The nomological argument for god

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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

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?     

No Hillside. I am saying the universe must have an everlasting battery. Find it or think through what it could be.

On this thread I was never on the universe must have begun schtick. So I couldn't shift the ground from that.

The argument does not depend on the universe having a beginning.

Your embarrassment here comes from yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaars of straw manning.(sorry about that , my cat thought he would contribute to this post. Since I thought it appropriate, I left it in)

[Stranger]

I am saying the universe must have an everlasting battery.

Yes you are - what's missing, however, is the first hint of the tiniest morsel of actual reasoning to back up this assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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!

Yes I get that and would certainly like to discuss ''Tentative belief'' with you.

Just as a matter of interest If I ran up and told you there was a mad unicorn running towards us round the corner trampling on people  what would be your reaction?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes you are - what's missing, however, is the first hint of the tiniest morsel of actual reasoning to back up this assertion.

No, to keep going forever the universe must have an eternal power source otherwise it will go past the point where any energy can be used usefully , a point an infinite universe should have reached an infinitely long time ago.

[Stranger]

No, to keep going forever the universe must have an eternal power source otherwise it will go past the point where any energy can be used usefully , a point an infinite universe should have reached an infinitely long time ago.

And Vlad jumps to a different point entirely. Ho hum. So.... entropy. Firstly it's a statistical law, so given an infinite amount of time it will decrease to any arbitrarily low level one cares to define. Secondly, it depends on the concept of phase space and if the total volume is restricted and then expanded, you'd also (potentially) get a high entropy value turning into a low entropy (which is how conformal cyclic cosmology works). Thirdly, we don't know whether the universe (or multiverse) has a finite or infinite past anyway. There are even other possibilities like being able to follow our past time direction back indefinitely but having time reverse direction at the BB, so we end up going into the future of 'another universe'.

Again - there are many, many hypotheses (Before the Big Bang topic).

And we also have to face the fact that we know that we don't have a full picture what is physically possible (no theory that unifies general relativity with quantum field theory).

Your problem is still that you haven't presented an actual coherent and consistent argument, so we end up going round and round in circles because you make one claim, it gets refuted and you just move the goalposts to something else.

Perhaps that's why you so studiously avoid presenting anything remotely like a full argument.....?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And Vlad jumps to a different point entirely. Ho hum. So.... entropy. Firstly it's a statistical law, so given an infinite amount of time it will decrease to any arbitrarily low level one cares to define.

No, I talked about the amount of useful energy available. You seem to have factored that out.

[Stranger]

No, I talked about the amount of useful energy available. You seem to have factored that out.

Energy stops being 'useful' because of entropy.   

And, of course, I forgot to mention that conservation of energy is entirely because of physical laws not changing over time. If the laws changed for any reason, all arguments about amounts of energy would fall apart.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No Hillside. I am saying the universe must have an everlasting battery. Find it or think through what it could be.

What would be the point of that as you haven’t made an argument to justify the claim?

The moon is made of cheese that must have been put there by something. Find it or think through what it could be.

Can you see what’s wrong with this? Could it perhaps be the unqualified assertion that's its premise?

On this thread I was never on the universe must have begun schtick. So I couldn't shift the ground from that.

Yes you were. It’s also central to the face-palming attempt at an argument you linked to, presumably approvingly (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”). If it didn’t begin, you wouldn’t need a cause to make it begin now would you.

Even you should be able to grasp this.

The argument does not depend on the universe having a beginning.

Yes it does – see above (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”).

Your embarrassment…

?  You screw up over and over again, then claim my embarrassment? Wow.

…here comes from yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaaars of straw manning.(sorry about that , my cat thought he would contribute to this post. Since I thought it appropriate, I left it in)

First, you haven’t identified any straw manning from me, and second as you’re the undisputed, unified belt, all time world champion of straw manning do you not think you should maybe give yourself a good talking to about this latest piece of dishonesty?   

[BeRational]

Yes I get that and would certainly like to discuss ''Tentative belief'' with you.

Just as a matter of interest If I ran up and told you there was a mad unicorn running towards us round the corner trampling on people  what would be your reaction?

Simple my belief is proportional to the evidence, and nature of the claim. Like I suspect yours is for most things other than a god

[BeRational]

Yes I get that and would certainly like to discuss ''Tentative belief'' with you.

Just as a matter of interest If I ran up and told you there was a mad unicorn running towards us round the corner trampling on people  what would be your reaction?

I would assume you were wrong about it being a unicorn, but perhaps you had seen something else. But with no other evidence I would not believe you at all

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would assume you were wrong about it being a unicorn, but perhaps you had seen something else. But with no other evidence I would not believe you at all

You can now hear the sound of hooves............. What would you do?

[BeRational]

You can now hear the sound of hooves............. What would you do?

Assume it was a hooved animal.

I have seen hooved animals, big ones too

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assume it was a hooved animal.

I have seen hooved animals, big ones too

Right, the moment is almost upon you it looks like a horse with a browny horn coming out of it's forehead...Too late... you feel a huge weight on your chest which completely winds you as you are butted head on. You are laying dazed , struggling for breath, extreme pain in the ribs you put your hand on your chest and feel it is all wet.

What can you ascertain from your predicament?

[BeRational]

Right, the moment is almost upon you it looks like a horse with a browny horn coming out of it's forehead...Too late... you feel a huge weight on your chest which completely winds you as you are butted head on. You are laying dazed , struggling for breath, extreme pain in the ribs you put your hand on your chest and feel it is all wet.

What can you ascertain from your predicament?

I was hit by a big animal, possibly a horse.

What do you think I should ascertain?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What would be the point of that as you haven’t made an argument to justify the claim?

The moon is made of cheese that must have been put there by something. Find it or think through what it could be.

Can you see what’s wrong with this? Could it perhaps be the unqualified assertion that's its premise?

Yes you were. It’s also central to the face-palming attempt at an argument you linked to, presumably approvingly (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”). If it didn’t begin, you wouldn’t need a cause to make it begin now would you.

Even you should be able to grasp this.

Yes it does – see above (“Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence...”).

?  You screw up over and over again, then claim my embarrassment? Wow.

First, you haven’t identified any straw manning from me, and second as you’re the undisputed, unified belt, all time world champion of straw manning do you not think you should maybe give yourself a good talking to about this latest piece of dishonesty?

You are still making a Kalam type argument. There, there is a straw man!
Why is this? is it the only version of the Game you think you can win at?.......or do you really not understand the argument from contingency

I am not using the word ''cause'' in the sense of something having a beginning. I am using it in terms of explanation, reason, entity responsible for it's existence. There is no time element here.

Therefore an eternal universe could be there because of an eternal creator.

How are you going to show that the universe is eternal anyway?

Secondly, How are you going to show that it is necessary and not contingent?

[jeremyp]

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.

When I asked you how you knew the Universe was not necessary, you talked about it’s observed contingency. That can only mean you have observed it’s cause. Show us it.

[Stranger]

You are still making a Kalam type argument. There, there is a straw man!

You linked, without comment, to a page that included a section that what was effectively Kalam - and you haven't put forward a coherent argument of your own at all, ever.

Why is this? is it the only version of the Game you think you can win at?.......or do you really not understand the argument from contingency

What argument from contingency? The version from Aquinas is nothing like what you've been vaguely hinting at and is riddled with flaws. There are other versions and modern interpretations. Until you specify a particular argument "the argument from contingency" is meaningless.

I am not using the word ''cause'' in the sense of something having a beginning. I am using it in terms of explanation, reason, entity responsible for it's existence. There is no time element here.

Therefore an eternal universe could be there because of an eternal creator.

When you use 'therefore' it conventional precede it with a reason for what comes after. Using the word 'creator' is begging the question.

How are you going to show that the universe is eternal anyway?

Secondly, How are you going to show that it is necessary and not contingent?

Nobody needs to show anything. You haven't posted anything remotely like an argument that needs refuting. Yet again:

Where is your argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are still making a Kalam type argument.

No, you linked to an argument (presumably approvingly) that did. Here in fact:

“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…”

Can you see that “..comes into existence”? Can you though?

What do you suppose those words mean?

There, there is a straw man!

Yes, but it’s your straw man. Either you approve of the argument you linked to or you don’t – perhaps if you made your mind up about that?

Why is this? is it the only version of the Game you think you can win at?.......or do you really not understand the argument from contingency

If you link to an argument, that’s the one I’ll demolish. I really don’t care much whether you though are in thrall to the Kalam or the cosmological argument, they’re both shit. If you’re now backing away from the argument you linked to though, then I’ll take it off the list.   

I am not using the word ''cause'' in the sense of something having a beginning. I am using it in terms of explanation, reason, entity responsible for it's existence. There is no time element here.

Well, that’s not the argument you linked to and now you’re trying to bend the word “cause” to mean something other than its conventional sense: if you no longer care about the “comes into existence” part how could something (ie “the universe”) that (presumably) always existed have been caused by something else when there was no dimension in which the universe ever didn’t already exist? “Cause” here becomes incoherent.     

Therefore an eternal universe could be there because of an eternal creator.

“Therefore”? Very funny. Much as you enjoy throwing in a false therefore without bothering to define your term or to argue your way to justify your conclusion perhaps you might like to turn your attention to why an eternal universe would require a creator at all, and for that matter why your eternal creator wouldn’t need an eternal creator of its own?   

How are you going to show that the universe is eternal anyway?

I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I don’t need to show that the universe is eternal because that’s not a claim that I make. The only “claim” I make about an eternal vs a finite universe is that I don’t know. And nor do you.

You’ve never understood (or have always lied about) the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof but there are only so many times it can be explained to you.   

Secondly, How are you going to show that it is necessary and not contingent?

See above. I don’t need to “show” anything: it’s your assertion – it’s your job to make argument to justify it. So far though, you haven’t even tried.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, you linked to an argument (presumably approvingly) that did. Here in fact:

“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…”

Can you see that “..comes into existence”? Can you though?

Whatever comes into existence is contingent yes what is remarkable about that?, that is a Komponent of a Kalam argument and a definition of a contingent thing.

If you link to an argument, that’s the one I’ll demolish.

What have your strengths as some kind of Legal got to do with philosophical argument. That's boasting isn't it? In this case there are two elements in this debate a kalam cosmological argument and a Thomistic cosmological argument, which argument do you think you have demolished   

Well, that’s not the argument you linked to and now you’re trying to bend the word “cause” to mean something other than its conventional sense:

No. I am using the word in a technical sense which happens not to be the way people normally mean it, but as always, there are dictionaries.

if you no longer care about the “comes into existence”

In my younger days I might have thought that the universe must have had a past cause and causes come sequenced in time but no longer.

     
I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I don’t need to show that the universe is eternal because that’s not a claim that I make. The only “claim” I make about an eternal vs a finite universe is that I don’t know. And nor do you.

I cannot know that the universe is infinite because I can never show that it is. ''I don't know whether the universe is eternal'' means that it cannot be unreasonable to say that it may not be, that it may be contingent and need a cause.

But even if it has been around for ever it does not necessarily mean it is not contingent on something else because we have to ask how come this and not nothing. In fact arguments for infinite regression show that because they posit an infinite chain of eternal creators from which an eternal God proceeds. 

Further there is nothing natural that we cannot observe empirically. That is a foundation principle of science.

We only can and do observe contingent things.

You, Hillside have said that abstract necessities are contingent on matter.

Would you agree that Laws of nature are abstract necessities? 

[Stranger]

Whatever comes into existence is contingent yes what is remarkable about that?, that is a Komponent of a Kalam argument and a definition of a contingent thing.

But even if it has been around for ever it does not necessarily mean it is not contingent...

Contradicting yourself in the space of one post... 

In fact arguments for infinite regression show that because they posit an infinite chain of eternal creators from which an eternal God proceeds.

How?

Further there is nothing natural that we cannot observe empirically. That is a foundation principle of science.

Patently false.

We only can and do observe contingent things.

Baseless assertion. And still not the slightest hint of anything remotely like a single, coherent argument that you will commit to supporting. Until you provide such, nobody has to explain or show anything.

Where is your argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Whatever comes into existence is contingent yes what is remarkable about that?, that is a Komponent of a Kalam argument and a definition of a contingent thing.

So again – are you endorsing the argument you linked to or aren’t you?

Make your mind up.

What have your strengths as some kind of Legal got to do with philosophical argument. That's boasting isn't it? In this case there are two elements in this debate a kalam cosmological argument and a Thomistic cosmological argument, which argument do you think you have demolished

You’ve missed the point – why not finally tell us which argument(s) you’re attempting here and I’ll tell you why it/they fail? Just ducking and diving around that is wasting everyone’s time.
     

No. I am using the word in a technical sense which happens not to be the way people normally mean it, but as always, there are dictionaries.

There is no technical sense in which “cause” applies to something that exists already. What you’re actually doing is corrupting a simple word to the point of incoherence. 

In my younger days I might have thought that the universe must have had a past cause and causes come sequenced in time but no longer.

So you prefer incoherence instead? How can something “cause” something else that’s already there?

I cannot know that the universe is infinite because I can never show that it is.

You never “show” anything – you just assert stuff to be so.

''I don't know whether the universe is eternal'' means that it cannot be unreasonable to say that it may not be, that it may be contingent and need a cause.

But that’s not your claim. Anything “may” be: your claim though is that something is remember?

But even if it has been around for ever it does not necessarily mean it is not contingent on something else because we have to ask how come this and not nothing.

Then the same question applies to “god” does it not? How does that help you?

Further there is nothing natural that we cannot observe empirically. That is a foundation principle of science.

No, it’s stupid. There are lots of natural phenomena we cannot observe, at least currently. 

We only can observe contingent things.

A dubious claim given what physics is hinting at at least, but in any case so what?

You , Hillside have said that abstract necessities are contingent on matter.

Seems unlikely given that I don’t collapse into gibberish as you do.

Would you agree that Laws of nature are abstract necessities?

I have no idea what you’re trying to ask here, and nor it seems have you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

A dubious claim given what physics is hinting at at least, but in any case so what?

What is it they are hinting at and how are they going to observe them and how are they going to show they are necessary and not contingent.

[Stranger]

What is it they are hinting at and how are they going to observe them and how are they going to show they are necessary and not contingent.

Nobody has to show anything, Vlad, until and unless you finally have the courage of your convictions and come up with (or link to) an actual, complete and logical argument that you are prepared to defend.

Why do you seem to be too scared to do so?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What is it they are hinting at and how are they going to observe them and how are they going to show they are necessary and not contingent.

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/quantum-randomness

More to the point though, why have you just ignored (yet again) every point-by-point rebuttal and question you’ve been given?

Why not finally actually try at least to answer something? Try these for starters:

1. Are you or are you not an advocate for the argument for god you linked that states expressly: “…Rather the argument is that whatever comes into existence (is contingent) has a cause”?

2. Do you have an argument to support your assertion that something that’s always existed must nonetheless have been caused by something else?

3. Can you now grasp that a person saying “don’t know” to a question (ie, whether the universe is its own explanation of was caused by something else) doesn’t have to demonstrate anything, whereas the person asserting that it definitely had a cause other than itself has the burden of proof to justify his claim?

There – three plainly expressed and reasonable questions. Rather than revert to ducking and diving type, why not actually try to answer them?

What’s stopping you?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody has to show anything, Vlad,

Well that is unfortunate for anyone wanting to use those findings to demonstrate that it is completely unreasonable to think that the universe might not be the necessary entity.

Look Prof Davey has already excused himself because he's only interested in that which can be empirically tested. He didn't pretend that there was a natural explanation for nature.