Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are getting way, way ahead of yourself Vlad. That is like asking is strawberry the preferred flavour of gum chewed by Martians.

Before you come close to asking that question you need to go through the following steps:

1. You need a clear and agreed definition of a necessary entity.
2. You need to clearly define what a necessary being is and why it is distinct from a necessary entity as defined in 1.
3. You need to provide compelling evidence that there is a necessary being

Only then can you start to discuss whether the universe is that necessary being.

But you've not even got beyond 1 yet Vlad.

No, the argument starts with contingency, we know what we observe fits the clear definitions of contingency, the logical pathway is thus 'on what is it contingent'. This is true for the universe. The necessary entity is that whose existence is unavoidable. since the universe is observed to be conditional or conditionable then the necessary being must be something other than what we have observed. That is why I ask what is it about the universe which is necessary. Since contingency demands necessity and if we say the universe is contingent the next logical question is on what.

The non existence of the necessary being is not logical since contingency is both defined and observed. The necessary entity has sufficient reason from the definition of contingency.

Having established necessity we need to ask what are it's attributes, where as the contingent is dependent on and conditioned by the necessary entity is not.

Again what is it about the universe which is necessary since it will have to fulfil these things.

Finally, evidence. Since observation involves some kind of conditioning and the necessary entity is not conditionable then direct observation is impossible.

And don't forget the best one can say of the universe is that the universe ''just is'' which avoids sufficient reason which undermines science.

If you say that science is good except for the universe as a whole that is special pleading and emergence and an emergent thing is not necessary.

Therefore the necessary entity or being is not to be observed directly

Finally the word being merely describes something that ''be'' or exists. If you think it is more then I suggest you've been watching too much star trek.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since contingency demands necessity ...

There you go again - basing your arguments on assumptions that you haven't substantiated/justified.

As pointed out previously it is perfectly possible to have only contingent entities within a system. And it is also possibly for entities to be both necessary and contingent in different contexts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There you go again - basing your arguments on assumptions that you haven't substantiated/justified.

As pointed out previously it is perfectly possible to have only contingent entities within a system. And it is also possibly for entities to be both necessary and contingent in different contexts.

Come on, contingency means dependent on or conditioned by name something that isn't. The next logical question is ''on what''. Stop fucking gas lighting.

Firstly name such a system, state how it arose, finally it is possible to be necessary for something but contingent yourself. In the case of a contingent universe or contingent universal content on what are those contingent on?

[ProfessorDavey]

Come on, contingency means dependent on or conditioned by name something that isn't. The next logical question is ''on what''. Stop fucking gas lighting.

Sure, but the answer to 'on what' is likely to simply be something that is in itself contingent on another entity.

Now your whole argument is based on linearity - in other words that eventually you get to something which is necessary for all the things further down in the chain, but is not contingent on anything else. The end of the chain so to speak. But the chain may be circular, not linear so that:

Entity A is contingent on entity B
Entity B is contingent on entity C
Entity C is contingent on entity D
Entity D is contingent on entity A

In this very simple example there is no absolute 'necessary entity' (i.e. one that is not contingent), but there are four entities that are both necessary and also contingent.

So your hand wavy assertion that contingency demands necessity, presumably implying that there must be a necessary entity that isn't contingent is logically flawed below the waterline. 

[Stranger]

No, the argument starts with contingency, we know what we observe fits the clear definitions of contingency, the logical pathway is thus 'on what is it contingent'. This is true for the universe.

How do you know it's true for the universe?

The necessary entity is that whose existence is unavoidable.

How is it logically possible for anything to unavoidably exist? How would we recognise it, even if we were aware of it? How do you know that the universe's existence was avoidable?

since the universe is observed to be conditional or conditionable...

No it isn't. All we can observe is the contents of the universe. We can't observe that the universe depends on anything.

then the necessary being must be something other than what we have observed. That is why I ask what is it about the universe which is necessary. Since contingency demands necessity and if we say the universe is contingent the next logical question is on what.

We don't know that "contingency demands necessity", and even if we did, we wouldn't know what sort of thing to look for because something that cannot fail to exists is not possible in any obvious way. The only way we could know that is if we found something that would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist. I can't even imagine something like that, can you? Can you explain how?

The non existence of the necessary being is not logical since contingency is both defined and observed. The necessary entity has sufficient reason from the definition of contingency.

Of course you haven't given sufficient reason for a necessary being. "All the contingent stuff wouldn't exist without it" is not sufficient reason for something to exist.

Having established necessity...

You haven't.

...we need to ask what are it's attributes, where as the contingent is dependent on and conditioned by the necessary entity is not.

Again what is it about the universe which is necessary since it will have to fulfil these things.

What things? You only said it can't be contingent.

Finally, evidence. Since observation involves some kind of conditioning and the necessary entity is not conditionable then direct observation is impossible.

Gibberish.

And don't forget the best one can say of the universe is that the universe ''just is'' which avoids sufficient reason which undermines science.

What's the alternative to 'just is'? How would any other made up entity have sufficient reason (other than by Vlad's baseless assertions)? And the PSR is a controversial philosophical principle, not part of science.

If you say that science is good except for the universe as a whole that is special pleading and emergence and an emergent thing is not necessary.

Nobody is saying that, but it's pretty much impossible to even imagine a reason for existence itself ("it's magic, innit?" not being nearly good enough).

Therefore the necessary entity or being is not to be observed directly

There's no 'therefore' from the above nonsense. You've established exactly nothing at all except that stuff in the universe seems to be contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sure, but the answer to 'on what' is likely to simply be something that is in itself contingent on another entity.

Now your whole argument is based on linearity - in other words that eventually you get to something which is necessary for all the things further down in the chain, but is not contingent on anything else. The end of the chain so to speak. But the chain may be circular, not linear so that:

Entity A is contingent on entity B
Entity B is contingent on entity C
Entity C is contingent on entity D
Entity D is contingent on entity A

In this very simple example there is no absolute 'necessary entity' (i.e. one that is not contingent), but there are four entities that are both necessary and also contingent.

So your hand wavy assertion that contingency demands necessity, presumably implying that there must be a necessary entity that isn't contingent is logically flawed below the waterline. 

Hand wavy? No, I would say yours is hand wavy. You seem to have got something for nothing here in other words  no such system ever been observed. All systems we observe are dependent on an externality.

Secondly you seem to have invented a perpetual motion machine, a second handwave, again no such system has been observed all systems need input

Your system is therefore twice logically flawed below the waterline.

Again we are back to what is it in the universe that is necessary.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hand wavy? No, I would say yours is hand wavy. You seem to have got something for nothing here in other words  no such system ever been observed. All systems we observe are dependent on an externality.

There are all sorts of systems and networks that operate in this manner.

Secondly you seem to have invented a perpetual motion machine, a second handwave, again no such system has been observed all systems need input

Oh dear back to your inability to see time as anything other than unilinear.

Your system is therefore twice logically flawed below the waterline.

Nope - as I said it is a possibility, not that it is certain. And it is certainly possible, which makes your claim that there must be a necessary entity (or being) unsustainably. There might be, but there might not be. And frankly if you claim there is then you open up more questions than you answer.

Again we are back to what is it in the universe that is necessary.

Back to your unevidenced and illogical assertion that the notion that there must be a necessary entity is the only possible explanation. It isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know it's true for the universe?

Because we observe the contingent in the universe.

How is it logically possible for anything to unavoidably exist? How would we recognise it, even if we were aware of it? How do you know that the universe's existence was avoidable?

Necessity arises from contingency. If the contents of the universe is contingent then there must be something about the universe which is necessary if the universe is contingent then the universe is contingent on something which must necessarily exist.

No it isn't. All we can observe is the contents of the universe. We can't observe that the universe depends on anything.

We don't know that "contingency demands necessity", and even if we did, we wouldn't know what sort of thing to look for because something that cannot fail to exists is not possible in any obvious way. The only way we could know that is if we found something that would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist. I can't even imagine something like that, can you? Can you explain how?[/quote] Contingency without necessity is nonsense even Davey sees that

Of course you haven't given sufficient reason for a necessary being. "All the contingent stuff wouldn't exist without it" is not sufficient reason for something to exist.

So I haven't given sufficient reason for sufficient reason then. And that is now a problem because you seemed to believe that the universe just is with no sufficient reason. You are confused.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are all sorts of systems and networks that operate in this manner.

But I think you'll find these systems are contingent on something else i.e. They depend on or are conditioned by something else

Oh dear back to your inability to see time as anything other than unilinear.

sadly your system was just a unilinear one was just a linear one bent round making it the equivalent of something for nothing and a perpetual motion machine.

.
Back to your unevidenced and illogical assertion that the notion that there must be a necessary entity is the only possible explanation. It isn't.

You with your something for nothing machines and perpetual motion machines are lecturing me on the unevidenced and illogical............

[ProfessorDavey]

Contingency without necessity is nonsense even Davey sees that.

I haven't said that in the context of your definition of necessary, i.e. something that isn't contingent, but only necessary. I have said that you may (and certainly do) have all sorts of systems involving entities that are both contingent on other entities but also necessary for further contingent entities.

[Gordon]

Again we are back to what is it in the universe that is necessary.

No idea - perhaps you should tell us: after all, this is your bandwagon (albeit you are the sole passenger).

Spill the beans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea - perhaps you should tell us: after all, this is your bandwagon (albeit you are the sole passenger).

Spill the beans.

It's God, Gordon, immortal, invisible and sovereign(not contingent).

[Stranger]

Because we observe the contingent in the universe.

Not the same thing (fallacy of composition).

Necessity arises from contingency. If the contents of the universe is contingent then there must be something about the universe which is necessary if the universe is contingent then the universe is contingent on something which must necessarily exist.

Non-sequitur. Even if the universe is contingent on something, that doesn't imply that anything exists necessarily, whatever the universe might be contingent on, could, in turn, be contingent on something else.

You haven't even tried to explain how something could not fail to exist; how that is even logically possible.

Contingency without necessity is nonsense...

You haven't shown that, just asserted it. Even if you assume that there is some end to the chain of contingency, then you haven't shown that it must be something necessary, in the sense that it couldn't have failed to exist, nor how that is logically possible. You keep wittering about PSR but you've totally failed to make the case that anything could even be imagined that could be its own sufficient reason.

So I haven't given sufficient reason for sufficient reason then.

No, try reading what was said. You are effectively claiming that something exists that couldn't have failed to exist and so must be its own sufficient reason. You have totally failed to explain how that is even imaginable, let alone real.

And this idiotic mantra of yours is also an equivocation fallacy.

And that is now a problem because you seemed to believe that the universe just is with no sufficient reason.

At least we can imagine a cycle of contingency, an infinite causal chain of contingency, or something that 'just is'. Something that is its own reason for existing, on the other hand, seems about as credible as a square circle, so far. You have given not the first hint of a reason as to how that could possibly work.

[Stranger]

It's God, Gordon, immortal, invisible and sovereign(not contingent).

What's the sufficient reason for this god's existence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's the sufficient reason for this god's existence?

We know there must be a necessary entity to explain the contingency in the universe, we know that entity cannot be dependent on anything else in the universe or conditioned by the universe.

It must be immortal (not conditioned by time) creative (since everything is contingent from it) and sovereign ( creating while ungoverned by the laws of nature).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At least we can imagine a cycle of contingency, an infinite causal chain of contingency, or something that 'just is'. Something that is its own reason for existing, on the other hand, seems about as credible as a square circle, so far. You have given not the first hint of a reason as to how that could possibly work.

Infinities are unproductive and multiple entities beyond necessity and so cannot be imagined. If we can imagine something that Just is, always has been always will be as is, then we have imagined God. The universe is forever changing and contingent so how just is can something like that ''just be.'' I'm not sure.

I think you guys just need time and space to realise how illogical your proposals are.

[Stranger]

We know there must be a necessary entity to explain the contingency in the universe...

No, we don't. We neither know that the universe (as a whole) is contingent, nor would its contingency imply necessity in the sense of something that couldn't have failed to exist.

...we know that entity cannot be dependent on anything else in the universe or conditioned by the universe.

No, you just made that up. What's more, we don't know that anything that the universe is contingent on is not contingent on something else entirely.

It must be immortal (not conditioned by time) creative (since everything is contingent from it) and sovereign ( creating while ungoverned by the laws of nature).

We know absolutely none of those things because you haven't explained how it even makes logical sense for anything to be such that it couldn't fail to exist. Also the idea that you can go from things being contingent on it to creative or sovereign, is just comedy.

And you totally ignored the actual question I asked: What's the sufficient reason for this god's existence?

Even if everything is as you say and your god exists, how would it not existing be impossible? How is this god's existence distinct from an instance of something that 'just is'?

[Stranger]

Infinities are unproductive and multiple entities beyond necessity and so cannot be imagined.

Drivel. It's easily imaginable and causes no logical problems.

If we can imagine something that Just is, always has been always will be as is, then we have imagined God.

That's pretty much how general relativity models the universe. The space-time manifold is changeless. Time is just one of its dimensions.

I think you guys just need time and space to realise how illogical your proposals are.

Nobody else is making proposals, just pointing out the endless unknowns and possibilities that your desperate attempts to justify god have missed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, we don't. We neither know that the universe (as a whole) is contingent.

In which case we are looking for something about the universe that is necessary.

Something that could fail to exist is contingent and we must therefore ask on what.

Infinite regression never answers this question, it is a diversion, infinites are unobserved, unproductive and make a mockery of occam's razor and never supply sufficient reason. Now tell me why they are preferable to the neccesary entity?

[Stranger]

In which case we are looking for something about the universe that is necessary.

Something that could fail to exist is contingent and we must therefore ask on what.

No. Firstly, because you haven't established that the idea of something that couldn't fail to exist even makes sense, let alone is a reality, and secondly, what I just described is the universe (as modelled by GR).

Infinite regression never answers this question, it is a diversion, infinites are unobserved, unproductive and make a mockery of occam's razor and never supply sufficient reason. Now tell me why they are preferable to the neccesary entity?

Because they are logically self-consistent, whereas you have given no possible coherent explanation at all as to how anything can be such that it couldn't have failed to exist. Not even the first tiniest hint of how that could make any sense at all.

And you still haven't answered the question about what the sufficient reason is for your made up god. Why couldn't it have failed to exist?

You seem to want us to just accept that your god is necessary, on blind faith, just because you say so, and yet you want everybody else to justify everything. It's blatant hypocrisy, as well as all the other absurdities regarding something that cannot change being anything remotely like the Christian god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Firstly, because you haven't established that the idea of something that couldn't fail to exist even makes sense, let alone is a reality, and secondly, what I just described is the universe (as modelled by GR).

Because they are logically self-consistent, whereas you have given no possible coherent explanation at all as to how anything can be such that it couldn't have failed to exist. Not even the first tiniest hint of how that could make any sense at all.

And you still haven't answered the question about what the sufficient reason is for your made up god. Why couldn't it have failed to exist?

You seem to want us to just accept that your god is necessary, on blind faith, just because you say so, and yet you want everybody else to justify everything. It's blatant hypocrisy, as well as all the other absurdities regarding something that cannot change being anything remotely like the Christian god.

If something can fail to exist then it's existence was contingent on something, it was conditional on something you haven't said what it is conditional on.

[Dicky Underpants]

You seem to want us to just accept that your god is necessary, on blind faith, just because you say so, and yet you want everybody else to justify everything. It's blatant hypocrisy, as well as all the other absurdities regarding something that cannot change being anything remotely like the Christian god.

Well said. Even if Vlad were able to justify the existence of some sort of god as a necessary being, the most he could claim for it would be a kind of Aristotelian god, remote and contemplating its own perfection. A creator perhaps, but one that withdrew from its own creation and left it to its own devices. Deism in short. And since there is precious little evidence that the world is or has ever been in the hands of a benevolent deity since natural evils have always abounded (I presume the Devil is not going to be invoked for those), then all we have as evidence is the works of individual believers. Good luck for anyone who wishes to attempt a relative analysis of beneficial religious achievements throughout the ages, let alone pinning them down to a particular division of any religion, no matter how powerful it has been historically.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well said. Even if Vlad were able to justify the existence of some sort of god as a necessary being, the most he could claim for it would be a kind of Aristotelian god, remote and contemplating its own perfection. A creator perhaps, but one that withdrew from its own creation and left it to its own devices. Deism in short.

Deism is not atheism Dicky, also you may have noticed these guys are upset at the idea of any necessary entity, not just the God of theism I put that down to the necessity entity being the gateway to religion.

And since there is precious little evidence that the world is or has ever been in the hands of a benevolent deity since natural evils have always abounded (I presume the Devil is not going to be invoked for those)

Is all evil natural?

[ProfessorDavey]

If something can fail to exist then it's existence was contingent on something, it was conditional on something you haven't said what it is conditional on.

How do you know that there is anything that couldn't fail to exist Vlad.

[Dicky Underpants]

And since there is precious little evidence that the world is or has ever been in the hands of a benevolent deity since natural evils have always abounded (I presume the Devil is not going to be invoked for those) Is all evil natural?

I used the phrase natural evils to distinguish from those perpetrated by humans.

Their arguments against there being a god as a necessary being I find convincing. It was the final point made by NTtS that even if such a claim could be substantiated, there is an impossible leap to be made (by faith alone, I'd say) to suggest that such a being must be the Christian God.