The nomological argument for god

[Stranger]

When last I consulted the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it hadn't been debunked.

I suggest checking it again. It lists four main objections to the "Argument for a Non-contingent Cause" given. But are you saying (at last) that this is a version of the argument you think is valid?

This is the form given:

• A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed) exists.
  
  
• All contingent beings have a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for their existence.
  
  
• The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the contingent being itself.
  
  
• The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  
  
• Contingent beings alone cannot provide a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings.
  
  
• Therefore, what sufficiently causes or fully adequately explains the existence of contingent beings must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  
  
• Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
  
  
• The universe, which is composed of only contingent beings, is contingent.
  
  
• Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

Are you saying you'll get behind that, because I can see multiple flaws without even bothering to read all the objections in the article?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

When last I consulted the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy it hadn't been debunked.

Try reading it again. Better yet, try reading other sources too. It's been debunked for exactly the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring. 

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.

Actually the earlier arguments about its contradictions, unwarranted leaps of faith etc are fine for falsification purposes, and the fact that the "circularity of time" argument sounds like circular reasoning to you just tells us that "circular reasoning" is yet another term you don't understand.

Oh, and once again I see you've just avoided the various arguments that undid you. 

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest checking it again. It lists four main objections to the "Argument for a Non-contingent Cause" given. But are you saying (at last) that this is a version of the argument you think is valid?

This is the form given:

• A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed) exists.
  
  
• All contingent beings have a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for their existence.
  
  
• The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the contingent being itself.
  
  
• The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  
  
• Contingent beings alone cannot provide a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings.
  
  
• Therefore, what sufficiently causes or fully adequately explains the existence of contingent beings must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
  
  
• Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
  
  
• The universe, which is composed of only contingent beings, is contingent.
  
  
• Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

Are you saying you'll get behind that, because I can see multiple flaws without even bothering to read all the objections in the article?

Just because there are objections doesn't make an argument invalid.....or the objections to it for that matter.

Objections to it are paltry and end up emphasising our ignorance, that we may be incompetent(that would be irrelevent and that the idea of sufficient reason may incorrect.

There is no strong argument to settle for the universe ''just is'' . A position which is indistinguishable from having no sufficient reason.

You can see multiple flaws in the argument from contingency please share one or two.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

Are you saying you'll get behind that...

Vlad has no idea what he gets behind – either that or he's determined to keep it a secret because that leaves him free to keep dicking around rather than address the problems he'd thereby give himself.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Try reading it again. Better yet, try reading other sources too. It's been debunked for exactly the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring. 

Actually the earlier arguments about its contradictions, unwarranted leaps of faith etc are fine for falsification purposes, and the fact that the "circularity of time" argument sounds like circular reasoning to you just tells us that "circular reasoning" is yet another term you don't understand.

Oh, and once again I see you've just avoided the various arguments that undid you. 

There are no contradictions in it. Because you cannot name one.

If you have one yet cannot bring yourself to share it then there is I would move something wrong with you which needs sorting out lest you inflict it any further on the public.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just because there are objections doesn't make an argument invalid.....or the objections to it for that matter.

It does if you can’t rebut the objections. That’s your problem.

Objections to it are paltry and end up emphasising our ignorance, that we may be incompetent(that would be irrelevent and that the idea of sufficient reason may incorrect.

Throwing pejorative adjectives at “objections” (ie, falsifications) does not rebut them. That’s also your problem. 

There is no strong argument to settle for the universe ''just is'' . A position which is indistinguishable from having no sufficient reason.

There doesn’t need to be. If you want to argue (finally) for a necessary cause for the universe though then you need a strong argument to show that the universe cannot be “just is”. This is the question – why you think the property of determinism observed within the universe must also therefore apply to the origin of the universe as a whole – you keep running away from. That’s another of your problems.

You can see multiple flaws in the argument from contingency please share one or two.

He has done. Over and over again in fact. You though have consistently just ignored or misrepresented the flaws he’s flagged, while at the same time being careful never to tell us what your version of the cosmological argument might be. This is yet another of your problems.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are no contradictions in it. Because you cannot name one.

Why do you think lying will get you out of the hole you've dug for yourself?

If you have one yet cannot bring yourself to share it then there is I would move something wrong with you which needs sorting out lest you inflict it any further on the public.

Tell you what - you finally tell us which version of the argument you subscribe to, and I'll cut and paste the falsifications to it I've posted so many times before. If you don't do that you'll just keep hiding behind "but that's not my argument" for ever and a day won't you.     

[Stranger]

You can see multiple flaws in the argument from contingency please share one or two.

Most of them have already been mentioned. It's full of blind speculation. Just for starters and even without thinking much about it... Point 1, we don't actually know that anything could have not existed. Point 2 is an intuitive speculation based on our experience within space-time, and there is no particular reason to think it can apply to reality itself. Point 7, the whole idea of something that cannot fail to exist is problematic. What could possibly exist whose non-existence would cause a contradiction or otherwise be impossible? Point 8 is contradicted by the space-time manifold as I've already explained multiple times.

There is no strong argument to settle for the universe ''just is'' . A position which is indistinguishable from having no sufficient reason.

It's exactly as strong (or weak) and has just as much (or little) 'sufficient reason' as anything external to the universe that you want to make up that 'just is'. That is, unless and until you can explain exactly how something can be its own reason to exist and how its non-existence would be impossible.

Added: And, of course, even if we were tempted to accept the entire argument, it isn't an argument for a god - just for some undefined 'something' that couldn't fail to exist...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's exactly as strong (or weak) and has just as much (or little) 'sufficient reason' as anything external to the universe...

And just to add to NTtS's point, "the universe just is" also requires fewer assumptions than "god just is" because we can demonstrate that the universe exists. This is the Occam's razor principle that you didn't (and likely still don't) understand.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Most of them have already been mentioned. It's full of blind speculation. Just for starters and even without thinking much about it... Point 1, we don't actually know that anything could have not existed. Point 2 is an intuitive speculation based on our experience within space-time, and there is no particular reason to think it can apply to reality itself. Point 7, the whole idea of something that cannot fail to exist is problematic. What could possibly exist whose non-existence would cause a contradiction or otherwise be impossible? Point 8 is contradicted by the space-time manifold as I've already explained multiple times.

It's exactly as strong (or weak) and has just as much (or little) 'sufficient reason' as anything external to the universe that you want to make up that 'just is'. That is, unless and until you can explain exactly how something can be its own reason to exist and how its non-existence would be impossible.

Added: And, of course, even if we were tempted to accept the entire argument, it isn't an argument for a god - just for some undefined 'something' that couldn't fail to exist...

We do know that things cease to exist demonstrating that their existence is not necessary.

If something has sufficient reason in itself to exist it cannot fail to exist because it does not depend on anything externally for it's existence.

[jeremyp]

We call the necessary entity God.

We do? That seems to be just labelling to me. It doesn't help us to answer the question of whether the Universe is God or whether the Christian god is God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And just to add to NTtS's point, "this banana just is" also requires fewer assumptions than "god just is" because we can demonstrate that bananas exist.

I'm also not arguing that God just is but that God is necessary with sufficient reason.

[jeremyp]

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.

What? The only thing you know about the "necessary entity" is that it is not contingent.

There's also nothing to suggest the Abrahamic god is not contingent. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Abrahamic god is contingent on the human imagination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We do? That seems to be just labelling to me. It doesn't help us to answer the question of whether the Universe is God or whether the Christian god is God.

No it's based on the attributes of the necessary entity. There are those who say the universe is God but I think they have disregarded necessity and contingency.

Again...... what is it about the universe that is divine?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What? The only thing you know about the "necessary entity" is that it is not contingent.

Yes, but then we have that which proceeds from God that need not proceed (The contingent) Now we are back to the Abrahamic God.

[jeremyp]

No it's based on the attributes of the necessary entity. There are those who say the universe is God but I think they have disregarded necessity and contingency.

Again...... what is it about the universe that is divine?

What are the attributes of the necessary entity? I don't think you have any idea.

[jeremyp]

Yes, but then we have that which proceeds from God that need not proceed (The contingent) Now we are back to the Abrahamic God.

No we aren't. The Abrahamic god is not merely a necessary entity. It has certain attributes that are defined in the Bible, Quran and religious folklore, many of which are mutually contradictory. You have a long way to go to get from "necessary" to "god that arranged for itself to be killed to get around a loophole in its own rules to save the people it loved but had also condemned to death.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are the attributes of the necessary entity? I don't think you have any idea.

Not dependent for being on contingent things.

Unique.

Necessary.

Maximally potent.

Actually actual.

[Stranger]

We do know that things cease to exist demonstrating that their existence is not necessary.

Non sequitur. Additionally, of course, the space-time manifold cannot possibly cease to exist.

If something has sufficient reason in itself to exist it cannot fail to exist because it does not depend on anything externally for it's existence.

Meaningless truism. It tells us nothing about how it is possible for anything to have "sufficient reason in itself to exist" or even if such a thing is possible.

Evasion of pretty much everything I said, is also noted.

I'm also not arguing that God just is but that God is necessary with sufficient reason.

You still seem to be confused about the difference between an argument and a baseless assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm also not arguing that God just is but that God is necessary with sufficient reason.

Well, that's incoherent. First, you are claiming that "god" "just is" because that's the only answer you have to "why god?" Second, you've failed again to explain the necessity part because you cannot or will not explain why it's necessary for the universe as a whole to have a cause. Third, if you won't provide any of these supposed reasons how is anyone to tell whether or not they're "sufficient"?

Oh, and I see that yet again you've just slid away from the last set of falsifications you were given. Oh well, as I guess we'll never know which version of the cosmological argument you prefer there's nothing to rebut.     

[Stranger]

Yes, but then we have that which proceeds from God that need not proceed (The contingent) Now we are back to the Abrahamic God.

You've just gotta laugh at the incoherence of it all. If things that proceed from this supposed god, need not have done so, that implies that this supposed god could have been different, which undermines the whole idea that it is uniquely necessary and could not have been otherwise....

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

You've just gotta laugh at the incoherence of it all. If things that proceed from this supposed god, need not have done so, that implies that this supposed god could have been different, which undermines the whole idea that it is uniquely necessary and could not have been otherwise....

To be frank I've never yet worked out whether Vlad is a clever person pretending to be stupid, or a stupid person who thinks he's clever. My sense is that he knows just enough though never actually to answer a question or to argue for something because at some level he realises the effort would be taken apart. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non sequitur. Additionally, of course, the space-time manifold cannot possibly cease to exist.

Not at all, if it ceases to exist then it has proven it's contingency as indeed if it begins to exist

Meaningless truism. It tells us nothing about how it is possible for anything to have "sufficient reason in itself to exist" or even if such a thing is possible.

On what warrant then are you claiming then that the universe has sufficient reason in itself for it to exist. Also you have claimed a lot for the space time manifold without substantiation.

[Stranger]

Not at all, if it ceases to exist then it has proven it's contingency as indeed if it begins to exist

It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.

On what warrant then are you claiming then that the universe has sufficient reason in itself for it to exist. Also you have claimed a lot for the space time manifold without substantiation.

I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".

In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.

You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350, so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-

Where is your argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It didn't start to exist either. Jeez, how many more times? Time is a direction through the manifold. The manifold itself is not (cannot possibly be) subject to time. Hence it cannot come into existence, neither can it cease to exist.

I've never made such a claim. All I've said is that it appears to 'just be' and is not obviously contingent on anything else. It is you who are making claims about something that has "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist". What's more, you're trying to make the claim about something you've just made up and without the first hint of even a suggestion of any sort of explanation as to how it is possible for something to have "sufficient reason in itself for it to exist".

In short, it's you who need to provide that argument, not anybody else.

You're also now way off script for following the argument I quoted in #350, so we find ourselves right back to the question of:-

Where is your argument?

You are saying that the space time manifold has no cause or no sufficient reason. Again, on what warrant are you claiming this?