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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anything necessary.

That negates contingency then since contingent things depend on other things. In other words there are things that are necessary for contingent things to exist.

If these things do not exist then nothing is contingent and everything is non contingent.

Since there is nothing to prevent these things existing.Then they all exist ‘necessarily’ anyway.

[Nearly Sane]

That negates contingency then since contingent things depend on other things. In other words there are things that are necessary for contingent things to exist.

If these things do not exist then nothing is contingent and everything is non contingent.

Since there is nothing to prevent these things existing.Then they all exist ‘necessarily’ anyway.

No, all that's just more assertion, and also based on your claim that contingency is an absolute truth that you haven't demonstrated. No evidence, no logic, just assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, all that's just more assertion, and also based on your claim that contingency is an absolute truth that you haven't demonstrated. No evidence, no logic, just assertion.

Could you give me an example of something you don't  consider assertion. Assertions aren't based on anything are they and yet you have me basing a claim.
Contingency is possible it seems in your scheme, I wonder why.
As for contingency being an absolute truth what can that be all about?, you are either contingent or you are not.
Your issue seems to be with absolutism.

So nothing can be absolute for you and of course the necessary being represents that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To me non absolutism is akin to infinities.
An absolute unique necessary is impossible because there could be something more absolute, unique and necessary. It doesn't quite stack up

[Nearly Sane]

To me non absolutism is akin to infinities.
An absolute unique necessary is impossible because there could be something more absolute, unique and necessary. It doesn't quite stack up

I don't care what your unevidenced, illogical feelings are.

I can't parse your second sentence since it seems to contradict your own claims about a necessary being.

Again, you don't define terms, you don't seem to understand terns, you don't appear to use them with any consistency.

[Nearly Sane]

Could you give me an example of something you don't  consider assertion. Assertions aren't based on anything are they and yet you have me basing a claim.
Contingency is possible it seems in your scheme, I wonder why.
As for contingency being an absolute truth what can that be all about?, you are either contingent or you are not.
Your issue seems to be with absolutism.

So nothing can be absolute for you and of course the necessary being represents that.

Something based on evidence with a methodology.

Saying that you haven't demonstrated an absolute claim doesn't say either that it is impossible to do so, or that there is no such thing as an absolute. You have no grasp that the null hypothesis is not a claim to the opposite of any hypothesis, rather it's a position that until that other hypothesis is demonstrated there is no reason to accept.

Which again means your lack of understanding of basic logic means your posts are logically, and often linguistically, incoherent.

[SteveH]

That negates contingency then since contingent things depend on other things. In other words there are things that are necessary for contingent things to exist.

The necessary entity could be the universe (or multiverse) as a whole. The fact that everything in the universe is contingent does not prevent that possibility.

[Nearly Sane]

The necessary entity could be the universe (or multiverse) as a whole. The fact that everything in the universe is contingent does not prevent that possibility.

It's not a fact that everything in the universe is contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something based on evidence with a methodology.

Saying that you haven't demonstrated an absolute claim doesn't say either that it is impossible to do so, or that there is no such thing as an absolute. You have no grasp that the null hypothesis is not a claim to the opposite of any hypothesis, rather it's a position that until that other hypothesis is demonstrated there is no reason to accept.

Which again means your lack of understanding of basic logic means your posts are logically, and often linguistically, incoherent.

Sorry Sane, but I'm at the point where I feel I need a second opinion no disrespect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a fact that everything in the universe is contingent.

So it's possible there could be something that is non contingent then.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry Sane, but I'm at the point where I feel I need a second opinion no disrespect.

Whatever makes you happy but given your basic misunderstandings in logic, you don't appear well equipped to select any such thing.

[Nearly Sane]

So it's possible there could be something that is non contingent then.

It's possible that nothing is contingent. Note that doesn't mean that there is anything that is necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's possible that nothing is contingent. Note that doesn't mean that there is anything that is necessary.

Is it possible that anything is necessary though?

[Nearly Sane]

Is it possible that anything is necessary though?

Dunno. I can't say that is impossible but don't have enough evidence to say that it is possible.

[SteveH]

According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.