Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Stranger]

No. The necessary entity has to be what it actually is since there is nothing comparable external to it to make it be one thing or another.

You haven't established the need for a necessary entity and you're dismissing the universe on the basis that we could conceive of it being different, which is equally true of any god you make up.

Ah sweet agreement to the possibility. Good, we can now discuss it's attributes.

A possibility is not a definite conclusion we can move on from. AFAIK nobody has denied that a god is a possibility. What you need to to is establish it as something that should at least be taken seriously.

So far, you haven't established that there actually needs to be any necessary entity, or even if the concept makes sense. If you're going to try to use logic, you need to go step by step. Staring with definitions and premises.

Hand-waving and shifting the burden of proof is not going to work.

[jeremyp]

I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.

There's a difference between a necessary being and a necessary something. You have failed to explain why the necessary thing has to be a god nor why your god is not contingent (assuming he exists).

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah sweet agreement to the possibility. Good, we can now discuss it's attributes.

Fine - I imagine its attributes would correspond to fundamental physics.

But indicating the possibility of a necessary entity (which of course theoretical and experimental physicists have been doing for years), doesn't mean there is a necessary entity - so unlike you I remain open to the possibility of both a necessary entity and no necessary entity. You on the other hand seem to have already pre-judged that there must be not just a necessary entity but a necessary being, and further that the necessary being is god.

But that is because you have worked backwards from our own prejudged conclusion rather than working forwards from the evidence to determine a range of possible conclusions, which in time with more and more work will distil down to fewer and fewer explanations, perhaps ultimately to a single convincing explanation. That work is, of course, ongoing in physics departments around the worlds but I doubt that a definitive conclusion will arise in my lifetime.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine - I imagine its attributes would correspond to fundamental physics.

I'm not so sure since fundamental physics seems to involve components and that suggests a whole bag of contingencies.

Given that, why would you think it's attributes correspond to fundamental physics?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But indicating the possibility of a necessary entity (which of course theoretical and experimental physicists have been doing for years), doesn't mean there is a necessary entity - so unlike you I remain open to the possibility of both a necessary entity and no necessary entity.

I think that you positioning yourself as the man only interested in scientific solutions has conditioned you to see the status quo as a kind of true for all time and all conditions. So since nothing necessary has been observed, it is therefore unlikely to exist. You have lost sight of the illogicality of everything being contingent. But I think you are beginning to recognise the logic of a necessary entity. To suggest no necessary entity.....(even I would come to the universe being the necessary entity if something necessary could be found about it is an abrogation of your scientific commitment since you have discarded the principle of cause and effect, for mere effect IMHO. You are settling for a hedge.

[Stranger]

I'm not so sure since fundamental physics seems to involve components and that suggests a whole bag of contingencies.

You can't even begin to go there when you haven't even made a start on the argument.

Still waiting for the first hint of an argument that tells us that there must be something necessary or any suggestion of how something might be unable to not be.

[Stranger]

So since nothing necessary has been observed...

You haven't started on the argument, so how would you even know?

You have lost sight of the illogicality of everything being contingent.

What illogicality?

...it is an abrogation of your scientific commitment since you have discarded the principle of cause and effect...

We have very good scientific reasons to think that cause and effect are not universally applicable, and even better reasons to think that it can't apply to the space-time as a whole.

Yet again: where is the argument you keep hinting at? All this vague hand-waving and using undefined terms, is just useless gibbering.

Start at the beginning: what are your premises?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not so sure since fundamental physics seems to involve components and that suggests a whole bag of contingencies.

Given that, why would you think it's attributes correspond to fundamental physics?

Because one of the major areas of theoretical and experimental physics is around the notion of fundamental and unifying theories that can explain the universe.

And perhaps this work won't come up with something that isn't contingent and we might then conclude that there is no element that isn't contingent, which wouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't even begin to go there when you haven't even made a start on the argument.

Still waiting for the first hint of an argument that tells us that there must be something necessary or any suggestion of how something might be unable to not be.

But I can. My argument is based on contingency and necessity. The argument is outlined in a lot of places. Objections and counterarguments are not successful particularly your generic argument. ''We don't know what it is but it can't be God'' or ''we don't know a clue what it is but I don't like what you are saying''.

All you seem to be doing is working out a vendetta on me as if my failure to satisfy you on argument from contingency universally wraps it up for contingency argument universally. Have you got some kind restraining order on approaching others on this subject or something?

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that you positioning yourself as the man only interested in scientific solutions has conditioned you to see the status quo as a kind of true for all time and all conditions. So since nothing necessary has been observed, it is therefore unlikely to exist.

Blimey - shows how little you understand about science, the scientific process and scientists themselves. Scientists like nothing better than to make observations about something that has never been observed before - we spend our careers doing this. The notion that we simply accept the status quo is, frankly bonkers - science is constantly challenging the status quo - that's what the scientific method is all about, continually testing the best explanations for observations based on current evidence. If those theories stand up to that testing, we continue to accept them until or unless new evidence arises at which point we happily ditch the previous explanation for a better one.

And guess what - this method works - as countless technologies, therapies etc etc that work, based on the scientific method demonstrate.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have lost sight of the illogicality of everything being contingent.

Not at all - there is no illogicality here - it is a perfectly reasonable possibility and one that I accept to be possible, just as I accept there there may be some non-contingent fundamental physical entity.

You are the one that refuses to accept one explanation as being even possible, despite the fact that you have no evidence on which to dismiss it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because one of the major areas of theoretical and experimental physics is around the notion of fundamental and unifying theories that can explain the universe.

And perhaps this work won't come up with something that isn't contingent and we might then conclude that there is no element that isn't contingent, which wouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion.

To say that everything is contingent gives rise inexorably to the question ''On what?''

[ProfessorDavey]

To say that everything is contingent gives rise inexorably to the question ''On what?''

Another element within a complex interconnected network of elements. Why is that so hard to understand. Not everything is hierarchical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not at all - there is no illogicality here - it is a perfectly reasonable possibility and one that I accept to be possible, just as I accept there there may be some non-contingent fundamental physical entity.

You are the one that refuses to accept one explanation as being even possible, despite the fact that you have no evidence on which to dismiss it.

I do because contingent things are contingent because they are dependent. That is the nature of the beast I'm afraid. If you find something that isn't contingent then that is automatically necessary.

You seem to be accepting two definitionally contradictory things.

There is no equality between the two arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another element within a complex interconnected network of elements. Why is that so hard to understand. Not everything is hierarchical.

There is no 'another' because you have said 'everything' is contingent.

[Stranger]

But I can. My argument is based on contingency and necessity.

You haven't made an argument. At least, not a logical argument. You're trying to get other people to counter your vague hand-waving, undefined terms, and unsupported assertions.

The argument is outlined in a lot of places.

Then post a version or link to one that you're prepared to defend so we can all be sure what we are talking about. This is something you never have the intellectual courage to do. You always just run away and try to hide behind ambiguity.

Grow a backbone, FFS.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be accepting two definitionally contradictory things.

Nonsense - I never said both were the case (albeit with a quantum mechanical perspective you might be able to argue that an element is both necessary and contingent) - not what I said is that both are plausible and that we don't have the evidence currently to determine which is correct. In the absence of evidence I am not ruling either out.

You on the other hand, without a shred of evidence, seem to have nailed your colours to the mast, not just for a necessary element, but a necessary being and presumably that that necessary being is god. Of course your assertion is arse over tit, in other words allowing your prejudged conclusion to cloud your approach to evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense - I never said both were the case (albeit with a quantum mechanical perspective you might be able to argue that an element is both necessary and contingent) - not what I said is that both are plausible and that we don't have the evidence currently to determine which is correct. In the absence of evidence I am not ruling either out.

You on the other hand, without a shred of evidence, seem to have nailed your colours to the mast, not just for a necessary element, but a necessary being and presumably that that necessary being is god. Of course your assertion is arse over tit, in other words allowing your prejudged conclusion to cloud your approach to evidence.

One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason since it is likely science is limited to the contingent. One reason being that only contingent things may be observable scientifically.

[Gordon]

One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason since it is likely science is limited to the contingent. One reason being that only contingent things may be observable scientifically.

All very nice I'm sure, but you are avoiding a key issue: if there are non-contingent/necessary things, and if these things aren't amenable to naturalistic investigation as you suggest (which is an assertion of yours btw), then on what basis can you know that they actually exist, and if you can establish that they do exist, then how can you know anything about their characteristics?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All very nice I'm sure, but you are avoiding a key issue: if there are non-contingent/necessary things, and if these things aren't amenable to naturalistic investigation as you suggest (which is an assertion of yours btw), then on what basis can you know that they actually exist, and if you can establish that they do exist, then how can you know anything about their characteristics?

You are making the assumption that things can only be known or experienced naturalistically.

[Stranger]

One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason...

Where is this logic and reason?

Vague hand-waving and baseless assertions are all you've produced to date.

I posted the absurd original (Aquinas' third way) last time we talked about this, and it's obviously riddled with fallacies and ignorance of modern science. There are some modern updates that attempt to correct it, but there are certainly more than one knocking about.

So stop running scared and post this "logic and reason" that you claim make up this argument, in a version you are prepared to defend, so we can address it properly.

[ProfessorDavey]

One reason being that only contingent things may be observable scientifically.

Why on earth should that be the case Vlad - where is your evidence for this assertion. I know you desperately want to make a case for something 'out there' which we cannot detect, observe, have any evidence for that you can then go 'ha, god' - but that is just wishful thinking.

If there is something necessary rather than contingent then there is no reason why we might not be able to observe it - remember that virtually all of our observation methods as, to some degree, indirect. So unless this necessary entity has no impact on any contingent entities (in which case the latter wouldn't be contingent) then we'd still be able to detect via observation of contingent elements. Science, of course does this all the time - a good example being the planets - we knew some of the more far flung planets existed before we were able to observe them directly, because the orbits of planets we could observe was only consistent with there being something further out, but at the time un-observed.

[ProfessorDavey]

One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason since it is likely science is limited to the contingent.

No it isn't unless you self-define necessary as effectively 'magic' - there is no logical, reasoned argument to justify the notion that a necessary element must not be amenable to scientific investigation, not that science can only investigate contingent entities.

And even were that true we could still detect the presence of a (not observable) necessary element via its effects on observable contingent entities. Unless, of course, it is completely 'invisible' and does not impact whatsoever on anything we might be able to observe - in which case this supposed necessary entity would be completely indistinguishable from something that does not actually exist.

[Gordon]

You are making the assumption that things can only be known or experienced naturalistically.

No I'm not - since you insist that the non-contingent/necessary is outwith the scope of naturalism then I'm asking you what alternative approach might apply given you claim you have logic and reason on your side. You could start by explaining the approach you adopted in order the justify your stated position on this.

I think it's time you spilled the beans, Vlad. 

[ProfessorDavey]

No I'm not - since you insist that the non-contingent/necessary is outwith the scope of naturalism then I'm asking you what alternative approach might apply given you claim you have logic and reason on your side. You could start by explaining the approach you adopted in order the justify your stated position on this.

I think it's time you spilled the beans, Vlad.

I think Vlad needs to take a step back - firstly he needs to justify his claim that non-contingent/necessary entities cannot be amenable to standard scientific observation. Only once he has done that does the question of what alternative methods need to be used to determine the difference between a non-contingent/necessary entity that exists but cannot be detected by standard methodology and a non-contingent/necessary entity that does not exist.

Problem for Vlad is that he has no way of even addressing the first question because his only (clearly logical and reasoned ) argument for non-contingent/necessary entities not being amenable to standard scientific observation is because he has already prejudged the conclusion - in other words that he has already (without a shred of evidence) decided that there is a non-contingent/necessary entity, indeed a non-contingent/necessary being and that this being is god - and the only way he can sustain this argument in the absence of any evidence is to come up with this non-sense that god, as a non-contingent/necessary entity must not be amenable to standard scientific observation.

But, of course, a huge flaw in his argument is that it can only be sustained if god has no impact whatsoever on contingent entities (including people) who are observable by the scientific method. So his argument is only sustainable if this god is completely invisible and never interacts whatsoever with the known and observable universe. Possible, of course, but not consistent with the claims about the christian god.