The nomological argument for god

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

No-one says that the universe might not anything. You're straw manning again.

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.

...and again

[Stranger]

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.

Nobody has to address an argument that hasn't been presented. You have made no coherent case for the universe being or not being 'necessary'. You haven't made a case for a 'necessary entity'. You haven't even attempted to explain how anything can be such that it couldn't fail to exist. You haven't made a case that 'necessary' and 'contingent' are the only options and you even haven't properly separated them (for example, what about something the is necessarily the consequence of something necessary?)

Your incoherent prattling does not need any answers. You need to produce an actual argument.

[Owlswing]

Your incoherent prattling does not need any answers. You need to produce an actual argument.

For the Goddess's sake don't hold your breath waiting for the requested argument.

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody has to address an argument that hasn't been presented. You have made no coherent case for the universe being or not being 'necessary'.

There is no other way of being. The universe being necessary is basic to a reasonable atheism. A contingent universe leads to the question how nature itself comes to be.

That is why the question should be asked and why you should consider it.

Message Ends.

[Stranger]

For the Goddess's sake don't hold your breath waiting for the requested argument.

Of course not. However, it will be interesting to see to what absurd lengths he'll go to to avoid providing one or what a mess he'll make if he tries....

[Stranger]

There is no other way of being.

Other than what?

The universe being necessary is basic to a reasonable atheism.

Without saying how anything can be 'necessary' (cannot fail to exist) this is meaningless and certainly not a basis for atheism. "We don't know" is perfectly good enough for reasonable atheism.

A contingent universe leads to the question how nature itself comes to be.

We don't know.

Again: there is no case to answer until you produce or link to a coherent argument.

[Stranger]

That is why the question should be asked and why you should consider it.

You haven't posed a well enough defined question to properly consider.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The universe being necessary is basic to a reasonable atheism.

No it isn’t. Despite the what – thousands maybe? – of times you’ve been corrected on this you still return to exactly the same mistake over and over again. I sometimes wonder whether you do understand the difference between the sufficient and the necessary conditions for atheism but choose to pretend otherwise for your own amusement, or instead you just find the concept is simply too difficult to process so you’re stuck with incomprehension.

Once again…

…all’s that’s sufficient for atheism is a “don’t know”. Absent a sound reason to accept there must be a contingent universe (or anything else attempted to justify the claim “god”), there’s no need to accept that claim. That is, a “don’t know” is sufficient for atheism.

Atheism does not though need to claim or justify non-contingency as necessary for its justification.

No matter how many times you try the same misguided, dim-witted, uncomprehending “so how would you justify the universe being non-contingent to justify your atheism then?” question it remains utterly irrelevant.

You on the other hand assert there to be something you call “god”, which is a positive claim of knowledge. A “don’t know” in response to the arguments you think justify the claim is not therefore sufficient: you actually need to make rational, coherent, defensible argument to justify it – something is which you appear to have no interest whatsoever.

Now, has this finally sunk in?       

Has it?         

[jeremyp]

For the Goddess's sake don't hold your breath waiting for the requested argument.

Owlswing

)O(

You do understand that everybody already knows that, don't you? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn’t. Despite the what – thousands maybe? – of times you’ve been corrected on this you still return to exactly the same mistake over and over again. I sometimes wonder whether you do understand the difference between the sufficient and the necessary conditions for atheism but choose to pretend otherwise for your own amusement, or instead you just find the concept is simply too difficult to process so you’re stuck with incomprehension.

Once again…

…all’s that’s sufficient for atheism is a “don’t know”. Absent a sound reason to accept there must be a contingent universe (or anything else attempted to justify the claim “god”), there’s no need to accept that claim. That is, a “don’t know” is sufficient for atheism.

Atheism does not though need to claim or justify non-contingency as necessary for its justification.

No matter how many times you try the same misguided, dim-witted, uncomprehending “so how would you justify the universe being non-contingent to justify your atheism then?” question it remains utterly irrelevant.

You on the other hand assert there to be something you call “god”, which is a positive claim of knowledge. A “don’t know” in response to the arguments you think justify the claim is not therefore sufficient: you actually need to make rational, coherent, defensible argument to justify it – something is which you appear to have no interest whatsoever.

Now, has this finally sunk in?       

Has it?       

Again, with feeling, The universe is either contingent or necessary. Arguments that the universe could be necessary are weaker.

Therefore the first argument that there are no good reasons for theism is a poor argument.

Secondly you are confusing agnosticism with atheism. You cannot know you are living as if there is no God more like consciously living and acting against what you see as religious conventions.

I'll leave that to sink in.

[Stranger]

Again, with feeling, The universe is either contingent or necessary.

Meaningless assertion. Where is the reasoning? How can anything be 'necessary' (couldn't fail to exist)?

Where is your argument?

Therefore the first argument that there are no good reasons for theism is a poor argument.

Your total inability to come up with one adds to the (already impressive) evidence that there aren't any.

Secondly you are confusing agnosticism with atheism.

One can easily be both - as I'm sure has been explained to you many times before.

[Stranger]

For those interested in an intelligent approach to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, I found this by Sean M. Carroll: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (pdf). He talks about the arguments concerning necessity and contingency and why they really aren't convincing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again, with feeling, The universe is either contingent or necessary….

Or is some other model we haven’t envisaged yet, but ok…

Arguments that the universe could be necessary are weaker.

“Weaker” according to whom? You? Why do you think that? Why not finally try at least to try to make an argument to justify that so far entirely unqualified assertion?

Therefore…

The moon is made of cream cheese, therefore…

See? If you can’t justify your premise, you cannot develop from it a “therefore”: "rubbish in, rubbish out".

…the first argument that there are no good reasons for theism is a poor argument.

If you think there is such an argument why not finally tell us what is rather than make mindless assertions as your place marker for it in the hope that no-one notices?

Secondly…

As so often before, you can’t have a “secondly” when your firstly has collapsed again but ok…

…you are confusing agnosticism with atheism.

No, you are (ironically). Atheism and agnosticism are in different epistemic categories, and it’s quite possible to be an agnostic atheist – indeed many of us who actually think about it are.

You cannot know you are living as if there is no God more like consciously living and acting against what you see as religious conventions.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. Is there a cogent thought there somewhere that you’re at least trying to express?

I'll leave that to sink in.

Until you finally manage an argument worthy of the name, there’s nothing to sink in.

Oh, and as (predictably) you just ignored them, here again are the three question I asked you a couple of posts ago:

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?

What's stopping you?
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTTS,

For those interested in an intelligent approach to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, I found this by Sean M. Carroll: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (pdf). He talks about the arguments concerning necessity and contingency and why they really aren't convincing.

Thanks for this - it's a well-argued and persuasive paper I think. Be nice if Vlad actually tried to address it rather than ignore it or go straight for the ad hom, but I don't hold out much hope of that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For those interested in an intelligent approach to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, I found this by Sean M. Carroll: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (pdf). He talks about the arguments concerning necessity and contingency and why they really aren't convincing.

Any peer reviews of this paper? Starting with Hume and Russell on the subject isn't promising. Neither is the dismissal of reason for something like reality. If we can dismiss reason then anything goes.

[Stranger]

Any peer reviews of this paper?

No, it's a draft of a chapter for a forthcoming book The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Physics.

Starting with Hume and Russell on the subject isn't promising.

Because you don't like what they have to say?

Neither is the dismissal of reason for something like reality. If we can dismiss reason then anything goes.

Were you deliberately using two meanings of the word 'reason' here? There may not be a reason (sense 1) for reality. That isn't dismissing reason (sense 2).

I also note the continued total lack of any actual reasoning on the subject from yourself or any answers to the points raised in the chapter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Any peer reviews of this paper?

Why not review it yourself? If you think he's wrong, explain why.

Starting with Hume and Russell on the subject isn't promising.

Ah, so you think you have more profound philosophical insights than Hume and Russell then. Well, theoretically that could be the case I suppose (though if it is it's disappointing that you've never published your critique of either). As you've never shown any indication here that you have the first understanding of any philosophical precepts or principles at all though, perhaps you could take this opportunity finally to attempt at least an argument to justify your hitherto entirely unqualified assertions?     

Neither is the dismissal of reason for something like reality. If we can dismiss reason then anything goes.

Which he didn't do of course. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why not review it yourself? If you think he's wrong, explain why.
 

I'm picking over it carefully, Carroll has form on betraying an atheists vested interest and has been picked up on it before by his referral to the fine tuning problem.

Just on face one wonders why he needs to right a hybrid philosophical scientific hybrid paper where he looks like he is trying to clutch at tenuous avenue rather than accept the reasonableness of other arguments like contingency and necessity.

Carroll also contrasts the purposes of philosophy and science, fine, but he is implying greater virtue and value(with no explanation) to science rather than just saying they do different things.
 

[Stranger]

...rather than accept the reasonableness of other arguments like contingency and necessity.

Where is the 'reasonable' version of this argument? We have the absurd version from Aquinas and we have endless vague hand-waving and assertions about it from yourself. What we don't have is anything remotely like a coherent and logical argument (or reference to same).

Neither do we have answer to the points from the chapter, for example: "The skeptics seem to be on firm ground; as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed."

This is basically why I keep on asking you how anything can be necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm picking over it carefully,…

Good to know. I await your detailed, considered and non-fallacy-ridden reply. 

Carroll has form on betraying an atheists vested interest and has been picked up on it before by his referral to the fine tuning problem.

Not true, fallacy of poisoning the well and an ad hom to boot. You're reverting to type here already.

Just on face one wonders why he needs to right a hybrid philosophical scientific hybrid paper where he looks like he is trying to clutch at tenuous avenue rather than accept the reasonableness of other arguments like contingency and necessity.

A supposed “reasonableness” you’ve been entirely unable to justify with an argument, and which he rather adroitly demolishes piecemeal in any case in my view.   

Carroll also contrasts the purposes of philosophy and science, fine, but he is implying greater virtue and value(with no explanation) to science rather than just saying they do different things.

An implication you’ve failed to demonstrate. Where does he do that in your opinion?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"The skeptics seem to be on firm ground; as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed."

But then he demonstrates ''no difficulty'' in failing to conceive of a world with no entities i.e. nothing. It seems he can only handle a few beings at a time. What do these worlds he does conceive consist of.........Contingent beings. Beings which are caused by something. It seems he wants contingency without necessity.

I get the impression that Carroll's argument is theatrical. He has props or ideas that are just moved around to make an impression.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

"The skeptics seem to be on firm ground; as Hume emphasized, there is no being whose non-existence would entail a logical contradiction, and we have no difficulty in conceiving of worlds in which no such being existed."

But then he demonstrates ''no difficulty'' in failing to conceive of a world with no entities i.e. nothing. It seems he can only handle a few beings at a time. What do these worlds he does conceive consist of.........Contingent beings. Beings which are caused by something. It seems he wants contingency without necessity.

That’s not what he says at all.

I get the impression that Carroll's argument is theatrical. He has props or ideas that are just moved around to make an impression.

Your unqualified feelings are neither here nor there. If you think his arguments are wrong then tell us why – and do it without egregiously misrepresenting them, collapsing into straw men or resorting to poisoning the well with ad homs. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s not what he says at all.

Your unqualified feelings are neither here nor there. If you think his arguments are wrong then tell us why – and do it without egregiously misrepresenting them, collapsing into straw men or resorting to poisoning the well with ad homs.

As you know I am looking at Carroll's paper but it may be faulty on his understanding of the necessary being. In that he states we must not treat reality as a normal thing. I notice he flip flops between the word universe and reality. But then it looks as though a) we must treat the necessary being as just another thing.
 This goes back to his opening where he says we make god the necessary being rather than the necessary being being called God. b) He doesn't seem to recognise that he is effectively arguing the universe as the necessary being. It looks then as if he is using the word being in the sense of a sentient conscious intelligent being.

I think though it might be better if I didn't comment on this paper until I have reviewed each section.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As you know I am looking at Carroll's paper but it may be faulty on his understanding of the necessary being. In that he states we must not treat reality as a normal thing. I notice he flip flops between the word universe and reality. But then it looks as though a) we must treat the necessary being as just another thing.
 This goes back to his opening where he says we make god the necessary being rather than the necessary being being called God. b) He doesn't seem to recognise that he is effectively arguing the universe as the necessary being. It looks then as if he is using the word being in the sense of a sentient conscious intelligent being.

I think though it might be better if I didn't comment on this paper until I have reviewed each section.

I think it might be better still if you trouble actually to cite the parts you comment on. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I think it might be better still if you trouble actually to cite the parts you comment on.

Ah yes, for those who have yet to read it, eh Hillside