Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[SteveH]

SteveH,

"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

It's not a fallacy if the opinion expressed is on the subject of the person's expertise. I would always humbly defer to the opinion of Richard Dawkins on something to do with zoology, but not on theology or politics.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not a fallacy if the opinion expressed is on the subject of the person's expertise. I would always humbly defer to the opinion of Richard Dawkins on something to do with zoology, but not on theology or politics.

We don't even have that. We have some unnamed people whose intelligence not expertise you cited.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

It's not a fallacy if the opinion expressed is on the subject of the person's expertise.

That’s right, but you referred only to “greater minds” rather than to specific people with agreed authoritative knowledge – indeed I’m not sure there even could be such authorities could there as we’re talking about the guessology gussied up as knowledge world of theology? 

[jeremyp]

"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.

Thank you for that diagram Steve. It clearly shows a composite entity and hence one that is contingent by Vlad’s logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes.

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.
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.

Once more with gusto.

A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts.

The trinity as a composite is bad analogy.

A single substance in three states is a better analogy

The trinity in it's first formulated description is said to be one ousia in three hypostases.

God is never impersonal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you for that diagram Steve. It clearly shows a composite entity and hence one that is contingent by Vlad’s logic.

A theological diagram the same as a physical composite? What are you on?
The universe is a composite. We know this as Hillside has called a person out on the fallacy of composition over the universe.

[Stranger]

So you agree there is no self creation or self origination...

Depends on how you look at it. I explained and frankly this is not an issue that matters to how absurd your own 'arguments' are. I am not arguing that this is actually how the universe is in order to counter your nonsense. That's child's play without any alternative explanation.

...or are you sticking to your previous assertion that everything needs an external explanation...

I've never once made that argument. Quite the opposite. I can't see how the universe needs an external explanation.

[Stranger]

A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts.

Baseless, unargued, and nonsensical assertion.

'Necessary entity' ≡ Magic

Until and unless you explain how it is logically possible.

The trinity as a composite is bad analogy.

Making shit up. 

A single substance in three states is a better analogy

Which would also be composite if they existed together. One could also argue the same for the universe.

[jeremyp]

Once more with gastro.

Have you got some sort of stomach complaint?

A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on its parts.

Yes, like your god.

The trinity as a composite is bad analogy.

It's not an analogy, the Trinity is a composite. Have you not looked at SteveH's diagram. There are clearly three parts to it - four, if you count the whole.

A single substance in three states is a better analogy

Having states implies changes between the states. If it's all one substance, the only way to have different states is by rearranging the components of the substance. i.e. it must be a composite.

The trinity in its first formulated description is said to be one ousia in three hypostases.

So God has fluids that are subject to gravity now. Well done.

Maybe you ought to look up the meanings of the big words before you use them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you got some sort of stomach complaint?
Yes, like your god.
It's not an analogy, the Trinity is a composite. Have you not looked at SteveH's diagram. There are clearly three parts to it - four, if you count the whole.
Having states implies changes between the states. If it's all one substance, the only way to have different states is by rearranging the components of the substance. i.e. it must be a composite.
So God has fluids that are subject to gravity now. Well done.

Maybe you ought to look up the meanings of the big words before you use them.

OK Let's take a proper composite say a car. Each part is not a car. Steve's diagram states that The Father is God, The son is God, The Holy Spirit is God. The diagram of a composite is not homologous to this theological diagram. Where as a diagram for a single substance in 3 states would be.

Your very welcome.

[Stranger]

OK Let's take a proper composite say a car. Each part is not a car. Steve's diagram states that The Father is God, The son is God, The Holy Spirit is God. The diagram of a composite is not homologous to this theological diagram. Where as a diagram for a single substance in 3 states would be.

You're still making shit up about what can and can't be 'necessary' even though you have no logic that makes a composite contingent on anything else and no rational explanation of a 'necessary entity'. Makes arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head seem positively sane and rational...

'Necessary entity' ≡ Magic

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're still making shit up about what can and can't be 'necessary' even though you have no logic that makes a composite contingent on anything else and no rational explanation of a 'necessary entity'. Makes arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head seem positively sane and rational...

'Necessary entity' ≡ Magic

Contingency without necessity = crap.

[Stranger]

Contingency without necessity = crap.

Meaningless because necessity ≡ magic (unless and until you can make it make logical sense). Running away from the point, isn't a good look. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts.

That’s called a non sequitur – a fallacy in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(literary_device)

Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK A UNIVERSE MADE OF PARTS MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SUM OF THOSE PARTS – IE, ITSELF?

Tell you what – if you still refuse to tell us why you think that, how about telling us instead why you won’t tell us why you think that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s called a non sequitur – a fallacy in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(literary_device)

Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK A UNIVERSE MADE OF PARTS MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SUM OF THOSE PARTS – IE, ITSELF?

Tell you what – if you still refuse to tell us why you think that, how about telling us instead why you won’t tell us why you think that?

If all elements in the hierarchy are contingent then logically, the question remains " What is it they are contingent on". Y our solution evades the answer. Just like your previous solution, the infinite regress never answers the question.

Further to this a circular hierarchy means that each component is the reason for its own existence, a characteristic no atheist here is willing to acknowledge or attribute.

You are suggesting that a circular hierarchy is the status quo
 That creates the absurdity of "contingency" only.

[Stranger]

If all elements in the hierarchy are contingent then logically, the question remains " What is it they are contingent on".

The point, Vlad, is that you haven't shown a hierarchy in your argument here. You claim that anything that is composite must be contingent because it is contingent on its parts but that doesn't set up a hierarchy because you haven't shown that the whole composite depends on anything else.

This applies to the universe and your composite God. We know the universe exists. We have no reason to think your God exists.

Y our solution evades the answer. Just like your previous solution, the infinite regress never answers the question.

You still seem to think that people are proposing alternative answers. We don't have to to see the glaring logical gaps in yours.

And, absent a proper explanation, a 'necessary entity' is still logically meaningless gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point, Vlad, is that you haven't shown a hierarchy in your argument here. You claim that anything that is composite must be contingent because it is contingent on its parts but that doesn't set up a hierarchy because you haven't shown that the whole composite depends on anything else.

This applies to the universe and your composite God. We know the universe exists. We have no reason to think your God exists.

You still seem to think that people are proposing alternative answers. We don't have to to see the glaring logical gaps in yours.

And, absent a proper explanation, a 'necessary entity' is still logically meaningless gibberish.

You are specially suspending, at a point in your argument the question " if this is a contingent, what is it contingent on". Now a better philosopher would seek to find a reason to suspend sufficient reason here.

So given the definitions of Necessary Entity and Contingency ...or even just contingency the question remains for anything contingent is "On what is it contingent?".

Circular hierarchies mean that each contingent is dependent on itself which would make it a necessary entity so your argument is self defeating.

[Stranger]

You are specially suspending, at a point in your argument the question " if this is a contingent, what is it contingent on". Now a better philosopher would seek to find a reason to suspend sufficient reason here.

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking.

You answered your own question "What is it contingent on?" in #529 "A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts." That is your only justification for calling the universe contingent. You have not shown a hierarchy or any further contingency.

I'm not suspending anything. I'm using what you said.

Circular hierarchies mean that each contingent is dependent on itself which would make it a necessary entity so your argument is self defeating.

If you want to weaken the definition so that 'necessary' no longer means that it would cause a contradiction or other logical problem if it did not exist or was different, to merely self-contingent, then the universe seems to fit the bill perfectly. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If all elements in the hierarchy are contingent then logically, the question remains " What is it they are contingent on".

The “elements in the hierarchy” are the component parts of the universe, and to some degree at least they appear to be contingent on each other. 

Y our solution evades the answer.

What solution – I haven’t offered one? Nor do I need to. All I do need to do is to identify your mistake of relying on the fallacy of composition – ie, asserting that the parts of the universe being deterministic in character implies that the universe as a whole must also be deterministic in character. It doesn't.

Just like your previous solution,…

Again, I haven’t proposed a “previous solution”.

…the infinite regress never answers the question.

Infinite regress is a problem for you, not for me. I stop at “don’t know” because it’s the only honest response I can give. A “don’t know” doesn’t create an infinite regress. You on the other hand assert (albeit erroneously) a “necessary” god, which then relocates the same question of “whence the universe?” to “whence god?”.

Your only options in reply are another “don’t know” (which adds nothing of explanatory value to my “don’t know”) or “it’s magic innit?” which opens the infinite regress problem – you’ll need more gods all the way down.       

Further to this a circular hierarchy means that each component is the reason for its own existence, a characteristic no atheist here is willing to acknowledge or attribute.

You are suggesting that a circular hierarchy is the status quo
 That creates the absurdity of "contingency" only.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here. What are you trying to say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking.

You answered your own question "What is it contingent on?" in #529 "A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts." That is your only justification for calling the universe contingent. You have not shown a hierarchy or any further contingency.

I'm not suspending anything. I'm using what you said.

If you want to weaken the definition so that 'necessary' no longer means that it would cause a contradiction or other logical problem if it did not exist or was different, to merely self-contingent, then the universe seems to fit the bill perfectly. 

At the point of why a totally independent entity rather than nothing it is the nothing that creates any logical problems.

Thank you for your contribution to our discussion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The “elements in the hierarchy” are the component parts of the universe, and to some degree at least they appear to be contingent on each other. 

What solution – I haven’t offered one? Nor do I need to. All I do need to do is to identify your mistake of relying on the fallacy of composition – ie, asserting that the parts of the universe being deterministic in character implies that the universe as a whole must also be deterministic in character. It doesn't.

Again, I haven’t proposed a “previous solution”.

Infinite regress is a problem for you, not for me. I stop at “don’t know” because it’s the only honest response I can give. A “don’t know” doesn’t create an infinite regress. You on the other hand assert (albeit erroneously) a “necessary” god, which then relocates the same question of “whence the universe?” to “whence god?”.

Your only options in reply are another “don’t know” (which adds nothing of explanatory value to my “don’t know”) or “it’s magic innit?” which opens the infinite regress problem – you’ll need more gods all the way down.       

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here. What are you trying to say?

Please direct any further questions through Stranger. Thank you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Please direct any further questions through Stranger. Thank you.

Why? You're the one attempting the fallacy of composition, not Stranger.

Yet again (and without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition): WHY DO YOU THINK AN ENTITY CONSISTING OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

This is your claim – why do you keep running way from justifying it with an argument?

 

[Stranger]

At the point of why a totally independent entity rather than nothing it is the nothing that creates any logical problems.

Eh? Are you finally accepting that the universe is all that is needed or did this bizarre jumble of words mean something else?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eh? Are you finally accepting that the universe is all that is needed or did this bizarre jumble of words mean something else?

If you need to ask I'm not sure if you've been following my argument or exercising a meta understanding.
If the universe is nothing more than a collection of  ontingent things then it is contingent not because of the things in it but because it's existence is dependent on those things existing.

In terms of fallacy.

A wall of small red bricks is not necessarily small but it cannot be yellow..

and that is analogous to what Hillside is saying.

[Stranger]

If you need to ask I'm not sure if you've been following my argument or exercising a meta understanding.

If the universe is nothing more than a collection of  ontingent things then it is contingent not because of the things in it but because it's existence is dependent on those things existing.

Now you're not asking yourself the question you accused me of not asking. What are the things that make up the universe contingent on? Answer: the universe. What is the universe contingent on? You've already told us: its parts.

There is nothing that indicates that there is anything else needed. No logic and no evidence. Nothing.