Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[jeremyp]

But Jeremy all you are saying is there is a part of the universe that you have no evidence for

No. Where did you get that idea from?

You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.

No, I'm arguing that your statement "there is nothing in the Universe we have not observed" is a lie. There's no indication at all that we have observed the whole Universe and every indication that there is more that we cannot observe, at least not yet.

On another board this would be a game set and match moment where you and  the rest retire to the pavilion in defeat, caught out by arguing from a huge entity with Zero evidence.

Are you trying to do a cricket metaphor or a tennis metaphor? Your muddled thinking seems to be unbounded.

[jeremyp]

God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being,

If God remain the same he/it can't incarnate as a human and come down to Earth. Becoming human would not be staying the same.

He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.

Moreover he, he is not actualised by that which he actualises.

There's a lot of speculation there about an entity that you can't even demonstrate exists.

[Dicky Underpants]

If God remain the same he/it can't incarnate as a human and come down to Earth. Becoming human would not be staying the same.

There's a lot of speculation there about an entity that you can't even demonstrate exists.

One might suppose that the Trinity was broken at the Incarnation (as some Christians believe), and if not then, surely at the Crucifixion, when Christ  ("who contained the fullness of the godhead bodily") - died. But no, mainstream Christianity still maintains that God does not change.
When you've tried to get your head round the idea of 'kenosis' when Christ being God 'emptied himself', and you still hear of this idea of the changeless God, you begin to realise there is little point arguing these things at all. It amounts to an excuse for theologians to go on perpetrating  meaningless nonsense.
As an aside, the OT gives numerous instances of where God can be bargained with and persuaded to change his mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dicky,

As an aside, the OT gives numerous instances of where God can be bargained with and persuaded to change his mind.

Also apparently he turned up variously as a burning bush, as a pillar of cloud and/or fire (depending on the time of day), and as a whisper. “He” also it seems made house calls at various times to pass on instructions football manager styley, intervene in wars and so forth. For an “unchanging” god, the big fella sure seems to have got around a lot in different incarnations.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One might suppose that the Trinity was broken at the Incarnation (as some Christians believe), and if not then, surely at the Crucifixion, when Christ  ("who contained the fullness of the godhead bodily") - died. But no, mainstream Christianity still maintains that God does not change.
When you've tried to get your head round the idea of 'kenosis' when Christ being God 'emptied himself', and you still hear of this idea of the changeless God, you begin to realise there is little point arguing these things at all. It amounts to an excuse for theologians to go on perpetrating  meaningless nonsense.
As an aside, the OT gives numerous instances of where God can be bargained with and persuaded to change his mind.

But are you, as a mind steeped in agnostic culture where faux ignorance passes as politeness and not having disturbing ideas, not talking of change as a contingent entity might change, i.e. having a beginning, having an end, subject to entropy, expending energy, replacing energy, learning, being genetically programmed to change, being forced to change by external factors or laws of nature etc. etc. God does none of these things. The bible talks about God being the same, today, yesterday and tomorrow. The NT states that Jesus is both man and God and whenever we recognise God in prayer, worship,
the everyday and in avoiding him what we recognise is wholly God and certainly not less than God. What Jesus does is human what there is about him is divine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Where did you get that idea from?
No, I'm arguing that your statement "there is nothing in the Universe we have not observed" is a lie. There's no indication at all that we have observed the whole Universe and every indication that there is more that we cannot observe, at least not yet.
Are you trying to do a cricket metaphor or a tennis metaphor? Your muddled thinking seems to be unbounded.

My mistake, I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed. As for the unobserved universe there cannot definitionally be evidence for it and you cannot then succesfully accuse me of not seeing that which is unobserved(unevidenced).

Two things, I think you are beginning to react to your revelation of the concept of the necessary entity but you are still clinging on to the melting iceberg that it must be like a contingent thing.

Secondly, What is it about the universe that is necessary? since what we observe seems to be contingent and there is no evidence for that which is not observed.

[Stranger]

My mistake, I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed. As for the unobserved universe there cannot definitionally be evidence for it and you cannot then succesfully accuse me of not seeing that which is unobserved(unevidenced).

The problem is that your so called 'argument' makes assumptions about the whole universe (in fact, the whole multiverse, should such a thing exist), not just the observable universe. You also continue to studiously ignore the most obvious candidate in the observed universe. We already see something that is not obviously contingent on anything (as I've pointed out multiple times).

Two things, I think you are beginning to react to your revelation of the concept of the necessary entity but you are still clinging on to the melting iceberg that it must be like a contingent thing.

You really do like to fantasise about your own abilities. You have still not presented a coherent argument for a necessary entity, or even properly explained how such a thing would even be possible, let alone tied down what its characteristics might be. Unsupported assertion is not an argument.

Secondly, What is it about the universe that is necessary?

And the burden of proof is still way over Vlad's head. 

Look:

• I don't know whether there is a necessary entity.
• If there is a necessary entity, I don't know that there is only one.
• If there is one necessary entity, I don't know if it's the universe or not.
• If it's not the universe, I don't know what it is.

It's entirely up to you to argue all those steps. So far you haven't got past the first one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My mistake, I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed.

Hysterical. I hear that there aren’t any mountain summits that aren’t at the top of mountains, and nor it seems are there orphans with parents. Try looking up “tautology” to see where you’ve gone wrong again   

As for the unobserved universe there cannot definitionally be evidence for it and you cannot then succesfully accuse me of not seeing that which is unobserved(unevidenced).

Why not?

Two things, I think you are beginning to react to your revelation of the concept of the necessary entity but you are still clinging on to the melting iceberg that it must be like a contingent thing.

An overweening cocktail of ignorance and arrogance there. If you can’t help but patronise someone, I suggest you don’t do it to someone who’s clearly brighter and better informed than you are. 

Secondly, What is it about the universe that is necessary? since what we observe seems to be contingent and there is no evidence for that which is not observed.

I corrected your various fallacies, non sequiturs, misrepresentations etc a few posts ago, including this one – the shifting of the burden of proof. You hand-waved away the corrections as “without merit” without even trying to address them, so they stand.

Why then are you wasting everyone’s time by just repeating the same mistakes over and over again no matter how often you’ve had them corrected?     

[ProfessorDavey]

I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed.

- do you realise what a pointless statement that is Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

- do you realise what a pointless statement that is Vlad.

Not really, Hillside and Jeremy have implied that I am committing the fallacy of composition without having seen the whole universe.
This is what is pointless.
Firstly there is no evidence for anymore universe that has been observed....unless they are changing their definition of evidence. Therefore I am not just commenting on part of the evidenced universe.that would be composition but all of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem is that your so called 'argument' makes assumptions about the whole universe (in fact, the whole multiverse, should such a thing exist), not just the observable universe.

The whole multiverse and any whole universe which is anything more than the observed universe is unevidenced, Never talk. Just reflect on that. You are arguing therefore from unevidenced premises.

[Stranger]

Not really, Hillside and Jeremy have implied that I am committing the fallacy of composition without having seen the whole universe.

Because you are both committing the fallacy of composition and making assumptions about what we haven't observed. Nobody else is trying to say they know.

Firstly there is no evidence for anymore universe that has been observed...

False. The flatness indicates that it's almost certainly much larger than we can observe, it certainly isn't smaller, and it would be a massive, unrealistic coincidence if it were the same size as the observable universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why then are you wasting everyone’s time by just repeating the same mistakes over and over again no matter how often you’ve had them corrected?     

You are wasting your own time since you could go away and do 'better things' . I think though there is something magnetic about being challenged over your guff about infinite regress, an evidence universe we haven't observed yet and your arguing that there is insufficient reason for believing in sufficient reason.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not really,

Nope it is a completely pointless and vacuous comment, as BHS points out is tautology.

I could similarly say that everything in the known world is ... err ... known. It is a pointless comment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not really, Hillside and Jeremy have implied that I am committing the fallacy of composition without having seen the whole universe.

That’s what you have done if you want to claim that everything in the universe is contingent on something else. How would you know that everything in the universe is contingent on something else unless you’ve considered everything in the universe?

Your statement “…I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed” is as stupid as saying “there’s nothing that’s been weighed that hasn’t been weighed”. It’s just a tautology (and actually is a deepity by the way).   

This is what is pointless.

But true nonetheless – you continue to commit the fallacy of composition no matter how many times your mistake is explained to you.

Firstly there is no evidence for anymore universe that has been observed....unless they are changing their definition of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You really should know this after all this time.

Therefore I am not just commenting on part of the evidenced universe.that would be composition but all of it.

Yes, which is the fallacy of composition. How can you comment on “all of it” when the only evidence you have concerns just the part of it that’s been observed so far?

If you want to justify a positive claim about the universe – ie, that it must be contingent on something else – on the basis of what we know about it, then you need to:

1. Show that everything we know so far actually is contingent (itself a dubious claim).

2. Explain how you know that the parts that haven’t been observed so far must also be contingent.

3. Explain how, even if you could do 1 & 2, you could also make the leap from properties of the components of the universe also necessarily applying to the universe as a whole – that’s the fallacy of composition part.

Apart from all that though…     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you are both committing the fallacy of composition and making assumptions about what we haven't observed. Nobody else is trying to say they know.

False. The flatness indicates that it's almost certainly much larger than we can observe, it certainly isn't smaller, and it would be a massive, unrealistic coincidence if it were the same size as the observable universe.

I would only be committing the fallacy of composition if I was only discussing part of the evidenced universe and extending that over the whole. Since I am excluding the unevidenced part I am describing the whole of the evidenced universe and therefore not making the fallacy.

Your so called evidence is, in your own words merely ''almost certain'' i.e. unevidenced. You are therefore mistaking belief for knowledge and it is uncertain if your are allowing yourself extrapolation. If the extrapolated universe is uniform and uniformly contingent then we must ask contingent on what? If on the other hand you are saying that the necessary ''component'' of the universe is as yet unobserved I could be more sympathetic to that but it does have it's difficulties.

Then, about the massive unrealistic coincidence? Apparently we can observe the universe and extrapolate it back a long way towards the big bang. How long until we get there 10 years, 5 years, tomorrow.
But hey I'm encouraging your big error. Making accusations without actual evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. Show that everything we know so far actually is contingent (itself a dubious claim).

     

As far as I am aware in quantum physics observation affects everything observed. Certainly energy is transferred and therefore externally induced change has happened. This therefore makes everything observed contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s what you have done if you want to claim that everything in the universe is contingent on something else. How would you know that everything in the universe is contingent on something else unless you’ve considered everything in the universe?
   

Obviously you are including the unevidenced universe with the evidenced universe here. I can think of no other area where you value the unevidenced.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I would only be committing the fallacy of composition if I was only discussing part of the evidenced universe and extending that over the whole. Since I am excluding the unevidenced part I am describing the whole of the evidenced universe and therefore not making the fallacy.

Dear god but you struggle. Unless you can demonstrate that parts of the universe we’ve observed are also all that there is that could be observed, then you have no ground to argue that everything in the universe is contingent.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp – really it shouldn’t.   

Your so called evidence is, in your own words merely ''almost certain'' i.e. unevidenced. You are therefore mistaking belief for knowledge and it is uncertain if your are allowing yourself extrapolation. If the extrapolated universe is uniform and uniformly contingent then we must ask contingent on what? If on the other hand you are saying that the necessary ''component'' of the universe is as yet unobserved I could be more sympathetic to that but it does have it's difficulties.

Gibberish. Yet again – YOU’RE the one making the claim (that everything in the universe is contingent on something else) so it’s YOUR job to justify it. And even if you could to that (which of course you can’t), even then you’d still be stuck with the fallacy of composition for the same reason you just ignored: even if you ascertained that each person in the crowd would individually get a better view of the cricket match if s/he stood up, that wouldn't imply they all would if the crowd as a whole did that.     

Then, about the massive unrealistic coincidence? Apparently we can observe the universe and extrapolate it back a long way towards the big bang. How long until we get there 10 years, 5 years, tomorrow.

Incoherence. What are you even trying to say here?

But hey I'm encouraging your big error. Making accusations without actual evidence.

The only error here is yours – several errors in fact, for the reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep ignoring. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Obviously you are including the unevidenced universe with the evidenced universe here. I can think of no other area where you value the unevidenced.

No, YOU are. It'd be nice if you stopped lying about that. 

[Stranger]

I would only be committing the fallacy of composition if I was only discussing part of the evidenced universe and extending that over the whole. Since I am excluding the unevidenced part I am describing the whole of the evidenced universe and therefore not making the fallacy.

You're not even including everything in the observable universe.

Your so called evidence is, in your own words merely ''almost certain'' i.e. unevidenced.

So we can add 'evidence' to the list of things you don't understand. No amount of evidence makes something certain.

You are therefore mistaking belief for knowledge and it is uncertain if your are allowing yourself extrapolation.

The burden of proof really is a complete mystery to you, isn't it? You are making the argument, so it's up to you to rule out all the possibilities that might be alternatives. And you have yet to show that anything is necessary or even that it makes coherent sense.

If the extrapolated universe is uniform and uniformly contingent then we must ask contingent on what?

No, we mustn't. You need to show that it must be your god. We can just say we don't know - even if you'd made the case for a necessary entity, which you haven't.

Then, about the massive unrealistic coincidence? Apparently we can observe the universe and extrapolate it back a long way towards the big bang. How long until we get there 10 years, 5 years, tomorrow.

You appear to have descended into gibberish. Get where?

As far as I am aware in quantum physics observation affects everything observed. Certainly energy is transferred and therefore externally induced change has happened. This therefore makes everything observed contingent.

Why? You still haven't made the case that something necessary can't be changed.

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that you've already made an argument for a necessary entity and for its characteristics. You haven't.

[Outrider]

So, you seem to be charging me with insufficient reason for saying why I believe in sufficient reason. That's rich.

But do I mean what you sometimes mean by 'sufficient reason', given that you don't appear to know what you mean by 'sufficient reason'.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

But are you, as a mind steeped in agnostic culture where faux ignorance passes as politeness and not having disturbing ideas, not talking of change as a contingent entity might change, i.e. having a beginning, having an end, subject to entropy, expending energy, replacing energy, learning, being genetically programmed to change, being forced to change by external factors or laws of nature etc. etc. God does none of these things. The bible talks about God being the same, today, yesterday and tomorrow. The NT states that Jesus is both man and God and whenever we recognise God in prayer, worship,
the everyday and in avoiding him what we recognise is wholly God and certainly not less than God. What Jesus does is human what there is about him is divine.

You begin with listing a well-worn collection of examples of contingency, and then immediately move on to religious assertion "God does none of these things" (considering you accused bluehillside below of "mistaking belief for knowledge", your hypocrisy is astounding).
The bible does indeed talk of God being the same today yesterday and tomorrow (specifically in Hebrews 13:8, it refers to Christ in these terms). However, the bible says many things about God, and gives many images of him/it, and taking a quote or two and making it refer to the whole does not make an argument. You go on to say that the NT states that Jesus is both man and God - well maybe most of the writers of the NT came to believe this, but these were almost certainly beliefs made up after the event (it is certainly prevalent in John, but even there you have the phrase "My Father is greater than I"). All these various theological positions were eventually just hammered out in intellectual argument and presented as dogma. Which is what you continue to do.
You then move on to matters of subjective experience - always dangerous ground in trying to convince your opponents. I wouldn't be as dismissive as Russell, who rejected such an approach in one sentence. Moreover, you presume to speak for all Christians. I would suggest that the experience of most "Christians" (apart from certain hysterical evangelicals) is very far from the kind of intimate certainties about Christ's nature that you imply. Even such worthies as Mother Theresa of Calcutta and San Juan de la Cruz had no so such cosy relationship with the deity in their lives (Mother Theresa confessed that God seemed very distant most of her life, and San Juan de la Cruz only ended his Dark Night by a supposed mystical experience where he was "transformed into God". Hmmmm). And of course most "Christians" go along with the dogma of their church because that's what they've been brought up to believe, and religious belief helps sort out the usual trials of weddings and funerals etc.

I suppose the problems for Christianity began when it inherited so much Greek thought and grafted it onto Judaism. The changeless god idea has more in common with Aristotle, on whom Aquinas was definitely parasitic, and whose ideas you've obviously imbibed. And then there are Platonic ideas filtering through Wisdom literature and John's gospel etc. etc.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I am aware in quantum physics observation affects everything observed. Certainly energy is transferred and therefore externally induced change has happened. This therefore makes everything observed contingent.

So to apply this logic when Jesus was observed, that makes god contingent

[Gordon]

So to apply this logic when Jesus was observed, that makes god contingent

That is a very good point: I'm so looking forward to Vlad's reply.