The nomological argument for god

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

So are you saying that the money is on the universe being the necessary being.

Where has this necessity been observed?

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.

Are you saying then that the contingency is contained within in some sense a necessary surrounding, context or environment? The problem here of course is buses are observable and I would look for a bus to check it's colour rather than it's contents. Where is the equivalent of the bus in the universe. According to your logic it must be there but there is no empirical evidence. We've come, if you'll pardon the pun, the circular route back to if the universe is the necessary entity etc, etc. since the passenger only comprise part of the bus. If you are saying the universe is what we have no evidence for (the equivalent of the bus) well that is plainly absurd.

Funnily enough, Jacques and Sykes covered this very bus dilemma, ''what constitutes a bus?'' back in the 1960's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuO05QBB4yU


.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Somehow somehow, some strange how establish the difference between the necessary and the contingent? Your taking the piss Pal

[Stranger]

Somehow somehow, some strange how establish the difference between the necessary and the contingent? Your taking the piss Pal

I rather suspect that you're taking the piss actually - unless you really are too dim to understand that all you've said is just hot air unless you produce a proper argument based on accepted premises, and above all explain how it is even possible for something to have the property that it couldn't not exist.

You seem to be trying to pretend that the most fundamental question about all this (the one that would actually answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing) is some trivial detail that you can dismiss by just saying it's "not contingent". I mean, is this your idea of a joke?

[jeremyp]

Are you saying then that the contingency is contained within in some sense a necessary surrounding, context or environment? The problem here of course is buses are observable and I would look for a bus to check it's colour rather than it's contents. Where is the equivalent of the bus in the universe. According to your logic it must be there but there is no empirical evidence. We've come, if you'll pardon the pun, the circular route back to if the universe is the necessary entity etc, etc. since the passenger only comprise part of the bus. If you are saying the universe is what we have no evidence for (the equivalent of the bus) well that is plainly absurd.

Funnily enough, Jacques and Sykes covered this very bus dilemma, ''what constitutes a bus?'' back in the 1960's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuO05QBB4yU


.

You’re the one who keeps claiming he has observed the cause of the Universe. Give us some evidence of that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870?utm_hp_ref=religion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You’re the one who keeps claiming he has observed the cause of the Universe. Give us some evidence of that.

No......I have only argued on this thread for the necessary being. Being observable empirically is not something I would expect from the cause of the universe and THIS is what I have said in many posts on this thread.

I claim to have experienced God in a life changing way and I use those words because God is revealing himself to everybody and we react to that part of my experience of God was the realisation of the evasions I put against him. 

[Stranger]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870?utm_hp_ref=religion

I'm pretty sure I've addressed all of this drivel before. The first (three point argument) is based on the assertion that the universe began to exist which is nonsensical in any normal sense of 'began'.

The second part is just Feser's base of hierarchy, which is can basically be summed up as "there must be a fundamental basis for existence and I'm desperate enough to believe in my god, I'll go to comical lengths to try and bash the round peg of the idea of the monotheistic god into the square hole I've just set up."

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-ironclad-proof-of-god_b_2567870?utm_hp_ref=religion

This is poor stuff indeed. Try this for example:

“1. It does not rest on the premise that “everything has a cause” which would leave open the question of what caused God. Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause. Therefore, to ask “what caused God?” is really to ask “what caused the thing that cannot in principle have a cause?””

So now all you have to do is to demonstrate that the universe did “come into existence”, and to explain why it necessarily cannot be its own cause.

Good luck with that though.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No......I have only argued on this thread for the necessary being.

Asserted, not argued. You’ve been asked many times for an argument, but have never produced one.
 

Being observable empirically is not something I would expect from the cause of the universe and THIS is what I have said in many posts on this thread.

So the Bible is wrong about that (burning bushes, angels etc)?

I claim to have experienced God in a life changing way…

Yes, we know you do. The problem for the rest of us though is that lots of people claim to have “experienced” lots of different ghosts, ghoulies and supernatural whatnots too (often in life changing ways no doubt). When asked how anyone should distinguish epistemically the narrative you tell yourself about your experience from the narratives they tell themselves about their experiences you always run away though.

…and I use those words because God is revealing himself to everybody and we react to that part of my experience of God was the realisation of the evasions I put against him.

Unqualified faith claim and fallacy of reification.

Apart from all that though…

[BeRational]

No......I have only argued on this thread for the necessary being. Being observable empirically is not something I would expect from the cause of the universe and THIS is what I have said in many posts on this thread.

I claim to have experienced God in a life changing way and I use those words because God is revealing himself to everybody and we react to that part of my experience of God was the realisation of the evasions I put against him.

I have little doubt that you believe this.

Do you think I should also believe it?
If you do, do you accept that I will not believe something just because you do?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

This is poor stuff indeed. Try this for example:

“1. It does not rest on the premise that “everything has a cause” which would leave open the question of what caused God. Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause. Therefore, to ask “what caused God?” is really to ask “what caused the thing that cannot in principle have a cause?””

So now all you have to do is to demonstrate that the universe did “come into existence”, and to explain why it necessarily cannot be its own cause.

Good luck with that though.   

I have not said here it cannot be it's own cause.( a clumsy way of putting it, if not down right wrong and certainly worse than exist without external reason) But I am glad you acknowledge that at least something could be. You say this could be the universe. I have previously mentioned the arguments that make that look less certain firstly, most if not all the universe you refer to is contingent, Secondly you cannot ultimately be The necessary with contingent parts since you are dependent on the parts.

Necessary and contingent here meaning how an entity comes into being. That is binary.

I agree the author did stray linguistically into what looks like a Kalam but such phrasing was not necessary since there is plenty in the article that is not a Kalam namely it posits an analogy an infinite number of freight cars moving.

I have already said that things within the universe are affected by observation. That may make them contingent. To show the universe is the necessary entity you must must demonstrate what is necessary about it...... Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have little doubt that you believe this.

Do you think I should also believe it?
If you do, do you accept that I will not believe something just because you do?

Yes.
Believing it because I believe it is to me is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and never a good idea.
Could it influence your beliefs? that would depend on what you have in you already. I don't suppose I would ever be as influential as if your partner or best friend came to believe it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have not said here it cannot be it's own cause.( a clumsy way of putting it, if not down right wrong and certainly worse than exist without external reason)

Yes you have. It’s the crux of your non sequitur: “The universe cannot be its own cause therefore something else must have caused it”.

But I am glad you acknowledge that at least something could be.

That’s the “don’t know” part I’ve said all and that you then try to shift the burden toward to disprove your express claims that the universe a) must have begun, and b) must have been caused to begin by something other than itself. 

You say this could be the universe

Yes you could. You could also say the concept of “beginning” is meaningless in any case when time itself is a property of the universe. 

I have previously mentioned the arguments that make that look less certain…

No-one claims it to be certain. You on the other hand assert it to be not the case, though you cannot justify that claim.

… firstly, most if not all the universe you refer to is contingent,

Relevance to the universe as a whole? You know, another of the questions you keep dodging.

Secondly…

You cannot have a “secondly” when your firstly has no substance, but ok…

…you cannot ultimately be The necessary with contingent parts since you are dependent on the parts.

Which is incoherent. Even if something as an entity is “the necessary” as you put it, you’ve provided no argument at all to justify the claim that it cannot contain contingent phenomena – another of the questions you just run away from. 

Necessary and contingent here meaning how an entity comes into being. That is binary.

And potentially meaningless unless you can show first that entity did “come into being” – yet another of the question you just run away from.

I agree the author did stray linguistically into what looks like a Kalam but such phrasing was not necessary since there is plenty in the article that is not a Kalam namely it posits an analogy an infinite number of freight cars moving.

The author has much bigger problems than straying into the Kalam – like justifying his a priori assumption that the universe necessarily came into being at all.

I have already said that things within the universe are affected by observation. That may make them contingent.

An effort that NTTS more than adequately detonated.

To show the universe is the necessary entity you must must demonstrate what is necessary about it......

Who has made that claim? The only claim I have made about that is a “don’t know”. The claim you’ve made on the other hand is an “I do know”, so the burden of proof is to justify it is yours – which would be the final of the questions in this set that you just run away from.

Good luck with that.

Why would I need luck to respond to (yet another of) your straw men? 

[Stranger]

I have previously mentioned the arguments that make that look less certain...

What you've actually done is some vague hand-waving and equally vague mentions of unreferenced arguments. The only one you've explicitly mentioned is Aquinas' argument from contingency which has very little in common with said hand-waving.

...firstly, most if not all the universe you refer to is contingent, Secondly you cannot ultimately be The necessary with contingent parts since you are dependent on the parts.

Therein lies another problem. Sure, while we're embedded in the universe's time dimension, then things seem contingent, but if the whole space-time is itself necessary (although you still haven't said how anything can possibly be necessary) or 'just is', then all of its contents could, despite appearances, be necessary or 'just be' too.

This is another problem with thinking vague hand-waving is as good as a proper argument - it simply isn't.

I have already said that things within the universe are affected by observation. That may make them contingent.

You made the baseless assertion that things are necessarily affected by observation and, even if it wasn't just an assertion, the reasoning from that to contingency is still missing.

To show the universe is the necessary entity you must must demonstrate what is necessary about it...... Good luck with that.

Why should anybody bother? Yet again: you have provided no argument that needs refuting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you have. It’s the crux of your non sequitur: “The universe cannot be its own cause therefore something else must have caused it”.

That’s the “don’t know” part I’ve said all and that you then try to shift the burden toward to disprove your express claims that the universe a) must have begun, and b) must have been caused to begin by something other than itself. 

Yes you could. You could also say the concept of “beginning” is itself meaningless too when time itself is a property of the universe. 

Yes but that is the Kalam, which I certainly am not arguing here.

In an argument where the analogy is that the universe is an infinite number of freight trucks in motion we are not proposing a finite universe with a beginning or end (first or last freight car). We are proposing a universe without beginning or end.

There are two questions we can ask. We know that freight cars do not move by themselves so however long the train is it needs some kind of locomotion.

If The universe is operating and dynamic then it needs something which keeps it going for ever.

I'll let you work out what the second question that can be asked of our scenario.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In an argument where the analogy is that the universe is an infinite number of freight trucks in motion we are not proposing a finite universe with a beginning or end 9 first or last freight car). We are proposing a universe without beginning or end.

If you're proposing a universe without a beginning, then it couldn't have come into being - which is the cornerstone of your non sequitur.

There are two questions we can ask. We know that freight cars do not move by themselves so however long the train is it needs some kind of locomotion.

There are lots of questions "we" can ask, none of which you will ever answer - and a freight train is a false analogy in any case.

If The universe operating and dynamic then it needs something which keeps it going for ever.

I'll let you work out what the second question that can be asked of our scenario.

So now you're shifting ground from "the universe must have begun, therefore god" to "the universe needs an everlasting battery, therefore god". Well, that's new at least - now all you have to do is to justify your claim that the universe "needs something to keep it going" that couldn't be just a property of the universe itself.

Perhaps if you stopped thinking of the universe as a giant wind up toy you'd be less inclined to dig the holes into which you then routinely fall?     

[Stranger]

In an argument where the analogy is that the universe is an infinite number of freight trucks in motion we are not proposing a finite universe with a beginning or end (first or last freight car). We are proposing a universe without beginning or end.

There are two questions we can ask. We know that freight cars do not move by themselves so however long the train is it needs some kind of locomotion.

If The universe is operating and dynamic then it needs something which keeps it going for ever.

Simply doesn't follow. An infinite freight doesn't actually work, and even if it did, you have provided to reason to assume that the analogy would extend to the universe. Additionally, from the relativity point of view, the universe isn't dynamic (B-theory of time).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You made the baseless assertion that things are necessarily affected by observation and, even if it wasn't just an assertion, the reasoning from that to contingency is still missing.

I mean empirical observation of course.

Supposing we have a material object If I can see it then it is because it has contact with light and presumably absorbed some of the energy which is then transferred within it. If I touch it there is presumably some energetic interaction, if I can smell or taste it it is made of parts. which says to me that it could have been constituted differently into a different form. So it has all the hallmarks of contingency

[BeRational]

Yes.
Believing it because I believe it is to me is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and never a good idea.
Could it influence your beliefs? that would depend on what you have in you already. I don't suppose I would ever be as influential as if your partner or best friend came to believe it.

You would be just as influential as my partner or best friend.

I would not believe something just because they do, not matter how passionately they believed it.

Do you think my belief should be influenced simply by what they believe?

[Stranger]

Supposing we have a material object If I can see it then it is because it has contact with light...

Or it's emitting its own. Either way, you making the observation doesn't affect it at all. It's reflecting or emitting light regardless of your observation.

..which says to me that it could have been constituted differently into a different form.

How can you possibly tell? Again, you're just waffling, hand-waving, and (apparently) making shit up as you go along. You need to post (or link to) and actual coherent and logical argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You would be just as influential as my partner or best friend.

I would not believe something just because they do, not matter how passionately they believed it.

Do you think my belief should be influenced simply by what they believe?

Simply doesn't follow. An infinite freight doesn't actually work, and even if it did, you have provided to reason to assume that the analogy would extend to the universe.

So why do atheists tend to think the universe might be infinite in time and extent then and therefore not need an external explanation? Also, are you saying that an infinity of freight cars doesn't work BECAUSE A REAL INFINITY COULD NOT WORK?

Additionally, from the relativity point of view, the universe isn't dynamic (B-theory of time).

And who or what could have that point of view?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or it's emitting its own. Either way, you making the observation doesn't affect it at all. It's reflecting or emitting light regardless of your observation.

But then it's energy level are being transferred out or in, changing it's energy status which is derived  externally. Take a candle. Light is not derived until there is an energy input. The candle flame is therefore dependent for it's status on an external factor.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You would be just as influential as my partner or best friend.

I would not believe something just because they do, not matter how passionately they believed it.

Isn't that just atheistic bravado, God shall not pass stuff? As it is belief doesn't always manifest itself consciously, we would have to keep it topped up by reasons and reminder all the time. It often expresses itself  in one's reaction. So we can believe something is wrong intellectually but not actually react to it by feeling it's wrong or doing anything about it and I suppose we can react to something emotionally because of beliefs and not articluate what it is.

Do you think my belief should be influenced simply by what they believe?

Who ever wants you to believe anything that way? If I ran up to you in the foyer of a cinema and said don't go in there there is a man with a machete hacking the audience would I want you to believe simply on what I said. I would hope so. I would hope you did, for your sake.

[BeRational]

Who ever wants you to believe anything that way? If I ran up to you in the foyer of a cinema and said don't go in there there is a man with a machete hacking the audience would I want you to believe simply on what I said. I would hope so. I would hope you did, for your sake.

This is completely different. If you tell me you have a pet dog, I will tentatively believe you.

if you tell me you have a pet unicorn, then I will not believe you simply because you say so.

The statements are completely different. I have seen dogs, I know people that have pet dog. I have never seen a unicorn!

[Stranger]

So why do atheists tend to think the universe might be infinite in time and extent then and therefore not need an external explanation?

It's a possibility and it's one answer to daft theists arguing that something that has a start needs a cause.

Also, are you saying that an infinity of freight cars doesn't work BECAUSE A REAL INFINITY COULD NOT WORK?

No.

And who or what could have that point of view?

Obviously nobody, since observers need to be embedded in time.

But then it's energy level are being transferred out or in, changing it's energy status which is derived  externally. Take a candle. Light is not derived until there is an energy input. The candle flame is therefore dependent for it's status on an external factor.

And....?

Yet again: you need a coherent and complete argument. Piffling around with individual 'points' is worthless because you've provided no logical structure that needs to be refuted. All we are doing is pointing to poor thinking in your individual posts.