The nomological argument for god

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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?

You’re not going to get a different answer just because the you ask the same question over and again.

Once more (with feeling):

1. I have no idea whether the universe is its own explanation. Nor though have you.

2. I do know that there are hints in the observable universe of possibly non-determinative processes.

3. I do know that your reasoning that a universe that appears to function deterministically must therefore itself have been determined by something else is a crude non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

4. I do know that, if nonetheless you want to posit a cause outwith the observable universe, you have no grounds to say anything about what that cause would be, and nor do you have grounds to know that it in turn wasn’t caused by something else.

5. I do know that essentially all you have here is a god of the gaps. You're using a “don’t know” in our current state of knowledge to insert whatever shit tales your fancy in exactly the way that people used to make up evil spirits to “explain” the "don’t know" about what caused disease.   

Clear enough now?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Now go and read Aquinas.

Now go and read Galen - he had a lot to say about diseases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Now go and read Galen - he had a lot to say about diseases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

Non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

That is just philosophical physicalism. Which doesn't actually have the physics to back it up.

[Stranger]

Non sequitur.

   You really do need to learn what these terms mean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re not going to get a different answer just because the you ask the same question over and again.

Once more (with feeling):

1. I have no idea whether the universe is its own explanation. Nor though have you.

what I can say though is it is either it's own explanation or it isn't and having it's own explanation has less going for it and infinite regressions of causation don't have much going for them either

2. I do know that there are hints in the observable universe of possibly non-determinative processes.

And what do you think these suggest about theorigin of the universe?

3. I do know that your reasoning that a universe that appears to function deterministically must therefore itself have been determined by something else is a crude non sequitur: the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

You have introduced determinism. How do you fit determinism and randomness into contingency and necessity. So far you just seem to be moving the goalposts........Like Prof Davey you just seem to be giving it the old ''Naah, I don't want to talk about this.''

4. I do know that, if nonetheless you want to posit a cause outwith the observable universe, you have no grounds to say anything about what that cause would be, and nor do you have grounds to know that it in turn wasn’t caused by something else.

5. I do know that essentially all you have here is a god of the gaps. You're using a “don’t know” in our current state of knowledge to insert whatever shit tales your fancy in exactly the way that people used to make up evil spirits to “explain” the "don’t know" about what caused disease.   
   

Nope, I've been the one inviting people to demonstrate what it is about the universe that makes it self explicable Not God of the Gaps although the Gap in question is obvious confirmed by an ''I don't know'' from your good self. The gap is that which is between the universe just is and the universe just is because it has no cause and we know that because sufficient reason is, Hillside?

[Stranger]

Vlad,

Where is your argument?

All your pointless and vague hand-waving doesn't amount to a structured argument. Either put one forward, reference one, or shut the fuck up.

If you don't, I'll post the translation of Aquinas' original and we can all have a good laugh...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Where is your argument?

All your pointless and vague hand-waving doesn't amount to a structured argument. Either put one forward, reference one, or shut the fuck up.

If you don't, I'll post the translation of Aquinas' original and we can all have a good laugh...

Do what you have to do.
I am flying the flag for Aquinas but an even bigger flag for arguments from contingency.

[Stranger]

Do what you have to do.
I am flying the flag for Aquinas...

Okay, here's what I found on several sites (for example: here):

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be or not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be, at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if these were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exists begins to exists only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it is impossible for anything to have begun to exist; thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

Which is comical in the extreme. The first (of many) problems is that things may stop existing but they don't leave nothing and, as the wiki article points out, Aquinas also had a "...principle that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."

The other problems are equally obvious, as is the fact that it clearly differs from what you've been vaguely hinting at here.

...but an even bigger flag for arguments from contingency.

So how about posting one you actually agree with?

[jeremyp]

The evidence is observed contingency.

Can you point to the thing that you have observed that the Universe is contingent on?

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

I have told you that you do and I'm right.

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.

"he has sufficient reason within himself" is just a wordier version of "he just is".

[jeremyp]

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.

You're using the term "necessary" in the normal way. Vlad is using it in a specific technical philosophical way. A contingent entity is one that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary entity is one that doesn't depend on something else for its existence. Life on Earth depends on the Sun for its existence but the Sun isn't "necessary" in the sense that Vlad means it because it depends on various other entities and processes for its existence - mostly the large cloud of gas that it and the solar system are formed of..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you point to the thing that you have observed that the Universe is contingent on?

I'm not sure if I've strayed into that territory. The Prof asked what evidence is there for Necessity and , believing that the argument from contingency starts with the contingency we can see any way seems like evidence when combined with Logic.

I have told you that you do and I'm right.

Is God just is the same as God exists due to sufficient reason within himself mmmmmmmmmmm ''just is'' sounds a tad informal. What I am convinced at is that Russell was at this point in the discussion a bit on the back foot.

"he has sufficient reason within himself" is just a wordier version of "he just is".

yyyyyyyyyeno. Just is stops us dead where as we wanna talk about what it is about God that makes him necessary i.e. the argument from contingency......or if the universe is offered as the Necessary being, what is it about the universe that makes it necessary i.e. the argument from contingency?

[Stranger]

I'm not sure if I've strayed into that territory. The Prof asked what evidence is there for Necessity and , believing that the argument from contingency starts with the contingency we can see any way seems like evidence when combined with Logic.

So where is the logic of which you speak? Yet again:

Where is your argument?

The argument from Aquinas himself is comically absurd (#183) and you have provided nothing but vague hand-waving and make-believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay, here's what I found on several sites (for example: here):

"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be or not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be, at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if these were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exists begins to exists only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it is impossible for anything to have begun to exist; thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

Which is comical in the extreme. The first (of many) problems is that things may stop existing but they don't leave nothing and, as the wiki article points out, Aquinas also had a "...principle that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."

The other problems are equally obvious, as is the fact that it clearly differs from what you've been vaguely hinting at here.

So how about posting one you actually agree with?

I can probably find another one of aquinas.

Just of the Bat is he suggesting that the destruction of things give rise to contingent things. Supernovae, geological processes, nuclear decay, Chemistry, Conservation of matter and energy, erosion?............we are star stuff are we not.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure if I've strayed into that territory.

No. That's the problem. You are claiming the "observed contingency" of the Universe, but I see no evidence that you have observed whatever it is the Universe is contingent on.

[Stranger]

I can probably find another one of aquinas.

Just find an argument that you think is valid (or post your own). Without that starting point, all we have is your vague hand-waving and make-believe.

Just of the Bat is he suggesting that the destruction of things give rise to contingent things.

Not in the argument, no. Did you actually read it? He's arguing that if everything was 'possible' (contingent) then we'd expect nothing to exist: "Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence." (which in itself is a non sequitur). This directly contradicts his other principle "that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."

Basically, the whole thing is a car crash of illogical nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just find an argument that you think is valid (or post your own). Without that starting point, all we have is your vague hand-waving and make-believe.

Not in the argument, no. Did you actually read it? He's arguing that if everything was 'possible' (contingent) then we'd expect nothing to exist: "Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence." (which in itself is a non sequitur). This directly contradicts his other principle "that, among natural things, the destruction of one thing is always the generation of another."

Basically, the whole thing is a car crash of illogical nonsense.

Focussing on what he said ''If everything cannot be....Then at one time there was nothing in existence''
He is talking about natural objects and surmises that while they are they ''be'' but there is a time when they do not exist. Before they existed and after they existed. Since he uses the world natural. I don't know where he has got the idea that there would be a time when nothing existed you've only put a part of his argument, but what we can glean is that the existence of these things is not necessary.

What he is challenging us to is asking if all natural things are contingent where is the necessary entity that gives rise to them? He is reinforcing that in naturalism all things are formed from something else.

 Since all natural things can be destroyed and change into other things they cannot be necessary and if nature is a process of destruction and reformation there is a case that nature is also contingent on something .

[Stranger]

Focussing on what he said ''If everything cannot be....Then at one time there was nothing in existence''
He is talking about natural objects and surmises that while they are they ''be'' but there is a time when they do not exist. Before they existed and after they existed. Since he uses the world natural. I don't know where he has got the idea that there would be a time when nothing existed you've only put a part of his argument, but what we can glean is that the existence of these things is not necessary.

Jeez, why don't you pay attention? The entire 'third way' argument is in #183 and if you follow the link you can see all five.

What he is challenging us to is asking if all natural things are contingent where is the necessary entity that gives rise to them? He is reinforcing that in naturalism all things are formed from something else.

Which isn't actually what it says - you're back to your own hand-waving.

Since all natural things can be destroyed and change into other things they cannot be necessary and if nature is a process of destruction and reformation there is a case that nature is also contingent on something .

Is there? Then make it.

Where is your argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. That's the problem. You are claiming the "observed contingency" of the Universe, but I see no evidence that you have observed whatever it is the Universe is contingent on.

Well I am claiming that I can observe (by empirical means) contingency within the universe...In fact I can see loads of contingency as far as the human race can see. But there are two things I detect nothing that is there by necessity namely nothing that will not have an end. I can also find myself daring to think that that might be the case for the universe but certainly any universe which can be observed. But hey, let's snap out of that.

What we must do is to stop and think why it might be that we are not observing what it is that provides the universe with it's necessity.

1: We haven't observed it yet.
2: It is hidden
3: It's about the size of a teapot.
4: It cannot be observed...i.e. it has not physical properties

At this point we might conclude that non of these applies to the universe and so the universe cannot be what it is we are looking for.

There are other things though A necessary entity doesn't philosophically like having bits since if it is dependent on bits that makes it contingent on the bits.

The universe is nothing but bits.

If we are arguing that the bits are contingent but the whole is necessary, then we are saying that necessary properties emerge. If universal necessity of this type emerges then i'm afraid our universal necessity is you've guessed it Contingent on what it emerges out of.

And because of all this the universe is a poorer candidate for necessary entity than something that avoids contingency altogether.

So Jeremy I haven't observed the necessary being for the universe or the necessary being in the universe because there is nothing physical about it's existence.

Total contingency is not possible because it is an absurd idea.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jeez, why don't you pay attention? The entire 'third way' argument is in #183 and if you follow the link you can see all five.

Which isn't actually what it says - you're back to your own hand-waving.

Well, i've given my translation of it. Let's have yours. So far we've just heard you assert that this is illogical nonsense.
let us have your translation and we'll see.

In terms of a time when no natural objects that we see exist, I can see how you can arrive at that scenario

[Stranger]

Well, i've given my translation of it. Let's have yours.

It doesn't need translating, Vlad, it already is a translation; it's written in English. What you did was attempt to make it mean something it didn't say.

So far we've just heard you assert that this is illogical nonsense.

Simply untrue. I pointed out one problem when I first quoted it (#183) and another in #190.

I'm still waiting for some properly stated coherent argument from you. Yet again: your vague hand-waving and fantasies are not an argument.

[jeremyp]

Well I am claiming that I can observe (by empirical means) contingency within the universe...

But that's not the same thing. You need to observe contingency of the Universe.

Think of it this way. If I tell you that everybody in the bus is wearing red clothes. Does that tell you anything about the colour of the bus itself? No.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

what I can say though is it is either it's own explanation or it isn't and having it's own explanation has less going for it and infinite regressions of causation don't have much going for them either

Why has the universe being its own explanation “less going for it”?

And what do you think these suggest about theorigin of the universe?

They give the lie to your “argument” that because the universe is wholly determinative as a system, so therefore the universe itself must be determined by something else. The possibility of a non-determinative process within the universe throws doubt on the first part of that assertion (which is a non sequitur in any case).
 

You have introduced determinism. How do you fit determinism and randomness into contingency and necessity. So far you just seem to be moving the goalposts........Like Prof Davey you just seem to be giving it the old ''Naah, I don't want to talk about this.''

No, you have. Your non sequitur here is to say, “everything I observe in the universe seems to be caused by something else, therefore the universe itself must be caused by something else”. Cause and effect systems are called “determinative”; needing no cause is called “necessary”.

Nope, I've been the one inviting people to demonstrate what it is about the universe that makes it self explicable…

And you’ve been corrected on exactly that mistake several times now. No-one says that the universe necessarily is “self-explicable”: it may be, it may not be. That’s called a “don’t know”. You on the other hand are making the express claim that it isn’t self-explicable, so you cannot just shift the burden of proof to others to show you to be wrong about that. 

If you want to make that claim, then (finally) make an argument to justify it.

What’s stopping you? 
 

Not God of the Gaps although the Gap in question is obvious confirmed by an ''I don't know'' from your good self.

So you’re filling the space created by the “don’t know” with an answer with no explanatory value at all, ie “god”. That’s what “god of the gaps” means ffs.

The gap is that which is between the universe just is and the universe just is because it has no cause and we know that because sufficient reason is, Hillside?

No, the gap is between “the universe had no cause” and “the universe had a cause”. No-one know which it is, though you claim it’s the latter but cannot make an argument to justify that claim. Having made it though nonetheless, you then seek to fill the knowledge gap re what that supposed cause was with the term “god”. You know, exactly the same reasoning that led people to fill the knowledge gap they had about disease with “evil spirits”.   

You really are the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect here: deep and profound ignorance matched only by your overwhelming conviction that you know it all. It’s frankly weird to see a real life example of it though.       

[Stranger]

What we must do is to stop and think why it might be that we are not observing what it is that provides the universe with it's necessity.

No, what you need to do is to stop and think about what your premises are and how you establish this dichotomy between contingency and necessity, what would make something necessary, which would have to answer the question of how anything can be such that it couldn't fail to exist. We may then be in some sort of position where we can bring some logic into your (so far) baseless fantasies.

[ProfessorDavey]

You're using the term "necessary" in the normal way. Vlad is using it in a specific technical philosophical way. A contingent entity is one that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary entity is one that doesn't depend on something else for its existence. Life on Earth depends on the Sun for its existence but the Sun isn't "necessary" in the sense that Vlad means it because it depends on various other entities and processes for its existence - mostly the large cloud of gas that it and the solar system are formed of..

I do understand that, and that is why I am challenging Vlad.

He is using 'necessary' in a very niche manner, and one that necessarily (see what I did there) should be prefaced clearly to indicate that it isn't being used in the standard manner. Indeed the Wiki article about it does just that - making it clear that we are discsussing:

metaphysical necessity
factual necessity
causal necessity
logical necessity

Rather than just plain old necessity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

So what Vlad is doing is (I suspect deliberately) blurring the distinctions between necessary in its normal meaning and applied to causal relationships between entities and a philosophical meaning. Given that the universe is clearly something that exists, that we can observe, that has, as a whole and in parts, physical relationships that we try to understand through physics then the primary method to  understand the nature and origins of the universe is via physics, not philosophy. As such the appropriate use of the word 'necessary' should be the standard meaning as applied to physics nor the philosophical meaning.

Frankly until we really understand the physical relationships within the universe, adding a layer of speculative philosophy seems pretty pointless to me.