Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like your god.
like your god  Like your god.Whereas you are like a grown man still believing the myth of Santa.

You are making no distinction between Composites in which the parts or different substances can exist independently  in other contexts and single substances which are non composite but can exist in different states. I wonder why you overlooked the analogy.

[Stranger]

You are making no distinction between Composites in which the parts or different substances can exist independently  in other contexts and single substances which are non composite but can exist in different states. I wonder why you overlooked the analogy.

One could easily argue that the universe falls into the latter category, so you are still applying double standards.

And a 'necessary entity' is still meaningless gibbering until you can explain it logically. Likewise, you still haven't shown why composite needs to be contingent on anything else and therefore can't be just as magic as something that isn't composite.

There are still two massive, gaping holes in your 'argument'.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One could easily argue that the universe falls into the latter category, so you are still applying double standards.

  Be my Guest Bearing in mind there are a whole family of separate particles and a periodic table of elements.

And a 'necessary entity' is still meaningless gibbering until you can explain it logically. Likewise, you still haven't shown why composite needs to be contingent on anything else and therefore can't be just as magic as something that isn't composite.

There are still two massive, gaping holes in your 'argument'.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One could easily argue that the universe falls into the latter category, so you are still applying double standards.

And a 'necessary entity' is still meaningless gibbering until you can explain it logically. Likewise, you still haven't shown why composite needs to be contingent on anything else and therefore can't be just as magic as something that isn't composite.

There are still two massive, gaping holes in your 'argument'.   

Again....with gusto.

We have physical existence and non existence. There is therefore a reason why there is something rather than nothing

[Stranger]

We have physical existence and non existence. There is therefore a reason why there is something rather than nothing

Evasion noted.   

There may be a reason why there is something rather than nothing but you don't appear to have anything remotely logical to say about it. Making up a magic 'entity', is storytelling, not reasoning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evasion noted.   

There may be a reason why there is something rather than nothing but you don't appear to have anything remotely logical to say about it. Making up a magic 'entity', is storytelling, not reasoning.

I don't think a reason existing for physical existence is part of the non theist stock of assumptions.

[Stranger]

I don't think...

You could have just stopped there.   

...a reason existing for physical existence is part of the non theist stock of assumptions.

How so?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could have just stopped there.   

How so?

You've spent months arguing it's a stupid idea but let's see what you've bought into.

The reason for physical existence would not be subject for it's existence on physical existence.

There would be no reason for an infinite regression since the alternative to it is non existence.

The universe could not have created itself

All these things fall out of the reason for why there is something rather than mothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

once more with feeling.

The fallacy of composition only applies to composites.
Composites cannot be necessary entities. They are derived from their components. If they are not necessary they are contingent for their existence.

I think you realise this Hillside but since most of your flock don't you are rather like the parent maintaining the myth of Santa Claus.

Once more with feeling: ”the universe” IS a composite entity. The question I keep asking you therefore and that you keep running away from remains:

WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS (IE, THE UNIVERSE ITSELF) MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

Do you intend never even to try to justify your claim about that?

[Stranger]

You've spent months arguing it's a stupid idea but let's see what you've bought into.

No, I've spent a long time arguing with your baseless and logically absurd propositions about it.

The reason for physical existence would not be subject for it's existence on physical existence.

There would be no reason for an infinite regression since the alternative to it is non existence.

The universe could not have created itself

All these things fall out of the reason for why there is something rather than mothing.

All this meant something in your head before typing, did it? One thing stands out: "The universe could not have created itself"

Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself?
Before the Big Bang 11: Did the Universe Create itself ? The PTC model

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I've spent a long time arguing with your baseless and logically absurd propositions about it.

All this meant something in your head before typing, did it? One thing stands out: "The universe could not have created itself"

Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself?
Before the Big Bang 11: Did the Universe Create itself ? The PTC model

I told you a reason for physical existence wasn't part of the atheist stock of what is acceptable.

I expect skydive Phil is proposing something physical as a reason for physical existence.

[Stranger]

I told you a reason for physical existence wasn't part of the atheist stock of what is acceptable.

You did make that baseless assertion, yes.

I expect skydive Phil is proposing something physical as a reason for physical existence.

He's not proposing anything. It's the scientists who are being interviewed who are doing the proposing.

The whole series (Before the Big Bang) includes people like Penrose and Hawking and are more proposals about how the universe can be self-sufficient and not be contingent on anything else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You did make that baseless assertion, yes.

He's not proposing anything. It's the scientists who are being interviewed who are doing the proposing.

The whole series (Before the Big Bang) includes people like Penrose and Hawking and are more proposals about how the universe can be self-sufficient and not be contingent on anything else.

What a smashing chap Doctor Gott is.
A few observations.
1) Doesn't answer the question why existence and not non existence.
2) Doesn't challenge any cosmological argument where time is immaterial. E.g contingency and necessity.
3)There seemed to be different types of universes branching of suggesting the endless loop is not actually closed.
4) Why does it start with a looped universe?In other words is it a construct in order to eliminate a universe with a beginning?

[Stranger]

What a smashing chap Doctor Gott is.

Indeed.   

1) Doesn't answer the question why existence and not non existence.

Neither does anything you've said.

2) Doesn't challenge any cosmological argument where time is immaterial. E.g contingency and necessity.

They're obviously bollocks for other reasons that have been explained to you. It does show (again), however, that the universe is not obviously contingent on anything else. And a 'necessary entity' is still gibberish.

3)There seemed to be different types of universes branching of suggesting the endless loop is not actually closed.

It's closed at the start. If you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop.

4) Why does it start with a looped universe?In other words is it a construct in order to eliminate a universe with a beginning?

It's a possibility. I really just posted it to point out there there are possibilities that mean the universe could be said to have created itself.

In fact, the mere concept of the space-time manifold removes any beginning for the whole thing. As Gott points out near the end, we are just talking about four-dimensional 'sculptures'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed.   

Neither does anything you've said.

They're obviously bollocks for other reasons that have been explained to you. It does show (again), however, that the universe is not obviously contingent on anything else. And a 'necessary entity' is still gibberish.

It's closed at the start. If you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop.

It's a possibility. I really just posted it to point out there there are possibilities that mean the universe could be said to have created itself.

In fact, the mere concept of the space-time manifold removes any beginning for the whole thing. As Gott points out near the end, we are just talking about four-dimensional 'sculptures'.

Small point. How can a closed loop have a start.
You've been told there are Cosmological arguments that do not necessitate a beginning or end.

There is no point of creation in a loop. Therefore no creation out of nothing. No self creation or self origination and you still haven't answered the question Why existence rather than non existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And another thing. What Tegmark categories of multiverse are allowed in the Gott model?

[Stranger]

Small point. How can a closed loop have a start.

As I said: if you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop. What are you struggling with?

You've been told there are Cosmological arguments that do not necessitate a beginning or end.

And......?

No self creation or self origination and you still haven't answered the question Why existence rather than non existence.

You can (loosely) call it self-creation, because it 'causes itself'. I didn't intend to answer the "existence rather than non existence" question because I've already told you that I don't know the answer and neither, quite clearly, do you.

You have still not rescued "necessary entity" from being meaningless gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I said: if you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop. What are you struggling with?

And......?

You can (loosely) call it self-creation, because it 'causes itself'. I didn't intend to answer the "existence rather than non existence" question because I've already told you that I don't know the answer and neither, quite clearly, do you.

You have still not rescued "necessary entity" from being meaningless gibberish.

There is no causation since there is no point of causation.  What you are describing here then is an uncaused cause. Something you've been arguing against. So this closed loop could be a necessary entity.

You are all over the shop my son.
 

[Stranger]

here is no causation since there is no point of causation. What you are describing here then is an uncaused cause. Something you've been arguing against. So this closed loop could be a necessary entity.

If one looks at the causal structure within such a universe, then you end up in a causal loop at the 'start'. However, as I keep saying, causality cannot apply to the existence of space-time itself because it is not subject to time.

[jeremyp]

You are making no distinction between Composites in which the parts or different substances can exist independently  in other contexts and single substances which are non composite but can exist in different states.

Neither did you until it was pointed out that your god is a composite entity and thus, by your own argument: contingent.

Hark to the sound of a man trying to move the goalposts.

Is it your contention that your god is analogous to (say) water, which can exist in a number of different states but not at the same time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither did you until it was pointed out that your god is a composite entity and thus, by your own argument: contingent.

Hark to the sound of a man trying to move the goalposts.

Is it your contention that your god is analogous to (say) water, which can exist in a number of different states but not at the same time?

Me moving the goalposts? Or you just waking up?
A single substance cannot be composite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If one looks at the causal structure within such a universe, then you end up in a causal loop at the 'start'. However, as I keep saying, causality cannot apply to the existence of space-time itself because it is not subject to time.

So you agree there is no self creation or self origination or are you sticking to your previous assertion that everything needs an external explanation or are you just using contradictory arguments to suit?

[jeremyp]

Me moving the goalposts?

Yes.

Or you just waking up?

To be honest, I'm finding this hugely entertaining because you have holed your own argument below the waterline and you have no idea how to stop the water from rushing in.

A single substance cannot be composite.

Well if God is a single substance he cannot be three persons. You wouldn't be able to see where one person ends and the next begins.

[SteveH]

Well if God is a single substance he cannot be three persons. You wouldn't be able to see where one person ends and the next begins.

"Three persons in one substance" is the traditional definition of the Trinity, so greater intellects than you, Walt or I seem to have found it possible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

"Three persons in one substance" is the traditional definition of the Trinity, so greater intellects than you, Walt or I seem to have found it possible.

"An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of argument in which the mere fact that an influential figure holds a certain position is used as evidence that the position itself is correct.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority