Arguement Against God's existence

[JohnDamian]

Indeed, I do not. Gobbledegook, made up words do not have meanings. There is no such thing as “necessary” and “contingent” existence either. Philosophy is loaded with made-up concepts which have have only one reason to exist, to hide the fact that the emperor has no clothes. And most people are scared to proclaim this fact.

Right.

We observe that thing’s follow from one another. That they are caused by one another. These caused things are called contingent things, because they cannot come into existance, or exist without the thing that caused them.

I shall give an example. You are a contingent thing, you were caused by your parents, etc.

Now, the difference between essentially and accidentally ordered causes is this; an accidentally ordered sequence is one where a given member of that series is irrelevant to the causative activity of a member. An essentially ordered sequence is one where the causal actions of the later members depends essentially on the activity of the earlier causes.

I shall keep this breif so as not to confuse you with “gobbledegook”, just because I am not mentioning every single reason here, does not mean these arguments are unsurported; if you are confused about one of them - ask.

1. Now, we can see that there is a finite number of total contingent things.
2. This would make up the totality of contingent things.
3. The totality of contingent things cannot have caused itself.
4. Therefore the totality of contingent things must have been caused by something outside the totality of contingent things.
5. If something is not a member of the totality of contingent things, that is; they are nessecary. Or else back to four.
6. Therefore, both nessecary and contingent thing’s exist. Contingent thing’s by our observed reality (that I am caused by my parents etc.) and Nessecary thing’s by our rational understanding that a totality of Contingent things cannot be reliant on anything within it’s totality.

Think of it this way, for simplicitys sake imagine all “Contingent” thing’s are Chickens, the Chicken s cannot have simply popped out of nowhere, nor could the Chickens rely on another Chicken to create them (because he would have needed another, back to 4). Therefore the Chickens were caused by something outside the totality of Chickens; this would be Evolution/creation.

Now, if you can see this like so; instead of chickens - we are talking about all things that cannot exist without a cause. This includes rocks, energy, matter and so on - these thing’s do not just appear, therefore they must appear as a result of something outside the totality of contingent things. This thing is then called “nessecary”, because it can exist on it’s own.

Therefore, as all sensible people have to believe in a nessecary first cause. We could argue that it is or is not God, or some other God, or Force, or Phenomena or whatsoever, but all sensible people have to accept a first cause.

 

[R_Daneel]

We observe that thing’s follow from one another. That they are caused by one another. These caused things are called contingent things, because they cannot come into existance, or exist without the thing that caused them.

Yes, this is true. We observe a finite number of events, and observe that event “A” is always followed by event “B”. Conversely, if event “A” does not happen, then event “B” does not happen either. From that - inductively - some will assert that this relationship is universal, and for every **event **“X” there must be some precursor which will cause event “X”. But that generalization is not necessarily warranted. And that is problem one. Now, someone may object that science uses induction all the time. It is true, but science is always tentative, it only says that “so far” the observations do not contradict the hypothesis. You, however, assert an absolute rule here. And that is an error.

Now, the difference between essentially and accidentally ordered causes is this; an accidentally ordered sequence is one where a given member of that series is irrelevant to the causative activity of a member. An essentially ordered sequence is one where the causal actions of the later members depends essentially on the activity of the earlier causes.

Give me an example, please. From your words I understand that “essential” causative relationship means that event “B” can only be caused by event “A”, while an “accidental” causative relationship means that event “B” could have been caused either by event “A”, or event “C”, etc… I am not sure if that is what you meant, so elaborate, please. If I did understand you correctly, then explain what is the relevance of this - because I see none.

1. Now, we can see that there is a finite number of total contingent things.
2. This would make up the totality of contingent things.
3. The totality of contingent things cannot have caused itself.
4. Therefore the totality of contingent things must have been caused by something outside the totality of contingent things.
5. If something is not a member of the totality of contingent things, that is; they are nessecary. Or else back to four.
6. Therefore, both nessecary and contingent thing’s exist. Contingent thing’s by our observed reality (that I am caused by my parents etc.) and Nessecary thing’s by our rational understanding that a totality of Contingent things cannot be reliant on anything within it’s totality.

There is already a problem here: the “set of all sets” assumption, which brings up its own contradictions. See the Russel paradox: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_paradox . Another problem is the fallacy of composition. You assume that the set of all contingent things is also contingent. And that needs to be proven, not just assumed. The necessary-contingent dichotomy is not a real distinction. An event may be contingent in one relationship, but necessary in another. Extending your parent-child example to grandparent-parent-child, the parent is “necessary” in one relationship, but “contingent” in the other.

Now, if you can see this like so; instead of chickens - we are talking about all things that cannot exist without a cause. This includes rocks, energy, matter and so on - these thing’s do not just appear, therefore they must appear as a result of something outside the totality of contingent things. This thing is then called “nessecary”, because it can exist on it’s own.

Here is the next problem. On what grounds do you assert that STEM “space-time-energy-matter” is contingent? The principle of conservaton of matte/energy/momentum etc. says that none of these can be created or destroyed. Again, a principle can be questioned, but there must be a very good reason to question it.

Therefore, as all sensible people have to believe in a nessecary first cause. We could argue that it is or is not God, or some other God, or Force, or Phenomena or whatsoever, but all sensible people have to accept a first cause.

Based upon the above, that does not follow at all. STEM exists unconditionally, and if you wish to call it a “first cause”, you may do so, but such a phrase only serves to spread confusion.

 

[JohnDamian]

Yes, this is true. We observe a finite number of events, and observe that event “A” is always followed by event “B”. Conversely, if event “A” does not happen, then event “B” does not happen either. From that - inductively - some will assert that this relationship is universal, and for every event “X” there must be some precursor which will cause event “X”. But that generalization is not necessarily warranted. And that is problem one. Now, someone may object that science uses induction all the time. It is true, but science is always tentative, it only says that “so far” the observations do not contradict the hypothesis. You, however, assert an absolute rule here. And that is an error.

I fail to see how it is an error to assert this as an absolute rule. Either something is caused, which makes it contingent. Or it is not caused, which makes it nessecary. Something cannot be “half-caused (in total)” etc. etc. Something is either predicated nessecarily or contingently. If you could give a hypothesis against this that illustrates something that is both caused & uncaused, or neither(?)… Sure. Until then you should accept that this is an absolute rule because it is logically valid to all of observed reality.

Give me an example, please. From your words I understand that “essential” causative relationship means that event “B” can only be caused by event “A”, while an “accidental” causative relationship means that event “B” could have been caused either by event “A”, or event “C”, etc… I am not sure if that is what you meant, so elaborate, please. If I did understand you correctly, then explain what is the relevance of this - because I see none

I inserted this because you mentioned earlier (I believe) that thing’s are one causal chain. I put this here to illustrate that such a claim is not particularily helpful in specifics. You can ignore this though as it is not particularily relevant I just put it here to answer an earlier query.

There is already a problem here: the “set of all sets” assumption, which brings up its own contradictions. See the Russel paradox: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell’s_paradox . Another problem is the fallacy of composition. You assume that the set of all contingent things is also contingent. And that needs to be proven, not just assumed. The necessary-contingent dichotomy is not a real distinction. An event may be contingent in one relationship, but necessary in another. Extending your parent-child example to grandparent-parent-child, the parent is “necessary” in one relationship, but “contingent” in the other.

I do not assume that. I appear to be unable to win here, if I post the argument it is “gobbledegook” if I don’t post it I am assuming.

An infinite number of essentially ordered things is impossible, as the totality of caused things that are caused essentially is it’self caused, this totality can be viewed as a genus predicated by contingency of it’s species – therein, as this genus of things has come to exist it must have come to exist contingently, for such a genus cannot have actualised itself as it’s predicate prohibits it’s self-creation; nessecarily therein - the cause of the totality of contingency is a thing which is not predicated contingently, therefore, the cause of the totality of contingency must be that to which the predicate of contingency cannot be applied - and as a thing is either contingent or nessecary, as it is not contingent it is nessecary.

Here is the next problem. On what grounds do you assert that STEM “space-time-energy-matter” is contingent? The principle of conservaton of matte/energy/momentum etc. says that none of these can be created or destroyed. Again, a principle can be questioned, but there must be a very good reason to question it.

These thing’s are not predicated nessecarily. (feel free to prove me otherwise). From observable reality all matter and energy is predicated contingently, there has never been an example of any matter or energy ever coming into being without some cause. Even virtual particles are known to be caused. Therefore, they are part of the totality of contingent things; which as we know must rest upon a nessecary thing.

STEM exists unconditionally

This is an absurd and ridiculous claim. I have never heard of any piece of energy or matter that has come into being without a cause. Now, “space” and “time” are irrelevant to this discussion, as I am not claiming they are either caused or uncaused in this matter.

You either follow the conclusions of observed reality like I do, or you don’t. However, as a person who has an open mind; if you can demonstrate that energy or matter can come into being by itself, with no external cause - I shall concede that at the least my argument is flawed, and at most that you are right!

 

[R_Daneel]

I fail to see how it is an error to assert this as an absolute rule. Either something is caused, which makes it contingent. Or it is not caused, which makes it nessecary. Something cannot be “half-caused (in total)” etc. etc. Something is either predicated nessecarily or contingently. If you could give a hypothesis against this that illustrates something that is both caused & uncaused, or neither(?)… Sure. Until then you should accept that this is an absolute rule because it is logically valid to all of observed reality.

The error is the assumption that a finite number of observation allows one to make a global, absolute statement. It is akin to the proposition: “we have observed many swans, all of which were white: therefore all swans are white”. You can substitute “contingent” for “white” and “event” for “swan” here and get: “all events we observed were contingent on something else, therefore all events are contingent on something else”. And that is the error.

I inserted this because you mentioned earlier (I believe) that thing’s are one causal chain. I put this here to illustrate that such a claim is not particularily helpful in specifics. You can ignore this though as it is not particularily relevant I just put it here to answer an earlier query.

Well, since you keep using it, it might be helpful to elaborate.

This is an absurd and ridiculous claim. I have never heard of any piece of energy or matter that has come into being without a cause. Now, “space” and “time” are irrelevant to this discussion, as I am not claiming they are either caused or uncaused in this matter.

Space-time-matter-energy are the physical reality. They cannot be separated. Neither the adjective “necessary” nor the “contingent” are applicable here. Matter/energy did not “come into existence”, they simply “exist” - uncaused, and uncreated. To ask for “where did they come from?” or “why do they exist?”, or “what was before they existed?” are all nonsensical questions. “Where”, “when”, “why” are only possible to ask within the universe, but they are not applicable to the universe.

You either follow the conclusions of observed reality like I do, or you don’t.

Oh, I do, all right. I am just not willing to commit the “no black swan” fallacy.

 

[JohnDamian]

The error is the assumption that a finite number of observation allows one to make a global, absolute statement. It is akin to the proposition: “we have observed many swans, all of which were white: therefore all swans are white”. You can substitute “contingent” for “white” and “event” for “swan” here and get: “all events we observed were contingent on something else, therefore all events are contingent on something else”. And that is the error.

You appear to be labouring under a misconception about predicate logic. The swan’s color is an accidental property, yet the individuating principle (called quiddity) is what makes the swan what it is. It is this Quiddical principal that all swans must follow, and the haecceical principle that this or that swan must follow. So; the color is an accident of swan-ness, wheras what makes a swan (in general) is its quiddity, and what makes a swan in particular is its haecceity. Saying I am commiting the no black swan fallacy is actually quite insulting.

The whiteness of a swan is predicated accidentally. The quiddity of a swan is predicated essentially. This is basic 101 predicate logic.

Now, the form of matter is accidental, but it’s contingency is essential. That is, because it is matter it is the nature of it that it cannot emerge by itself. Therefore “contingency” is an essential component of all matter. Wheras, color - shape etc. are accidents. (I am using Accident in the Aristotelian Sense).

Space-time-matter-energy are the physical reality. They cannot be separated. Neither the adjective “necessary” nor the “contingent” are applicable here. Matter/energy did not “come into existence”, they simply “exist” - uncaused, and uncreated. To ask for “where did they come from?” or “why do they exist?”, or “what was before they existed?” are all nonsensical questions. “Where”, “when”, “why” are only possible to ask within the universe, but they are not applicable to the universe.

Hogwash.

The position of matter within the universe is an accident to the nature of the matter itself. As the nature of matter is predicated essentially, wheras the position of it is predicated accidentally the time and place of matter is absolutely irrelevant to the essential characteristics of the matter.

Take thus, conceive a rock. Where in the universe, and when in the universe are irrelevant to that the rock is; they would only help in discerning the haecceity of the rock, or the “thisness” of the rock. Time & space helps us determine how “this” rock got “here” or “there”. But we are not dealing with Haecceity because I am making universal claims, we are dealing with Quiddity (whatness). The place & time of “rock” is irrelevant to what rock is. However, the individuating principle of what rocks are is relevant.

Now, a rock does not exist in a manner that is uncaused, rocks do not emerge from nothing, they do not spontaneously pop into existence, nor do they exist nessecarily. Therefore rocks are a contingent thing that is caused to be in existence.

Matter/energy did not “come into existence”, they simply “exist” - uncaused, and uncreated.

This is a preposterous claim that is contrary to Science, Religion, Philosophy and even a common sense understanding of the universe.

1. Matter / Energy can not have existed forever;

• Because Matter / Energy is finite, and an infinite cannot be composed by finite parts.

1. Matter / Energy are contingent;

• Therefore they need a non-contingent nessecary creator.

I asked if you can give an example of matter that appears without any cause, you are unable to do so; not because of your own faults but because it is impossible.

To ask for “where did they come from?” or “why do they exist?”, or “what was before they existed?” are all nonsensical questions.

These questions cannot be understood with the low sciences because these sciences deal only with empiricism, and as such are a small subsection of philosophy. If you are not willing to ask why things exist or discuss subjects like ontology, epistimology etc. Then why are you in the philosophy section?

Oh, I do, all right. I am just not willing to commit the “no black swan” fallacy.

Again, showing your complete lack of understanding of predicate logic. Color is predicated accidentally to the quiddity of swan; wheras contingency/nessecity is predicated essentially to the nature of anything - it is a universal.

And don’t say that your not qualified, or that I am using too complex language, because I have no scrips in philosophy - I just have a library card.

 

[coolduude]

Space-time-matter-energy are the physical reality. They cannot be separated. Neither the adjective “necessary” nor the “contingent” are applicable here. Matter/energy did not “come into existence”, they simply “exist” - uncaused, and uncreated. To ask for “where did they come from?” or “why do they exist?”, or “what was before they existed?” are all nonsensical questions. “Where”, “when”, “why” are only possible to ask within the universe, but they are not applicable to the universe.

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot be formed by successive addition
2. The past has been formed by successive addition
3. Therefore, the past is finite.

Also, please show me a solution to this since the universe is infinite (according to you):

If the past were infinite, then it would not just take a long time to the present to arrive; rather, the present would never arrive. No matter how much time had passed, we would still be working through the infinite past. It is impossible to traverse an infinite period of time.

Clearly, though, the present has arrived, the past has been traversed. The past, therefore, cannot be infinite, but must rather be finite. The universe has a beginning.

To see the absurdity and contradictions of an actual infinite number of things in the real world imagine or hypothesize your campus library having an infinite number of black books and an infinite number of green books, alternating colours on the shelves and numbered consecutively on the spines.

Does it make any sense to say that there are as many black books as there are black plus green books together? But that is what you would have to say if you want to claim the infinite is possible in the real world.

Suppose you withdrew all the green books. How many books are there left in the library? There would still be an infinite number of books in the library even though we just withdrew an infinite number and found a way to get them home! Suppose you withdrew the books numbered 4,5,6…and so on. Now how many books are left? THREE! Something surely is wrong here! One time we subtract an infinite number of books and we’re left with an infinite number; the next time we subtract an infinite number and we’re left with three - a clear logical contradiction. Since our hypothesis leads to a contradiction, the hypothesis must be false - a library with an actual infinite number of books cannot exist.

While we can avoid these contradictions in the mathematical realm by making up rules like you can’t subtract or divide when using infinity, we cannot in the real world prevent people from taking books out of libraries.

Therefore, since a beginningless past would be an actual infinite number of things (events) and since an actual infinite number of things cannot exist in the real world, it follows logically that the past is not infinite. The universe had a beginning.

The past is finite.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Science will never be able to answer the question: “what exists to the north from the North Pole?” either. But that is not a problem of science, it is the problem of the person who posits such meaningless questions. *

Why are you changing the subject?

It is certainly not a “meaningless question” for scientists to wonder why and how the Big Bang occurred. That they cannot and never will be able to answer the question leaves us to legitimately ponder about Creation and the Creator.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is a preposterous claim that is contrary to Science, Religion, Philosophy and even a common sense understanding of the universe.

1. Matter / Energy can not have existed forever;

• Because Matter / Energy is finite, and an infinite cannot be composed by finite parts.

1. Matter / Energy are contingent;

• Therefore they need a non-contingent nessecary creator.

I don’t know what “science” you are referring to. It is contrary to religion, but that is irrelevant. It is not contrary to the atheistic philosophy. And common sense is not an arbiter of anything. But, let’s examine your actual points:

Your 1) proposition assumes an “absolute”, Newtonian time, which exists apart from the STEM. This proposition is incorrect according to Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Your 2) proposition is a bald assertion, which would need to be substantiated. What are they contingent upon? You cannot say that they are contingent upon a hypothesized “creator”, because that would be circular reasoning.

These questions cannot be understood with the low sciences because these sciences deal only with empiricism, and as such are a small subsection of philosophy.

The reason is much deeper. Those questions are not applicable to the Universe, because the Universe is the framework which allows those questions to be answered. You are again committing the fallacy of composition here.

 

[R_Daneel]

Also, please show me a solution to this since the universe is infinite (according to you):

Infinite time assumes an “absolute” time, separate from the Universe. in which the Universe “dwells”. The very basis of your assertion is contradicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Therefore your proposition is meaningless.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why are you changing the subject?

I am not “changing” the subject, just gave you an example of how to construct a syntactically well-formed, yet semantically meaningless question.

It is certainly not a “meaningless question” for scientists to wonder why and how the Big Bang occurred. That they cannot and never will be able to answer the question…

Where and how did you acquire omniscience? Can I take a course there? How do you know that this question will **never **be answered?

leaves us to legitimately ponder about Creation and the Creator.

Oh, you can ponder anything you like, for all I care. Why don’t you ponder how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? It used to be a “fascinating” theological question, though it seems to fallen wayside these days.

 

[coolduude]

Infinite time assumes an “absolute” time, separate from the Universe. in which the Universe “dwells”. The very basis of your assertion is contradicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Therefore your proposition is meaningless.

Can you site where in Einstien’s theory contradicts my assertation? Also, I do believe Enstien’s theory is applicable only to the universe, not beyond it. Therfore, it is your assertation that is fallous (sp.)

 

[coolduude]

Here’s what How Stuff Works has to say about absolute time:
“Newton included in the “Principia Mathematica” a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that clocks weren’t perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on Earth would experience time the same way as someone standing on Mars.”

I see nothing in this quote and other sources that say infinite time exists. Please show where you get this concept.

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t know what “science” you are referring to. It is contrary to religion, but that is irrelevant. It is not contrary to the atheistic philosophy. And common sense is not an arbiter of anything. But, let’s examine your actual points:

Your 1) proposition assumes an “absolute”, Newtonian time, which exists apart from the STEM. This proposition is incorrect according to Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Your 2) proposition is a bald assertion, which would need to be substantiated. What are they contingent upon? You cannot say that they are contingent upon a hypothesized “creator”, because that would be circular reasoning.

The reason is much deeper. Those questions are not applicable to the Universe, because the Universe is the framework which allows those questions to be answered. You are again committing the fallacy of composition here.

To the first; Time is accidental to causality, not essential. It just so happens that in general our problems are sequentially caused; however it is perfectly reasonable to hold that a change in this instant would solicit an immediate other; or even a prior other - however I see no translation of this possibility into reality, so it is really purely speculative. What is known is that all of observed reality occurs sequentially.

To the second; What something is caused by is irrelevant.

I ask again; can you show me one material thing that exists and is not caused?

In the absense of this, we can hold that there is a general law of contingency with regards to material things; in the same way that we can observe that gravity exists… It is good science to base our theories on observed reality - and from observation one thing causes another, and so forth - nothing material causes itself.

And back to infinite recess and the nessecity of an essential being… etc.

Now, your blatant assertation that STEM is not contingent is absurd and needs some evidence. I, as most rational people hold that Material things are contingent essentially, and that no Material thing exists that is nessecary. I await with eager anticipation the presentation of, or even hypothesis of such a thing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Where and how did you acquire omniscience? Can I take a course there? How do you know that this question will never be answered? *

Under what conditions can you imagine that science will be able to understand how the universe came to be? The universe is billions of years old. Nobody can even imagine what happened at t+1 to cause the expansion of the universe. How would you even begin to create a laboratory experiment in which you could prove that the universe came into being in such and such a way … without creating another Big Bang?

It doesn’t take omniscience to say that human knowledge is necessarily limited. But it sure takes humungus arrogance to argue that scientific knowledge is without limits.

*Why don’t you ponder how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? It used to be a “fascinating” theological question, though it seems to fallen wayside these days. *

Wrong again:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

 

[R_Daneel]

Can you site where in Einstien’s theory contradicts my assertation? Also, I do believe Enstien’s theory is applicable only to the universe, not beyond it. Therfore, it is your assertation that is fallous (sp.)

Here’s what How Stuff Works has to say about absolute time:
“Newton included in the “Principia Mathematica” a scholium, or an appendix of explanatory notes, and in it he defined several important principles, including the idea of absolute time. Although he understood that clocks weren’t perfect and measuring time was subject to human error, Newton believed in an absolute time that was similar to a universal, omnipotent God-like time, one that was the same for everyone, everywhere. In other words, someone standing at the North Pole on Earth would experience time the same way as someone standing on Mars.”

I see nothing in this quote and other sources that say infinite time exists. Please show where you get this concept.

The very phrases “outside the universe”, “before the universe” presuppose an “absolute” space and time, independent of matter / energy. The intuitive picture imagined by humans before Einstein came around was that space is akin to huge “room”, where a little “blob” represented our universe, with plenty of “space” outside it. The time was imagined as an absolute “flow” of events. This was the accepted world-view before Einstein has shown that this world-view is simply wrong.

Space and time are not separate from the matter / energy. There is no “space” outside the universe. There is no “time” before the universe.

When people had the above, incorrect “mental picture” of the universe, it seemed to them that asking questions like “what was before the universe was created?”, and “what caused the universe to pop into existence?” are good, legitimate questions, and they answered it with some reference to “God”. All those philosophers held this “picture” as true and valid. And all those philosophers were wrong.

Today we know better. The questions you guys present are now nonsensical, because they ask something which is simply not there. The universe is physically different from the imagined “picture”.

 

[R_Daneel]

To the first; Time is accidental to causality, not essential. It just so happens that in general our problems are sequentially caused; however it is perfectly reasonable to hold that a change in this instant would solicit an immediate other; or even a prior other - however I see no translation of this possibility into reality, so it is really purely speculative. What is known is that all of observed reality occurs sequentially.

This so funny. On one hand you guys “chastize” me for my “dirty” empiricism. And then you blatantly invoke the same empiricism when it suits your purposes. And you still stick to your “observed” reality and wish to generalize into whole reality. This still is the “no black swan” fallacy, even if you don’t like it.

To the second; What something is caused by is irrelevant.

Ah, so you can define my question out of relevance when it suits your purposes? Why is it irrelevant?

But, jokes aside, define this “whatness” for me. Define what is the “whatness” of a rock, and what is the “whatness” of a pebble. How do they differ? Does the “whatness” of a rock change when it falls down and shatters? In other words, take the concept of a rock and separate the “essential” and “accidental” attributes into lists. What are the “invariants” of “rock-ness”? Then I will have some undertsanding of what you talking about. Please be specific. Don’t waste my (and your) time by referring to some nebulous “essence”.

I ask again; can you show me one material thing that exists and is not caused?

Sure, the whole universe and everything in it - attested by the principle of conservation laws.

In the absense of this, we can hold that there is a general law of contingency with regards to material things; in the same way that we can observe that gravity exists… It is good science to base our theories on observed reality - and from observation one thing causes another, and so forth - nothing material causes itself.

From this is does not follow that it was “caused” by some immaterial “being”. It can be simply “uncaused”. Just like your “immaterial” being is supposed to be. Also, you are proud of being down-to-earth, looking at reality, making inferences based upon your observations. Commendable, even if your generalization process is fallacious. Why don’t you bring it one step further, and say: “we have never observed an immaterial entity, using sheer magic to perform miraculous acts”, therefore it is unreasonable to assume that such a being exists. A good sword cuts both ways, you know!

Now, your blatant assertation that STEM is not contingent is absurd and needs some evidence. I, as most rational people hold that Material things are contingent essentially, and that no Material thing exists that is nessecary. I await with eager anticipation the presentation of, or even hypothesis of such a thing.

Nope, that is not held by “most” rational people, and even if it did, the “majority still does not rule”.

 

[R_Daneel]

Under what conditions can you imagine that science will be able to understand how the universe came to be? The universe is billions of years old. Nobody can even imagine what happened at t+1 to cause the expansion of the universe. How would you even begin to create a laboratory experiment in which you could prove that the universe came into being in such and such a way … without creating another Big Bang?

It doesn’t take omniscience to say that human knowledge is necessarily limited. But it sure takes humungus arrogance to argue that scientific knowledge is without limits.

Don’t try to turn the tables. I am not talking about “all the scientific knowledge”. Yes, it does take omniscience to assert that “something” is forever impossible to know. Where did you obtain this “omniscience”?

 

[JohnDamian]

This so funny. On one hand you guys “chastize” me for my “dirty” empiricism. And then you blatantly invoke the same empiricism when it suits your purposes. And you still stick to your “observed” reality and wish to generalize into whole reality. This still is the “no black swan” fallacy, even if you don’t like it.

How is this the no black swan fallacy?

Your claim is unfounded, I demonstrated clearly that color is an accident to “swan”. Wheras swanness is essential to “swan”.

However, I demonstrated that contingency is essential to “material thing”.

Whilst there can be swans that are black or white (or any color for that matter). There cannot be a “material thing” that is not contingent.

contingency is an essential part of "material thing"
color is an accidental part of "swan"

How is this the no black swan fallacy?

Not only have there never been any material things that are not contingent. It is impossible to sensible conceive that there are.
Wheras just because no pink swans have been seen, does not mean that a pink swan is impossible, because it can be sensibly conceived.

Ah, so you can define my question out of relevance when it suits your purposes? Why is it irrelevant?

It matters that something was caused, not how. At least in the context of this discussion. I don’t want to go off onto a branch and distract from the key issue.

But, jokes aside, define this “whatness” for me. Define what is the “whatness” of a rock, and what is the “whatness” of a pebble. How do they differ? Does the “whatness” of a rock change when it falls down and shatters? In other words, take the concept of a rock and separate the “essential” and “accidental” attributes into lists. What are the “invariants” of “rock-ness”? Then I will have some undertsanding of what you talking about. Please be specific. Don’t waste my (and your) time by referring to some nebulous “essence”.

In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is.

Essence is what makes something what it is. It is certainly not “nebulous”. Essence is a way of categorising and compartmentalising things.

How do we know the difference between a Dog and a Horse?
Well, a Dog has something essential to it, that makes it a Dog. Without which it is no longer a Dog. The same goes for horse.
Now the principle of “quiddity” or “whatness” is this, what makes a Dog a Dog?. A Dog is what it is because of an essential part of it’s essence - which makes this material thing what it is; for simplicitys sake a Dog is a creature with Dog DNA, wheras a Horse has Horse DNA.
Now the principle of “haecceity” or “thisness” makes this Dog this Dog. Rover is this Dog because this dog has the characteristics of Rover, it has black fur, it weighs 2 stone, it lives in this kennel and etc.etc.etc.

Now I will take your example of a rock. (to myself) A rock has the following essential characteristics; Hard, Reasonable size (not a pebble or sand, nor a boulder), Made of a mineral substance. A rock is NOT a rock unless it is these.
A rock has the following accidental characteristics; Color, igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic, taste, nice shape, smooth etc. etc. A rock can be a rock without nessecarily being one of these.

Sure, the whole universe and everything in it - attested by the principle of conservation laws.

So you think the universe is a closed system? That’s neato, mind telling me what’s at the end of it?

From this is does not follow that it was “caused” by some immaterial “being”. It can be simply “uncaused”. Just like your “immaterial” being is supposed to be. Also, you are proud of being down-to-earth, looking at reality, making inferences based upon your observations. Commendable, even if your generalization process is fallacious. Why don’t you bring it one step further, and say: “we have never observed an immaterial entity, using sheer magic to perform miraculous acts”, therefore it is unreasonable to assume that such a being exists. A good sword cuts both ways, you know!

Well we know material things were caused. We don’t know at the moment what caused them, but we know that it must be a nessecary thing (or something caused by something caused by something caused by something nessecary etc.) At the end of the chain there must be a nessecary thing.

“we have never observed an immaterial entity, using sheer magic to perform miraculous acts”, therefore it is unreasonable to assume that such a being exists.

We have not seen such an entity. However, we can sensibly posit such an entity, we can’t sensibly argue that a material thing can come into existence on it’s own. We might not know exactly what caused the universe, or how it happened - but we do know that it was an immaterial thing.

Nope, that is not held by “most” rational people, and even if it did, the “majority still does not rule”.

I must rephrase my statement. The idea that STEM is nessecary is absurd and NO rational person holds such a view.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Don’t try to turn the tables. I am not talking about “all the scientific knowledge”. Yes, it does take omniscience to assert that “something” is forever impossible to know. Where did you obtain this “omniscience”?

Omniscience means* knowing everything*. Look it up in your own dictionary. Where did I say I was omniscient? All I said is that science is not omniscient … and cannot be omniscient, especially with respect to the Big Bang.

But no doubt with respect to other things as well.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*When people had the above, incorrect “mental picture” of the universe, it seemed to them that asking questions like “what was before the universe was created?”, and “what caused the universe to pop into existence?” are good, legitimate questions, and they answered it with some reference to “God”. All those philosophers held this “picture” as true and valid. And all those philosophers were wrong. *

Now who is pretending omniscience?

*Today we know better. The questions you guys present are now nonsensical, because they ask something which is simply not there. The universe is physically different from the imagined “picture”. *

What we know is that the imagined picture of 19th century atheists was that the universe is infinite and eternal. That was then for atheists a comforting thought, even though there was no proof of it. They could say there was no creation, and therefore no need for a Creator.

You are right. Today the picture is different, but vastly less favorable for the atheist than for the theist. Science now knows that the universe was created … that it is neither infinite nor eternal. That begs an explanation more satisfying than that it just is.