Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[ProfessorDavey]

They then Proceed from the necessary entity.

Which would then be, by definition, the governing rules.

[ProfessorDavey]

We must either say that the rules are the necessary entity or matter/energy is ...

So you are accepting that matter/energy or their governing rules may be the the necessary entity (if there even is one). Well those things clearly lie within the sphere of the physical world, not outside it, they are clearly amenable to standard scientific observations. So you seem to be arguing against yourself as elsewhere you seemed to imply that a necessary entity must exists entirely outwith the physical world, not interact with the physical world and therefore not be amenable to standard scientific observation.

... or look elsewhere.

Indeed - but the place to look would be within the sphere of the physical world involving entities that are part of that physical world and interact with other entities (contingent ones) within that physical world.

An alternative approach would be to consider that there is no necessary entity and that all entities inter-relate in a mutually contingent manner.

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.

Depends on what you mean by the rules of nature - I think this kind of implies life, in which case I'd close you down straight away as it is pretty clear that life doesn't need to exist for the universe to exist so cannot be a necessary entity. Fundamental principles of physics - well perhaps.

[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 am not saying that matter/energy is independent of the necessary being.

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.

Not at all, what I am saying is that it is independent for it's existence from the physical world which as the contingent thing is clearly not independent of the necessary being for it's existence
 What I am suggesting is that the contingencies of the physical world are not independent of the necessary entity but the necessity of the necessary entity is independent of the contingencies of the physical world. You see, not baseless at all...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are accepting that matter/energy or their governing rules may be the the necessary entity (if there even is one). Well those things clearly lie within the sphere of the physical world,

And are observed to be contingent, thus ending any claim to being the necessary entity.

[Stranger]

Prof and others,

What's the point of arguing with Vlad about something he hasn't demonstrates even exists and hasn't defined in any way? He can and is just making shit up to suit his baseless superstition.

Vlad,

Have the courage of your convictions for once in your life and make (or reference) an actual argument.  Here you go: I totally reject your baseless claim that there must be a 'necessary entity', I think you're just making it up, so make your case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof and others,

What's the point of arguing with Vlad about something he hasn't demonstrates even exists and hasn't defined in any way? He can and is just making shit up to suit his baseless superstition.

I don't think anyone is listening to you.

[ProfessorDavey]

... the necessary entity.

But there may not be a necessary entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

And are observed to be contingent,

Are they, all of them - evidence please.

... thus ending any claim to being the necessary entity.

See above - but you are also making a presumption that there is a necessary entity - that isn't proven in any way.

[Stranger]

I don't think anyone is listening to you.

That's their problem. I will continue to remind you of your intellectual cowardice and dishonest pretence that you have made a case to answer. You're behaving like a fraud.

What are you so afraid of anyway? If you don't know (on some level) that as soon as you make the 'argument' explicit, it will be torn to shreds and you don't have the intellectual ability to defend it, why wouldn't you want to do so? If you had any confidence whatsoever that it was in the least bit convincing, you'd jump at the chance.

[ProfessorDavey]

What I am suggesting is that the contingencies of the physical world are not independent of the necessary entity but the necessity of the necessary entity is independent of the contingencies of the physical world. You see, not baseless at all...

In which case they would be perfectly amenable to standard scientific observation which could either observe the entity directly or indirectly through its actions on other entities. Which doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous view that somehow a necessary entity must not be amenable to standard scientific observation.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but the necessity of the necessary entity ...

Once again your presumption that there is a necessary entity.

Simple question for you Vlad:

Do you accept that there may not be a necessary entity?

Simple Yes/No answer is all that is required

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are they, all of them - evidence please.
See above - but you are also making a presumption that there is a necessary entity - that isn't proven in any way.

There are reasons and logic to suggest the necessary entity. All you are saying is there is no scientific proof. I am putting that down to the limitations of science, you believe that science IS the limit and that, professor is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are reasons and logic to suggest the necessary entity.

There are also reasons and logic to suggest that there isn't a necessary entity, so back to my question:

Do you accept that there may not be a necessary entity?

Simple Yes/No answer is all that is required

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again your presumption that there is a necessary entity.

Simple question for you Vlad:

Do you accept that there may not be a necessary entity?

Simple Yes/No answer is all that is required

There are reasons for my presumption as you call it. I'm afraid there is no clear refutation of the argument from contingency.

Why do you think there might not be a necessary entity? Because it hasn't been proved scientifically?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are also reasons and logic to suggest that there isn't a necessary entity, so back to my question:

What are they?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are reasons for my presumption as you call it. I'm afraid there is no clear refutation of the argument from contingency.

That's because you refuse ever to tell us what that argument is though remember?

You're not just lying to others here, you're lying to yourself too.

[ProfessorDavey]

All you are saying is there is no scientific proof. I am putting that down to the limitations of science, you believe that science IS the limit and that, professor is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.

Not at all - what I am saying is that if there is a necessary entity, that entity must interact and affect contingent entities and therefore must be amenable to standard scientific observation, either directly or indirectly.

It may well be that the limits of science current mean that we haven't observed it yet, but that does not mean it is unobservable. But in the interim we cannot distinguish between a necessary entity that we have yet to observe due to the limitations of our current observation approaches and a situation where there is no necessary entity.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are reasons for my presumption as you call it. I'm afraid there is no clear refutation of the argument from contingency.

Fudge - it is a simple question, so I'll ask it again:

Do you accept that there may not be a necessary entity?

Simple Yes/No answer is all that is required

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case they would be perfectly amenable to standard scientific observation which could either observe the entity directly or indirectly through its actions on other entities. Which doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous view that somehow a necessary entity must not be amenable to standard scientific observation.

My own advice would be to look for a particle maybe which gives rise to a plethora of various different particles while demonstrating no change in itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fudge - it is a simple question, so I'll ask it again:

Do you accept that there may not be a necessary entity?

Simple Yes/No answer is all that is required

No.....I cannot see it, it is illogical

Now I have answered yours. Answer mine. Why do you think there may not be a necessary entity?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why do you think there might not be a necessary entity? Because it hasn't been proved scientifically?

Unlike you I will answer the question:

Until there is credible evidence for the existence of a necessary entity we cannot distinguish between:

a). A situation where there is a necessary entity but we have not yet been able to observe it/gain credible evidence for its existence
b). A situation where there is no necessary entity

Hence the rational and logical position to take is firstly to accept both remain possibilities until or unless we gain the evidence and that we should work hard on methods to understand the universe which may help us understand which of a) or b) is the case. This is, of course, what physicists around the world are doing.

[ProfessorDavey]

No.....I cannot see it, it is illogical

That you cannot see it isn't a credible argument. Nor is it is illogical - as there are plenty of arguments for the universe that don't require a necessary entity, noting that you need to recognise that time and space aren't some kind of fixed element, so all the arguments about what happened before the universe was formed or what is outside the universe are predicated.

The notion of a necessary entity is just as illogical and it simply revisits the it just is argument aligned to infinite regress.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unlike you I will answer the question:

Until there is credible evidence for the existence of a necessary entity we cannot distinguish between:

a). A situation where there is a necessary entity but we have not yet been able to observe it/gain credible evidence for its existence
b). A situation where there is no necessary entity

Hence the rational and logical position to take is firstly to accept both remain possibilities until or unless we gain the evidence and that we should work hard on methods to understand the universe which may help us understand which of a) or b) is the case. This is, of course, what physicists around the world are doing.

So, no scientific proof.....That argument is therefore rooted in philosophical empiricism and scientism. Which are philosophical not scientific arguments.

There remains no clear philosophical refutation of the argument from Contingency. It remains the most reasonable argument due to the principle of sufficient reason.

No ultimate Necessary in the face of observable universal contingency is nonsense and is a linguistic mockery. It is meaningless because  the word contingency is being used contextlessly. 

[ProfessorDavey]

So, no scientific proof.....That argument is therefore rooted in philosophical empiricism and scientism. Which are philosophical not scientific arguments.

Oh dear Vlad you are so dogmatic, and dogmatically wrong.

Read what I am saying (and what I am not saying).

I am not saying - no evidence for a necessary entity = no necessary entity

What I am saying is - no evidence for a necessary entity = we should therefore not presume there is a necessary entity as our current understanding is consistent with either a necessary entity existing that we have not yet observed/have evidence for and there being no necessary entity

So I'm not the one going down a philosophical rabbit hole, you are as you have nailed your colours to the mast of there must be a necessary entity as an unsubstantiated philosophical position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you cannot see it isn't a credible argument. Nor is it is illogical - as there are plenty of arguments for the universe that don't require a necessary entity, noting that you need to recognise that time and space aren't some kind of fixed element, so all the arguments about what happened before the universe was formed or what is outside the universe are predicated.

The notion of a necessary entity is just as illogical and it simply revisits the it just is argument aligned to infinite regress.

The argument from contingency does not depend on time.

Please provide an argument where the universe requires nothing for it's existence. Were that true the universe itself would be the necessary being but contingency is observed leading to the question what it is about the universe which is ultimately necessary? You see ''The necessary entity'' is unavoidable.