The nomological argument for god

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Carroll highlighted in blue

Science and philosophy are concerned with asking how things are, and why they are the way they are. It therefore seems natural to take the next step and ask why things are at all – why the universe exists, or why there is something rather than nothing [1, 2].

It seems Carroll has asked the ‘’why?’’ question Hillside. Without criticism of it.

It was Leibniz, in the eighteenth century, who first explicitly asked “Why is there something rather than nothing?” in the context of discussing his Principle of Sufficient Reason (“nothing is without a ground or reason why it is”) [5]. By way of an answer, Leibniz appealed to what has become a popular strategy: God is the reason the universe exists, but God’s existence is its own reason,

The critical word here is God has a reason rather than just ''is'' the reason[/quote] since God exists necessarily.

Subsequent thinkers

Fallacy of modernity

were less impressed by this move. Hume [7] explicitly dismissed the idea of a necessary being, and both he [8] and Kant [9] doubted that the intellectual tools we have developed to understand the world of experience could sensibly be extended to an explanation for existence itself

Irrelevant. In fact later Carroll suggests that science gives us an insight into that explanation!

In their inimitable styles

Irrelevant and sycophantic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Did you have anything to say that relates in any way to the comments I made to you?

[Stranger]

The critical word here is God has a reason rather than just ''is'' the reason since God exists necessarily.

"God exists necessarily" is just an inane assertion, without further explanation are to how such anything can exist necessarily.

Fallacy of modernity

Ignorant drivel. Just referring to something more recent is not a fallacy in itself. Why can't you ever be bothered to learn anything about fallacies?

Are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"God exists necessarily" is just an inane assertion, without further explanation are to how such anything can exist necessarily.

Ignorant drivel. Just referring to something more recent is not a fallacy in itself. Why can't you ever be bothered to learn anything about fallacies?

Are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.

We reason that something exists necessarily and to declare that everything is contingent is nonsense. It's God or the universe. But declared philosophical naturalist Carroll is confronted with the problem that nothing in the universe seems necessary and to bypass this appeals to the universe being a necessary entity with no explanation or sufficient reason and imho this is handwaving waffle.

Although this is preferable to your hysterical rhetoric.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We reason that something exists necessarily and to declare that everything is contingent is nonsense.

Who reasons that, and on what basis?

It's God or the universe.

Er, no. It’s “the universe” or any possible agent other than the universe.

But declared philosophical naturalist Carroll is confronted with the problem that nothing in the universe seems necessary and to bypass this appeals to the universe being a necessary entity with no explanation or sufficient reason and imho this is handwaving waffle.

More gibberish. You cannot just assume that properties of the universe must also apply to the universe itself, and in any event when you invent a “necessary being” to do the universe creating you have all you work ahead of you to explain why it wasn’t caused by something else. Until you do that, that’s the only “handwaving waffle” on show here.     

Although this is preferable to your hysterical rhetoric.

None of which supposed “hysterical rhetoric” you seem to be able to cite though.

Funny that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Who reasons that, and on what basis?

Er, no. It’s “the universe” or any possible agent other than the universe.

More gibberish. You cannot just assume that properties of the universe must also apply to the universe itself, and in any event when you invent a “necessary being” to do the universe creating you have all you work ahead of you to explain why it wasn’t caused by something else. Until you do that, that’s the only “handwaving waffle” on show here.     

None of which supposed “hysterical rhetoric” you seem to be able to cite though.

Funny that.

The universe just is is a statement that undermines scientific endeavour. Indeed Carroll seems a bit double minded declaring that the universe as necessity without explanation is the better idea(when it's an obvious philosophical naturalistic wishful thought) while stating in the same paper that science is contributing to the future answer to why something rather than nothing.

In terms of never talks hysterical rhetoric most of his posts comprise of him experiencing some over the top outrage and declaring offence at something or other....often on your behalf.

The reserve position of Carroll, that we don't have the intellectual wherewithal for the question is irrelevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The universe just is is a statement that undermines scientific endeavour.

Wrong again. It’s a conjecture regarding what's beyond science’s current reach, and it has the advantage of fewer assumptions than inventing something else that just is as its cause.

Indeed Carroll seems a bit double minded declaring that the universe as necessity without explanation is the better idea…

Occam’s razor

…(when it's an obvious philosophical naturalistic wishful thought)…

It’s just the conjecture that requires the fewest assumptions. You really should be able to understand this simple point by now.

…while stating in the same paper that science is contributing to the future answer to why something rather than nothing.

What’s wrong with that? Science is contributing to future answers about all sorts of things, and there’s no reason to think that the origin of the universe should be exempt from its remit.

In terms of never talks hysterical rhetoric most of his posts comprise of him experiencing some over the top outrage and declaring offence at something or other....often on your behalf.

No, at worst he’s expressing his frustration at your inability ever to frame a cogent argument of your own about anything, your constant misunderstanding and misuse of the various terms you attempt, and your point blank refusal ever, ever, ever to address that arguments that are put to you.

Can you blame him?

The reserve position of Carroll, that we don't have the intellectual wherewithal for the question is irrelevant.

No, it’s entirely relevant. Why do you think otherwise?

[Stranger]

We reason that something exists necessarily and to declare that everything is contingent is nonsense. It's God or the universe.

More meaningless foot-stamping. We (as Carroll points out) don't even know if we can frame the same sort of questions about reality itself as we can about things within it.

It's God or the universe.

Drivel. 'God' is meaningless waffle without further qualification and this, even if we accept that something must be necessary, is (regardless of which definition you choose today) a false dichotomy. It would be the universe or something else.

But declared philosophical naturalist Carroll is confronted with the problem that nothing in the universe seems necessary...

Do I really need to explain yet again how the universe (the space-time manifold) might 'just be'?

...and to bypass this appeals to the universe being a necessary entity with no explanation or sufficient reason and imho this is handwaving waffle.

It make far, far more sense than just making up something you desperately want to believe in and then declaring it necessary with with no explanation or sufficient reason.

Although this is preferable to your hysterical rhetoric.

Comical.

And yet again (as you ignored it): are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More meaningless foot-stamping. We (as Carroll points out) don't even know if we can frame the same sort of questions about reality itself as we can about things within it.

Drivel. 'God' is meaningless waffle without further qualification and this, even if we accept that something must be necessary, is (regardless of which definition you choose today) a false dichotomy. It would be the universe or something else.

Do I really need to explain yet again how the universe (the space-time manifold) might 'just be'?

It make far, far more sense than just making up something you desperately want to believe in and then declaring it necessary with with no explanation or sufficient reason.

Comical.

And yet again (as you ignored it): are you ever going to even try to put forward some sort of compete and coherent argument for a well defined version of 'god'? Until you do, there is no case to answer. You're many and varied versions of 'god' are just empty, hand-waving waffle.

Of course it isn't meaningless. The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''

Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it isn't meaningless.

Assertion.

The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''

Two assertions, one using the argument from authority

Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.

Assertion

[Stranger]

Of course it isn't meaningless. The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason...

What argument (Aquinas' original is plainly silly - see #183) and what is the 'sufficient reason'?

...and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''

Which in itself is daft in the extreme. Where is your definition of 'god' and the full argument?

Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.

Why? How do you know there are only two options when it comes to reality itself? How do you know the question is even applicable?

Again:-

Where is your argument?

Until you come up with a proper definition of 'god' and a complete, coherent argument, the statement "we don't know" is perfectly good enough and quite sufficient to dismiss your inane hand-waving assertions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course it isn't meaningless.

Then where is your argument to show it to be meaningful?

The argument from contingency ends with the necessary entity with sufficient reason and as Aquinas puts it ''And that is the thing we call God''

Why does it end with that when we cannot know what conditions apply to the universe itself rather than just within it, and why “God” rather than any other of the unlimited possibilities? Oh, and while you’re at it how does this “god” get to be causeless in any case without introducing more assumptions than a causeless universe would require?   

Meaningless is ''Everything is contingent'' which is just plainly absurd.

Why is it absurd? Could this be the first time in your entire history here you can be tempted to essay an actual argument rather than just an unqualified assertion? How exciting!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then where is your argument to show it to be meaningful?

That would be the argument from contingency

Why does it end with that when we cannot know what conditions apply to the universe itself rather than just within it, and why “God” rather than any other of the unlimited possibilities? Oh, and while you’re at it how does this “god” get to be causeless in any case without introducing more assumptions than a causeless universe would require?   

It doesn't matter if the universe has been around as long as that which maintains it and is the reason for it or not. The argument from contingency covers both eventualities. In terms of other possibilities, give us but one half dozen of them and we will see if we cannot further categorise them. Causelessness is part of the argument from contingency. If you think it is the universe which has no cause, how do you arrive at that and given that all of it seems contingent? Where is your justification to say that the whole lot together is uncreated? As I say to Jeremy P, I would accept that there may be something about the universe that is necessary but nothing which manifests itself as such and blow me if it isn't therefore hidden in the way God is (i.e. from science).

Why is it absurd? Could this be the first time in your entire history here you can be tempted to essay an actual argument rather than just an unqualified assertion? How exciting!

It is absurd because the statement 'everything is contingent' automatically elicits the question 'on what is everything contingent on?'

[Stranger]

If you think it is the universe which has no cause, how do you arrive at that and given that all of it seems contingent?

Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.

That would be the argument from contingency

What argument from contingency?
Where is it?

You haven't defined what you mean by 'god' and you haven't posted or linked to specific argument. Until you do so, there is no case to answer. I don't know whether anything can be or is necessary. If there is, I don't know if it's the universe or something else. I see no reason at all to accept your simplistic and inane storytelling about some undefined thingy called 'god'.

Without you posting a coherent argument, that's all that needs to be said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet again: the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one.

You can not give evidence for any of that.
Secondly you are proposing the universe as a whole is ''necessary'' i.e. without cause. Now here's the thing what is the reason that it needs no cause (i.e. The sufficient reason )

What argument from contingency?
Where is it?

The extrapolation of finding something and asking the reason for it until we reach the point of asking the reason for everything.

I have focussed on the characteristics of the necessary entity which happen to coincide with theological descriptions of God.

[Stranger]

I have focussed on the characteristics of the necessary entity which happen to coincide with theological descriptions of God.

You've made a lot of vague and unsupported assertions. What you haven't done is produce (or reference) anything remotely like an actual argument - let alone one that leads to something that coincides with any theological description of any god. You haven't even clearly defined what you think counts as the characteristics of a god - you keep changing your mind about it.

Where is your argument?

[Stranger]

Sorry, you've made such a mess of your quite boxes it's difficult to even see what you've written...

You can not give evidence for any of that.

Is this a joke? You have given bugger all evidence of anything you've proposed. Yet again: the evidence for my suggestion is the evidence for general relativity and the way it is mathematically formulated. That is, space-time is a manifold and that time is a direction through it. Causality can only apply internally, not to the manifold as a whole.

Secondly you are proposing the universe as a whole is ''necessary'' i.e. without cause. Now here's the thing what is the reason that it needs no cause (i.e. The sufficient reason )

Same question for your made up god-thingy. At least we know the universe actually exists.

The extrapolation of finding something and asking the reason for it until we reach the point of asking the reason for everything.

Then we admit we don't know - and don't even know if it's a valid question. No argument for any made up beings.

[jeremyp]

Let's summarise the situation.

Vlad has proposed that

1 the Universe required a creator

2 this creator did not itself require creating

3 this creator is identical with the Christian god.

The evidence he has provided so far seems to me to be: "things in the Universe are "contingent" i.e. did not create themselves". This evidence I admit to finding to be a bit of a stretch even to justify point 1.

If anybody thinks we have progressed beyond that, I'll gladly stand corrected.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's summarise the situation.

Vlad has proposed that

1 the Universe required a creator

2 this creator did not itself require creating

3 this creator is identical with the Christian god.

The evidence he has provided so far seems to me to be: "things in the Universe are "contingent" i.e. did not create themselves". This evidence I admit to finding to be a bit of a stretch even to justify point 1.

If anybody thinks we have progressed beyond that, I'll gladly stand corrected.

A better summary would be that either the universe itself is the necessary entity or it is contingent on something else.

If either God or the universe is the necessary entity they either have sufficient reason in themselves or they just are.

Necessity for everything is not observed in the universe. Sufficient reason for the necessity of the universe is not given.

Sufficient reason is not the same as cause.

[Stranger]

...either the universe itself is the necessary entity or it is contingent on something else.

Assertion. No reasoning has been provided. How is it possible for anything to be 'necessary' in this sense?

If either God or the universe is the necessary entity they either have sufficient reason in themselves or they just are.

No definition of 'god' has been given and no reasoning has been provided as to why it would be an alternative, let alone the only one.

Necessity for everything is not observed in the universe.

Gibberish. Reasoning that the universe might 'just be' has been provided multiple times and you've just ignored it.

Sufficient reason for the necessity of the universe is not given.

Sufficient reason is not the same as cause.

Sufficient reason as to why anything might just exit has not been given. Not the universe and not your baseless little god-fantasy.

Yet again:

Where is your actual argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gibberish. Reasoning that the universe might 'just be' has been provided multiple times and you've just ignored it.

Where is your actual argument?

If anybody says the universe 'just is', how can they be providing a reason for it? Don't be silly.
How can the universe just be without a reason and there be a reason for it!?! Total Bullshit....Again.

[jeremyp]

If anybody says the universe 'just is', how can they be providing a reason for it? Don't be silly.
How can the universe just be without a reason and there be a reason for it!?! Total Bullshit....Again.

how can god just be without a reason?

[Stranger]

If anybody says the universe 'just is', how can they be providing a reason for it? Don't be silly.
How can the universe just be without a reason and there be a reason for it!?! Total Bullshit....Again.

Both bullshit and hypocrisy.

Nobody said anything about a reason and not a reason - you've just made that up. Also, as Jeremy said, and I said previously, exactly the same questions apply to your made up god-thingy as you can ask about a universe that 'just is'. You have never even attempted an explanation of how something can be its own reason and be 'necessary' in this sense.

And, yet again, all we have to say is "we don't know" because you have provided not the first hint of the merest suggestion of the smallest scintilla of a coherent argument for any god - or even defined what you mean by the term in this context (you've been know to change your definition during the course of a single post).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Both bullshit and hypocrisy.

Nobody said anything about a reason and not a reason - you've just made that up. Also, as Jeremy said, and I said previously, exactly the same questions apply to your made up god-thingy as you can ask about a universe that 'just is'. You have never even attempted an explanation of how something can be its own reason and be 'necessary' in this sense.

And, yet again, all we have to say is "we don't know" because you have provided not the first hint of the merest suggestion of the smallest scintilla of a coherent argument for any god - or even defined what you mean by the term in this context (you've been know to change your definition during the course of a single post).

And again you are giving a double response. The universe just is without sufficient reason and we dont know what the sufficient reason is.
I made it clear that cause is not the sufficient reason.

In the argument from contingency we arrive at a necessary being which, by dint of the universe being apparently all contingent is a cause and a separate necessary entity which we call God.
And that constitutes the sufficient reason. The universe just is...does not offer any sufficient reason. In fact it emphatically refuses one.

[Stranger]

And again you are giving a double response. The universe just is without sufficient reason and we dont know what the sufficient reason is.

No, Vlad, I'm pointing out two glaring faults in what you're saying.

The first is a technicality: your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false about the space-time itself. The second is more general: that you have provided no argument to answer, so "we don't know" is a perfectly good enough response.