The nomological argument for god

[Stranger]

No you said that contingency was ''actually false''.

and that the universe has ''No need'' of a cause.

For fuck's sake, Vlad, you've just quoted it - I said no such things. I said "your claim that everything about the universe seems to be contingent is actually false" and that "the universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) has no obvious cause or need for one".

You really do need to brush up on reading English for comprehension or just stop lying (whichever is appropriate).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In Reply 388 you straw manned NTtS. In Reply 390 I corrected you on it. In Reply 391 you copied and pasted the correction I gave you, then repeated exactly the same straw man.

Why? Are you struggling with basic comprehension? Are you deliberately lying? What?

This is the same perennial mistake/straw man you make about atheism – ie, that “I have no good reasons to believe in god(s)” is epistemically the same statement as “there are no gods”.

Yet again, at no time has NTtS ever said “the universe needs no cause”. What he actually says is that you’ve failed to show that it must have had a cause, on which positive claim all versions of the cosmological version rest (including therefore whichever version of it you prefer but are determined to keep secret). You've been asked numerous times to justify this premise, but as you've ignored the question every time it's been asked presumably you intend to keep on ignoring it now.     

FFS I've quoted what he said but if you and he now recognise that no one can actually demonstrate the timelessness of the manifold and that actually you don't know that it doesn't need a cause I can accept that conversion

[Stranger]

I have only spoken about the possible necessity of the universe and the necessary entity being called God.

And "spoken about it" (very vaguely) is about as far as it goes. You have not presented anything remotely like an actual argument as to why or how anything can be necessary or justified that something necessary is needed. And that's before we get to the comically daft attempt to slap the 'god' label on anything you think might be necessary and separate from the universe.

Does this problem occur with types of maintained waves for instance if we imputing one thing with timelessness how can we reserve it for one thing. If something timeless can be, what warrant do we have to prevent it from causing things to happen?

Gibberish.

[Stranger]

FFS I've quoted what he said...

Yes - and it showed I was right and you had misrepresented me.

...but if you and he now recognise that no one can actually demonstrate the timelessness of the manifold and that actually you don't know that it doesn't need a cause I can accept that conversion

The timelessness of the manifold (as a whole) is obvious from the mathematical description. Time is an observer dependant direction through it. That it doesn't have a cause in the normal sense of a preceding event, follows directly.

The only question is whether we can take the formulation of general relativity as being broadly correct in this sense (we can't be sure without a unification with quantum field theory) or whether there is some other sense in which we might consider it to be caused.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

FFS I've quoted what he said but if you and he now recognise that no one can actually demonstrate the timelessness of the manifold and that actually you don't know that it doesn't need a cause I can accept that conversion

Yes, you quoted what he said and immediately straw manned it. Several times.

What NTtS has consistently said is fundamentally different from the version you preface with "if..." and then corrupt into something else.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Can you actually not see the difference between “the universe as a whole has no obvious need for a cause” (ie, NTtS’s position) and “the universe needs no cause” (ie, your straw man version of NTtS’s position), or is your need to misrepresent him so great that you just can’t help being dishonest about that?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, you quoted what he said and immediately straw manned it. Several times.

What NTtS has consistently said is fundamentally different from the version you preface with "if..." and then corrupt into something else.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Can you actually not see the difference between “the universe as a whole has no obvious need for a cause” (ie, NTtS’s position) and “the universe needs no cause” (ie, your straw man version of NTtS’s position), or is your need to misrepresent him so great that you just can’t help being dishonest about that?   

Since I quoted him directly he never used the term obvious need. If he and you are NOW saying there is no obvious need he still needs to justify that with a sufficient reason.
Stop gaslighting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, you quoted what he said and immediately straw manned it. Several times.

What NTtS has consistently said is fundamentally different from the version you preface with "if..." and then corrupt into something else.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Can you actually not see the difference between “the universe as a whole has no obvious need for a cause” (ie, NTtS’s position) and “the universe needs no cause” (ie, your straw man version of NTtS’s position), or is your need to misrepresent him so great that you just can’t help being dishonest about that?   

Why do you think there is any difference between the universe and the universe as a whole ffs?More to the point what is the difference? This seems to be you practicing some turdpolishing routine.

[Stranger]

Since I quoted him directly he never used the term obvious need.

Why do you keep blatantly lying about this? Perhaps more to the point, why do you keep lying to somebody else about what I said? Here again are the two passages you quoted with the relevant words emphasised:-

...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.

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

Are you seriously so bad at understanding English that you can't see that "obvious" applies to "cause or need"? And have the courage to talk to me about if if you have a problem - what's the matter with you?

If he and you are NOW saying there is no obvious need he still needs to justify that with a sufficient reason.

Nobody needs to justify anything until you put forward an argument to refute. All I am pointing out is that your original claim that everything about the universe seems contingent is false. That is a flaw in about the only thing you've actually said to support your necessary god-thingy fantasy.

You have justified fuck all of what you've said with any reason, let alone 'sufficient reason'. Stop being such a hypocrite.

Why do you think there is any difference between the universe and the universe as a whole ffs?More to the point what is the difference? This seems to be you practicing some turdpolishing routine.

It's not blue who put forward this argument, it's me. Have you become afraid of actually talking to me for some reason? I've explained this multiple times. Time is a direction through the space-time manifold (that's how general relativity is formulated). The manifold is a four-dimensional object that cannot itself change exactly because time and causality are played out along its time direction and cannot apply to it as a whole four-dimensional object. It's not even as if time is a unique direction through it, it depends, to an extent, on the observer. This implies the B-theory of time.

And, yet again, you haven't put forward an argument that needs refuting. This stuff about the space-time is a side issue at best. Since you haven't got an argument, all anybody needs to do is point out that we don't know why things exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since I quoted him directly he never used the term obvious need. If he and you are NOW saying there is no obvious need he still needs to justify that with a sufficient reason.
Stop gaslighting.

Stop lying. He’s consistently used “seems to be” and “no obvious”, which you then straw man with statements beginning “if…” followed by something else entirely. Your enthusiasm for the cosmological argument (albeit in a version you’re determined to keep secret) requires the positive claim, “the universe was necessarily created by something other than itself”. What’s being explained to you over and over again is that that doesn’t seem to be the case, that there’s no obvious reason to think that to be the case etc. As you’re entirely unwilling or unable to demonstrate the claim that the universe necessarily was caused by something other than itself though, there’s nothing wrong with these statements.

You could of course dispense with your straw manning simply by finally attempting at least an argument to show that the universe itself was necessarily caused by something else, but that as we both know is when you always run away.

Funny that.         

Why do you think there is any difference between the universe and the universe as a whole ffs?

Now you’re trying your old shifting of the burden of proof stunt again. Determinism is a property of the universe (though not necessarily consistently so). You’re taking that and jumping straight to “therefore the universe as a whole must have been determined by something else” with no justifying argument at all. If you think a property within the universe must also apply to the universe, then the burden of proof remains with you to justify your claim…

…which, as we both know, is when you will disappear again.

…(though More to the point what is the difference? This seems to be you practicing some turdpolishing routine.

The difference you’re either too dim-witted or too dishonest to address is that you have no justification for asserting a property of the universe also necessarily to apply to the universe.

This shouldn’t be hard to understand, even for you.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying. He’s consistently used “seems to be” and “no obvious”, which you then straw man with statements beginning “if…” followed by something else entirely. Your enthusiasm for the cosmological argument (albeit in a version you’re determined to keep secret) requires the positive claim, “the universe was necessarily created by something other than itself”. What’s being explained to you over and over again is that that doesn’t seem to be the case, that there’s no obvious reason to think that to be the case etc. As you’re entirely unwilling or unable to demonstrate the claim that the universe necessarily was caused by something other than itself though, there’s nothing wrong with these statements.

You could of course dispense with your straw manning simply by finally attempting at least an argument to show that the universe itself was necessarily caused by something else, but that as we both know is when you always run away.

Funny that.         


Now you’re trying your old shifting of the burden of proof stunt again. Determinism is a property of the universe (though not necessarily consistently so). You’re taking that and jumping straight to “therefore the universe as a whole must have been determined by something else” with no justifying argument at all. If you think a property within the universe must also apply to the universe, then the burden of proof remains with you to justify your claim…

…which, as we both know, is when you will disappear again.

The difference you’re either too dim-witted or too dishonest to address is that you have no justification for asserting a property of the universe also necessarily to apply to the universe.

This shouldn’t be hard to understand, even for you.   

Drivel.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Drivel.

Yet another cowardly avoidance of the arguments that undo you.

What do you get from this behaviour? 

[Stranger]

Drivel.

Once again running scared of addressing the actual evidence or even talking to me about what I said. Here again is the evidence:-

...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.

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

Those are the quotes you used and then shamelessly misrepresented them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again running scared of addressing the actual evidence or even talking to me about what I said. Here again is the evidence:-

Those are the quotes you used and then shamelessly misrepresented them.

What are you counting as the difference between the universe and "The universe as a whole"?

[Stranger]

What are you counting as the difference between the universe and "The universe as a whole"?

How many more times?

I've explained this multiple times. Time is a direction through the space-time manifold (that's how general relativity is formulated). The manifold is a four-dimensional object that cannot itself change exactly because time and causality are played out along its time direction and cannot apply to it as a whole four-dimensional object. It's not even as if time is a unique direction through it, it depends, to an extent, on the observer. This implies the B-theory of time.

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.

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.

It is a fact that general relativity models space-time as a four dimensional object. There is no passage of time and no notion of the present - in fact the whole idea of defining an instant in time that applies to all observers breaks down even in special relativity, see Relativity of simultaneity.

If you don't understand, then ask a specific question and I'll try to answer it but I've given you the basic introduction many, many times now and I have no idea what it is about it that you are finding hard to grasp.

And it is still the case that this is simply a side issue with about the only thing you've said in support of this supposed "argument from contingency" you keep wittering on about. I'm still waiting for you to post or link to a complete argument that you are prepared to get behind and we can talk about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How many more times?

It is a fact that general relativity models space-time as a four dimensional object. There is no passage of time and no notion of the present - in fact the whole idea of defining an instant in time that applies to all observers breaks down even in special relativity, see Relativity of simultaneity.

If you don't understand, then ask a specific question and I'll try to answer it but I've given you the basic introduction many, many times now and I have no idea what it is about it that you are finding hard to grasp.

And it is still the case that this is simply a side issue with about the only thing you've said in support of this supposed "argument from contingency" you keep wittering on about. I'm still waiting for you to post or link to a complete argument that you are prepared to get behind and we can talk about.

This information is irrelevant to the question that Carroll seeks to answer in his paper. Your response is the equivalent of a suitcase stuffed with £10 shaped pieces of Newspaper. I am talking about being, not defining an instant in time.

[Stranger]

This information is irrelevant to the question that Carroll seeks to answer in his paper. Your response is the equivalent of a suitcase stuffed with £10 shaped pieces of Newspaper. I am talking about being, not defining an instant in time.

You really do need to pay more attention. Just how many times do I need to repeat a point before it makes it into your head?

Your reference to a point  in time suggests that the whole explanation went way over your head but, whatever, I'm rapidly losing interest in trying to educate somebody who doesn't pay any attention.

Moving on, the point about the space-time manifold isn't really an attempt to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing*. I'm simply pointing out that your statement about everything about the universe being obviously contingent is incorrect in the case of the whole space-time manifold. The sad fact is that that statement is about the only only substantive and coherent point you've made on the subject, and it's simply wrong.

Hence we can see that you have produced a big fat nothing in the way of any answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, let alone an argument that it involves anything like any god-concept.

I'm still waiting for even a hint of a coherent argument from you. Perhaps, at last, you'd stop the endless avoidance tactics, vague hand-waving, and quibbling over side issues and produce (or reference) a complete and coherent argument that you're prepared to support? Until you do so "we don't know" is perfectly good enough to ignore your inane wittering.

* Although it fits with the "universe just is" (brute fact) point of view, which, in turn, makes a lot more sense than anything you've put forward.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really do need to pay more attention. Just how many times do I need to repeat a point before it makes it into your head?

Your reference to a point  in time suggests that the whole explanation went way over your head but, whatever, I'm rapidly losing interest in trying to educate somebody who doesn't pay any attention.

Moving on, the point about the space-time manifold isn't really an attempt to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing*. I'm simply pointing out that your statement about everything about the universe being obviously contingent is incorrect in the case of the whole space-time manifold. The sad fact is that that statement is about the only only substantive and coherent point you've made on the subject, and it's simply wrong.

Hence we can see that you have produced a big fat nothing in the way of any answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, let alone an argument that it involves anything like any god-concept.

I'm still waiting for even a hint of a coherent argument from you. Perhaps, at last, you'd stop the endless avoidance tactics, vague hand-waving, and quibbling over side issues and produce (or reference) a complete and coherent argument that you're prepared to support? Until you do so "we don't know" is perfectly good enough to ignore your inane wittering.

* Although it fits with the "universe just is" (brute fact) point of view, which, in turn, makes a lot more sense than anything you've put forward.

There are one or two reasons relating to Carroll's paper which lead me to believe that you may be throwing a favourite bit of physics shamanically at the issue of why something and not nothing which is the issue of contingency and necessity. If the universe is necessary....what is it's sufficient reason? Since it's existence does not seem necessary and as you said the manifold depends on space and time existing.
.
Carroll for instance does not primarily use block universe theory to solve his problem as you do, probably for the reason that how the universe might be does not answer the question of why something and not nothing.

Secondly, The block universe theory where we are observing the whole of the universe from a timeless perspective has been a staple  of classical theology for centuries with God as it's creator and observer and there are theologies today which mirror the past being a block, added to by the passage of the physical into the future.

So block universe theory and growing block universe theory still leaves us with several questions e.g ''why this universe and not another universe?''

No. Carroll is trying a philosophical objection to overturn PSR which is based on Russell's notion of ''brute fact'' which IMV needs a bit of explanation to distinguish it from ''what Russell would like to be a Brute fact'''' and Hume's argument of events just happening. Both ideas are not proven and indeed the latter one might be construed as antiscientific.

[Stranger]

There are one or two reasons relating to Carroll's paper which lead me to believe that you may be throwing a favourite bit of physics shamanically at the issue of why something and not nothing which is the issue of contingency and necessity. If the universe is necessary....what is it's sufficient reason? Since it's existence does not seem necessary...

Well, if you actually bothered to read what I said, you wouldn't fall into endless misunderstandings. I have specifically said, multiple times, that I'm not arguing that the universe is necessary - I'm not even convinced that 'necessary' in this sense is a self-consistent concept. You have certainly made no coherent argument for it. Neither have you provided "sufficient reason" for anything at all that you've proposed.

...and as you said the manifold depends on space and time existing.

The manifold is space and time.

Carroll for instance does not primarily use block universe theory to solve his problem as you do...

PAY SOME FUCKING ATTENTION! I'm not trying to solve a problem with the space-time manifold. I'm just pointing out that it undermines your claim that everything about the universe is obviously contingent.

So block universe theory and growing block universe theory still leaves us with several questions e.g ''why this universe and not another universe?''

In exactly the same way as we could ask of any proposed external 'necessity' or 'god', why this one and not another?

YET AGAIN FOR THE HARD-OF-THINKING and those PAYING NO ATTENTION TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID:

I don't know why there is something rather than nothing.
I don't know why this universe and not another.
I don't know if anything external to the universe is needed or exists.
I don't know if anything at all can be or is 'necessary' in the sense you mean.

I have seen not one hint of an actual argument from you as to why I should adopt a particular point of view about any of those questions. So yet again:

Where is your argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, if you actually bothered to read what I said, you wouldn't fall into endless misunderstandings. I have specifically said, multiple times, that I'm not arguing that the universe is necessary

You are because if it isn't necessary then it has to be by definition contingent. If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.

[Stranger]

You are because if it isn't necessary then it has to be by definition contingent.

Says who? How have you excluded a third possibility? Where is your reasoning? I also haven't argued that it isn't contingent - just that it isn't obviously contingent.

If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.

My reason is that a 'necessary entity' is not something that has a coherent argument to support it, and, at first sight, seems to be a nonsensical proposition. As was pointed out in the article: how can we even imagine something whose non-existence would cause a contradiction or would otherwise be impossible? ("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.")

Again, it's you who need to make an argument here. I don't need to make one for not knowing.

Where is your argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says who? How have you excluded a third possibility? Where is your reasoning? I also haven't argued that it isn't contingent - just that it isn't obviously contingent.

Either something has a cause or it doesn't there are no third options.

[Stranger]

Either something has a cause or it doesn't there are no third options.

It's you who have 'argued' (asserted) that something that 'just is' without a cause (as the space-time appears to be) is not the same a being necessary (couldn't have not existed or has sufficient reason within itself to exist).

[jeremyp]

You are because if it isn't necessary then it has to be by definition contingent. If you are saying you don't know then you have no reason to deny it a necessary cause.

He also has no reason to assert a necessary cause and neither do you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He also has no reason to assert a necessary cause and neither do you.

There is nothing to support the idea of ''Brute fact''(Russell) or ''popping out of nothing''(Hume) other than a desire to drop PSR. I support a necessary being though. It cannot be the manifold since what never talk proposes is emergent.

[Stranger]

There is nothing to support the idea of ''Brute fact''(Russell) or ''popping out of nothing''(Hume) other than a desire to drop PSR. I support a necessary being though.

There's nothing to support the the application of PSR to this problem. What's more, nothing you've put forward here even satisfies PSR.

You still haven't even made an attempt at a full and coherent argument for anything.

It cannot be the manifold since what never talk proposes is emergent.

Baseless assertion.