Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Steve H]

Dear old Hillside, somebody abandons him because of his invincible ignorance and he thinks he's won.

Dear old Walt, patronising other people within an inch of their lives when he himself is hopelessly confused, and doesn't even know how to use apostrophes correctly.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure where we(you) are with this.
It is an invalid question, it might be an invalid question or it's a question that has been answered I.e. "there isn't nothing because there is a necessary being". Which is it?

It's that I don't think it's been shown to be valid. That's covered in my replies to Steve on this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dear old Hillside, somebody abandons him because of his invincible ignorance and he thinks he's won.

If you want to accuse someone of ignorance, then you need to demonstrate that there’s something they’re ignorant of. The only contender for that here is a justifying argument for your assertion that the fact of the universe being made of parts means it must also be contingent on something other than the sum of those parts.

I’ve asked you multiple times for that argument (as have others) and you’ve failed to provide it. What then is it that you’re accusing me of being ignorant about?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's that I don't think it's been shown to be valid. That's covered in my replies to Steve on this.

Is that might be invalid or invalid until shown to be valid or what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've also by the way asked you why you won't provide an argument to justify your unargued "therefore" assertion but, predictably, it seems you don't want to or can't tell us that either.

Oh well– 'twas ever thus with you I guess.   

[Nearly Sane]

Is that might be invalid or invalid until shown to be valid or what?

If the claim is that it is a valid question, then you need to show that it is valid. Again, I've covered this in my replies to Steve on this in some detail and it would appear that you haven't read them, so please do, and get back if you are still unclear about my position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another kind of division.
But they are not each other (don't leave out the lines round the perimeter of Steve's diagram) - hence God is divisible

Certainly not. The hand break is best sent to A&E.

And Jesus is not identical with God because there are two other persons involved as well.

So you would say that molten Gold is not identical with gold because there is solid gold and gold vapour then.

Also if Jesus is not identical with God and the Father is not identical with God and the spirit is not identical with God then what is God?......of course christianity disagrees with you.
.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure an answer then invalidates a question. Where one of the two or both alternatives is clearly wrong then it might be invalid question.

I did suggest why existence rather than non existence. Since we know both these alternatives to be a thing and even why physics rather than not physics. Given the existence of contingent things....and the contingent nature of that existence.

eh?

[Stranger]

So you would say that molten Gold is not identical with gold because there is solid gold and gold vapour then.

Also if Jesus is not identical with God and the Father is not identical with God and the spirit is not identical with God then what is God?......of course christianity disagrees with you.

And the comedy continues. Having bravely run away from trying to defend your claim that the universe depends on anything else, we now go back to your special pleading about a composite, three-part God.

Remember this:

If the universe has parts it is contingent
Since we can ask why those parts and why that arrangement.

So why a father, son, and holy spook, rather than other things, just one, or two, or four, or ten thousand, for that matter....?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the comedy continues. Having bravely run away from trying to defend your claim that the universe depends on anything else, we now go back to your special pleading about a composite, three-part God.

Remember this:
So why a father, son, and holy spook, rather than other things, just one, or two, or four, or ten thousand, for that matter....?

God transcendent, God incarnate and God immanent.

Doesn’t quite work with Car handbreak, Car hubcap, Car engine.

Of course transcendence etc not measurable and not specially specifically available at Halfords.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course transcendence etc not measurable and not specially specifically available at Halfords.

And nor is it distinguishable by any method you can propose from "it's magic innit?" bullshit.

So anyway... still no progress on you finally providing a justifying argument for your unqualified assertion "the universe is the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than its parts"?

Ooh, here's a thought - maybe your justification for that unargued "therefore" is "because magic" too!

Am I right?   

[Stranger]

God transcendent, God incarnate and God immanent.

Still running away. This doesn't stop me asking the questions that you said made something contingent. You cannot support the universe being contingent and you cannot defend your God against the very 'arguments' you use for the universe.

It's all a bit of a shitshow,  isn't it?

Doesn’t quite work with Car handbreak, Car hubcap, Car engine.

Of course transcendence etc not measurable and not specially specifically available at Halfords.

And, of course, the comparison doesn't work for the universe and its parts either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And nor is it distinguishable by any method you can propose from "it's magic innit?" bullshit.

So anyway... still no progress on you finally providing a justifying argument for your unqualified assertion "the universe is the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than its parts"?

Ooh, here's a thought - maybe your justification for that unargued "therefore" is "because magic" too!

Am I right?

Magic, Hillside, is a contingent thing contingent on itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still running away. This doesn't stop me asking the questions that you said made something contingent. You cannot support the universe being contingent and you cannot defend your God against the very 'arguments' you use for the universe.

It's all a bit of a shitshow,  isn't it?

And, of course, the comparison doesn't work for the universe and its parts either.

If you say the universe is the sum of parts it is a contingent thing end of.

If you say it's necessity emerges from the sum of the things in it that is an absurdity and contradicts some of your arguments on consciousness IMV

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Magic, Hillside, is a contingent thing contingent on itself.

No, “magic” is the meaningless place where you always end up once your various Poundland philosophies for “god” – argument from contingency, “objective” morality, “I have special discernment powers that you saps lack” etc – have run out of road and collapsed under the weight of their own stupidities.

By all means if you’re capable of it tell us finally how you’d justify the “therefore” of “the universe is contingent on its parts, therefore it’s also contingent on something other than its parts” but as it seems unlikely you ever will (or can), once again you’re dead in the water on this one.

Thanks for playing though.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you say the universe is the sum of parts it is a contingent thing end of.

Yes, to the extent that it consists of its parts then it’s “contingent” on those parts. Now then, how do you propose to jump from that to “and also therefore it’s contingent on something other than its parts”?

It’s ok, we can wait…

If you say it's necessity emerges from the sum of the things in it that is an absurdity and contradicts some of your arguments on consciousness IMV

He doesn’t. What he does say is that you made an assertion that the universe cannot be necessary, but you won't or can't justify that claim with an argument. Try to remember this. 

[Stranger]

If you say the universe is the sum of parts it is a contingent thing end of.

Stamping your little foot and repeating yourself is not an argument. Make your case without hiding behind the word 'contingent'.

Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, “magic” is the vacuous claim you always end with once your various Poundland philosophies for “god” – argument from contingency, “objective” morality, “I have special discernment powers that you saps lack” etc – have run out of road and collapsed under the weight of their own stupidities.

By all means of you’re capable of it tell us finally how you’d justify the “therefore” of “the universe is contingent on its parts, therefore it’s also contingent on something other than its parts” but as it seems unlikely you ever will (or can), once again you’re dead in the water on this one.

Thanks for playing though.     

Have you actually defined what you mean by Universe.

Also absurd are circular hierarchies of looped causation which inevitably lead to the absurdity of self contingency.

[Stranger]

Have you actually defined what you mean by Universe.

Also absurd are circular hierarchies of looped causation which inevitably lead to the absurdity of self contingency.

Run Vald, run!!!

When did you become confused about what the universe is? How do you know it's 'contingent' if you don't know what it is?

Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Have you actually defined what you mean by Universe.

Have you actually defined what you mean by "leprechauns"? If you want to make an unargued assertion about "the universe" (ie, that it cannot be "necessary") and you think the meaning of that term is unclear then it's your job to tell us what you mean by it, not mine. All I have to do it to point out that – so far at least – you've utterly failed to justify your claim about that universe with an argument. 

Also absurd are circular hierarchies of looped causation which inevitably lead to the absurdity of self contingency.

Unless you special plead an "it's magic innit?" god conjecture right? You tell us that you think "the universe" cannot be necessary on the ludicrous ground "universe contingent on its parts = therefore universe contingent on something other than its parts". You can keep ducking and diving all you like but you still have a gaping hole where the justifying argument for your claim should be. 

Try to remember this too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Have you actually defined what you mean by "leprechauns"? If you want to make an unargued assertion about "the universe" (ie, that it cannot be "necessary") and you think the meaning of that term is unclear then it's your job to tell us what you mean by it, not mine. All I have to do it to point out that – so far at least – you've utterly failed to justify your claim about that universe with an argument. 

Unless you special plead an "it's magic innit?" god conjecture right? You tell us that you think "the universe" cannot be necessary on the ludicrous ground "universe contingent on its parts = therefore universe contingent on something other than its parts". You can keep ducking and diving all you like but you still have a gaping hole where the justifying argument for your claim should be. 

Try to remember this too.

I'm sorry Hillside but nothing which is contingent can be necessary..

JeremyP realises this since he wants to argue the contingency of God.

[Stranger]

I'm sorry Hillside but nothing which is contingent can be necessary..

Isn't it time to stop running away yet? "It's contingent because it has parts and contingent things always depend on something external" is a blatant non sequitur.

Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?

JeremyP realises this since he wants to argue the contingency of God.

I think he's probably just having fun pointing out your inconsistency, and he's right. Your God is subject the exactly the same questions that you claimed made something contingent.

Your 'argument' is a logical clusterfuck.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't it time to stop running away yet? "It's contingent because it has parts and contingent things always depend on something external" is a blatant non sequitur.

Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?

I think he's probably just having fun pointing out your inconsistency, and he's right. Your God is subject the exactly the same questions that you claimed made something contingent.

Your 'argument' is a logical clusterfuck.

No running Stranger, if it's contingent it's not necessary.
The sum of something is a resultant ...and therefore a contingent. If it is contingent we have to ask "what on"? Them's the breaks.

Imo you are just introducing absurdities. If a group of contingent things could become necessary(absurd)...how large would it have to be? Then there is the question "If a huge collection of contingencies results in a necessary entity(absurd)
Why couldn't one contingent be necessary(absurd).

These aren't MY PROBLEMS since they arise from your objections.

[Stranger]

No running Stranger, if it's contingent it's not necessary.
The sum of something is a resultant ...and therefore a contingent. If it is contingent we have to ask "what on"? Them's the breaks.

Still running away and playing with words. How did you get from having parts (like your God) to 'resultant'? Result of what? The universe is a four-dimensional object. It can't be a 'result'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still running away and playing with words. How did you get from having parts (like your God) to 'resultant'? Result of what? The universe is a four-dimensional object. It can't be a 'result'.

Block time? Why that block and not another?  Time an illusion? What is it that could possibly illuded? Can something that is scanning through the block actually be part of it? As far as I can see a block universe is as immune from being contingent.as any other.

It's how theologians have thought God has perceived the Universe......for centuries.