Rethinking Atheism

[Outrider]

There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing Is BRUTE FACT.

If it were asserted rather the provisionally accepted in the absence of any logical alternative, yes.

There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.

Did you pull that unsubstantiated assertion out of your own arsehole, or someone else's?

That something is a brute fact, you realise, doesn't make it wrong, it makes it unproveable.

It isn't you, alpha centauri, the milky way etc.

Given that they are part of the 'something' it would be somewhat counterintuitive at least if they were.

But there is a reason,

Is there? How do you figure that? You've just asserted that out of nowhere as as much of a 'brute fact' as the first statement.

This reason must and cannot fail to exist.

Hogwash. As you stated at the start, there may not be a reason. If we accept that classification as a 'brute fact', then by definition it isn't disproven and therefore remains at least a possibility.

That is wholly unlike. Things exist, end of.

Penny dropping?

What penny? You've gone from 'A is a brute fact' to 'therefore god because B is the opposite of A' - even for you that's a long detour round the roadworks on the M-Logic motorway...

O.

[Stranger]

But not only is there nothing preventing it from existence there is also nothing bringing it into existence and yet it exists.

So you assert.

It exists therefore in it's own right without due to anything else.

That does not apply to ANYTHING,Stranger.

Which brings us right back to the fact that you have no logical explanation as to what it is that gives it this loop of existence reasons at the base of your hierarchy. It exists because it exists, because it exists.

It's either utter nonsense, a brute fact that could apply to pretty much anything that is self-consistent, or there is some reasoning that you're keeping a secret that tells us exactly how this looping dependency of existence works and why it applies to only one particular thingy.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you assert.

Which brings us right back to the fact that you have no logical explanation as to what it is that gives it this loop of existence reasons at the base of your hierarchy. It exists because it exists, because it exists.

It's either utter nonsense, a brute fact that could apply to pretty much anything that is self-consistent, or there is some reasoning that you're keeping a secret that tells us exactly how this looping dependency of existence works and why it applies to only one particular thingy.

There is no loop of existence reasons. There must be a reason for why there is existence rather than non existence. That reason must exist without recourse to any other reason because there is nothing else.

Now that is not true of anything as you said.

I do note that loops of contingent things are acceptable to many on here and you are right to point out that loops just hang in mid air unsupported

This is not a loop of entities but the ultimate entity.

[SteveH]

it's

The word meaning "belonging to it" does not have an apostrophe. Do try to get it right.

[Stranger]

There is no loop of existence reasons.

Of course there is, if the 'reason for existence' relationship points down to this undefined thingy, it then loops back to itself at the base. You don't like loops but you've just created one yourself.

There must be a reason for why there is existence rather than non existence. That reason must exist without recourse to any other reason because there is nothing else.

Now that is not true of anything as you said.

Or anything at all that you seem able to actually explain.

I do note that loops of contingent things are acceptable to many on here and you are right to point out that loops just hang in mid air unsupported

You do have a loop, whether you like it or not. And other people have, as far as I can see, not put forward any answer. I just don't known. You are just making up magic shit you can't logically explain.

[jeremyp]

Anybody got any more thoughts on the article linked in the OP? Or is this just another continuation of Vlad's big word fallacy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course there is, if the 'reason for existence' relationship points down to this undefined thingy, it then loops back to itself at the base. You don't like loops but you've just created one yourself.



Or anything at all that you seem able to actually explain.

You do have a loop, whether you like it or not. And other people have, as far as I can see, not put forward any answer. I just don't known. You are just making up magic shit you can't logically explain.

Blimey, you've even put a diagram showing the error you are making, the one pointed out to you.

You place the reason for the necessary entity external to the necessary entity. You just can't seem to help yourself.

The ultimacy of the necessary entity IS explained. It exists since there has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It is the last, the ultimate and it's own reason.And even saying something is it's own reason might be as wrong a term as something apparently causing itself when what we really mean is it exists without the need for anything external.

Now where Russell went wrong with saying the universe just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.

Brute fact would be the necessary entity just is, period, with no justification at all on why that should be.

[Gordon]

Now where Russell went wrong with saying the universe just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.

Brute fact would be the necessary entity just is, period, with no justification at all on why that should be.

Alternatively;

Now where Vlad went wrong with saying 'God' just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.

[Stranger]

You place the reason for the necessary entity external to the necessary entity. You just can't seem to help yourself.

No I'm not. I'm saying the self-referencing loop makes no logical sense.

The ultimacy of the necessary entity IS explained. It exists since there has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It is the last, the ultimate and it's own reason.And even saying something is it's own reason might be as wrong a term as something apparently causing itself when what we really mean is it exists without the need for anything external.

Do you not understand the word 'explained'? This is just "I can't see why there is something rather than nothing, so it must be magic" and then making up the characteristics you want the magic to have.

It's a just-so story, and not even a very good one.

Now where Russell went wrong with saying the universe just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.

Which is exactly the problem you have because you can't explain logically why this thingy of yours couldn't not exist. You're just asserting that there must be such a thingy because you don't like not knowing or the alternatives.

Brute fact would be the necessary entity just is, period, with no justification at all on why that should be.

Which is exactly what you've described, except you've tried to cover the logical problems with the meaningless label of 'necessary entity'. It's just logic- and thought-free, empty words.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alternatively;

Now where Vlad went wrong with saying 'God' just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.

No, reasons are provided for a necessary entity. Others think it is the physical universe, some think it is the laws of physics, Some think there is an infinity of changes in some necessary medium....and some say the universe just is, period or appeal to infinite regress or circular heirarchy.

There are no reasons or entities beyond the reason why there should be existence rather than non existence. It is the final entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not. I'm saying the self-referencing loop makes no logical sense.

Do you not understand the word 'explained'? This is just "I can't see why there is something rather than nothing, so it must be magic" and then making up the characteristics you want the magic to have.

It's a just-so story, and not even a very good one.

Which is exactly the problem you have because you can't explain logically why this thingy of yours couldn't not exist. You're just asserting that there must be such a thingy because you don't like not knowing or the alternatives.

Which is exactly what you've described, except you've tried to cover the logical problems with the meaningless label of 'necessary entity'. It's just logic- and thought-free, empty words.

I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.

There is therefore sufficient reason for why a necessary entity should exist.

But one suspects also that Russell would be wrong about the universe being brute fact.

[Gordon]

I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.

There is therefore sufficient reason for why a necessary entity should exist.

But one suspects also that Russell would be wrong about the universe being brute fact.

But you are saying that 'God' just is, which sounds like humongous special pleading to me.

[Outrider]

I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.

You sort of are, you have no explanation of why it should end in a single entity, you've just decided that it's God.

There is therefore sufficient reason for why a necessary entity should exist.

No, there isn't - or, at least, not that you've shown. You've completely failed in any way to address the why you think the notion of an infinite regress is not viable, and you've contorted the notion of 'a reason' to be a self-actualisation extra-dimensional, transcendent omnipotence which is, at best, a stretch of the conventional understanding of the word 'reason'.

But one suspects also that Russell would be wrong about the universe being brute fact.

Which 'one' of us is this? It seems a hell of a lot more likely to me than an uncaused complex intelligence with absolute power 'just being, and its own justification', especially if you're going to extrapolate from that to 'and it's overly interested in what humans do with their genitals'.

O.

[Stranger]

No, reasons are provided for a necessary entity.

The only reasons you've given is that you can't accept anything else and you can't accept not knowing, so you've opted for a totally unexplained thingy that is magically its own reason for existing, by magical magic.

Others think it is the physical universe, some think it is the laws of physics, Some think there is an infinity of changes in some necessary medium....and some say the universe just is, period or appeal to infinite regress or circular heirarchy.

Some would rather admit that we don't know than accept unexplained, incoherent magic.

I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.

You patently haven't given any explanation, so you have exactly the same problem. Just saying 'necessary entity' is not an explanation. Why can't you get that into your head? It's just two words that have no logical content. They are not an explanation.

There is therefore sufficient reason for why a necessary entity should exist.

You haven't given us a sufficient reason. "I can't think of anything else but magical magic that makes something its own reason, magically, by magic", is not a sufficient reason.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only reasons you've given is that you can't accept anything else and you can't accept not knowing, so you've opted for a totally unexplained thingy that is magically its own reason for existing, by magical magic.

Some would rather admit that we don't know than accept unexplained, incoherent magic.

You patently haven't given any explanation, so you have exactly the same problem. Just saying 'necessary entity' is not an explanation. Why can't you get that into your head? It's just two words that have no logical content. They are not an explanation.

You haven't given us a sufficient reason. "I can't think of anything else but magical magic that makes something its own reason, magically, by magic", is not a sufficient reason.

We are at the point where the final entityor reason has been established as existing. Why it is the final entity or reason...because non existence provides no reason or entities.
And then you ask what the next reason is beyond the final reason.

I shall wait till the penny drops.

[Outrider]

We are at the point where the final entity or reason has been established as existing.

No. No WE aren't. I'm still waiting, particularly, for some sort of rationale for why the chain of cause and effect needs to have a terminus at all? Energy can't be destroyed or created, just changed in form. Every cause we see anywhere is the effect of a prior cause, and you've given no basis for presuming that principal has to change. WE are not at all at the point where a final entity or reason has been established.

O.

[Stranger]

We are at the point where the final entityor reason has been established as existing.

You haven't established that there is any final, singular entity, and, since you can't explain its existence, even if it exists, it would just be a brute fact.

I shall wait till the penny drops.

It has dropped for everybody but yourself, it seems.

Unless you can explain the logic of something that could not fail to exist, you have a brute fact. The fact that you don't like a brute fact and have blind faith in the universality of suffiicent reason, is not a such an explanation.

You are claiming there must be sufficient reason without teling us what that reason is for the existence of your bute fact, so it remains a brute fact, not a necessary entitiy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't established that there is any final, singular entity, and, since you can't explain its existence, even if it exists, it would just be a brute fact.

It has dropped for everybody but yourself, it seems.

Unless you can explain the logic of something that could not fail to exist, you have a brute fact. The fact that you don't like a brute fact and have blind faith in the universality of suffiicent reason, is not a such an explanation.

You are claiming there must be sufficient reason without teling us what that reason is for the existence of your bute fact, so it remains a brute fact, not a necessary entitiy.

In the matter of a singular or multiple final entities. If there were multiple entities we would ask why there were however many.
The reason would then be the final entity in the heirarchy.

I see you still have to join the dots on Brute fact and sufficient reason.

Concentrate on Russell's saying "The universe just is, and there's an end to it".That's the Key.

[Stranger]

In the matter of a singular or multiple final entities. If there were multiple entities we would ask why there were however many.

Why exactly one?

The reason would then be the final entity in the heirarchy.

How do you know reality is a strict hierarchy?

I see you still have to join the dots on Brute fact and sufficient reason.

Concentrate on Russell's saying "The universe just is, and there's an end to it".That's the Key.

You really can't be as dim as this silly nonsense suggests, you'd get confused about how to breath or eat. You have given us no reason whatsoever as to why your 'necessary entity' couldn't fail to exist and couldn't have been different. The closest you've got to anything remotely like a 'reason' is this:

Why could it not have existed? Because there is no external context in which it can be prevented from existing. There is nothing external to be the reason. The buck has stopped because there is  no where for it to go.

which is a great paraphrase of "it just is, and there's an end to it".

I was talking about this 'argument' with somebody else on another forum who at least had the intelligence/honesty to admit that they couldn't explain the logic of a 'necessary entity' but that it must be the answer because they'd eliminated all the alternatives. This appears to be what you're saying, too, but you either can't see it or are not honest enough to admit it.

That, of course, is an argument from ignorance fallacy that has the added arrogance of assuming that you, or anybody else, has an exhaustive list of every possibility, and also puts it on a par with "it must be magic, innit?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why exactly one?

How do you know reality is a strict hierarchy?

You really can't be as dim as this silly nonsense suggests, you'd get confused about how to breath or eat. You have given us no reason whatsoever as to why your 'necessary entity' couldn't fail to exist and couldn't have been different. The closest you've got to anything remotely like a 'reason' is this:

which is a great paraphrase of "it just is, and there's an end to it".

I was talking about this 'argument' with somebody else on another forum who at least had the intelligence/honesty to admit that they couldn't explain the logic of a 'necessary entity' but that it must be the answer because they'd eliminated all the alternatives. This appears to be what you're saying, too, but you either can't see it or are not honest enough to admit it.

That, of course, is an argument from ignorance fallacy that has the added arrogance of assuming that you, or anybody else, has an exhaustive list of every possibility, and also puts it on a par with "it must be magic, innit?"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
Section on brute facts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the time has come for someone to justify Russell's assertion that the universe just is and there's an end to it.

[Gordon]

I think the time has come for someone to justify Russell's assertion that the universe just is and there's an end to it.

I think the time has come for Vlad to justify his assertion that the 'God' just is and there's an end to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the time has come for Vlad to justify his assertion that the 'God' just is and there's an end to it.

I'm not asserting that.
I might propose that God is and give reasons why I suppose that is so. But not"......there's an end to it".

So, Gordon declines to support Russell.

[jeremyp]

I'm not asserting that.

You've been asserting that since you discovered the philosophical meaning of "necessary".

I might propose that God is and give reasons why I suppose that is so. But not"......there's an end to it".

You might? I'm looking forward to that, but I'm not holding my breath.

So, Gordon declines to support Russell.

I think it's more likely that he declines to support your straw man version of Russell's argument.