Endless Punishment, Fundie style

[Slowvehicle]

Dear abaddon,

If you all don't mean that “some things can exist for no reason” you all are certainly not at pains to clarify what you all do mean.

One more chance, which I give you in spite of your general tone of irritable bad faith, or we're done. In fact, this is going to be my paywall for all future discussions, that unless people accept this, we have nothing to discuss:

Do you think things can happen or exist “for no reason,” “for no explanation,” thus violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or, do you think all things require a reason or an explanation for how they got there and why they are what they are?

Cpl Ferro

Ferrissimo più prezioso, di più caro, la maggior parte appositamente speciale:

Here is your "entry ticket" (the one you keep ignoring, if you want to talk about palpable "bad faith"):

Does your "Principle of Sufficient Reason" apply to your 'god', too?

Defend your answer.

There is no teleological "purpose" to the universe.

 

[tsig]

Dear abaddon,









If you all don't mean that “some things can exist for no reason” you all are certainly not at pains to clarify what you all do mean.

One more chance, which I give you in spite of your general tone of irritable bad faith, or we're done. In fact, this is going to be my paywall for all future discussions, that unless people accept this, we have nothing to discuss:

Do you think things can happen or exist “for no reason,” “for no explanation,” thus violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or, do you think all things require a reason or an explanation for how they got there and why they are what they are?

Cpl Ferro

Yes.

Now let's discuss the reason for god and why god is what he is.

 

[tsig]

Ferrissimo più prezioso, di più caro, la maggior parte appositamente speciale:

Here is your "entry ticket" (the one you keep ignoring, if you want to talk about palpable "bad faith"):

Does your "Principle of Sufficient Reason" apply to your 'god', too?

Defend your answer.

There is no teleological "purpose" to the universe.

God is Sufficient Reason for it's own existence.

 

[Giordano]

Dear abaddon,









If you all don't mean that “some things can exist for no reason” you all are certainly not at pains to clarify what you all do mean.

One more chance, which I give you in spite of your general tone of irritable bad faith, or we're done. In fact, this is going to be my paywall for all future discussions, that unless people accept this, we have nothing to discuss:

Do you think things can happen or exist “for no reason,” “for no explanation,” thus violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or, do you think all things require a reason or an explanation for how they got there and why they are what they are?

Cpl Ferro

I think I may need clarification: do you mean that I think things can happen for no reason, or that there is no explanation. The distinction I mean is if I think a physical mechanism explains most things happening (the rock fell down because of gravity) or do I think that there is a purpose for all things (the rock fell down because God wanted it to fall down, and therefore invented gravity). I believe in one, but not the other. Do you mean reason as in mechanism, or reason as in purpose?

 

[Giordano]

CplFerro,

I know this question has been asked of you before, but I couldn't find your answer. I've been thinking of your law of Principle of Sufficient Reason, and have had some trouble when I try to apply it to God. Was there a sufficient reason for God? Who created God and why?

 

[abaddon]

Dear abaddon,









If you all don't mean that “some things can exist for no reason” you all are certainly not at pains to clarify what you all do mean.

One more chance, which I give you in spite of your general tone of irritable bad faith, or we're done. In fact, this is going to be my paywall for all future discussions, that unless people accept this, we have nothing to discuss:

Do you think things can happen or exist “for no reason,” “for no explanation,” thus violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or, do you think all things require a reason or an explanation for how they got there and why they are what they are?

Cpl Ferro

What caused your god?

 

[Giordano]

Dear Giordano,

Indeed, Heaven is as you say. But, the present world also has things to enjoy, and I am reluctant to enjoy the blessings of Heaven before I have enjoyed fully the blessings of the world as it is. Perhaps this is a heretical notion, but it is with me. No, I don't wish to expand on this, and no, I am not thinking Hell is preferable to Heaven.


Cpl Ferro

My original question to you was, "What if you found out, on entering heaven, that everyone gets to heaven, would you be happy or unhappy." Your answer was that you would have mixed feelings. Clearly the question from the context of the discussion and the wording of my post related to the proposal that everyone gets into heaven, not when. So your response about you having mixed feelings about you leaving this life to go to heaven right now appears to not actually address the question. To clarify, would you be happy or unhappy if everyone goes to heaven, everyone, when they die at the end of their normal lives? The alternatives are of course, that people go nowhere when they die, or to Hell after they die. The choice is not whether they would live
longer, assume that they have already died. The question is only the kind of an afterlife they would have.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

What caused your god?

Humans created God.

Oops, that blew the lid off the whole thing.

 

[tsig]

Humans created God.

Oops, that blew the lid off the whole thing.

And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they'd made.

 

[turingtest]

I think I may need clarification: do you mean that I think things can happen for no reason, or that there is no explanation. The distinction I mean is if I think a physical mechanism explains most things happening (the rock fell down because of gravity) or do I think that there is a purpose for all things (the rock fell down because God wanted it to fall down, and therefore invented gravity). I believe in one, but not the other. Do you mean reason as in mechanism, or reason as in purpose?

From the way he worded the question- "Do you think things can happen or exist “for no reason,” “for no explanation,” thus violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or, do you think all things require a reason or an explanation for how they got there and why they are what they are?"- I'd say he thinks it needs to be accepted that there is both a "how" and "why," each distinguishable from the other. My own opinion is the same as yours- as long as the "how" gives sufficient reason from cause to effect- if contingency is supported- the "why" is irrelevant window-dressing; if it's not necessary to explain the "how," then it's indistinguishable from it, and it's only speculation at best. Fun, maybe, for certain types of mind, but essentially pointless.

No ticket for me, I guess, since I won't accept CplFerro's premise in its entirety. Too bad...

 

[Giordano]

From the way he worded the question- "Do you think things can happen or exist “for no reason,” “for no explanation,” thus violating the Principle of Sufficient Reason, or, do you think all things require a reason or an explanation for how they got there and why they are what they are?"- I'd say he thinks it needs to be accepted that there is both a "how" and "why," each distinguishable from the other. My own opinion is the same as yours- as long as the "how" gives sufficient reason from cause to effect- if contingency is supported- the "why" is irrelevant window-dressing; if it's not necessary to explain the "how," then it's indistinguishable from it, and it's only speculation at best. Fun, maybe, for certain types of mind, but essentially pointless.

No ticket for me, I guess, since I won't accept CplFerro's premise in its entirety. Too bad...

Exactly.

CplFerro: are we talking about how (the mechanism), why (the purpose), or both? I gave up on figuring out "why" a long time ago when I wasn't focusing on people. Even then it was shear speculation. Thanks!

 

[turingtest]

Exactly.

CplFerro: are we talking about how (the mechanism), why (the purpose), or both? I gave up on figuring out "why" a long time ago when I wasn't focusing on people. Even then it was shear speculation. Thanks!

It also occurs to me that it's a little disingenuous (at best) for CplFerro to demand that we simply accept his position on the subject under discussion as the price of continuing the discussion; essentially he's just saying "I'll only discuss whether god exists with people who accept that god exists." His "paywall" is simple intransigence, a wall he's put up to avoid debate, not have it. We could as reasonably demand, as a condition for debating "why" versus "how," that he accept first that there is no "why."

 

[Donn]

essentially he's just saying "I'll only discuss whether god exists with people who accept that god exists."

Zigactly!

Thinking like Ferro's is why minds get trapped in the fly-paper of stuff like endless punishment.

When you start with such bad building blocks, you can take as fact any two things, before breakfast!

 

[tsig]

Zigactly!

Thinking like Ferro's is why minds get trapped in the fly-paper of stuff like endless punishment.

When you start with such bad building blocks, you can take as fact any two things, before breakfast!

But not before coffee.

 

[Slowvehicle]

But not before coffee.

I've heard good things...

 

[CplFerro]

Yes.

Now let's discuss the reason for god and why god is what he is.

Dear tsig,

Excellent!

For my argument I would advance the notions of contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being's existence is not necessary; its existence or nonexistence are equally not illogical. Contrariwise, a necessary being's existence is such that it would be illogical for it not to exist.

An example of a necessity would be the logicality of the Universe. Why is the Universe logical? We might admit that it takes logic (A=A) to ask that question, but, that doesn't answer the question itself. The answer is that illogicality is a failure of language. Mysticism and other purposes of language aside, by saying something illogical we have failed to say anything. The phrase, “square circles exist” demonstrates this failure to say anything. When we say “square circle” we refer to nothing in particular, making our proposition a lie. So with the Universe. To say, “why is the Universe logical” is to say “Why can we say things about the Universe?” We can say so, because an illogical universe would be unreferenceable and therefore we would have nothing to reference. An illogical universe cannot exist, for this reason. Because the Universe is logical, we are able to make true references to it or its parts.

As I have mentioned, the Universe is contingent because it is neither eternal nor necessary. Its existence begs where did it come from. Saying another contingent, limited, unnecessary thing merely extends the problem, it does not solve it. The only answer is that there is a necessary being from which the contingent Universe was generated.

Note that I do not wish to argue backwards from the brute fact of the Universe's existence and say that because the Universe already exists, then a necessary being exists. Rather, I am saying that the question “why is there something rather than nothing” is only answerable through necessity. Contingency offers no explanation, and with it itself the question “why is there something rather than nothing” must be set aside as unanswerable. Since that violates the PSR, we are left with necessity as the only possible answer.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dear tsig,

Excellent!

For my argument I would advance the notions of contingent beings and necessary beings. A contingent being's existence is not necessary; its existence or nonexistence are equally not illogical. Contrariwise, a necessary being's existence is such that it would be illogical for it not to exist.

An example of a necessity would be the logicality of the Universe. Why is the Universe logical? We might admit that it takes logic (A=A) to ask that question, but, that doesn't answer the question itself. The answer is that illogicality is a failure of language. Mysticism and other purposes of language aside, by saying something illogical we have failed to say anything. The phrase, “square circles exist” demonstrates this failure to say anything. When we say “square circle” we refer to nothing in particular, making our proposition a lie. So with the Universe. To say, “why is the Universe logical” is to say “Why can we say things about the Universe?” We can say so, because an illogical universe would be unreferenceable and therefore we would have nothing to reference. An illogical universe cannot exist, for this reason. Because the Universe is logical, we are able to make true references to it or its parts.

As I have mentioned, the Universe is contingent because it is neither eternal nor necessary. Its existence begs where did it come from. Saying another contingent, limited, unnecessary thing merely extends the problem, it does not solve it. The only answer is that there is a necessary being from which the contingent Universe was generated.

Note that I do not wish to argue backwards from the brute fact of the Universe's existence and say that because the Universe already exists, then a necessary being exists. Rather, I am saying that the question “why is there something rather than nothing” is only answerable through necessity. Contingency offers no explanation, and with it itself the question “why is there something rather than nothing” must be set aside as unanswerable. Since that violates the PSR, we are left with necessity as the only possible answer.

Cpl Ferro

Or, you could admit that equivocating teleology and function makes the question meaningless.

Unless you deny that the universe actually is...

 

[CplFerro]

Exactly.

CplFerro: are we talking about how (the mechanism), why (the purpose), or both? I gave up on figuring out "why" a long time ago when I wasn't focusing on people. Even then it was shear speculation. Thanks!

Dear Giordano,

By "why" I mean the mechanism, the how. I don't mean that I am a materialist (far from it), so. I want that to be clear that by "mechanism" here I mean the cause or reason for a thing's existence and condition.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dear Giordano,

By "why" I mean the mechanism, the how. I don't mean that I am a materialist (far from it), so. I want that to be clear that by "mechanism" here I mean the cause or reason for a thing's existence and condition.

Cpl Ferro

The "cause" (mechanism, ontology), and the "reason" (purpose, teleology) are two different things, and may not be conflated--the first is observable. No scintilla of evidence has ever been offered for the second; there is not "purpose" to the universe; the universe does not respond to demands for telological justifications.

 

[abaddon]