Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Except of course “the whole observed universe” is just a sample of the universe itself, so the fallacy of composition is precisely what’s you’ve done.

I saw someone stand up at a cricket match a while ago to get a better view. Should I therefore infer, based on my sample of the observed crowd, that if everyone stood up they’d all get a better view? Why not?

But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent.

Except it may not be, and again - so what? How have you made the leap from that part of the universe we happen to have observed to the properties of the universe as a whole?   

Good luck with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except of course “the whole observed universe” is just a sample of the universe itself, so the fallacy of composition is precisely what’s you’ve done.

I saw someone stand up at a cricket match a while ago to get a better view. Should I therefore infer, based on my sample of the observed crowd, that if everyone stood up they’d all get a better view? Why not?

Except it may not be, and again - so what? How have you made the leap from that part of the universe we happen to have observed to the properties of the universe as a whole?   

Good luck with that.

Wait a minute, are you saying that there is part of the universe that is unobserved? If it's unobserved what warrant do you have to definitely say it isn't as contingent as the rest.....or necessary even?

Science doesn't say that there is anything more than the observed universe does it.

You are arguing from pure scientism.

I thought you guys were strong on evidence. Not so it now seems.

[Stranger]

That might be true of something frozen at a point of time but something in and with eternity?

Meaningless. Things like thinking, planning, and creating require time.

[Stranger]

Wait a minute, are you saying that there is part of the universe that is unobserved? If it's unobserved what warrant do you have to definitely say it isn't as contingent as the rest.....or necessary even?

You've 'forgotten' the burden of proof again. It's you who is trying to make a case. It's not up to the rest of us to give an alternative model, just show that your argument is full of holes. Actually more hole, than argument, to be honest.

Science doesn't say that there is anything more than the observed universe does it.

Science provides very good reasons to think that the universe is much bigger than the observable universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Wait a minute, are you saying that there is part of the universe that is unobserved?

Most of it is unobserved: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

If it's unobserved what warrant do you have to definitely say it isn't as contingent as the rest.....or necessary even?

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy (again). No-one definitely says that – all that’s being said is that you cannot infer a property of the whole from the (relatively limited) observations of some of its constituents. You on the other hand do make a definite statement (that the universe must be contingent on something else), and then used the (supposed) gap it opens to fill with the claim “god”.     

Science doesn't say that there is anything more than the observed universe does it.

Of course it does – that’s why people keep doing it. Pluto had long been known to exist, but it wasn’t until the New Horizons mission sent back pictures that we found out more about it.   

You are arguing from pure scientism.

Lying won’t help you here – and that’s not what “scientism” means.

I thought you guys were strong on evidence. Not so it now seems.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Again: you don’t (presumably) think that, based on your observation of one spectator, if everyone stood up at the cricket match they’d all have a better view. Why then commit the same logical howler with your assertion about the universe as a whole being contingent?

Good grief.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've 'forgotten' the burden of proof again. It's you who is trying to make a case. It's not up to the rest of us to give an alternative model, just show that your argument is full of holes. Actually more hole, than argument, to be honest.

Science provides very good reasons to think that the universe is much bigger than the observable universe.

No. Hillside is saying I am wrong because i'm only describing the observed universe and he is saying we are not seeing the whole story. Scientifically he cannot demonstrate that this unobserved part of the universe even exists and yet he is declaring me wrong on the strength of this unobserved part of the universe.

If he is saying there is an unobserved part of the universe is he saying it is contingent or necessary?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Most of it is unobserved: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy (again). No-one definitely says that – all that’s being said is that you cannot infer a property of the whole from the (relatively limited) observations of some of its constituents. You on the other hand do make a definite statement (that the universe must be contingent on something else), and then used the (supposed) gap it opens to fill with the claim “god”.     

Of course it does – that’s why people keep doing it. Pluto had long been known to exist, but it wasn’t until the New Horizons mission sent back pictures that we found out more about it.   

Lying won’t help you here – and that’s not what “scientism” means.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Again: you don’t (presumably) think that, based on your observation of one spectator, if everyone stood up at the cricket match they’d all have a better view. Why then commit the same logical howler with your assertion about the universe as a whole being contingent?

Good grief.

We have no evidence of your unobserved part of the universe. That is plain logic. Therefore you merely believe like I do that not everything that is is that which is observed. Now , do you say it is contingent or necessary.

[Stranger]

No. Hillside is saying I am wrong because i'm only describing the observed universe and he is saying we are not seeing the whole story. Scientifically he cannot demonstrate that this unobserved part of the universe even exists and yet he is declaring me wrong on the strength of this unobserved part of the universe.

If he is saying there is an unobserved part of the universe is he saying it is contingent or necessary?

Do you still not understand the burden of proof, after all this time?   

It's not about making a claim about the unobserved universe, it's just about fact that you are trying to make some sort of general claim from a sample. It means you haven't made your case, not that you're definitely wrong because we know something specific about what you've left out.

When will you get it into your head that nobody needs an alternative conjecture in order to point to the holes in yours?

FFS, you haven't even made the basic case that there must be something necessary yet, or even properly defined what you mean by it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you still not understand the burden of proof, after all this time?   

It's not about making a claim about the unobserved universe, it's just about fact that you are trying to make some sort of general claim from a sample. It means you haven't made your case, not that you're definitely wrong because we know something specific about what you've left out.

When will you get it into your head that nobody needs an alternative conjecture in order to point to the holes in yours?

FFS, you haven't even made the basic case that there must be something necessary yet, or even properly defined what you mean by it.

Do you still not understand that you cannot  argue that someone is wrong and claim that you are simultaneously not arguing that they are right or wrong.

Hillside plainly states my claim that the universe is contingent is wrong because I am only considering the observed universe. He has given himself the burden of proof on evidence for his contention that there is an unobserved part of the universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No. Hillside is saying I am wrong because i'm only describing the observed universe and he is saying we are not seeing the whole story. Scientifically he cannot demonstrate that this unobserved part of the universe even exists and yet he is declaring me wrong on the strength of this unobserved part of the universe.

If he is saying there is an unobserved part of the universe is he saying it is contingent or necessary?

Once again: YOU are the one asserting the universe to be contingent on the basis of the observations we have of it. Unless YOU can demonstrate that somehow those observations tell us everything there is to know about the universe, then YOU are the one committing the fallacy of composition.   

It’s that simple. Really, it is. 

[Stranger]

Do you still not understand that you cannot  argue that someone is wrong and claim that you are simultaneously not arguing that they are right or wrong.

I'm not arguing that you're (definitely) wrong, Vlad, at least not a lot of the time (and neither are other people) I'm arguing that you haven't shown that you are right; that you haven't provided reasonable evidence or sound logic to back up your claims. Hence, they are still in the realm of unsupported assertions.

Is this really too hard?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Once again: YOU are the one asserting the universe to be contingent on the basis of the observations we have of it. Unless YOU can demonstrate that somehow those observations tell us everything there is to know about the universe, then YOU are the one committing the fallacy of composition.   

It’s that simple. Really, it is.  for

I'm sorry Hillside.
It get's even worse for you since your default is the cosmos, all we can observe, is all there is. And yet here you are arguing I am wrong based on the existence a so called part of the universe that isn't observed. We have no evidence for that bit Hillside. You are therefore self contradictory appealing to an unproven thing when it suits, and then things which can only be proven when that suits.

Given then that the universe we observe is contingent and  is the only universe we have evidence for,according to you then there is no validity in just calling it part of the universe. No fallacy of composition was therefore made by me.

You still seem to be pushing this unvalidated unobserved bit of the universe. Is it contingent or necessary?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry Hillside.

You certainly should be.

It get's even worse for you since your default is the cosmos, all we can observe, is all there is.

No, that’s YOUR default remember? It would have to be for you to draw a conclusion about the universe as a whole without collapsing onto the fallacy of composition again. 

And yet here you are arguing I am wrong based on the existence a so called part of the universe that isn't observed.

No, I’m arguing that you’re wrong inasmuch as the reasoning you’re trying to justify your claim “the universe must be contingent on something else” is wrong. Whether it actually is contingent on something else is a different matter – you could be right about that just as a matter of guessing, but so what?

We have no evidence for that bit Hillside. You are therefore self contradictory appealing to an unproven thing when it suits, and then things which can only be proven when that suits.

The stupidity is particularly deep here: yet again – to make YOUR claim “the universe must be contingent because of the contingency of the things in it” YOU need to show that all those things are known, for exactly the same reason that you’d need to know what happens when everyone stands up at the cricket match to make the claim that everyone would have a better view that way.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, even for you.   

Given then that the universe we observe is contingent and  is the only universe we have evidence for,according to you then there is no validity in just calling it part of the universe. No fallacy of composition was therefore made by me.

Yet again: it’s “given that that part of the universe we happen to know about appears to be contingent” (itself a dubious claim as it happens) – you have no idea at all what else there is to know let alone whether anything we know so far tells us anything about the properties of universe as a whole. 

[You still seem to be pushing this unvalidated unobserved bit of the universe. Is it contingent or necessary?

I don’t know, but I’m not the one making any claims about that either way – YOU are. What I am arguing though is that your justification for asserting it to be contingent is wrong – flatly, plainly, boxer-twistingly wrong.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You certainly should be.

No, that’s YOUR default remember? It would have to be for you to draw a conclusion about the universe as a whole without collapsing onto the fallacy of composition again. 

No, I’m arguing that you’re wrong inasmuch as the reasoning you’re trying to justify your claim “the universe must be contingent on something else” is wrong. Whether it actually is contingent on something else is a different matter – you could be right about that just as a matter of guessing, but so what?

The stupidity is particularly deep here: yet again – to make YOUR claim “the universe must be contingent because of the contingency of the things in it” YOU need to show that all those things are known, for exactly the same reason that you’d need to know what happens when everyone stands up at the cricket match to make the claim that everyone would have a better view that way.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, even for you.   

Yet again: it’s “given that that part of the universe we happen to know about appears to be contingent” (itself a dubious claim as it happens) – you have no idea at all what else there is to know let alone whether anything we know so far tells us anything about the properties of universe as a whole. 

I don’t know, but I’m not the one making any claims about that either way – YOU are. What I am arguing though is that your justification for asserting it to be contingent is wrong – flatly, plainly, boxer-twistingly wrong.   

Goodness me do I have to do it all for you. I have the luxury of suggesting that there is another unobserved part of the universe, I have the luxury of suggesting that it or part of it is necessary, you do not since your default is physicalism because that is all we observe.  The verified universe is observed and observed to be changing and that makes it contingent. You are at liberty to suggest there may be an unobserved part of the universe in fact you have declared me wrong on the strength of there being one. You have no evidence for it. Given you are a physicalist I take it you are suggesting that this unverified universe is physical. Your physicalism is based on observation, your hidden unobserved universe isn't, you cannot as a physicalist entertain a non physical part of the universe and we know you are extrapolating your present observation.

That leads us to the conclusion that the rest of the universe is therefore like the observable part of the universe and therefore contingent.

If the universe you suggest is contingent then the next question is contingent on what?

[Stranger]

I'm sorry Hillside.
It get's even worse for you since your default is the cosmos, all we can observe, is all there is. And yet here you are arguing I am wrong based on the existence a so called part of the universe that isn't observed. We have no evidence for that bit Hillside. You are therefore self contradictory appealing to an unproven thing when it suits, and then things which can only be proven when that suits.

Given then that the universe we observe is contingent and  is the only universe we have evidence for,according to you then there is no validity in just calling it part of the universe. No fallacy of composition was therefore made by me.

You still seem to be pushing this unvalidated unobserved bit of the universe. Is it contingent or necessary?

Good grief, you still haven't grasped the burden of proof. I doesn't look as if you even have some vague notion of what it actually entails.

You have to make your case. People pointing out that you are making assumptions about things we don't know, is not the same as making a counter-claim, it's just showing a hole in your reasoning.

If somebody said that your god couldn't possibly exist because what we observe is everything that exists, then that would suffer from exactly the same problem as your claim (making big assumptions about things we don't know). But nobody is making that claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You certainly should be.

No, that’s YOUR default remember? It would have to be for you to draw a conclusion about the universe as a whole without collapsing onto the fallacy of composition again. 

No, I’m arguing that you’re wrong inasmuch as the reasoning you’re trying to justify your claim “the universe must be contingent on something else” is wrong. Whether it actually is contingent on something else is a different matter – you could be right about that just as a matter of guessing, but so what?

The stupidity is particularly deep here: yet again – to make YOUR claim “the universe must be contingent because of the contingency of the things in it” Y   

No, I am asking, if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which is necessary?

[Outrider]

No, I am asking, if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which is necessary?

It's not on anyone else to prove that the universe itself is necessary, if it's being raised merely to point out that your claim 'God is necessary' (derived from the argument from contingency idea that 'something' has to be necessary) is not proven.

For your claim of God (by way of the argument from contingency) to stand you have to show why 'the Universe' cannot be the 'necessary thing' instead of 'God'.

Off you go.

O.

[Stranger]

I have the luxury of suggesting that there is another unobserved part of the universe, I have the luxury of suggesting that it or part of it is necessary, you do not since your default is physicalism because that is all we observe.

I've never seen anybody claim physicalism and that's not what it would mean anyway.   

The verified universe is observed and observed to be changing and that makes it contingent.

You still haven't made the argument that something that changes is contingent.

You are at liberty to suggest there may be an unobserved part of the universe in fact you have declared me wrong...

FFS! Nobody is saying you're definitely wrong, just that you have a poor argument.

If the universe you suggest is contingent then the next question is contingent on what?

Don't know. It's you who is claiming to have an answer.

[Stranger]

No, I am asking, if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which is necessary?

I don't know if anything at all is necessary (you haven't made that case), and if it is, I don't know if anything about the universe is necessary, and if it is, I don't know what it is.

It's you who is claiming to have answers. Nobody has to have an alternative set of answers that they believe in order to point out that you've failed to support yours.

Basic burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not on anyone else to prove that the universe itself is necessary, if it's being raised merely to point out that your claim 'God is necessary' (derived from the argument from contingency idea that 'something' has to be necessary) is not proven.

For your claim of God (by way of the argument from contingency) to stand you have to show why 'the Universe' cannot be the 'necessary thing' instead of 'God'.

Off you go.

O.

Excuse me but we seem to have two of your ''evidentialists'' arguing for the existence of an unobserved part of the universe in order to prove me wrong...on no evidence.
Jeremy said that the universe being the necessary entity ''works'' for him. In which case we are entitled to ask why it works for him.

God works for me because the necessary being in all it's lovely attributes not only works for me but does so because of sufficient reason whereas all that has been evidenced in the universe looks contingent and has arisen because something else changed making the something else contingent.

If therefore there is any contradiction it is with your ''evidentists'' who are atheist on the strength of how the universe is observed to be but drop that to introduce an unobserved part of the universe.

I have the luxury of proposing an unseen non contingent part of the universe without hypocrisy, they don't. On the other hand if they are proposing more of the same universe they are acknowledging it to be contingent.

[Stranger]

Excuse me but we seem to have two of your ''evidentialists'' arguing for the existence of an unobserved part of the universe in order to prove me wrong...

This is patently false. Try reading what has actually been written.

I have the luxury of proposing an unseen part of the universe without hypocrisy, they don't

Ditto.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Goodness me do I have to do it all for you. I have the luxury of suggesting that there is another unobserved part of the universe, I have the luxury of suggesting that it or part of it is necessary, you do not since your default is physicalism because that is all we observe.  The verified universe is observed and observed to be changing and that makes it contingent. You are at liberty to suggest there may be an unobserved part of the universe in fact you have declared me wrong on the strength of there being one. You have no evidence for it. Given you are a physicalist I take it you are suggesting that this unverified universe is physical. Your physicalism is based on observation, your hidden unobserved universe isn't, you cannot as a physicalist entertain a non physical part of the universe and we know you are extrapolating your present observation.

That leads us to the conclusion that the rest of the universe is therefore like the observable part of the universe and therefore contingent.

If the universe you suggest is contingent then the next question is contingent on what?

Yet again (and try to concentrate on what’s actually being said this time): YOU are the one asserting that’s what’s currently known about the universe justifies YOUR claim that it must be contingent on something else. It does no such thing though, for the reason that keeps being explained to you (fallacy of composition) and that you keep evading, misrepresenting, diverting from etc.

This is NOT about your positive claim that the universe must be contingent on something else. That claim may or may not be true. What it IS about though is YOUR justification for YOUR claim, which is plainly wrong. You can keep twisting in the wind about this as much as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact of the matter. If you seriously think that the current state of understanding of the universe justifies the claim that it necessarily must therefore be contingent on something else then, finally, explain why.

Either up or shut up, but stop dicking round with endless ducking and diving.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yet again (and try to concentrate on what’s actually being said this time): YOU are the one asserting that’s what’s currently known about the universe justifies YOUR claim that it must be contingent on something else. It does no such thing though, for the reason that keeps being explained to you (fallacy of composition) and that you keep evading, misrepresenting, diverting from etc.

This is NOT about your positive claim that the universe must be contingent on something else.         

My contention is that it is logical to expect a necessary entity due to the principle of sufficient reason and I think there are a few converts to that position here.

Recently somebody referenced a paper by Sean M. Carroll trying to avoid sufficient reason. I think there is sufficient reason to think that would probably undercut science itself.
The metareview of contingency argument of Stanford University has commented that those opposing sufficient reason do so on the grounds of insufficient reasoning on the part of those proposing sufficient reason.

However if I am commiting the fallacy of composition(I'm not because your contention that I am missing another part of universe is unevidenced) then you are contending there is another part of the universe. that is a positive assertion on your part. I ask you again is this part contingent or necessary? If it is contingent, I ask on what? If it is necessary then you are a convert to the argument from contingency?

You see, it is a win win situation for me and a lose lose situation for you. 

[Outrider]

Excuse me but we seem to have two of your ''evidentialists'' arguing for the existence of an unobserved part of the universe in order to prove me wrong...on no evidence.

No, we have people pointing out possible alternatives that are not compliant with your argument that, for your argument to stand, you need to disprove.

Jeremy said that the universe being the necessary entity ''works'' for him. In which case we are entitled to ask why it works for him.

You can ask that, but it's entirely irrelevant to whether your argument fails because of it; in order for your argument from contingency to stand you need to show why 'the Universe' can't be the 'necessary thing'.

God works for me because the necessary being in all it's lovely attributes not only works for me but does so because of sufficient reason whereas all that has been evidenced in the universe looks contingent and has arisen because something else changed making the something else contingent.

It can work for you as much as you like, but when you ask it to work for me you need to not just claim 'sufficient reason', you need to SHOW YOUR WORKING. Anyone can claim sufficient reason, you actually have to do the reasoning, otherwise you just have a spiritual Ponzi scheme.

If therefore there is any contradiction it is with your ''evidentists'' who are atheist on the strength of how the universe is observed to be but drop that to introduce an unobserved part of the universe.

No, there's no contradiction in claiming that possible alternative explanations show that you've failed to prove your case. You might even be right, but if you are it's not by dint of 'sufficient reason' if you can't show how that reasoning disproves alternatives.

I have the luxury of proposing an unseen non contingent part of the universe without hypocrisy, they don't.

Your hypocrisy instead lies in your repeated attempts to set up false dichotomies and shift the burden of proof.

On the other hand if they are proposing more of the same universe they are acknowledging it to be contingent.

No, they could merely be claiming that although they don't know, you don't either - and you're the one who's claiming 'sufficient reason' which implies that you should know, and should be able to convince them. You'll note that's not happened yet.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

In which case your achingly narrow bias towards human-like things as necessary entities persists.

While I accept that where we have an entity that is gendered then we are in the world of he/she etc, but the vast, vast majority of things in the universe are not gendered. And as (certainly in the English language) gender pertains to living things which certainly are very much late-comers in cosmic terms the likelihood is that anything that fits the bill of a necessary entity for the universe won't be living, therefore won't be gendered and would be described as 'it'.

You'd look like a barking fool if you described the short list of possible necessary entities such as energy, matter, relativity, time, fundamental physical properties etc etc as he or she rather than it.