>>18655771
They're all absolute trash.

I'm in a different tier
>ancestral memory

>>18655771
I don't know the Leibniz version, but contingency argument is sound and valid. If you're completely untouched by nominalism it will be difficult to follow the finer implications.
The argument from fine-tuning is pretty good, but it takes a lot of good faith to accept it. A materialistically biased person always has space to retreat from the tuning, all the way to the limits of our universe.

>>18655771
I like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLsElgfhZtM
>>18655798
>A materialistically biased person always has space to retreat from the tuning, all the way to the limits of our universe.
Do they? The best they've come up with is an explanation that requires an infinite amount of additional entities making their explanation the least likely

>>18655800
>an infinite amount of additional entities
Are you talking about the fine-tuning argument? I'm not sure they have to suppose additional entities, I think they just have to frame it as a system.
To them, claiming that the universe is tuned intentionally to sustain life is like arguing that the local climate's rain frequency is designed to sustain native grass species. We don't usually see it that way. We usually see it as a system where the rain and grass have happened to have established a system based one overlapping cycles. Whether these systems are teleological or not in the end depends on whether the universe as a whole is teleological or not... which means we have to revert to the contingency argument or something similar to make our fine-tuning point.

>>18655798
Fine-tuning gets a lot of flak because most of its proponents are a bit dim (imo because it's an argument that's easy to parrot without thinking about it too much).
It gets wheeled out as simply this "le number big" thing but when you get past that, what it's really about is ontological parsimony.
>>18655800
Adding entities is not in itself an issue if you're not multiplying explanatory principles. The heart of the issue is the question of why this particular thing, and the atheist can even turn that against God (why this particular God with the particular traits that lead him to create this particular universe). The multiverse explanation avoids that altogether by claiming that it's not this particular thing so the question is invalid.
Of course there are costs associated with that but it's not as simple as counting entities.

not a strong argument in itself but I like quantum divine action. established physics account for god's shaping our reality without being seen

>>18655816
>quantum divine action.
>established physics
Lmaoing @ your life.

>>18655818
you're denying quantum theory then. lmao

>>18655819
Sure thing buddy

>>18655821
>established physics account for gods shaping our reality without being seen
disprove it

>>18655822
Disproof: No established physics either needs or mentions gods.

>>18655807
>I think they just have to frame it as a system.
I don't see how this distinction excuses them from the burden of proof. Imagine if a theist made an argument that requires not just the existence of a supreme deity but also subservient deities. Do you think an atheist would not require proof of each individually and even their properties (also separately)? They literally do that when arguing about the identification of the being proven by these arguments, nitpicking every attribute of his one by one. You're being way too charitable to the uncharitable
>>18655808
>Adding entities is not in itself an issue if you're not multiplying explanatory principles
The issue is this explanatory principle requires an infinite amount of justifications for it to work not that it can produce an infinite amount of universes. God can also do that theoretically but the thing is he doesn't require it at all. If one "possible" universe doesn't exist their theory falls flat on its face while the theist position is unharmed.

>>18655848
you’re illiterate

>>18655855
Show me any physics textbook which uses a phrase as blatantly retarded as "quantum divine action". I'll wait.

>>18655857
who cares. The concept behind it can’t be disproven and makes room for the existence of god in a modern physical framework. The point is that it’s not empirical so why would be in a textbook lmao. midwit

>>18655854
>I don't see how this distinction excuses them from the burden of proof.
What burden of proof do you think is avoided by saying "the rain isn't designed for the grass, there is an evolved ecological system that made them coincide"?

>>18655869
>who cares.
Lmao. I accept your concession, retard.

>>18655874
stop bloating threads with your midwit retardation

>>18655854
>The issue is this explanatory principle requires an infinite amount of justifications for it to work
I don't understand what you mean by an infinite amount of justifications here. Can you elaborate?
>God can also do that theoretically but the thing is he doesn't require it at all.
One could argue a God who creates universes with all the possible variations of constants might actually be more parsimonious than one who creates just the specific one. And if that were the case the God might end up being superfluous in that arrangement, leaving you with the standard multiverse explanation.
I think that's why the theist's best move is to argue something like "God is the best possible being and our world is the best possible world" and using that as a simple explanatory principle (perhaps supported by the Thomist notion of "being").
>If one "possible" universe doesn't exist their theory falls flat on its face
True but I don't think that's a too threatening notion. If there was a multiverse with all possible universes but one, we would be faced with another fine-tuning problem, i.e. why is it fine-tuned to not contain precisely that one universe. And this in itself demonstrates that we consider the idea apriori extremely unlikely.

>>18655771
>contingency
>Everything has an explanation, therefore the universe has an explanation= god.
Not everything has an explanation. Fail.
>Consciousness therefore god?
Lol. Fail.
>Idealism
Already stopped reading. >>>/trash/
>Unmoved mover, Cosmological argument
Not everything has a mover/beginning. Fail.
>Finetuning, watchmaker
There's no finetuning. Fail.
>Ontological
There's no "greatest thing". Fail.
>Morality therefore god?
Fail.
>I desire god therefore god?
Fail.
>I saw god therefore god?
Take your meds.

I think that covers everything.

>>18655877
>claims his mental retardation is established physics
>starts shitting his pants when he's called out as a retard

>>18655894
>Not everything has an explanation.
No, just contingent things.

>>18655902
Not every contingent thing has an explanation. Fail.

>>18655905
Then it is not contingent :)

>>18655912
Yeah, that's not the definition of contingent. Try again?

>>18655917
Google the philosophical definition of contingency, lil bro. I accept your apology in advance, it's no big deal.

>>18655917
It's an implication. If you can name a contingent thing that cannot be explained by reference to its factors, I would be very interested to hear.

>>18655922
>A contingent fact is something that is true right now, but does not have to be true and could have been otherwise
Go ahead. Show me how this implies an explanation is needed. I'll wait.

>>18655926
>It's an implication.
No it's not. "Contingent" simply means neither necessary nor impossible.

>>18655900
established physics make room for it. but you argue about science textbooks when discussing a non-empirical concept lmao. classic midwit

>>18655927
I don't know why you put it in "needy" language, but something being contingent means its existence is based on factors external to itself. The description of these bases is what we call "explanation". (nta)

>>18655928
Yes, that is what it means for a thing to have factors outside of itself. It not being necessary from itself.

>>18655933
>being contingent means its existence is based on factors external to itself.
Where is this given in the definition I posted?

>>18655902
What makes the universe contingent but not God?

>>18655932
You can't argue about science because you're a delusional schizo.

>>18655933
>Yes, that is what it means for a thing to have factors outside of itself. It not being necessary from itself.
You're ignoring brute contingencies.
>inb4 brute contingencies do not exist
You subscribing to a particular ontologial view which posits that brute contingencies do not exist is irrelevant to the question of what the definition of "contingent" is.

>>18655940
at least educate yourself before you reply

>>18655944
Your posts serve as a good education of schizophrenic behaviour.

>>18655947
you have no idea what I posted about. neither the scientific part nor the theological concept. you just want to act smart.

>>18655949
Wrong. What you posted is unscientific nonsense.

>>18655771
you dont need to prove the existence of god, you only need to prove that the alternative is meaninglessness and that is very easy, meaning, value, purpose or right and wrong are all evaluations and evaluations are only done by a mind, now if there is not some ultimate mind on which everything is founded upon there is no ultimate meaning, value or purpose and moral judgements become subjective and meaningless, and if the alternative to god is meaninglessness, why would you choose the guaranteed 0 over the possible 1? nihilism is the guaranteed 0 and god is the possible 1, there isnt some magical third option where meaning is possible without god, though atheists and secular humanists want to live in illusions

>>18655937
In the implication of something being not necessary. If it were necessary, it wouldn't need external factors.

>>18655938
What makes universe contingent is that we can affect it down to the level of spacetime. Which is the prime mark of contingency - manipulating it by manipulating its factors. If there is a non-contingent element to this universe, we've yet to see it.

>>18655942
We haven't observed any. If you want to imagine an entity to account for our observations, might as well skip the whole reasoning process and make it God lol

>>18655959
>P1: If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
>P2: If objective morality did not exist, I would be upset.
>P3: I don't want to be upset.
>C: God exists
Classic.

>>18655962
>We haven't observed any. If you want to imagine an entity to account for our observations, might as well skip the whole reasoning process and make it God lol
Thank you for conceding that you were wrong about what it means to be contingent.

>>18655958
QDA is science-compatible and a very natural, basic consequence of quantum theory. it's still not empirical and there's no point in heeding it when being a scientist. you don't understand the concepts that are discussed here, midwit

>>18655966
I didn't concede.

>>18655964
i never even said that, are you suffering from some kind of illness?

>>18655962
>If it were necessary, it wouldn't need external factors.
You were asked to show why contingency implies an explanation is needed. Instead, your argument is
>necessary implies no external factors
which is logically equivalent to
>external factors implies contingent
which is not logically equivalent to
>contingent implies external factors.

Logic fail.

>>18655962
>What makes universe contingent is that we can affect it down to the level of spacetime. Which is the prime mark of contingency - manipulating it by manipulating its factors. If there is a non-contingent element to this universe, we've yet to see it.
Category error.

>>18655970
>QDA is science-compatible and a very natural, basic consequence of quantum theory.
There's no such consequence, you dumb hallucinating schizo.

>>18655974
>A=B
>B=A
>Logic fail.
I don't hold it against you.

>>18655971
Ok, then let's continue then. You're wrong about the definition of contingency because it is not the case that all contingencies must by definition be dependent on outside factors.
Your rebuttal? If you don't have one, feel free to concede.

>>18655976
can you at least learn the quantum theory 101 before entering a thread like this? that would help

>>18655978
>A=B
There's no = here. Your fallacy is "A => B therefore B => A".

>>18655980
Please. I'm an expert on quantum mechanics.

>>18655975
Special pleading. Now let's get down to actually articulating what we're trying to say?

>>18655979
> it is not the case that all contingencies must by definition be dependent on outside factors
It is. If an entity's existence is based in itself, it's not contingent. If an entity's existence is based on external factors, it is unnecessary and only brought about by external fiat. That is what we call contingent. I'm not sure what entity, item or concept you're imagining where you think it can be contingent and at the same time not be contingent on anything.

>>18655981
Definitions of words are actually "=", Anon. Being unnecessary, relying on external factors and being contingent are one idea, they aren't separate things requiring inference. You might have the impression that we are talking about philosophy but really I'm just explaining what a word means. Philosophy and implications come much later on.

>>18655990
>I'm just explaining what a word means.
No one asked you to define words. I already gave you the definition of contingent and asked you to explain how it implies external factors, and you failed to do that.

>>18655987
>It is.
Incorrect. "Brute contingency" is a term of the art within philosophy which refers to contingencies which do not depend on outside factors. It is therefore the case that the term "contingency" definitionally refers to different categories of contingencies, one of which is "brute contingencies".
You did not know this and that's fine, but now it's time to concede.

>>18655993
I explained how what you wrote means what I wrote. (And how that would be "=".) If you don't get it, then we'll have to leave it at that.

>>18655994
>one of which is "brute contingencies"
>is
Yet to be confirmed. Like I said, we've never seen it. So it's not an "is", it's a "maybe could be".
I indeed did not know about this and the argument we're discussing in this thread obviously does not use "contingency" in a way that includes this hypothesis. If you want, I'll concede by calling the contingency argument the gentle contingency argument and I'll be addressing what I call contingency a gentle contingency so that people who believe in the brute one can be assured their hypothesis isn't really part of the discussion.

>>18656000
>I explained how what you wrote means what I wrote
Nope, you made a logic fail and attempted to pass that as off as a redefinition of contingency and now you're making the false claim that the two definitions are equivalent.

>>18656000
>Yet to be confirmed.
It is not. We are talking about the definition of the word "contingency" within philosophy, not about whether some instances of particular kinds of contingencies contained in this definition actually exist. It simply is the case that he definition of the term "contingency" as it is used in philosophy describes both non-brute and brute contingencies.
You were wrong, I was right. Q.E.D.

>>18656005
There is no redefinition. Imagine a contingent entity and you'll see that what we both described is the exact same relationship. Or don't, my life isn't going to be improved or diminished by a random person online not understanding a word.

>>18656007
>We are talking about the definition of the word "contingency" within philosophy, not about whether some instances of particular kinds of contingencies contained in this definition actually exist
Not quite. We are talking about the contingency argument which uses a particular understanding of contingency. The mainstream one, in fact. It's not the case that every time a new hypothesis is brought up, the scope of this established argument expands to accommodate all its niches. That is not how words work neither in philosophy nor in life. It CAN be the case that I might have to use additional wording to clarify in case the new niches become widespread, but that's about as far as you can push it.

At the end of the day you knew a hypothesis nobody was talking about and tried to shoehorn it into an argument that doesn't work with it at all. It's a conceptual fallacy.

>>18656015
>Not quite.
Yes quite.
>We are talking about the contingency argument which uses a particular understanding of contingency. The mainstream one, in fact.
The contingency argument uses the exact same definition of contingency as the one that I'm using. That's why it traditionally relies on something like the PSR to argue that brute contingencies do not actually exist. If brute contingencies weren't included in the definition of "contingency" used within the argument, people like Leibniz would not appeal to the PSR.

>>18656015
>Imagine a contingent entity and you'll see that what we both described is the exact same relationship.
"Just imagine me being correct bro"
Lol.

>>18656017
>The contingency argument uses the exact same definition of contingency as the one that I'm using.
>...that brute contingencies do not actually exist
Oof. The claim was "a particular understanding". You just pointed out that it differs precisely in the point you brought up...

>>18656018
First time losing?

>>18656027
You seem to be having trouble distinguishing your imagination from reality.

>>18656025
Are you daft? Arguing that a certain subset of things under a definition do not actually exist is not the same thing as claiming that the definition does not refer to those things. You're basically arguing that just because you're not very well versed in philosophy and have never heard of a rather basic term like "brute contingency", an intellectual titan like Leibniz hadn't either.
In other words, your argument is reduced to claiming that Leibniz was as lacking in philosophical training as you are.

>>18655808
>ontological parsimony
I never understood why an ad hoc God with the incredibly specific (finely tuned?) desires to cause the constants do be the way they are, is any more parsimonious than the constant being the way they are

>>18656037
>not the same thing as claiming that the definition
I repeat again... the claim was "a particular understanding". Not "a particular definition".
In other words, your argument is reduced to claiming we're discussing something the most prominent authors go out of their way to exclude. You should have stopped when I offered gentle contingency, brother. You've lost it all.

>>18656059
>the claim was "a particular understanding". Not "a particular definition"
It's not "a particular understanding of contingency", it's a specific subset of contingency that the author argued for, fully aware that other types of contingency fall under the definition of "contingency". This is not the same as you being unaware of what the word "contingency" means in philosophical discourse.
If you can't take even this tiny L when it comes to an extremely clear yet ultimately inconsequential point, why should anyone think you're a reasonable person who will concede on points that are actually crucial to the argument when presented with sufficient counterarguments?

>>18655818
>underage
MOOODS

>>18655873
Here none but this is not analogous. The grass and rain do not require justification that they exist for the same reason the current universe and life does not require justification. We can simply observe them! The evolved ecological system is not the issue either because it is simply the theory being investigated but also it doesn't require additional proof of the existence of infinite entities.

>Leibniz' contingency argument
>S
No need to read the rest. The absolute state of theology.

>>18655880
Let's try this way. Do you believe that if we find evidence of a single separate universe this would increase the probability that an infinite universe generating multiverse exists? It's obvious that it would. Now let's add another one, the odds just went up some more. Do this until infinity and you reach absolute certainty that such a thing exists. Here each universe serves as justification, individually.
>if that were the case the God might end up being superfluous in that arrangement
Not really, it would be on equal grounds at best. There's not much difference between saying there's a multiverse that spawns infinite universes and a God that spawns infinite universes. The universe generator could be swapped with anything in that case. There's nothing that makes the first a simpler explanation than the second in this situation. Of course I've never even seen someone attempt to make such an argument in the first place. However there are many theists who do believe for example that God has been creating since eternity past
>God is the best possible being and our world is the best possible world
What does "best" pick out here? And wouldn't this just rob God of his free will, essentially making him into an automaton? The atheist could easily say that such a being would not require a mind at all.
>we would be faced with another fine-tuning problem
Yes but the problem here is that the odds would be flipped completely making it a much weaker argument. In fact it makes the existence of life almost certain. Think of it like this, let's say now we are at a situation where we have to survive 1000 Russian roulette rounds in a row but when we flip the odds we have to survive 999 completely empty gun rounds and 1 standard Russian roulette round. Surely you can see that the first is way less likely to happen due to pure luck

>>18656202
>Here each universe serves as justification, individually.
So like pieces of evidence? I don't think the fact that we could in theory have an infinite number of pieces of evidence for something counts as evidence against that thing (unless we expect that if that thing existed, we would have epistemic access to those pieces of evidence of course).
>a multiverse that spawns infinite universes
I think what's generally meant by "multiverse" is a collection of universes, not a thing that generates them. But fair point anyway, an atheist who posits some non personal necessary thing that spawned all this wouldn't have an advantage in this case.
>What does "best" pick out here?
I think it's usually some notion of completeness? Like tied to the "evil is simply the absence of the good" stuff.
>And wouldn't this just rob God of his free will
It might, but that's an issue people are bound to raise anyway ("can God change his own nature?").
>Yes but the problem here is that the odds would be flipped completely making it a much weaker argument.
I should've clarified I didn't mean a fine-tuning argument with regards to life, just a different fine-tuning argument where "the probability of life" is replaced with "the probability of only one specific possible universe being absent from the multiverse". Basically apriori it seems more likely there would be all rather than all minus one, and we'd want an explanation for why one is absent.

I think theistic arguments that just throws the word "best"/"good" in there and expect it to do all the work is garbage

>No. God isn't ad hoc. He is "good".
And by "good" is meant that he has a the specific desires to cause the data we're trying to explain...


Do any of the arguments in OP even work without me having to grant weird realist metaphysics?
I don't need to be huffing nominalism- I could just, not grant, the metaphysics that are baked into the terms good/god/best/perfect/whatever


Which is a very boring approach to the arguments. Because nothing gets off the ground.
But I'm not gonna get roped into granting stuff I think is made-up and silly