From Necessary Entity to Christian God.

[Stranger]

Thats wrong though. As first in the series there is nothing before it. There are no laws of nature or whatever to govern it or for it to blindly and unconsciously 'try out'. It, and it alone dictates the next ontological level. Since unconsciousness is then not possible it must be conscious and since it dictates it must have volition. There is nothing "wild" about that

Unmitigated drivel. In order to have thoughts, be conscious, or make choices, you need time and time is a part of the physical universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All you've done here is define this thing into existence based on what you imagine it should be like: but, existence can't be treated as a predicate (see Kant), so existence isn't like an ingredient you can just add into your recipe for 'God'.

Anyone?

[Gordon]

Anyone?

Did you not understand what I said?

You often mention 'ontological' so I'm surprised you don't seem to understand the point I made.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you not understand what I said?

You often mention 'ontological' so I'm surprised you don't seem to understand the point I made.

Sounds like you've been on the AI. Am I right in thinking that you think existence need not exist?
Our argument, by which I mean those who believe in a necessary entity, whatever it may be, Is that there is existence rather than non existence,there is a reason for that and that reason must have existed since non existence cannot do anything. So existence must always be except for things which are contingent.

[Gordon]

Sounds like you've been on the AI. Am I right in thinking that you think existence need not exist?
Our argument, by which I mean those who believe in a necessary entity, whatever it may be, Is that there is existence rather than non existence,there is a reason for that and that reason must have existed since non existence cannot do anything. So existence must always be except for things which are contingent.

Nope - not AI: never used it.

It was good old fashioned reading you know, over many years - suggest you look at Kant before banging on about 'existence'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unmitigated drivel. In order to have thoughts, be conscious, or make choices, you need time and time is a part of the physical universe.

I am wondering whether that fails the Professor Davey test for unmitigated anthropocentricism.
Time in cosmic terms is to do with motion and change isn't it? Unless you are proposing some kind of eternal time not experienced by physical beings? Like the block universe you proposed whose static nature is also not experienced by physical entities.

Not that I'm absolutely against infinities, only physical Infinities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - not AI: never used it.

It was good old fashioned reading you know, over many years - suggest you look at Kant before banging on about 'existence'.

I shall read Kant and report back where he went wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My apologies to Kant, he is correct, in my view and you are wrong.
Where you are wrong is you saw the word ontological and thought 'Ontological argument". We are of course making the Cosmological argument.

Kant's disapproval of the ontological argument of course has repercussions I think, for Hume and his successors like Oppy who said that we could conceive of things coming from nothing so it is possible.

[Gordon]

My apologies to Kant, he is correct, in my view and you are wrong.
Where you are wrong is you saw the word ontological and thought 'Ontological argument". We are of course making the Cosmological argument.

Kant's disapproval of the ontological argument of course has repercussions I think, for Hume and his successors like Oppy who said that we could conceive of things coming from nothing so it is possible.

You still take the 'existence' of one asserted thing as a given.

[Stranger]

Our argument, by which I mean those who believe in a necessary entity, whatever it may be, Is that there is existence rather than non existence,there is a reason for that and that reason must have existed since non existence cannot do anything. So existence must always be except for things which are contingent.

The universe has always been in existence, in the sense of 'at every point in time'. This is true, regardless of whether time is infinite in the past or not, because space-time is an aspect of the universe. There can't possibly be a time at which there was literally nothing because time is something.

I am wondering whether that fails the Professor Davey test for unmitigated anthropocentricism.

It's you who suggested this supposed 'necessary entity' was conscious and had volition.

Time in cosmic terms is to do with motion and change isn't it? Unless you are proposing some kind of eternal time not experienced by physical beings? Like the block universe you proposed whose static nature is also not experienced by physical entities.

It's very difficult to avoid the idea of something like the 'block universe' given the relativity of simultaneity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You still take the 'existence' of one asserted thing as a given.

No I've explained how a necessary entity exists and why and in what way it is necessary.

The alternative is for it to be a contingent thing and then we are entitled to question it's ultimacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The universe has always been in existence,

What then is it about it that has been observed to exist forever?

in the sense of 'at every point in time'. This is true, regardless of whether time is infinite in the past or not, because space-time is an aspect of the universe. There can't possibly be a time at which there was literally nothing because time is something.

It's you who suggested this supposed 'necessary entity' was conscious and had volition.

It's very difficult to avoid the idea of something like the 'block universe' given the relativity of simultaneity.

Again, what is it that exists at every point in time?

[Stranger]

No I've explained how a necessary entity exists and why and in what way it is necessary.

No, you haven't explained it at all. All you've done is make some logically incoherent assertions about it that would make it indistinguishable from a brute fact.

Again, what is it that exists at every point in time?

Err... space-time for one.

[Gordon]

No I've explained how a necessary entity exists and why and in what way it is necessary.

The alternative is for it to be a contingent thing and then we are entitled to question it's ultimacy.

It would be foolish to regard 'existence' as a predicate that is limited to the ontological argument alone: I cannot claim to have a third eye in my forehead and the only reason you can't see it is because it lacks the property of 'existence'.

Put simply, you cannot just presume 'existence' because it is convenient to do so.

[Gonnagle]

It would be foolish to regard 'existence' as a predicate that is limited to the ontological argument alone: I cannot claim to have a third eye in my forehead and the only reason you can't see it is because it lacks the property of 'existence'.

Put simply, you cannot just presume 'existence' because it is convenient to do so.

Dear Gordon, Good Morning to you

No the only reason you can't see it is because you are thinking to literally.

In Buddhism, the third eye, also known as the "Eye of Wisdom" or urna, is a symbolic representation of spiritual insight and the ability to see beyond the physical world. It is not a literal eye, but rather a metaphor for a higher level of consciousness and understanding. This "eye" allows practitioners to perceive the interconnectedness of all things and to understand the true nature of reality, ultimately leading to enlightenment.

And now I am thinking ( it hurts Doctor ) is this a problem with the fundamental Atheist. example, they read the Bible like some fact checking book.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

And now I am thinking ( it hurts Doctor ) is this a problem with the fundamental Atheist. example, they read the Bible like some fact checking book.

Gonnagle.

Nope - I think you've got that the wrong way around. It is christians, not atheists who seem to think the bible contains fact in relation to faith claims. And this isn't just the literal creation believing christians, but also those that would happily accept the creation story merely to be metaphorical, but still swear blind that Jesus actually performed miracles and was actually dead and then actually alive.

So I suggest you take up the notion of the bible being a 'fact' book with your fellow christians, not us atheists. I think we are perfectly content with the notion that the bible contains a degree of content which is broadly true (e.g. stuff about the cities and locations in 1stC Palestine), but that the miraculous faith claims aren't based on fact but on ... err ... faith, metaphor and myth.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think you are adding a subtlety to English that just isn't there. Ancient Greek with its dozen words for love and with it's
Homousions and homoiousions is far more intricate and able to handle more ideas that English with it's slippery use of euphemisms.

I'll grant you ancient Greek, but the modern European languages would I think be pretty stretched to make such a distinction. 'Entidad' in Spanish is more likely to refer to a commercial business enterprise than the English equivalent. German gives you 'Dasein' which means 'being' or 'existence' but not 'a being'. Then you're left with Wesen or Ding, which refer to objects in the material world. Tools down, chaps! Let's continue the argument when we've learned Koine Greek; the Greek of Plato is a subsidiary option.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I've explained how a necessary entity exists

No you haven't - and let's not forget you are actually talking about non-contingency not necessity (which we all accept exists and there are countless examples). You have completely failed to demonstrate that non-contingency exists.

... and why and in what way it is necessary.

Nope - complete fail on your part, compounded by the non-sense notion that consciousness and having 'volition and knows what it's doing' are key criteria for 'necessity (or rather non-contingency) when the evidence is clear that those attributes are contingent.

The alternative is for it to be a contingent thing and then we are entitled to question it's ultimacy.

Why is ultimacy relevant - except if you already have a pre-judged belief in a god that you are trying (badly) to shoe-horn some dodgy philosophical trope into trying to 'prove'. And you folks seem to have this all the wrong way around. Rather than fixate on the biggest, the most complex, the most sophisticated, the most ultimate (that way lies nonsense and infinite regress) the smart thinking is to focus on the simplest and most fundamental elements, as physicists tend to do.

[Gonnagle]

Nope - I think you've got that the wrong way around. It is christians, not atheists who seem to think the bible contains fact in relation to faith claims. And this isn't just the literal creation believing christians, but also those that would happily accept the creation story merely to be metaphorical, but still swear blind that Jesus actually performed miracles and was actually dead and then actually alive.

So I suggest you take up the notion of the bible being a 'fact' book with your fellow christians, not us atheists. I think we are perfectly content with the notion that the bible contains a degree of content which is broadly true (e.g. stuff about the cities and locations in 1stC Palestine), but that the miraculous faith claims aren't based on fact but on ... err ... faith, metaphor and myth.

Dear Prof,

No! I have it 100% right,  I think I have said it on this forum in a earlier incarnation of this person called Gonnagle that I would happily stand shoulder to shoulder with, lets say the more enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian, but the new Gonnagle will now say I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the, lets say more enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

No! I have it 100% right,  I think I have said it on this forum in a earlier incarnation of this person called Gonnagle that I would happily stand shoulder to shoulder with, lets say the more enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian, but the new Gonnagle will now say I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the, lets say more enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist.

Gonnagle.

Depends on what you consider to be 'fundamental Atheists' doesn't it really. Can't really think of an atheist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist church - can you? There certainly aren't any on here.

So really the question isn't where you stand re: enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian vs enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist, but between typical christian vs typical atheist.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Strawman somebody tell me that post is not a Strawman

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Strawman somebody tell me that post is not a Strawman

Gonnagle.

Why?

To be clear you are positing the notion of a 'fundamentalist Atheist' (note the capitalisation), without providing any definition or example as a straw man to compare with the enlightened christian. No such issue exists for fundamentalist christians as we have plenty of examples.

But my earlier point remains - that it is christians, rather than atheists, who use the bible as fact checking book - regardless of whether they are 'fundamentalist bible-believing' types, still accepting as fact (through faith) where there is no credible evidence.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Westboro Baptist church.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Depends on what you consider to be 'fundamental Atheists' doesn't it really. Can't really think of an atheist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist church - can you? There certainly aren't any on here.

So really the question isn't where you stand re: enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian vs enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist, but between typical christian vs typical atheist.

Dear Prof,

Just one other point, typical Atheist I will let the other typical Atheists answer that one.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Just one other point, typical Atheist I will let the other typical Atheists answer that one.

Gonnagle.

Well, I think the first thing we could say is that they'd be a typical atheist, not a typical Atheist.