Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

A lot of non sequitur here. Facts tossed shamanically at an issue....and missing.

[Stranger]

A lot of non sequitur here. Facts tossed shamanically at an issue....and missing.

No idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.

If you don't understand something, ask and I'll try to explain it better. Do you understand that time is a coordinate on a four-dimensional manifold?

[Outrider]

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

Maybe, maybe not. It's outside of time as we understand it, so exactly how physics or many of our notional philosophical constructs work there is, frankly, pretty much anyone's guess.

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

Is he? Or is he anti saying anything definitive about outside of the universe? Is he anti talking about because we have no basic framework to even start to guess about outside the universe?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what this word salad is supposed to mean.

If you don't understand something, ask and I'll try to explain it better. Do you understand that time is a coordinate on a four-dimensional manifold?

What has that got to do with contingency and necessity? Let me hazard....nothing but non sequitur diversionary twaddle.

 Why is that manifold the way it is? Could it be different? If the answer is affirmative. Then it's a contingent.

Do other Lorentzian manifolds exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe, maybe not. It's outside of time as we understand it, so exactly how physics or many of our notional philosophical constructs work there is, frankly, pretty much anyone's guess.

Is he? Or is he anti saying anything definitive about outside of the universe? Is he anti talking about because we have no basic framework to even start to guess about outside the universe?

O.

And yet you appear to be appealing to it. We can though consider the logical consequences of what you are saying.
So you are proposing a universe sitting in another context.

That makes two entities. Do you want to walk that back?
While you are about it your suggestion involves if the universe is
Observed.....by what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As you’re back to full ducking and diving mode let’s try at least to see whether you can address the question you’re actually being asked:

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

[Outrider]

And yet you appear to be appealing to it.

No, I'm pointing out that what happens within the universe is not necessarily a guide to what happens outside of it.

We can though consider the logical consequences of what you are saying.

How can we? How can we divorce our logic from, amongst other things, the concepts of space and time?

So you are proposing a universe sitting in another context.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the universe is just a part of that large context. Or perhaps there is no larger context, and any consideration is only hypothetical, and the edge of the universe represents some sort of hard boundary - we have so little information as to be practically unable to narrow it down at all.

That makes two entities. Do you want to walk that back?

It might, or it might be two aspects of one entity, or it might be one entity of which we're more aware of one element...

While you are about it your suggestion involves if the universe is Observed.....by what?

Us. Our imagination, supposing ourselves outside. Observation, as a notion, is dependent upon both time and space which may not exist, and almost certainly not as we understand them, outside of this universe.

O.

[Stranger]

What has that got to do with contingency and necessity?

Oh, for fuck's sake, do keep up! I was addressing your comment that "Some of the components of the universe weren't here some time ago and won't be here in the future..." Which was about my comment about the universe not being divisible (which it isn't).

You seemed to think that was relevant to your composite God which you claimed could be magic, sorry 'necessary', because it isn't divisible (just like the universe).

Why is that manifold the way it is? Could it be different? If the answer is affirmative. Then it's a contingent.

Do other Lorentzian manifolds exist?

I don't know whether the universe could have been different. We can imagine a different universe but it's trivially easy to imagine endless different Gods too....

[jeremyp]

Composite as in made of multiple entities or substances.

No. You don't get to redefine words.

God is one substance to use the technical philosophical meaning.

If you can differentiate parts, like, for example, a father and a son and a holy spirit, then the thing is a composite.

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

Do you understand what the "try" in "trinity" means. Clue: it's a number and it is not one.

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.

Yes it is. You argued that all composite things are contingent. I pointed out that your god is composed of three beings and therefore by your own arguments is contingent.

Your argument is dead. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-argument.

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 Freud thought the human mind was a composite. I'm fairly sure he didn't argue that the human mind is necessary.

[jeremyp]

Father, son and holy spirit are indivisible

Of course they are divisible. The fact that you can talk about them separately tells us that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course they are divisible. The fact that you can talk about them separately tells us that.

Christianity never considers them separately vis Language like I am in the father and the father is in me.
Nobody has seen the father but the son has made him known etc, etc.
Therefore indivisible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You don't get to redefine words.

If you can differentiate parts, like, for example, a father and a son and a holy spirit, then the thing is a composite.

Do you understand what the "try" in "trinity" means. Clue: it's a number and it is not one.

Yes it is. You argued that all composite things are contingent. I pointed out that your god is composed of three beings and therefore by your own arguments is contingent.

Your argument is dead. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-argument.
So Freud thought the human mind was a composite. I'm fairly sure he didn't argue that the human mind is necessary.

A mind could be composite if physical. Id, ego and superego inseperable and indivisible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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

It's either multiple parts Hillside or it's a simple single entity. What could possibly make anybody think it could be both?

Another thing is it raises the question what made it. Or what ordered it. If it could exist in other configurations then it isn't a necessary simple single indivisible entity. That seems pretty straightforward.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's either multiple parts Hillside or it's a simple single entity. What could possibly make anybody think it could be both?

A car is multiple parts and it's also a single thing, but that's irrelevant in any case. Here's the question again that you were actually asked and that you keep ducking: 

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

Another thing...

"Another thing"? You haven't managed an initial thing yet - just more avoidance.

...is it raises the question what made it. Or what ordered it. If it could exist in other configurations then it isn't a necessary simple single indivisible entity. That seems pretty straightforward.

No idea, but you're just trying the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof again here. You're the one asserting that the fact that the universe is a composite entity means it must be caused by something other than itself remember?. I've no idea why you think that and nor moreover have you even attempted so far to tell us even though you've been asked to several times. Here's the question yet again then:

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

[Stranger]

Another thing is it raises the question what made it. Or what ordered it. If it could exist in other configurations then it isn't a necessary simple single indivisible entity.

All of which apply to your God. What made it? What ordered it? It's trivially easy to imagine a differently 'configured' God, so, special pleading aside, what's so different from just the universe?

[Spud]

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.

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.

The difference is that God himself gave the command. Parents are humans, who themselves make mistakes such as you describe - one 'rebel' warnng another not to do something.

[SteveH]

it's parts for it's existence.

NO APOSTROPHE!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

NO APOSTROPHE!

Vlad has poor literacy skills, and in particular he scatters apostrophes more or less randomly in the hope that some at least will land in the correct places. I've generally refrained from criticising him for it though because it seems a bit of a gittish thing to do. Besides, the hopelessness of the arguments he occasionally attempts is easy enough to identify without needing to critique how he articulates them. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A car is multiple parts and it's also a single thing, but that's irrelevant in any case. Here's the question again that you were actually asked and that you keep ducking: 

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

"Another thing"? You haven't managed an initial thing yet - just more avoidance.

No idea, but you're just trying the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof again here. You're the one asserting that the fact that the universe is a composite entity means it must be caused by something other than itself remember?. I've no idea why you think that and nor moreover have you even attempted so far to tell us even though you've been asked to several times. Here's the question yet again then:

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

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.

[Stranger]

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.

Wakey-wakey!

Firstly, 'necessary entity' is meaningless. Unless you can explain exactly how it's possible for something to exist and for it to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't or was different. You are essentially invoking magic.

Secondly, you have not shown why a composite (like your triune God or the universe) has to be contingent on anything else. Without this there is no reason at all to exclude it from being magic in the way you want ('necessary').

That's two MASSIVE logical holes in your excuse for an argument, even before we get to the baseless, nonsensical magic.

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.

Has Dicky D. got something to worry about? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wakey-wakey!

Firstly, 'necessary entity' is meaningless. Unless you can explain exactly how it's possible for something to exist and for it to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't or was different. You are essentially invoking magic.

Secondly, you have not shown why a composite (like your triune God or the universe) has to be contingent on anything else. Without this there is no reason at all to exclude it from being magic in the way you want ('necessary').

That's two MASSIVE logical holes in your excuse for an argument, even before we get to the baseless, nonsensical magic.

Has Dicky D. got something to worry about?

Contingency without necessity is what is absurd.

[Stranger]

Contingency without necessity magic is what is absurd.

[FIFY]

Meaningless mantra.   

[Outrider]

The difference is that God himself gave the command.

If that actually made a difference, the fall wouldn't have happened.

Parents are humans, who themselves make mistakes such as you describe - one 'rebel' warnng another not to do something.

Like Adam and Eve, you mean. But unlike your purported god.

Knowing that children will push boundaries, knowing that the exploration of what's actually a hard and fast rule and what's a guideline and what's actually not important at all despite what people say isn't 'a mistake', it's an essential element of good parenting. If, as a parent, you are expecting unfailing blind obedience from your children things are going to go badly, and either you or your children or both are going to end up very disappointed.

O.

[jeremyp]

The fallacy of composition only applies to composites.

Like your god.

Composites

like your god 

cannot be necessary entities. They are derived from their components. If they are not necessary they are contingent for their existence.

Like your god.

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.

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