, even if they were sound, they are arguments for something that just arbitrarily (or through some absolutely laughable additional steps) gets identified with 'god'.

In this instance, of course, it's you adopting yet another version of god, even further undermining any hope of any sort of sensible discussion with you about its existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you are trying to redefine what 'necessary' actually means. Go look at any number of dictionary definitions - here's a good example:

1. ADJECTIVE
Something that is necessary is needed in order for something else to happen.

2. ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun]
A necessary consequence or connection must happen or exist, because of the nature of the things or events involved.

In other words it is about whether one thing is needed for something else to happen. Nowhere in these definitions is there the suggestion that something that is necessary doesn't have a cause - you are just making stuff up.

I think Aquinas definition predates your dictionaries by a good few centuries. Stop talking bollocks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad’s recently been rapidly reframing whatever it is he believes in. He’s gone from Christian to theist to deist to alien worshipper to “call it whatever you like-ist” in the last few days alone.

His “argument” here is precisely that of people who argued for evil spirits causing diseases: “diseases happen”; “diseases must have a cause”; “I can’t observe the cause”; “therefore the cause isn’t material”; “therefore evil spirits”.

You would think the obvious problems with this approach would trouble him as they should, but it doesn’t seem to.

Ah well. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think Aquinas definition predates your dictionaries by a good few centuries.

Relevance?

Stop talking bollocks.

If you think someone is talking bollocks wouldn't it be better for explain why rather than just to assert it? (See also "waffle" and various other pejorative hand waving when you don't like an argument but can't address it.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Relevance?

If you think someone is talking bollocks wouldn't it be better for explain why rather than just to assert it? (See also "waffle" and various other pejorative hand waving when you don't like an argument but can't address it.)

He, Professor Davey I take it is employed in Higher Education. All he has to do is trot down to his institution's Philosophy department and have a chat.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Aquinas definition predates your dictionaries by a good few centuries. Stop talking bollocks.

I think you will find that the word necessary and its accepted meaning predates your chap Aquinas by well over a thousand years.

It's origin is from the classical latin 'necessarius', meaning (guess what) unavoidable, requisite or indispensable - not having no cause. And the origin of the word and its current dictionary definitions (such as the ones I gave) are effectively identical.

Vlad - stop making stuff up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

He, Professor Davey I take it is employed in Higher Education. All he has to do is trot down to his institution's Philosophy department and have a chat.

I'm sure he'd be pleased to on your behalf, but sadly I fear you'd have an awful lot of basic orientation courses to take before they let you anywhere near their august halls of learning.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you will find that the word necessary and its accepted meaning predates your chap Aquinas by well over a thousand years.

It's origin is from the classical latin 'necessarius', meaning (guess what) unavoidable, requisite or indispensable - not having no cause. And the origin of the word and its current dictionary definitions (such as the ones I gave) are effectively identical.

Vlad - stop making stuff up.

we have been talking about what is necessary for the universe to be here so even under your definition the debate is.Is the universe necessary for itself or is it contingent on itself or on something else. Now go and read Aquinas.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I'm sure he'd be pleased to on your behalf, but sadly I fear you'd have an awful lot of basic orientation courses to take before they let you anywhere near their august halls of learning.

I think you've made some atheists "Come"....and many atheists who might have joined this forum "Go".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad’s recently been rapidly reframing whatever it is he believes in. He’s gone from Christian to theist to deist to alien worshipper to “call it whatever you like-ist” in the last few days alone.

His “argument” here is precisely that of people who argued for evil spirits causing diseases: “diseases happen”; “diseases must have a cause”; “I can’t observe the cause”; “therefore the cause isn’t material”; “therefore evil spirits”.

You would think the obvious problems with this approach would trouble him as they should, but it doesn’t seem to.

Ah well.

we are not talking about the origin of material things
We are talking about the origin of material. Is it existent because it is contingent or does it have sufficient reason in itself?

Well, Does it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I'm sure he'd be pleased to on your behalf, but sadly I fear you'd have an awful lot of basic orientation courses to take before they let you anywhere near their august halls of learning.

Really, that's fascinating. My own take is that, having read what he has to say he wont go down to the Philosophy department in case they start to giggle uncontrollably.

[Stranger]

Now go and read Aquinas.

And still no link or exposition of what you consider to be the argument as you see it. There seem to be some problems with interpretation of the original (and obvious flaws if taken at face value), and there are also other versions, for example by Samuel Clarke, according to the limited search and reading I could be bothered to do, but you're obviously an expert and must therefore have a version in mind that you think is sound, so of you go.....

[ProfessorDavey]

Really, that's fascinating. My own take is that, having read what he has to say he wont go down to the Philosophy department in case they start to giggle uncontrollably.

I'd be more than happy to pop down to our philosophy department ... except we don't have one. Philosophy is a niche discipline and not all Universities have one, and that includes many 'top' Russell Group institutions.

However mid way through my academic career I did study philosophy as part of a Masters degree in ethics, at an institution in the top three for research in philosophy in the UK. And I was taught by a world renowned philosopher.

That said, if I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe I will pop down to our highly regarded School of Physics and Astronomy - and chat to the folks in the astronomy and astrophysics group, or perhaps have a coffee with some of the particle physicists too. Indeed, seeing as I used to have overall responsibility for our Faculty's research I used to do this regularly.

And I think most people wanting to know more about the nature and origins of the universe would also pop down to the physics and astronomy department, not the philosophy department.

[ProfessorDavey]

Now go and read Aquinas.

Beyond parody.

If I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe why should I take notice of a person who was writing at a time when virtually nothing was know about the universe, and was aligned with an organisation that considered it heretical to even suggest that the earth went around the sun.

What next - check out Francis of Assisi for his views on epigenetic regulation of gene expression.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd be more than happy to pop down to our philosophy department ... except we don't have one. Philosophy is a niche discipline and not all Universities have one, and that includes many 'top' Russell Group institutions.

However mid way through my academic career I did study philosophy as part of a Masters degree in ethics, at an institution in the top three for research in philosophy in the UK. And I was taught by a world renowned philosopher.

That said, if I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe I will pop down to our highly regarded School of Physics and Astronomy - and chat to the folks in the astronomy and astrophysics group, or perhaps have a coffee with some of the particle physicists too. Indeed, seeing as I used to have overall responsibility for our Faculty's research I used to do this regularly.

And I think most people wanting to know more about the nature and origins of the universe would also pop down to the physics and astronomy department, not the philosophy department.

You would be going down to the philosophy department to gain some understanding of an argument you have involved yourself in.

''Most people wanting to know more about the....... origins of the universe'' is fine to get information from that philosophy which says we can find the origin of nature by studying things within nature.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Beyond parody.

If I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe why should I take notice of a person who was writing at a time when virtually nothing was know about the universe, and was aligned with an organisation that considered it heretical to even suggest that the earth went around the sun.

What next - check out Francis of Assisi for his views on epigenetic regulation of gene expression.

If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.

Philosophical arguments remain and are often revisited time and time again. Some argue that methodological materialism or science arises out of philosophical materialism and extremists have used that belief to suggest religion in a scientist is a professional handicap.

There isn't much warrant or virtue of flip flopping back into science when the philosophy get's tough.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.

But, as I have pointed out several times, discussion of the nature and origins of the universe isn't fundamentally a philosophical discussion, but one of physics - hence why if you want to know more you should pop down to the physics department, not the philosophy department.

Indeed in a university with both departments I imagine were you to pitch up to the reception of the philosophy department and say you wanted to talk to someone who could tell you more about the the nature and origins of the universe, they'd probably reply 'sorry I think you are in the wrong place - head over the road to the big building with the telescope on the top - that's physics and astronomy.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.

Indeed it is - which is why when I was studying ethics, I wrote a highly regarded piece that negatively critiqued the doctrine of double effect - something I regard as one of the most disingenuous and dangerous pieces of ethical sophistry and dishonesty created to get deontologists out of a hole of declaring clearly desirable acts as being unethical.

And guess who was the original author of this piece of nonsense with holes so big in it you might be able to pass the universe through them ... step forward one Thomas Aquinas.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Beyond parody.

Begging the question, horses laugh.

If I want to know more about the nature and origins of the universe why should I take notice of a person who was writing at a time when virtually nothing was know about the universe, and was aligned with an organisation that considered it heretical to even suggest that the earth went around the sun.

Fallacy of modernity, Generic fallacy, intellectual imperialism for arguing the supremacy of science over philosophy, fake battle between science and philosophy.

What next - check out Francis of Assisi for his views on epigenetic regulation of gene expression.

Horses laugh

And I think most people wanting to know more about the nature and origins of the universe would also pop down to the physics and astronomy department, not the philosophy department.

  Most people might be doing both, watching the science and discussing philosophy in an informed way. It's called being a rounded individual.

[Stranger]

If you wish to carry out a philosophical argument you need to know what your opponent is arguing otherwise it's a straw man.

It's also impossible to argue against a philosophical argument that hasn't been clearly presented. I've found the same text (translation) on multiple sites of Aquinas' third of the Five Ways (argument from contingency or possibility). Do you really want to go with that? Firstly, it really isn't much like what you've been wittering on about here, and secondly, it's shit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Fallacy of modernity, Generic fallacy, intellectual imperialism for arguing the supremacy of science over philosophy, fake battle between science and philosophy.

Rubbish - how can anyone have anything valuable to say about the universe if (through no fault of their own) they knew pretty well zero about the universe. That isn't intellectual imperialism, merely stating as a fact that people in the 13thC were ignorant of what we know now about the universe. But there is also a heavy dollop of wilful ignorance - plenty of people in those days (and before) had worked out that the earth went around the sun - the catholic church refused to accept the truth for theological reasons.

[ProfessorDavey]

Most people might be doing both, watching the science and discussing philosophy in an informed way. It's called being a rounded individual.

Oh dear the weasle words that imply equivalence. Sure there are some interesting philosophical discussions to be had (one of the reasons I studies philosophy and ethics) but there are nothing without understanding of the nature of the universe - in other words what it is. If you try to philosophise about something that you don't actually understand then the discussion is completely pointless.

No doubt our redoubtable 13thC philosophers philosophised greatly as to the importance of the earth at the centre of things, with the sun and other heavenly bodies going around it. But guess what, they were wrong in fact, and therefore their philosophy, for all its beautiful wording, is build on sand, and quick-sand at that.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's also impossible to argue against a philosophical argument that hasn't been clearly presented. I've found the same text (translation) on multiple sites of Aquinas' third of the Five Ways (argument from contingency or possibility). Do you really want to go with that? Firstly, it really isn't much like what you've been wittering on about here, and secondly, it's shit.

I wonder if it is as useless as the doctrine of double effect, which is also shit.

The problem with the doctrine of double effect is that it tries (and fails) to ram a 'fix' into a pre-decided conclusion on the ethics of certain acts to try to get out of a hole in that the predetermined doctrine wont allow certain acts that are clearly desirable (and the fix tries to get around that uncomfortable truth). Rather than apply a fix, perhaps better to conclude that your basic approach is wrong in the first place. But of course Aquinas couldn't do that as he thought the basic approach came from god.