Come on now, guys. Allow him some respite. There's only so much criticism he can take before his coping mechanism kicks in. — S

Fuck it, let's continue. Now, one argument from him I've seen is that God is necessary as an answer because atheistic answers are ruled out. But by his argument, he would've only ruled out one such answer. So it doesn't follow that God is necessary as an answer.

So if we were to say something like "the universe is necessary for our experiences" that wouldn't be magical thinking re the universe (sans God) necessarily existing? — Terrapin Station

I think what AJJ was saying is that there is logic which demonstrates that if there is a universe there is necessarily God. We observe that there is a universe, therefore there is God.

Why couldn't the same logic say that if there is our experiences there is necessarily a universe?

I think what AJJ was saying is that there is logic which demonstrates that if there is a universe there is necessarily God. We observe that there is a universe, therefore there is God. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think what Terrapin was saying is that, since there is logic which demonstrates that if there are experiences, then there is necessarily a universe (sans God), and since there are experiences, there is a universe (sans God), therefore God isn't necessary, then AJJ's logic is effectively countered and cancelled out.

Your reply doesn't progress the debate, it just brings it around full circle. A "do-loop", as Rank Amateur would say.

Why couldn't the same logic say that if there is our experiences there is necessarily a universe? — Terrapin Station

It wouldn't be "the same" because there would be different premises. But once the necessity of the universe is proven we can go on to prove the necessity of God.

I think what Terrapin was saying is that, since there is logic which demonstrates that if there are experiences, then there is necessarily a universe (sans God), and since there are experiences, there is a universe (sans God), therefore God isn't necessary, then AJJ's logic is effectively countered and cancelled out. — S

The only thing which makes God "necessary" is the logic. So if you don't bother with the logic then God won't be necessary. So to take TS's example, if you don't bother with the logic, then the universe won't be necessary for experiences.

It doesn't counter or cancel out AJJ's logic, it just demonstrates that it is possible to ignore the logic. And, since necessity is produced by logic, ignoring the logic is ignoring the necessity. But ignoring the logic does not make the necessity go away though, for those who do not ignore it.

The only thing which makes God "necessary" is the logic. So if you don't bother with the logic then God won't be necessary. So to take TS's example, if you don't bother with the logic, then the universe won't be necessary for experiences.

It doesn't counter or cancel out AJJ's logic, it just demonstrates that it is possible to ignore the logic. And, since necessity is produced by logic, ignoring the logic is ignoring the necessity. But ignoring the logic does not make the necessity go away though, for those who do not ignore it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have a hunch that you're going to keep failing to realise that your reasoning can be used against you, and is thus ineffective. We're still in that situation now with the above.

It's a psychological thing, I think. And I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'm not qualified to treat this problem of yours. But I wish you a quick recovery.

It wouldn't be "the same" because there would be different premises. But once the necessity of the universe is proven we can go on to prove the necessity of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

How specifically would the premises differ (and in terms of logic)?

Yeah....there have been metaphysical antinomies for centuries.....whatever can be thought under one set of conditions can be counter-thought under a different set of conditions. Sometimes the original thought survives, sometimes the counter overthrows it. It’s just a matter of how much power the arguments have to convince.

I think this whole necessity snafu thing is taken from Aristotle’s “That which exists exists necessarily”, which was never meant to quantify any causal closure whatsoever, which makes the assertion some diety is therefore necessary for that existence, barely more than post hoc junk.

Even if both sides invoke the principle of cause and effect as the legislative governance for the existence of the Universe, at least one side escapes the post hoc fallacy by stipulating a lack of knowledge as to cause. On one hand, a diety caused the Universe and we don’t have to say anything more about it, and on the other, something probably caused the Universe and that’s all we can say about it right now.

And the beat goes on.

How specifically would the premises differ (and in terms of logic)? — Terrapin Station

There is no relevant difference. The reasoning is of the same logical form. He'll just say that with his argument, it's true, and with yours, it's not. But, of course, you could just say the same thing, only swapping the truth values around.

His is not an argument through reason, it's an argument through bald assertion.

Good luck getting through to him.

have a hunch that you're going to keep failing to realise that your reasoning can be used against you, and is thus ineffective. We're still in that situation now with the above. — S

At this point, I don't really care if my reasoning can be used against me. I don't even know what you mean by that. Care to explain?


AJJ uses a premise concerning the universe, and proceeds to conclude the necessity of God. You use a premise concerning human experience and proceed to conclude the necessity of a universe. See the difference?

There is no relevant difference. The reasoning is of the same logical form. He'll just say that with his argument, it's true, and with yours, it's not. But, of course, you could just say the same thing, only swapping the truth values around.

His is not an argument through reason, it's an argument through bald assertion.

Good luck getting through to him. — S

I agree that the reasoning is of "the same logical form". But I don't understand your claim that the reasoning can be used against me. TS reasons from the premise of human experience to the conclusion that there must be a universe. AJJ takes that conclusion as a premise and proceeds to the further conclusion that there must be God. So where's the problem?

Even if both sides invoke the principle of cause and effect as the legislative governance for the existence of the Universe, at least one side escapes the post hoc fallacy by stipulating a lack of knowledge as to cause. On one hand, a diety caused the Universe and we don’t have to say anything more about it, and on the other, something probably caused the Universe and that’s all we can say about it right now. — Mww

Agree - however that is not where it is left. Where this usually ends is, "your un created creator is wrong, because science is right, and science say "we don't really know". Basically my I don't know trumps your belief, because I don't like your belief. It is just an elevation of science to religion. The believers have faith that science will have the answer. To be clear, I have no issue at all with that faith, my point is it is not all that different from most other beliefs by faith.

AJJ uses a premise concerning the universe, and proceeds to conclude the necessity of God. You use a premise concerning human experience and proceed to conclude the necessity of a universe. See the difference? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, not logically. You'd need to specify the logical difference. Spell it out. Show your work.

Are you claiming that the premise "there are human experiences", is no different from the premise "there is a universe"? I see a big difference, don't you?

isn't the prospect of a singularly nearly as unbelievable as a necessary being? What exactly is a one dimensional "place?", that contains near infinite mass, with infinite gravity. Can you really comprehend something that could take the entire mass of the universe and with infinite gravity, force it out of existence in our time and space reality. Where all the laws of physics fail.

It is important to remember what physics is, basically just a model of reality as we observe it. That is really all it is. Turn observation into math. This allows you to plug in new variables and if the model is good it will have some predictive capabilities both going forward and backwards on the time line we observe. That is basically all physics is.

At this point, I don't really care if my reasoning can be used against me. I don't even know what you mean by that. Care to explain?

I agree that the reasoning is of "the same logical form". But I don't understand your claim that the reasoning can be used against me. TS reasons from the premise of human experience to the conclusion that there must be a universe. AJJ takes that conclusion as a premise and proceeds to the further conclusion that there must be God. So where's the problem? — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that you can use the logical form to do just about anything, which really means that it does nothing. If you say that the universe necessitates God, then I can say that the universe necessitates anything else whatsoever or no God. We'd just be making shit up and playing with logic.

So you need an additional justified reason for doing it your way as opposed to innumerable other ways, which I don't think that you can provide.

What is wrong with you that you can't simply spell out/specify what you take the logical difference to be when I request for you to do that?

Oh, I dunno.....anybody putting opinion into print usually feels sufficient reason justifying it. In the case at hand......or was til he quit.....I personally didn’t feel the sufficient reason was anywhere sufficient enough. He did, and nothing changes.

Where all the laws of physics fail. — Rank Amateur

Exactly, that's what mention of the singularity is getting at. For that reason, we don't know, but some people are deluded otherwise. And no, science is based on reason, not faith. That claim is absurd. I'm not an astrophysicist, but an astrophysicist could give you a lengthy and reasonable explanation relating to what you mention.

What is wrong with you that you can't simply spell out/specify what you take the logical difference to be when I request for you to do that? — Terrapin Station

I don't think he's too great when it comes to logic. He did acknowledge in my exchange with him that they share the same logical form, but with you he seems hung up on the semantic difference.

What is wrong with you that you can't simply spell out/specify what you take the logical difference to be when I request for you to do that? — Terrapin Station

I spelled it out. They have different premises. One argument proceeds from the premise that there are human experiences to the conclusion that there is a universe. The other proceeds from the premise that there is a universe to the conclusion of God. Do you, or do you not, recognize that this is a "logical difference"?

The problem is that you can use the logical form to do just about anything, which really means that it does nothing. — S

No, that's just the nature of logic, it is constructed so as to allow us to do as much as possible (what you call "just about anything") so long as we stay within the confines of validity. Because of this, it is very important to ensure that we proceed with sound premises. If we can use unsound premises, then we probably could do anything we want.

If you say that the universe necessitates God, then I can say that the universe necessitates anything else whatsoever or no God. We'd just be making shit up and playing with logic. — S

Sure, you can make up whatever premises you want. The problem is that they would likely be unsound. The premises which lead from the existence of the universe to the necessity of God are found in the cosmological argument. You can look that up and judge the soundness of the premises for yourself. I haven't read the entire thread and do not know if AJJ presented these premises.

isn't the prospect of a singularly nearly as unbelievable as a necessary being? — Rank Amateur

Isn’t the prospect? No, because the math justifies the prospect of the one and has nothing to say at all about the other, and the human experience with math suggests its reliability. The actual reality of either one, of course, is another matter.

I understand the limits of science. Puulleease!!! I also grant the contingency of human knowledge. Nonetheless, what is objectively satisfactory in science is altogether lacking anywhere else in doctrinal systems. Bottom line....everyone has to accept the instance of contradiction in objective domains wherein knowledge is proven mistaken, but no one has to accept self-contradictions in subjective domains wherein beliefs are shown to be inconclusive.

science is completely based on reason. That is not what my comment means. At this moment in time it is not a matter of scientific knowledge how or even if the universe as we define it began. We do not know what or even if there was a T - 0. Science as Mww pointed out just does not know. And science make no truth claims unless they know, or very very close to know. What you have faith in, is science will be able to answer this at some point. There is nothing at all wrong with that , and it is a reasonable belief. But it a belief based on faith.

Let me define faith as I use it here. It is taking a 100% commitment to a belief where the reality is a matter of probability. You have a 100% belief that science will know at some point the cause of the universe, The reality is that at this moment of time that is still a matter of some probability.

No, that's just the nature of logic, it is constructed so as to allow us to do as much as possible (what you call "just about anything") so long as we stay within the confines of validity. Because of this, it is very important to ensure that we proceed with sound premises. If we can use unsound premises, then we probably could do anything we want. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, we're not really disagreeing here. There would be a problem if you have no additional justified reason relating to soundness, which is what I expected. If that were the case, then it would be anything goes. But I see that you've now mentioned the cosmological argument.

Sure, you can make up whatever premises you want. The problem is that they would likely be unsound. The premises which lead from the existence of the universe to the necessity of God are found in the cosmological argument. You can look that up and judge the soundness of the premises for yourself. I haven't read the entire thread and do not know if AJJ presented these premises. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, someone should make a discussion on that. I don't really create discussions, I tend to just get stuck into the discussions of others.

Oh, I dunno.....anybody putting opinion into print usually feels sufficient reason justifying it. In the case at hand......or was til he quit.....I personally didn’t feel the sufficient reason was anywhere sufficient enough. He did, and nothing changes. — Mww

I was expecting Metaphysician Undercover to simply define or assert or include in the concept the necessity of the existence of God, because that's what he has done before. That's what I was getting at. But I see now that he has referred to the cosmological argument, which is a much better approach.

I don't disagree- But can you really have a contextual understanding of 1 dimension? I don't. Space does not exist in one dimension. Now put the entire mass of the universe into that "what ever it is". And it gets there only with infinite gravity - is there such a thing in the world as infinite gravity?

I understand where the math goes, and there may well be such a thing as a singularity, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe they could exist or existed.

But you must admit it is a wild idea to try and get your head around if you really think about it.

I was expecting Metaphysician Undercover to simply define or assert or include in the concept the necessity of the existence of God, because that's what he has done before. That's what I was getting at. But I see now that he has referred to the cosmological argument, which is a much better approach. — S

I was just trying to clarify what I believe AJJ was saying.

It is just an elevation of science to religion. The believers have faith that science will have the answer. To be clear, I have no issue at all with that faith, my point is it is not all that different from most other beliefs by faith. — Rank Amateur

This is a false equivalence.

What you have faith in, is science will be able to answer this at some point. — Rank Amateur

No, that's a straw man actually. It might do, it might not do. All I know here is that we don't know, and that the scientific method has been very successful in the past, so if it did somehow result in an answer, I wouldn't be absolutely flabbergasted. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if we somehow discovered that God exists, because nothing whatsoever points towards that except the weakest of evidence and very old and problematic arguments in philosophy.

Let me define faith as I use it here. It is taking a 100% commitment to a belief where the reality is a matter of probability. You have a 100% belief that science will know at some point the cause of the universe, The reality is that at this moment of time that is still a matter of some probability. — Rank Amateur

Straw man, I'm afraid. Better luck next time.

it would have been more economic and of equal value to just say I disagree, because I disagree.

It would have been more economic and of equal value to just say I disagree, because I disagree. — Rank Amateur

But you're not being charitable, so why should I put more effort in? For example, I covered the probability in relation to reason topic earlier in the discussion, so it's not as though I've given you nothing to go by, yet you come out with a complete straw man. You have absolutely zero basis to attribute this position to me. Show me where in this discussion I've made such claims. I don't know why you would expect me to put undue effort into dealing with your straw man points.

also good physicists don't let math get in the way. As you probably know for quantum mechanics to work in all instances, there must exist some x, where x squared = -1, An imaginary number. Now quantum mechanics does work in nearly all places, so we don't let that get in the way, we call it i and do the calculations.