Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Stranger]

If the universe is composite it is contingent and cannot be necessary.

Baseless, unargued assertion. You have no logically self-consistent description of how something can be 'necessary', so anything you claim about it is a baseless assumption.

There is no reason I can see why something that consists of multiple parts which are contingent on each other, and couldn't exist without the whole, needs to be contingent on anything outside of itself. In fact, there is nothing the whole universe (space-time) seems to be contingent on.

And you are still ignoring the fact that your God is just as composite as the universe.

[jeremyp]

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.

I don't see anybody claiming that.

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.

If composite things cannot be "necessary", your god consisting of three persons cannot be "necessary".

[Outrider]

No, you could understand right and wrong by the warning of the consequences of doing wrong.

If you have no knowledge of right and wrong, though, threats for breaches is like me saying that you will surely die if you thribble... good luck with that.

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.

Except that every parent in the world knows that children will explore boundaries, it's part of how they learn about the world. And, therefore, you don't leave the bleach where they can reach it, even though you've told them not to drink it. For a supposedly all-knowing deity to make this eminently foreseeable error and then to compound that error by not only punishing Adam and Eve for it, but all of subsequent humanity is less than omnibenevolent.

Adam tested God to see if the consequence warned of (death) would happen.

But God already knows. The future already exists, and God is omniscient.

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.

And, therefore, where is the evidence that this wouldn't have happened anyway? How do we know that god is not a confidence trickster who just told Adam he was in charge, and Adam was too stupid to realise the gaps in the story?

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

Why does god need other people to know that he's in charge? Is he that petty?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

I haven’t claimed any such thing. Nor has anyone else here. What I have claimed though is that the universe consists of parts and so is a “composite” entity, and that those parts that are observed appear to be contingent (though not necessarily so). Straw manning that is dishonest – confine yourself to what’s actually being said.     

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.

No it isn’t, and just repeating the fallacy doesn’t make it less fallacious. Once again: WHY do you think an entity that consists of contingent parts must therefore itself also be contingent on something else?

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.

Not even close. What it would be though would be if, say, a star player didn’t touch the ball except when s/he tapped in an 89th minute goal then you’d have a star team team too if none of them touched the ball until the 89th minute as well.   

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

It would consist of its players, but it wouldn’t necessarily share the characteristics of those players.   

And fundamentally the word composite entails contingency.

No it doesn’t. Why do you think that?

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

You of all people – the Imperator of Incoherence, the Sultan of Semi-literacy, the Nabob of Nonsense, the Mandarin of Misunderstanding, the Patriarch of Piffle, the Satrap of Straw Men, the etc... – trying to tell someone else what they’re trying to say has just exploded a whole shelf of irony meters, but in any case what I’m actually saying is that you cannot or will not make an argument to justify your claim that the fact of consisting of parts that are contingent means that the entity as a whole must also be contingent on something else.

Why won't you at least try to do that?

[SteveH]

it's parts
 it's composition of players.
 it's existence

"its". "It's" is short for "it is" or "it has". "Its" (no apostrophe) means "belonging to it".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see anybody claiming that.If composite things cannot be "necessary", your god consisting of three persons cannot be "necessary".

well we understand a physical composite cannot be necessary because of the interdependence of the parts.
Do the three hypostases of the trinity represent parts as such?
I don't think so. The revelation of the trinity I would move is more for our benefit rather than an inventory of "Parts".

[SteveH]

If God exists, then God exists necessarily, but whether God exists is still an open question.
Think of it in terms of possible worlds. In this world, I exist, but there could be an alternative world in which I don't: maybe my parents never met. However, it doesn't make sense to think of possible worlds, in some of which God exists, and in some of which God does not exist. Either God exists in all possible worlds, or God doesn't exist in any.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If God exists, then God exists necessarily, but whether God exists is still an open question.
Think of it in terms of possible worlds. In this world, I exist, but there could be an alternative world in which I don't: maybe my parents never met. However, it doesn't make sense to think of possible worlds, in some of which God exists, and in some of which God does not exist. Either God exists in all possible worlds, or God doesn't exist in any.

My line here has been that all contingent things have an external explanation which is itself not dependent on contingent things.

This entity would thus not be contingent or anything like something that could  be accommodated into atheism as presented on this forum explicitly or implicitly imo.

[Stranger]

well we understand a physical composite cannot be necessary because of the interdependence of the parts.

No 'we' don't. This is a baseless, unargued assertion about something (necessity) that you haven't defined.

On the other hand, we have no reason to think that something composite would have to be contingent on anything outside of itself, so your claim breaks down just on the composite being contingent stage.

Do the three hypostases of the trinity represent parts as such?
I don't think so. The revelation of the trinity I would move is more for our benefit rather than an inventory of "Parts".

You're making shit up again. We can tell, you know.

[Stranger]

My line here has been that all contingent things have an external explanation...

Something you cannot demonstrate for the universe. There doesn't (according to current theory) appear to be anything external required to explain it.

This entity would thus not be contingent or anything like something that could  be accommodated into atheism as presented on this forum explicitly or implicitly imo.

  Even if you could define a 'necessary entity' in a logically coherent way, which you show no sign of being able to do, you'd still have all your work cut out to connect it to anything remotely like a 'God'.

[jeremyp]

well we understand a physical composite cannot be necessary because of the interdependence of the parts.
Do the three hypostases of the trinity represent parts as such?
I don't think so. The revelation of the trinity I would move is more for our benefit rather than an inventory of "Parts".

Of course there are three parts to the Trinity: the father, the son and the holy spirit.

You're not allowed to change the meaning of the word "composite" just because it is inconvenient to you.

So now that your god is proven to be composite and therefore contingent*, we can ask who made God?

*not sure about the logic that says composite implies contingent, but you seem fairly sure of yourself, so we'll let it stand as it is fatal for your overall argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My line here has been that all contingent things have an external explanation which is itself not dependent on contingent things.

This entity would thus not be contingent or anything like something that could  be accommodated into atheism as presented on this forum explicitly or implicitly imo.

Then your “line” remains only an unargued assertion. Again: WHY do you think an entity that's a composite must therefore also be contingent on something other than itself, without collapsing immediately into the fallacy of composition again? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course there are three parts to the Trinity: the father, the son and the holy spirit.

You're not allowed to change the meaning of the word "composite" just because it is inconvenient to you.

So now that your god is proven to be composite and therefore contingent*, we can ask who made God?

*not sure about the logic that says composite implies contingent, but you seem fairly sure of yourself, so we'll let it stand as it is fatal for your overall argument.

Composite as in made of multiple entities or substances. God is one substance to use the technical philosophical meaning. Christians do not present a tritheism as such but a trinity.

It is not fatal for my argument namely that all contingent things are dependent and that which they are dependent is not dependent on  contingent things......and such an entity in no ways seems incorporable with atheism.

Atheists past have been quite comfortable with trinitarian views
In the past e.g. Freud with the I'd, ego and superego integrated in one mind.

[Stranger]

It is not fatal for my argument namely that all contingent things are dependent and that which they are dependent is not dependent on  contingent things......

Utter nonsense. Where is the actual argument that concludes that something composite has to be dependant on something else?

Atheists past have been quite comfortable with trinitarian views

A composite God is no more silly that just a God, but when you try to use not being composite as an argument, it becomes comical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Composite as in made of multiple entities or substances.

You’re doing well so far – keep going…

God is one substance to use the technical philosophical meaning.

Assuming that you mean here your choice of the available god stories, ok…

Christians do not present a tritheism as such but a trinity.

Some do no doubt, but then they still have to find a way to get from a “trinity” to a “one substance” god.

It is not fatal for my argument namely that all contingent things are dependent and that which they are dependent is not dependent on  contingent things......and such an entity in no ways seems incorporable with atheism.

Have you spilled your alphabet soup here?

Atheists past have been quite comfortable with trinitarian views
In the past e.g. Freud with the I'd, ego and superego integrated in one mind.

So have manufacturers of camera tripods, the Disney cartoonist who devised Huey, Dewey, and Louie and the members of Crosby, Stills & Nash. You can’t just pick an example of something with three components and claim it to be somehow “comfortable with trinitarian views”.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter nonsense. Where is the actual argument that concludes that something composite has to be dependant on something else?

A composite God is no more silly that just a God, but when you try to use not being composite as an argument, it becomes comical.

A composite is dependent on it's parts for it's existence.
If the universe is composite then it exists because of it's components then in what possible way can it be independent of its components? In other words the universe is contingent.

Another way of looking is is what is the reason for the things in the universe. If the universe only exists as a composite dependent on it's parts then how are the parts dependent on the universe.

The problem could be circumvented by saying the universe is a monism or one thing and individual different entities are just manifestations of the one thing....although if you go down this route you've no business criticising any doctrine of the trinity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’re doing well so far – keep going…

Assuming that you mean here your choice of the available god stories, ok…

Some do no doubt, but then they still have to find a way to get from a “trinity” to a “one substance” god.

Have you spilled your alphabet soup here?

So have manufacturers of camera tripods, the Disney cartoonist who devised Huey, Dewey, and Louie and the members of Crosby, Stills & Nash. You can’t just pick an example of something with three components and claim it to be somehow “comfortable with trinitarian views”.

Tripods, Huey Duey and Louis, Crosby stills Nash are divisible Hillside.Father, son and holy spirit are indivisible hence all the talk about "I am in the Father and the father is in me".

Just a point of why there can only be one ultimate entity.
If you had two....why two?.....why not three? also why this and not that? Something has to decide...there is a further reason which is not contingent but necessary.

[Stranger]

A composite is dependent on it's parts for it's existence.
If the universe is composite then it exists because of it's components then in what possible way can it be independent of its components? In other words the universe is contingent.

None of which tells us that it's contingent on anything else. That is, there is no reason to think the universe needs something apart from itself to exist.

[Stranger]

Tripods, Huey Duey and Louis, Crosby stills Nash are divisible Hillside.Father, son and holy spirit are indivisible...

Just like the universe, then.   

Just a point of why there can only be one ultimate entity.
If you had two....why two?.....why not three? also why this and not that? Something has to decide...

And what is to stop us asking "Why just one?" or "Why this and not that?" for one thing?

...there is a further reason which is not contingent but necessary magic.

FIFY.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just like the universe, then.   

Some of the components of the universe weren't here some time ago and won't be here in the future Stranger. Can you name anything about the universe which has remain unchanged and will remain unchanged?

And what is to stop us asking "Why just one?" or "Why this and not that?" for one thing?

It's already been answered. But if you insist on twattery..............

[Stranger]

Some of the components of the universe weren't here some time ago and won't be here in the future Stranger.

You seem to be back in a pre-20th century notion of time. Time is a direction through the universe, not something that the universe is subject to.

Can you name anything about the universe which has remain unchanged and will remain unchanged?

The universe; the entire space-time.

It's already been answered.

Where? I've never seen anything remotely resembling an answer that wan't the logical equivalent of "magic"......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be back in a pre-20th century notion of time. Time is a direction through the universe, not something that the universe is subject to.

The universe; the entire space-time.

Where? I've never seen anything remotely resembling an answer that wan't the logical equivalent of "magic"......

Universe unchanged? Isn't it expanding? Hasn't it changed from maximal order toward maximal disorder
 Were you a feature of the early universe?
SpaceTime? Isn't that dependent on gravity?

[Outrider]

Universe unchanged? Isn't it expanding? Hasn't it changed from maximal order toward maximal disorder

No. From the outside, all of those are just part of the universe. We don't think of a pyramid as shrinking as we move higher, it's just that it's thinner at that end. Similarly, from the outside, time is just another dimension of the universe, so it's parts are more spread out at one end (later) than the other (earlier).

Were you a feature of the early universe?

There is no 'earlier' or 'later' from the outside, there's just different points.

SpaceTime? Isn't that dependent on gravity?

On the inside, 'within time' as it were, they do appear to interact, yes.

O.

[Stranger]

Universe unchanged? Isn't it expanding? Hasn't it changed from maximal order toward maximal disorder
 Were you a feature of the early universe?
SpaceTime? Isn't that dependent on gravity?

Haven't I explained this to you (several times) before? The space-time is a four-dimensional manifold. Time is an observer dependant direction through it.

'The universe is expanding' means that as you track along time-like directions through it, you will find space-like distances becoming greater. This can be compared to tracking along lines of longitude from one of the poles on Earth and finding that distances along lines of latitude are bigger as we get nearer to the equator.

I am a feature of the universe within certain coordinates of space-time.

The exact geometry of space is gravity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. From the outside, all of those are just part of the universe. We don't think of a pyramid as shrinking as we move higher, it's just that it's thinner at that end. Similarly, from the outside, time is just another dimension of the universe, so it's parts are more spread out at one end (later) than the other (earlier).

There is no 'earlier' or 'later' from the outside, there's just different points.

On the inside, 'within time' as it were, they do appear to interact, yes.

O.

Outside the universe? Isn't that an extra entity?

Where's Hillside when you need him? He's anti outside the universe.