In what way is or isn't the multiverse a single entity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm doing no such thing. I'm am showing that your own blind faith in it is all you have to support your foolish claim that it is automatically satisfied when you reach the end of the hierarchy of explanation (if such a thing exists).

Neither am I trying to justify infinite regress. You really are totally out of your intellectual depth here, aren't you?

Just repeating the same idiotic argument, won't magically make it non-idiotic.

No, we have not. If you can't explain exactly why it had to be the way it is and not different (and hence why reality couldn't possibly have been different), you have not arrived at anything but a brute fact. This isn't difficult. Either you have a reason why reality couldn't have been different (or not at all), or you have no 'necessary entity'.

More obsession with Blue And, as I keep on pointing out, the PSR doesn't even seem to universally apply within the universe, so trying to claim that it must apply to the basis of existence is totally absurd.

I'm not here to say exactly what these reasons are. That's you asking me for something it is apparent you don't have balls to ask yourself.

You seem to be saying that there is a reason for the reason there is something rather than nothing.

So that reason must be something rather than nothing and since there is nothing does not exist the reason must contain it's own raison d'etre BECAUSE THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE FOR THAT REASON TO RESIDE/BE LOCATED.

Our three possible candidates for this final something are Contingent things, the necessary entity and non existence.

Go figure.

[Stranger]

I'm not here to say exactly what these reasons are.

Then your entire 'argument' is nothing but an exercise in blind faith, dressed up to look like it might be hinting at some logic, if you were only capable of expressing it.

That's you asking me for something it is apparent you don't have balls to ask yourself.

  I have asked these questions myself and that's why I've come to the tentative conclusion that a so called 'necessary entity' imakes no sense at all. If someone can actually provide some credible answers, I might be convinced otherwise.

You seem to be saying that there is a reason for the reason there is something rather than nothing.

No, I'm not. It is you who has the obsessively blind faith in reasons for everything (the PSR), not me.

So that reason must be something rather than nothing and since there is nothing does not exist the reason must contain it's own raison d'etre BECAUSE THERE IS NO WHERE ELSE FOR THAT REASON TO RESIDE/BE LOCATED.

Blind faith in the PSR again. All you've basically said is:

• I refuse to accept that the universe 'just is' (blind faith assertion).
• Therefore there must be a reason for its existence.
• That must be the reason why there is something rather than nothing (more blind faith).
• The PSR must apply (yet more blind faith).
• So said 'thing', that is the reason for the universe, must contain its own reason for existence (prima facie, a logical impossibility) because there is nowhere else for that reason to be located.

Not only is this (obviously) riddled with blind faith, but is an exercise in tunnel vision focused entirely on getting to your preferred conclusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

• I refuse to accept that the universe 'just is' (blind faith assertion).

On what warrant SHOULD we accept that the universe just is? Not from naturalism. why is ''the universe Just is'' not a blind faith assertion? Also, not Blind faith since I argue from contingency so your argument falls there,   

• Therefore there must be a reason for its existence.

Which is why you feel justified in asking me whether there is a reason for the reason why there is something rather than nothing. The reason you feel justified in asking it is that it is the PSR. The justification for saying the necessary entity exists comes from the argument from contingency. Follow that and you get to something not dependent on anything for it's existence. You are arguing on the principle of  sufficient reason until you switch to the principle of external reason at a very suspicious point, Exactly where atheism comes under criticism. speeeeeeeecccccccccciiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaalllllllll ppppppplllllllllllllleeeeeeeaaaaaaadddddddiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggggg.

• That must be the reason why there is something rather than nothing (more blind faith).

You haven't given us the warrant why we should consider that the universe ''just is'' yet!!!!!!!!!!!

• The PSR must apply (yet more blind faith).
• So said 'thing', that is the reason for the universe, must contain its own reason for existence (prima facie, a logical impossibility) because there is nowhere else for that reason to be located.

[/quote]How is it a logical impossibility! You keep asserting it but never show your working!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a case of ''I don't know but it can't be.'' or to put it another way you want us to ditch the principle of sufficient reason for the principle of external reason

You are conflating arguments of SUFFICIENT reason with arguments for external reason. The principle of sufficient reason never intrinsically depends on arguments for external reason.

 And inevitably we are back to infinite regress so so much for the supposed logic of the principle of external reason.

Once again the necessary ultimate beings existence comes out of the argument from contingency and in that respect is not a just is argument. In fact Just is isn't even an argument like infinite regress isn't an argument.

So then we have to look at the strongest weapon in your armoury. The fallacy of composition, but that is only an informal fallacy since a contingent universe ''could'' be contingent and what with the weight of logic against atheism............. You also fail to see the irony of vilifying Blind faith and appealing to brute fact.

You are simultaneously arguing a principle of external reason and The principle of brute fact.......which denies the external reason.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In response to your Star trek reference and your logic.........I think we can safely say ''You are not Spock.''

[Stranger]

On what warrant SHOULD we accept that the universe just is?

When will it finally dawn on you that saying "You have no reason to conclude A" is not the same as the proposition "not A"?

This is basic logic 101.

Also, not Blind faith since I argue from contingency so your argument falls there,

Except you haven't ever given the slightest hint (let alone logic - if you even understood what that meant) as to why you conclude that the whole space-time is contingent.

Which is why you feel justified in asking me whether there is a reason for the reason why there is something rather than nothing. The reason you feel justified in asking it is that it is the PSR. The justification for saying the necessary entity exists comes from the argument from contingency. Follow that and you get to something not dependent on anything for it's existence. You are arguing on the principle of  sufficient reason until you switch to the principle of external reason at a very suspicious point, Exactly where atheism comes under criticism. speeeeeeeecccccccccciiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaalllllllll ppppppplllllllllllllleeeeeeeaaaaaaadddddddiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnggggggg.

Gibberish.

You haven't given us the warrant why we should consider that the universe ''just is'' yet!!!!!!!!!!!

See above regarding your inability to grasp the basics of logic.

How is it a logical impossibility! You keep asserting it but never show your working!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't assert it - do you know what prima facie means?

The basis for the prima facie conclusion is that is that you are totally incapable of even beginning to explain how it might work, as is everybody else that I've talked to. It would have to involve something that would cause a logical contradiction if it didn't exist or was different. I'm not the first person to point out that this seems to be unimaginable, let alone something we might expect. It would also seem to involve an explanatory loop - something you seem to be against yourself.

This is a case of ''I don't know but it can't be.''

So you don't do English comprehension any better that you do logic. I specifically said that I was open to persuasion, given a credible explanation.

Pretty much everything else you've said is just more silly foot-stamping and assumptions about my position that I've already specifically addressed.

Go away and learn some basic logic and English comprehension (or perhaps, just to read a post before trying to reply to it).

...and what with the weight of logic against atheism...

Just love to see some of that logic. Please feel free to present some, even the first hint of the tiniest smidgen of such logic - because you've never presented any here before.

And, of course, you've just explicitly admitted to your own biased approach to the idea of a 'necessary entity'. Priceless.

You are simultaneously arguing a principle of external reason and The principle of brute fact.......which denies the external reason.

Again, see my first answer above. Please get it through your skull:

I'm not arguing for any specific solution here - just pointing out the flaws in your 'reasoning'.

To be even clearer: there might be a necessary entity, just as there might be a god, but you are light years away from a logical argument for either.

[Stranger]

In response to your Star trek reference and your logic.........I think we can safely say ''You are not Spock.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When will it finally dawn on you that saying "You have no reason to conclude A" is not the same as the proposition "not A"?

This is basic logic 101.

Except you haven't ever given the slightest hint (let alone logic - if you even understood what that meant) as to why you conclude that the whole space-time is contingent.

Gibberish.

See above regarding your inability to grasp the basics of logic.

I didn't assert it - do you know what prima facie means?

The basis for the prima facie conclusion is that is that you are totally incapable of even beginning to explain how it might work, as is everybody else that I've talked to. It would have to involve something that would cause a logical contradiction if it didn't exist or was different. I'm not the first person to point out that this seems to be unimaginable, let alone something we might expect. It would also seem to involve an explanatory loop - something you seem to be against yourself.

So you don't do English comprehension any better that you do logic. I specifically said that I was open to persuasion, given a credible explanation.

Pretty much everything else you've said is just more silly foot-stamping and assumptions about my position that I've already specifically addressed.

Go away and learn some basic logic and English comprehension (or perhaps, just to read a post before trying to reply to it).



Just love to see some of that logic. Please feel free to present some, even the first hint of the tiniest smidgen of such logic - because you've never presented any here before.

And, of course, you've just explicitly admitted to your own biased approach to the idea of a 'necessary entity'. Priceless.

Again, see my first answer above. Please get it through your skull:

I'm not arguing for any specific solution here - just pointing out the flaws in your 'reasoning'.

To be even clearer: there might be a necessary entity, just as there might be a god, but you are light years away from a logical argument for either.

I'll say it again slowly this time.

For those to whom defaults and burdens of proof are important.... A contingent universe is the default position and a necessary universe or necessary space time has the burden of proof.

For those for whom real or good reasons are important. There are no reasons or good reasons to believe that the universe just is...

For you, once again, what is the warrant for postulating it?

You know what you have to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are unable to mind meld (and not because you can't meld either)

[Stranger]

For those to whom defaults and burdens of proof are important.... A contingent universe is the default position and a necessary universe or necessary space time has the burden of proof.

Both a baseless assertion and a false dilemma.   

• You have not established that a 'necessity' is even a logical possibility.
• You have given no reason to exclude a brute fact.
• You have not demonstrated why a contingent universe would be a default position because the space-time does not appear to be contingent.
• For those reasons, the default is a simple "we don't know".

For those for whom real or good reasons are important. There are no reasons or good reasons to believe that the universe just is...

Nor for it being contingent.

For you, once again, what is the warrant for postulating it?

Anything is a possibility until we can eliminate it. At least "just is" doesn't appear to involve a contradiction, unlike it the existence of a 'necessary entity'. NOT, of course, that I am supporting one or totally dismissing the other.

You just haven't made your case.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Both a baseless assertion and a false dilemma.   

• You have not established that a 'necessity' is even a logical possibility.

well let's start with the contention that space time is.

• You have given no reason to exclude a brute fact.

[/quote]I rather think the burden is on a reason to include one. You know what you have to do.[/quote]

• You have not demonstrated why a contingent universe would be a default position because the space-time does not appear to be contingent.

[/quote]Hang on don't you have to demonstrate 'necessity' to claim that, If it's more than a theory? In what way is it brute fact?

• For those reasons, the default is a simple "we don't know".

[/quote]It's funny because according to atheists, the default is NOT AGNOSTICISM but atheism, you can add that to the list of arguments dumped when they are inconvenient for atheists

[/list]
Nor for it being contingent.

Anything is a possibility until we can eliminate it. At least "just is" doesn't appear to involve a contradiction, unlike it the existence of a 'necessary entity'. NOT, of course, that I am supporting one or totally dismissing the other.

You just haven't made your case.

You're shifting the burden of proof now away from having to prove Brute fact. But I am not only asking for proof, I am asking for warrant and Good reason.

The argument for necessity is the argument for necessity. Since that has been given, what does that make you.

Of course a contingent universe is the default position since it comes out of naturalism being the default position.

All you are saying is ''prove everything even my warrant for saying anything.''  Gas lighting or what.

I shall leave you in your bouillabaise of your own making with the tasks you have kind of set yourself.

I can't follow the logic of necessity because it threatens my atheism but i'll cheerfully accept Brute fact because it doesn't seems then to be your position.

How is the principle of external reason possibly logical?

You seem to be saying that things can be contingent but we must not extend this to the universe. What is your warrant for this? The statement also suggests contingency only which is absurd.

We must believe though that there may be brute facts. On no warrant?

You don't want any explanatory responsibility and that is a character fault IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For those to whom defaults and burdens of proof are important.... A contingent universe is the default position...

I'll say it again slowly this time: why?

Tell you what, if you insist un running away from justifying your unqualified declaration about that, would you at least consider telling us why you won't or can't answer it?

What's stopping you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

well let's start with the contention that space time is.

No-one has made that contention. The only contention that has been made is your contention that spacetime must be contingent on something else, but you'll never justify it with an argument.

[Stranger]

well let's start with the contention that space time is.

Why do you think it is, then?

I rather think the burden is on a reason to include one. You know what you have to do.

For the simple, logical reason that anything we can dream up or imagine remains a possibility unless there is some reason to dismiss it.

Hang on don't you have to demonstrate 'necessity' to claim that, If it's more than a theory? In what way is it brute fact?

Oh, for fuck's sake, I'm not going to just go on repeating myself. Learn to read!

It's funny because according to atheists, the default is NOT AGNOSTICISM but atheism...

Which is another false dilemma. Most atheists here are agnostic atheists. Agnostic because we can't know and atheists because we have no reason to believe.

I am agnostic about the reason why the universe exists, and I have been given no good reason to accept any of the proposed solutions so far given, so don't believe in any of them. Hence my attitude is identical to all proposed answers to "why is there something rather than nothing?" and "why does the universe exist?", as it is to god(s).

You're shifting the burden of proof now away from having to prove Brute fact.

Again, you're failing logic 101.

It's not my burden of proof because I'm not saying it is the case. Its mere existence, as a possibility, however, undermines your claim of contingency.

The argument for necessity is the argument for necessity.

...and a pile of illogical shite and baseless assertions.

Of course a contingent universe is the default position since it comes out of naturalism being the default position.

More drivel.

I can't follow the logic of necessity because it threatens my atheism but i'll cheerfully accept Brute fact because it doesn't seems then to be your position.

More logic 101 failings. How many times do I need to point out that I DON'T ACCEPT EITHER A 'NECESSARY ENTITY' OR A BRUTE FACT? However, since they are both possible (assuming somebody can make some sense of how something can be necessary in the sense required), you cannot rule one in and dismiss the other, just because you like it better.

How is the principle of external reason possibly logical?

You seem to be saying that things can be contingent but we must not extend this to the universe. What is your warrant for this? The statement also suggests contingency only which is absurd.

We must believe though that there may be brute facts. On no warrant?

You don't want any explanatory responsibility and that is a character fault IMHO.

More logic 101 failings.

For fuck's sake, learn the difference between "you have not made a case for A" and "not A", and between "you can't claim A is the answer because you haven't eliminated B" and "B is true".

This really shouldn't be hard, even for you...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one has made that contention. The only contention that has been made is your contention that spacetime must be contingent on something else, but you'll never justify it with an argument.

OK, I'll take it slowly. What is the warrant to even consider it might be ''necessary'' or ''brute fact?''
As there are no good reasons for believing this is even possible. I'm afraid that will require you and that other bloke explaining what ''necessary'' and ''brute fact'' mean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you think it is, then?

For the simple, logical reason that anything we can dream up or imagine remains a possibility unless there is some reason to dismiss it.

Oh, for fuck's sake, I'm not going to just go on repeating myself. Learn to read!

Which is another false dilemma. Most atheists here are agnostic atheists. Agnostic because we can't know and atheists because we have no reason to believe.

I am agnostic about the reason why the universe exists, and I have been given no good reason to accept any of the proposed solutions so far given, so don't believe in any of them. Hence my attitude is identical to all proposed answers to "why is there something rather than nothing?" and "why does the universe exist?", as it is to god(s).

Again, you're failing logic 101.

It's not my burden of proof because I'm not saying it is the case. Its mere existence, as a possibility, however, undermines your claim of contingency.

...and a pile of illogical shite and baseless assertions.

More drivel.

More logic 101 failings. How many times do I need to point out that I DON'T ACCEPT EITHER A 'NECESSARY ENTITY' OR A BRUTE FACT? However, since they are both possible (assuming somebody can make some sense of how something can be necessary in the sense required), you cannot rule one in and dismiss the other, just because you like it better.

More logic 101 failings.

For fuck's sake, learn the difference between "you have not made a case for A" and "not A", and between "you can't claim A is the answer because you haven't eliminated B" and "B is true".

This really shouldn't be hard, even for you...

The argument '' Anything is possible'' really is a busted flush.

Why should we believe that ''contingency only'' or ''brute fact'' are even possible?...... and explain why you appeal to them only when atheism or you feel atheism, is challenged?

[Stranger]

What is the warrant to even consider it might be ''necessary'' or ''brute fact?''

You have given no reason or argument to rule them out ("I don't like them", or personal incredulity don't count).

As there are no good reasons for believing this is even possible.

Baseless assertion and hypocritical to boot, since you have continually failed to even attempt an explanation of how a 'necessary entity' might exist without introducing an apparent absurdity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have given no reason or argument to rule them out ("I don't like them", or personal incredulity don't count).

Baseless assertion and hypocritical to boot, since you have continually failed to even attempt an explanation of how a 'necessary entity' might exist without introducing an apparent absurdity.

Rule them out? They haven't even been ruled in?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK, I'll take it slowly. What is the warrant to even consider it might be ''necessary'' or ''brute fact?''

It’s hard to tell whether you’re just trolling now. It might be a necessary or a brute fact because anything that isn’t incoherent of self-negating might be.

As there are no good reasons for believing this is even possible.

Why do you think are there no good reasons for believing this is possible? Anything nor incoherent or self-negating is possible. That’s an actual default position.

I'm afraid that will require you and that other bloke explaining what ''necessary'' and ''brute fact'' mean.

No it won’t. All it requires is a “don’t know” about whether or not the universe is its own explanation. You on the other hand are the one making the positive statement that it isn’t, but you seem to determined never to tell us why.   

This shouldn’t be hard to understand, even for you.

[Stranger]

The argument '' Anything is possible'' really is a busted flush.

Baseless drive. If something cannot be ruled out, either on logical or evidential grounds, it remains possible, even if you don't consider it probable.

Why should we believe that ''contingency only'' or ''brute fact'' are even possible?...

Try ruling them out, then.

... and explain why you appeal to them only when atheism or you feel atheism, is challenged?

I don't. Please don't lie. Atheism is not in the least bit challenged by a necessary entity anyway, because all the attempts to link any notion of such to a theistic god are even more comically absurd than the arguments for the necessary entity itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Baseless drive. If something cannot be ruled out, either on logical or evidential grounds, it remains possible, even if you don't consider it probable.

Try ruling them out, then.

I don't. Please don't lie. Atheism is not in the least bit challenged by a necessary entity anyway, because all the attempts to link any notion of such to a theistic god are even more comically absurd than the arguments for the necessary entity itself.

Justify, thank you. I shan't hold my breath, but would be keen on your take on where the absurdity lies and your warrant for calling it absurd.
I'm not a Brute fact agnostic or a contingency only agnostic because there are no good reasons available for either of them. As far as you are concerned I don't need to demonstrate a contingent universe is the default position because Naturalism is your default position.

Brute fact doesn't save you from the existence of contingent things and all that entails. Because if it's contingent, we are entitled to ask of course ''on what is it contingent?''.

I am waiting on you to justify even proposing 'Brute fact' and why the reason for something has to be external to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Baseless drive. If something cannot be ruled out, either on logical or evidential grounds, it remains possible, even if you don't consider it probable.

What is the logic then and evidence for Brute facts.

[Stranger]

Justify, thank you. I shan't hold my breath, but would be keen on your take on where the absurdity lies and your warrant for calling it absurd.

I really don't know why I'm bothering because you continually refuse to justify pretty much any of your wild assertions. However, I'm referring to 'arguments' like Feser's in which he concludes that the 'necessary entity' is outside time and immutable and then (hilariously) tries to connect that with a theistic idea of god that can think, plan, and act.

I'm not a Brute fact agnostic or a contingency only agnostic because there are no good reasons available for either of them.

There are even less good reasons for a 'necessary entity' simply because, it is not only baseless, but is apparently absurd (and, no, I'm not going to explain why, yet again - look back).

And you're still failing logic 101, for reasons I've already explained. One doesn't have to supply good reasons for something that is only presented as a possible alternative, rather than a proposition that one is claiming to be true. There mere existence of possible alternatives undermines any claim to the truth of one option, unless you have actual supporting evidence, for example.

As far as you are concerned I don't need to demonstrate a contingent universe is the default position because Naturalism is your default position.

Both another non-sequitur and also untrue.

Brute fact doesn't save you from the existence of contingent things and all that entails. Because if it's contingent, we are entitled to ask of course ''on what is it contingent?''.

Since I never made these claims, what the fuck are you gibbering on about?

I am waiting on you to justify even proposing 'Brute fact' and why the reason for something has to be external to it.

Learn to read.

What is the logic then and evidence for Brute facts.

Again, learn to read with comprehension, and stop asking stupid questions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I'll say it again slowly this time: why?

Because a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe Hillside, The same reason why you claim all your default positions. Nothing can be deemed beyond that and all we see is contingent. To allow something supernatural for nature is special pleading.

[Stranger]

Because a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Demonstrate empirically that something is the necessary entity or brute fact then.