God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[jeremyp]

I think you answered your own question.

What question? There was no question in the post you quoted.

It is a composition and therefore cannot be the necessary entity.

Does not follow. Especially if you want your fathersonandholyghost composite god to be considered "necessary".

[ProfessorDavey]

The universe contingent on the things in it which are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.

And in this case it is a perfectly reasonable argument - not that I am positing that it is true.

As I keep pointing out networks typically comprise elements which are all contingent on each other, with no element which is not contingent.

It is you that keeps on banging on about the need for 'the necessary entity' without actually demonstrating that a (let alone the) necessary entity is actually ... err ... needed. Yet more baseless hand-waving on your part. Sure we all understand that 'the necessary entity' fits with you prejudged view that god exists, but that doesn't mean it is true and your provided not one iota of evidence to support your claimed need for 'the necessary entity'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Feel free to demonstrate that it isn't there by dint of something else, in other words demonstrate that it isn't contingent. After all if it was infinite it should have suffered heat death an infinitely long time ago and after all do we have any evidence of any physical thing that isn't contingent?
The universe contingent on the things in it which are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.

Why do I need to demonstrate anything? In response to YOUR “necessary” entity assertion, I’m merely explaining that if the universe was infinite there’d be no necessity for another entity (let alone one you then special plead out of needing a cause of its own to exist). 

I’ve explained to you how the burden of proof fallacy works countless times before now, yet still you return to it over and over again. With very little expectation that you’ll ever grasp it, here’s Wiki again:     

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


What the fuck is wrong with you? The universe is a “single entity” - the single entity is called the universe. It’s also made of lots of constituent parts. My car is a single entity – that single entity is called a car.

Well that's two single entities at least, or is it still one entity?.
I would have said the parts were also entities since they can have an independent existence.

Any reason for not addressing parts as entities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, you have relied on the fallacy of composition frequently before now. It’s still a fallacy though.

The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.

[jeremyp]

The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.

In that case there can be no necessary entity except a mathematically perfect dimensionless point. Anything else can be divided up and therefore claimed to be dependent on its individual components.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.

Why are you persisting with this gibberish, and why are you still running away from justifying the “necessary” part of your assertion about a cause? An infinite universe that's its own explanation could also have developed any number of discrete parts over the millennia. So what?

Yet again: it’s YOUR claim that the universe must be contingent on a cause other than itself (which you then special plead into not needing a cause of its own). It’s YOUR job there to justify YOUR assertion. The moment you collapse into the fallacy of composition – ie, “the universe has lots of bits that are contingent on other bits, therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something other than itself” – which is all you have so far, you abandon even the pretence of a justification.       

Without more fucking around with more “but the universe is made of parts” irrelevance, why not finally try at least to answer this basic question?

If the fallacy of composition isn’t all you have, what’s stopping you? 

[Gordon]

The moment you suggest a composite you are no longer talking about a necessity, since the components are entities in their own right and the combination is dependent on the components having no independent existence apart from them.

According to the Christian 'Trinity' notion, your 'God' is a composite. After all one bit went a-wandering, on its own, around the middle-east some time ago - or so the story goes.

Therefore, by your own account, this 'God' cannot be a necessity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to the Christian 'Trinity' notion, your 'God' is a composite. After all one bit went a-wandering, on its own, around the middle-east some time ago - or so the story goes.

Therefore, by your own account, this 'God' cannot be a necessity.

No, Father, son and Holy Spirit have no independent existence from one another. Jesus is not a bit of God chopped off and put in a human being or a piece of God shaped like a human being.
As Jesus says, I am in the father and the father is in me. It cannot be claimed that I am in my cells and my cells are in me or a car is in its parts and parts are in it’s car.

So Jesus isn’t one bit of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why are you persisting with this gibberish, and why are you still running away from justifying the “necessary” part of your assertion about a cause? An infinite universe that's its own explanation could also have developed any number of discrete parts over the millennia. So what?

Yet again: it’s YOUR claim that the universe must be contingent on a cause other than itself (which you then special plead into not needing a cause of its own). It’s YOUR job there to justify YOUR assertion. The moment you collapse into the fallacy of composition – ie, “the universe has lots of bits that are contingent on other bits, therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something other than itself” – which is all you have so far, you abandon even the pretence of a justification.       

Without more fucking around with more “but the universe is made of parts” irrelevance, why not finally try at least to answer this basic question?

If the fallacy of composition isn’t all you have, what’s stopping you?

Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.

No composite can be the necessary being and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.

This “parts are irrelevant to a claim that some one is making the fallacy of composition”is your fallacy.
That’s what a composite is, Hillside, parts

[Outrider]

Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.

No - the person making the fallacy is treating it as a composite, the person making the accusation may or may not be.

No composite can be the necessary being and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.

Or, perhaps, the things you are treating as components are manifestations or aspects or side-effects or by-products, and without the universe there wouldn't be those things.

O.

[Gordon]

No, Father, son and Holy Spirit have no independent existence from one another. Jesus is not a bit of God chopped off and put in a human being or a piece of God shaped like a human being.
As Jesus says, I am in the father and the father is in me. It cannot be claimed that I am in my cells and my cells are in me or a car is in its parts and parts are in it’s car.

So Jesus isn’t one bit of God.

So the story goes - but have you checked?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - the person making the fallacy is treating it as a composite, the person making the accusation may or may not be.

What are the reasons then, to suspect that the person making the accusation doesn't consider the universe a composite?

 

Or, perhaps, the things you are treating as components are manifestations or aspects or side-effects or by-products, and without the universe there wouldn't be those things.

O.

Again , we don't know whether you do or not.
If they are manifestations what are they manifesting themselves to? Similarly side effects in what context, and by products existing to the side of what?

It seems to me that the statement "The universe just is, and that's all there is to it is a meaningless slogan because there is apparently more to it with it's side effects, manifestations and by products.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.

No, you are. You’re the one asserting that because the universe is made of lots of parts that are caused by other parts, therefore the universe itself must be caused by something other than itself.

That’s your fallacy of composition mistake, and no amount of irrelevant gibberish about a “composite” universe and an “indivisible” god (part of which nonetheless also you tell us wandered around for a bit in human form) changes that. 

No composite can be the necessary being and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.

How do you know that the universe hasn’t devolved into composite parts over time?

This “parts are irrelevant to a claim that some one is making the fallacy of composition”is your fallacy.
That’s what a composite is, Hillside, parts

No, it’s yours. If not, what is your non-fallacy of composition reasoning for asserting it to be impossible for the universe to be its own explanation?   

[Outrider]

No, Father, son and Holy Spirit have no independent existence from one another. Jesus is not a bit of God chopped off and put in a human being or a piece of God shaped like a human being. As Jesus says, I am in the father and the father is in me.

So Jesus is a component of God ('I am in the father') AND God is a component of Jesus... that's like a fallacy of composition squared, it's a logical contradiction.

It cannot be claimed that I am in my cells and my cells are in me or a car is in its parts and parts are in it’s car.

I've never seen a bible verse mention cells, hardly surprising given the coin was termed by Hooke in the 1600's after the invention of the compound microscope. Coopting science to try and retrospectively validate the Bible is fundamentally dishonest.

So Jesus isn’t one bit of God.

Only if we accept at face value the inherently self-contradictory nonsense that is Christian Theology and choose to suspend rational thinking where God is concerned. If we can suspend logic for gods, why not just abandon it generally? A system is only valid if you apply it consistently - if you want to try reason, reason has to apply universally.

O.

[jeremyp]

Get real, If you accuse somebody, in a discussion about the universe, of making the fallacy of composition you are treating the universe as a composite.

No composite can be the necessary being

You haven't adequately shown that to be true.

and the reason is that there would be no universe without the things in it.

There would be no things in the Universe without the Universe. That's a circular dependent, so the only option is that the Universe is not contingent. You must agree that any relationship "A is contingent on B and B is contingent on A" is a logical fallacy, therefore the Universe cannot be contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, you are. You’re the one asserting that because the universe is made of lots of parts that are caused by other parts, therefore the universe itself must be caused by something other than itself.

It only exists because it has parts and is thus dependent on it’s existence because of those parts. Do you agree with that?

So since we only have a universe of parts we need to know what it is those contingent parts are contingent on. Do you agree with that?

No for the fallacy claim, which says that the whole need not have the property of the parts.
You think I’m saying that because the parts are contingent, the whole is contingent.
I’m not. I’m saying the whole is contingent in it’s own right...because without it’s parts it wouldn’t exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There would be no things in the Universe without the Universe.

There would be no cells without the body?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So Jesus is a component of God ('I am in the father') AND God is a component of Jesus... that's like a fallacy of composition squared, it's a logical contradiction.

No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.

[Gordon]

No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.

How do you know this beyond mere assertion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know this beyond mere assertion?

I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely John10:30 and John 14:11.

[Gordon]

I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely John10:30 and John 14:11.

Anecdotes with no real provenance: so there are obvious risks attached in taking these anecdotal reports seriously.

Fairly thin gruel there, Vlad.

[Outrider]

No , you are the one assuming that God is the composite, I am the one saying God isn’t.

You're saying God is part of Jesus AND Jesus is part of God. By your own presumption of 'there are parts to the universe, therefore the universe is composed of those parts', both God and Jesus are composites. I'm assuming nothing, I'm applying your logic to your words.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I base that on what Jesus says about himself namely John10:30 and John 14:11.

And there's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis too.

So a book is true because the book says it's true...

Having abandoned the string of logically false arguments you depended on, you've now collapsed into a blind faith claim instead. I hear the Harry Potter books have wizards flying around on broomsticks, so gravity can be suspended with the right spells too right?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anecdotes with no real provenance: so there are obvious risks attached in taking these anecdotal reports seriously.

Fairly thin gruel there, Vlad.

If you believe there was a Jesus, you need grounds on which to say he didn't say this, then there is the matter of if it's true or not. I think you have a reason for believing why you don't believe it's true. Will you divulge your reason? I'm not holding my breath.