Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Firstly I would agree that what you call “a huge flaw” is contentious. I actually think it revolves around the question does mere observation actually affect something? And if affected is it’s status not then dependent. Perhaps you can flesh out your argument that the necessary entity does not affect the contingent when the contingent is dependent on the necessary.

Let us run though with the idea that the necessary is observable. What do you think we would be looking for?

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly I would agree that what you call “a huge flaw” is contentious.

Not at all - as scientist we are completely comfortable with detecting things via their interactions with other things. So if your non-contingent/necessary entity is not to be able to be detected by standard observation it cannot interact with contingent entities in a manner which is detectable, so cannot have the features you claim for the christian god. So yup - a pretty huge flaw in your argument.

[Gordon]

Let us run though with the idea that the necessary is observable. What do you think we would be looking for?

No idea: this is your claim so you should be telling us what we should look for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not at all - as scientist we are completely comfortable with detecting things via their interactions with other things. So if your non-contingent/necessary entity is not to be able to be detected by standard observation it cannot interact with contingent entities in a manner which is detectable, so cannot have the features you claim for the christian god. So yup - a pretty huge flaw in your argument.

Two things here, your argument seems to be based on philosophical empiricism where you talk about standard procedures.

Secondly, what kind of interaction are you looking at?
I would suggest the presence of contingent things is an interaction of sorts. Secondly if one is not dogmatically philosophical empiricist all kinds of non empirical interactions seem to be taking place.

That does leave what you call standard interactions so I have to again ask what you would expect to see?

[Stranger]

Perhaps you can flesh out your argument...

Hypocrisy off the scale. How about giving any solid details of your (so far, entirely mythical) argument?

Let us run though with the idea that the necessary is observable. What do you think we would be looking for?

This is what your argument should be telling us.

I've no idea why other people are playing your dishonest game, but until you put forward an actual argument, there is no case to answer. I have no reason to accept that there is anything necessary, no idea how that is even possible, and no idea what it would be like, even if it (or they) exist.

To everybody else: why the fuck are you going along with Vlad's dishonest and evasive nonsense?

[ProfessorDavey]

Two things here, your argument seems to be based on philosophical empiricism where you talk about standard procedures.

Secondly, what kind of interaction are you looking at?
I would suggest the presence of contingent things is an interaction of sorts. Secondly if one is not dogmatically philosophical empiricist all kinds of non empirical interactions seem to be taking place.

That does leave what you call standard interactions so I have to again ask what you would expect to see?

Firstly - I never used the term 'standard interactions' I used the term 'standard observation' in other words our standard scientific approach.

Regarding the interactions - first, pretty well by definition there must be interaction between the necessary and contingent entities, as otherwise the necessary entity would ... well ... not be necessary, as it would easily not exist. So in a manner of speaking what makes an entity necessary is that it interacts directly or indirectly with all contingent entities as otherwise it wouldn't be necessary.

What is the nature of the interaction - well there is nothing to suggest it would be any different to interaction between any other entities (e.g. two or more contingent entities) - what makes a necessary entity necessary is not the nature of its interactions, but there importance - in other words that the contingent entities could not exist without those interactions. But that doesn't mean that the interactions must be magic - quite the reverse they are most likely to be fundamental physical interactions, and if so we can detect them either directly or due to their impact on other entities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly - I never used the term 'standard interactions' I used the term 'standard observation' in other words our standard scientific approach.

Regarding the interactions - first, pretty well by definition there must be interaction between the necessary and contingent entities, as otherwise the necessary entity would ... well ... not be necessary, as it would easily not exist. So in a manner of speaking what makes an entity necessary is that it interacts directly or indirectly with all contingent entities as otherwise it wouldn't be necessary.

What is the nature of the interaction - well there is nothing to suggest it would be any different to interaction between any other entities (e.g. two or more contingent entities) - what makes a necessary entity necessary is not the nature of its interactions, but there importance - in other words that the contingent entities could not exist without those interactions. But that doesn't mean that the interactions must be magic - quite the reverse they are most likely to be fundamental physical interactions, and if so we can detect them either directly or due to their impact on other entities.

Two things. Most interactions reported would in scientific terms show up neurologically.

One thing about the necessary entity though is that being non contingent means being a law unto itself so I still doubt how penetrable it is to science. Which I believe relies somewhat on the repeatable.

Secondly I wonder generally how the necessary entity fits into the laboratory or even field of study.

I do appreciate though your points.

[Stranger]

One thing about the necessary entity though is that being non contingent means being a law unto itself...

Yet another utterly unsupported assertion pulled out of the void where your actual argument should be.   

No argument, no case to answer. Your 'necessary entity' is still nothing better than a personal fairytale.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet another utterly unsupported assertion pulled out of the void where your actual argument should be.   

No argument, no case to answer. Your 'necessary entity' is still nothing better than a personal fairytale.

Oh dear, Never talk to strangers doesn't understand the meaning of non contingent or the implications.

[jeremyp]

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

Have you ever experienced anything non naturalistically? How can you be sure you did?

[jeremyp]

Oh dear, Never talk to strangers doesn't understand the meaning of non contingent or the implications.

I don't think you do either.

In any event, you haven't shown that the being you believe to be God (but could be Loki in disguise) is necessary. In fact, you haven't shown it exists outside of your imagination.

[bluehillside Retd.]

FFS. I’ve backed away from this mb of late in part because there’s no chance of Vlad ever behaving honestly, and in part because there are no other religious contributors that I can see with anything of interest to say. Nonetheless, as Vlad won’t do it himself here’s the argument he implies: 

1. Everything I observe and everything I understand about the universe appears to be determinative.

2. Therefore, the universe itself must be determinative – ie, necessarily caused by something other than itself.

3. To avoid the problem of infinite regress, that causal agency must also be non-determinative in character.

4. Therefore God.

All four steps are wrong for reasons we all understand (all it offers is, “it’s magic innit”), which is why he’ll never set out his reasoning for himself. When asked for it though, what he does instead is throw in the accusation of “philosophical materialism” as if that in some way supports him. It does no such thing though for the following reasons:   

1. It doesn’t mean what he thinks it means – ie, the claim that all that exists must be material. What he actually means is physicalism, (which actually is the view that all that exists is ultimately physical) but which no-one here I’m aware of subscribes to because absolutist statements of this type are unverifiable.

2. Having established his straw man, the then relies on his own mischaracterisation to claim his interlocutors to argue “certainly not “God””, rather than the actual position of “no sound reasons to think “God”” – two positions that are fundamentally different.

3. Finally, when asked what method other than reason or evidence he proposes instead to verify his claim “God” he always – and I mean always – runs away.

Others are of course free to engage with him without addressing first the fundamental lies and evasions on which he relies, but it seems a fool’s errand to me.

All best.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you ever experienced anything non naturalistically? How can you be sure you did?

I would say yes I have and you probably have too, namely things that can't be measured empirically. I go on the premises that ''if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck'' and ''it is what it is.'' I would also say that the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes my non naturalistic experience experience is that of Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

FFS. I’ve backed away from this mb of late in part because there’s no chance of Vlad ever behaving honestly, and in part because there are no other religious contributors that I can see with anything of interest to say. Nonetheless, as Vlad won’t do it himself here’s the argument he implies: 

1. Everything I observe and everything I understand about the universe appears to be determinative.

2. Therefore, the universe itself must be determinative – ie, necessarily caused by something other than itself.

3. To avoid the problem of infinite regress, that causal agency must also be non-determinative in character.

4. Therefore God.

All four steps are wrong for reasons we all understand (all it offers is, “it’s magic innit”), which is why he’ll never set out his reasoning for himself. When asked for it though, what he does instead is throw in the accusation of “philosophical materialism” as if that in some way supports him. It does no such thing though for the following reasons:   

1. It doesn’t mean what he thinks it means – ie, the claim that all that exists must be material. What he actually means is physicalism, (which actually is the view that all that exists is ultimately physical) but which no-one here I’m aware of subscribes to because absolutist statements of this type are unverifiable.

2. Having established his straw man, the then relies on his own mischaracterisation to claim his interlocutors to argue “certainly not “God””, rather than the actual position of “no sound reasons to think “God”” – two positions that are fundamentally different.

3. Finally, when asked what method other than reason or evidence he proposes instead to verify his claim “God” he always – and I mean always – runs away.

Others are of course free to engage with him without addressing first the fundamental lies and evasions on which he relies, but it seems a fool’s errand to me.

All best.         

Bollocks......much missed bollocks.......But bollocks all the same.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Bollocks......much missed bollocks.......But bollocks all the same.

QED

[Stranger]

Oh dear, Never talk to strangers doesn't understand the meaning of non contingent or the implications.

Stop waving your arms about and talking out your arse, and actually make the argument, then.

FFS, why are you such an intellectual coward?

[jeremyp]

I would say yes I have and you probably have too, namely things that can't be measured empirically.

If you can't measure it empirically, how can you know if it was real or not?

I go on the premises that ''if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck'' and ''it is what it is.'' I would also say that the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes my non naturalistic experience experience is that of Christianity.

But you said you couldn't measure it. How can you rank possible explanations if you can't analyse the phenomenon properly? I would say the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes your Christian experience is that you imagined it. Why is your explanation better than mine?

[jeremyp]

I would say yes I have and you probably have too, namely things that can't be measured empirically. I go on the premises that ''if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck'' and ''it is what it is.'' I would also say that the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes my non naturalistic experience experience is that of Christianity.

Also still waiting for your evidence that you weren't tricked by Loki.

[Outrider]

Bollocks......much missed bollocks.......But bollocks all the same.

Exactly as devastatingly incisive as we've come to expect 

Any response to the point that the Christian depiction of a created reality is not in keeping with the, arguably necessary for Christianity, concept of free will that you abandoned responding to a few pages back?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Two things. Most interactions reported would in scientific terms show up neurologically.

Not really, unless you are only focussing on humans/living things. There are plenty of interactions - e.g. gravity, light, spins etc that would result in interactions that aren't anything to do with neurology, although scientists, as smart people, might interpret those interactions neurologically. But those interactions would still occur regardless of any observation by humans or any other living thing.

One thing about the necessary entity though is that being non contingent means being a law unto itself ...

I don't think that is true at all. A necessary entity is one that is required to exist for other things to exist, in other words not contingent on another entity. That doesn't mean it is a law unto itself, still less that it somehow operates outside the rules that govern contingent entities. All it means is that contingent entities cannot exist/happen without it.

... so I still doubt how penetrable it is to science.

Of course it can - it may in itself be direct observable by science, or indirectly observed via its effects on contingent entities.

Which I believe relies somewhat on the repeatable.

Why wouldn't a necessary entity be consistent with repeatability - I would have thought that of all entities the most fundamental, the most required, the most necessary, will also be the most reproducible.

Secondly I wonder generally how the necessary entity fits into the laboratory or even field of study.

I do appreciate though your points.

Science constantly deals with identifying necessary and contingent elements in networks, pathways and systems (clearly on a more limited scale than universal) - so the standard approach is to remove elements and determine whether effects remain - if they do then the element you have remove isn't necessary, but may be contingent. If on the other hand removal means all further effects are abolished then this is necessary. Studies do this all the time, for example in medical research - knock out the action of a gene and look at downstream pathways.

The same approach can be applied more universally, albeit in a more theoretical manner as you can't easily knock-out an element of the big bang experimentally in the manner that you might with a gene. You can however, still conduct experimental studies, for example Hadron collider experiments aimed at identifying very short lived particle generation in conditions that may mimic those earliest event in the universe. Through these methods we can determine the inter-relationship between entities and elements and determine which may clearly be dependent on others and some which might be candidates for necessary entities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, unless you are only focussing on humans/living things. There are plenty of interactions - e.g. gravity, light, spins etc that would result in interactions that aren't anything to do with neurology, although scientists, as smart people, might interpret those interactions neurologically. But those interactions would still occur regardless of any observation by humans or any other living thing.
I don't think that is true at all. A necessary entity is one that is required to exist, in other not contingent on another entity. That doesn't mean it is a law unto itself, still less that it somehow operates outside the rules that govern contingent entities. All it means is that contingent entities cannot exist/happen without it.
Of course it can - it may in itself be direct observable by science, or indirectly observed via its effects on contingent entities.
Why wouldn't a necessary entity be consistent with repeatability - I would have thought that of all entities the most fundamental, the most required, the most necessary, will also be the most reproducible.
Science constantly deals with identifying necessary and contingent elements in networks, pathways and systems (clearly on a more limited scale than universal) - so the standard approach is to remove elements and determine whether effects remain - if they do then the element you have remove isn't necessary, but may be contingent. If on the other hand removal means all further effects are abolished then this is necessary. Studies do this all the time, for example in medical research - knock out the action of a gene and look at downstream pathways.

The same approach can be applied more universally, albeit in a more theoretical manner as you can't easily knock-out an element of the big bang experimentally in the manner that you might with a gene. You can however, still conduct experimental studies, for example Hadron collider experiments aimed at identifying very short lived particle generation in conditions that may mimic those earliest event in the universe. Through these methods we can determine the inter-relationship between entities and elements and determine which may clearly be dependent on others and some which might be candidates for necessary entities.

A noble enterprise i'm sure.

[ProfessorDavey]

A noble enterprise i'm sure.

I'm not sure noble is the correct word - I think we do it both in the spirit of enquiry and investigation and because stuff comes out of it that benefits society. The type of approach I have described will have been crucial over many years in order to allow us to fight covid, through understanding the disease process, developing diagnostics and vaccines/therapeutics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think that is true at all. A necessary entity is one that is required to exist for other things to exist, in other words not contingent on another entity. That doesn't mean it is a law unto itself, still less that it somehow operates outside the rules that govern contingent entities. All it means is that contingent entities cannot exist/happen without it.
Of course it can - it may in itself be direct observable by science, or indirectly observed via its effects on contingent entities.

Much of this is incorrect. The necessary entity is only subject to itself. There are no governing rules of nature .If that were so it would be contingent on those laws and so not “Necessary”.

[ProfessorDavey]

Much of this is incorrect. The necessary entity is only subject to itself. There are no governing rules of nature .If that were so it would be contingent on those laws and so not “Necessary”.

Nope you are getting it wrong - let's imagine that the governing rules of nature are the necessary entity - not only would they apply to themselves (obviously) but they also apply to all the contingent elements - hence those elements are contingent. The notion that a necessary entity sits in perfect isolation and somehow has no interaction with the contingent entities is clearly nonsense as those contingent entities would therefore not be contingent on the necessary entity.

I know it suits your unevidenced assertion to try to make out that a necessary entity somehow sits outside the physical world, but this is incoherent and baseless. The point about a necessary entity is that it is required to exist for other contingent entities to exist - nothing more, nothing less. It does not have to sit outside (and therefore non interacting with) the physical world and indeed were it to do so it is hard to see how it could be a necessary entity for the physical world at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope you are getting it wrong - let's imagine that the governing rules of nature are the necessary entity - not only would they apply to themselves (obviously) but they also apply to all the contingent elements - hence those elements are contingent. The notion that a necessary entity sits in perfect isolation and somehow has no interaction with the contingent entities is clearly nonsense as those contingent entities would therefore not be contingent on the necessary entity.

I know it suits your unevidenced assertion to try to make out that a necessary entity somehow sits outside the physical world, but this is incoherent and baseless. The point about a necessary entity is that it is required to exist for other contingent entities to exist - nothing more, nothing less. It does not have to sit outside (and therefore non interacting with) the physical world and indeed were it to do so it is hard to see how it could be a necessary entity for the physical world at all.

If the governing rules are the necessary entity......but what if they aren't since one view of them is that they are unified with matter and energy. They then Proceed from the necessary entity. If the governing rules are dependent on their existence on matter and energy and visa versa they cannot be the necessary entity since they are contingent on each other for existence. We must either say that the rules are the necessary entity or matter/energy is or look elsewhere.

Of the two, the rules of nature with an existence independent of matter energy is to my mind a better candidate for necessary entity than matter/energy/rules or matter/energy, since matter/energy can be actualised.