Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Stranger]

My contention is that it is logical to expect a necessary entity due to the principle of sufficient reason and I think there are a few converts to that position here.

I doubt it, but you certainly haven't convinced me. You haven't said which definition of necessity you're using, so it's all but meaningless anyway.

Recently somebody referenced a paper by Sean M. Carroll trying to avoid sufficient reason. I think there is sufficient reason to think that would probably undercut science itself.

Another unargued assertion.

The metareview of contingency argument of Stanford University has commented that those opposing sufficient reason do so on the grounds of insufficient reasoning on the part of those proposing sufficient reason.

It isn't a meta review (just an article), it was just one of them many claims and counter-claims it covered and I've already addressed it directly (#491).

However if I am commiting the fallacy of composition(I'm not because your contention that I am missing another part of universe is unevidenced) then you are contending there is another part of the universe. that is a positive assertion on your part.

Good grief, what is the matter with you? It is not a positive assertion at all. It's a possibility that undermines a part of your argument.

Do you really have no grasp at all of the burden of proof? Do you not get that it's you trying to make an argument? Nobody else has to assert anything. We are just pointing out that your argument doesn't take into account all the possibilities and is therefore flawed.

I ask you again is this part contingent or necessary? If it is contingent, I ask on what? If it is necessary then you are a convert to the argument from contingency?

Don't know, don't know, and no.

You see, it is a win win situation for me and a lose lose situation for you.

You appear to not even have grasped what 'game' you're playing (unless you're being deliberately dishonest). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My contention is that it is logical to expect a necessary entity due to the principle of sufficient reason and I think there are a few converts to that position here.

Recently somebody referenced a paper by Sean M. Carroll trying to avoid sufficient reason. I think there is sufficient reason to think that would probably undercut science itself.
The metareview of contingency argument of Stanford University has commented that those opposing sufficient reason do so on the grounds of insufficient reasoning on the part of those proposing sufficient reason.

However if I am commiting the fallacy of composition(I'm not because your contention that I am missing another part of universe is unevidenced) then you are contending there is another part of the universe. that is a positive assertion on your part. I ask you again is this part contingent or necessary? If it is contingent, I ask on what? If it is necessary then you are a convert to the argument from contingency?

You see, it is a win win situation for me and a lose lose situation for you.

Do you genuinely not understand the burden of proof, or are you just lying again?

You seem to be entirely unable to grasp the difference between a conclusion and an argument used to justify a conclusion. A conclusion would be something like, “the universe is/is not contingent on something else”. YOU assert such a conclusion – ie, that the universe IS contingent on something else. I on the other hand make no comment about that either way (because currently at least that’s unknowable), no matter how much you insist on straw manning me about that.

An argument used to justify a conclusion on the other hand is the reasoning used to determine whether a conclusion is sound – in this case, YOUR “argument” is that what we know so far about the universe appears to be largely or wholly deterministic in character, therefore the universe itself must be deterministic in character. YOUR “therefore” fails though because YOU can neither demonstrate that all there is to be known about the universe is known already and nor, even if YOU could do that, can YOU demonstrate that the sum of that knowledge would imply a universe that necessarily shares the character of its constituent parts.         

Now we both know that you’ll just keep on lying, prevaricating, misrepresenting etc rather than finally address your mistake here, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a mistake.

So yet again: how do YOU propose to justify YOUR claim that the universe MUST be contingent on the basis only of the current state of knowledge about the observable constituents of the universe? 

[ProfessorDavey]

So yet again: how do YOU propose to justify YOUR claim that the universe MUST be contingent on the basis only of the current state of knowledge about the observable constituents of the universe?

And also Vlad, how do you justify your unevidenced assertion that somehow necessary entities are not observable. Note that most things we 'observe' we do so indirectly via the actions they have on other entities. So when we observe light, that is because the light is detected by receptors in cells, when we touch something it is via changes in chemistry associated with touch receptors. If we observe radiation from a distant solar system we don't detect the radiation directly but by its effect on detector systems.

So why on earth should a necessary entity (if one even exists) not be observable either directly to indirectly through its actions on other entities.

[jeremyp]

If you are talking about the fallacy of composition I'm afraid I talked about the whole universe as we have observed it. There is nothing in the whole observed universe which we have not observed scientifically. Therefore since it looks as if it has all derived from something which changed. It is observed as wholly contingent. Your argument accusing me of fallacy of composition only works if we took a sample of the observed universe and extended the properties of that sample to the whole universe. But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent. I asked you to explain this and you didn't. My contention is that the observed universe is exactly what it says on the tin. You acknowledge that but say that the observed universe is the things in it. Agreed. But then you merely assert that the universe (the things in it) is not just the things in it.
That leads to the next question which you haven't answered ''what then is it about the universe that a) Is not just the observed b) not contingent.

You see as a non empiricist I would agree that the universe is not just the observable bit. But you don't have that luxury. do you.

If you are saying there is something about the universe that we can't see but is greater than the observed universe then I'm sorry to say it but we are actually on the same lines

You’ve observed the whole Universe?  Really. I call bullshit.

We cannot observe the whole Universe. We can only observe objects in it. We can make deductions about it based on our observations but, so far, one of those deductions is not whether the Universe just is or was created by something else. You are the only one here claiming to know which of those alternatives is true. We are just asking you for some evidence for your opinion.

[jeremyp]

God in christianity is both God and man. A man changes but the God in the man stays the same......I find it remarkable that bronze age goatherders preempted your objection 2000 years before the fact.

If God can’t change, he can’t make a decision to incarnate as a human. Anything that has agency must be able to change by definition.

Christianity was not invented by goat herders in the Bronze Age.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You’ve observed the whole Universe?  Really. I call bullshit.

We cannot observe the whole Universe. We can only observe objects in it. We can make deductions about it based on our observations but, so far, one of those deductions is not whether the Universe just is or was created by something else. You are the only one here claiming to know which of those alternatives is true. We are just asking you for some evidence for your opinion.

But Jeremy all you are saying is there is a part of the universe that you have no evidence for

You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.

On another board this would be a game set and match moment where you and  the rest retire to the pavilion in defeat, caught out by arguing from a huge entity with Zero evidence.

[Outrider]

But Jeremy all you are saying is there is a part of the universe that you have no evidence for

No, he's arguing that there is a part of the universe for which YOU have no evidence - he doesn't need evidence, he's refuting your claim.

You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.

Again, no, he's arguing that your argument lacks sufficiency because it cannot discount the viable possibility presented by the as yet unexplored elements of the universe. He's not saying that your conclusion is necessarily wrong, he's saying that your attempt at justifying it is insufficient.

On another board this would be a game set and match moment where you and  the rest retire to the pavilion in defeat, caught out by arguing from a huge entity with Zero evidence.

Again with that failure to grasp burden of proof - until you've put together a case, no-one needs any 'evidence' to disprove it. Your case is not robust, there is nothing to disprove. The ball remains firmly in your court. Still.

O.

edited to correct formatting error

[Stranger]

You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty...

Your total failure to understand what is going one here, despite numerous explanations from several people, is truly staggering.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.

No he is arguing that you do not have the evidence to sustain your view - that is entirely different from saying that you are wrong with certainty.

And if we move from Jeremy to me - my point is that we do not have sufficient evidence to sustain either view - in other words that there is a necessary entity or that there is no necessary entity. Both remain possibilities and we need to learn more about the universe before we can determine, with confidence, which is the case.

You on the other hand argue with certainty that there is a necessary entity (yet there is no evidence to sustain this view), that not only is it a necessary entity but a necessary being (yet there is no evidence to sustain this view) and that this necessary being is the christian god (yet there is no evidence to sustain this view).

You are the one claiming certainty regarding matters that you have zero evidence for.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.

I and others have corrected you on this several times now, yet here you are again repeating exactly the same mistake as if nothing had been said. Why? Do you genuinely not understand, or do you get something from trolling here?

Yet again: no-one is arguing that you are wrong in your conclusion; people here are instead arguing that your justification for your conclusion is wrong. It’s wrong first because you’d have to know everything about the universe to know that every bit of it is contingent, and second because even if you could do that still you’d have no way to demonstrate that the properties of all the constituents must also apply to the whole.   

Why not then – finally – bring a little honesty to this mb and try at least to engage with what’s actually being said here?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If God can’t change, he can’t make a decision to incarnate as a human. Anything that has agency must be able to change by definition.

Christianity was not invented by goat herders in the Bronze Age.

God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being, He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.

Moreover he, he is not actualised by that which he actualises.

I would move you can therefore have agency just by being.

Secondly lets compare two modus operandii by which the universe can be actualised.

Let us forget the necessary entity for now and take two scientific theories of how we have come to be. First the big bang origin theory of the origin. Here the universe doesn't begin in time but that's when time ''starts''. So no requirement for time.

Secondly there is some theory doing the rounds that we are a hologram projected from the edge of the universe.

Now whatever the merits or extent of these theories they do represent two modes of creation. One has the creator at the ''start'' of a temporal heirarchy. The other, whatever is projecting the universe moment be moment is at or near the bottom of a heirarchy that doesn't depend on being at any start.

And these two modes reflect two cosmological arguments Kalam and argument from contingency.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being, He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.

Moreover he, he is not actualised by that which he actualises.

I would move you can therefore have agency just by being.

There’s no logical path from a set of entirely unqualified assertions to a “therefore”. 

Fail one.

Secondly…

You can’t have a secondly when your firstly has just collapsed.

Fail two.

…lets compare two modus operandii by which the universe can be actualised.

Let us forget the necessary entity for now and take two scientific theories of how we have come to be. First the big bang origin theory of the origin. Here the universe doesn't begin in time but that's when time ''starts''. So no requirement for time.

Secondly there is some theory doing the rounds that we are a hologram projected from the edge of the universe.

Now whatever the merits or extent of these theories they do represent two modes of creation. One has the creator at the ''start'' of a temporal heirarchy. The other, whatever is projecting the universe moment be moment is at or near the bottom of a heirarchy that doesn't depend on being at any start.

And these two modes reflect two cosmological arguments Kalam and argument from contingency.

These theories either don't requires a purposive act of creation or don't require an uncaused cause, so they don’t “reflect” the Kalam or the cosmological “arguments” at all.

Fail three. 
   
Apart from that though…

[Stranger]

God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being, He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.

Both baseless and contradictory. You cannot will anything without make a choice, you can't make a choice without changing, and you can't change without time.

I would move you can therefore have agency just by being.

Gibberish.

Secondly lets compare two modus operandii by which the universe can be actualised.

Let us forget the necessary entity for now and take two scientific theories of how we have come to be. First the big bang origin theory of the origin. Here the universe doesn't begin in time but that's when time ''starts''. So no requirement for time.

In the classic big bang, based on general relativity, time is just an observer dependant direction through a four-dimensional manifold. The manifold did not start to exit, it includes all of time.

Secondly there is some theory doing the rounds that we are a hologram projected from the edge of the universe.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

And these two modes reflect two cosmological arguments Kalam and argument from contingency.

More unreferenced arguments? The Kalam cosmological argument is absurd for any number of reasons but it falls at the first hurdle with the classic BB because the universe didn't ever start to exist.

Regardless, we are all still waiting for an argument from you that isn't full of holes. In fact one that isn't more hole than argument would be a start.

[Outrider]

And these two modes reflect two cosmological arguments Kalam and argument from contingency.

No, they represent two theoretically (though not currently) testable hypotheses regarding the nature of our universe; they say little to nothing regarding any potential 'cause' of our universe.

The cosmological and contingency arguments are philosophically phrased special pleadings that have been repeatedly shown to be flawed attempts to justify claims of magic.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they represent two theoretically (though not currently) testable hypotheses regarding the nature of our universe; they say little to nothing regarding any potential 'cause' of our universe.

The cosmological and contingency arguments are philosophically phrased special pleadings that have been repeatedly shown to be flawed attempts to justify claims of magic.

O.

No, My point is they represent two types of heirarchies, one temporal and one ontologically dependent and emergent.

I'm afraid I don't support the view of people who claim  to be scientific by insisting on sufficient reason and then wanting to dispense with it when it comes to cosmological questions. They sicken me to my very essence.

[Stranger]

I'm afraid I don't support the view of people who claim  to be scientific by insisting on sufficient reason and then wanting to dispense with it when it comes to cosmological questions.

More misrepresentation.   

The principle of sufficient reason is a controversial philosophical principle. We have no idea if we can apply it to existence as a whole, and it's not like you've given any sufficient reason for your god. Apparently you think it's just okay to assert that it would have sufficient reason.

[Outrider]

No, My point is they represent two types of heirarchies, one temporal and one ontologically dependent and emergent.

Or, one for which the explanation is potentially valid, and one for which it has already been shown to be deficient.

I'm afraid I don't support the view of people who claim  to be scientific by insisting on sufficient reason and then wanting to dispense with it when it comes to cosmological questions. They sicken me to my very essence.

I'm struggling to determine in what sense you're using 'sufficient reason' - in some instances you seem to be meaning that an argument is sufficient, at other times you appear to be using it in the sense of everything needing to have a reason... and when you do the second you often confuse reason with cause.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't see the philosophical school of sufficient reason - that everything happens for a reason - to be justifiable, and I certainly think you're misapplying it if you presume that the scientific notion of cause and effect is the same things.

So apart from that... I think it reverts to one of your perennial favourites, Professor Dawkins: “...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

I'd go a little further in this instance - and I suspect he would, too - and suggest that it's perfectly possible all these explanations are wrong, but my suspicion is that scientific hypotheses are going to be more useful in incrementally expanding our knowledge of the universe than grand philosophical endgames trying to leap to distant conclusion, especially when it appears the leaps are heading in the wrong direction.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, My point is they represent two types of heirarchies, one temporal and one ontologically dependent and emergent.

I'm afraid I don't support the view of people who claim  to be scientific by insisting on sufficient reason and then wanting to dispense with it when it comes to cosmological questions. They sicken me to my very essence.

Wrong again. It’s perfectly scientific to conclude that sometimes we have a “don’t know”, and it’s especially scientific not to fill that gap with asserted conjectures for which there’s no evidence at all – conjectures moreover that in essence rely on the special pleading of “magic” for justification.

Perhaps if you looked up what “scientific” actually means you wouldn’t keep making this mistake?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or, one for which the explanation is potentially valid, and one for which it has already been shown to be deficient.

I'm struggling to determine in what sense you're using 'sufficient reason' - in some instances you seem to be meaning that an argument is sufficient, at other times you appear to be using it in the sense of everything needing to have a reason... and when you do the second you often confuse reason with cause.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't see the philosophical school of sufficient reason - that everything happens for a reason - to be justifiable, and I certainly think you're misapplying it if you presume that the scientific notion of cause and effect is the same things.

So, you seem to be charging me with insufficient reason for saying why I believe in sufficient reason. That's rich.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So, you seem to be charging me with insufficient reason for saying why I believe in sufficient reason. That's rich.

No, it’s true. If you think the universe has insufficient reason for its own existence but that a supposed creator you call “god” does have sufficient reason for its own existence then rather than post a stream of fallacious arguments or just run away from your mistakes, why not finally try at least to set out a cogent argument to justify your claim? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, it’s true. If you think the universe has insufficient reason for its own existence but that a supposed creator you call “god” does have sufficient reason for its own existence then rather than post a stream of fallacious arguments or just run away from your mistakes, why not finally try at least to set out a cogent argument to justify your claim?

Because the evidence we have is that all observed things in the universe indeed the observed universe is contingent and not necessary.
Any argument from any supposedly unobserved universe eg I am making the fallacy of composition in subsequently unevidenced.
The temptation though is to believe in the unobserved universe as an extrapolation of what we see. That only yields more contingency. Indeed such a view is I would move is necessary to maintain your atheism. Contingency alone is insufficiently reasonable because my subsequent question is always going to be ''contingent on what''.

If we are talking the whole universe here we eventually come to the question contingent on what? Don't know is insufficient becuase we do know the properties of a necessary being. It is unobservable, it is necessary for a contingent universe, it is independent of that universe, it is independent of any other in it's creativity. For people who had forgotten about necessity, who had had it witheld from them by an agnostic culture or who just downright have ignored it this might be enough to start thinking about in the first instance.
Now it may be there is something about the universe which is necessary. What is it? Why aren't we seeing it? It cannot be anything we observe because we observe contingency.

If you are proposing a holistic necessity about then that is merely a belief. The trouble is holistic properties are contingent on the levels beneath from which they emerge.

The trouble here for your grumpy self righteous argument is that you accused me of the fallacy of composition based on the unobserved. You said I was wrong but it seems you were wrong.

If you are saying there is something necessary about the contingent universe a) what is it? b) aren't you straying into deepity?

Infinite regress doesn't answer the question. In fact it is a diversionary device and arguing that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient is just plainly comical.

[Stranger]

Because the evidence we have is that all observed things in the universe indeed the observed universe is contingent and not necessary.

How would we even know? You haven't provided any argument as to what a necessary entity might be like, or even given a sound argument  that there must be one.

Any argument from any supposedly unobserved universe eg I am making the fallacy of composition in subsequently unevidenced.

The fallacy of composition does not depend on evidence. You are making the unwarranted assumption that we can apply the properties of the parts to the whole.

If we are talking the whole universe here we eventually come to the question contingent on what? Don't know is insufficient becuase we do know the properties of a necessary being.

So much illogical drivel in so few words. You haven't made the case that anything is necessary, even if you had, you haven't made the case that the universe as a whole can't be necessary, and even if you had, "don't know" is perfectly good answer, and to cap it all, we don't know the properties of a necessary entity, we only have your unsupported assertions about it.

It is unobservable, it is necessary for a contingent universe, it is independent of that universe, it is independent of any other in it's creativity.

Utterly baseless assertions.

If you are saying there is something necessary about the contingent universe a) what is it? b) aren't you straying into deepity?

You're still ignoring the burden of proof. Nobody needs an alternative answer to dismiss yours. All we need to do is point out that you haven't made your case. That you've made massive, unsupported assumptions and failed to take into account other possibilities. In reality you haven't got anywhere near making your a case for a god. You have yet to provide a reason to think anything is necessary, you haven't even properly defined what it would mean.

...and arguing that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient is just plainly comical.

It actually makes prefect sense, as I've already pointed out. Apart from anything else, this is an equivocation fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because the evidence we have is that all observed things in the universe indeed the observed universe is contingent and not necessary.

A dubious claim at best, but in any case when do you plan to explain why properties observed in a system must also therefore apply to the system itself? 

Any argument from any supposedly unobserved universe eg I am making the fallacy of composition in subsequently unevidenced.

Wrong again. YOU’RE the one making the claim – ie, that a property of the constituents of the universe that we’ve observed must also apply to the universe itself – and unless YOU can finally justify it, that’s precisely the fallacy of composition.   

The temptation though is to believe in the unobserved universe as an extrapolation of what we see. That only yields more contingency. Indeed such a view is I would move is necessary to maintain your atheism. Contingency alone is insufficiently reasonable because my subsequent question is always going to be ''contingent on what''.

This is just incoherent. Your “temptations” are epistemically worthless, and in any case even if I were to follow you down this rabbit hole my question would also be the same about your assertion “god” – ie, contingent on what? As your answer to that is effectively “magic”, you’re adding nothing to the limited verifiable knowledge we already have about the universe.       

If we are talking the whole universe here we eventually come to the question contingent on what? Don't know is insufficient becuase we do know the properties of a necessary being. It is unobservable, it is necessary for a contingent universe, it is independent of that universe, it is independent of any other in it's creativity. For people who had forgotten about necessity, who had had it witheld from them by an agnostic culture or who just downright have ignored it this might be enough to start thinking about in the first instance.
Now it may be there is something about the universe which is necessary. What is it? Why aren't we seeing it? It cannot be anything we observe because we observe contingency.

More white noise. We don’t come to the question “contingent on what?” at all – what we actually come to is, “we don’t know whether the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else”. That’s the don’t know part. By all means though if you think it must be then have a go at explaining why (I’ll alert the Nobel committee to your imminent scientific breakthrough), but until you can you’re stuck in the same nursery-level thinking: “my head hurts because that branch hit me, therefor the universe has a creator”.     

If you are proposing a holistic necessity about then that is merely a belief. The trouble is holistic properties are contingent on the levels beneath from which they emerge.

Burden of proof mistake (again). I’m not proposing anything remember? All I’m doing is pointing out the fallacies and gaps in the justifications YOU attempt for the claims and assertions YOU make. 

The trouble here for your grumpy self righteous argument is that you accused me of the fallacy of composition based on the unobserved. You said I was wrong but it seems you were wrong.

No it doesn’t – see above. If you want to leap straight from observable phenomena being contingent to the universe as a whole being contingent then you continue to commit the fallacy of composition. If I said that, based on one person standing at the cricket match having a better view, everyone standing at the cricket match would therefore have a better view would your charge of my making the fallacy of composition be wrong because you hadn’t observed every spectator standing up?

Can you see now where you keep going wrong? Anything?     

If you are saying there is something necessary about the contingent universe a) what is it? b) aren't you straying into deepity?

I’m saying no such thing. There may or may not be something necessary about the universe itself – I have no idea. Nor though have you, and you're the only one making the positive assertion about this here remember? Try as you might to shift the burden of proof, that’s still what you’re doing. Until and unless you finally make an argument for a contingent universe that isn’t full of mistake and holes, all other have to do is to identify those mistakes and holes – a trivially easy thing to do.   

Infinite regress doesn't answer the question. In fact it is a diversionary device and arguing that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient is just plainly comical.

No – it’s a point that undoes you. Your only way out of your problem of infinite regress is “it’s magic innit” – which makes you the person in the cartoon who writes a formula and inserts into it “miracle happens here”. How do you think that adds anything to the sum total of human knowledge?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A dubious claim at best, but in any case when do you plan to explain why properties observed in a system must also therefore apply to the system itself? 

Wrong again. YOU’RE the one making the claim – ie, that a property of the constituents of the universe that we’ve observed must also apply to the universe itself – and unless YOU can finally justify it, that’s precisely the fallacy of composition.   

This is just incoherent. Your “temptations” are epistemically worthless, and in any case even if I were to follow you down this rabbit hole my question would also be the same about your assertion “god” – ie, contingent on what? As your answer to that is effectively “magic”, you’re adding nothing to the limited verifiable knowledge we already have about the universe.       

More white noise. We don’t come to the question “contingent on what?” at all – what we actually come to is, “we don’t know whether the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else”. That’s the don’t know part. By all means though if you think it must be then have a go at explaining why (I’ll alert the Nobel committee to your imminent scientific breakthrough), but until you can you’re stuck in the same nursery-level thinking: “my head hurts because that branch hit me, therefor the universe has a creator”.     

Burden of proof mistake (again). I’m not proposing anything remember? All I’m doing is pointing out the fallacies and gaps in the justifications YOU attempt for the claims and assertions YOU make. 

No it doesn’t – see above. If you want to leap straight from observable phenomena being contingent to the universe as a whole being contingent then you continue to commit the fallacy of composition. If I said that, based on one person standing at the cricket match having a better view, everyone standing at the cricket match would therefore have a better view would your charge of my making the fallacy of composition be wrong because you hadn’t observed every spectator standing up?

Can you see now where you keep going wrong? Anything?     

I’m saying no such thing. There may or may not be something necessary about the universe itself – I have no idea. Nor though have you, and you're the only one making the positive assertion about this here remember? Try as you might to shift the burden of proof, that’s still what you’re doing. Until and unless you finally make an argument for a contingent universe that isn’t full of mistake and holes, all other have to do is to identify those mistakes and holes – a trivially easy thing to do.   

No – it’s a point that undoes you. Your only way out of your problem of infinite regress is “it’s magic innit” – which makes you the person in the cartoon who writes a formula and inserts into it “miracle happens here”. How do you think that adds anything to the sum total of human knowledge?   

Infinite regress fails on it's own hillside since every time you put up a contingent the appropriate response is to ask what it is contingent on?. That is another example of the unproductivity of infinite regression. Also, it is the worst possible case of including entities beyond necessity as in Occam's razor.

Other than that I don't see any other thing of merit in your post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Infinite regress fails on it's own hillside since every time you put up a contingent the appropriate response is to ask what it is contingent on?. That is another example of the unproductivity of infinite regression. Also, it is the worst possible case of including entities beyond necessity as in Occam's razor.

Er, yes – that is the problem with infinite regress. It’s turtles all the way down. How then do you think that just inserting “miracle happen here” (ie, “god”) into your explanation resolves that?

Other than that I don't see any other thing of merit in your post.

Meaning that, having had every one of your mistakes identified and corrected you cannot or will not deal with the falsifications before you so run away instead.

‘twas ever thus I guess.