The nomological argument for god

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Then God has sufficient reason but the universe lacks one. In what way is space time the necessary entity?

[Stranger]

Then God has sufficient reason but the universe lacks one.

Meaningless gibberish. You haven't defined 'god', you haven't given an argument that even suggests we should consider it, and you haven't given a "sufficient reason".

In what way is space time the necessary entity?

I didn't say it was necessary (and you still haven't said how anything can possibly be necessary). I said that it didn't appear to be contingent (there is no possibility that it was caused in any usual sense of the word).

Jeez, Vlad, will you just stop pretending that you've established things that you haven't even attempted. You haven't defined 'god', you haven't given an argument for it, you haven't established a reason why it might, or even could be, necessary. You've established exactly bugger all about it.

[Stranger]

This was added after my reply...

In the argument from contingency we arrive at a necessary being which...

What argument from contingency? You still haven't given one or referenced one. What are the premises? What are the logical steps? What, exactly, is the conclusion?

...by dint of the universe being apparently all contingent...

Plain false for the reasons already given.

...is a cause and a separate necessary entity which we call God.

Baseless storytelling. Where is the reasoning? Even if you'd made an argument for something necessary and separate (which you haven't) just calling anything you might find 'god' is stupid, illogical, and dishonest.

And that constitutes the sufficient reason.

What does? You've just made some shit up. There isn't the first hint of a 'sufficient reason' in any of what you've said.

The universe just is...does not offer any sufficient reason. In fact it emphatically refuses one.

Why? In what way does a universe that just is not offer a reason but something you've just made up a story about, that (if it existed) just is, somehow does?

Do you have the first inkling of an idea of the difference between an actual argument and baseless storytelling and assertion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As with many other terms you attempt but don’t understand, your problem here seems to be that you’re not aware of the rhetorical use of the term “argument”. In rhetoric, an argument requires that you set out your premises, apply to them cogent reasoning, and thereby produce justifiable conclusions.

To the best of my recollection this isn’t something you’ve ever done on any subject (unqualified assertions, straw men, various logical fallacies etc is all you have) and it’s certainly not something you seem able or willing to do with respect to your assertions here about contingency and necessity. So, why don’t I set out the best version of what your unspoken argument seems to be so you can see for yourself where it goes wrong.

Your premises are:

1. The universe I observe is determinative in character.

2. Everything in the universe is determinative in character.

3. The universe was caused by something other than itself.

Your reasoning is:

1. To avoid infinite regress, that something else must itself be non-determinative in character.

2. The only entity I can envisage that’s conceptually capable of being non-determinative in character and is in the universe creating business is “God”.

Your conclusion is:

1. Therefore God. 

Is that a fair summary? If it is, can you see anything wrong with it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Your premises are:

1. The universe I observe is determinative in character.

I use the word contingent, why have you changed this to determinative. Looks like you've introduced an obvious and blatant misrepresentor

2. Everything in the universe is determinative in character.[/quote] see above

3. The universe was caused by something other than itself.[/quote] No, as I have said what I want from proponents of the universe being the uncreated necessity, that about it which makes it necessary. The sufficient reason.

Your reasoning is:

1. To avoid infinite regress, that something else must itself be non-determinative in character.

And what is wrong with avoiding infinite regress since no real infinities are observed. Even one of the infinite 'points' in a finite distance is a mathematical hypothesis. Also it is unlikely that an infinite regression in time could produce anything. Also, heat death of the universe would have happened an infinitely long time ago and finally the infinite regression would be happening in an infinite medium and mechanism for things to happen in contravention to thermodynamic laws in other words for things to be perpetually changed, and we might call that thing God.

2. The only entity I can envisage that’s conceptually capable of being non-determinative in character and is in the universe creating business is “God”.

No, we are calling this entity ''God''...rather than ''the universe.''

Your conclusion is:

1. Therefore God. 

Is that a fair summary?

No I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And what is wrong with avoiding infinite regress since no real infinities are observed. Even one of the infinite 'points' in a finite distance is a mathematical hypothesis. Also it is unlikely that an infinite regression in time could produce anything. Also, heat death of the universe would have happened an infinitely long time ago and finally the infinite regression would be happening in an infinite medium and mechanism for things to happen in contravention to thermodynamic laws in other words for things to be perpetually changed,

Except for the reasons NTtS keeps explaining to you and you keep ignoring, none of this has any relevance to arguments about the universe itself. Just referencing characteristics of the way the universe appears to function as if by some entirely un-argued, unqualified and unexplained way that means the same determinative property must also apply to the universe itself is no argument at all.     

…and we might call that thing God.

We might also call that thing (for which you’ve so far shown no necessity at all) anything at all. We might also call it something with most of the properties you think to be required for “God” (whatever they may be) stripped out. This is just a repetition of your “hoof marks in the sand, therefore unicorns” mistake.   

No, we are calling this entity ''God''...rather than ''the universe.''

“You”, not “we” – and you can call it whatever you like as a vague, un-defined concept. What you can’t do though is to Trojan Horse that into all the other stuff you think “God” entails when none of it is required for the speculation.

No I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

You seem to have forgotten that it’s yourdrawing board. I was just helping you out given your absolute refusal or inability to tell us what it contains, no matter how many times you’re asked. If you think my summary is wrong though, then – finally – tell us why. 

What’s stopping you?

[Stranger]

No I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

No, Vlad, it's you who need to go to the drawing board (not back to it, because you've never put forward anything coherant in the first place).

This is just more hand-waving waffle.

We don't know if the universe requires something else or not.
We don't know if a real infinite past (or anything else) is possible or not (and it's irrelevant to the space-time view anyway).
We can't rule things out based on (what we know is) an incomplete notion of physics - especially when the known unknowns are directly relevant.*

YET AGAIN: You have produced no argument for god and neither have you defined it (except in the dishonest and frankly stupid sense of "whatever it is I think I've argued for").

Where is your argument?

* Additional note: an aside on the car-crash of illogical, scientifically illiterate nonsense about thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics are statistical and so not only could be reversed in an infinite amount of time but would inevitably be reversed, to an unlimited degree, an infinite number of times, even without unknown physics.

[jeremyp]

Then God has sufficient reason but the universe lacks one. In what way is space time the necessary entity?

In what way is God the necessary entity?

[jeremyp]

Meaningless gibberish. You haven't defined 'god', you haven't given an argument that even suggests we should consider it, and you haven't given a "sufficient reason".

Vlad wants it to be true that God exists. What more sufficient reason does anybody need?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way is God the necessary entity?

We call the necessary entity God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad wants it to be true that God exists. What more sufficient reason does anybody need?

I find I cannot say that God's existence is false experience I have found trumps vague intellectual assent.

[Stranger]

We call the necessary entity God.

No, you call "the necessary entity" "god" because that's what you desperately want to believe. In reality, of course, "the necessary entity" is nothing but a vague and undefined conjecture that you haven't produced a coherent argument for (and might even be the universe) but keep asserting that it exists, and that, in any case, you have not connected in any way to any of the popular god-concepts.

So you're trying to arbitrarily label something, that you haven't defined and haven't properly argued for, as the 'god' you want to believe in. That's intellectually dishonest, totally illogical, and frankly stupid if you want to be taken at all seriously.

Unless you fix what you mean by 'god', and stop trying to slap the label on anything you think you can get away with, arguing with you about its existence is pointless.

I find I cannot say that God's existence is false experience I have found trumps vague intellectual assent.

At least most people's 'experience' of 'god(s)' is wrong because they disagree with each other. In any event, either you have an argument to support your interpretation of your experience or you don't. It's rather pointless (and counterproductive if you want to convince anybody) to start out saying that there's this great argument and then collapsing into "but it's what I've experienced" when you find you can't actually produce said argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you call "the necessary entity" "god" because that's what you desperately want to believe. In reality, of course, "the necessary entity" is nothing but a vague and undefined conjecture that you haven't produced a coherent argument for (and might even be the universe) but keep asserting that it exists, and that, in any case, you have not connected in any way to any of the popular god-concepts.

So you're trying to arbitrarily label something, that you haven't defined and haven't properly argued for, as the 'god' you want to believe in. That's intellectually dishonest, totally illogical, and frankly stupid if you want to be taken at all seriously.

Unless you fix what you mean by 'god', and stop trying to slap the label on anything you think you can get away with, arguing with you about its existence is pointless.

At least most people's 'experience' of 'god(s)' is wrong because they disagree with each other. In any event, either you have an argument to support your interpretation of your experience or you don't. It's rather pointless (and counterproductive if you want to convince anybody) to start out saying that there's this great argument and then collapsing into "but it's what I've experienced" when you find you can't actually produce said argument.

I call it God because it's attributes match that of the Abrahamic God more than anything else on offer. You don't want to call it God because of deep emotional reasons IMO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you call "the necessary entity" "god" because that's what you desperately want to believe. In reality, of course, "the necessary entity" is nothing but a vague and undefined conjecture that you haven't produced a coherent argument for (and might even be the universe) but keep asserting that it exists, and that, in any case, you have not connected in any way to any of the popular god-concepts.

So you're trying to arbitrarily label something, that you haven't defined and haven't properly argued for, as the 'god' you want to believe in. That's intellectually dishonest, totally illogical, and frankly stupid if you want to be taken at all seriously.

Unless you fix what you mean by 'god', and stop trying to slap the label on anything you think you can get away with, arguing with you about its existence is pointless.

At least most people's 'experience' of 'god(s)' is wrong because they disagree with each other. In any event, either you have an argument to support your interpretation of your experience or you don't. It's rather pointless (and counterproductive if you want to convince anybody) to start out saying that there's this great argument and then collapsing into "but it's what I've experienced" when you find you can't actually produce said argument.

You cannot have religion in the sense that you oppose without a huge group of people agreeing that  there is such a thing as the divine as opposed to there not being.

[Stranger]

I call it God because it's attributes match that of the Abrahamic God more than anything else on offer.

Unmitigated drivel. You haven't deduced a single, solitary attribute of this supposed 'necessary entity' - not even its existence.

You don't want to call it God because of deep emotional reasons IMO.

Irony overload.

You cannot have religion in the sense that you oppose without a huge group of people agreeing that  there is such a thing as the divine as opposed to there not being.

Yes - and whichever version of god(s) you believe in, most people think you are wrong - which speaks volumes about the veracity of religious experience - or at least of the interpretations people have of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I find I cannot say that God's existence is false experience I have found trumps vague intellectual assent.

So your emotional response to an experience also gives you an explanation for it that you cannot justify with argument. Well, that’s fine just for you but it would have been more honest if all along you’d just said, “but I cannot justify my belief such that anyone else should take it seriously”.   

I call it God because it's attributes match that of the Abrahamic God more than anything else on offer.

That’s simply not true. The “Abrahamic God” entails and requires all manner of characteristics, behaviours, attributes etc that the cosmological argument (wrong as it is) does not require at all. You may as well claim that the attributes of the unicorn model explain hoof marks better than anything else on offer.     

You don't want to call it God because of deep emotional reasons IMO.

Leaving aside the deep irony of that claim, he doesn’t want to call it “god” because there’s no good reason to do so.

You cannot have religion in the sense that you oppose without a huge group of people agreeing that  there is such a thing as the divine as opposed to there not being.

I just had a new coffee machine delivered this morning that came with an instruction manual in multiple languages, but also with a separate one for some reason in Finnish. That Finnish manual made more sense than this – and I don’t speak a word of Finnish.

Do you even bother to read your posts for comprehension before you hit “post”? Why not? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So your emotional response to an experience also gives you an explanation for it that you cannot justify with argument. Well, that’s fine just for you but it would have been more honest if all along you’d just said, “but I cannot justify my belief such that anyone else should take it seriously”. 

The argument from contingency has been given here many times dso you know exactly where I am coming from you. In an unsatisfactory rebuttal you offer Carroll, Russell and Hume and the universe just is. 

That’s simply not true. The “Abrahamic God” entails and requires all manner of characteristics, behaviours, attributes etc that the cosmological argument (wrong as it is) does not require at all. You may as well claim that the attributes of the unicorn model explain hoof marks better than anything else on offer.

That is incorrect. Although as I have learnt your desire for God to have no good reason supporting it or to be totally different to the creator of SU renders you invincibly ignorant of the relative importance of divine attributes.   

Leaving aside the deep irony of that claim, he doesn’t want to call it “god” because there’s no good reason to do so.

But so vehement is his dislike of God it even prevents him from entertainment something about the universe which is both necessary and with sufficient reason. By definition there is no good reason to accept what you, he and Carroll propose, that the universe ''Just is.'' 

I just had a new coffee machine delivered this morning that came with an instruction manual in multiple languages,

And I bought a tube of preparation H.

[Roses]

A typical Vlad e-mail, all opinion no evidence, much of which is produced by his rear end, no wonder he is in need of preparation H. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A typical Vlad e-mail, all opinion no evidence, much of which is produced by his rear end, no wonder he is in need of preparation H. 

I bought it today because I knew a pain in the arse was coming.....I wasn't wrong.

[Roses]

I bought it today because I knew a pain in the arse was coming.....I wasn't wrong.

I think that title is yours, my dear!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The argument from contingency has been given here many times dso you know exactly where I am coming from you.

First, you haven’t set out what your version of it is – so I set that out for you based on best guesses given your endless elusiveness about that, and your response was “back to the drawing board”, presumably to sidestep the problem that it should be your drawing board.

Second, this has bugger all to do with the point you were trying to respond to in any case - namely that your emotional feeling about something provides no reason at all for others to take your consequent beliefs seriously. If you actually want to essay “my Vlad’s feelings about things are a better guide to objective truths than reason and evidence” (which is all you have by the way) then you’re on even thinner ice that you realise.     

In an unsatisfactory rebuttal you offer Carroll, Russell and Hume and the universe just is.

Which as you well know isn’t the argument at all. First, the cosmological argument fails because of the inherent flaws, contradictions and leaps of faith it requires that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring. Second, the actual position on the origin of the universe is “don’t know”, but alongside it is, “but we cannot rule out the universe being its own explanation”.   

That is incorrect. Although as I have learnt your desire for God to have no good reason supporting it or to be totally different to the creator of SU renders you invincibly ignorant of the relative importance of divine attributes.

Have you deliberately misrepresented the argument that undoes you here, or can you genuinely not grasp it? Yet again, universe creation may be necessary for the “Abrahamic God”, but it’s not sufficient for it for exactly the same reason that hoof marks are necessary for unicorns but are not sufficient for them. Until you finally sort out your necessaries from your sufficients you will continue to make a fool of yourself about this.   
   

But so vehement is his dislike of God it even prevents him from entertainment something about the universe which is both necessary and with sufficient reason. By definition there is no good reason to accept what you, he and Carroll propose, that the universe ''Just is.''

So few words, so many mistakes…

First, his dislike of anything is neither here nor there provided his reasoning about the claims made for it are sound.

Second, (and wearily yet again), it’s not “God” – it’s the claim “God”.

Third, for the reasons he keeps explaining and you keep ignoring, your conjecture “God” is neither necessary nor has sufficient reason.

Fourth, you’ve just misrepresented again the “just is” point (see above).
     

And I bought a tube of preparation H.

Whoosh!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
   

Which as you well know isn’t the argument at all. First, the cosmological argument fails because of the inherent flaws, contradictions and leaps of faith it requires that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring. Second, the actual position on the origin of the universe is “don’t know”, but alongside it is, “but we cannot rule out the universe being its own explanation”.   

That isn't so. Since the best recent attempt is Carroll who draws on Russell, Hume is inconclusive..... ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' which just looks like shifting necessity to the universe ''sans explanation'' rather than a rebuttal of the argument from contingency

Unless you can direct me to someone who genuinely has debunked it with a stronger argument. You remain incorrect.

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency has been given here many times...

Where?

I cited Aquinas' original (#183), which is obviously flawed and nothing much like what you keep hinting at. As far as I've seen, you've never once either referenced or set out a version that you've said you are using or agreeing with.

In an unsatisfactory rebuttal you offer Carroll, Russell and Hume and the universe just is.

Actually, since there is no argument to answer, "we don't know" works as a perfectly good rebuttal to your wild speculation and baseless assertions. On the other had, You have certainly offered nothing better than to make up a 'god' that 'just is' but then pretend, without even trying to justify it, that this is somehow better than a universe that 'just is'.

That is incorrect. Although as I have learnt your desire for God to have no good reason supporting it or to be totally different to the creator of SU renders you invincibly ignorant of the relative importance of divine attributes.

On the contrary, this just shows that you have no consistent idea of what you mean by 'god'. You're just making yourself look stupid with this silly promiscuous approach to what 'god' means, that changes from post to post.

But so vehement is his dislike of God it even prevents him from entertainment something about the universe which is both necessary and with sufficient reason.

You haven't come anywhere near explaining how anything can be 'necessary' and have 'sufficient reason' - certainly not your baseless god-fantasy.

By definition there is no good reason to accept what you, he and Carroll propose, that the universe ''Just is.''

It makes far, far more sense that your made up god-thingy because at least we have reason to think the universe exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That isn't so. Since the best recent attempt is Carroll who draws on Russell, Hume is inconclusive..... ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' which just looks like shifting necessity to the universe ''sans explanation'' rather than a rebuttal of the argument from contingency

Why on earth is ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' shifting anything rather than just a statement of the current state of knowledge? If you want to argue (finally) for the existence of something else as a necessity, then your first job is to explain why the universe cannot be its own explanation. This is the burden of proof problem you keep running away from (one of several such).   

Unless you can direct me to someone who genuinely has debunked it with a stronger argument. You remain incorrect.

Debunked what? The cosmological argument (or whichever version of it you like but are determined to keep a secret)? It has been debunked – over and over and over again in fact. That you routinely either ignore or lie about the falsifications of it that your given doesn’t change the fact of them.

Your further evasion of everything else that undid you is noted too.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why on earth is ''The universe might just be but I'll carry on looking for why the universe is'' shifting anything rather than just a statement of the current state of knowledge? If you want to argue (finally) for the existence of something else as a necessity, then your first job is to explain why the universe cannot be its own explanation. This is the burden of proof problem you keep running away from (one of several such).   

Debunked what? The cosmological argument (or whichever version of it you like but are determined to keep a secret)? It has been debunked – over and over and over again in fact. That you routinely either ignore or lie about the falsifications of it that your given doesn’t change the fact of them.

Your further evasion of everything else that undid you is noted too.   

When last I consulted the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it hadn't been debunked.
Most recent argument apart from Carroll include eliminating necessity by introducing circularity of time. Which with all due respect sounds like a circular argument to me.