Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I suppose the basic premise is nothing comes from nothing so a something must exist and if it exists nothing either brought it into being or prevented itso it must always exist on it's own account.

Again, you are describing a brute fact, not telling us how anything can be its own reason for existing, or why it had to be the way it is. It could also apply simply to the whole space-time, as I said before. You then started putting lots of other, totally unargued, conditions onto it.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, how convenient

Maybe you should think about quite how stupid and unpleasant that comment is.

You owe Gordon an apology

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, you are describing a brute fact, not telling us how anything can be its own reason for existing, or why it had to be the way it is. It could also apply simply to the whole space-time, as I said before. You then started putting lots of other, totally unargued, conditions onto it.

Bollocks. The necessary entity has a sufficient explanation which I've given. Your appeal is an insistence on everything having an external cause. So once again there are reasons why the necessary entity is a thing but no Cause or external reasons for it's existence.

It's not my place to explain why something is a brute fact and not a necessary entity it's yours since that's your contention.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe you should think about quite how stupid and unpleasant that comment is.

You owe Gordon an apology

Gordon you have my fullest apology.q

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, Vlad: it wasn't an easy or a cheap (for me) transition away from the old service that is being withdrawn.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

No I hadn't at the time I  posted. I had know idea that the forum wasn't having serious problems. I was unaware of the migration

[Stranger]

Bollocks. The necessary entity has a sufficient explanation which I've given.

No, you did not. You don't seem to understand the difference between justifying and explaining the logic of a 'necessary entity' and just "well it must be necessary 'cos I can't think of anything else, innit".

Your appeal is an insistence on everything having an external cause.

I didn't insist on that at all, I just asked you to explain the logic of something being its own reason for existing, rather than existing for no reason. Something you've never once addressed. You've also never explained why it had to exist, rather than just happened to exist. It's like you can't see the problems.

So once again there are reasons why the necessary entity is a thing but no Cause or external reasons for it's existence.

What reasons? Why did it have to exist? Why couldn't it have been something different?

It's not my place to explain why something is a brute fact and not a necessary entity it's yours since that's your contention.

That wasn't my contention. My contention was that what you described was no different from a description of a brute fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you did not. You don't seem to understand the difference between justifying and explaining the logic of a 'necessary entity' and just "well it must be necessary 'cos I can't think of anything else, innit".

I didn't insist on that at all, I just asked you to explain the logic of something being its own reason for existing, rather than existing for no reason. Something you've never once addressed. You've also never explained why it had to exist, rather than just happened to exist. It's like you can't see the problems.

What reasons? Why did it have to exist? Why couldn't it have been something different?

That wasn't my contention. My contention was that what you described was no different from a description of a brute fact.

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

Secondly then I have to ask myself whether you cannot handle brute fact or necessity. or both
The only 'go on ' I have is Russell's  " The universe just is and there's an end to it. 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.

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

Not many people on this forum are since they either think the universe could be uncaused, or necessary or brute fact or all three. I also seem to recall you saying space time was uncaused.

I'm entitled to ask you then "What is your position in these matters now?" because you appear to be gaslighting IMHO.

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

[Gordon]

Vlad

Apology accepted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Apology accepted.

Humble thanks

[Stranger]

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.

[Steve H]

I suppose the basic premise is nothing comes from nothing so a something must exist and if it exists nothing either brought it into being or prevented itso it must always exist on it's own account.

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..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Aaahhh ❤️ Vlad and Gordon are now beshtest Buddies, sweet

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Sassy]

Those of you who have been paying attention will know that following the migration we have lost some posts.

So, I was just wondering, had anyone said here that 'God' had been found, or does the search go on?

Hi Gordon,

When you know the answer to that question you might already have come to know God.
I came here tonight and was met with the above, whilst reading the replies suddenly lead to other posts but found my way back,
It is not the easiest of searches because I believe it starts with the heart and true search wanting to believe.

Now think about yourself. In life you might not want God to be real. Might, not really search so you don't have to accept these facts or not.
Just try to think do you want the truth or do you want to remain ignorant to the possibilities that it could be the worst decision you make?


I am sorry about the trouble you are having with the site. is there anywhere I could made a donation to help you financially after that double payments?
Let me know and I can see what I can do.
Doesn't seem fair you should handle all the cost's.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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.

The trouble there though is the question why it is that way when another configuration is conceivable.

Does what you're saying stop space time being necessary because it could be no other way. I would say no .So yes you are arguing for necessity and against it IMHO, because you are saying space time accounts for contingency.

Coming to something rather than nothing, Does nothing exist? or better still does non existence exist? And if it was a choice between nothing and something, something had to actualize that choice, since nothing is incapable of either choosing or actualisation or effecting that decision.
Therefore we have an unactualized actualized, and that which has been actualized.

In terms of no entities being contingent, I'm not sure who believes that and operates on it and would certainly say the burden of proof is on someone who suggests it.

The block universe is of course something like philosophers have described God's view of the universe for centuries.

I suppose you are going to say the perception of cause and effect is yet another "Illusion".

[Stranger]

When you know the answer to that question you might already have come to know God.
I came here tonight and was met with the above, whilst reading the replies suddenly lead to other posts but found my way back,
It is not the easiest of searches because I believe it starts with the heart and true search wanting to believe.

Now think about yourself. In life you might not want God to be real. Might, not really search so you don't have to accept these facts or not.
Just try to think do you want the truth or do you want to remain ignorant to the possibilities that it could be the worst decision you make?

I find it literally hilarious when religionists say things like this. I've done my fair share of searching in my life and come to a few conclusions that I later saw were clearly false. That's why I've now been an atheist for many decades.

When doing a genuine search for truth, the last thing you should do is start with the conclusion you want. That's why "Searching for God" is a very misguided thing to do if you want to get as close to the truth as we can.

[torridon]

Hi Gordon,

When you know the answer to that question you might already have come to know God.
I came here tonight and was met with the above, whilst reading the replies suddenly lead to other posts but found my way back,
It is not the easiest of searches because I believe it starts with the heart and true search wanting to believe.

If you start from a position of 'wanting to believe', then you are merely indulging your confirmation bias, not being a true student of life.

[Stranger]

The trouble there though is the question why it is that way when another configuration is conceivable.

It's rather funny that you can see the very same problem with what I've said that I've trying to get over to you. Nothing you've said about a 'necessary entity' answers this question.

Think about it.

Does what you're saying stop space time being necessary because it could be no other way. I would say no .So yes you are arguing for necessity and against it IMHO, because you are saying space time accounts for contingency.

Why, oh why do you continually look at everything I say as an argument for or against something? I specifically said "I'm not arguing that this is the case, it's just logically possible."

The universe (space-time) might 'just be'. That's just a logical possibility, given what we know at the moment. I care not one jot about 'necessity' because I can't see how it can possibly make logical sense and you seem totally unable to explain how it could. To be fair, I've never found anybody else who can either.

I'm open to being persuaded, but I cannot see how it makes sense and nobody I've discussed it with yet seems able to explain it logically.

Coming to something rather than nothing, Does nothing exist? or better still does non existence exist? And if it was a choice between nothing and something, something had to actualize that choice, since nothing is incapable of either choosing or actualisation or effecting that decision.
Therefore we have an unactualized actualized, and that which has been actualized.

Is this load of theobabble supposed to mean something?

In terms of no entities being contingent, I'm not sure who believes that and operates on it and would certainly say the burden of proof is on someone who suggests it.

I think it's ambiguous, because if the whole universe is a 'block' that just is, then nothing in it could not exist.

Again, I regard the argument from contingency to be total bollocks.

[Gordon]

I am sorry about the trouble you are having with the site. is there anywhere I could made a donation to help you financially after that double payments?
Let me know and I can see what I can do.
Doesn't seem fair you should handle all the cost's.

 

Thank you Sassy, but no: it is easier and more practical to have all this done by just one person. The extra costs and technical issues of the last couple of months were a one-off: the old service is now defunct, so we're back to a single service.

Fortunately, as dictators go, I'm a benign one 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's rather funny that you can see the very same problem with what I've said that I've trying to get over to you. Nothing you've said about a 'necessary entity' answers this question.

Think about it.

Why, oh why do you continually look at everything I say as an argument for or against something? I specifically said "I'm not arguing that this is the case, it's just logically possible."

The universe (space-time) might 'just be'. That's just a logical possibility, given what we know at the moment. I care not one jot about 'necessity' because I can't see how it can possibly make logical sense and you seem totally unable to explain how it could. To be fair, I've never found anybody else who can either.

I'm open to being persuaded, but I cannot see how it makes sense and nobody I've discussed it with yet seems able to explain it logically.

Is this load of theobabble supposed to mean something?

I think it's ambiguous, because if the whole universe is a 'block' that just is, then nothing in it could not exist.

Again, I regard the argument from contingency to be total bollocks.

Does that piece of "theobabble" mean anything?
Putting aside God isn't mentioned, yes, it does...as does your apparent incomprehension of it.

[Stranger]

Does that piece of "theobabble" mean anything?
Putting aside God isn't mentioned, yes, it does...as does your apparent incomprehension of it.

Yes 'theobabble' is the direct equivalent of technobabble, oft used in science fiction: "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!"

As for God, this sort of talk actualising and an actualiser, is straight from Feser's absurd 'arguments, who can't even be arsed to update his 'argument' to modern physics.

Apart from your clumsy phrasing, in order to read anything at all into it, one needs to make so many unjustified assumptions as to make the whole thing ridiculous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes 'theobabble' is the direct equivalent of technobabble, oft used in science fiction: "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!"

As for God, this sort of talk actualising and an actualiser, is straight from Feser's absurd 'arguments, who can't even be arsed to update his 'argument' to modern physics.

Apart from your clumsy phrasing, in order to read anything at all into it, one needs to make so many unjustified assumptions as to make the whole thing ridiculous.

Which bit of modern physics should he be updating to.
I ask this since Sean M.Carroll seems to take his cue from Russell, Hume and Kant.