Religion and Ethics Forum

Not really, Vlad: it wasn't an easy or a cheap (for me) transition away from the old service that is being withdrawn.

It is unfortunate that we lost some data due to a technical error regarding security certificates (I take it you have read the thread on this).

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22578.msg904364#new

Many thanks, Gordon, for your diligence, which I have only just taken note of today.

You seem to be both arguing for and against necessity in the same post.

Christ on a bike! How many more times? I'm not arguing for anything. I'm not the one making claims here, that would be you. I'm just pointing out that you're about 30,000 light-years away from making a case for a necessary entity.

If the Universe or space time is the necessary entity/ brute fact, how do you account for contingent things? Or contingency?

Everything would be contingent on the universe/space-time. Alternatively, since we have the B-theory of time, you could say that nothing's contingent as the universe, everything in it, and all of its history, just is.

To be clear: I'm not arguing that this is the case, it's just logically possible.

All you've actually said is that something exists that depends on nothing else. That's not explaining the logic of a necessary entity which would have to be its own reason, couldn't have failed to exits and couldn't have been different.

Without those explanations, we just have something that 'just is'.

This is just more of your reasoning-free "I can't think of anything else, so it must be necessary, innit".

As I'm sure I've told you many times before, I have no idea at all why stuff exists. It's you who are trying, and failing, to make the case for a 'necessary entity'.

Indeed. There is no obvious reason why it needs a cause. SO YOU

I really don't see why you're so confused. I said nothing about external causes, but a 'necessary entity' is supposed to be its own reason for existing and I'm trying to get you to explain how that works logically and how we can tell the difference between that and having no reason for its existence. Something you clearly can't do.

You seem to be both arguing for and against necessity in the same post.

If the Universe or space time is the necessary entity/ brute fact, how do you account for contingent things? Or contingency?

But. as I've pointed out before, that thing need be no more than a fundamental scientific law. At any rate, it's a long way short of the loving  father God of the Bible..

Is your "fundamental scientific law" though, an abstract necessity or one that can actually bring things into existence?

Yes and it's your understanding of what a brute fact is.

All you've actually said is that something exists that depends on nothing else. That's not explaining the logic of a necessary entity which would have to be its own reason, couldn't have failed to exits and couldn't have been different.

Without those explanations, we just have something that 'just is'.

Where as I am saying the necessary entity exist because contingency has to be accounted for and given that there is nothing that causes it to be or not to be. I think the difference between that in Russell should be obvious.

This is just more of your reasoning-free "I can't think of anything else, so it must be necessary, innit".

Thirdly, Are you actually against brute fact or necessary entities.

As I'm sure I've told you many times before, I have no idea at all why stuff exists. It's you who are trying, and failing, to make the case for a 'necessary entity'.

I also seem to recall you saying space time was uncaused.

Indeed. There is no obvious reason why it needs a cause.

Your question why does it have to exist seems to presume everything must have an external reason and yet you said space time needn't have a cause as I recall

I really don't see why you're so confused. I said nothing about external causes, but a 'necessary entity' is supposed to be its own reason for existing and I'm trying to get you to explain how that works logically and how we can tell the difference between that and having no reason for its existence. Something you clearly can't do.