Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

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

Not according to Stanford University meta review. And I'd rather take their word than yours if your deranged and disturbed posts are anything to go by.
After all they, your posts, seem to say that the argument I have allegedly failed to give has magically some strange how been refuted SEVERAL TIMES Ha Ha Ha.

[Stranger]

Not according to Stanford University meta review.

[citation missing]

After all they, your posts, seem to say that the argument I have allegedly failed to give has magically some strange how been refuted SEVERAL TIMES Ha Ha Ha.

There is nothing "allegedly" about your failure to give an argument, the evidence is in this thread. If I'm wrong you could easily point to where you've given it.

I just decided to use your own approach, Vlad. You made the claim "There remains no clear philosophical refutation of the argument from Contingency." (#422), without actually ever saying what the argument was, so I didn't see why I couldn't make the opposite claim without saying what the refutation was.

Are you starting to get any hint of the problem here? Is any part of this sinking in at all? Even a little bit?

Nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

[citation missing]

There is nothing "allegedly" about your failure to give an argument, the evidence is in this thread. If I'm wrong you could easily point to where you've given it.

I just decided to use your own approach, Vlad. You made the claim "There remains no clear philosophical refutation of the argument from Contingency." (#422), without actually ever saying what the argument was, so I didn't see why I couldn't make the opposite claim without saying what the refutation was.

Are you starting to get any hint of the problem here? Is any part of this sinking in at all? Even a little bit?

Nothing?

Not only has academic philosophy failed to ''sink'' Argument from contingency, Perhaps the greatest mind of public, campaigning atheism who still maintains respect for philosophy Sean M. Carroll is still apparently searching, in between his day job for a way around the principle of Sufficient reason.
One has to respect him but not Bertrand Russell or Dawkins who both merely appealed to'' brute fact'' to declare themselves right about the universe.

[Stranger]

Not only has academic philosophy failed to ''sink'' Argument from contingency, Perhaps the greatest mind of public, campaigning atheism who still maintains respect for philosophy Seam M. Carroll is still apparently searching, in between his day job for a way around the principle of Sufficient reason.
On has to respect him but not Bertrand Russell or Dawkins who both merely appealed to'' brute fact'' to declare themselves right about the universe.

Claim, claim, claim,....   

Still no argument and still no reference to an argument.

What you don't seem to grasp (and if you knew even a tiny bit of logic or philosophy, you would) is that nobody needs an alternative explanation to dismiss an argument if it isn't sound, or, in this case, non-existent. Nobody has to scrabble around looking for something 'necessary'. They wouldn't even if anybody had made the case that there must be such a thing. It's entirely up to those proposing something specific (like a god) to make their case. This is the basic, simple, philosophical burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Claim, claim, claim,....   

Still no argument and still no reference to an argument.

What you don't seem to grasp (and if you knew even a tiny bit of logic or philosophy, you would) is that nobody needs an alternative explanation to dismiss an argument if it isn't sound, or, in this case, non-existent. Nobody has to scrabble around looking for something 'necessary'. They wouldn't even if anybody had made the case that there must be such a thing. It's entirely up to those proposing something specific (like a god) to make their case. This is the basic, simple, philosophical burden of proof.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje3PrinCausSuffReasSusp

 Objection 3: The Principles of Causation and Sufficient Reason Are Suspect

Now can you reference those papers where the argument from Contingency has been ''sunk''.

You have just reinforced your claim that You have both not recieved an argument and have also sunk that argument. No wonder your posts look suspiciously like raving.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Claim, claim, claim,....   

Still no argument and still no reference to an argument.

What you don't seem to grasp (and if you knew even a tiny bit of logic or philosophy, you would) is that nobody needs an alternative explanation to dismiss an argument if it isn't sound, or, in this case, non-existent. Nobody has to scrabble around looking for something 'necessary'. They wouldn't even if anybody had made the case that there must be such a thing. It's entirely up to those proposing something specific (like a god) to make their case. This is the basic, simple, philosophical burden of proof.

If argument from contingency has the burden of proof what do you think the agreed default position is?

[Stranger]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje3PrinCausSuffReasSusp

Fucking hell! At last! Okay, let's set it out here:-

• A contingent being (a being such that if it exists, it could have not-existed) exists.
• All contingent beings have a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for their existence.
• The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings is something other than the contingent being itself.
• The sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
• Contingent beings alone cannot provide a sufficient cause of or fully adequate explanation for the existence of contingent beings.
• Therefore, what sufficiently causes or fully adequately explains the existence of contingent beings must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
• Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist) exists.
• The universe, which is composed of only contingent beings, is contingent.
• Therefore, the necessary being is something other than the universe.

The first thing to note is that it's not an argument for a god, even if it was entirely sound. So, even if we accept it all, we can still say that we don't know what the 'necessary being' is.

Objection 3: The Principles of Causation and Sufficient Reason Are Suspect

They are indeed (as you can read there), which undermines the argument's soundness. The PSR is a philosophical principle and a controversial one at a that. It is not something that has been proved or that we can rely on when it comes to existence itself. Step 5 is also questionable, as has already been discussed. There is also an implicit assumption that there is only one 'necessary being', that hasn't been justified. Step 8 seems to be a fallacy of composition and, in the light of general relativity, the space-time manifold does not appear to be contingent on anything (at least not obviously).

So, all round, a bit of a dismal failure. Multiple steps are highly questionable and it wouldn't be an argument for a god anyway.

Now can you reference those papers where the argument from Contingency has been ''sunk''.

As I said, I was playing your game to point out the absurdity of continuing to make claims about something that you have never produced or referenced. I seem to have made my point.

[Stranger]

If argument from contingency has the burden of proof what do you think the agreed default position is?

Just like any other claim. The default is not to accept it until it is proved sound or we've been given other reasons, like evidence, to accept it.

[jeremyp]

Ever observable thing seems to have a cause.

You mean every observable thing in the Universe seems to have a cause. It's a fallacy to attempt to deduce from that that the Universe has a cause.

Everybody in the room was wearing trousers. Therefore the room was wearing trousers.

[Stranger]

I should, of course, have added that the whole concept of a 'necessary being' is logically questionable, at least in the sense that it is something that must exist (as has been suggested here). There is nothing we can imagine that would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist.

However, in step 7, it's defined as "a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist" - which obviously does apply to the space-time in general relativity. Since it contains all of time but doesn't itself change, then if it exists, it cannot not-exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean every observable thing in the Universe seems to have a cause. It's a fallacy to attempt to deduce from that that the Universe has a cause.

Everybody in the room was wearing trousers. Therefore the room was wearing trousers.

Everything in the universe is contingent therefore the universe is necessary?
The sum total of the universe is contingent therefore the universe is necessary?

Again Jeremy, What is it about the universe which is necessary?

Do you not consider yourself part of the universe?
Is not something with parts contingent?

[jeremyp]

Everything in the universe is contingent therefore the universe is necessary?

When you put it like that, it's obvious your argument is a non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When you put it like that, it's obvious your argument is a non sequitur.

What is it about the universe that is necessary?
Are you not a part of the universe. If all the parts are contingent.....what is it about the universe that is necessary?
Two things, the fallacy of composition occurs when we extend the properties of some of the parts. All parts we see seem to be contingent.
Anything with parts is definitionally contingent. What then is it about the universe that is Necessary?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I should, of course, have added that the whole concept of a 'necessary being' is logically questionable, at least in the sense that it is something that must exist (as has been suggested here). There is nothing we can imagine that would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist.

Not sure about this. Take the greatest contingent thing that can be imagined. Say, the universe. The question then is on what is it contingent on?
If you imagine the universe to be necessary, the next question is what is the sufficient reason for it.

You will also no doubt remember this gem from the stamford university meta review on the argument.

 '' even those who critique the PSR (understood broadly that every contingent thing, event. or fact must have a sufficient cause, reason, or ground) invoke it when they suggest that defenders of the principle have failed to provide a sufficient reason for thinking it is true.''

[Stranger]

What is it about the universe that is necessary?

• Nobody has to say what is necessary when you haven't made the case that anything is.
• Nobody has to say what is necessary even if you had made said case.
• It's up to you to show it has to be something specific (god) if you want to make that claim (basic burden of proof).
• There are now at least two definitions of necessity that have been discussed or referenced and you haven't said which you're using.
• I've already told you something about the universe that appears to not be contingent and would be necessary according to one of the definitions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

• Nobody has to say what is necessary when you haven't made the case that anything is.

They do if they declare the universe may be or is the necessary entity. Since that is a positive assertion.
Again what do you think is the default position here?[/list]

[Stranger]

Not sure about this. Take the greatest contingent thing that can be imagined. Say, the universe. The question then is on what is it contingent on?
If you imagine the universe to be necessary, the next question is what is the sufficient reason for it.

This appears to have bugger all to do with what I said and you quoted. I haven't a clue what the universe might be contingent on or what it's sufficient reason might be, or even if either question is applicable.

Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.

You will also no doubt remember this gem from the stamford university meta review on the argument.

'' even those who critique the PSR (understood broadly that every contingent thing, event. or fact must have a sufficient cause, reason, or ground) invoke it when they suggest that defenders of the principle have failed to provide a sufficient reason for thinking it is true.''

Which appears to be confusing the real world with the structure of arguments. What's more, of course, arguments in logic require premises, which are, effectively, 'brute facts' for which no reason is given.

[jeremyp]

What is it about the universe that is necessary?
Are you not a part of the universe. If all the parts are contingent.....what is it about the universe that is necessary?
Two things, the fallacy of composition occurs when we extend the properties of some of the parts. All parts we see seem to be contingent.
Anything with parts is definitionally contingent. What then is it about the universe that is Necessary?

Are all the players in the Manchester United football team humans (except Ronaldo)? Is the Manchester United football team therefore a human?

[Stranger]

They do if they declare the universe may be or is the necessary entity. Since that is a positive assertion.

Saying something may be is a very different claim than saying something is. All a 'may be' claim requires is that we don't know that it's false.

Again what do you think is the default position here?

Just the same as it always is. You want to claim that we can deduce god from some argument, it's up to you to make said argument. If any steps are questionable or any deduced entities may refer to something else, then the case has not been made and the deduction fails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Saying something may be is a very different claim than saying something is. All a 'may be' claim requires is that we don't know that it's false.

Just the same as it always is. You want to claim that we can deduce god from some argument, it's up to you to make said argument. If any steps are questionable or any deduced entities may refer to something else, then the case has not been made and the deduction fails.

That's only if the questions aren't stupid.
I question your questioning since any idiot can say I question that or that is questionable which so far is your limit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just the same as it always is.

And that is?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

Saying something may be is a very different claim than saying something is.

Quite. Of all the lies, evasions, misrepresentations, straw men, non sequiturs, endless fallacies etc on which Vlad relies this at heart is the one he depends on the most: time and again he elides a could be into an is – either by insisting an interlocutor defend an is when all that’s been argued is a could be, or by claiming for himself an is when all he has is a could be. Given how may time this has been explained to him he’s either very dim or very dishonest (or a bit of both) but he’ll never change.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NTtS,

Quite. Of all the lies, evasions, misrepresentations, straw men, non sequiturs, endless fallacies etc on which Vlad relies this at heart is the one he depends on the most: time and again he elides a could be into an is – either by insisting an interlocutor defend an is when all that’s been argued is a could be, or by claiming for himself an is when all he has is a could be. Given how may time this has been explained to him he’s either very dim or very dishonest (or a bit of both) but he’ll never change.   

What a 'maybe' means is that the something in question is not logically impossible or unreasonable. You are appealing to your own bollocks argument thrown in when your back, as it frequently is, is against the wall that ''everything is possible.'' Were that so then the impossible would be possible. So that's one to add to the litany of shite arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What a 'maybe' means is that the something in question is not logically impossible or unreasonable.

Actually no it doesn’t, but for reasons that are above your reasoning pay grade. And in any case, this has nothing to do with the basic burden of proof lie on which you endlessly depend.

You are appealing to your own bollocks argument thrown in when your back, as it frequently is, is against the wall that ''everything is possible.''

Evasion noted.

Were that so then the impossible would be possible. So that's one to add to the litany of shite arguments.

See point 1 above. Possible/impossible is an epistemological problem: square triangles are “impossible”, but only within the paradigm of human ability to define, reason and comprehend such things. What could be outwith the paradigm of logic itself is anyone’s guess though – unless you want to claim omniscience too?

As I said, we’re above your reasoning pay grade now though so I’ll leave you to your private grief.       

[Stranger]

That's only if the questions aren't stupid.
I question your questioning since any idiot can say I question that or that is questionable which so far is your limit.

As you said, any idiot can just say something is questionable, or, for that matter, that an argument exists and is sound.

I gave reasons (#481) for why I thought the various steps where questionable, you have just said that you question them. I'm also not the one who just said there was a good argument from contingency but totally refused to say what it was for most of this thread.