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

[Stranger]

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

Why? It has literally nothing to do with the fact that your claim was bullshit.

You said "a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe" but we can't empirically observe "a universe" (in its entirety) at all, so we can't possibly know empirically whether it's contingent or not.

What we do know, is that our best (empirically) tested theory on the subject, tells us that there is no reason to assume that it (the whole space-time) is contingent. There appears to be no need for an external reason for its existence.

[Sebastian Toe]

Because a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe Hillside,

Are you an empiricist Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why? It has literally nothing to do with the fact that your claim was bullshit.

You said "a contingent universe is all we can empirically observe" but we can't empirically observe "a universe" (in its entirety) at all, so we can't possibly know empirically whether it's contingent or not.

What we do know, is that our best (empirically) tested theory on the subject, tells us that there is no reason to assume that it (the whole space-time) is contingent. There appears to be no need for an external reason for its existence.

When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.

And that has been good enough for every man woman and trans atheist on this forum at least to claim atheism and naturalism as the default position.

And now this business of default positions like so many others is dropped to suit your, well I won't call it an argument.

Also dropped because it doesn't suit. PSR,  And now I am supposed to disprove Brute fact.....what happened to showing it's logical. A reversal of burden of proof.......quietly dropped because it no longer suits.

And that is before the bullshit about having done all that's been asked or I'm required, or the absurd rules or the string of courtiers replies.about science and logic.

So in conclusion. The universe in one sense can have a necessary entity in it.

In another sense I.e.the empirical sense on which your default position of atheism is based it is a contingent universe.

Have a supernatural providence of the universe if you wish but be prepared to loose your default position and your immunity from burden of proof.

Stranger and Hillside. The Phil and Don Everley of Atheist Street fighting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you an empiricist Vlad?

I'm a methodological empiricist Seb. Not a philosophical empiricist nor still one of those strange philosophical empiricist who reckons that in some mystical way you become a philosophical empiricist when you use methodological empiricism.

You don't know how good it felt using all those Isms.

[Stranger]

When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.

Even on this basis (which is wrong), we couldn't possibly say if the universe (the whole thing) was contingent. The description is also wrong because our intuitive notions of space and time (as formalised by Newton) were shown to be fundamentally wrong by Einstein. Every time you use a device with GPS, you are basically providing evidence that it is wrong.

And that has been good enough for every man woman and trans atheist on this forum at least to claim atheism and naturalism as the default position.

Utter drivel. That is nowhere near being the basis for the default position of atheism or naturalism.

And now this business of default positions like so many others is dropped to suit your, well I won't call it an argument.

Also dropped because it doesn't suit. PSR,  And now I am supposed to disprove Brute fact.....what happened to showing it's logical. A reversal of burden of proof.......quietly dropped because it no longer suits.

And that is before the bullshit about having done all that's been asked or I'm required, or the absurd rules or the string of courtiers replies.about science and logic.

So in conclusion. The universe in one sense can have a necessary entity in it.

In another sense I.e.the empirical sense on which your default position of atheism is based it is a contingent universe.

Have a supernatural providence of the universe if you wish but be prepared to loose your default position and your immunity from burden of proof.

When you've dug yourself into a deep, dark pit of confusion and misunderstanding, the best advice is always to stop digging.

This isn't difficult. You have made the claim that there must be a 'necessary entity' (in the sense of something that is its own reason for existing), so it's clearly your burden of proof because nobody else is claiming, either that there is some other position that they are claiming is right instead, or that you are definitely wrong.

The other thing that you really need to understand is that, if we do a 'brainstorming' session on some difficult problem and come up with a set of possible (i.e. not obviously impossible, no matter how improbably they may seem) solutions, say A, B, C, and D, and if you say that (for example) "the answer is clearly B", then it is part of your job, if you want to use a sound logical deduction, to prove that A, C, and D are all, in fact, impossible. This is because the mere existence of these alternatives would undermine your deduction. It is not up to anybody else to show that any of them are right, it is you that must eliminate them.

As for the PSR, it's not something that is dropped when we don't like it, quantum mechanics pretty much forces us to at least dilute its meaning, if not drop it altogether as anything other than an approximation that is good enough for 'everyday' life, rather than something fundamental. It was only ever a philosophical principle - nobody can prove it, yet you seem to want to make it more fundamental than even your own god.....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even on this basis (which is wrong), we couldn't possibly say if the universe (the whole thing) was contingent. The description is also wrong because our intuitive notions of space and time (as formalised by Newton) were shown to be fundamentally wrong by Einstein. Every time you use a device with GPS, you are basically providing evidence that it is wrong.

Utter drivel. That is nowhere near being the basis for the default position of atheism or naturalism.

When you've dug yourself into a deep, dark pit of confusion and misunderstanding, the best advice is always to stop digging.

This isn't difficult. You have made the claim that there must be a 'necessary entity' (in the sense of something that is its own reason for existing), so it's clearly your burden of proof because nobody else is claiming, either that there is some other position that they are claiming is right instead, or that you are definitely wrong.

The other thing that you really need to understand is that, if we do a 'brainstorming' session on some difficult problem and come up with a set of possible (i.e. not obviously impossible, no matter how improbably they may seem) solutions, say A, B, C, and D, and if you say that (for example) "the answer is clearly B", then it is part of your job, if you want to use a sound logical deduction, to prove that A, C, and D are all, in fact, impossible. This is because the mere existence of these alternatives would undermine your deduction. It is not up to anybody else to show that any of them are right, it is you that must eliminate them.

As for the PSR, it's not something that is dropped when we don't like it, quantum mechanics pretty much forces us to at least dilute its meaning, if not drop it altogether as anything other than an approximation that is good enough for 'everyday' life, rather than something fundamental. It was only ever a philosophical principle - nobody can prove it, yet you seem to want to make it more fundamental than even your own god.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xKf93xOLTk

[Stranger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xKf93xOLTk

Some seed fell on the stony ground...   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some seed fell on the stony ground...   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FWyLiHq2O4

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.

Wouldn’t it save you time just to say instead, “yes my claim rests on the fallacy of composition”?

And that has been good enough for every man woman and trans atheist on this forum at least to claim atheism and naturalism as the default position.

First, you’ve switched horses here from “deterministic” to “naturalistic”. A non-determinative phenomenon could still be naturalistic.

Second, naturalism being the default position for observed phenomena tells you fuck all about whether or not the universe is contingent on something else.

And now this business of default positions like so many others is dropped to suit your, well I won't call it an argument.

No it isn’t. Stop lying. There’s no reason to think the universe being its own explanation wouldn’t be a naturalistic answer too.

Also dropped because it doesn't suit. PSR,  And now I am supposed to disprove Brute fact.....what happened to showing it's logical. A reversal of burden of proof.......quietly dropped because it no longer suits.

And that is before the bullshit about having done all that's been asked or I'm required, or the absurd rules or the string of courtiers replies.about science and logic.

Gibberish.

So in conclusion. The universe in one sense can have a necessary entity in it.

Perhaps.

In another sense I.e.the empirical sense on which your default position of atheism is based it is a contingent universe.

Atheism doesn't rest on empiricism (it’s just the position you arrive when the justifying arguments attempted for the claim “god” fail under scrutiny), and you still have no non-fallacious justification for declaring the universe to be contingent on something else (despite being asked for it many times).   

Have a supernatural providence of the universe if you wish but be prepared to loose your default position and your immunity from burden of proof.

More gibberish.

Stranger and Hillside. The Phil and Don Everley of Atheist Street fighting.

Grow up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm a methodological empiricist Seb. Not a philosophical empiricist nor still one of those strange philosophical empiricist who reckons that in some mystical way you become a philosophical empiricist when you use methodological empiricism.

You don't know how good it felt using all those Isms.

No-one is a “philosophical empiricist” in the sense of the made up, straw man, absolutist version of that term on which you rely. Some of us though are philosophical empiricists in the sense of its actual meaning, namely “an epistemological theory that holds that knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism). 

What method would you propose instead to justify your “it’s magic innit” god claim?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

When we look out into deep space, what is it we are looking at? That's right, a changing material contingent universe. And that is all we have seen since we were only able to see the sky and the horizon.

“The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition#See_also

You’re welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wouldn’t it save you time just to say instead, “yes my claim rests on the fallacy of composition”?

You've watched too much Z Cars mate. That wouldn't be my claim. It would be, how would you say?, one of yours you've fitted me up with.

First, you’ve switched horses here from “deterministic” to “naturalistic”. A non-determinative phenomenon could still be naturalistic.

No, I'm referring here to naturalism and you've just included Determinism as a red herring.

Second, naturalism being the default position for observed phenomena tells you fuck all about whether or not the universe is contingent on something else.

Except when it forms the basis of the atheist and naturalistic ''default'' position.
Brute fact and necessary entities are not part of the stock of naturalism, because they aren't found in nature materially or empirically. You've got to ditch something important for your self here Hillside. Your default position or your argument against a necessary entity. Leave one at the door.
 So the next time you claim atheism as the default position it will be on the strength that necessary entities and brute facts are not part of the grounds of atheism which are a rejection of such things leaving the default view of the universe as contingent.

Also since you do not believe that phenomena are more than their components the sum of all the contingent things must equal the sum of all contingent things. Where does necessity come in? It would be magic wouldn't it.

And even if you did some magic and got necessity. You wouldn't have a universe that was necessary only something in it that was.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy that arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition#See_also

You’re welcome.

Thanks for that. First of all inferring the universe is true from the part we empirically observe forms the basis of the atheist claim to holding the default position. Namely yourself. So each time you claim the default position you are making the fallacy of composition.

Secondly' This fallacy doesn't apply to a claim that contingent things depend on other things for their existence. To think that a contingent thing was something other than a contingent thing is an absurdity.

That only contingent things can exist is another absurdity.

My case is that if we say the universe equals all existing things then the universe would contain the some of contingent entities plus the entity on which they were contingent on. The necessity of the necessary entity cannot be confused with the contingent existence of those things ultimately contingent on it.

This brings us round to composition, specifically composite entities. They cannot be necessary since the depend on parts so the entity is dependent on others and therefore cannot be necessary.

The atheist makes the error if they propose that what they can see is the universe is all there is and that it is solely contingent. But then you've already nicked yourself on that charge.

The theist makes no error because the contingent universe is one grouping which exists with another ontological entity which is singular.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You've watched too much Z Cars mate. That wouldn't be my claim. It would be, how would you say?, one of yours you've fitted me up with.

But that is your claim. What different argument do you think you’re making when you keep telling us that lots of observable stuff in the universe is deterministic? If it's not your claim, so what?

Of course, you could instead clear this up just by telling us finally why you think the universe must be contingent on something else but, given your relentless silence on that, the fallacy of composition is all we have left.   

No, I'm referring here to naturalism and you've just included Determinism as a red herring.

No, you’ve switched horses. Which are you trying to talk about now – a deterministic universe (which contains no non-deterministic components), or a naturalistic universe (which may include some non-deterministic components)?
 

Except when it forms the basis of the atheist…

What on earth is wrong with you? Atheism isn’t based on any such thing, as I just explained to you. 

…and naturalistic ''default'' position.

Yes, the universe appears to be naturalistic in character (ie, there’s no evidence for a “supernatural”), so that’s the “default position” about the way the universe likely is. If ever though evidence for a supernatural was to appear, then that default position would be amended or junked.

This isn’t difficult stuff Vlad, really it isn’t.   

Brute fact and necessary entities are not part of the stock of naturalism, because they aren't found in nature materially or empirically. You've got to ditch something important for your self here Hillside. Your default position or your argument against a necessary entity. Leave one at the door.

Yes they are. Naturalistic explanations frequently run into “don’t knows” (see “it’s a brute fact” being all we can currently say about the universe for example) with no dent at all thereby being made in the naturalistic default model.

You’re trying to jumo here straight from a “don’t know” to “therefore not naturalistic” with no connecting reasoning to justify the leap.

Again, this isn’t difficult stuff (or at least it shouldn’t be) – even for you.   

So the next time you claim atheism as the default position it will be on the strength that necessary entities and brute facts are not part of the grounds of atheism which are a rejection of such things leaving the default view of the universe as contingent.

Drivel. It will be (as it always has been) on the basis of none available arguments attempted to justify the claim “god” withstanding scrutiny. 

It would help if you’d stop lying about this.

Also since you do not believe that phenomena are more than their components…

Fuck me, when go full straw man there’s no holding back is there. Emergent phenomena are precisely greater than the sum of their component parts. That’s pretty much the definition of “emergence” ffs. 

…the sum of all the contingent things must equal the sum of all contingent things. Where does necessity come in? It would be magic wouldn't it.

TAXI FOR VLAD!

And even if you did some magic and got necessity. You wouldn't have a universe that was necessary only something in it that was.

Did that mean something in the dank, hall of mirrors undergrowth of what passes for your mind when you typed it? 

[Stranger]

Thanks for that. First of all inferring the universe is true from the part we empirically observe forms the basis of the atheist claim to holding the default position.

You're basically confusing a default position with an argument that is supposed to prove something. A default position is not to accept claims that we have no basis for accepting. An argument for something needs to prove that said something is the only option.

This brings us round to composition, specifically composite entities. They cannot be necessary since the depend on parts so the entity is dependent on others and therefore cannot be necessary.

A whole that can't exist without its parts and none of its parts can exist without the whole, is as close to the explanatory loop required for a 'necessary entity' as I can think of. And make no mistake here, something that contains its own reason for existing is definitly an explanatory loop.

The atheist makes the error if they propose that what they can see is the universe is all there is and that it is solely contingent.

Firstly, identifying this as an 'atheist' position is just silly, it has nothing to do with atheism per se. Secondly, for reasons I've already explained, the universe does not appear, from all the empirical evidence we have, to be contingent.

The theist makes no error because the contingent universe is one grouping which exists with another ontological entity which is singular.

Identifying a 'necessary entity' as theist is just as silly as identifying the "not proven" position with atheism. The error in the assertion of a 'necessary entity' is simply that you have nothing remotely like a sound argument to support it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Thanks for that. First of all inferring the universe is true from the part we empirically observe forms the basis of the atheist claim to holding the default position. Namely yourself. So each time you claim the default position you are making the fallacy of composition.

Wrong again. Inferring possible consistency in a characteristic of components within a system is not the same as inferring that the system as a whole must also therefore share the same characteristic.   

Secondly' This fallacy doesn't apply to a claim that contingent things depend on other things for their existence. To think that a contingent thing was something other than a contingent thing is an absurdity.

Incoherent drivel. What are you even trying to say here?

That only contingent things can exist is another absurdity.

It may or may not be, but as it’s not a claim anyone here makes it’s irrelevant.

My case…

Finally!

… is that if we say the universe equals all existing things then the universe would contain the some of contingent entities plus the entity on which they were contingent on. The necessity of the necessary entity cannot be confused with the contingent existence of those things ultimately contingent on it.

Aw no, say it ain’t so. So “your case” is just incoherent then. What on earth is “plus the entity on which they were contingent on” even supposed to mean?

This brings us round to composition, specifically composite entities. They cannot be necessary since the depend on parts so the entity is dependent on others and therefore cannot be necessary.

You’ve just crashed through the fallacy of composition again here. Yet again: the fact that the “entity” “depends” on its “parts” does not imply that the properties of those “parts” must also therefore be properties of the “entity” itself.

Perhaps if you wrote it down 100 times or until it sunk in that would help grasp the point here?   

The atheist…

Oh ffs. Will it ever sink in for you that this has absolutely fuck all to do with atheism?

…makes the error if they propose that what they can see is the universe is all there is and that it is solely contingent. But then you've already nicked yourself on that charge.

Just out of interest, have you ever, ever, ever seen anyone here say, suggest or imply any such thing?

Ever? 

I haven’t, and nor is any such claim necessary to justify atheism.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp that you keep having to lie your way to straw men for your claims?
 

The theist makes no error because the contingent universe is one grouping which exists with another ontological entity which is singular.

Hysterical non-sequitur noted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


You’ve just crashed through the fallacy of composition again here. Yet again: the fact that the “entity” “depends” on its “parts” does not imply that the properties of those “parts” must also therefore be properties of the “entity” itself.

I think you'll find anything that suggests that a contingency can also be a necessity is an absurdity Hillside. Any rule suggested by an informal fallacy isn't going to change that.

A group of spades could collectively be the necessary entity and therefore have created themselves because the fallacy of composition allows it? Seriously.

A necessary entity cannot have parts in any case in a way I outlined to you but you are weren't intelligent enough to spot it.

It's good to see you acknowledge necessity though so now I can ask you where and what is this necessary aspect of the universe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And for his next trick Hillside will now produce a house made of rubber out of clay bricks.

Hillside mate...........It's magic innit?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you'll find anything that suggests that a contingency can also be a necessity is an absurdity Hillside. Any rule suggested by an informal fallacy isn't going to change that.

What makes you think the universe itself (as opposed to it component parts) is “a contingency”? (You know, the question you keep running away from.)

A group of spades could collectively be the necessary entity and therefore have created themselves because the fallacy of composition allows it? Seriously.

Gibberish.

A necessary entity cannot have parts in any case in a way I outlined to you but you are weren't intelligent enough to spot it.

You didn’t "outline" anything – you just asserted it. When I asked you to justify your assertion you just ran away again – or perhaps you weren’t intelligent enough to sport that?

It's good to see you acknowledge necessity though so now I can ask you where and what is this necessary aspect of the universe?

Wrong again, this time on (at least) two counts:

First, I “recognise” only the possibility of necessity – ie that the universe could be its own necessary thing. I make no claim at all about whether it is or it isn’t – I don’t know. And nor do you.

Notwithstanding you not knowing that either, you on the other hand nonetheless also declare the universe to be a contingent thing – ie, necessarily dependent for its existence on something else. I have no idea how you’d propose to justify that claim, and despite being asked to do so many time you’ve only responded with lies, straw men, diversions, non-sequiturs and general incoherence (none of which you've take ownership of with an apology or a retraction when they’ve been flagged by the way).

Second (and yet again) I have no burden here whatsoever to identify a “necessary aspect of the universe” because I’ve made no such claim. My position has always been and remains that I don’t know whether or not the universe is necessary or contingent. What I do know on the other hand is that you do claim to know that only you’ll never justify your claim with a cogent or even coherent argument, and that the only argument you do have – ie, the fallacy of composition – is wrong.

And that’s why the first cause “proof” for “god” remains the crock of shit that even Aquinas recognised it to be.

Maybe one day you’ll catch up with him about that.       
     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And for his next trick Hillside will now produce a house made of rubber out of clay bricks.

Hillside mate...........It's magic innit?

"It's magic innit" is your claim remember, not mine.

Try not to make this mistake again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"It's magic innit" is your claim remember, not mine.

Try not to make this mistake again.

oooh, Essex boy get mighty

I'm not the one suggesting by my employment of composition that a house made of clay bricks can end up being made of rubber. A collection of philosophical arguments for a contingent universe and what they mean for composition can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Website
But since you seem to understand the principle of necessity perhaps you could now point to it in the universe where this is.

Also we need to see what Russell and Hume implied by stating that everything in the universe could have a cause but the universe itself doesn't have to have a cause.

Since you are on the side of these ''angels'' perhaps you could tell us what you mean by it.

Aside from cosmological arguments, were the fallacy of composition successful in it's own right though what are the implications for reductionism including reductionist views?

The sum of all contingencies equals necessity still looks like the ultimate in absurdity........There, I left you an opportunity for another courtiers reply.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

oooh, Essex boy get mighty

I'm not the one suggesting by my employment of composition that a house mage of clay bricks can end up being made of rubber. A collection of philosophical arguments for a contingent universe and what they mean for composition can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Website
But since you seem to understand the principle of necessity perhaps you could now point to it in the universe where this is.

Also we need to see what Russell and Hume implied by stating that everything in the universe could have a cause but the universe itself doesn't have to have a cause.

Since you are on the side of these ''angels'' perhaps you could tell us what you mean by it.

Aside from cosmological arguments, were the fallacy of composition successful in it's own right though what are the implications for reductionism including reductionist views?

The sum of all contingencies equals necessity still looks like the ultimate in absurdity........There, I left you an opportunity for another courtiers reply.

As I’ve taken the time to falsify your various lies and mistakes here without rebuttal rather than just do it again point-by-point only for you to ignore again the schooling you’re given let’s try a different approach.

My position: “I don’t know whether the universe is a necessary thing or a contingent thing. Therefore I have no burden of proof to demonstrate either of those possibilities to be true.”

Your position: “I do know whether the universe is a necessary thing or a contingent thing – it is a contingent thing. Therefore the burden of proof is with me to justify my claim. I shall justify it as follows…”

OK, I'm nice and comfy and I’ve got the Tizer and Twiglets in – all you have to do now is to complete that last sentence of your claim.

Good luck!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As I’ve taken the time to falsify your various lies and mistakes here without rebuttal rather than just do it again point-by-point only for you to ignore again the schooling you’re given let’s try a different approach.

My position: “I don’t know whether the universe is a necessary thing or a contingent thing. Therefore I have no burden of proof to demonstrate either of those possibilities to be true.”

Your position: “I do know whether the universe is a necessary thing or a contingent thing – it is a contingent thing. Therefore the burden of proof is with me to justify my claim. I shall justify it as follows…”

OK, I'm nice and comfy and I’ve got the Tizer and Twiglets in – all you have to do now is to complete that last sentence of your claim.

Good luck!

Oh dear I hope we aren't back into your uncanny ability to rebut arguments you claim I never made.
No, still no defence or explanation of the claim that ''Everything in the universe could have a cause but the universe doesn't need a cause'' Second time of asking Hillside what does it mean.

And how is it different from my claim. That the universe, according to your atheist default position, could be contingent or if we talk about the universe as the sum of contingent things and the necessary thing then the universe could be said to have a contingent aspect.

In any case Hillside what is that aspect, where is it and if you don't know how are you proposing to find out?
The argument from contingency and the PSR have been outlined to you. They will become clear to you when you stop feigning ignorance of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh dear I hope we aren't back into your uncanny ability to rebut arguments you claim I never made.
No, still no defence or explanation of the claim that ''Everything in the universe could have a cause but the universe doesn't need a cause'' Second time of asking Hillside what does it mean.

And how is it different from my claim. That the universe, according to your atheist default position, could be contingent or if we talk about the universe as the sum of contingent things and the necessary thing then the universe could be said to have a contingent aspect.

In any case Hillside what is that aspect, where is it and if you don't know how are you proposing to find out?
The argument from contingency and the PSR have been outlined to you. They will become clear to you when you stop feigning ignorance of them.

And yet again – I’m not making a claim here, you are. You can try to shift the burden of proof all you like, but as I’m not claiming anything I have nothing to justify.

You on the other hand think you have a proof for “god”, and that proof rests on the premise that the universe must be a contingent thing. OK then – finally stop fucking around and justify your premise. 

WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE MUST BE A CONTINGENT THING?

Last chance, or you're out of here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And yet again – I’m not making a claim here, you are. You can try to shift the burden of proof all you like, but as I’m not claiming anything I have nothing to justify.

You on the other hand think you have a proof for “god”, and that proof rests on the premise that the universe must be a contingent thing. OK then – finally stop fucking around and justify your premise. 

WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE MUST BE A CONTINGENT THING?

Last chance, or you're out of here.

Good to see you still have a sense of humour.

Agnosticism is now the default position now is it? What happened to the heady days when Atheism was the default position?