Interview with Rick Gervais on Atheism and religions

[Nearly Sane]

Gibberish.

Basic logic does seem to be that for you.

ETA I see you added the following after I replied

 

Science is based on observation of cause and effect not the intellectual masturbations of some chancer with a funny hat (Hume)

That you don't understand the problem of induction showing an absolute, and dismiss Hume on the basis of his headgear is a good illustration of your lack of understanding of basis logic, and quite funny.

And none of that even starts to address that your idea of a necessary being is simply an assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Basic logic does seem to be that for you.

ETA I see you added the following after I replied

 
That you don't understand the problem of induction showing an absolute, and dismiss Hume on the basis of his headgear is a good illustration of your lack of understanding of basis logic, and quite funny.

And none of that even starts to address that your idea of a necessary being is simply an assertion.

In what way are they an assertion?

[Nearly Sane]

In what way are they an assertion?

In the way that you've provided no evidence that such a thing is possible other than just assert it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the way that you've provided no evidence that such a thing is possible other than just assert it.

I see, because I cannot evidence cause and effect. I cannot show a contingent thing.

And yet science which observes cause and effect provides evidence for what exactly?

[Nearly Sane]

I see, because I cannot evidence cause and effect. I cannot show a contingent thing.

And yet science which observes cause and effect provides evidence for what exactly?

As already covered science assumes it, and it's used because it works. Your asserting an absolute that it's true ignoring the problem of induction, and then pulling the idea of a necessary being out of nowhere with no evidence that it's possible. And that necessary following from contingent is just an assertion
 

[Nearly Sane]

As already covered science assumes it, and it's used because it works. Your asserting an absolute that it's true ignoring the problem of induction, and then pulling the idea of a necessary being out of nowhere with no evidence that it's possible.

And the remark you replied to was specific about the the idea that was just being asserted was the necessary being. Not sure why you switched it to contingent which has different problems as covered in my post above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As already covered science assumes it, and it's used because it works.

That is neither here nor there.It’s flannel.

Your asserting an absolute that it's true ignoring the problem of induction, and then pulling the idea of a necessary being out of nowhere with no evidence that it's possible.

The necessary being is pulled from contingency and contingent things. If contingency is wrong then everything must pop out of nothing.They would exist in their own right independently.

What is the methodology then which explains such entities?

Trying to think of how the problem of induction affects the ultimate entity in Ockham’s razor, and the ultimate entity?

[Nearly Sane]

The necessary being is pulled from contingency and contingent things. If contingency is wrong then everything must pop out of nothing.They would exist in their own right independently.

What is the methodology then which explains such entities?

So more assertions, and another begging the question by asking explanations for something you haven't shown is possible. And I'm not saying contingency is wrong, just that you haven't demonstrated it as an absolute.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So more assertions, and another begging the question by asking explanations for something you haven't shown is possible. And I'm not saying contingency is wrong, just that you haven't demonstrated it as an absolute.

what in your mind haven’t I shown is possible.

[Nearly Sane]

what in your mind haven’t I shown is possible.

Anything necessary.