God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Stranger]

A necessary entity...

...is something you have yet to define in anything remotely like a logically self-consistent way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How are you defining observation here.

The same way that any good dictionary does.

I’m afraid, although you seem to think you are the arbiter of a good argument and good reason, the fact is there is no intellectual oversight of this forum.

No I don’t, and we don’t need “intellectual oversight of this forum” for that. Fortunately instead fallacies are codified so you don’t have to take my word for it every time you collapse into one (or several) of them – you can just look them up. It’s rare for you to attempt an argument (actually I could end that sentence right there, but ok…) without the effort precisely mirroring these fallacies. That you always ignore, run away from, compound with further fallacies, lie about etc the problem when it’s explained to you doesn’t change that.   
 

We have to look therefore to other arbitration…

No “we” don’t - see above.

…and I frequently look to Sean M. Carroll the atheist cosmologist. When he says he will devote effort into disproving the principle of sufficient reason we can take it that it hasn’t been disproved yet and that your assertion that “It’s bollocks” is probably untrustworthy.

Given your long history of misrepresentation here presumably you’ll be providing a citation for that so we can see what he actually did say rather than just take your word for it?

So no Hillside. I think many of the things you call crap arguments, the things you think you have buried are
alive and kicking

And fallacious. That’s your problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The same way that any good dictionary does.

No I don’t, and we don’t need “intellectual oversight of this forum” for that. Fortunately instead fallacies are codified so you don’t have to take my word for it every time you collapse into one (or several) of them – you can just look them up. It’s rare for you to attempt an argument (actually I could end that sentence right there, but ok…) without the effort precisely mirroring these fallacies. That you always ignore, run away from, compound with further fallacies, lie about etc the problem when it’s explained to you doesn’t change that.   
 
No “we” don’t - see above.

Given your long history of misrepresentation here presumably you’ll be providing a citation for that so we can see what he actually did say rather than just take your word for it?

And fallacious. That’s your problem.

Finding that the various debates you have been involved with are not as cut and dried as you have us believe when we look beyond this forum makes the case for the forum having insufficient intellectual overview.

Regarding the PSR I think i’ve Said it’s not so much that you suspend the PSR but where and at what point in the argument you do it.

Regarding Carroll’s mission to debunk the PSR, I think it was you who referenced the particular paper I’m trying to find the link but in the meantime, Carroll’s PSR journey can be found on his website.

[Stranger]

Regarding Carroll’s mission to debunk the PSR, I think it was you who referenced the particular paper I’m trying to find the link but in the meantime, Carroll’s PSR journey can be found on his website.

If you mean this: Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?, then you have, in your inimitable style, totally misunderstood. Carroll questions the PSR (as do others), but the idea that he is "devoting effort" or on some sort of "mission" to "debunk" it is comical.

It's neither a physical law nor something that has been logically deduced, so how would one even go about "debunking" it? It is an idea based on everyday experiences that has been arbitrarily elevated, in some people's minds (mainly theists, as the paper points out), to an unquestionable universal truth.

And I'm still waiting for you to properly explain a 'necessary entity' and how it can possibly meet the PSR....

[jeremyp]

If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent.

If there is an objective reality then the things that exist do so whether we can observe them or not.

A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.

That's a failure of logic on your part. You haven't shown that being observable makes something contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is an objective reality then the things that exist do so whether we can observe them or not.

That's a failure of logic on your part. You haven't shown that being observable makes something contingent.

Yes an appeal to science in a cosmological argument can be risky. .But it's to do with observation affecting the observed. So if something is affected by being observed, it's state is contingent on that which observes it. It can then be argued that anything that can be observed is not necessary.
Put the other way therefore a necessary entity cannot be observed.

So there you go. Do with that what you will.

[Stranger]

Yes an appeal to science in a cosmological argument can be risky. .But it's to do with observation affecting the observed. So if something is affected by being observed, it's state is contingent on that which observes it. It can then be argued that anything that can be observed is not necessary.
Put the other way therefore a necessary entity cannot be observed.

So there you go. Do with that what you will.

There is no necessity that something being observed will always change as a result, so this is nonsense from the start, but the main problem remains that a 'necessary entity' is pure gibberish unless you can explain it in a logically consistent way.

You're still just making shit up about it as you go along.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes an appeal to science in a cosmological argument can be risky. .But it's to do with observation affecting the observed. So if something is affected by being observed, it's state is contingent on that which observes it. It can then be argued that anything that can be observed is not necessary.
Put the other way therefore a necessary entity cannot be observed.

So there you go. Do with that what you will.

So if Jesus was God  by your logic, then he cannot be a necessary entity. So your assertions hete if correct would mean your religion is wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if Jesus was God  by your logic, then he cannot be a necessary entity. So your assertions hete if correct would mean your religion is wrong.

But Sane. You are presenting but half a theology.
Mainstream Christianity has had Jesus down as both fully human AND fully God for centuries.

You may not agree with that message but that is what is presented.

If you empirically saw Jesus you saw a man but non empirically people could detect the divine.

https://www.gotquestions.org/fully-God-fully-man.html

[Nearly Sane]

But Sane. You are presenting but half a theology.
Mainstream Christianity has had Jesus down as both fully human AND fully God for centuries.

You may not agree with that message but that is what is presented.

If you empirically saw Jesus you saw a man but non empirically people could detect the divine.

Doesn't matter if Jesus was gid which you start, and loved he was observed. Therefore God was observed. It's just the logic of your position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't matter if Jesus was gid which you start, and loved he was observed. Therefore God was observed. It's just the logic of your position.

No, the idea that a necessary being, non contingent entity could not be physically observedi s based on quantum physics, uncertainty principles and schrodinger effects. Therefore we are talking of physical, scientific observation of Jesus physicality.
Science cannot measure God and anything physically observed is subject to quantum physics and cannot be the necessary being.

[Stranger]

No, the idea that a necessary being, non contingent entity could not be physically observedi s based on quantum physics, uncertainty principles and schrodinger effects.

[Nearly Sane]

No, the idea that a necessary being, non contingent entity could not be physically observedi s based on quantum physics, uncertainty principles and schrodinger effects. Therefore we are talking of physical, scientific observation of Jesus physicality.
Science cannot measure God and anything physically observed is subject to quantum physics and cannot be the necessary being.

No we're talking about logic here.

You believe Jesus is God.
You believe Jesus was observed
You believe your god cannot be observed.
Therefore your logic is faulty.

[Dicky Underpants]

But Sane. You are presenting but half a theology.
Mainstream Christianity has had Jesus down as both fully human AND fully God for centuries.

You may not agree with that message but that is what is presented.

If you empirically saw Jesus you saw a man but non empirically people could detect the divine.

https://www.gotquestions.org/fully-God-fully-man.html

God was also observed through a lot of the OT too, beginning with chapter 2. Certain conditions about not observing his 'face' (whatever that means).
What entity was being manifest here? Presumably not the non-contingent entity, by your logic. God had not yet become incarnate in Jesus, so what then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No we're talking about logic here.

You believe Jesus is God.
You believe Jesus was observed
You believe your god cannot be observed.
Therefore your logic is faulty.

No I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
All observing Jesus would have seen a man but nobody empirically saw God because God is the Necessary entity and one explanation why the necessary entity is not empirically seen is Quantum physics.
My logic is sound.
I may be wrong....if quantum physics is wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God was also observed through a lot of the OT too, beginning with chapter 2. Certain conditions about not observing his 'face' (whatever that means).
What entity was being manifest here? Presumably not the non-contingent entity, by your logic. God had not yet become incarnate in Jesus, so what then?

However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.

Why did you not mention that?

Of course Knowledge without empirical detection doesn't sit well with empiricists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear It looks as though I will have to break it down for you step by step.

[Steve H]

However as I recall the New Testament says no one has seen God but Jesus has made him known.

Perhaps worth mentioning that if Jesus, during his earthly life, was fully God, then God can't be omnipotent nor omniscient.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear It looks as though I will have to break it down for you step by step.

As opposed to randomly puking words you appear to have little understanding of.

[Nearly Sane]

No I believe Jesus is fully God and fully man.
All observing Jesus would have seen a man but nobody empirically saw God because God is the Necessary entity and one explanation why the necessary entity is not empirically seen is Quantum physics.
My logic is sound.
I may be wrong....if quantum physics is wrong.

Stop posting this embarrassing shite, it makes your religion look like ignorant ramblings. You have no logic, no understanding of quantum physics. You have a set of random assertions which manage to both contradictory, and circular, which is almost admirably inept.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps worth mentioning that if Jesus, during his earthly life, was fully God, then God can't be omnipotent nor omniscient.

How so?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop posting this embarrassing shite, it makes your religion look like ignorant ramblings. You have no logic, no understanding of quantum physics. You have a set of random assertions which manage to both contradictory, and circular, which is almost admirably inept.

Yes, I've admitted I could be wrong. I should have perhaps amplified that my science could be wrong. But having asserted it is wrong, could you perhaps find some decency to justify that assertion and also where the circularity lies.

Jesus is like totality, fully physically contingent, and God.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I've admitted I could be wrong. I should have perhaps amplified that my science could be wrong. But having asserted it is wrong, could you perhaps find some decency to justify that assertion and also where the circularity lies.

Jesus is like totality, fully physically contingent, and God.

You haven't used any science. You've posted a random assertion and attached the word quantum to it to try and give it some sheen of science. It's desperate stuff.

The circularity is in using assertions such as necessary entity which you haven't justified to then back up what it is to be a necessary entity by another assertion. You've had this pointed out multiple times when you posted this juvenile pish before. That you keep doing it, and ignoring thar just makes your religion look like lying humbug.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't used any science. You've posted a random assertion and attached the word quantum to it to try and give it some sheen of science. It's desperate stuff.

The circularity is in using assertions such as necessary entity which you haven't justified to then back up what it is to be a necessary entity by another assertion. You've had this pointed out multiple times when you posted this juvenile pish before. That you keep doing it, and ignoring thar just makes your religion look like lying humbug.

I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.

[Nearly Sane]

I mentioned uncertainty principles and schrodinger but the bottom line here Sane seems to be that you are asserting I haven't mentioned science and that the science I haven't used is wrong! Sort it out. See it empirically, say it, sorted.

You mentioned some scientific concepts randomly. It makes you look like an idiot that wants to make their religion look stupid.