Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m glad you have come out for impossibility and for the illogic of infinite regress.

What are you trying to say now? What I've "come out for" is that any explanation that would cause an infinite regress explains nothing. This is where you fall apart with your necessary/contingent god BS. If you insert a god to explain the universe you need a cause for that god, and so on forever.  "But God is magic inne?" doesn't get you off that hook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What are you trying to say now? What I've "come out for" is that any explanation that would cause an infinite regress explains nothing. This is where you fall apart with your necessary/contingent god BS. If you insert a god to explain the universe you need a cause for that god, and so on forever.  "But God is magic inne?" doesn't get you off that hook.

Wrong, wrong, wrong you need a necessary to explain contingent things. Observable physical  things are contingent because as quantum mechanics teaches us, physical observation has a physical effect and being affected means contingency. A wall of white bricks cannot be said to be black.

[Stranger]

Wrong, wrong, wrong you need a necessary to explain contingent things.

Wrong. It doesn't work because a 'necessary entity' is logically incoherent and absurd. That is, unless you've finally come up an explanation that tells us exactly how something would cause a logical problem if it didn't exist or was different.

No? Thought not.

Observable physical  things are contingent because as quantum mechanics teaches us, physical observation has a physical effect and being affected means contingency. A wall of white bricks cannot be said to be black.

Since you have no definition of a 'necessary entity' every claim you make about what it can or can't be is just making shit up. And you're wrong about quantum mechanics, as I'm sure I've explained before and really can't be arsed to do again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong. It doesn't work because a 'necessary entity' is logically incoherent and absurd. That is, unless you've finally come up an explanation that tells us exactly how something would cause a logical problem if it didn't exist or was different.

No? Thought not.

Since you have no definition of a 'necessary entity' every claim you make about what it can or can't be is just making shit up. And you're wrong about quantum mechanics, as I'm sure I've explained before and really can't be arsed to do again.

Contingency without necessity is what is absurd,Stranger.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Wrong, wrong, wrong you need a necessary to explain contingent things.

Wrong again. If you want to claim a “necessary entity” that’s its own explanation, you may as well stop at “the universe” for that purpose. Adding a magic deity to the story has no additional explanatory value.   

Observable physical  things are contingent because as quantum mechanics teaches us, physical observation has a physical effect and being affected means contingency.

And what about non-observable things? Or have you decided that that which is (currently) observable must also be all there is?

Why?

A wall of white bricks cannot be said to be black.

1. How you know that? Lots of observed things looks different when viewed from a different perspective.

2. Everyone standing up at a cricket match does not mean everyone gets a better view. This is the basic fallacy of composition your necessary god idiocy relies on. You have no idea whether the determinism seen in the universe means that the universe itself must also be caused by something other than itself.   

[Stranger]

Contingency without necessity is what is absurd,Stranger.

That's not an argument, it's a mantra. If a 'necessary entity' is incoherent (as it is until you can construct a logically self-consistent definition), then it is not an answer. You might as well just say "it's magic, innit?" It would have exactly the same logical significance and explanatory power.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not an argument, it's a mantra. If a 'necessary entity' is incoherent (as it is until you can construct a logically self-consistent definition), then it is not an answer. You might as well just say "it's magic, innit?" It would have exactly the same logical significance and explanatory power.

Look at the definition of contingency then apply logic instead of guff.

[Stranger]

Look at the definition of contingency then apply logic instead of guff.

It doesn't matter how you define contingency, unless you can make a 'necessary entity' make logical sense, it is no better than "it's magic".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't matter how you define contingency, unless you can make a 'necessary entity' make logical sense, it is no better than "it's magic".

Contingency without a necessity means an infinite regression which is absurd...as has been acknowledged by someone who has used the illogicality of infinite regression to "destroy" Alan burns case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Contingency without a necessity means an infinite regression which is absurd...as has been acknowledged by someone who has used the illogicality of infinite regression to "destroy" Alan burns case.

The infinite regression problem destroys your case too. Your attempt to get "god" off the same hook with "but he's magic inne?" is pathetic.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The infinite regression problem destroys your case too. Your attempt to get "god" off the same hook with "but he's magic inne?" is pathetic.

Incorrect. Contingency without Necessity must be an article of Faith in Scientism.
Perhaps you can explain how infinite regression affects whether there is a necessary entity? My Lord Richard says so is not satisfactory.

[Spud]

That would be the fruit that was required to be eaten before you could understand right and wrong, yes?

No, you could understand right and wrong by the warning of the consequences of doing wrong.
The tree of knowledge was there to make the point that God decides what is permissible, not us. Regardless of whether we have experienced the consequences of doing something prohibited, he expects us to obey. You understand that it is wrong to eat it by the fact that God said not to and warned of the consequences. You're defining understanding right and wrong in the sense of experiencing doing wrong. Adam tested God to see if the consequence warned of (death) would happen. Becoming ashamed of his nakedness was evidently a sign to him that he had indeed brought the consequence on himself, because he hid from God, who later confirmed he would return to the dust.

That would be the fruit that God made readily accessible despite the obvious hazard, rather than hiding away from the intellectual and moral children in his care?

O.

How could Adam know God is in charge if God had made the fruit inaccessible?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Incorrect. Contingency without Necessity must be an article of Faith in Scientism.

Actually it’s scientism itself that’s an article of faith but as no-one here subscribes to it it’s irrelevant in any case.

Perhaps you can explain how infinite regression affects whether there is a necessary entity? My Lord Richard says so is not satisfactory.

It doesn’t “affect(s) whether there is a necessary entity”. What it does affect – ie falsify – though is your justification for there being a necessary entity. You have no argument for the universe necessarily being created by something other than itself, and you have no argument to exempt a god (even if there was one) from the infinite regress problem.

As you refuse ever even to address the hopelessness of “but god’s magic inne?” as your get out of jai free cars you remain firmly marooned in not even wrong territory. 

[Stranger]

Contingency without a necessity magic means an infinite regression...

FIFY. And only if you lack the imagination to think of anything else and/or are religiously opposed to admitting we just don't know.

[Stranger]

Contingency without Necessity....

A 'necessary entity' (or 'Necessity') is meaningless gibberish unless you can tell us how it's logically possible. It's exactly the same claim as "it's magic".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually it’s scientism itself that’s an article of faith but as no-one here subscribes to it it’s irrelevant in any case.

It doesn’t “affect(s) whether there is a necessary entity”. What it does affect – ie falsify – though is your justification for there being a necessary entity. You have no argument for the universe necessarily being created by something other than itself, and you have no argument to exempt a god (even if there was one) from the infinite regress problem.

As you refuse ever even to address the hopelessness of “but god’s magic inne?” as your get out of jai free cars you remain firmly marooned in not even wrong territory.

Unfortunately the fallacy of composition only applies to composites. That would seem to end the discussion here since all composites are contingent each part dependent on another.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Unfortunately the fallacy of composition only applies to composites.

The universe is a composite.

That would seem to end the discussion here since all composites are contingent each part dependent on another.

No it wouldn’t. The fallacy of composition in this case is the mistake of inferring that the universe must be contingent on something else because (some or all) of its parts are contingent on each other.

I suggest you educate yourself on its actual meaning before you’re tempted to embarrass yourself again:

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

[jeremyp]

No, you could understand right and wrong by the warning of the consequences of doing wrong.
The tree of knowledge was there to make the point that God decides what is permissible, not us. Regardless of whether we have experienced the consequences of doing something prohibited, he expects us to obey.

Really? He expects us to obey? He created humans and he's omniscient and he thinks that just telling us not to break the rules will be enough to stop us b reading the rules?

Your god is a moron.

You understand that it is wrong to eat it by the fact that God said not to and warned of the consequences. You're defining understanding right and wrong in the sense of experiencing doing wrong. Adam tested God to see if the consequence warned of (death) would happen.

And they didn't happen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The universe is a composite.

No it wouldn’t. The fallacy of composition in this case is the mistake of inferring that the universe must be contingent on something else because (some or all) of its parts are contingent on each other.

I suggest you educate yourself on its actual meaning before you’re tempted to embarrass yourself again:

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

If the universe is composite then it's contingent...you and the posse really don't get this do you?

[Stranger]

If the universe is composite then it's contingent...you and the posse really don't get this do you?

Because it's logic-free nonsense. Since you don't have any logic that says how something could exist necessarily, not only does it become an invocation of magic, it makes it impossible to make any deductions about what it would be like. You cannot know that it isn't composite.

What's more, of course, the real comedy in this 'argument for god' doesn't really get off the ground until you try to bash the square peg of the Christian God into the round hole of your made up 'necessary entity'. Quite clearly your God is just a composite as the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it's logic-free nonsense. Since you don't have any logic that says how something could exist necessarily, not only does it become an invocation of magic, it makes it impossible to make any deductions about what it would be like. You cannot know that it isn't composite.

What's more, of course, the real comedy in this 'argument for god' doesn't really get off the ground until you try to bash the square peg of the Christian God into the round hole of your made up 'necessary entity'. Quite clearly your God is just a composite as the universe.

Logic free? What is logic free is you and Hillside saying that the universe is a collection or composite of things then ignoring that and treating it like a single entity.

Unfortunately logically it cannot be physically one entity and physically several entities at the same time...if we even need to invoke time at all.

[Stranger]

Logic free? What is logic free is you and Hillside saying that the universe is a collection or composite of things then ignoring that and treating it like a single entity.

Unfortunately logically it cannot be physically one entity and physically several entities at the same time...if we even need to invoke time at all.

Where have either of us said that and why are you ignoring the actual points I raised?

[jeremyp]

If the universe is composite then it's contingent...you and the posse really don't get this do you?

If, as you seem to think, everything that is composite is contingent, then the Christian god must be contingent, made up , as it is, of three persons.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Logic free? What is logic free is you and Hillside saying that the universe is a collection or composite of things then ignoring that and treating it like a single entity.

Unfortunately logically it cannot be physically one entity and physically several entities at the same time...if we even need to invoke time at all.

Hard to know whether you’re deliberately trolling, or instead whether you just cannot grasp the basic argument of the fallacy of composition. Try very, very hard to understand this:

1. The universe is a “composite” inasmuch as it appears to consist of lots and lots of interrelated parts.

2. So far as we can tell those parts are deterministic in character inasmuch as each of them requires antecedent parts for its existence (though there is some uncertainty about that at the quantum field level).

3. The fallacy of composition occurs when you infer that something true of the parts of the universe (ie, determinism) must also therefore be true of the whole (ie, the universe).

So far as I recall you’ve never even tried to justify your jump from “the parts of the universe are contingent” to “therefore the universe itself is contingent” and, even if you could ever do that, you’d still be left with the problem of exempting a supposed god from the same problem without collapsing immediately into “because it’s magic innit?”.

I’m not sure I can put this any more plainly such that even you might finally grasp it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Hard to know whether you’re deliberately trolling, or instead whether you just cannot grasp the basic argument of the fallacy of composition. Try very, very hard to understand this:

1. The universe is a “composite” inasmuch as it appears to consist of lots and lots of interrelated parts.

2. So far as we can tell those parts are deterministic in character inasmuch as each of them requires antecedent parts for its existence (though there is some uncertainty about that at the quantum field level).

3. The fallacy of composition occurs when you infer that something true of the parts of the universe (ie, determinism) must also therefore be true of the whole (ie, the universe).

So far as I recall you’ve never even tried to justify your jump from “the parts of the universe are contingent” to “therefore the universe itself is contingent” and, even if you could ever do that, you’d still be left with the problem of exempting a supposed god from the same problem without collapsing immediately into “because it’s magic innit?”.

I’m not sure I can put this any more plainly such that even you might finally grasp it.

Sorry you are still trying to claim two exclusive propositions simultaneously...that the universe exists because of it's parts and the parts exist because of the universe.

If the universe is composite it is contingent and cannot be necessary. Another way of looking at your argument is to say it is circular.

An analogy to the argument you are making would be

Vlad is saying that a football team made of the best football team would be the best football team.

I'm not. I'm arguing it would be a team dependent on it's composition of players.

And fundamentally the word composite entails contingency.

To be fair to you what you are trying to say I think is that there is something about the universe that doesn't change. That isn't dependent on it's existence on the things you say the universe is a composite of