Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"Might be"? There might be anything - leprechauns included. How does that supported you're entirely un-argued assertion that there is a necessary entity?

Anything is possible is not an argument because it clearly ignores the possibility of the impossible. More meaningless durry from the House of Hillside, I'm afraid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Anything is possible is not an argument because it clearly ignores the possibility of the impossible. More meaningless durry from the House of Hillside, I'm afraid.

Continued dishonest evasion noted.

[Stranger]

The one that has led Professor Davey to acknowledge there might be a necessary entity?

Goodness knows why the Prof is playing your game but it isn't because of an argument that you've posted or referenced because you haven't done either.

And anything unfalsifiable might be, that's obvious and is doubly so if the person who proposed it is too scared to even define it or post his argument.

Now you've returned what with you and that other chap ''Never talk''(If only he took his own advice) I don't know if I want to stick around to be Gaslit.

Asking you to be explicit about an argument you keep on gibbering about is not gaslighting. If anybody is attempting to gaslight anybody it's you pretending that you are talking about a real argument.

Stop being such an intellectual coward, have the courage of your convictions, and post your argument and definitions.

[Stranger]

...as I keep saying to you the argument from contingency is not dependent on time.

The original (Aquinas, see #428) does depend on time. So, once again, we have you just making shit up about an argument that, as far as anybody here can tell, simply doesn't exist.

And you accuse others of gaslighting!

[ProfessorDavey]

The original (Aquinas, see #428) does depend on time. So, once again, we have you just making shit up about an argument that, as far as anybody here can tell, simply doesn't exist.

I'm struggling to see how any form of the argument from contingency cannot be dependent on time.

So if x is contingent on y, which is therefore necessary for x to occur that is surely dependent on a temporal path from y to x. Noting that time is a relative concept, if time were reversed then you'd reverse your argument so now you would have y contingent on x, which is therefore necessary for y to occur.

It is like my runner analogy - unless you accept time to be unilinear it becomes impossible to determine who is in the lead and who is following.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm struggling to see how any form of the argument from contingency cannot be dependent on time.

So if x is contingent on y, which is therefore necessary for x to occur that is surely dependent on a temporal path from y to x. Noting that time is a relative concept, if time were reversed then you'd reverse your argument so now you would have y contingent on x, which is therefore necessary for y to occur.

It is like my runner analogy - unless you accept time to be unilinear it becomes impossible to determine who is in the lead and who is following.

The argument from contingency involves dependence so My existence emerges from a lower level of organisation and so on and so forth until we get to the final necessary entity. Another analogy might be an infinity of moving railway trucks where there has to be some kind of locomotive entity moving them, funnily enough this is known in the transportation industry as the prime mover, yet another an infinty caused by perfectly aligned mirrors empty until I put my hand between them or an infinity of people owed a fiver forever disappointed until someone actually puts in a fiver. I believe There are arguments involving temporal relationships and heirarchiess and these are often mistaken for the argument from contingency  and I'm not convinced that we .
have eliminated them all

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Goodness knows why the Prof is playing your game

I would imagine it might have something to do with not dismissing the principle of sufficient reason out of hand.

[Stranger]

I'm struggling to see how any form of the argument from contingency cannot be dependent on time.

As I said, the original does depend on time (because it assumes all contingent things will at some time not exist), but Vlad is probably confusing the argument with some other versions where there is a hierarchy of dependence (if you want to waste an hour of your life you could watch this: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God Edward C Feser, PhD, which is probably part of what he's got in mind), but as long as he refuses to be explicit about the supposed argument, it's anybody's guess and he can just go on making any shit up he wants about his (secret/non-existent) argument. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said, the original does depend on time (because it assumes all contingent things will at some time not exist), but Vlad is probably confusing the argument with some other versions where there is a hierarchy of dependence (if you want to waste an hour of your life you could watch this: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God Edward C Feser, PhD, which is probably part of what he's got in mind), but as long as he refuses to be explicit about the supposed argument, it's anybody's guess and he can just go on making any shit up he wants about his (secret/non-existent) argument.

On what warrant do you refer to any of Aquinus' arguments as ''the original?'' Even If it was and there are subsequent modifications so what? Nobody gives a shit that Einstein changed his tune.

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency involves...

If you told us what the argument was, we'd already know what it involves. The rest of your post is just vague, confused waffle.

On what warrant do you refer to any of Aquinus' arguments as ''the original?'' Even If it was and there are subsequent modifications so what? Nobody gives a shit that Einstein changed his tune.

If you actually gave us the argument you have in mind we wouldn't have to guess about it, would we?

I don't believe for a minute that you have an argument that even you think you could credibly defend, because that's the only explanation I can think of for your total refusal to make it explicit.

[ProfessorDavey]

My existence emerges ...

emerges - you can't see beyond a narrow universe in which time is constant and unilinear can you Vlad. emerges is clearly a term associated with time. So if time runs in reverse then you disappear, if time stops then the concept of emerging - being not there on moment and there the next, simply has no relevance.

Another analogy might be an infinity of moving railway trucks where there has to be some kind of locomotive entity moving them, funnily enough this is known in the transportation industry as the prime mover,

A terribly poor analogy as the notion of movement is relative - so does the train move or does the surrounding countryside move. Also back to time - whether the train appears to move and in which direction is entirely dependent on time.

yet another an infinty caused by perfectly aligned mirrors empty until I put my hand between them or an infinity of people owed a fiver forever disappointed until someone actually puts in a fiver.

Another terrible analogy - you are assuming the people are already there so why not the fiver - you can easily have an infinity of fiver passing events involving ten people in a circle continually passing the fiver one to another infinitely, It involves the people and it involves the fiver but which is necessary and which contingent for this infinite passage to happen. Well actually both the people and the fiver are, at the same time, both necessary and contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

emerges - you can't see beyond a narrow universe in which time is constant and unilinear can you Vlad. emerges is clearly a term associated with time. So if time runs in reverse then you disappear, if time stops then the concept of emerging - being not there on moment and there the next, simply has no relevance.
A terribly poor analogy as the notion of movement is relative - so does the train move or does the surrounding countryside move. Also back to time - whether the train appears to move and in which direction is entirely dependent on time.
Another terrible analogy - you are assuming the people are already there so why not the fiver - you can easily have an infinity of fiver passing events involving ten people in a circle continually passing the fiver one to another infinitely, It involves the people and it involves the fiver but which is necessary and which contingent for this infinite passage to happen. Well actually both the people and the fiver are, at the same time, both necessary and contingent.

I think it is you who is taking a temporal view of things like emergence. Water is wet, the wetness is due to the amount  and nature of molecules, neither has to wait for those properties which are due instantaneously to the nature of the atoms involved and thus at any point there exists a heirarchy of dependency. Now points are spaceless and timeless.

You do not seem to understand the purposes of analogy. In the case of the fiver the people just provide an example of an infinity. They represent an infinite emptiness of fivers.

Unless a fiver is put in that infinity of folk will be bereft of a fiver.

Have you come up with a natural system where you can remove any component and it still functions yet?

[ProfessorDavey]

You do not seem to understand the purposes of analogy. In the case of the fiver the people just provide an example of an infinity. They represent an infinite emptiness of fivers.

So you can just a well say that a fiver without the people represents an infinite emptiness of people.

Unless a fiver is put in that infinity of folk will be bereft of a fiver.

Unless the people are there the fiver will be bereft of the people so it cannot be moved from one person to another.

So in this case both are required to exist for the outcome (infinite moving of a fiver) to exist - if either the people or the fiver does not exist the overall action is impossible, hence both are necessary (i.e. cannot not exist for the outcome to be achieved). But at the same time each is contingent on the other - the people require the presence of the fiver and the fiver requires the presence of the people for the outcome to be achieved.

I fully understand analogy, it is that yours are exceptionally poor and fail even to come close to justifying your position that there must be a necessary entity and all other things are contingent. Your analogy cogently describes a situation where the people and the fiver are both necessary and contingent at the same time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you can just a well say that a fiver without the people represents an infinite emptiness of people.
Unless the people are there the fiver will be bereft of the people so it cannot be moved from one person to another.

So in this case both are required to exist for the outcome (infinite moving of a fiver) to exist - if either the people or the fiver does not exist the overall action is impossible, hence both are necessary (i.e. cannot not exist for the outcome to be achieved). But at the same time each is contingent on the other - the people require the presence of the fiver and the fiver requires the presence of the people for the outcome to be achieved.

I fully understand analogy, it is that yours are exceptionally poor and fail even to come close to justifying your position that there must be a necessary entity and all other things are contingent. Your analogy cogently describes a situation where the people and the five are both necessary and contingent at the same time.

I think the point is rather ''Why, if we are talking about infinity, which is the only thing possibly negating the significance of time, would we have an infinity of something rather than nothing?'' A. Something has to be put in.

An infinity of dependence and therefore contingency looks like never being satisfied.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the point is rather ''Why, if we are talking about infinity, which is the only thing possibly negating the significance of time,

Nonsense - the issue of the non linearity and constancy of time is not related to infinity.

would we have an infinity of something rather than nothing?'' A. Something has to be put in.

Well of course you can have an infinity of nothing - but if we are talking about something, then something has to be there - it doesn't have to be put in which simply begs the question, from where and comes back to your real problem with understanding time as anything other than constant and unilinear - you are implying that previously it used to be somewhere else and then was put in. Another assertion of temporal linearity

An infinity of dependence and therefore contingency looks like never being satisfied.

I have no idea what you are on about.

Why don't you actually come up with some kind of explanation or theory that you actually believe in rather than make these completely unintelligent and unintelligible psycho-babble sound bites.

[Stranger]

Why don't you actually come up with some kind of explanation or theory that you actually believe in rather than make these completely unintelligent and unintelligible psycho-babble sound bites.

Because he's too scared of not being able to defend it. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Because he's too scared of not being able to defend it. 

I suspect it is more fundamental than that - I doubt he even has an argument to defend.

[jeremyp]

The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity.

No, it's turtles all the way down.

The trouble is I think

The trouble is that you re confusing the concept with the reality.

If the universe is contingent the next logical question is ''On what''? If your answer is nothing then you have declared the universe necessary. It is unavoidable.

OK fine. That works for me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it's turtles all the way down.

Evidence?
The trouble is that you re confusing the concept with the reality

Yes you've claimed to know cosmic reality before have you considered you might be delusional?

. OK fine. That works for me.

really so what's the sufficient reason for the universe being the necessary entity.NB. The universe just is is not the same as declaring the universe as the necessary entity. Over to you.

[Stranger]

really so what's the sufficient reason for the universe being the necessary entity.NB. The universe just is is not the same as declaring the universe as the necessary entity. Over to you.

No, it isn't over to anybody but you to make an actual argument. What's more, even if you'd made the case for necessary entity, it's not up to anybody else to say what it might be, it would be up to you to make the case that it must be a god. The rest of us could just say we don't know.

What's more, the statement "The universe just is is not the same as declaring the universe as the necessary entity" is a baseless claim because you have yet to define what is involved with being necessary, which is, in turn, because you haven't put forward any hint of an argument.

Stop being such a coward, making shit up about things you haven't defined, and trying to shift the burden of proof. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[jeremyp]

Yes you've claimed to know cosmic reality before have you considered you might be delusional?

Nope. I've never claimed to know cosmic reality.

really so what's the sufficient reason for the universe being the necessary entity.

one sufficient reason would be that, if nothing created the Universe, it is necessary, by definition.

NB. The universe just is is not the same as declaring the universe as the necessary entity. Over to you.

I'm not declaring the Universe the necessary entity, I'm just declaring that we don't know whether it is or not. Furthermore, it seems pointless speculating about the nature of its creator when we don't yet know if it had one.

One thing I am fairly sure of is that any creator of the Universe - even if it was interested in the fates of some life forms on one of the planets orbiting one of the hundreds of billions of stars in one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies - would find a better way of saving us than pretending to be a human and pretending to be executed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

one sufficient reason would be that, if nothing created the Universe, it is necessary, by definition.

Well I find that statement one that leaves me wondering whether to counter it or not. I find myself finding that statement fair.
I'm not declaring the Universe the necessary entity, I'm just declaring that we don't know whether it is or not. Furthermore, it seems pointless speculating about the nature of its creator when we don't yet know if it had one.[/quote] For me and probably science too, the universe looks completely contingent.So what I am looking at is not necessary. That doesn't mean there isn't a necessary it leaves me asking what it is about the universe that is necessary?

One thing I am fairly sure of is that any creator of the Universe - even if it was interested in the fates of some life forms on one of the planets orbiting one of the hundreds of billions of stars in one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies - would find a better way of saving us than pretending to be a human and pretending to be executed.

I think when the pagan later roman emperor Julian the apostate was dying was troubled by what strange incarnations of Jesus might exist cosmically so wondering how God relates to other beings like us in intelligence and consciousness and moral dilemmae has a bit of a history.

[jeremyp]

Well I find that statement one that leaves me wondering whether to counter it or not.

How can you counter a definition?

For me and probably science too, the universe looks completely contingent.

What are the characteristics of an object that make it look completely contingent? For me, the one that would matter is that the object had a cause. What is it about the Universe that makes it look like it had a cause?

So what I am looking at is not necessary.

Generally speaking, you are looking at things in the Universe, not the Universe itself.

That doesn't mean there isn't a necessary it leaves me asking what it is about the universe that is necessary?

I'm not sure why you are having suvch trouble with this. Do you need me to explain to you what "necessary" means in this context?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can you counter a definition?
What are the characteristics of an object that make it look completely contingent? For me, the one that would matter is that the object had a cause. What is it about the Universe that makes it look like it had a cause?

Ever observable thing seems to have a cause. Going by the law of mediocrity, science will find that the laws that govern the universe are the same throughout the universe.

Generally speaking, you are looking at things in the Universe, not the Universe itself.

I don't think so since I am the one postulating the necessary entity, You, only a recent and grudging assenter the notion. When me or anyone observes the visible universe, according to you we are not. How can you square those two sentiments. All you are saying in a roundabout way is what I think your saying is that there is something about the universe which is necessary. To which the next question is what is it that we are not seeing or observing about the universe and I say we because you aren't either.

Further though the only sense I can make of your bizarre statements about looking at the universe and not looking at the universe is that what you are saying is the only way we can see the universe is by not being part of it or external to it. That is a position only occupied by the necessary entity

I'm not sure why you are having such trouble with this. Do you need me to explain to you what "necessary" means in this context?

Please feel free.

[Stranger]

Still no argument, definitions, or explanations from Vlad the coward.

The 'argument from contingency' is dead in the water and is easily refuted.