Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 15, 2022, 01:02:45 PM
-
Since the definition of God is a hurdle for many of the atheists on this forum such that they are happy that that it is the universe that just is, I think it is high time people defined what the universe is. Any suggestions?
-
"The Universe" is defined as the "whole of space and time and their content". Now, "space", "time" , "matter" and so on are concepts defined within scientific models that are used to explain or simulate "objective" experiences and data - that is, information reliably shareable between what seem to be independent observers.
There is no underlying assumption that "The Universe" exists as an object in itself, or "just is". Although such an assumption is commonly made as a shortcut in communications between people trying discuss more mundane parts of the model.
-
Since the definition of God is a hurdle for many of the atheists on this forum such that they are happy that that it is the universe that just is, I think it is high time people defined what the universe is. Any suggestions?
Are you going to give us your definition of God? That's the main hurdle we have: religionists avoiding defining God.
-
"The Universe" is defined as the "whole of space and time and their content". Now, "space", "time" , "matter" and so on are concepts defined within scientific models that are used to explain or simulate "objective" experiences and data - that is, information reliably shareable between what seem to be independent observers.
There is no underlying assumption that "The Universe" exists as an object in itself, or "just is". Although such an assumption is commonly made as a shortcut in communications between people trying discuss more mundane parts of the model.
The universe doesn't exist? That is a new angle.
-
Are you going to give us your definition of God? That's the main hurdle we have: religionists avoiding defining God.
There is no real problem here since, you must already have defined the God you don't believe in. Not believing in any God sounds a bit of a put up job. Pious atheism if you will.
See the Nicene or any number of creeds.
Udayana has suggested the universe may not exist. What's your take on that.
-
The universe doesn't exist? That is a new angle.
I can't see where Udayana's post says that. Can you expand?
-
There is no real problem here since, you must already have defined the God you don't believe in.
I've got a definition of God. I was asking if you have got one.
See the Nicene or any number of creeds.
So you're going with the definition of God in the Nicene Creed. Nice of you to finally commit.
-
Are you going to give us your definition of God? That's the main hurdle we have: religionists avoiding defining God.
God is the ultimate source of all that exists
-
God is the ultimate source of all that exists
Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.
-
Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.
If God exists then, by Alan's definition, God is its own source and we just have to live with the regression.
If God does not exist, then Alan's statement is a vacuous truth (another term for the principle of explosion) and, essentially, useless - either as a definition or assertion.
-
Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.
Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe - which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.
-
Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe - which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.
Alternatively: The "known universe" contains all the stuff we think we have a reasonable or working understanding of. Outside of that we just make up silly questions or stories.
-
Since the definition of God is a hurdle for many of the atheists on this forum such that they are happy that that it is the universe that just is, ...
Firstly I don't think I have ever claimed the universe just is.
But more importantly the whole notion of the universe that just is is predicated on an assumption that the universe exists within the framework of time viewed in a simplistic manner. In other words that time is constant than uni-linear (i.e goes in one direction only). Now there is no reason to conclude that time is like that, and, of course, if time is actually inextricably linked to the universe then the notion of what happened before the universe existed (implicit in the universe that just is) becomes completely moot.
But in one respect you are correct Vlad - we don't have anything like a full understanding of the universe which is why we are striving to find out more all the time through research and scientific endeavour. Contrast that with the religionists who refuse to define a god that they appear to have created and then ascribe this god to explain things they don't understand (in a god of the gaps sense) rather than try to actually add to their knowledge.
-
Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe
How do you know that?
which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.
What would be the point of that?
-
Our human minds are incapable of understanding what lies beyond our known universe - which is why God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.
Ah - you mean Krishna then.
-
I thought universe applied to our local presentation of everything that expanded from the possible so called Big Bang.
In the beginning there was everything and then it expanded.
Then the Cosmos is everything else that may exist to cover potential things like multiverse etc.
The Cosmos would EVERTHING
-
I can't see where Udayana's post says that. Can you expand?
(As Udayana posted) ''There is no underlying assumption that "The Universe" exists as an object in itself, or "just is". Although such an assumption is commonly made as a shortcut in communications between people trying discuss more mundane parts of the model.
-
Alternatively: The "known universe" contains all the stuff we think we have a reasonable or working understanding of. Outside of that we just make up silly questions or stories.
You mean like the Multiverse?
-
Is God the ultimate source of God? That seems like an infinite regress.
And yet I recall you once suggested that the universe ''Just is''.
When you say that god is an infinite regress don't you mean an infinity?
-
Firstly I don't think I have ever claimed the universe just is.
But more importantly the whole notion of the universe that just is is predicated on an assumption that the universe exists within the framework of time viewed in a simplistic manner. In other words that time is constant than uni-linear (i.e goes in one direction only). Now there is no reason to conclude that time is like that, and, of course, if time is actually inextricably linked to the universe then the notion of what happened before the universe existed (implicit in the universe that just is) becomes completely moot.
So I think you may be making the case for a discussion of what time is and what it means in the universe, whether time flows, in what direction, what kind of ''time'' could stretch ''before the universe''
-
I thought universe applied to our local presentation of everything that expanded from the possible so called Big Bang.
In the beginning there was everything and then it expanded.
Then the Cosmos is everything else that may exist to cover potential things like multiverse etc.
The Cosmos would EVERTHING
Hmmmm You've never struck me as a ''potential things'' sort of guy. These are things which, I take it there is no evidence for. That seems like a departure for you.
The multiverse, really? Can that be demonstrated? Is that scientific?
-
So what kind of ''time'' could stretch ''before the universe''
I thought he was saying that since 'time' is inextricably linked to the existence of the universe, any discussion of the concept relating to before the universe began is totally meaningless. Not a question of "what kind of time", perhaps not even a question of 'before', which would equally have no meaning, since it is also related to time. That there was a beginning seems clear. Anything else is wibble wibble wibble.
Or as Wittgenstein said:
"wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen"
-
So I think you may be making the case for a discussion of what time is and what it means in the universe, whether time flows, in what direction, what kind of ''time'' could stretch ''before the universe''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
But again the phrasing of your points demonstrates an inability to get beyond the notion that time is unilinear and constant. Otherwise why would you talk about ''before the universe'' - if time isn't unilinear and constant, before the universe could just as well be after the universe, or even alongside the universe, or perhaps even outside the universe.
-
I thought he was saying that since 'time' is inextricably linked to the existence of the universe, any discussion of the concept relating to before the universe began is totally meaningless.
Well St Augustine I think proposed that the universe was create with time and not in time and indeed Genesis starts with the creation ''In the beginning'' not ''before the beginning''
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
But again the phrasing of your points demonstrates an inability to get beyond the notion that time is unilinear and constant.
Whereas entropy only goes one way Otherwise why would you talk about ''before the universe''
And yet most of us have talked about an infinitely old universe not needing a creator, That surely involves some kind of infinity in which the concept of a universal ''past'' and ''future'' holds. - if time isn't unilinear and constant, before the universe could just as well be after the universe, or even alongside the universe, or perhaps even outside the universe.
Fair enough.
I suppose what I am saying is that there is more than one kind of time. The time argued by those who wish to eliminate the need for a universal beginning or a creator.
The kind of time which is a feature of the universe.
The notional more mathematical type of time, infinite time. That if we were to count back to zero there is nothing to stop us contemplating minus 1 etc.
-
...
You started this thread on the "definition of the universe" - confirming the existence or not of whatever you end up defining is a separate activity.
-
You mean like the Multiverse?
What multiverse?
-
... Genesis starts with the creation ''In the beginning'' not ''before the beginning''
But as the writers of genesis will have considered both before and beginning as time-related terms then ''before the beginning'' would make no sense as the beginning is a term that means "has no before".
But this is again linked to a simplistic view of time as somehow a constant and only going in one direction.
-
But as the writers of genesis will have considered both before and beginning as time-related terms then ''before the beginning'' would make no sense as the beginning is a term that means "has no before".
But this is again linked to a simplistic view of time as somehow a constant and only going in one direction.
Not really, since there is no attempt at stating anything happens before.
I think the real issue is defining the universe as infinitely old and yet wanting the luxury of there effectively being no such thing as ''old'' because time doesn't go in one direction.
Is time not constant for the observer measuring time? Is time not constant on clocks?
-
Not really, since there is no attempt at stating anything happens before.
My point exactly - the writers of the bible, not unreasonably given their complete lack of understanding of the universe, don't address what happened before the beginning. Of course they don't as their mindset would consider "before the beginning" to be oxymoronic.
Yet, however, they completely fail to address where this god of theirs came from.
-
I think the real issue is defining the universe as infinitely old and yet wanting the luxury of there effectively being no such thing as ''old'' because time doesn't go in one direction.
You really do struggle with this concept, don't you Vlad - so wrapped up in simplistic and traditional human-centric thinking.
Try this one - image a completely circular running track. Where is the beginning?, where is the end of that track? Is it infinite given that you could theoretically keep running around it forever and never come to the end. If there are two runners, which one is in front and which is behind.
Is time not constant for the observer measuring time?
No
Is time not constant on clocks?
No
-
My point exactly - the writers of the bible, not unreasonably given their complete lack of understanding of the universe, don't address what happened before the beginning. Of course they don't as their mindset would consider "before the beginning" to be oxymoronic.
Yet, however, they completely fail to address where this god of theirs came from.
We can discuss that on the christian thread.
At the moment though the role of time in describing the universe is not settled among physicists with many verging on saying that time is irrelevent.
I don't feel in a position to define time, do you?
-
You really do struggle with this concept, don't you Vlad - so wrapped up in simplistic and traditional human-centric thinking.
Try this one - image a completely circular running track. Where is the beginning?, where is the end of that track? Is it infinite given that you could theoretically keep running around it forever and never come to the end. If there are two runners, which one is in front and which is behind.
So is this your description of the universe ?
We know, for instance that they are not running backwards. Their direction is always forwards.
-
I don't feel in a position to define time, do you?
No - but it is you who describe matters relating to time in a manner that seems to presume that time is uni-directional and constant. In implying those assumptions then you do seem to be defining what time is. I don't presume such definitional matters.
-
So is this your description of the universe ?
No - merely an analogy to explain how things can be rather more complicated than they first appear.
We know, for instance that they are not running backwards. Their direction is always forwards.
No we don't - in my analogy let's now assume that we have two objects moving around that circular track. How do you know whether they are moving forwards or backwards - you don't except by providing your own assumptions on directionality, which may be wrong. And whether one appears to be moving forwards or backwards is completely defined by the perspective of the observer.
-
And yet I recall you once suggested that the universe ''Just is''.
No, I suggested it was at least as likely as "God just is" which is your position. At least we have evidence that the universe exists.
-
No - merely an analogy to explain how things can be rather more complicated than they first appear.
And that, it seems is as far as it goes No we don't - in my analogy let's now assume that we have two objects moving around that circular track. How do you know whether they are moving forwards or backwards - you don't except by providing your own assumptions on directionality, which may be wrong. And whether one appears to be moving forwards or backwards is completely defined by the perspective of the observer.
And what evidence do you have that this is how the universe is constituted as a circle. Who do you suppose can observe the universe in the way you suggest.
Surely the scientific measure of directionality in the universe is entropy.
-
No, I suggested it was at least as likely as "God just is" which is your position. At least we have evidence that the universe exists.
No ''God just is'' is not my position and God satisfies the criteria for sufficient reason for the universe which is the opposite of the universe just is. A definition of the universe would have to surely include what it is about the universe that makes it necessary and necessary for it's own existence. And that's why we have to get to grips with what the universe is. The universe existing doesn't actually answer these questions and is just another form of ''The universe just is''.
-
Surely the scientific measure of directionality in the universe is entropy.
Well, life has been ignoring the 2nd Law of thermodynamics for millions of years - presumably because the earth is an open system, taking in energy all the time. I'm no physicist or biologist, but we have no evidence that Life is going to stop its 'progress' in gaining complexity (unless Mr Putin and his cronies put an end to it). If this is the case, entropy should eventually be reversed as life takes over the whole universe. Will the entropy of the rest of the universe win out in trillions upon trillions of years?
Some of the speculations of physicists and cosmologists strike me as utterly futile, except as thought experiments which could never be verified. I once heard Patrick Moore on Parkinson's show suggest that in the infinity of the universe, a little green man in a studio billions of miles away might well be simultaneously having an interview on a talk show like the one he was on.
I would have thought the concept of 'simultaneity' (since Einstein) had no meaning whatsoever over such vast distances, so this was an absurd suggestion.
-
Hmmmm You've never struck me as a ''potential things'' sort of guy. These are things which, I take it there is no evidence for. That seems like a departure for you.
The multiverse, really? Can that be demonstrated? Is that scientific?
The multiverse may not exist. This local presentation may be all there is. We dont know.
-
No ''God just is'' is not my position and God satisfies the criteria for sufficient reason for the universe which is the opposite of the universe just is.
But Vlad, you continually fail to define god in a sufficiently robust manner to come close to determining whether that definition satisfies the criteria for sufficient reason. So how on earth you can conclude it satisfies those criteria is quite beyond me.
But also a judgement that something exists because it has to exist (not that this has come close to being demonstrated for god) is pretty well an argument that that thing "just is" - so you do seem to be terribly confused.
And we've discussed this concept, and its corollary of necessary entity, perviously. The notion that something could have sufficient reason and/or be a necessary entity doesn't mean it does have those features. All sorts of things could be claimed to be of that nature - the argument only gains traction when there are no other explanations that do not require that entity to exist that are credible, or further that all other explanations have been demonstrated to be false. So in the context of the universe we need to ask the question - are there credible explanations for the universe that do not require god and the answer is, of course there are - many of them, plenty of which are imbued with the levels of evidence that is completely lacking for god.
But we can go further - this seems to be based on the premise that somehow there must be a necessary entity or sufficient reason, in other words that the universe could not, theoretically, not exist. That claim seems to lack credence - just because the universe actually exists doesn't mean that theoretically it must exist. I used a child/parents analogy previously and will state it again. If I exist then my parents must have existed (they are necessary entities) - but that does not mean that my parents theoretically could not have existed - of course they could, and it would mean that I wouldn't exist either.
-
Could an expert on entropy step forward please?
-
And what evidence do you have that this is how the universe is constituted as a circle.
I'm not proposing evidence for curvature of the universe - that isn't the point of my analogy. The point is to demonstrate that it is easy to get beyond the simplistic notion of unidirectional and constancy and into the world of infinity (in the context of no beginning or end) and further to demonstrate that the notion of forwards and backwards are often observer based biases.
But of course there is credible theoretical evidence that the universe is constituted in this manner:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe
Who do you suppose can observe the universe in the way you suggest.
Err physicists - as indicated in the article.
-
Could an expert on entropy step forward please?
Not an expert, but willing to look at any questions.
-
Could an expert on entropy step forward please?
I used to be an expert on entropy but I am completely uncertain now.
-
Not an expert, but willing to look at any questions.
Well, perhaps you could amplify something on the matter I raised. Life, it appears, is ignoring entropy, presumably because the earth is in an 'open system' and continually drawing in energy. However, I presume life cannot ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics forever, and eventually life must end along with the universe? I realise this may be a very simplistic way of looking at things, and with deference to the Prof, seems like a nod to viewing time as linear.
-
I used to be an expert on entropy but I am completely uncertain now.
The old clockwork running down, eh?
-
The old clockwork running down, eh?
Tick to....
-
Well, perhaps you could amplify something on the matter I raised. Life, it appears, is ignoring entropy, presumably because the earth is in an 'open system' and continually drawing in energy. However, I presume life cannot ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics forever, and eventually life must end along with the universe? I realise this may be a very simplistic way of looking at things, and with deference to the Prof, seems like a nod to viewing time as linear.
Yes, you're correct. Life, on earth, exists in an open system - one where energy and matter can enter and leave. As life is "self-organising" it becomes more ordered, so may appear to ignore the 2nd law, but of-course as it functions - ie. consuming, excreting, moving, thinking and so on, it participates in an increase, overall, of entropy in the system as a whole - and in the eventual (hypothetical) "heat death" of the universe.
Though this fits in well with our perception of time "flowing" only forwards, we can't actually derive that from considering the 2nd law and entropy.
-
Yes, you're correct. Life, on earth, exists in an open system - one where energy and matter can enter and leave. As life is "self-organising" it becomes more ordered, so may appear to ignore the 2nd law, but of-course as it functions - ie. consuming, excreting, moving, thinking and so on, it participates in an increase, overall, of entropy in the system as a whole - and in the eventual (hypothetical) "heat death" of the universe.
Though this fits in well with our perception of time "flowing" only forwards, we can't actually derive that from considering the 2nd law and entropy.
Some stuff on this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_as_an_arrow_of_time#Cosmology
So I guess a fundamental question would be whether time is really directional, or appears to be due to its relationship with entropy. But also what would happen to time were we to reach complete steady state equilibrium whereby entropy no longer increases - would time stop.
Interesting conjecture on whether time would reverse if the universe stopped expanding and started to contract.
-
No ''God just is'' is not my position
My mistake...
and God satisfies the criteria for sufficient reason for the universe
... oh wait, so God just is.
A definition of the universe would have to surely include what it is about the universe that makes it necessary and necessary for it's own existence.
No, why? Your definition of God: "Maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen" doesn't include anything about what makes it necessary. Why would a definition of the Universe have to include that?
-
Well, life has been ignoring the 2nd Law of thermodynamics for millions of years
No it hasn't. Life has always obeyed the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
- presumably because the earth is an open system, taking in energy all the time.
Actually, the Earth emits all the energy it takes in, otherwise it would be just a blob of molten rock now. The thing is that the entropy of the energy emitted by the Earth is vastly higher than the entropy of the energy incident on it and life is partly responsible for that.
-
My mistake...
... oh wait, so God just is.
No, why? Your definition of God: "Maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen" doesn't include anything about what makes it necessary. Why would a definition of the Universe have to include that?
that God, as Aquinus put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. God exists necessarily.
That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for God.
The only way round this is, as Hume, Russell and Carroll have tried, is to ignore sufficient reason.
-
Some stuff on this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_as_an_arrow_of_time#Cosmology
So I guess a fundamental question would be whether time is really directional, or appears to be due to its relationship with entropy.
This was the topic of my degree dissertation almost 50 years ago - in retrospect embarrassingly naïve, though it did get me what I needed :)
Even now Carlo Rovelli describes time as sitting "at the centre of the tangle of problems raised by the intersection of gravity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics - a tangle of problems where we are still in the dark"
As an off-the-peg model I tend to think of time as a dimension in block universe, where past, present and future all exist and the flow of time is simply a stubborn illusion. Even if we assume that physics is entirely deterministic (as we move along time in either direction) to an observer it would seem as though time was unidirectional - due to the complexity of interactions: most systems with more than a handful of components behave with non-linear dynamics and soon become chaotic. This means that though we may follow a process from some initial condition to an end state, we will never be able to exactly reverse the motion and go from the end state to the original initial state. Time will always appear irreversible.
But also what would happen to time were we to reach complete steady state equilibrium whereby entropy no longer increases - would time stop.
Yes, but (as modelled in some string theories using branes) the state becomes closer and closer to the state prior to the big-bang - and we end up with a cyclic multiverse.
Interesting conjecture on whether time would reverse if the universe stopped expanding and started to contract.
-
that God, as Aquinus put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. God exists necessarily.
That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for God.
that The Flying Spaghetti Monster, as Tom from Guildford put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists necessarily.
That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
See the problem Vlad - just asserting something doesn't make it true - nor does it even make it credible unless there is credible evidence to support that assertion. And given that Aquinas would have have virtually zero understanding of the actual nature of the universe any comment he might have made regarding the universe and its origins can be easily dismissed due to a patent lack of sufficient knowledge of the nature and origins of the universe for any claim to be credible.
-
The only way round this is, as Hume, Russell and Carroll have tried, is to ignore sufficient reason.
I think you have this the wrong way around. Remember that the onus is on the person making a claim to provide proof/evidence to support that claim.
So if you make a claim for the requirement for sufficient reason then the onus is on you to prove that sufficient reason is required - the onus is not on others to have to justify why they might choose to ignore it.
But of course the issue with sufficient reason is that it is predicated on an unevidenced assumption that there is intent or motivation for something to happen - this indicates anthropocentric bias, which is likely where the notion of god also comes from. Why should there be reason or intent for the universe to exist, beyond the actions of the fundamental laws of physics.
-
that The Flying Spaghetti Monster, as Tom from Guildford put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists necessarily.
That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
See the problem Vlad - just asserting something doesn't make it true - nor does it even make it credible unless there is credible evidence to support that assertion. And given that Aquinas would have have virtually zero understanding of the actual nature of the universe any comment he might have made regarding the universe and its origins can be easily dismissed due to a patent lack of sufficient knowledge of the nature and origins of the universe for any claim to be credible.
unlike you Davie to resort to a horses laugh fallacy.
We know everything that is contingent in the universe needs a necessary. CIRCULAR hierarchies merely suggest self creation or causation. Thomistic philosophy calls this thing God and suggest that it is independent or sovereign from and over the things it causes. Calling this necessary entity the FSM is just horses laugh argument.
-
unlike you Davie to resort to a horses laugh fallacy.
I am point out that making an assertion doesn't make it true. Your appeal to god and Aquinas is no more, nor less credible than my appeal to Tom and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you want an assertion to be taken credibly it needs to be credible and to be credible it needs evidence and not to be based on unevidenced assertion and assumption.
-
I think you have this the wrong way around. Remember that the onus is on the person making a claim to provide proof/evidence to support that claim.
So if you make a claim for the requirement for sufficient reason then the onus is on you to prove that sufficient reason is required - the onus is not on others to have to justify why they might choose to ignore it.
But of course the issue with sufficient reason is that it is predicated on an unevidenced assumption that there is intent or motivation for something to happen - this indicates anthropocentric bias, which is likely where the notion of god also comes from. Why should there be reason or intent for the universe to exist, beyond the actions of the fundamental laws of physics.
The argument is quite clear. The existence of contingency logically requires necessity. So what is contingent about the universe depends on a necessary.
In other words, the question is what is it about the universe which is necessary? Aquinus calls this God, I would say it resembles God more than it resembles atheism or a contingent thing.
Putting things down as illusory or talking about anthropometric bias is woo designed to shut sown discussion.
-
that God, as Aquinus put it is whatever was necessary for the universe we know and observe. God exists necessarily.
You saying (or some bloke called Aquinus [sic] saying) "God is necessary" is not any different to me saying "the Universe is necessary".
That we have such a universe is therefore sufficient reason for God.
No it isn't.
The only way round this is, as Hume, Russell and Carroll have tried, is to ignore sufficient reason.
You should try reason. It might help you to think more clearly.
-
The argument is quite clear. The existence of contingency logically requires necessity.
Yet more unevidenced assertions. The problem with this argument is it cannot be applied comprehensively and consistently or you end up in an endless, infinite chain of entities that rely on something else ad infinitum. So you cannot apply it logically.
So what is contingent about the universe depends on a necessary.
Even accepting your argument on contingent and necessity (see above, you have not convinced me in the slightest), why cannot the universe be the end of the chain. You have to end it somewhere following your argument.
In other words, the question is what is it about the universe which is necessary? Aquinus calls this God
So all you are doing is arbitrarily laying down a point at which your contingent/necessity 'logic' ceases to apply, and doing so without any evidence. If the logic breaks down somewhere, why not at the universe and what is your justification for claiming that god isn't in itself contingent on something else again. You have no argument to address these issues except 'god just is', which is no more compelling than 'the universe just is' - indeed rather less compelling as at least we have evidence that the universe exists.
, I would say it resembles God more than it resembles atheism or a contingent thing.
Firstly what on earth has a lack of belief in something got anything to do with this. Secondly why is god not contingent, in exactly the same manner as you claim logic implies to everything else. This is special pleading of the worst sort and with not a shred of evidence to support it.
Putting things down as illusory or talking about anthropometric bias is woo designed to shut sown discussion.
No it isn't. God might exist, god might not - in that respect (i.e. knowledge) I am agnostic. However there is no evidence for god and no evidence that we cannot explain the universe without god - to suggest as such is classic god-of-the-gaps non-sense.
On being anthropocentric - well your arguments are achingly so - you see everything as a kind of hierarchy of complexities which comes from anthropocentric thinking that humans are somehow 'higher' than other species etc. I'm not very impressed with that notion as it gets you nowhere as it always requires something more complex. If we are considering contingent and necessity I think we should be looking at it the other way around - the closest we'd get to necessity would be the simplest and most fundamental entity, not the most complex which is clearly contingent on it's constituent parts.
-
You saying (or some bloke called Aquinus [sic] saying) "God is necessary" is not any different to me saying "the Universe is necessary".
The only difference between Aquinus and you is that he has explained why God is necessary and you are just about to explain why the universe is necessary.
No it isn't.
You should try reason. It might help you to think more clearly.
[/quote]
-
The only difference between Aquinus and you is that he has explained why God is necessary
No he hasn't (and, since you failed to take the hint last time: it's Aquinas). All he's done is assert that God is necessary. He hasn't explained why. If he did have a solid argument as to why God is necessary and the Universe isn't, there would be no atheists.
and you are just about to explain why the universe is necessary.
No I'm not. I don't know if the Universe is necessary or not. I don't know if there's a god or not, but that doesn't matter because I'm not the one asserting the existence of God, you are.
Your argument boils down to "the Universe must be contingent, therefore God". It fails because you haven't shown that the Universe must be contingent. The fact that I can't show that the Universe is not contingent does nothing whatsoever to support your argument.
-
No he hasn't (and, since you failed to take the hint last time: it's Aquinas). All he's done is assert that God is necessary. He hasn't explained why. If he did have a solid argument as to why God is necessary and the Universe isn't, there would be no atheists.
No I'm not. I don't know if the Universe is necessary or not. I don't know if there's a god or not, but that doesn't matter because I'm not the one asserting the existence of God, you are.
Your argument boils down to "the Universe must be contingent, therefore God". It fails because you haven't shown that the Universe must be contingent. The fact that I can't show that the Universe is not contingent does nothing whatsoever to support your argument.
He has explained why there is a necessary being via the argument from contingency. That provides sufficient reason.
Aquinas then states that this is what we call God
-
No he hasn't (and, since you failed to take the hint last time: it's Aquinas). All he's done is assert that God is necessary. He hasn't explained why. If he did have a solid argument as to why God is necessary and the Universe isn't, there would be no atheists.
No I'm not. I don't know if the Universe is necessary or not. I don't know if there's a god or not, but that doesn't matter because I'm not the one asserting the existence of God, you are.
Your argument boils down to "the Universe must be contingent, therefore God". It fails because you haven't shown that the Universe must be contingent. The fact that I can't show that the Universe is not contingent does nothing whatsoever to support your argument.
No my argument is the universe we observe is contingent, What is it then about the universe that is necessary for contingent things. Davey is correct in saying it must be fundamental, without parts but it also must be independent from the universe we observe for it's existence and actions.
-
Yet more unevidenced assertions. The problem with this argument is it cannot be applied comprehensively and consistently or you end up in an endless, infinite chain of entities that rely on something else ad infinitum. So you cannot apply it logically.
Even accepting your argument on contingent and necessity (see above, you have not convinced me in the slightest), why cannot the universe be the end of the chain. You have to end it somewhere following your argument.
So all you are doing is arbitrarily laying down a point at which your contingent/necessity 'logic' ceases to apply, and doing so without any evidence. If the logic breaks down somewhere, why not at the universe and what is your justification for claiming that god isn't in itself contingent on something else again. You have no argument to address these issues except 'god just is', which is no more compelling than 'the universe just is' - indeed rather less compelling as at least we have evidence that the universe exists.
Firstly what on earth has a lack of belief in something got anything to do with this. Secondly why is god not contingent, in exactly the same manner as you claim logic implies to everything else. This is special pleading of the worst sort and with not a shred of evidence to support it.
No it isn't. God might exist, god might not - in that respect (i.e. knowledge) I am agnostic. However there is no evidence for god and no evidence that we cannot explain the universe without god - to suggest as such is classic god-of-the-gaps non-sense.
On being anthropocentric - well your arguments are achingly so - you see everything as a kind of hierarchy of complexities which comes from anthropocentric thinking that humans are somehow 'higher' than other species etc. I'm not very impressed with that notion as it gets you nowhere as it always requires something more complex. If we are considering contingent and necessity I think we should be looking at it the other way around - the closest we'd get to necessity would be the simplest and most fundamental entity, not the most complex which is clearly contingent on it's constituent parts.
Your arguments seem more protective of atheism than science.
-
He has explained why there is a necessary being via the argument from contingency. That provides sufficient reason.
Aquinas then states that this is what we call God
He just asserts that the Universe is contingent without evidence and then just asserts that the necessary thing - whatever it is - is identical with the Christian god.
-
No my argument is the universe we observe is contingent,
No, you mean your assertion is that the Universe we observe is contingent. You haven't made any sound argument for your assertion.
What is it then about the universe that is necessary for contingent things. Davey is correct in saying it must be fundamental, without parts but it also must be independent from the universe we observe for it's existence and actions.
Why? You are just making assertions without justifying them.
-
He just asserts that the Universe is contingent without evidence and then just asserts that the necessary thing - whatever it is - is identical with the Christian god.
Exactly - in effect Aquinas creates a circular argument without any evidential basis to support his key assertion that everything must have a cause (i.e. contingent) ... err ... except the thing that he want to assert to be most important. It is an incredibly weak argument, and in fact as soon as you allow for something that is not contingent then you have in effect rebutted your basic principle of things needing to have a cause. And if one thing is allowed to be 'causeless' then why not others, many.
So, in effect Aquinas in fact logically disproves his fundamental notion of things needing a cause within his prejudged conclusion - and thereby the whole poorly framed argument comes crashing down.
There is also the uncomfortable fact for Aquinas apologists that he would have had virtually zero understanding of the nature of the universe - likely he (wrongly) considered it be be of the order of thousands of years old. Likely (wrongly) he would have though that the earth lay at the centre of the universe. Likely (wrongly) he would have considered the universe to be a kind of bubble around the earth and he would have had no understanding of the scale and expansion of the universe. So anything he claims about the origins of the universe can be laughed out of court as he didn't understand what the universe is.
-
Your arguments seem more protective of atheism than science.
Not at all - indeed earlier in this thread I was clear that on the basis of knowledge I do not and cannot know whether god does or does not exist. So none of the arguments I am putting forward are atheist arguments at all.
My point is that currently we do not have sufficient knowledge to conclude with confidence that we know how the universe originated (or indeed if it did originate). We have a range of theoretically plausible explanations, including you will note, that there is a god that created the universe. But that is just one of many theoretically plausible explanations, with many others not requiring god at all. You then need to look at the evidence to determine which of those theoretically plausible explanations has the greater credibility. And in this regard the god explanation fall down the list as there is no evidence for the existence of god and there are explanations that do not require god that have far greater evidence.
The reality is that it is use who is positing arguments (poor ones) that protect theism - effectively you dismiss any explanation for the origins of the universe that do not require god in order to create a great fabricate gap that you try to fill with god. God of the gaps is bad enough when the gaps are real - god of the gaps when you pretend there are gaps in knowledge which don't exist in order to posit god is deeply disingenuous. Sure we don't know everything about the universe - far from it - but we know far more than you pretend to allow, because to acknowledge the knowledge we have and the sensible non-god-requiring theories for the origins of the universe undermines your faith-based (not evidence-based) belief in god.
-
He just asserts that the Universe is contingent without evidence and then just asserts that the necessary thing - whatever it is - is identical with the Christian god.
He uses the argument from contingency based upon how the status of everything which is observed changes.
I think rather he divides the cosmos into the necessary entity and the contingent. In any case as I keep asking you, what is it about the universe which could be the necessary being because it cannot be the contingent things. I only think Aquinas uses the argument to argue for God and uses other arguments for Christ.
As I have said before ANY necessary entity must be sovereign, and of unitary and continuous substance.
-
No, you mean your assertion is that the Universe we observe is contingent. You haven't made any sound argument for your assertion.
Why? You are just making assertions without justifying them.
If all we observe is measureable by units then we can observe those values change. We know that stars change at least by dint of position, we know that atoms decay. Indeed we are not even sure if constants are constant. Quantum mechanics has a lot to say about the effect of observation in terms of the effects on what is being observed and of course there is entropy which it seems the entire observed universe is subject to.
In any case as I have asked you before what is it about the universe that is not contingent?
-
Not at all - indeed earlier in this thread I was clear that on the basis of knowledge I do not and cannot know whether god does or does not exist. So none of the arguments I am putting forward are atheist arguments at all.
My point is that currently we do not have sufficient knowledge to conclude with confidence that we know how the universe originated (or indeed if it did originate). We have a range of theoretically plausible explanations, including you will note, that there is a god that created the universe. But that is just one of many theoretically plausible explanations, with many others not requiring god at all. You then need to look at the evidence to determine which of those theoretically plausible explanations has the greater credibility. And in this regard the god explanation fall down the list as there is no evidence for the existence of god and there are explanations that do not require god that have far greater evidence.
The reality is that it is use who is positing arguments (poor ones) that protect theism - effectively you dismiss any explanation for the origins of the universe that do not require god in order to create a great fabricate gap that you try to fill with god. God of the gaps is bad enough when the gaps are real - god of the gaps when you pretend there are gaps in knowledge which don't exist in order to posit god is deeply disingenuous. Sure we don't know everything about the universe - far from it - but we know far more than you pretend to allow, because to acknowledge the knowledge we have and the sensible non-god-requiring theories for the origins of the universe undermines your faith-based (not evidence-based) belief in god.
I think the heady days of Krauss and Stenger when they unilaterally changed the meaning of nothing into a something passed very rapidly so the claim that the universe for it's existence does not need or possess a sufficient reason must have lost ground.
So it is not the God of the Gaps but the God of sufficient reason,,,,or ''the missing half on which the other half depends''. Particularly if as you've said the necessary being is fundemental to everything and may be fundamental to actual existence on a moment by moment basis....To be or not to be and all of that.
-
Exactly - in effect Aquinas creates a circular argument without any evidential basis to support his key assertion that everything must have a cause (i.e. contingent) ... err ... except the thing that he want to assert to be most important. It is an incredibly weak argument, and in fact as soon as you allow for something that is not contingent then you have in effect rebutted your basic principle of things needing to have a cause. And if one thing is allowed to be 'causeless' then why not others, many.
So, in effect Aquinas in fact logically disproves his fundamental notion of things needing a cause within his prejudged conclusion - and thereby the whole poorly framed argument comes crashing down.
There is also the uncomfortable fact for Aquinas apologists that he would have had virtually zero understanding of the nature of the universe - likely he (wrongly) considered it be be of the order of thousands of years old. Likely (wrongly) he would have though that the earth lay at the centre of the universe. Likely (wrongly) he would have considered the universe to be a kind of bubble around the earth and he would have had no understanding of the scale and expansion of the universe. So anything he claims about the origins of the universe can be laughed out of court as he didn't understand what the universe is.
That everything is contingent is more likely to be logical nonsense though because the statement courts the next question ''Dependent on what''.
n terms of ''cause'' I prefer ''sufficient reason''.
I get the feeling Jeremy is quite happy with the idea of a necessary entity but wants it to be the universe itself and you aren't and are trying every trick to avoid a necessary entity.
Aquinas understood less of the science but unhappily for atheism science plumped for the study of observing contingent things and leaves the necessary entity in the pervue of the philosophers.
What has the scale of the universe got to do with anything? What about the law of mediocrity which states that everything in the universe is subject to the same laws and conditions?
-
So it is not the God of the Gaps but the God of sufficient reason ...
Nope, because you cannot have it both ways.
If there are credible alternatives to explain the universe, based on our current understanding, that do not require god then you don't have sufficient reason.
If you claim that due to lack of knowledge about the universe there are no credible alternatives to explain the universe then it is god of the gaps.
The reality is, of course, that despite our lack of full knowledge of the universe we have a number of plausible and credible explanations for the universe that do not require god and have evidence to support them. As such your sufficient reason argument fails and you fold back into god-of-the-gaps "we don't know everything, hence god" non-sense.
-
I get the feeling Jeremy is quite happy with the idea of a necessary entity but wants it to be the universe itself and you aren't and are trying every trick to avoid a necessary entity.
Until or unless you are able to provide credible arguments that require necessary entities then we must accept that there may be necessary entities or there may not.
And you use this disingenuous sleight of hand - even if necessary entities are a thing, why should there only be one - surely there could be two, or many - each would sit at the tip of a tree of causation.
-
Aquinas understood less of the science but unhappily for atheism science plumped for the study of observing contingent things and leaves the necessary entity in the pervue of the philosophers.
Gibberish - translation - Aquinas knew virtually nothing about the nature of the universe. Not his fault, of course, he lived in the 13thC, at a time when people simply didn't have the tools to study the universe in the manner we do today, but also within a culture that commonly rejected knowledge that challenged faith positions.
Vlad - you live in a time and a culture which has far, far greater understanding and inquisitive tolerance where religious orthodoxies are far less likely to try to clamp down on the truth, demonstrated by research. So you have no excuse Vlad.
-
What has the scale of the universe got to do with anything?
Everything - if you believe the universe is rather small, with earth at its centre and its longevity closely maps on to the time when humans have been around then it is easy to come to the classic anthropocentric thinking that the universe is all 'something about us', that humans are someone not just important but the most important things and that the universe kind of (literally) revolves around them. Invent an anthropomorphised god (a kind of being with idealised human characteristics and behaviours) and the full gamut of anthropocentric thinking is complete.
Much harder to sustain that kind of anthropocentric non-sense if you recognise that the universe is unimaginably big, unimaginable old, the earth is not at its centre and frankly humans are a completely irrelevant blink of an eye in cosmic terms.
-
Gibberish - translation - Aquinas knew virtually nothing about the nature of the universe. Not his fault, of course, he lived in the 13thC, at a time when people simply didn't have the tools to study the universe in the manner we do today, but also within a culture that commonly rejected knowledge that challenged faith positions.
Vlad - you live in a time and a culture which has far, far greater understanding and inquisitive tolerance where religious orthodoxies are far less likely to try to clamp down on the truth, demonstrated by research. So you have no excuse Vlad.
He applied observation to establish change as a principle and by extension contingency and contingent things. That has not ceased and science, in which sufficient reason forms a major part, still observes to discover reasons so any discoveries have been within the framework of empirical observation like Aquinas.
The argument from contingency is a bottom up idea in which the notion of the necessary being coming at the end of a bottom up heirarchy, so much of what you say about Aquinas is misplaced.
So now we come to someone with someone with scientific credentials who is prepared, without warrant as far as I can see, who is prepared to sacrifice the principle of sufficient reason at a certain point. Until you justify that thinking the only obvious reason is that you are protecting atheism at the expense of one of the principles of science.
-
Until or unless you are able to provide credible arguments that require necessary entities then we must accept that there may be necessary entities or there may not.
And you use this disingenuous sleight of hand - even if necessary entities are a thing, why should there only be one - surely there could be two, or many - each would sit at the tip of a tree of causation.
There can only be one necessary entity apart from abstract ones. That you don't understand this means that you are not au fait with the argument or the terms of the argument. To even contemplate no necessary entity is to believe that the universe is contingent and therefore one may ask ''contingent on what''.
The existence of the universe provides sufficient reason for the necessary entity for the universe.
Contingency without necessity is absurd.
There can only be one because two would be contingent on each other in terms of status. Only one is necessary and there would then be the question, why two, or three, What wider conditions are those entities subject to? Whatever caused there to be more than one surely sits at the tip of causation.
Also more than one defies Occam's razor.
-
The argument from contingency is a bottom up idea in which the notion of the necessary being coming at the end of a bottom up heirarchy ...
Oh dear, you really aren't helping yourself are you. A 'bottom-up' hierarchy - presumable one with the simplest things at the 'bottom' and the most complex at the 'top' where your self-defined necessary entity must lie. So very 'nothing can exist unless designed by a designer', so self defeating I would have thought. If you really want necessity (I'm not convinced of the argument) then surely it would be the other way around. So the something near to necessity might be atoms, but they'd be contingent on sub-atomic entities etc. So the necessity would be the simplest thing as anything more complex is merely a particular rearrangement of those simplest elements.
But if you are anthropocentric you can't get over the notion that humans must be at the top of the heap.
-
There can only be one necessary entity ...
Only if your definition of a necessary entity allows for only one, which would be biasing.
I see no reason why there cannot be more than one necessary entity - indeed in hierarchies there are countless things which are both necessary for some things but also contingent on other things.
If you are arguing that there must be entities that are necessary but not contingent, firstly good luck with that, but also if true then why should there only be one. All it would require is for those entities to be independent and non-interacting. If so then you could have as many as you'd like, albeit you'd first have to argue convincingly that something can be necessary but not contingent in the first place.
-
He applied observation to establish change as a principle and by extension contingency and contingent things. That has not ceased and science, in which sufficient reason forms a major part, still observes to discover reasons so any discoveries have been within the framework of empirical observation like Aquinas.
Just because someone uses observation doesn't mean their explanation for that observation is correct. In the past people observed the horizon and concluded that this was the edge of the world - people observed the traverse of sun and planets across the sky and concluded that the sun and planets went around the earth. They were wrong.
And your further problem is you throw around sufficient reason and argument from contingency as if these are accepted and proven principles - news for you Vlad, they aren't. Why, because they are based on poor logic, muddled thinking and are achingly transparent as arguments used in an attempt to justify a pre-determined faith-based view. Aquinas' original formulation of the argument from contingency is about as credible as going 'ta, ra ... god'.
-
Also more than one defies Occam's razor.
Actually Occam would lead to a conclusion that there are no necessary entities as to posit one, unless proven to be necessary (rather than asserted to be) makes the argument more complex.
And in fact there are plenty of examples where Occam might be comfortable with zero, may be happy with many, but requiring one and one only provides the most complex conclusion as you need to justify why two, or three, or zero is impossible.
-
... who is prepared to sacrifice the principle of sufficient reason at a certain point. Until you justify that thinking ...
The principle of sufficient reason is not proven - therefore if you assert its fundamental importance (as you appear to do Vlad) then the onus is on you to justify why you are right. Something you are struggling greatly to do. You seem to posit sufficient reason as if is is proven and universally accepted to be true - it isn't.
-
Actually Occam would lead to a conclusion that there are no necessary entities as to posit one, unless proven to be necessary (rather than asserted to be) makes the argument more complex.
Apart from pitting one scholastic philosopher against another. I'm afraid that if the universe is the necessary entity we need to identify what it is about the universe which is necessary for the er,
contingent things. There is also the warning about multiplying entities beyond necessity so Occam assumes necessityAnd in fact there are plenty of examples where Occam might be comfortable with zero, may be happy with many, but requiring one and one only provides the most complex conclusion as you need to justify why two, or three, or zero is impossible.
Occam's razor assumes necessity Davey, it doesn't eliminate it. What it seeks to eliminate is entity beyond necessity. This rather puts the mockers on an infinite regress.
-
Occam's razor assumes necessity Davey, it doesn't eliminate it. What it seeks to eliminate is entity beyond necessity. This rather puts the mockers on an infinite regress.
Occam suggests that the explanation for something that requires the fewest required steps is preferred. Note that the requirement in Occam isn't the same as necessity in the argument from contingency.
But if something can be explained in a manner that can have one necessary entity, or two, or none that will be preferred to an explanation that requires a further essential step to justify why one, and only one, necessary entity must be present.
-
Apart from pitting one scholastic philosopher against another. I'm afraid that if the universe is the necessary entity we need to identify what it is about the universe which is necessary for the er, contingent things.
But I'm not arguing that the universe is a necessary entity - indeed I'm not arguing that there must be necessary entities, let alone that there must be one, and only one. So I don't see why I am required to justify something that I've never claims.
You one the other hand claim that there must be one, and only one, necessary entity - that there cannot be none, nor more than one. So you need to justify that claim, which you have patently failed to do. Further you add 2+2 and conclude 3million but claiming that this one and only necessary entity (that you've failed to justify is even required) must be god, which you cannot even provide evidence for its existence let alone that it is a necessary entity, even less that it is the one and only necessary entity.
And by the way I suspect claiming the universe to be a necessary entity seems to be getting things the wrong way around - surely the universe is merely the sum of its constituent parts, so if there are any necessary entities about they'd be the most fundamental components of the universe that are required for the universe to exist.
-
Occam suggests that the explanation for something that requires the fewest required steps is preferred. Note that the requirement in Occam isn't the same as necessity in the argument from contingency.
Not only does it assume necessity but it mentions it. ''Do not multiply entities beyond necessity....absolutely no dismissal of necessity here.
-
And by the way I suspect claiming the universe to be a necessary entity seems to be getting things the wrong way around - surely the universe is merely the sum of its constituent parts, so if there are any necessary entities about they'd be the most fundamental components of the universe that are required for the universe to exist.
Well thank you for providing a definition of the universe. I agree with your thesis that the necessary entity is the most fundamental component required for the universe to exist but I think we have to go further. That is why I explained why there can only be one ultimate at the tip of causation and tip of sufficient reason.
-
Not only does it assume necessity but it mentions it. ''Do not multiply entities beyond necessity....absolutely no dismissal of necessity here.
Not the same type of necessity as you are claiming in your arguments - Occam doesn't consider something that is necessary to not be contingent, merely that it is required for that explanation. Effectively the explanation with the fewest assumption is preferred.
But if you think that Occam's use of necessary is the same as yours (I actually don't think you do) then you really have shot yourself in the foot. You think that there must be one necessary entity and one alone. Occam is happy with one, two or two thousands necessary elements - all Occam wants is the fewest.
So back to your Occam justifies just one and only one necessary entity, let's try an example.
Imagine you hear the sound of an owl in a tree - which of the following fits Occam best:
1. I assume there is an owl in that tree.
2. I assume that there is one and only one owl in the tree
Occam plumps for the first - there could be loads of owls, some might be asleep, you might be hearing hooting from more than one owl. To limit the number of owls to one and only one falls foul of Occam as it adds an additional, unnecessary step.
-
Not the same type of necessity as you are claiming in your arguments - Occam doesn't consider something that is necessary to not be contingent, merely that it is required for that explanation. Effectively the explanation with the fewest assumption is preferred.
But if you think that Occam's use of necessary is the same as yours (I actually don't think you do) then you really have shot yourself in the foot. You think that there must be one necessary entity and one alone. Occam is happy with one, two or two thousands necessary elements - all Occam wants is the fewest.
So back to your Occam justifies just one and only one necessary entity, let's try an example.
Imagine you hear the sound of an owl in a tree - which of the following fits Occam best:
1. I assume there is an owl in that tree.
2. I assume that there is one and only one owl in the tree
Occam plumps for the first - there could be loads of owls, some might be asleep, you might be hearing hooting from more than one owl. To limit the number of owls to one and only one falls foul of Occam as it adds an additional, unnecessary step.
If you think that the sum total of it's components constitutes the universe then some will be contingent and at least one will be the necessary entity without which the contingent part of the universe would not exist. Thus the necessary being must be at the tip of causation and not ''The universe'' as such.
-
... and at least one will be the necessary entity without which the contingent part of the universe would not exist.
Glad to see we are making progress and you are now accepting that there might be more than one necessary entity. Just need you to accept that there may be no necessary entities and that we make have a network of entities that are both necessary in some contexts and contingent in others and that there may be no entity (single or more than one) that isn't contingent.
-
Glad to see we are making progress and you are now accepting that there might be more than one necessary entity. Just need you to accept that there may be no necessary entities and that we make have a network of entities that are both necessary in some contexts and contingent in others and that there may be no entity (single or more than one) that isn't contingent.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to backslide on that one.
If there were more than one then the issue is ''what is it which determines there should be more than one''. So there cannot be more than one since multiple entities then need to be explained by something external. This makes them contingent.
-
Glad to see we are making progress and you are now accepting that there might be more than one necessary entity. Just need you to accept that there may be no necessary entities and that we make have a network of entities that are both necessary in some contexts and contingent in others and that there may be no entity (single or more than one) that isn't contingent.
But you are avoiding the notion of sufficient reason. On what warrant?
There cannot be an absence of a necessary entity for the universe. If you are logically arguing that some things are necessary for other things you are accepting that where there is a contingent there is a necessary. So using your own logic if there is a universe and it is contingent...what is necessary for it? I'll let you digest that.
-
So there cannot be more than one since multiple entities then need to be explained by something external. This makes them contingent.
Not if they are necessary and not contingent - your argument applies just as much to a single claimed necessary entity - the only reason it is asserted to be necessary is that someone has claimed that it isn't contingent on something else. And if this applies to one entity then it can apply to many. The big leap is from zero to one, not from one to two or many.
-
But you are avoiding the notion of sufficient reason. On what warrant?
Because it is non-sense. My major issue with 'sufficient reason' is it is framed in the language of intent, or conscious action, of purpose. How I have no issue with the fundamental argument of mechanistic cause and effect, in other words mechanistically if there is an effect there must be a mechanistic cause. That is basic physics. But none of this requires there to be intent, conscious action or purpose - it is just a mechanistic relationship.
As soon as you start opining on 'reason', on 'intent', on 'purpose' you slide (of course deliberately) into the notion of an intender, a reasoning being, a designer etc. That is, of course, total non-sense. Virtually all of the cause/effect relationships we see in the universe are purely mechanistic with absolutely no purpose or intent behind them. There are a tiny number of such relationships that to have intent, associated with the higher consciousness of human life and other similar species, but even these are underpinned by purely mechanistic means.
So let's not talk of sufficient reason as it is an obviously biased notion based on some prejudged, but unevidenced, view that there is a creator. Nope let's talk of sufficient mechanistic evidence to support understanding of the relationships within the universe.
-
Because it is non-sense. My major issue with 'sufficient reason' is it is framed in the language of intent, or conscious action, of purpose. How I have no issue with the fundamental argument of mechanistic cause and effect, in other words mechanistically if there is an effect there must be a mechanistic cause. That is basic physics. But none of this requires there to be intent, conscious action or purpose - it is just a mechanistic relationship.
As soon as you start opining on 'reason', on 'intent', on 'purpose' you slide (of course deliberately) into the notion of an intender, a reasoning being, a designer etc. That is, of course, total non-sense. Virtually all of the cause/effect relationships we see in the universe are purely mechanistic with absolutely no purpose or intent behind them. There are a tiny number of such relationships that to have intent, associated with the higher consciousness of human life and other similar species, but even these are underpinned by purely mechanistic means.
So let's not talk of sufficient reason as it is an obviously biased notion based on some prejudged, but unevidenced, view that there is a creator. Nope let's talk of sufficient mechanistic evidence to support understanding of the relationships within the universe.
We probably agree on those but that line is non sequitur to whether the universe is contingent or necessary. I'm afraid all your arguments so far have been on the grounds of sufficient reason and as someone has pointed out arguments against sufficient reason invariably appeal to the principle of sufficient reason. Sufficient mechanistic evidence can provide sufficient reason for certain proposition it's true.
What you are suggesting is against the spirit of this board which is about philosophy.
-
He uses the argument from contingency based upon how the status of everything which is observed changes.
But he was unable to observe everything, so he has no basis to suggest that the Universe itself is contingent.
I think rather he divides the cosmos into the necessary entity and the contingent.
But he provides no reasoning for why everything in the cosmos - the Universe in particular - is contingent. Just saying something g is contingent doesn't make it so.
In any case as I keep asking you, what is it about the universe which could be the necessary being because it cannot be the contingent things.
My answer would be probably the Universe itself. I don't know for sure but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have failed to eliminate the Universe as being necessary. Until you do that, we have at least one alternative to God as the necessary entity do your attempt to prove God fails.
As I have said before ANY necessary entity must be sovereign, and of unitary and continuous substance.
Why?
-
I get the feeling Jeremy is quite happy with the idea of a necessary entity but wants it to be the universe itself and you aren't and are trying every trick to avoid a necessary entity.
I don't want the necessary entity to be the Universe. I'm just pointing out that you haven't excluded the possibility that it could be the Universe.
I think that, at some level, there must be something that "just is". Whether it's the Universe, God, an infinite sequence of Universes or something else, I don't know and neither do you and neither did Thomas Aquinas.
-
We probably agree on those but that line is non sequitur to whether the universe is contingent or necessary.
Not really, because I'm not coming down on either side in the universe is contingent or necessary debate. It might be either ... actually it might be both!
It is you who has made definitive claims - I believe:
1. That there must be necessary entities.
2. That there can be only one necessary entity
3. That single necessary entity is god.
As you are making those claims it is for you to justify them.
For the record, it is plausible that you are correct (I am agnostic on knowledge of whether god exists remember), but there are many other plausible suggestions which I am not rejecting. I am keeping my options option on the basis that we simply don't know enough. You, on the other hand, have closed down all other option that a simple one, and that is one that you have no evidence to support, and indeed has rather less evidence in its favour that many others that are supported by cosmological evidence.
-
Everything. "The world is all that is the case."