Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Stranger]

And that is?

What I said and you edited out and ignored.   

[Outrider]

If not every entity can be contingent is false. Please demonstrate how every being can be contingent is true.

I presume this is supposed to be a single sentence? Every thing is contingent if reality is infinite - there is no 'start', there is no arbitrary 'beginning', reality extends without end, and our universe is just one element within it.

We see within the universe that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, why presume outside of the universe that this changes?

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

Arguably, yes, but the notion of necessity does not require anything to actually be necessary, we just need the idea.

The trouble is I think, we have gentlemen either been taught that language is pliable or we've deliberately been dishonest in our use of it.

I'm not sure that language is pliable enough for me to decipher that - are you suggesting that I am being disengenuous with this argument?

So nonsense like contingency without necessity has come about.

Not at all, we have many, many notions that don't necessarily (you'll excuse the pun) have a real correlate.

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.

If that was my answer that would be the case, but luckily for me that's not the case. My answer is that I don't know for certain, but there's certainly a conceivable extra-universal physics which could result in our universe's existence; that extra-universal physics has its own rules, and its own contingencies within its own dimensions, and there's no reason to presume that you can find a 'start' point to arbitrarily decide 'this is god'.

O.

[jeremyp]

Vlad,

Nobody on this thread has stated that the Universe is contingent or not contingent except you. It is therefore for you to

1. provide some good evidence that the Universe is contingent

2. Provide some evidence of the thing on which the Universe is contingent

3. Show that that thing is the Christian god.

4. Provide some evidence that the thing on which the Universe is contingent is not, itself, contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I presume this is supposed to be a single sentence? Every thing is contingent if reality is infinite - there is no 'start', there is no arbitrary 'beginning', reality extends without end, and our universe is just one element within it.

Deepity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nobody on this thread has stated that the Universe is contingent or not contingent except you.

Yes and I have given the reasons why: Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.
There is nothing observed in the universe that is necessary. There is nothing observed that hasn't arisen from some cosmic soup.

Since the cosmic soup changed it is considered contingent.

If the universe is contingent the next question is on what.

I have also acknowledge the possibility that there is something necessary about the universe.

There were problems though. The necessary is not observed and may not be observable since observation in quantum terms brings about change and anything that is changeable is contingent.

Secondly you suggested the universe is more than the sum of it's parts and the universe as such could be necessary.

The objection to that is that anything with parts can be considered contingent.

The second objection to necessity is that the necessity of the universe seems to be a kind of emergent property based on the things in the universe emergent properties are dependent on lower levels of ontology and therefore are contingent.

I suppose you could get round that by suggesting monism, that the universe is in fact singular. That is indeed an eastern philosophical position so I wonder if their theologians and philosophers sit where you are trying to get to.

So I suppose you are right. I have said that the universe is contingent and accepted their could be something about the universe that is necessary.

I suppose you could get round that by suggesting monism, that the universe is in fact singular.

Regards the necessary entity being God. The endowments of the philosophical being as outlined by Aquinus are exactly what Christians have in mind when thinking of God. In terms of

Independence from the contingent universe(sovereignty)

Creator of the contingent universe

The giving of natural laws up to an including the conduct of mankind/sentient intelligent and conscious being.

Personality as defined by independence from natural laws (Total free will equivalent)Activity is totally derived from self.

[Stranger]

Yes and I have given the reasons why: Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.
There is nothing observed in the universe that is necessary.

There have been at least two definitions of necessary used so far: "a being such that if it exists, it cannot not-exist" (from step 7 of the argument you referenced), and something that couldn't have failed to exist. If general relativity is reasonably accurate, then the space-time manifold meets the first of those definitions. The second definition seems incoherent unless you can explain how anything at all would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist.

Regardless of which definition you use, the observations we can make are hardly definitive in this respect and we cannot say whether they apply to the universe as a whole or not.

There is nothing observed that hasn't arisen from some cosmic soup.

What the fuck is the 'cosmic soup', some sort of reference to mushrooms...?

Since the cosmic soup changed it is considered contingent.

Where did this criterion come from? Something that cannot change cannot be a being that thinks, plans, acts, or creates, so that pretty much does for this as an argument for a god, all by itself.

The objection to that is that anything with parts can be considered contingent.

Again, where did this criterion come from? You seem to be just making shit up again. If there is reasoning for any of these criteria, where is it?

I suppose you could get round that...

Nobody has to get round anything. It's you trying to make an argument. Nobody else has put forward a definite proposal. We don't have to. I don't know if anything can be or is necessary, or what it (or they) might be if it (or they) exist.

You have not made a case.

Your attempts to associate your (so far baseless) assertions about this supposed 'necessary entity' with some sort of god, are just hilarious, but somewhat irrelevant because you've got nowhere near to establishing your 'necessary entity' yet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.

Ah, and today Vlad has returned to one of his more epic non sequiturs I see.

[jeremyp]

Yes and I have given the reasons why: Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.
There is nothing observed in the universe that is necessary. There is nothing observed that hasn't arisen from some cosmic soup.

It's been explained to you why this reasoning is fallacious.

Secondly you suggested the universe is more than the sum of it's parts and the universe as such could be necessary.

No. I explained to you that the Universe is not just the things inside it.

The objection to that is that anything with parts can be considered contingent.

Objection to what? Nobody else on this thread is making a claim except you. We're just showing you why your claims may be dismissed.

Regards the necessary entity being God. The endowments of the philosophical being as outlined by Aquinus are exactly what Christians have in mind when thinking of God. In terms of

Independence from the contingent universe(sovereignty)

Creator of the contingent universe

The giving of natural laws up to an including the conduct of mankind/sentient intelligent and conscious being.

Personality as defined by independence from natural laws (Total free will equivalent)Activity is totally derived from self.

Even if all of those points held for the creator of the Universe, they do not imply the Christian god. Nor do the make the creator of our universe necessary.

[Outrider]

Deepity.

Shall I take that devastating lack of even an attempt at an argument to be a tacit agreement?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since the cosmic soup changed it is considered contingent.

Why. For something to be deemed necessary it needs to be essential for other things to exist. That doesn't mean that the necessary thing need to exist for ever, nor that is cannot be changed. All that is needed is for it to exist for sufficient time for the contingent entities to come into existence. Once that has happened its job is done and it can vanish or be changed through action with the contingent entities and that will have no bearing whatsoever on whether that entity was necessary.

[jeremyp]

Why. For something to be deemed necessary it needs to be essential for other things to exist. That doesn't mean that the necessary thing need to exist for ever, nor that is cannot be changed. All that is needed is for it to exist for sufficient time for the contingent entities to come into existence. Once that has happened its job is done and it can vanish or be changed through action with the contingent entities and that will have no bearing whatsoever on whether that entity was necessary.

To add to this, the Christian god blatantly changes. If incarnating as a human isn't change, what is?

[ProfessorDavey]

To add to this, the Christian god blatantly changes. If incarnating as a human isn't change, what is?

And if Vlad suggests this wasn't a change driven by a contingent entity, then surely that argument cannot be applied to the purported crucifixion in which 'contingent entities' (people) cause Jesus to change from being alive to being dead.

But then Vlad doesn't really have an argument, does he.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's been explained to you why this reasoning is fallacious.

If you are talking about the fallacy of composition I'm afraid I talked about the whole universe as we have observed it. There is nothing in the whole observed universe which we have not observed scientifically. Therefore since it looks as if it has all derived from something which changed. It is observed as wholly contingent. Your argument accusing me of fallacy of composition only works if we took a sample of the observed universe and extended the properties of that sample to the whole universe. But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent.

No. I explained to you that the Universe is not just the things inside it.

I asked you to explain this and you didn't. My contention is that the observed universe is exactly what it says on the tin. You acknowledge that but say that the observed universe is the things in it. Agreed. But then you merely assert that the universe (the things in it) is not just the things in it.
That leads to the next question which you haven't answered ''what then is it about the universe that a) Is not just the observed b) not contingent.

You see as a non empiricist I would agree that the universe is not just the observable bit. But you don't have that luxury. do you.

If you are saying there is something about the universe that we can't see but is greater than the observed universe then I'm sorry to say it but we are actually on the same lines

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To add to this, the Christian god blatantly changes. If incarnating as a human isn't change, what is?

God in christianity is both God and man. A man changes but the God in the man stays the same......I find it remarkable that bronze age goatherders preempted your objection 2000 years before the fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why. For something to be deemed necessary it needs to be essential for other things to exist. That doesn't mean that the necessary thing need to exist for ever, nor that is cannot be changed. All that is needed is for it to exist for sufficient time for the contingent entities to come into existence. Once that has happened its job is done and it can vanish or be changed through action with the contingent entities and that will have no bearing whatsoever on whether that entity was necessary.

Jesus as described by mainstream christianity is both God and man. The man changes but the God in the man remains the same.

[ProfessorDavey]

Jesus as described by mainstream christianity is both God and man. The man changes but the God in the man remains the same.

So what - you have failed to address my question.

Where in the definition of a necessary entity is the requirement for this entity to always exist. That is an entirely different matter. So something to be a necessary entity it needs to exist to allow other things (contingent entities) to come into existence and exist and for certain outcomes to flow - there is no requirement for the necessary entity to continue to exist once the 'necessary' element of its actions are complete. Nor is there any requirement for the contingent elements not to be able to impact on the necessary entity once they have come into existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what - you have failed to address my question.

Where in the definition of a necessary entity is the requirement for this entity to always exist. That is an entirely different matter. So something to be a necessary entity it needs to exist to allow other things (contingent entities) to come into existence and exist and for certain outcomes to flow - there is no requirement for the necessary entity to continue to exist once the 'necessary' element of its actions are complete. Nor is there any requirement for the contingent elements not to be able to impact on the necessary entity once they have come into existence.

let's see. After you were concieved there was no real reason for your father to continue to exist since you could have been raised by wolves.

Flippancy aside.

The necessary being is independent of time and therefore any need or other wise of continuation after a sell by date. Or whether there is a requirement for him or not.

[Stranger]

If you are talking about the fallacy of composition I'm afraid I talked about the whole universe as we have observed it. There is nothing in the whole observed universe which we have not observed scientifically. Therefore since it looks as if it has all derived from something which changed. It is observed as wholly contingent.

You still haven't justified that something that changes must be contingent,

Your argument accusing me of fallacy of composition only works if we took a sample of the observed universe and extended the properties of that sample to the whole universe. But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent.

Which isn't a conclusion you can draw unless we know what we're looking for, and the concept of necessity is still too vague to be useful. There have been at least two definitions here. One appears to apply to the space-time and the other appears to be incoherent.

That leads to the next question which you haven't answered ''what then is it about the universe that a) Is not just the observed b) not contingent.

No idea, Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

[Stranger]

The man changes but the God in the man remains the same.

And the fact remains that something that doesn't change, can't think, can't plan, can't act, and hence can't create anything or incarnate itself.

[Stranger]

The necessary being is independent of time and therefore any need or other wise of continuation after a sell by date. Or whether there is a requirement for him or not.

More baseless assertion and question begging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the fact remains that something that doesn't change, can't think, can't plan, can't act, and hence can't create anything or incarnate itself.

That might be true of something frozen at a point of time but something in and with eternity? I'm not so sure. I think thinking, planning etc,are mere analogies of what God achieves.

[ProfessorDavey]

The necessary being is independent of time and therefore any need or other wise of continuation after a sell by date. Or whether there is a requirement for him or not.

Independent of time, but apparently not independent of gender.

The first is baseless assertion, the second clearly demonstrates a narrow anthropocentric mindset. But hey what else would you expect from a person who believes in a man-made god that men have determined is kind of like a super-human and becomes a man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Independent of time, but apparently not independent of gender.

The first is baseless assertion, the second clearly demonstrates a narrow anthropocentric mindset. But hey what else would you expect from a person who believes in a man-made god that men have determined is kind of like a super-human and becomes a man.

OK her or it.

[ProfessorDavey]

OK her or it.

Too late - shows you achingly obvious narrow bias.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Too late - shows you achingly obvious narrow bias.

It's the convention and if it pisses the committee who have ruled this sexist behaviour off but even more importantly pisses you off, I'm sticking with it.