Yes, they exist. The vast majority of them will also be atheist. A minority of atheists will be antitheist.What leads you to a conclusion that is different to my own?
What leads you to a conclusion that is different to my own?You haven't put up any conclusion here. You asked a question. I answered it. I have no idea what your 'conclusion' is.
You haven't put up any conclusion here. You asked a question. I answered it. I have no idea what your 'conclusion' is.You put your conclusion. And I signalled that mine is different. However my own conclusion is that most atheists have an antitheist side.
You put your conclusion. And I signalled that mine is different. However my own conclusion is that most atheists have an antitheist side.
No I think you'll find they have got a right side and a left side.Highly dubious of that. I think it’s more one or the other.
You put your conclusion. And I signalled that mine is different. However my own conclusion is that most atheists have an antitheist side.So first of all can I check if you agree there are some antitheists who are not atheist?
So first of all can I check if you agree there are some antitheists who are not atheist?Any one who holds the view the view that atheism is more virtuous than theism has found their inner antitheist.
As to most atheists being antitheist. I think you are suffering from availability bias. Those atheists who are not antitheist will be much more likely to not be heard, and there are many more of them then those who might speak out.
But,we may of course be posting at cross purposes here, since we haven't defined the term antitheist. Since it is your question, what is the definition you wish to use?
Do antitheists exist and is there any relationship between them and the similar sounding “atheists”?
Any one who holds the view the view that atheism is more virtuous than theism has found their inner antitheist.I am not sure what you are using 'virtuous' to say here. I think atheism is the correct position to take based on the lack of evidence or indeed logically coherent and consistent definition of god(s) but I don't attach virtue to it.
I am not sure what you are using 'virtuous' to say here. I think atheism is the correct position to take based on the lack of evidence or indeed logically coherent and consistent definition of god(s) but I don't attach virtue to it.However if I'm not mistaken you have considered God and theism as not virtuous. In fact the opposite on occasion. Outlining God"s guilt in certain respects.
Also can I ask again do you agree that there are anitheists who ard also theists?
However if I'm not mistaken you have considered God and theism as not virtuous. In fact the opposite on occasion. Outlining God"s guilt in certain respects.I don't believe in gods so in that sense I have no beliefabout their virtues. I don't think theists are not virtuous, I think they are incorrect as there is insufficient reason to believe and that the definition of gods not logically consistent and coherent.
You cannot be a theist and an anti theist in my opinion.
However if I'm not mistaken you have considered God and theism as not virtuous. In fact the opposite on occasion. Outlining God"s guilt in certain respects.As for the ability to be a theist and an antitheist, bhs has already covered the logical reasons for why one can, so I would just like to point out that Owlswing who is a theist also appears tobe antitheist in thinking that beliefs in gods are a bad thing overall. I think theism is simply part of our make up as a species currently, though not as individuals.
You cannot be a theist and an anti theist in my opinion.
As for the ability to be a theist and an antitheist, bhs has already covered the logical reasons for why one can.Alas, he also failed to cover the plain meaning of the term Antitheism in which a theistic antitheist is an obvious contradiction in terms. I'm not saying there cannot be other meanings. I am saying it is linguistic piracy to use the phrase in a new way and discount the plain meaning.
So I would just like to point out that Owlswing who is a theist also appears to be antitheist in thinking that beliefs in gods are a bad thing overall.In terms of the plain meaning he is not an antitheist.
However if I'm not mistaken you have considered God and theism as not virtuous. In fact the opposite on occasion. Outlining God"s guilt in certain respects.
You cannot be a theist and an anti theist in my opinion.
Alas, he also failed to cover the plain meaning of the term Antitheism in which a theistic antitheist is an obvious contradiction in terms. I'm not saying there cannot be other meanings. I am saying it is linguistic piracy to use the phrase in a new way and discount the plain meaning.
Vlad,
They’re different categories of belief, despite your endless attempts to use them interchangeably.
An atheist sees no good reason to believe there to be god(s). Atheism says nothing about whether believing in god(s) is a good thing or a bad thing.But you've used the word Good here suggesting virtue in the atheist position.
An antitheist thinks believing in god(s) does more harm than good, so opposes it. Antitheism says nothing about whether beliefs in god(s) are justifiable.
I wonder if I am the only one who has indulged in using them interchangeably.
Doesn't Dawkins rank atheists in accordance to how antitheist and intolerant of theism they are?
Here for instance is an outfit called atheist conferences announcing the annual Antitheist international.
https://www.atheist-convention.com/
But you've used the word Good here suggesting virtue in the atheist position.
AB,You chose to highlight Hitchin's use of the word as if that superceded all other meanings.
Wrong again. The "plain meaning" isn't what you think it is for the reason I've just explained. Again.
As long as I've correctly categorised yourself Mr Hillside, that's what matters.
I wonder if I am the only one who has indulged in using them interchangeably.
Doesn't Dawkins rank atheists in accordance to how antitheist and intolerant of theism they are?
Is this not antitheism of an intellectual and philosophical flavour?
Here for instance is an outfit called atheist conferences announcing the annual Antitheist international.
https://www.atheist-convention.com/
But you've used the word Good here suggesting virtue in the atheist position.
At this point I think we are moving away from the plain meaning here. As I said already thinking that theism is virtueless, and consequently the atheist position has the virtue of being better than the theist position is antitheistic.
Also it kind of launders antitheism of it's potential bad aspects by portraying it as solely a position of good motives and methods.
You chose to highlight Hitchin's use of the word as if that superceded all other meanings.
Do antitheists exist and is there any relationship between them and the similar sounding “atheists”?Do anti-atheists exist and is there any relationship between them and theists?
Vlad,As always I refer everyone to Wikipedia according to which the definition you are using is popularised by Hitchen's in the early 2000s other,earlier definitions are available.
I have no idea how you “categorise” me, and or do I care. What actually matters is the validity of the ideas being expressed, not how you happen to categorise the person who expresses them.
Wonder away - it makes no difference to it being a category error.
No.
I have no idea – it’s something you’ve just made up.
So?
No, I made it perfectly clear that I was referring only to the belief “god(s)”.
No we’re not. Anything with the prefix “anti” means “against”, “opposed to” etc – no more, no less. Your supposed “plan meaning” is something else you’ve just made up.
No, it just reflects accurately what the term means and implies. No more, no less.
First, it’s “Hitchens” and “superseded”.
Second, no I didn’t. I just used the actual “plain meaning” rather than your personal reinvention of the term.
It’s not difficult, even for you.
As always I refer everyone to Wikipedia ...When your key point of reference is Wikipedia I think you've already lost any argument.
No I think you'll find they have got a right side and a left side.
I fail to see your exasperation since nobody wants to believe a word I say.
NEW RULE ONE for the Religion and Ethics forum:-
VLAD IS NEVER, EVER, WRONG IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM - IT IS ALWAYS EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS WRONG!
If anyone thinks Vlad is wrong it is becaiuse their mental faculties are not well enough developed for them to understand what he is trying to teach us!
All bow to the Almighty God VLAD!
NO BLOODY WAY!!
Do anti-atheists exist and is there any relationship between them and theists?Do they have another more recognisable handle?
One for you to consider Vlad.
Insure there are although they've never been discussed. Do they have another more recognisable handle?I think anti-atheism is rife world-wide, both at the level of the individual and through state-sanctioned anti-atheism. For example there are at least 13 countries where to be atheist is illegal and punishable by death. There are eight states in the USA where atheists are banned from holding public office.
I think anti-atheism is rife world-wide, both at the level of the individual and through state-sanctioned anti-atheism. For example there are at least 13 countries where to be atheist is illegal and punishable by death. There are eight states in the USA where atheists are banned from holding public office.I am against all of that which you mention.
Just some examples.
I am against all of that which you mention.
But are you though? Are you sure you don't have an anti-atheist 'side'?Only anti their position regarding God.
O.
I am against all of that which you mention.So does that make you a medium-soft anti-atheist, rather than a diamond-hard anti-atheist then Vlad?
So does that make you a medium-soft anti-atheist, rather than a diamond-hard anti-atheist then Vlad?It makes me a diamond-geezer anti-atheist.
Calm down, dear! Vlad disagrees with you, but that does not make him rigidly dogmatic or narrow-minded, as you suggest; it just means that he disagrees with you, and no more.
NEW RULE ONE for the Religion and Ethics forum:-
VLAD IS NEVER, EVER, WRONG IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM - IT IS ALWAYS EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS WRONG!
If anyone thinks Vlad is wrong it is becaiuse their mental faculties are not well enough developed for them to understand what he is trying to teach us!
All bow to the Almighty God VLAD!
NO BLOODY WAY!!
Only anti their position regarding God.Which would surely make you an anti-atheist, likely to the same degree as the atheists you argue are anti-theists, whose views goes no further than being against their position on god.
It makes me a diamond-geezer anti-atheist.You may be many things Vlad - but a diamond geezer definitely isn't one of them.
You may be many things Vlad - but a diamond geezer definitely isn't one of them.Wot? Even if I self-Identify as one?
Wot? Even if I self-Identify as one?Nope - being a diamond geezer is definitely something that is ascribed to an individual by others.
I fail to see your exasperation since nobody wants to believe a word I say.
Would you say an antitheist theist is possible since I recall Nearly has nominated you as possibly being one.
Which would surely make you an anti-atheist, likely to the same degree as the atheists you argue are anti-theists, whose views goes no further than being against their position on god.Let me stop you there. This thread is about antitheism. I have resisted replying to you using tu quoque even though you have begun to use that argument.
So if hard anti-atheism is about making atheism illegal, with a death sentence, and banning people from holding public office for no other reason than they are atheist, I'm struggling to see any equivalence with the views of Dawkins, Hitchens, Graying etc. So I guess those guys are just soft antitheists, similar to your son anti-atheist tendencies.
No, not really.
I believe in the deities that are connected with my particular belief system, but, at times I find that, like humans, their attention span is not long enough, they have a taste for practical jokes as long as those jokes are on humanity and not themselves and they can be just as vindictive as humans.
Nevertheless I still find that they do have their useful side, if spoken to with the proper respect and if they are in the right mood and as long as you are asking the right deity.
Yes, my deities have the same failings as humans and even Loki at his worst is not as bad as the vindictive "I AM THE GREATEST" bastard of the Christians!
If that makes me an antitheist theist then yes I suppose I am such.
I don’t want to limit atheist talk for most posters here they probably tend toward wanting to curtail religious talk.
That does not stop you incessantly telling every that you are right, does it! Are you the voice in the wilderness? If 'yes', you are not far enough into the wilderness because we can still hear you.
I believe in the deities that are connected with my particular belief system, but, at times I find that, like humans, their attention span is not long enough, they have a taste for practical jokes as long as those jokes are on humanity and not themselves and they can be just as vindictive as humans.
Nevertheless I still find that they do have their useful side, if spoken to with the proper respect and if they are in the right mood and as long as you are asking the right deity.
Yes, my deities have the same failings as humans and even Loki at his worst is not as bad as the vindictive "I AM THE GREATEST" bastard of the Christians!
If that makes me an antitheist theist then yes I suppose I am such.
I speak only for myself, I do not speak for any other Pagan either known or unknown to me!
)O(
Which is a reasonable stance if you start from a position of relative equality, but there is an entrenched entitlement to religious expression in this country - there are reserved spaces for a particular religion in government, there are reserved slots in the national broadcaster's output for religious outlooks. Opposing these privileges is, undoubtedly 'wanting to curtail religious talk', but the question is whether it's a justified desire. Removing an entitlement is not the same as suppressing someone's equal opportunities.This is a country of reserved spaces Outrider a veritable museum. The idea behind religious lords was a perspective other than the secular and temporal.
S
O.
This is a country of reserved spaces Outrider a veritable museum.
The idea behind religious lords was a perspective other than the secular and temporal.
So any removal of a check leading to only one point of view of how humans are and should ideally function is necessarily a bad thing so I would say change it’s composition before getting rid of an alternative to “ The one conception”.
To me then anyone who wants to get rid of a view of humanity as more than materialist consumer social and capitalist by turns is not someone I can readily agree with.
As always I refer everyone to Wikipedia according to which the definition you are using is popularised by Hitchen's in the early 2000s other,earlier definitions are available.
Such are the wages of linguistic piracy is that Orwellian doublethink is going on with the proposal of Antitheist theists.
And some of those reservations have had their time.No, I’m afraid any purely secular politics thinks that the job is a good un when materialism, capitalism, socialism and consumerism have been adjusted in Some way.
No, that's the claim in support of maintaining the Lords Spiritual. The idea behind the religious lords was the explicit attempt of the church to influence temporal power at a time when the concept of 'secular' didn't have a place in the discussion. There are religious people already in the parliament to offer a perspective not based on facts or evidence already, we don't need a reserved place for bronze age mythology subjected to a few centuries of advanced navel-gazing in a 21st century democracy.
Removing the specifically Church of England reserved seating from parliament would not result in 'only one point of view' of how humans are; it wouldn't even remove the voice of members of the Church of England... It might work to reduce their over-representation, however, making the views in parliament a little more representative of the populace.
If you think that the Church of England, or even religion in general, is the only viewpoint that takes issue with materialist consumer capitalism, can I suggest you listen to some politicians - there's a group called 'The Labour Party' they have a whole thing about that...
O.
No, I’m afraid any purely secular politics thinks that the job is a good un when materialism, capitalism, socialism and consumerism have been adjusted in Some way.
Most people would agree that we need more representation of more varied experiences not less
Not only are you advocating less. You are targeting removal from public fora.
Not only are you advocating less. You are targeting removal from public fora.
There are other points of view which have something to say regarding politics, but in principle yes.
We need broader experience in politics than we currently have, yes; we do not, though, need to reserve seats for one specific viewpoint regardless of the electorate, especially when the defining factor of that viewpoint is an adherence to one particular take on one particular version of one particular poetic rewrite of one particular sect of on particular religion's chosen book of fairy tales.
I'm advocating more, I'm advocating broader, but I'm also advocating better and relevant.
O.
No you’re not your advocating the one. The secular anti religious variety. Relevant? Who decides what’s relevant? Sounds like the fallacy of modernity to me.
No you’re not your advocating the one. The secular anti religious variety. Relevant? Who decides what’s relevant? Sounds like the fallacy of modernity to me.
Vlad,Apparently you do though. They need to be reserved for those on a secular ticket by the looks of things. And outrider suggests an extra device for inclusion of only the right sort....... ‘relevance’.
Still lying then. Again what he's actually advocating isn't the removal of access, it's the removal of specially privileged access that gives undue weight and influence to one sector of society. Look, here are the actual words he used: "...we do not, though, need to reserve seats for one specific viewpoint...".
I'm advocating 'anti-religious' - there's no exclusion of religious people of any stripe voting, or standing in elections, or serving in a party. I'm advocating that we shouldn't have a system where one particular religion gets a special place that's not matched by any other group in any other field of life: no reserved place for science, let alone just physicists, no reserved place for the military, let alone just the Royal Navy, no reserved for healthcare workers, let alone just oncologists, but there is a reserved place for religions, if you happen to be Church of England.As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors. It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.
There are scientists (although arguably not enough of them) in government, there are former soldiers, sailors and airmen and women, there are people with healthcare backgrounds, despite not having reserved spaces for them. Why is it that religion needs to have a special place when we already have:
Islam - 15 Muslim MPs (both Labour and Conservative), 19 Muslim Peers
Judaism* - 8 Jewish MPs, 10 Jewish peers
Buddhism - 1 Buddhist MP
Sikhism - 3 Sikh MPs, 2 Sikh peers
Christians - who knows? It's rather telling that whilst there are wikipedia pages for 'List of British Jewish Politicians' and 'List of British Atheists' there isn't anything similar for Christians. Around 11% of the 2015 parliament were Catholics (vs the Catholic claim of 12% of the population based upon baptisms, and the British Social Attitudes Survey figure from 2017 of about 8%)
So why do we need Lords Spiritual?
O.
* notwithstanding that some Jews identify as Jewish in an ethnic fashion without necessarily being 'Judaists' but it's difficult to differentiate in a quick internet search.
Apparently you do though. They need to be reserved for those on a secular ticket by the looks of things.
And outrider suggests an extra device for inclusion of only the right sort....... ‘relevance’.
As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors. It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.
Again it is the ever so slightly swivel eyed focus on the spiritual Lords.
As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors. It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.
Again it is the ever so slightly swivel eyed focus on the spiritual Lords.
No you’re not your advocating the one. The secular anti religious variety.
As far as I know Lords ARE chosen for their role in the various private and public sectors and Charitable sectors.No they aren't - there are no other peers (except the Bishops) who are automatically given a place in the Lords on the basis of their position within another organisation. Every other peer is considered on their individual merit, not on the basis of their role. And just to be clear how anomalous this is - once you get beyond the leading Archbishops/Bishops (Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester) the other 21 gain their seats in the Lords just by being the longest-in-office as Bishops. So if a long serving Bishops of Lincoln retires he will automatically be replaces by the longest serving Bishop not in the Lords - there is no process, there is no assessment of his suitability etc (as occurs for all other appointments to the Lords) - he just gets the seat.
It would therefore be wrong to exclude people from such office despite their role in the spiritual life of their communities.Who is excluding them - certainly not me - but their appointment should be the same as for any other peer.
Vlad,Relevant to whom and what though Hillside? The relevance argument sounds like what is being used to justify exclusion of atheists from Bible States.
Still lying then. I neither said nor implied such thing of course.
Yes – do you not think relevance to be, well, relevant? If we are to have an unelected Chamber, how else would to propose to select its members except according to their relevance?
Oh, and I see you just ducked your dishonest claim about what Outy had said, when in fact he was arguing for the removal only of privileged access.
I see too that you have just ignored being found out when you fell flat on your face again by trying to cite Wiki for support. Why is that?
And, again, no-one is suggesting that they should - you'll note the the specific role I'm against wasn't included in the list. The Lords Spiritual are maintained IN ADDITION to any 'outstanding service to religion' appointments in the Lords, and IN ADDITION to any 'outstanding contribution to some other field' appointments who happen to also be people of a particular religion.You keep on ignoring the idea of widening the composition of the lords spiritual and even renaming it to include Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins,Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood.
They are a specifically reserved place to ensure that the Church of England has a disproportionate voice. Christians, in all their guises, represent somewhere between 35 and 50% of the UK populace; non-believers around 35-40%. Why does one particular group within Christianity get a special voice?
I picked out a range of examples of religious privilege in the public debate - you narrowed down on the Lords Spiritual out of all the things I mentioned.
Secularism isn't 'one view' any more than 'Labour' or 'Socialism' or 'Conservatism' - in fact it's considerably less focussed than any of those. Secularism is just 'religion shouldn't get a special voice' - it gets a voice, just like any other viewpoint, it's not banned, it's not restricted, it's not deliberately ostracised, but neither is it privileged; it doesn't get to set its own rules, have its own reserved place in the public sphere. It has to stand or fall on its own merits, or lack thereof, in the public arena.
O.
Relevant to whom and what though Hillside?
The relevance argument sounds like what is being used to justify exclusion of atheists from Bible States.
Removal of the spiritual results in a preference for the secular.
No they aren't - there are no other peers (except the Bishops) who are automatically given a place in the Lords on the basis of their position within another organisation. Every other peer is considered on their individual merit, not on the basis of their role. And just to be clear how anomalous this is - once you get beyond the leading Archbishops/Bishops (Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester) the other 21 gain their seats in the Lords just by being the longest-in-office as Bishops. So if a long serving Bishops of Lincoln retires he will automatically be replaces by the longest serving Bishop not in the Lords - there is no process, there is no assessment of his suitability etc (as occurs for all other appointments to the Lords) - he just gets the seat.Effectively there are groups of people who can be guaranteed a slot in the House of Lords sometimes in squadron numbers,
Who is excluding them - certainly not me - but their appointment should be the same as for any other peer.
You keep on ignoring the idea of widening the composition of the lords spiritual and even renaming it to include Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins,Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood.Or better still to abolish the Lords Spiritual and allow Lord Welby, Lord Conway, Lord Smith, Lord Warner and Lord Croft to be consider for membership of the Lords in exactly the same manner as Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins, Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood (and every other Lord) and vice versa.
Effectively there are groups of people who can be guaranteed a slot in the House of Lords sometimes in squadron numbersNo there aren't - each appointment to the Lords has to go through an appointment process, except for the Bishops who are automatically appointed when they are appointed to a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation or have simply served enough time in a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation.
Effectively there are groups of people who can be guaranteed a slot in the House of Lords sometimes in squadron numbers,
The House of Lords represents the division of life into the secular and spiritual. The removal of the latter reduces that broader view of humanity.
No there aren't - each appointment to the Lords has to go through an appointment process, except for the Bishops who are automatically appointed when they are appointed to a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation or have simply served enough time in a completely separate position in a completely separate organisation.Check this out for what are considered the special circumstances of appointment to the House of Lords
VladI’m sure their presence is welcomed by many people of all faiths.
Putting to one side my preference that the HoL is just binned, please explain why the non-existent 'spiritual' aspect of my life, being a Scottish atheist who isn't even a baptised Christian, can in any sense be represented by a bunch of Church of England clerics?
Check this out for what are considered the special circumstances of appointment to the House of Lords
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/
Number of Lords spiritual restricted. Not sure temporal special circumstance lords are restricted in number though.
You keep on ignoring the idea of widening the composition of the lords spiritual and even renaming it to include Lady Roberts, Lord Dawkins,Lady Korsandi, Lord Fry and Lord Porteous Wood.
I,m sure a secularism without specific exclusion of the spiritual does exist but you are not representing it.
Check this out for what are considered the special circumstances of appointment to the House of LordsFrom the link:
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/
Number of Lords spiritual restricted. Not sure temporal special circumstance lords are restricted in number though.
I’m sure their presence is welcomed by many people of all faiths.
I have checked it out and it clearly suggests that the Bishops are a privileged group. I don't want to see any privileged groups in the HoL at all. Indeed, personally, I would want the HoL to be abolished, or, at the very least, to be fully democratically elected.Not sure about that. It would be first past the post all over again.
Why widen it, the issue is with having reserved places for specific groups, you don't solve that by simply including a few more select groups, you resolve that issue by dissolving the concept of reserved seats in the parliament.Which is why I am advocating membership of more religions and world views.
Nothing in secularism that is intrinsically against spiritual concepts or practices; it's about eradicating the privilege of religion, regardless of how spiritual they are or aren't. If there were an issue with spiritual I'd object to there being Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and Jewish MPs, but I'm not - if that's who a particular part of the electorate has duly selected to represent them then fair enough. I'm opposed to the idea of there being reserved seats to represent the Church of England in a parliament that's supposed to represent the people.
O.
Perhaps - but my question was about the relevance of Church of England clerics to Scottish atheists (like me).What a strange thing to bring up..Is this a rhetorical flourish. Gordon?
From the link:I agree that the Gen Sec should have a place in the upper house.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission was established in 2000. It is independent and separate from the House of Lords.
The Appointments Commission recommends individuals for appointment as non-party-political life peers. It also vets nominations for all life peers, including those recommended by the UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety. Members can be suggested by the public and political parties. Once approved by the prime minister, appointments are formalised by the Queen.
In other words there is a multi-step process involving nomination, vetting and approval of an individual before that person is appointed to the House of Lords. That process applies to all peers ... except the Bishops who are simply automatically appointed when they are appointed to another position in another organisation (or may even be automatically appointed when another of their number retires).
The equivalent would be if the person appointed as General Secretary of the TUC (not an unreasonable comparison) was automatically also appointed to the House of Lords at the same time. Now Frances Lorraine O'Grady may well be a suitable person to be a peer, but in order for her to become one she'd have to go through the nomination, vetting and approval regardless of the fact of being appointed as general secretary of the TUC. By contrast John Sentamu (to give an example) was automatically appointed as a peer the moment he was appointed as Archbishop of York.
Surely even you can see the disparity Vlad.
Which is why I am advocating membership of more religions ...The problem with this (and with faith schools) is that, even if you agree in principle (I don't) it doesn't work in practice.
I agree that the Gen Sec should have a place in the upper house.But should she be automatically given a seat purely by virtue of being appointed to that role?
The problem with this (and with faith schools) is that, even if you agree in principle (I don't) it doesn't work in practice.Bird lovers? They're not getting militant again, fucking Trotskyists.
So there are approx. 1 million members of the Church of England - so if that 'buys' 26 automatic places in the HoLs for their most senior office holders, well yo'll need 26 RCC Bishops automatically appointed, probably tens of senior Imams automatically appointed etc etc.
But you'll also need equivalent numbers of automatic appointments from other major organisations - so approx 150 senior trade union office holders automatically appointed, similar numbers of the top officers of the National Trust, another 30 odd top officers from the RSPB automatically appointed and so on.
It simply doesn't work, nor does it make any sense - by appointing individuals and ensuring you attract a wide talent pool you'll end up with christians, muslims, atheists, bird lovers, union supporters etc etc. You don't need to automatically reserve seats for the most senior officials from those organisations.
That is why it's best not to have one route into parliament which can be dominated by a narrow cadre.
The problem with this (and with faith schools) is that, even if you agree in principle (I don't) it doesn't work in practice.Or you allow about 50 and distribute according to membership.
So there are approx. 1 million members of the Church of England - so if that 'buys' 26 automatic places in the HoLs for their most senior office holders, well yo'll need 26 RCC Bishops automatically appointed,
What a strange thing to bring up..Is this a rhetorical flourish. Gordon?
How is it different from how are inherited wealth old Etonian relevant to me?
Bird loving is not a world view.Actually I suspect that most RSPB members are interested in conservation and environmentalism rather than being interested in bird-loving, a you rather patronisingly call them - so yes it is a world view.
Or you allow about 50 and distribute according to membership.Which would need to apply to the CofE too - no automatic seats for the Bishops, just 10 seats to distribute to members. I don't agree, as I don't think the HoLs is there to represent organisations, but to represent people and not all people are members of organisations - and if you bias towards those that are you won't get representation, as I suspect the population is quite binary. Joining people (who are likely members of all sorts of organisations - and likely have the money to support multiple memberships) and non-joiners who likely will include more more disadvantaged and marginalised in society.
Which would need to apply to the CofE too - no automatic seats for the Bishops, just 10 seats to distribute to members. I don't agree, as I don't think the HoLs is there to represent organisations, but to represent people and not all people are members of organisations - and if you bias towards those that are you won't get representation, as I suspect the population is quite binary. Joining people (who are likely members of all sorts of organisations - and likely have the money to support multiple memberships) and non-joiners who likely will include more more disadvantaged and marginalised in society.The HOL will not represent people unless it reflects both the secular and spiritual aspects of life. Unlike all other groups that are de factory interest and experience groups.
Which is why I am advocating membership of more religions and world views.
There is room too for elected lordships,Lords elected by lot,as well.
We don't need another elected house where those that are good at the dark arts choose to be on what looks like the party of winners. Career politicians political animals who spend there time divesting themselves of wisdom rather than getting real and representative experience.
That is why it's best not to have one route into parliament which can be dominated by a narrow cadre.
Actually I suspect that most RSPB members are interested in conservation and environmentalism rather than being interested in bird-loving, a you rather patronisingly call them - so yes it is a world view.No bird loving is by no measure a world view. Don't trivialise the debate.
The HOL will not represent people unless it reflects both the secular and spiritual aspects of life.Which it will necessarily do if it's members include individuals who happen to be from a variety of religions and also those who are non religious. That does not require, and indeed is hampered by, specific organisations getting automatic seats - whether that be the CofE or the NSS.
Unlike all other groups that are de factory interest and experience groups.The CofE Bishops only represent their world view (and others are available) - they cannot and do not represent me, nor about 95% of the population who aren't CofE members and they have no authority to claim they do. And, of course, the CofE that the bishops represent are just as much an 'interest group' as any other.
The Lords spiritual should represent the spiritual dimension of life and world views.
The HOL will not represent people unless it reflects both the secular and spiritual aspects of life. Unlike all other groups that are de factory interest and experience groups.
The Lords spiritual should represent the spiritual dimension of life and world views.
I don't actually think there is much concern among people of faith that their particular one is represented by C of E bishops as much as there is with an anti faith uk secularism which looks angrily at the extraction of religion going on on the continent.
No bird loving is by no measure a world view. Don't trivialise the debate.But environmentalism most definitely is - and the RSPB is an environmental organisation first and foremost.
Why do they need reserved spaces? They are already represented amongst the members of both houses. Why is religion - of any stripe - something special which needs its own seats in parliament?I'm not bothered and neither should you be since there is automatic selection for the unlimited number on a secular ticket.
How we, as a nation, select the remainder of the upper house is open for debate, but doesn't obviate the point.
If you think those people shouldn't be elected, campaign against them - stand against them, if you choose, but they are selected by the populace. There are not legally, formally places reserved for them regardless of the will of the electorate, regardless of the activity of the elected representatives of the populace.
Again, having multiple means of selection is not intrinsically wrong; the problem is that this is not a selection process, it's an automatic privilege of the Church of England to have seats in the upper chamber in addition to any of their membership that are elected or appointed in the normal fashion.
O.
But environmentalism most definitely is - and the RSPB is an environmental organisation first and foremost.No it's first and foremost a society for the protection of Birds.
I'm not bothered and neither should you be since there is automatic selection for the unlimited number on a secular ticket.The 'secular ticket' as you so disparagingly call it (I presume you mean the Lords temporal) does not somehow prevent religious people being appointed to the Lords - quite the reverse. There is no justification for leaders of one religious organisation additionally being provided with 26 automatic places.
The 'secular ticket' as you so disparagingly call it (I presume you mean the Lords temporal) does not somehow prevent religious people being appointed to the Lords - quite the reverse. There is no justification for leaders of one religious organisation additionally being provided with 26 automatic places.I am not disparaging the secular ticket at all.
I am not disparaging the secular ticket at all.
28 lords spiritual against a possible unlimited number of Lords temporal. sounds like a great deal for secularists.
Was it not Rowan William s who said he was prepared to see disestablishment until he recently perceived huge hostility from vocal antitheists.
What I am saying is that an Atheocracy is more likely than a theocracy. I can see that given how stinting on giving political forum some of you guys are.
Vlad,An atheocracy is government by atheists,for atheists and on behalf of atheists.
You’re making a category error again here. See whether you can work out why for yourself.
No. Antitheists would be pro-disestablishment, not against it.
What’s an “atheocracy”? People being elected to political office who happen not to believe in god(s) no more means an atheocracy than people being elected to political office who happen not to believe in leprechauns means an a-leprechaunocracy. You’re very, very confused about this.
An atheocracy is government by atheists,for atheists and on behalf of atheists.
As far as I know no system or ideology or world views governed without the aid of people.
After finding lots of reasons to cordon the word atheist from any use by people other than er,atheists...
…how are doing with the term antitheists. Are you still self identifying as one?
An atheocracy is government by atheists,for atheists and on behalf of atheists.Why is that relevant - the UK isn't an theocracy (indeed is there anywhere that is) and wouldn't be if the Bishops were kicked out of the HofL. It would only head in that direction were seats in the Lords, or at least some seats in the Lords reserves specifically for atheists, with no balancing seats reserved for non atheists. But no-one is suggesting that.
I'm not bothered and neither should you be since there is automatic selection for the unlimited number on a secular ticket.
As for whether I “self-identify” and an antitheist, you know I do on the ground that on balance I think religious faith does more harm than good (because overall acting on guesswork is less likely to lead to positive outcomes than acting on reason).I note that anti-capitalists have a similar argument - pointing to capitalism doing more harm than good e.g. the links between capitalism and slavery and capitalism and inequality as some of the reasons for being anti-capitalist.
I note that anti-capitalists have a similar argument - pointing to capitalism doing more harm than good e.g. the links between capitalism and slavery and capitalism and inequality as some of the reasons for being anti-capitalist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/industrialisation_article_01.shtml
We can see a direct historical link between capitalism and slavery and we can see the poverty that capitalism causes today due to asset and resourcing stripping of countries leading to a wealthy minority having power over a far poorer majority. So anti-capitalists decide the type of society they would like to live in and based on some of the outcomes of capitalism they reject capitalism as doing more harm than good.
However, the alternative to capitalism has not worked out too well for any country, so people have accepted a form of capitalism where they try to rebalance some of the inequalities inherent in the system as being better than the alternative.
Having been an atheist and anti-theist myself, I think anti-theism will catch on probably about the same amount as anti-capitalism. I think given the human capacity to hold beliefs, it's probably more realistic to work to rebalance some of the inequalities caused by theism or many other beliefs (political, cultural, moral) rather than try to rid society of theistic beliefs as they will just be replaced with some other abstract belief.
There are of course some beliefs that would be difficult for society to entertain. For example we rescue people from cult leaders who ensnare people with their promises to change the world and then indoctrinate them to be under the control of the cult leader.
Gabriella,Cherry picking in the extreme. Every advance, and indeed capitalism itself, can easily, and logically be argued to arise both from the religious and how religious people think. As so often you want to see religion as some external thing which as an atheist makes no sense.
That’s a false equivalence I think. Yes capitalism has produced some horrible results along the way, but it’s also given us untold benefits. By contrast can you think of any theocracy that hasn’t descended quickly into savagery? I can’t.
Cherry picking in the extreme. Every advance, and indeed capitalism itself, can easily, and logically be argued to arise both from the religious and how religious people think. As so often you want to see religion as some external thing which as an atheist makes no sense.
NS,No, you talked about capitalism, not capitalist societies. And the vast majority of capitalist societies we have are also based on some form of theism. Indeed there is a good argument that capitalism arises from a protestant view of Christianity. It's a long standing argument - see Durkheim.
How so? I was merely comparing capitalist societies with theocratic ones. Of course there have been (and are) the former with lots of religious people in them, but that’s not the point.
Having been an atheist and anti-theist myself, I think anti-theism will catch on probably about the same amount as anti-capitalism. I think given the human capacity to hold beliefs, it's probably more realistic to work to rebalance some of the inequalities caused by theism or many other beliefs (political, cultural, moral) rather than try to rid society of theistic beliefs as they will just be replaced with some other abstract belief.But that is a false dichotomy.
But that is a false dichotomy.That seems a complete misreading of what Gabriella says which is not a dichotomy but arguing for a much more complex approach.
In the UK religiosity has been on the decline for decades, with greater proportions of people being non religious (and also atheist) - I think the more likely scenario is that religion gently declines in its importance and influence, becoming an irrelevance to the vast majority, while remaining hugely important to a few people.
So we will have neither anti-theism, nor theism reborn in a new form. We will end up with a comfortably secular and largely non religious society where the few who want to believe and to practice their beliefs will be free to do so provided they don't bother the rest of us.
That seems a complete misreading of what Gabriella says which is not a dichotomy but arguing for a much more complex approach.But on the basis of religion, seemingly not seeing beyond anti-theism and a kind of natural belief reborn in some kind of manner.
But on the basis of religion, seemingly not seeing beyond anti-theism and a kind of natural belief reborn in some kind of manner.is ant-theism like ant-music?
I think neither is likely - perhaps Gabriella thinks that too, she can answer for herself, but my reading of her post was the choice was ant-theism of theism with the bad bits removed. I don't think those are the only options, not the most likely outcome for the UK in the decades to come.
is ant-theism like ant-music?Yup - with the two drummers and all. ;)
Yup - with the two drummers and all. ;)That theism's lost its flavour, try another flavour...
We will end up with a comfortably secular and largely non religious society where the few who want to believe and to practice their beliefs will be free to do so provided they don't bother the rest of us.Chilling and threatening by turns with IT'S THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
Chilling and threatening by turns with IT'S THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.lying drivel
ALSO the suggestion that secularism can only be comfortable when atheists don't feel bothered by the religious gives lie to the claim that secularism is somehow a neutral position or enterprise in which religious people can play a full part.
I on the other hand am not against having a secular side to society as long as the spiritual side is recognised.
It's not an unlimited number, and there is nothing preventing religious people being nominated into those positions - indeed, a significant number of them, as I've already shown, are already filled with religious people. No-one is suggesting that religion should in any way prevent people being in a position in the Lords. The problem is when positions in the Lords are reserved explicitly for religious people, and in particular one particular sect of a religion - that is privileging that group over and above everyone else.I believe there should be Lords spiritual. Not necessarily religious but certainly representing the various world views including atheism and humanism and there should be Lords temporal. People chosen because of their secular experience and achievements. And of course the system ensures the appointment of Lords world view and Lords secular.
It's simple: do you think the Church of England should have additional, specific spaces in parliament? If you don't, then you are in accord with the secular position on this. If you do... why?
O.
I believe there should be Lords spiritual. Not necessarily religious but certainly representing the various world views including atheism and humanism and there should be Lords temporal. People chosen because of their secular experience and achievements. And of course the system ensures the appointment of Lords world view and Lords secular.World view drivel
lying drivelSo you are comfortable with this warning then
We will end up with a comfortably secular and largely non religious society where the few who want to believe and to practice their beliefs will be free to do so provided they don't bother the rest of us.free to practice their beliefs provided they don't bother the rest of us.
So you are comfortable with this warning then free to practice their beliefs provided they don't bother the rest of us.Just as being a bird watcher, member of the TUC, or a woman. Campaign and get support. Claim you need privileged support because other's are not as important - No. But then I don't support apartheid, and you do.
So you are comfortable with this warning then free to practice their beliefs provided they don't bother the rest of us.As it is talking about privilege. Yep.
Just as being a bird watcher, member of the TUC, or a woman. Campaign and get support. Claim you need privileged support because other's are not as important - No. But then I din't support apartheid, and you do.
I disagree
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
Grow honey trees and cockaneys
Bring peace across the land.
It's the real thing
Doo da doo da
Coca cola
La de dum da.
That's niceJust as being a bird watcher, member of the TUC, or a woman. Campaign and get support. Claim you need privileged support because other's are not as important - No. But then I din't support apartheid, and you do.
I disagree
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
Grow honey trees and cockaneys
Bring peace across the land.
It's the real thing
Doo da doo da
Coca cola
La de dum da.
Gabriella,I was referring to theism, not to a theocracy. Or are you defining anti-theism as being the same as anti-theocracy?
That’s a false equivalence I think. Yes capitalism has produced some horrible results along the way, but it’s also given us untold benefits. By contrast can you think of any theocracy that hasn’t descended quickly into savagery? I can’t.
That’s a Vladian straw man. No-one’s suggesting trying to “rid society of theistic beliefs” at all. Rather some of us think theistic beliefs are fine for those who like that sort of thing, but they shouldn’t have a privileged position in society such that they tell the rest of us what to do. The rebalancing would be treating the various faiths as we do any other private members’ clubs, but nothing more.You are defining anti-theism as secularism? If religious people are part of society they will try to tell the rest of society what to do based on their abstract ideas about freedom and morality, much like atheists have beliefs (not about gods) about all kinds of abstract ideas - political, economic, cultural, social freedoms etc and they try to tell the rest of us what to do based on those beliefs. As to privileging beliefs - as society becomes less religious I assume any privileges will decline if democracy is working properly.
I believe there should be Lords spiritual. Not necessarily religious but certainly representing the various world views including atheism and humanism and there should be Lords temporal.
Chilling and threatening by turns with IT'S THREAT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.Hysterical non-sense. An atheocracy might, an overtly anti-theist society might, but that's not what I'm talking about - indeed I specifically rejected those as likely outcomes. No I am talking about a secular society - one in which there are no special privileges, nor discrimination (which is just the former turned on its head) on the basis of whether an individual is religious or not.
ALSO the suggestion that secularism can only be comfortable when atheists don't feel bothered by the religious gives lie to the claim that secularism is somehow a neutral position or enterprise in which religious people can play a full part.Secularsim is an entirely neutral position - it means that society is not taking a side (so to speak) in preferential terms between one religion or another nor between religious and non religious people.
I on the other hand am not against having a secular side to society as long as the spiritual side is recognised.And while individuals have a spiritual side that will always be recognised - but that doesn't require spiritualism to be formally embedded in the societal structures, any more than atheism, vegetarianism, post-marxism, neo-liberalism etc etc should be formally embedded in societal structures. As soon as you start doing that (and you cannot do it for every -ism) you end up with a society that is seen to have a institutional preference for one -ism over another - you end up with societally-sanctioned special privileges and discrimination.
DaveyYou are comparing apples and pencil sharpeners.
A neutral secularism would recognise that it is one of two
facets of humanity not seek elimination of spirituality.
Finally since the division is purely between the secular and the spiritual it is clear there is nothing being privileged.Of course there is.
You are comparing apples and pencil sharpeners.Societal neutrality is achieved when the full life of that society is represented. Yes I want my secular life and concerns represented and yes I want people to represent my world view concerns....and yours.
In societal terms spiritualism is not the opposite of secularism - theocracy and/or atheocracy are the non-neutral alternatives to secularism, and neither is appealing as both will lead to special privilege and discrimination. Only a secular society can be free of special privileges and discrimination on the basis of whether its citizens are religious, spiritual etc or not.
A secular society recognises the rights of individuals to believe as they wish, but that it should be societally neutral with regards to those beliefs (or lack thereof).
Societal neutrality is achieved when the full life of that society is represented.Indeed, and none is privileged over another - having 26 bishops automatically afforded places in the Lords clearly privileges one aspect of society over another - it is not societally neutral.
Your version of secularism is according to you one that is only comfortable with reduced religion which is tolerated as long as atheists do not feel bothered by religion....and when is that going to be satisfied?And religious people do not feel bothered by atheists.
And religious people do not feel bothered by atheists.I get from your sinister idea of a comfortably secular society that there will be little religion with the threat of removal if rights of worship if atheists feel bothered.
It will be satisfied when we have a genuinely secular society in which there is no discrimination nor special privileges on the basis of religion or lack thereof.
I don't want special privileges for atheists, I do not want special privileges for humanists, I do not want special privileges for vegetarians, I do not want special privileges for christians, I do not want special privileges for hindus, I do not want special privileges for crystal healers etc etc.
Do you not get it.
I get from your sinister idea of a comfortably secular society that there will be little religion with the threat of removal if rights of worship if atheists feel bothered.Secularism protects religions from threats from atheists just as much as protecting atheists from threats from religions.
Secularism protects religions from threats from atheists just as much as protecting atheists from threats from religions.The means of "protection" though involve the elimination from forums. The take away here is, the least profile you have the safer you will be and we are looking after you by making you look more like us.
A society that allows atheists special privileges that allow them to discriminate against religious people is not a secular society.
But hey - let's worry about levelling the currently unlevel playing field that provides special privileges to religion and religious people rather than a purely hypothetical situation where it becomes unlevelled in the other direction (which I'd oppose and so would all secularists worthy of the name).
The means of "protection" though involve the elimination from forums. The take away here is, the least profile you have the safer you will be and we are looking after you by making you look more like us.Nope it means elimination of special privileges afforded on the basis of religion or lack thereof. Which therefore means elimination of discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof.
Nope it means elimination of special privileges afforded on the basis of religion or lack thereof. Which therefore means elimination of discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof.There is no special privilege over secular Lords because there are er, secular Lords.
Try to turn this into some kind of hysterical moral panic all you like - it won't work. People understand fairness and unfairness in society - that those people who are the beneficiaries of unfairness fight tooth and nail to maintain their special privileges does really cut much ice, I'm afraid.
There is no special privilege over secular Lords because there are er, secular Lords.But the Lords temporal come from all walks of life and have a diversity of religions and world views, including not doubt vast numbers of members of the CofE - therefore adding even a single Bishop, automatically appointed to he Lords because they are a senior member of the CofE provides a special privilege to the CofE not afforded to any other religious or non religious organisation.
There are far more secular Lords than Lords spiritual.
The Lords spiritual could be repopulated to reflect the spiritual demographic.Which would make it exactly the same as the Lords temporal so what would be the point - take the simply route - abolish them.
Redefing the Lords spiritual to a more plural and broader definition of societies spiritual life is fairer than just cofe lords spiritual and much fairer than just satisfying atheist understanding and goals for society.But you cannot do that is you narrow your view to a 'broader definition of societies spiritual life' as many if not most people in the UK do not consider that they have a spiritual life, even though they might have a world view.
Which would make it exactly the same as the Lords temporal so what would be the point - take the simply route - abolish them.Not everyone is an antitheist Davey seeking to convert society by kidding people that their interest is about privilege and assuring religionists and others that "It's alright friends well see youre ok".
Not everyone is an antitheist Davey seeking to convert society by kidding people that their interest is about privilege and assuring religionists and others that "It's alright friends well see youre ok".Seeking to remove a special privilege doesn't make you an anti-theist - that would involve either wanting to discriminate against religions or provide special privileges to non religious organisations. Abolishing the Lords spiritual is neither of those things - it is about fairness and levelling the playing field.
Seeking to remove a special privilege doesn't make you an anti-theist - that would involve either wanting to discriminate against religions or provide special privileges to non religious organisations. Abolishing the Lords spiritual is neither of those things - it is about fairness and levelling the playing field.I want to get bishops out if we stick to having a tiny minority of seats other than Lords temporal. But not all of them.
But if wanting to remove the bishops from the HoLs or being against any religious leader should having an automatic right to seats make a person an anti-theist, well there are rather a lot. Over 60% of the population do not want any religious leader to have an automatic right to seat, compared to just 8% who want to retain the Bishops and 12% who said leaders from other faiths should be added to sit alongside bishops as Lords Spiritual.
But of course those 62% aren't anti-theist (plenty of them are probably theists themselves), no they are people who want fairness and understand special privileges when they see them.
No, you talked about capitalism, not capitalist societies. And the vast majority of capitalist societies we have are also based on some form of theism. Indeed there is a good argument that capitalism arises from a protestant view of Christianity. It's a long standing argument - see Durkheim.Thanks for that steer NS. I did a search on Durkheim and found this interesting blog comparing Weber's and Durkheim's views in the area of religion and its role in shaping social behaviour and history -
And you miss that you that you regard religion as external.
I want to get bishops out if we stick to having a tiny minority of seats other than Lords temporal. But not all of them.I'm not saying that Bishops shouldn't be allowed to be members of the HoLs - what I am saying is that they should not be automatically appointed as a member - that's the issue with the Lords spiritual - they are automatically appointed unlike every other peer.
I'm not saying that Bishops shouldn't be allowed to be members of the HoLs - what I am saying is that they should not be automatically appointed as a member - that's the issue with the Lords spiritual - they are automatically appointed unlike every other peer.Who would sit in the Lords non temporal would be up to the various world view groups them selves. Composition of what world views sit would be decided demographically..
If the ABofC wants to be a peer - fine by me, he should be nominated and subject to the same scrutiny and appointment process as all other peers (other than the Lords spiritual).
And if you retain a tiny number of automatically appointed peers (that is the key point about the Lords spiritual), but broaden it beyond CofE bishops, how is that going to be automatic - who decides which roles in which organisations automatically confer a seat. And regardless, this can only work on the basis of 'organisations' not individuals - and in doing so it systemically discriminates against people whose 'world-view' doesn't align itself with joining an organisation.
Thanks for that steer NS. I did a search on Durkheim and found this interesting blog comparing Weber's and Durkheim's views in the area of religion and its role in shaping social behaviour and history -Yes, that's a good blog. It highlights the main difference between Weber and Durkheim about that question of the externality of religion. I find it odd that there are a numbet of atheists here who seem to regard religion as some sort of external cause.
https://roadstarsociology.blogspot.com/2008/12/comparison-of-weber-and-durkheim-in.html
Obviously I will need to look into Weber and Durkheim further as this is just an overview of why religion might have influenced different societies and how societies in the West adopted a more capitalist approach compared to the East.
And an alternative theory is in Ian Morris' book "Why the West Rules for Now" which identifies geography rather than social, cultural or political influences as being the main driver of economic progress. Though East and West seem arbitrary abstract constructs.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/30/why-the-west-rules-ian-morris-review
Who would sit in the Lords non temporal would be up to the various world view groups them selves. Composition of what world views sit would be decided demographically..So what definition of a world view are you going to use?
Each would then be sworn in acknowledging that they are not Lords temporal.
So what definition of a world view are you going to use?Don't know yet.
Who would sit in the Lords non temporal would be up to the various world view groups them selves.Firstly, what on earth is a world view group - sounds suspiciously like organised religions to me as I suspect most people with a world view do not join an organisation (a world view group) but treat it as a largely personal and private matter.
f one says I am represented adequately by the Lords temporal then wanting to remove what little representation those who do not think they are sufficient is a bit perverse imho.Not at all, because the reason to remove the Lords spiritual is about fairness and creating a level playing field.
I don't know why you are making what looks like an argumentum and populum.No - it is you who seem to think that the Lords spiritual should somehow reflect the variety of world views and as they are automatically appointed on the basis of a role in a different organisation you are therefore obliged to try to explain the approach to determining which organisations get an automatic seat or seats and which do not.
A neutral secularism would recognise that it is one of two facets of humanity, not seek elimination of spirituality.
Your version of secularism is imperialistic seeking at least relegate important aspects of humanity reducing everything and e everybody to utility and capital.
Secondly you continue to paint me as seeking to preserve the status quo. That isn't true since I would have atheists and humanists there as well.
Finally since the division is purely between the secular and the spiritual it is clear there is nothing being privileged.
The logic of having another set of lords other than the lords temporal is that people need more than their physical needs met or more importantly represented. This deserves a voice and so I would Include atheists and humanists as members of this.Then ensure that your approach to appointment to the Lords is diverse enough to ensure that there are individual atheists, humanists, vegetarians, vegans, libertarians, philosophical naturalists, environmentalists, rule utilitarians etc etc etc in the Lords. And of course the same for the countless religious denominations.
Not at all, because the reason to remove the Lords spiritual is about fairness and creating a level playing field.It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.
It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.Your reasoning seems flawed. The so-called Lords Spiritual are in a privileged position at the moment in that they have seats specially allocated to them. Not only that, but the ones that are there are not even representative of all the Christians in the UK, never mind religions generally.
In other words only a certain exclusive view of people is served.
Hence your talk of comfortable secularism because the religious are put in a place where bothered atheist can limit their freedom.
Your reasoning seems flawed. The so-called Lords Spiritual are in a privileged position at the moment in that they have seats specially allocated to them.Since the rest of the seats are also automatically given to the Lords temporal it seems that your reasoning is flawed.
Not only that, but the ones that are there are not even representative of all the Christians in the UK, never mind religions generally.They are more representative of other Christians and religions generally than more Lords temporal.
If the special privileges of the CofE were removed, there's nothing to stop their bishops from joining the House of Lords,would that be as Lords spiritual or temporal?
As for serving merely the temporal: that would only be the case if representatives of religions were banned altogether.people are not merely temporal though, they have other interests and concerns other than those which can be represented by the expertise and experience gained in temporal life by the Lords temporal.
And there are those who would suggest that, if you want something other than the temporal to be served, you first need to demonstrate that that something exists.And here you betray the central interest of the atheist which is to have his own philosophy prime and paramount and privileged rather than the anti-privilege cover story we hear so often.
It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.
Since the rest of the seats are also automatically given to the Lords temporal it seems that your reasoning is flawed.
They are more representative of other Christians and religions generally than more Lords temporal.
people are not merely temporal though, they have other interests and concerns other than those which can be represented by the expertise and experience gained in temporal life by the Lords temporal.
And here you betray the central interest of the atheist which is to have his own philosophy prime and paramount and privileged rather than the anti-privilege cover story we hear so often.
If you had been following the argument I want the Lords spiritual to be based demographically and to include atheists and humanists who can comment through their pastoral experience and work on ethics and other aspects of humanity other than the temporal materialist view.
...how many do you propose and how would they be selected?
If you had been following the argument I want the Lords spiritual to be based demographically and to include atheists and humanists who can comment through their pastoral experience and work on ethics and other aspects of humanity other than the temporal materialist view.
Why is only the temporal served without the Lords Spiritual? Why can't the multitude of 'spiritual' peers ensure that spirituality is adequately represented? Why do we need special people for that one aspect, when everything else only need incidental representation?What we expect from the lords is expertise and experience. With the Lords spiritual or however they would be referred to after the inclusion of humanists and atheists we would expect ethical, pastoral and philosophical expertise, experience and working insight from them.
...how many do you propose and how would they be selected?Anything from 28 to 48 and a half. Selection would be a matter for the various groups themselves.
Anything from 28 to 48 and a half. Selection would be a matter for the various groups themselves.Which groups?
Selection would be a matter for the various groups themselves.Which groups and who decides which groups are, and which are not, allocated an automatic peer.
What we expect from the lords is expertise and experience.
With the Lords spiritual or however they would be referred to after the inclusion of humanists and atheists we would expect ethical, pastoral and philosophical expertise, experience and working insight from them.
It doesn't do that since merely the temporal is served.Non-sense.
Can you explain what single factor is used to appoint the Lords Temporal to equate them to the Lords Spiritual?
Where is the 'more representative' cadre for science? For the military? For healthcare? Why is Christianity, or religion in general, deserving of special consideration?Effectively people from science, the military and even healthcare do seem to find themselves in the HoL. The Lords spiritual are not the only special consideration group if you look at the parliament website on selection you will find others.
Temporal isn't somethingApparently it is
temporal (in this context) is just those lords which aren't the Lords Spiritual - they are also defined by that special privilege, just in their case by not being representative of it.sorry I don't follow.
How is making the Church of England compete on an even field with all the other concerns privileging atheism?The question is really how would making potential lords spiritual compete for places in the Lords temporal privilege atheism.
Which might make sense, to a degree, if you could establish why we need to treat spirituality differently to every other aspect of human behaviour, culture and experience.The treatment isn't different there are would be Lords who can offer experience and expertise in spiritual aspects and those who can do the same for the material aspects.
Isn't that what we expect from all the Lords?That's what I just said
That's what we expect from all the Lords.I just said that! This is uncanny!
Why do we need a special set to have a notionally 'spiritual' background? Why does spirituality need to be considered differently to science, or military experience, or an understanding of healthcare, or business and industry?It would be considered differently if not considered at all. Lords temporal are appointed for their experience in administration and knowledge experience and expertise in a secular field. What you are arguing is for exclusion for those with experience in ethical, pastoral, spiritual and philosophical fields. And that privileges an atheist viewpoint. Yet more evidence that ''fairness'' is a cover story.
Expertise and experience in areas other than religion or humanism.And what exactly is this chap's experience in areas other than religion or humanism:
You do understand that the only difference between a Lord spiritual and a Lord temporal is their route of appointment. Otherwise their voting rights, remit, role etc etc etc is identical. It is not the case that Lords spiritual focus on spiritual matters, and Lords temporal focus on physical matters. Both can and do focus on both as their remit is identical.Oh there is one other difference.
Oh there is one other difference.Most Bishops are working people though. What is their attendance compared with Lords temporal who have other jobs?
The attendance record of the Lords spiritual is shocking - average attendance over the past 15 years is just 18%, compared to 58% for the house as a whole.
So if they are somehow representing the spiritual needs of the country in the house they are doing a pretty crap job at it as they aren't even turning up most of the time.
Most Bishops are working people though. What is their attendance compared with Lords temporal who have other jobs?Yet another issue with automatically appointing someone to the Lords on the basis of being appointed to another position in another organisation.
That's what I just said
It would be considered differently if not considered at all.
Lords temporal are appointed for their experience in administration and knowledge experience and expertise in a secular field.
What you are arguing is for exclusion for those with experience in ethical, pastoral, spiritual and philosophical fields.
And that privileges an atheist viewpoint.
Yet more evidence that ''fairness'' is a cover story.
There is nothing in the nature of being one of the Lords Temporal that precludes them from weighing in on 'spiritual' issues.There are more (former) Archbishops in the Lords temporal than Archbishops in the Lords spiritual.
There are more (former) Archbishops in the Lords temporal than Archbishops in the Lords spiritual.I could live with these guys not remaining in the HoL.
Do you really think that Lords Carey, Williams, Eames and Hope somehow restrict themselves to discussing non spiritual issues because they are in the Lords temporal - of course they don't. And nor do the countless other actively religious Lords temporal.
Except that it isn't, you were calling out a need for Lords Spiritual (of a new ilk) to provide this particular viewpoint.There are two aspects to our lives where and how we get our daily bread and the maintenance of it i....otherwise known as our material or temporal life nd our spiritual or reflective life concerned with issues which complete and distinguish our humanity.
Science isn't 'considered' at all by virtue of having specific peers to represent it, and yet when it's relevant it's introduced by various peers who feel that it's relevant. Why can't 'spiritual' issues have the same representation, why do they need a special status?
Lord Temporal are appointed for any number of reasons, but they are appointed as Lords Temporal because they aren't one of the 26 reserved positions for the Church of England. There is nothing in the nature of being one of the Lords Temporal that precludes them from weighing in on 'spiritual' issues.
So, again... why does spirituality need something different to every other aspect of human life in the Lords?
No, it isn't. What I'm arguing for is that they get nominated and appointed by the same process as everyone else, that we do away with special representation for one special interest group.
Eradicating religious privilege does not 'privilege' an atheist viewpoint, it balances the scales.
Yet more evidence of selective understanding on your part, Vlad.
O.
Presumably someone thinks the would make good Lords temporal.What on earth do you mean good Lords temporal the only difference between the Lords temporal and Lords spiritual is their method of appointment - once appointed their role, rights to vote, remit etc etc etc is identical.
Are you talking of expelling Lords who have a religion until there are but 28?Why 28?
temporal groupsFirst you were talking about world-view groups, now you are on about temporal groups - what on earth is a temporal group.
What on earth do you mean good Lords temporal the only difference between the Lords temporal and Lords spiritual is their method of appointment - once appointed their role, rights to vote, remit etc etc etc is identical.I am against all the Lords spiritual coming from the same pot.
Why 28?
And no I'm not talking about expelling Lords with a religion - there are countless religious people who I'm sure are, or would make, excellent members of the HoLs. Likewise there are countless non religious people. I think the HoL should be broadly representative of the population in a range of respects, including but not limited to religion - but I certainly don't think you can put hard quotas or targets on that. I think the HoLs should try to actively address clear under-representation amongst certain groups (I suspect be most pressing being women and BAME peers) - I don't think there is any evidence that religious people are under-represented in the HoL, and even less so christians.
What I don't agree with is automatic appointment of any peer on the basis of their appointment to a different role in a different organisation. That is not right and is similar too the challenge of hereditary peers, who similarly were automatically appointed (usually when their Dad died). That issue is further compounded by the fact that we have 26 from the very same external organisation. So just as the hereditary peers had to go (although those peers were put themselves forward to be nominated and appointed via the normal appointment process) I think the bishops must go too, as automatic appointments, but again they should be able to be nominate and appointed via the same process as anyone else if appropriate.
...some examples might be helpful?
How one gets into the HoL, there should be a range of ways with no one controlling interest.
First you were talking about world-view groups, now you are on about temporal groups - what on earth is a temporal group.Temporal groups might be secular areas like industry finance public service science and medicine agriculture. Law.
Give us some examples please - you've completely failed to provide examples of these world-view groups.
And you have also failed to address the question of who makes the decision as to which world-view groups or temporal groups get automatic places, and why.
...some examples might be helpful?For example suppose there was competition between Ricky Gervase and Marcus Brigstocke for a place in the Lords.
How one gets into the HoL, there should be a range of ways with no one controlling interest.But there is exactly that for the Lords spiritual - the single controlling interest is the CofE.
But there is exactly that for the Lords spiritual - the single controlling interest is the CofE.Yes we know that the Co E is the controlling interest so far as the Lords spiritual but that can be changed before getting rid of lords spiritual and imposing a stunted view of humanity on the HoL.
And even if you broadened it to more world-view groups (whatever that may mean, you've still failed to provide a single example) then that would be controlled by those that decide which groups do and which do not get an automatic place.
Yes we know that the Co E is the controlling interest so far as the Lords spiritual but that can be changed before getting rid of lords spiritual and imposing a stunted view of humanity on the HoL.Why would abolishing a particular manner for selecting members of the HoLs (that is what the Lords spiritual is) result in a stunted view of humanity on the HoL.
Why would abolishing a particular manner for selecting members of the HoLs (that is what the Lords spiritual is) result in a stunted view of humanity on the HoL.There is a distinction between getting rid of the lords spiritual and broadening its membership and the means of selection. I don't know why you are conflating changing the selection procedure with getting rid of the Lords spiritual.
Did you think that abolishing the hereditary peers (another manner for selecting members of the HoLs) similar resulted in a stunted view of humanity on the HoL. If not, why not.
There is a distinction between getting rid of the lords spiritual and broadening its membership and the means of selection. I don't know why you are conflating changing the selection procedure with getting rid of the Lords spiritual.Because the key feature of the Lord spiritual is its selection - once selected the Lords spiritual operate in exactly the same way as any other member of the HoLs. You cannot retain the Lords spiritual and change their selection as they'd just become Lords temporal. It would be like saying you can retain hereditary peers but they aren't automatically appointed when their dad dies, they go through some other process. If that is the case, then you've abolished hereditary peers.
There are two aspects to our lives where and how we get our daily bread and the maintenance of it i....otherwise known as our material or temporal life nd our spiritual or reflective life concerned with issues which complete and distinguish our humanity.
Temporal groups might be secular areas like industry finance public service science and medicine agriculture. Law.How would those people be appointed Vlad. Currently the normal appointment, via nominal of individuals, scrutiny, approval etc takes account those factor as the key relevant experience suitable for appointment as a peer might be that individual's expertise in science (e.g. Lord Rees) or medicine (e.g. Lord Winston) or law (e.g. Lord Wolf) or industry (e.g. Lord Sugar) etc etc, so why would this be any different.
There are innumerable aspects of our existence - spirituality is, at most, one of those. Why does it need special status amongst all the concerns?It might also help if Vlad defined it because it's not clear to me what he means by it.
O.
It might also help if Vlad defined it because it's not clear to me what he means by it.It would be helpful if he would also identify some of these world-view groups and temporal groups which he claims, under his proposed system, would be given automatic seats in the HoLs for specified role-holders within those organisations (as per the Lords spiritual approach for the CofE).
For example suppose there was competition between Ricky Gervase and Marcus Brigstocke for a place in the Lords.What Temporal group would that cover?
They could be elected on whose feeling funny lasts the longest
There are innumerable aspects of our existence - spirituality is, at most, one of those. Why does it need special status amongst all the concerns?Are there? name some.
O.
Are there? name some.1) Self Aspect,
Are there? name some.
It would be helpful if he would also identify some of these world-view groups and temporal groups which he claims, under his proposed system, would be given automatic seats in the HoLs for specified role-holders within those organisations (as per the Lords spiritual approach for the CofE).I have said that the seats in the Lords spiritual be divided demographically with how each group elects or selects left up to the group.
Or, working from a cultural perspective, a non-exhaustive list:These can reduce down to spiritual and secular.
Family
Sport
Military Service
Healthcare
Education
Science
Industry
Entertainment
Spirituality
O.
I have said that the seats in the Lords spiritual be divided demographically with how each group elects or selects left up to the group.For crying out Vlad - name some of these groups.
These can reduce down to spiritual and secular.Nice divide and rule Vlad.
I have said that the seats in the Lords spiritual be divided demographically with how each group elects or selects left up to the group.What are the (demographic) groups to which you refer?
What are the (demographic) groups to which you refer?Interesting how Vlad simply wants to pigeon hole us all - for example if you are a white, male, atheist, middle-aged, humanist, yoga-enjoying, environmentalist, vegetarian.
For crying out Vlad - name some of these groups.Unfortunately people do divide practically according to religious observance and this has an impact on society. Humanism is also becoming a similar force based on the human spirit. Utilitarianism plays out in socio economic and political life and is represented by the impact on and outlook of those whose expertise gets them into the Lords temporal.
What group represents utilitarianism as a world view. What group represents importance of family as a world view. What group represents mindfulness as a world view etc etc.
The point is that most of these aspects that individuals may consider really important to who they are are not obviously represented as by a defined organised group - a 'members' club so to speak. Religion, yup but most of the others - nope. That doesn't make them less important but it fundamentally undermines your proposal from a practical perspective, setting aside whether it is desirable (which I don't think it is).
These can reduce down to spiritual and secular.
Unfortunately people do divide practically according to religious observance and this has an impact on society. Humanism is also becoming a similar force based on the human spirit.So how are you going to identify the groups who will be given automatic seats in the HoL under your proposals - simple question.
Utilitarianism plays out in socio economic and political life and is represented by the impact on and outlook of those whose expertise gets them into the Lords temporal.Christianity also plays out in socio economic and political life and is represented by the impact on and outlook of those whose expertise gets them into the Lords temporal (and indeed there are loads and loads of active christians amongst the pool of Lords temporal. So why why should christians get a special extra block of members as part of the Lords spiritual. Surely so should utilitarians - which comes back the fundamental flaw in your argument - how are you going to identify the group to be given an automatic seat in the HoLs to represent the utilitarian world view
Interesting how Vlad simply wants to pigeon hole us all - for example if you are a white, male, atheist, middle-aged, humanist, yoga-enjoying, environmentalist, vegetarian.The secular experience of white middle class men is well represented. Atheism maybe not so.A humanist Lord say Copson oe an NSS lord like Sanderson have the pastoral experience and expertise to properly navigate around the system on behalf of those they represent whereas Joe Godfree a computer analyst who manages to get one off to Religion Ethics......More fit for the Lords secular.
So you need to be represented by.
1. A white person special interest group
2. A men's special interest group
3. An atheist special interest group
4. A middle aged person's special interest group
etc etc
The secular experience of white middle class men is well represented. Atheism maybe not so.A humanist Lord say Copson oe an NSS lord like Sanderson have the pastoral experience and expertise to properly navigate around the system on behalf of those they represent whereas Joe Godfree a computer analyst who manages to get one off to Religion Ethics......More fit for the Lords secular.
More fit for the Lords secular.Are you creating a whole new tier of members of the HoLs now - the Lords secular?!?
The secular experience of white middle class men is well represented.The spiritual experience of christians who are active members of the CofE s is well represented in the Lords temporal - why the need therefore for a separate block of automatic positions for ... err ... christians who are active members of the CofE.
A humanist Lord say Copson oe an NSS lord like Sanderson have the pastoral experience and expertise to properly navigate around the system on behalf of those they represent ...And who exactly do those people represent - I don't think you can go any more widely than the members of the organisations they have leading roles in.
That's not what secular means.Looking at your list many need temporal expertise.
Why would we wrap up all the non-spiritual elements in one package and then treat spirituality differently? Why is 'spiritual' something special? Why should 'spirituality' be treated differently? You're still skirting round that fundamental issue to the discussion.
O.
Looking at your list many need temporal expertise.
There are 28 Lords spiritual and so how many lords temporal does that make?
There are 28 Lords spiritual and so how many lords temporal does that make?Actually there are 26, but nonetheless.
Perhaps, perhaps just well-rounded people or a broad enough range of people.Well there's an idea - let's have a system of appointment based on the merits of actual people, rather than some nominal (and in some cases fictitious) groups that somehow represent 'world-view', but more than likely actually don't. Oh yes - that's what we already have for all but the anomaly of the 26 bishops. So let's scrap the Lords spiritual, allow all those bishops to be nominated under the normal process if they wish and we can chose those who have the most to offer and are most interested in contributing to the HofL. This is exactly what happened for the hereditaries - some ended up as life peers.
Perhaps, perhaps just well-rounded people or a broad enough range of people.Alright then. As far as I know there are hundreds of Lords temporal and 28 Lords spiritual.
How many 'Lords Scientific'? How many 'Lords Medical'? Lords temporal is just all the people that aren't Lords Spiritual, it's not representative of anything other than not being Christian privilege.
Again, why should spirituality be treated differently to every other aspect of human existence? Why does spirituality need to be called out and shepherded into a special place when everything else can just be lumped together and left to look after itself?
Why do we have to have reserved seats for one particular group at all? If we do, 2hy can't we have 28 reserved seats for the 'Lords Scientific' and the Imams, Rabbis and Vicars can scrabble for seats with the everyone else?
O.
Alright then. As far as I know there are hundreds of Lords temporal and 28 Lords spiritual.That only works as an argument if you can demonstrate that a demographic bias in the Lords temporal is such that it needs to be balanced by the demographics in the Lords temporal (who are all CofE christian, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly middle aged or older).
Being well rounded is less in demand than experience and expertise. Since there are hundreds and hundreds of LORDS TEMPORAL THERE IS SCOPE TO DIVIE OUT THE Jobs rather than exclusively singling out spirituality as something so trivial anyone can do it and everyone's an expert.
Alright then. As far as I know there are hundreds of Lords temporal and 28 Lords spiritual.
Being well rounded is less in demand than experience and expertise.
Since there are hundreds and hundreds of LORDS TEMPORAL THERE IS SCOPE TO DIVIE OUT THE Jobs rather than exclusively singling out spirituality as something so trivial anyone can do it and everyone's an expert.
That only works as an argument if you can demonstrate that a demographic bias in the Lords temporal is such that it needs to be balanced by the demographics in the Lords temporal (who are all CofE christian, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly middle aged or older).This sounds like a job for demographic bias man.
And the demographic representation of the Lords overall clearly shows disproportionate numbers of women, non christians, ethnic minorities and the young ... hmm ... nope that not right somehow.
The problem is that the Lords spiritual simply compound the demographic biases already represented in the Lords temporal, but with knobs on.
This sounds like a job for demographic bias man. As it stands I have proposed seats in the Lords spiritual according to membership.
Outrider gave the game away by portraying spirituality as an afterthought requiring little expertise. That isn't even politically savvy.
So given that we've demonstrated there is no justification for treating spirituality any differently from any other field, there is no justification for having Lords Spiritual, whatever colour you paint them.You haven't demonstrated anything other than show you think spirituality is an afterthought that uniquely does not require the kind of expertise that is drafted into the Lords.
Obviously, we've not demonstrated that*, but that's the way this works, isn't it? You just make up a claim like:
And then claim that you don't need to make an argument.
O.
* Except that we have demonstrated this, because given the amount of waffle that dribble off your keyboard, Vlad, if there were a coherent argument to be made it would have turned up even if only by accident.
You haven't demonstrated anything other than show you think spirituality is an afterthought that uniquely does not require the kind of expertise that is drafted into the Lords.
There are other groups who constitutionally can expect seats eg political appointments,the inheritance lords, up until a few years ago,there needed to be Law lords and that has only gone via a quirk.
Aside from those we can expect institutionally there to be Lords from sport entertainment civil and public service and captains of industry.
It is therefore about expertise.
You are stating that spirituality is less than these other aspects.
Getting rid of spiritual Lords doesn't solve any recruitment issues in the house of Lords.
It merely satisfies those who see it as an afterthought getting their way and understanding enshrined in our societal structures.
As it stands I have proposed seats in the Lords spiritual according to membership....but you haven't yet shown how that would work practically.
...but you haven't yet shown how that would work practically.Have I called it my grand plan?
Are you unable to give example if how that would work, using actual demographics?
Surely you have thought your grand plan through to that level, haven't you?
You don't sort demographic bias by getting shot of Lords spiritual.You don't sort it, but you'd make progress in that direction.
Have I called it my grand plan?From 2011 census
I don't think I have. You could use the census I suppose, observance records membership records.
From 2011 censusChristian's 26
Christian 59.3
No religion 25
Muslim 4.8
Hindu 1.5
Sikh .8
Jewish 0.5
Baptist 0.4
Other 0.4
How would you divvi the seats up?
Christian's 26No religion doesn't equal Humanism
Humanists 13
Muslims 2
Hindu 1
Sikh1
Jewish1
Christian's 26Interesting that you equate Humanists with no religion.
Humanists 13
Muslims 2
Hindu 1
Sikh1
Jewish1
No religion doesn't equal HumanismIndeed - it doesn't.
Christian's 26Also the vast majority of the 59% christians are effectively census christians - have no active involvement in any denomination and certainly not a member of one. So they can't be represented by active christians, but by people like them, in other words non practicing christians. So they can't be represented by the CofE bishops, who can only really represent their active CofE membership. Given that CofE membership is about 1 million people that would equate to probably 1 seat for a CofE bishop out of your 44.
Humanists 13
Muslims 2
Hindu 1
Sikh1
Jewish1
Jewish1Good luck with finding a single organisation that for the 0.5% jewish population who would be suitable to represent all that jewish population with an automatic seat in the HoLs.
Interesting that you equate Humanists with no religion.
..and why 44 seats?
Why are we discussing how to implement something which hasn't been justified in the first instance?Because life has a spiritual and reflective aspect to it and because the house of Lords should reflect expertise and experience in secular areas expecting spirituality to be marginalised as to not needing expertise is a removal of representing humanity as rounded. Treating humans more as socio economic units.
How would you like to be executed?
I'm sorry, why am I being executed?
Hanging or electrocution?
Sorry, you need to explain why I'm being executed...
I might be able to see if we can get hold of lethal injections?
No, you don't understand, why am I being executed at all?
Firing squad?
Before we start allotting privileged seats to anyone based on any demographic assessments, someone needs to explain why spirituality needs a privileged place at all.
O.
Because life has a spiritual and reflective aspect to it and because the house of Lords should reflect expertise and experience in secular areas expecting spirituality to be marginalised as to not needing expertise is a removal of representing humanity as rounded.Complete non-sense.
Scrapping the Lords spiritual is like scrapping the conscience.Arrogant and patronising in the extreme.
Complete non-sense.That there arent specific places for Lords public service or Lords former military or Lords economic etc has nothing to do with whether there are Lords spiritual and is something that can be easily rectified by administrative change.
Provided the HoLs is rounded in terms of its membership it will include members who consider the spiritual to be important, and will therefore bring that to the fore, and also people who think the spiritual isn't important and will likely not bring it to the fore.
There is no justification for special privilege for the spiritual to have automatic places, unless you can demonstrate that religious (or spiritual people) are somehow absent from or underrepresented in the pool of peers appointed by the normal route - they aren't. I think there is little doubt that actively religious people (who represent perhaps just 10% of the population) are massively over represented in the Lords.
Arrogant and patronising in the extreme.That the Lords spiritual represent a reflective and moral lynchpin which can put a break on temporal political ambitions if and when required is an historical understanding.
You do realise that the inference here is that the conscience of the nation is imbued in CofE bishops alone. I think members of other religions and those who are non religious but have well developed ethical principles will find that notion deeply insulting.
Frankly I'm not taking many lessons from the CofE in terms of ethical issues and conscience - they seem to be behind the curve time and time again.
The claim that religious membership among the Lords temporal represents and would substitute the depth of experience and expertise of clergy, priests,imams,secretaries of secular and humanist societies is plainly wrong and represents marginalising spirituality.You mean unlike the clergy, priests, imams, rabbis etc who are already members of the Lords temporal.
That the Lords spiritual represent a reflective and moral lynchpin which can put a break on temporal political ambitions if and when required is an historical understanding.No they don't - they reflect a hugely narrow demographic in society with an incredible narrow world view and from an organisation institutionally privileged in our society.
My proposals broaden representation.No it doesn't it just adds further layers of unfairness and special privilege - don't forget that the vast majority of the people in the UK are not members of any of the organisations that you think should be representing them.
Yours and Outrider amount to a form of anti theistic gerrymandering.No it isn't as I have never said that the Lords should have less religious members than reflects the general population. The system is already gerrymandered - rolling back gerrymandering is not gerrymandering itself.
ImhoYou opinion is rarely humble, and rarely correct Vlad.
No it doesn't it just adds further layers of unfairness and special privilege - don't forget that the vast majority of the people in the UK are not members of any of the organisations that you think should be representing them.Vegans, vegetarians?How did they get there.
The current system is privileged, unrepresentative and wrong, but does have a sense of logical if you accept the notion of an established church - your proposal gets rid of that vague element of logic but does nothing meaningful to address the issue of privilege, representation and fairness. And it is frankly unworkable as you'd need some grand committee to decide (for example) which jewish group gets the seat, whether the seat for non-meat eaters goes to the vegetarian society or the vegan society - it is non-sense on stilts.
No it isn't as I have never said that the Lords should have less religious members than reflects the general population. The system is already gerrymandered - rolling back gerrymandering is not gerrymandering itself.
You opinion is rarely humble, and rarely correct Vlad.
Because life has a spiritual and reflective aspect to it and because the house of Lords should reflect expertise and experience in secular areas expecting spirituality to be marginalised as to not needing expertise is a removal of representing humanity as rounded. Treating humans more as socio economic units.
Also spirituality is organised across religious lines.
They reflect how people are.
Treating spirituality as marginal is an ought held by a few seeking to impose on a whole.
With hundreds of MPs elected on a political basis and hundreds of lords selected for the Lords temporal to say that a handful of spiritual Lords makes spirituality privileged is almost ridiculous.
Vegans, vegetarians?How did they get there.These are clearly philosophical 'world-views' that it is wrong to eat meat. So if world views must be reflected then these must necessarily be in - and there are as many practicing vegetarians in the UK (i.e. don't ever eat meat) as there are practicing christians - so their representative body (or bodies) must have as many automatic seats as those for all the practicing christians combined.
That there arent specific places for Lords public service or Lords former military or Lords economic etc has nothing to do with whether there are Lords spiritual and is something that can be easily rectified by administrative change.
The claim that religious membership among the Lords temporal represents and would substitute the depth of experience and expertise of clergy, priests,imams,secretaries of secular and humanist societies is plainly wrong and represents marginalising spirituality.
Actually, it does - it's about the Lords spiritual representing a different treatment for the Church of England to the rest of the nation - in your rather generous interpretation that's a privilege for 'spirituality' in general, but that's still a privileged position. How many sections of reserved seating do we need before everyone's covered? Why do we need reserved seats and not just have a broad representation?Once again I am saying that there could be more specialised groups in the house of Lords than there are now.
No-one is banning the people who are currently Lords Spiritual from being nominated, if it's considered that they have a place. To suggest, though, that you need to have reserved seating to ensure sufficient expertise from 'the spiritual' whilst suggesting that the rank and file can have sufficient understanding of law, war, medicine, science, sport, entertainment etc. is ludicrous. It begs, again, the question: what is it that you think is so special about spirituality that it needs special treatment?
O.
Once again I am saying that there could be more specialised groups in the house of Lords than there are now.No there aren't there are only two groups - Lords temporal and Lords spiritual. There are no other groups.
There are three now.
Political appointments
Hereditary peers
Lords spiritual
And until recently Law lords.
This suits antitheists but looks properly like paranoid neurosis on the part of them.Sadly there is only one person here coming across as being paranoid and neurotic.
Once again I am saying that there could be more specialised groups in the house of Lords than there are now.
There are three now.
Political appointments
Hereditary peers
Lords spiritual
And until recently Law lords.
Getting rid of Lords spiritual given the small numbers is neurotic antitheism given the already paltry numbers representing a major facet of human life.
That getting rid of lords spiritual reflects a view that spirituality can adequately represented by people with little experience or expertise when the HoL is about expertise and experience is effectively saying it isn't a matter that needs to be represented at all.
This suits antitheists but looks properly like paranoid neurosis on the part of them.
why can't we get rid of the hereditary and spiritual peers?The automatic right for hereditary peers to sit in the HoLs was abolished in 1999. Some of these longstanding members were reappointed as life peers using largely the same appointment process as for all other lords temporal.
The automatic right for hereditary peers to sit in the HoLs was abolished in 1999. Some of these longstanding members were reappointed as life peers using largely the same appointment process as for all other lords temporal.While I don't disagree with the general point, the appt of hereditary peers doesn't follow the same process of non - hereditary peers with elections for 90 of the positions, and 2 positions that are guaranteed because of hereditary offices.
So of the three weird anomalies that were traditionally in the HoL
automatic seats for law lords - abolished
automatic seats for hereditary peers - abolished
automatic seats for CofE bishops - ... hmm
That was merely a one off process to deal with a proportion of the hereditary peers being highly committed and active members of the HoL - since then no hereditary peer has been automatically appointed to the HoLs - they can be nominated and appointed just as anyone else can under exactly the same process as everyone else (except the bishops).
Sorry - removed my post because you are correct. There is a different process (I'd scrap that too, and there have been attempts in the Lords to do just that), however the main point remains that no hereditary peer is automatically appointed to the HoL by virtue of their title or position. The only members automatically appointed are the bishops.
Nope - there are by elections
https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/lords/house-of-lords-external-communications/by-elections/
And the 2 hereditary offices continue to be hereditary
Sorry - removed my post because you are correct. There is a different process (I'd scrap that too, and there have been attempts in the Lords to do just that), however the main point remains that no hereditary peer is automatically appointed to the HoL by virtue of their title or position. The only members automatically appointed are the bishops.And again nope, the hereditary offices the Earl Marshal, and the Lord Great Chamberlain ( which has triggered me to hum Gilbert and Sullivan) are automatically appointed. I would scrap the lot.
And again nope, the hereditary offices the Earl Marshal, and the Lord Great Chamberlain ( which has triggered me to hum Gilbert and Sullivan) are automatically appointed. I would scrap the lot.Blimey NS - you are on fire today with your constitutional knowledge. Again you are right and again I'd abolish.
Blimey NS - you are on fire today with your constitutional knowledge. Again you are right and again I'd abolish.I've been involved in a couple of campaigns to abolish the HoL and the rather bizarre flummery of the elections and the titles were part of the last campaign. I think that from memory in theory the 2 offices can participate and a couple of speeches have been made on internal matters but as a practice they don't vote. But I haven't followed it in detail recently.
Reading from wikipedia, not sure if these are actually working members of the HoL (i.e. able to sit, make speeches, vote etc) - it appears they may only be there for ceremonial purposes:
'The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the automatic right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords, but the Act provided that the persons holding the office of Earl Marshal and, if a peer, the Lord Great Chamberlain continue for the time being to have seats so as to carry out their ceremonial functions in the House of Lords.'
I've been involved in a couple of campaigns to abolish the HoL and the rather bizarre flummery of the elections and the titles were part of the last campaign. I think that from memory in theory the 2 offices can participate and a couple of speeches have been made on internal matters but as a practice they don't vote. But I haven't followed it in detail recently.And there was me thinking this was simply advanced pub-quiz knowledge ;)
And there was me thinking this was simply advanced pub-quiz knowledge ;)It's my turn to write the questions for our Covid 19 quiz next Wednesday - I doubt others would like a round on the HoL at this detail.
I've been involved in a couple of campaigns to abolish the HoL and the rather bizarre flummery of the elections and the titles were part of the last campaign. I think that from memory in theory the 2 offices can participate and a couple of speeches have been made on internal matters but as a practice they don't vote. But I haven't followed it in detail recently.In your campaigning would you say it was against the House of Lords as a whole or did you just see the non Lords Spiritual as collateral?
In your campaigning would you say it was against the House of Lords as a whole or did you just see the non Lords Spiritual as collateral?The HoL as a whole. The discrimination with the CoE lot is a small part of a much larger argument.
That getting rid of lords spiritual reflects a view that spirituality can adequately represented by people with little experience or expertise ...Exam question for Vlad:
Exam question for Vlad:Williams and Carey are but two.
Justify this statement: Justin Welby has more experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Rowan Williams and George Carey.
Williams and Carey are but two.Oh dear - I'm afraid that is an exam fail with virtually zero marks as you completely failed to answer the question.
I notice Wikipedia has former archbishops as invariably selected for HoL after retirement from post.
This is what I said earlier.
There are automatically appointments of Lords temporal, hereditary peers as a class are automatically appointed as are political preferments. There are also other classes other than ex archbishops who would go under the title of invariably selected for the HoL. Captains of Industry,Civil servants, the speaker, retired military and the like.
The case of the speaker underlines how fragile any assurance of invariable representation is and Outrider proposes some sort of competition for places. I think we can all guess HIS rules for that.
I still maintain removal of the Lords spiritual to be an antitheist ruse to privilege a certain view of humanity and ensure we all stick with it.
Oh dear - I'm afraid that is an exam fail with virtually zero marks as you completely failed to answer the question.Clearly William's and Carey.
Let's give you another go - the exam question is:
Justify this statement: Justin Welby has more experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Rowan Williams and George Carey.
Clearly William's and Carey.To clarify - you are saying that clearly Williams and Carey have greater experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Welby?
To clarify - you are saying that clearly Williams and Carey have greater experience and expertise to reflect on matters of spirituality than Welby?Clearly.......How are you getting on with your exam question?
Clearly.......How are you getting on with your exam question?Thank you
Exam question for Professor Davy.I'd need to see the details of their nominations of course.
You have the casting vote on who gets into the temporal Lords Welby or Dawkins. Show your Wawkins, sorry workings.
Thank youAgain. They are but two.
So you are clear that Carey and Williams (both Lords temporal) are better placed than Welby (Lords spiritual) to reflect on matters of spirituality due to their greater experience and expertise.
Which completely destroys your argument that you need Lords spiritual as spiritual matters cannot be adequately addressed by Lords temporal.
I'd need to see the details of their nominations of course.Dawkins though has gone out of his way to ridicule and other people. He is a divisive figure.
But given that active members of the CofE are over-represented in the Lords and CofE bishops massively over-represented, while I think that non religious people and individuals with a background in science are under-represented then for those reasons I'd likely support Dawkins.
Another potential point in Dawkin's favour is that he is effectively retired and therefore would more credibly be able to claim to give sufficient time commitment to the role. I think it is tricky for Welby to commit sufficiently to the role as he also has a full time and high pressure leadership role as CofE.
However, neither does much to address other demographic under-representation issues, being male, white and fairly old. So I think my preference may be for neither, rather I'd support someone else.
Again. They are but two.
And the practice of invariably selecting retired archbishops in the fashion that others are invariably selected to the Lords temporal.
Would this adequately ensure the level of representation of spirituality,even the paltry level of today, unlikely. And your thesis only works if the practice of invariable selection works.
There is no such invariability afforded either to other beliefs.
It can only end up privileging antitheists and materialist views of humanity
Would it not be better to throw all those who are seated because they represent a religious viewpoint be thrown out until they can present proof positive that the deity/deities they represent actually exist in order that their followers deserve unelected representation?That would favour naturalism, scientism and materialistic views none of which can be demonstrated in the fashion you are requiring.
That would favour naturalism, scientism and materialistic views none of which can be demonstrated in the fashion you are requiring.
We have an elected commons. We could have some elected Lords but I wouldn't want more than a few elected.
Dawkins though has gone out of his way to ridicule and other people.Matter of opinion, but that is why I'd need to see their nomination details.
He is a divisive figure.So is Welby - see his views and actions on homosexuality (e.g. banning Mohan Sharma from attending the Lambeth Conference). Welby's views on the matter are certainly not aligned with mainstream public opinion.
He does not have the administrative,managerial or pastoral experience on an international level in multiple industries.Welby doesn't have an international scientific profile based on a career of many decades (not just the 11 years Welby had in a single industry - oil). Nor does he have the profile in terms of public engagement that Dawkins has. So you'd have to take your pick of attributes that are considered most important in that appointment. You'd be comparing apples and pears.
However,Under my scheme he would be considered as a leader of a life beliefs grouping. And eminently suited for a reformed Lords spiritual.But we are not talking about your scheme are we - simply who is a more credible candidate for appointment as a Lords temporal.
Williams and Carey are but two.
I notice Wikipedia has former archbishops as invariably selected for HoL after retirement from post.
This is what I said earlier.
There are automatically appointments of Lords temporal, hereditary peers as a class are automatically appointed as are political preferments. There are also other classes other than ex archbishops who would go under the title of invariably selected for the HoL. Captains of Industry,Civil servants, the speaker, retired military and the like.
The case of the speaker underlines how fragile any assurance of invariable representation is and Outrider proposes some sort of competition for places. I think we can all guess HIS rules for that.
I still maintain removal of the Lords spiritual to be an antitheist ruse to privilege a certain view of humanity and ensure we all stick with it.
But we are not talking about your scheme are we - simply who is a more credible candidate for appointment as a Lords temporal.I find myself not wanting to begrudge Dawkins a seat in the house of Lords.
But if you want to reform the Lords spiritual surely the last thing you'd want to do is simply replace a leading CofE bishop with err a leading CofE bishop. Surely in the interests of reform and diversity you wouldn't be looking at Welby - nope you'd want a leading figure from another christian denomination, or from another religion or from another 'world-view' (as you like to call them altogether). So in the spirit of your reform weirdly Dawkins (as a leading proponent of a non religious world view) should be preferable to you compared to Welby as the latter reflects more of the same rather than reform.
Can't see the bit in that which explains why spirituality needs special consideration... in the absence of that, treating sprirituality like everything else is not privileging a certain atheistic view, it's removing the undue privilege a certain religious view current enjoys.Professor Davey has I believe been quite cunning. Instead of presenting Bishops or the spiritual as a class he casts them and only them as individuals guaranteed invariably and automatically selected. I can see why he has done that because,as a class Lords spiritual are on a par with Lords temporal. There are automatically hundreds and hundreds of Lords temporal.
O.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The HoL are chosen because of expertise and experience.Indeed and spiritual expertise is just as welcomed in the Lords temporal as other kinds of expertise, so there is no need for that expertise to require the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself.
The moment you say that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL you are absolutely relegating spirituality to trivial proportions which only reflect a certain viewpoint.I have never said that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL - said as all sorts of other types of expertise - what it does not need is the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself, which no other type of expertise benefits from.
Indeed and spiritual expertise is just as welcomed in the Lords temporal as other kinds of expertise, so there is no need for that expertise to require the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself.I dont think that's true. Have you managed to sort out the difference between invariably selected and automatically selected yet?
I have never said that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL - said as all sorts of other types of expertise - what it does not need is the special privilege of a separate class of member all to itself, which no other type of expertise benefits from.
I dont think that's true.Special pleading - me thinks.
Have you managed to sort out the difference between invariably selected and automatically selected yet?You're clearly desperate to tell us, so why don't you let us all know what you mean Vlad.
You're clearly desperate to tell us, so why don't you let us all know what you mean Vlad.There isn't one. Bankers are therefore automatically selected to the HoL evidence.......they invariably are.
There isn't one. Bankers are therefore automatically selected to the HoL evidence.......they invariably are.Oh dear - more Vlad non-sense. The equivalent would be if the governor of the bank of england automatically became a member by virtue of being appointed to that position. That does not happen. It is in no way equivalent to the bishops.
Oh dear - more Vlad non-sense. The equivalent would be if the governor of the bank of england automatically became a member by virtue of being appointed to that position. That does not happen. It is in no way equivalent to the bishops.The rules are silent on banking but they invariably get there and it's more than likely that the Governer of the bank of England will get there.
The rules for appointment of Lords temporal are completely silent on banking, so 100% of the Lords temporal could be bankers, or 0%. The rules require 100% of the Lords spiritual to be CofE bishops.
The rules are silent on banking but they invariably get there and it's more than likely that the Governer of the bank of England will get there.Has a serving Governor of the Bank of England ever been a member of the House of Lords. Has a Governor of the Bank of England been made a member of the HoLs automatically when they become governor. e.g. this chap:
Has a serving Governor of the Bank of England ever been a member of the House of Lords. Has a Governor of the Bank of England been made a member of the HoLs automatically when they become governor. e.g. this chap:Sledgehammers and Walnuts Dr. They could make the governer a Lord.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bailey_(banker)
Who became governor in March - where is his automatic seat in the HoLs - oh yes, there isn't one!
Sledgehammers and Walnuts Dr. They could make the governer a Lord.Could, but they don't.
Could, but they don't.Since there is nothing I seem to be able to say to convey my sympathy with you over the present status quo.
And could is very different from must which is the situation for a newly appointed CoE archbishop/bishop of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester in relation to membership of the HoLs.
Since there is nothing I seem to be able to say to convey my sympathy with you over the present status quo.Don't worry Vlad - I recognise that it is a long game I'm playing, but I have little doubt that sooner or later the Lords spiritual will be abolished, just as the automatic seats for hereditaries were.
Would a plaintiff lament on my violin be appropriate?
Don't worry Vlad - I recognise that it is a long game I'm playing, but I have little doubt that sooner or later the Lords spiritual will be abolished, just as the automatic seats for hereditaries were.Not so fast Antitheist domination Man........As long as there are Old holy geezers in women's clothing in the Lords I, Lords spiritual Protection man will be there to stand in the way of your nefarious schemes.
Not so fast Antitheist domination Man........As long as there are Old holy geezers in women's clothing in the Lords I, Lords spiritual Protection man will be there to stand in the way of your nefarious schemes.
The hereditaries were only ever there for themselves and as a class there are still hereditary peers.
And the Lords Spiritual have outlived their usefulness by several orders of magnitude more than the hereditaries have!I take it that your average denizens of the upper house would be the more senior lady or gentleman or trans person.
The sooner we get a totally elected Upper House the better, with anyone who has served in the Lower House being banned from entering the Upper House.
If they haven't achieved their aims in the Lower House I see no reason to give them a second bite of the cherry.
I take it that your average denizens of the upper house would be the more senior lady or gentleman or trans person.
For 'senior' I am reading 'elderly'. And I am reading it in a derogatory sense. If that is correct I would say 'no', not necessarily, just not having sat in the Lower HouseI dont think even the Prof or the Outrider would go as far as you in the banning of people who have held office. What you are suggesting of course is payback and it must be a terrible thing to be as consumed by it as all that.
As to their gender, male, female, straight, bi, gay. lesbian, pre- or post-op transgender is immaterial.
As is their religious affiliation incidentally, as long as they have never held a preaching or administrative or other post that was dependant upon their attachment to said religion, i e any job that you would be barred from if you were not a member of the 'right' religion.
I dont think even the Prof or the Outrider would go as far as you in the banning of people who have held office. What you are suggesting of course is payback and it must be a terrible thing to be as consumed by it as all that.No I don't think that religious leaders should be banned from the HoLs - my only objection is providing automatic seats for them. Provided they are appointed via the standard route for Lords temporal, fine with me.
Is there a a hidden motive in your proposa?
As you told us there is secrecy surrounding your faith so the office holders of your religion would never be known.
I dont think even the Prof or the Outrider would go as far as you in the banning of people who have held office. What you are suggesting of course is payback and it must be a terrible thing to be as consumed by it as all that.
Is there a a hidden motive in your proposa?
As you told us there is secrecy surrounding your faith so the office holders of your religion would never be known.
And I specifically stated that secrecy ONLY applied to what went on in Circle - during a religious ritual! The wording, the actions etc.How would they know if it’s all a secret?
I have yet to meet a Pagan who discusses politics during a ritual - their membership of a coven would, in all probability, not survive the end of the ritual!
And I specifically stated that secrecy ONLY applied to what went on in Circle - during a religious ritual! The wording, the actions etc.Returning to holding public office - in this case being a member of the HoLs. There is a process by which members are required to declare member interests and this should include declaration that a particular member of HoLs is also a member of a pagan coven. I don't believe that requires the person to reveal what goes on during meetings of the coven, but they should declare their membership.
I have yet to meet a Pagan who discusses politics during a ritual - their membership of a coven would, in all probability, not survive the end of the ritual!
I have no doubt that the adherents to your unpleasant (if Spud is anything to go by) religion might wish it to be otherwise, but you would be sorely disappointed.
How would they know if it’s all a secret?
Please don't try to pretend that you are even more obtuse than you really are! They, the members of the Coven, are those who make up the Circle!If you can't take it don't dish it out by being abusive about other peoples beliefs.
Any more frivolous comments/questions to try and take the piss out of something you know Fuck All about and you can find someone else to answer them.
I hold my beliefs as important to me as you hold yours to you, so I resent you taking the piss out of my beliefs as you do when it is done to yours!
So, when you decide to stop being a shit-stirring ass with regard to Paganism and the Craft, come back, until then, stay away!
As I have said before. I was brought up by a seriously Christain father, so I know a bloody sight more about Christainity that you know about Paganism which is two-thirds of three-fifths of fuck all!
If you can't take it don't dish it out by being abusive about other peoples beliefs.
As long as there are Old holy geezers in women's clothing in the Lords I, Lords spiritual Protection man will be there to stand in the way of your nefarious schemes.I note your careful wording Vlad.
I note your careful wording Vlad.I note your lack of progress on the difference between automatically selected for the HoL and the invariably selected for the HoL. Until that happens and there remains no distinction it renders any campaign against the automatic but not the invariable silly, petty, trivial, unfair and partial
So image a situation where the automatic seats for the bishops had been abolished, would you campaign to reinstate the 26 automatic HoLs seats for CofE bishops?
I note your lack of progress on the difference between automatically selected for the HoL and the invariably selected for the HoL. Until that happens and there remains no distinction it renders any campaign against the automatic but not the invariable silly, petty, trivial, unfair and partialClassic Vlad obfuscation.
I would campaign for Lords life belief yes. The case against Humanist UK, the National Secular Society and antitheism will then be obvious once their power grab is seen for what it is.
Classic Vlad obfuscation.Throughout this debate I have made it clear that I do not want a Lords spiritual exclusively made up of bishops or even Christian's so no I would not.
You have completely failed to answer my very simply question, so I will ask it again:
'image a situation where the automatic seats for the bishops had been abolished, would you campaign to reinstate the 26 automatic HoLs seats for CofE bishops?'
Throughout this debate I have made it clear that I do not want a Lords spiritual exclusively made up of bishops or even Christian's so no I would not.So your support for the 26 automatic bishop places is based on nothing more than preserving the status quo and tradition. Telling.
Now. What about the difference between automatically selected and invariably selected? Since in the time proceeding any abolition this would be a question for those seeking the abolition of the Lords spiritual by disguising it as a protest against automatic selection.Given that I don't understand what you mean by those terms, first you need to explain them. I did ask you some while ago to explain what you mean by automatically selected and invariably selected but, from memory, you response was that there was no difference, which isn't a help in defining them.
So your support for the 26 automatic bishop places is based on nothing more than preserving the status quo and tradition. Telling.My support is for a Lords spiritual which includes skill and experience from a wider range of life beliefs. I therefore support reform rather than abolition.
Given that I don't understand what you mean by those terms, first you need to explain them. I did ask you some while ago to explain what you mean by automatically selected and invariably selected but, from memory, you response was that there was no difference, which isn't a help in defining them.Since you seem to be an expert on automatic selection and invariably selected is obvious your pleas of ignorance look a tad disingenuous.
Since you seem to be an expert on automatic selection and invariably selected is obvious your pleas of ignorance look a tad disingenuous.I am not an expert on automatic selection and invariably selected, which is why I'm asking you to define them please, as it is you, not me, who has used these terms.
I am not an expert on automatic selection and invariably selected, which is why I'm asking you to define them please, as it is you, not me, who has used these terms.There is no difference between something happening automatically and invariably. Bankers are invariably selected for the House of Lords Chairs of the bank of zengland are invariably selected. Cof E bishops are automatically selected but are out at retirement.
So until you actually define the terms you are banding about there is very little anyone can do to engage in this discussion.
There is no difference between something happening automatically and invariably. Bankers are invariably selected for the House of Lords Chairs of the bank of zengland are invariably selected. Cof E bishops are automatically selected but are out at retirement.For crying out loud Vlad - we've been through this. There is no equivalence between CofE bishops and bankers because:
For crying out loud Vlad - we've been through this. There is no equivalence between CofE bishops and bankers because:I think it is all Governors of the Bank of England. except for the most recent incumbent and we can expect his time to come. You cannot face then the question of invariable appointment......why because when factored in it highlights the disingenuous appeal to automatic selection as a pretext for the elimination of spirituality from the public forum. There is no difference between automatic appointments and invariable appointments since that is the way the HoL has derived it's experience.
1. There are no automatic places in the HoLs for bankers, there are automatic places for bishops.
2. For a banker to be given a seat they'd have to satisfy the standard nomination and appointment processes - bishops do not have to go through any HoLs appointment process - they automatically get a seat.
3. As far as I'm aware no serving Governor of the Bank of England (certainly in recent times) has ever had a seat in the HoLs and certainly didn't get one automatically when he was appointed. By contrast every ABoC (and other bishops) have been given an automatic seat in the HoL by virtue of being appointed to that role.
The only (near) equivalence is that some Governors of the Bank of England have been appointed to the HoL after they retired from the role - as far as I'm aware (and certain in recent times) all ABoC have been appointed (or rather re-appointed) to the HoL after they retired from the role.
The automatic seats for the bishops represents a special privilege for the CofE that no other organisation has.
I think it is all Governors of the Bank of England. except for the most recent incumbent and we can expect his time to come.You are totally wrong - no Governors of the Bank of England have been automatically appointed to the HoLs on the basis of being appointed to their role as Governor. Every ABofC is automatically appointed to the HoLs on the basis of being appointed to their role as archbishop.
You are totally wrong - no Governors of the Bank of England have been automatically appointed to the HoLs on the basis of being appointed to their role as Governor. Every ABofC is automatically appointed to the HoLs on the basis of being appointed to their role as archbishop.You can't even bring yourself to address the fact that professions and positions are invariably selected for the House of Lords. For the second time of asking do you agree that Spiritual leaders should similarly be invariably selected?
And that's before you factor in the 25 other bishops automatically appointed. If the Bank of England had the same special privileges as the CofE then I image one of my friends would be automatically a member of the HoLs as I think his role is certainly one of the most senior 26 positions in the Bank of England.
You can't even bring yourself to address the fact that professions and positions are invariably selected for the House of Lords.The only profession that is afforded the special privilege of automatic seats in the HoLs is CofE bishops.
The only profession that is afforded the special privilege of automatic seats in the HoLs is CofE bishops.And yet Governors of the Bank of England invariably get into the House of Lords as do Bankers, politicians, Archbishops, Military people, entertainers, hereditary peers.
And yet Governors of the Bank of England invariably get into the House of Lords as do Bankers, politicians, Archbishops, Military people, entertainers, hereditary peers.I'm not sure but are you advocating that the reserved seats be abolished as the Bishops would invariably be selected anyway, just as bankers etc are now?
What objection do you have to spiritual leaders being invariably selected for the House of Lords?
And yet Governors of the Bank of England invariably get into the House of Lords ...No they don't - please tell us the last time that a Governor of the Bank of England (note not an ex Governor of the Bank of England) was appointed a member of the HoLs.
No they don't - please tell us the last time that a Governor of the Bank of England (note not an ex Governor of the Bank of England) was appointed a member of the HoLs.You are stalling Davey.Ex Governers of the bank of England INVARIABLY enter the HoL.
Note that ABofC are automatically given a seat in the HoLs, and ex ABofC are also invariable appointed to the HofL as well.
You are stalling Davey.Ex Governers of the bank of England INVARIABLY enter the HoL.
For the umpteenth time of asking. What have you got against spiritual leaders INVARIABLY entering the HoL?
Archbishops of Canterbury are automatically appointed members of the HoL. Governors of the Bank of England are never appointed members of the HoL.Which Ex Governer did not make it into the House of Lords?
Ex-Archbishops of Canterbury are always appointed members of the HoL. Ex-Governors of the Bank of England are often appointed members of the HoL.
Archbishops of York (de facto deputy) are automatically appointed members of the HoL. Deputy Governors of the Bank of England are never appointed members of the HoL.
Ex-Archbishops of York are nearly always appointed members of the HoL. Ex-deputy Governors of the Bank of England are rarely (if ever) appointed members of the HoL.
Repeat special privilege 24 more times.
Which Ex Governer did not make it into the House of Lords?Err Mark Carney - I've not heard any suggestion that he will be appointed to the Lords, and his predecessor was appointed to the Lord the same month as he stepped down as Governor.
Err Mark Carney - I've not heard any suggestion that he will be appointed to the Lords, and his predecessor was appointed to the Lord the same month as he stepped down as Governor.Mark Carney........who has just left the post.
But that is beside the point - even if all ex governors and all ex ABofC are appointed to the Lords it still doesn't change the fact that ABofC (and York, Durham, London, Winchester, plus 21 other bishops) are automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of their current role in the CoE. No bankers have the same special privilege and there is not a special category of members reserved solely for bankers in the manner of the Lords spiritual which is reserves solely for CofE bishops.
Professor Davey has I believe been quite cunning. Instead of presenting Bishops or the spiritual as a class he casts them and only them as individuals guaranteed invariably and automatically selected. I can see why he has done that because,as a class Lords spiritual are on a par with Lords temporal. There are automatically hundreds and hundreds of Lords temporal.
Secondly,you have obviously not picked up on the observation of invariable selection of groups to the house of Lords and we have always known that there are invariably political appointments,invariably captains of industry,finance ,academia,entertainment, sport etc.(and frankly your claim that spirituality is on a par with some of these is frankly trivialising spirituality.
I shall leave it to you to sort out the difference between invariably and automatically.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The HoL are chosen because of expertise and experience. The moment you say that spirituality does not need the level of expertise in the HoL you are absolutely relegating spirituality to trivial proportions which only reflect a certain viewpoint.
Firstly - although, I say that like it's a new point and hasn't been raised multiple times already - the 'Lords Temporal' as a definition is just those lords who aren't Lords Spiritual. They are defined by their relation to that special status group, they aren't a thing in their own right. They are, therefore, not 'on a par' with the Lords Spiritual, they are all the lords that don't have that special 'Lords Spiritual' status.First of all it isn't credible that the Lords temporal is not a thing.
There is a difference between things that tend to happen either because it makes sense (nomination of eminent scientific or business individuals), or because it's a knock-on effect of other issues (nomination of retiring politicians) and inequity that's formally built in to the system. If you want to change the make-up of the lords you can nominate different people, but that won't affect the structural bias that comes from having reserved seats for churchmen.And this is addressed in only having 26 lords spiritual.
Personally, I think that putting 'spirituality' on even a nominally equal footing with science, industry, sport, healthcare and the military security of the country trivialises reality, but we're not justifying our own personal thinking, we're trying to establish what's an equitable representation for the nation.I agree and your wish for a comfortable technocracy with a bit of sport on a Saturday and no church on sundays appeals but it is particular and spiritual representation is minimal already..
Which doesn't address why you think spirituality needs to be treated differently. I'm not saying it doesn't need a level of expertise, I'm not relegating it in comparison to everything else. We have scientists in the Lords without needing to have a special mechanism to ensure that sufficiently capable scientists have reserved seats. We have industrialists and businesspeople in the Lords without needing to have a special mechanism to ensure that sufficiently capable business people have reserved seats. We have former service members in the Lords, we have former healthcare workers in the Lords, we have former sportsmen and sportswomen in the Lords, we have teachers, authors, charity workers and politicians, and no special mechanism for any of them to ensure that they are sufficiently capable or to ensure a suitable minimum representation.I AM NOT FOR ONLY CoE representation. Our beliefs are at the root of our world view, our morality, the are part of peoples heritage, iit is peoples society,it is peoples hope in that it is the basis of charity. Religions,humanists uk etc provide important social networks and they Express important concerns.
We have Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and who knows, possibly some atheists and Pagans for all I know.
But only Christianity seems to need special help.
Why is Christianity - or spirituality more generally, if you want to go that way, in need of special consideration.
O.
First of all it isn't credible that the Lords temporal is not a thing. There are over 700 of them.
In the light of the invariable selection of groups in the Lords temporal the argument is reduced to what the means of invariable selection are. In the light of this you seem to be saying 700 lords are somehow not a thing but the way bishops are invariably selected is of paramount importance.And this is addressed in only having 26 lords spiritual.
The selection of other groups or their importance is nothing to do with the existence of a handful of Lords spiritual.
I agree and your wish for a comfortable technocracy with a bit of sport on a Saturday and no church on sundays appeals but it is particular and spiritual representation is minimal already.
I AM NOT FOR ONLY CoE representation. Our beliefs are at the root of our world view, our morality, the are part of peoples heritage, iit is peoples society,it is peoples hope in that it is the basis of charity. Religions,humanists uk etc provide important social networks and they Express important concerns.
Without representation of the spiritual aspect of humanity people are viewed narrowly and there are narrow expectations.
But if invariability is removed from the groups you mention how are you going to ensure ANY kind of balance?
Given invariable selection then. How it is done is no big deal as far as I can see.
Which leaves the importance of spirituality. At the moment as far as the House of Lords is concerned the figure is about 3.3 % ofthe house are those specifically representing spirituality.
The significance of human spirituality and the sterility of the homonculus produced by a wholly secular vision has been pointed out to you.
The importance of spirituality therefore merits this small level at least.
To bleat about not being able to make it even smaller is preposterous.
How does structurally privileging one group currently achieve any kind of balance?
If you have issue with the selection process that 'invariably' leads to one particular outcome, address the selection process, but that doesn't affect the structurally privileged current position of the Lords Spiritual.
Vs 0% specifically representing any other facet of human existence.
Where? You suggested that "beliefs are at the root of our world view, our morality, the are part of peoples heritage, iit is peoples society,it is peoples hope in that it is the basis of charity." All of those beliefs are espoused by each and every individual in the Lords, apparently, because they are 'the root of our world view'. Why does it need a special squad to represent it? There are non-scientists in the Lords, people without a healthcare background, even Tory MPs without a sense of decency, but there isn't a single person in there who doesn't have 'a world view'.
No; you've suggested that it might be relevant, and for the sake of this argument I'll grant that there is a place for it. What I don't see established here is justification for treating as something in more need of inclusion than anything else.
To note that it's special privilege for one facet of human existence, especially given that the current implementation specifically favours one particular small group, is hardly preposterous. I acknowledge that you'd happily expand it beyond the CofE, but I don't see any justification for keeping it at all.
O.
The point of the Lords is expertise and experience and to that we can add leadership. That is why dismissing the need for it as far as spirituality is concerned trivialises it and exposes an anti spiritual bias.As far as I'm aware no-one is dismissing or trivialising religions, merely pointing out that religious people (including religious people) can and are appointed to the Lords temporal in just the same manner as individuals with different expertise. That being the case there is no justification for a special category for religious leaders, with automatic appointment.
As far as I'm aware no-one is dismissing or trivialising religions, merely pointing out that religious people (including religious people) can and are appointed to the Lords temporal in just the same manner as individuals with different expertise. That being the case there is no justification for a special category for religious leaders, with automatic appointment.So do you have anything against the invariable selection of spiritual leaders?
The point of the Lords is expertise and experience and to that we can add leadership. That is why dismissing the need for it as far as spirituality is concerned trivialises it and exposes an anti spiritual bias.
Since there is no effective difference between invariable and automatic selection suggesting that spirituality doesn't need expertise is tantamount to saying it is less important than,well,just about everything.
And if anyone was dismissing it you'd have a point, but no-one is.Again, whether there are adequate numbers of science Lords etc, is a separate issue from the Lords spiritual. Perhaps there is a minimal number of scientists that need to be invariably selected.
And no-one is saying that it doesn't need expertise, and no-one is saying that there is no difference between invariable and automatic selection - quite the opposite, I'm pointing out that they are different things which pose different issues and require different solutions.
So, again, given that any area of human experience requires some degree of expertise in order to adequately represent it in the Upper Chamber, and given that there are other issues with the selection of the Lords that also require invervention, and given that for the purposes of this discussion we'll presume that spirituality actually means something and is a valid area for the Lords to include in its deliberations... why does it need a special status that other areas of human experience do not? Why do we need a minimum number of reserved seats to ensure adequate involvement for a range of spiritual takes when we don't need to do the same for, say, the range of subjects and opinions within science, or the arts, or sport?
O.
Again, whether there are adequate numbers of science Lords etc, is a separate issue from the Lords spiritual. Perhaps there is a minimal number of scientists that need to be invariably selected.
Where the minimal number is allowed to be zero there is no invariable selection and spirituality will be negatively privileged aka discriminated against.
The ONLY area where there is not currently a minimal number allowed to be zero is the area of Christianity, in the form of the Lords Spiritual. Practically there might also be other areas that in realistic terms won't have zero representation - politics, for instance - but theoretically it could be.The CoE does enjoy a minimum number of invariably selected places. Perhaps the answer is for others so to have.
Christianity currently cannot be unrepresented in the Upper Chamber - your proposal is to expand this be 'spiritual' representatives, which still doesn't address the question of why we'd allow science to possibly not be represented, why we'd allow healthcare to be unrepresented, why we'd allow sport, the arts and the military to be unrepresented, but you feel we have to have safeguards in place to ensure that spirituality has spokespeople: why is spirituality important in a way that other areas of human endeavour are not.
O.
The CoE does enjoy a minimum number of invariably selected places. Perhaps the answer is for others so to have.
Inherited Lords have a minimum number of invariably selected members too 58 I believe.
So it would be perfectly possible to have a minimum number for anything.
The situation with regards to numbers has nothing to do with Lords Spiritual.
Until a minimum number of invariably selected Lords Life Belief are selected we need a bulwark against a secularism which desires a religion free public forum and if that means the CoE as placeholder then so be it.
Just to point out that I think you mean hereditary peers here, rather than life peers, and as I covered earlier, see link below, there are a total of 92 hereditary peers. 90 places are subject to election from the other hereditary peers, and 2 are because there because they hold hereditary offices of state.
Currently, there are a number of former life peers who are, as I understand it, sitting out their terms but I believe that they are not being replaced from the existing titled nobility? If I'm wrong on that, it's another area which I'd suggest should be eliminated.
O.
Just to point out that I think you mean hereditary peers here, rather than life peers, and as I covered earlier, see link below, there are a total of 92 hereditary peers. 90 places are subject to election from the other hereditary peers, and 2 are because there because they hold hereditary offices of state.I think the terminology is confusing - I don't think there are any hereditary peers in the previously accepted definition - in other words that membership of the lords passes from parent to child when the title passes to the next generation.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17483.msg800627#msg800627
I think the terminology is confusing - I don't think there are any hereditary peers in the previously accepted definition - in other words that membership of the lords passes from parent to child when the title passes to the next generation.No, I don't think that makes sense since most of the peers are life peers. So you need something that splits them off. So these are the elected hereditary peers.
So the remaining hereditaries are effectively life peers - their membership is relinquished when they die or retire, it isn't passed onto the next generation.
No, I don't think that makes sense since most of the peers are life peers. So you need something that splits them off. So these are the elected hereditary peers.I agree that there should be a different way of describing them, but to use the same term (hereditary) as used to be used when the situation is entirely different and the seats are not inherited is the best term in my opinion.
I agree that there should be a different way of describing them, but to use the same term (hereditary) as used to be used when the situation is entirely different and the seats are not inherited is the best term in my opinion.Is there a 'not' missing there? The point is that they are hereditary peers, as are the ones who don't get elected. They aren't life peers. So you either refer to them as hereditary elected, elected hereditary. To call them life peers is simply wrong
Is there a 'not' missing there? The point is that they are hereditary peers, as are the ones who don't get elected. They aren't life peers. So you either refer to them as hereditary elected, elected hereditary. To call them life peers is simply wrongBut their membership of the house of lords is not 'hereditary' (as used to be the case) - membership is not inherited - hence why I think a better title is needed.
But their membership of the house of lords is not 'hereditary' (as used to be the case) - membership is not inherited - hence why I think a better title is needed.Their peerages are hereditary. They are not therefore life peers. Their membership of the HoL always ended with death or resignation so your point there is specious.
They are, in effect, life peers (their membership ends on death or resignation) but selected from a pool of titled individuals via an electoral process.
I think the confusion is about what 'hereditary' refers to - in other words whether their title is inherited or their membership of the HoLs. It used to be both, but now only the former is inherited.
Their peerages are hereditary. They are not therefore life peers. Their membership of the HoL always ended with death or resignation so your point there is specious.But the key thing is that their membership of the HoLs is no longer hereditary as it used to be.
Take another group who seem to be invariably selected. Show business. Is Loyd Webber forbidden from composing ...is Michael Cashman forbidden from acting?Come back to me when you've found a category of members of the HoLs reserved solely for creatives, and where membership is automatically granted on the basis of appointment to a different role in an completely separate organisation - for example Director of the Royal Shakespeare company or Director of the Royal Ballet of principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra.
Come back to me when you've found a category of members of the HoLs reserved solely for creatives, and where membership is automatically granted on the basis of appointment to a different role in an completely separate organisation - for example Director of the Royal Shakespeare company or Director of the Royal Ballet of principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra.Show business I would imagine is one of those areas which has members invariably selected to the HoL which has a harder time being a convincing source of Lords. However there they are,invariably.
Show business I would imagine is one of those areas which has members invariably selected to the HoL which has a harder time being a convincing source of Lords. However there they are,invariably.So you have confirmed that no showbiz people are automatically appointed to the Lords, in contract to CofE bishops, 26 of whom are automatically appointed to the Lords.
How many show biz Lords are invariably elected is not dependent on the presence of the Lords spiritual and is a separate issue.
So you have confirmed that no showbiz people are automatically appointed to the Lords, in contract to CofE bishops, 26 of whom are automatically appointed to the Lords.of course showbiz people invariably reach the HoL when did that last not happen?
Thanks for further confirming the special privilege for the bishops.
of course showbiz people invariably reach the HoL when did that last not happen?Barbara Windsor
Are you in agreement with spiritual leaders being invariably selected for the House of Lords?
Barbara WindsorGet out of my pub....lic forum!
Get out of my pub....lic forum!:)
of course showbiz people invariably reach the HoL when did that last not happen?Thanks for once again confirming that there are no automatic places in the HoLs for showbiz folks unlike the special privilege for the CofE who get 26 automatic places for their bishops.
Are you in agreement with spiritual leaders being invariably selected for the House of Lords?
of course showbiz people invariably reach the HoL when did that last not happen?If they were invariably selected under identical circumstance as the the others.
Are you in agreement with spiritual leaders being invariably selected for the House of Lords?
If they were invariably selected under identical circumstance as the the others.Are we talking invariable selection of a number for each faith which varies according to census within a fixed number like inherited peers or invariable selection of a variable number?
So why not abolish the guaranteed pre-selection for them?
Surely they will invariably selected under those circumstances regardless?
Are we talking invariable selection of a number for each faith which varies according to census within a fixed number like inherited peers or invariable selection of a variable number?Dunno. Are you?
Dunno. Are you?I'm talking the former.
I'm talking the former.That makes no sense.
I'm talking the former.I think I understand where you are coming from.
Are we talking invariable selection of a number for each faith which varies according to census within a fixed number like inherited peers or invariable selection of a variable number?But that is a flawed system, as presumably you'd be using religious leaders to represent public census responses. That is inappropriate as you'd be using the most committed religious individuals (the religious leaders) to represent a public who are mainly not actively religious even if they tick a box on the census.
But that is a flawed system, as presumably you'd be using religious leaders to represent public census responses. That is inappropriate as you'd be using the most committed religious individuals (the religious leaders) to represent a public who are mainly not actively religious even if they tick a box on the census.But Davey, the whole thing is flawed. The only thing it has going for it is that it promotes experience and expertise against a bovine electorate and political spin vis a vis the commons.
Christianity is the most extreme example - of those that ticked christian on the census about 90% aren't active at all - never attend church, wouldn't consider themselves as a member of a particular denomination and the churches themselves do not consider these people to be their members. In what way does the leader of a particular religious organisation represent people who have chosen not to be active members of that organisation.
So if you really want to follow the census (even allowing for its flawed methodology), for your new proposition of Lords 'life belief' or whatever non-sense term you've come up with, you'll need proportionately (to represent the population).
50% non active 'census' christians
25% non religious
8% active christian - divided between who knows how many denominations
5% muslim (but this needs also to divide between active and non active muslim representation and to represent the various branches of islam)
etc, etc
Complete non-sense and good luck with identifying the organisations and their leaders to represent the well over 75% of the population who are non religious or non active and not members of any religious organisation.
Has it occurred to you that they keep putting Christianity because not only do they want to hang on to it but because they now have an antitheist alternative and dont like the look of it.No - they put 'Christian' because the census poses a leading question:
No - they put 'Christian' because the census poses a leading question:We will now sing hymn number 301
"What is your religion"
Surveys that pose a neutral non-leading question, with an equal equivalence yes/no response (with the follow question for those that indicate they are religious) consistently report much lower levels of religious people, and specifically christians than the census.
In many cases the response to the census is merely a nod to tradition and how a person was brought up rather than their current position on religion. It doesn't provide an accurate picture of the religious makeup of the UK. If you compare with other surveys the majority (sometimes vast majority) of census christians do not believe in the basic tenets of christianity (e.g. resurrection) do not consider religion to be important in their lives and have no active involvement with or membership of any church. In what manner can these people be called 'christians' - they aren't - they are non religious people who come from a christian heritage.
We will now sing hymn number 301
"Hark, the sound of scraping barrels".
Davey when asked directly what your religion was.....a perfectly reasonable questionl ike what is your nationality or how many bedrooms do you have.......what was your answer?
Secondly Inmy years on religion ethics I have seen the same response from folks like yourself to the claim that people arent christian. It seems then that only atheists can say who is a proper christian and who isn't.
Have you tried asking Sassy if you are a proper Christian?
. It seems then that only atheists can say who is a proper christian and who isn't.
Thirdly ....give an example of the so called neutral non leading question.One that provides a simple yes/no response.
At risk of falling back on the evidence, Psephology studies have clearly shown that the leading nature of the question in the Census leads to a significantly higher reporting of religiosity. So it might 'scraping the barrel', but it's doing so with a carefully calibrated stick and, importantly, it's still getting stuff out.A higher response?
O.
And
There is no societal pressure to declare a religion.Ask a leading question and you'll get a skewed answer - this is extremely well understood by psephologists.
One that provides a simple yes/no response.If I answer no football team. What would be wrong with that?
For example (I think this one is used by the British social attitudes survey:
Do you have a religious belief - yes, no (or don't know)
If the respondent replies yes then they are asked a supplementary question on which religious belief.
The census question is the equavalent of asking:
'What football team do you support?' (totally leading question implying you should support a football team), rather than asking the neutral, non leading question 'Do you support a football team?'
Have you tried asking Sassy if you are a proper Christian?Sassy would be commenting on one person not millions like the Prof is doing.
Sassy would be commenting on one person not millions like the Prof is doing.
Sassy would be commenting on one person not millions like the Prof is doing.But, have you asked her?
Sass probably thinks she is the only 'proper' Christian (whatever that means) on this forum! ;DI'm not sure that is fair. Sassy has never questioned thepropiety of my Christianity and has never treated me as anything other than a Believer. She is perfectly at liberty to revise any of that.
If I answer no football team. What would be wrong with thatThe issue is about implicit implication.
The issue is about implicit implication.Well the Humanist UK have said that the OCS has taken on board its thoughts on the matter. Unless non believers have an additional section to complete after the question Do you have a religion. I cannot see how that is fair or valid. Considering future representation in the House of Lords might depend on the census being accurate about life beliefs.
Ask "what football team do you support' and it is implicitly implied that the default position is that you support a football team - sure you can answer 'no football team', but to do that you need to counter the implicit implication that you do support a football team - it is a non neutral leading question.
Ask, on the other hand 'Do you support a football team' and their is no implicit bias - supporting a football team and not supporting a football team are equally weighted, so to speak. It is a neutral non leading question.
You can read up on leading questions and their impact on perceived religiosity here:
https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BCS70-data-note-2012-The-art-of-asking-questions-about-religion-A-Sullivan-D-Voas-M-Brown-November-2012.pdf
....What would that section contain in order for parity to exist?
Unless non believers have an additional section to complete after the question Do you have a religion. .....
What would that section contain in order for parity to exist?Atheist or agnostic?
Atheist or agnostic?People like me?
Soft atheist or harassed atheist?
Dawkins or Brian Cox?
Hitchens or Johnathan Miller?
Russell or Ģrayling??
If religious people have an extra section it kind of says, we need more information on people like you.
People like me?²
Atheist or agnostic?Why do you need to pigeon hole people all the time Vlad?
Soft atheist or harassed atheist?
Dawkins or Brian Cox?
Hitchens or Johnathan Miller?
Russell or Ģrayling??
If religious people have an extra section it kind of says, we need more information on people like you.I think it is very helpful to understand how people think via all sorts of surveys.
Why do you need to pigeon hole people all the time Vlad?From the guy who wants two pieces of information from religious people and only one for his own folk that is a bit rich.
I think it is very helpful to understand how people think via all sorts of surveys.
However the census is (whether rightly or wrongly) only interested in religion - hence one you have answered that you are not religious the census has no further interest. By contrast the census is interested in which religion individuals belong to.
From the guy who wants two pieces of information from religious people and only one for his own folk that is a bit rich.When you are asking a question about religious affiliation asking whether someone is atheist or agnostic is as relevant as asking someone whether they support Kent or Leicestershire when asking about support for football clubs.
Agnosticism and atheism is of interest I would have thought.
When you are asking a question about religious affiliation asking whether someone is atheist or agnostic is as relevant as asking someone whether they support Kent or Leicestershire when asking about support for football clubs.That would be fine.
And of course many people (myself included) would answer 'both' to a question on agnosticism and atheism.
Atheist or agnostic?
Those aren't mutually exclusive options, given that they're stances on different issues.Indeed.
O.
If we are now making rightly or wrongly type arguments rightly or wrongly the question is what religion are you.Actually 'What is your religion'
Actually 'What is your religion'And it is of course a voluntary question meaning those answering do so of their own volition and some intent.
But yes it is a question about religion and asking whether you are a particular flavour of non-religious is not applicable.
And yes it is a leading question.
And it is of course a voluntary question meaning those answering do so of their own volition and some intent.I suspect most people merely answer it a it is the next question on the form and there are many questions to work your way through.
The portrait painted by Humanist UK of people Jockeyed into answering and in a certain way is therefore inaccurate.Go take that up with HumanistsUK (and at least get their name right). I am not HumanistsUK, I do not speak for HumanistsUK and I am not a member of HumanistsUK.
I suspect most people merely answer it a it is the next question on the form and there are many questions to work your way through.Given the context of the question it is doubtful whether this is a leading question. Since by being voluntary and that it is flagged as such. The Lead if not the leading question becomes implicit. "Would you like to answer a question on religion?"
Go take that up with HumanistsUK (and at least get their name right). I am not HumanistsUK, I do not speak for HumanistsUK and I am not a member of HumanistsUK.
However it is clear that the census approach is the one that provides the very highest levels of christianity, not least due to the leading question. There is also the issue that it deliberately assesses broad 'affiliation' however nominal. It does not assess belief or activity (the latter two always reduce the number claiming to be christian dramatically, and indeed other religions somewhat).
If fact there was a proposal that the 2011 census should also include philosophical beliefs (as you've suggested), but it was rejected because it would require the question to be about religious belief or philosophical belief and this was considered to skew the results - a reduction in those indicating a religious affiliation (however nominal), rather than having to indicate a religious belief.
Now I understand from a census perfective why they didn't want to make the change as one of the purposes of the census is to look at changes over time and altering questions can make that difficult. But the point remains that the leading question and the fact that the question is about affiliation however nominal in combination will provide data that gives much greater numbers of christians (in particular) that approaches that use non-leading questions and more nuanced questions.
Now seeing as one of the purposes of the census is to support public service provision, funding and policy lumping together:
A) a census christian who merely ticked that box because they were christened and as an adult neither believes in any of the key tenets of christianity, indeed may not even belief in god and the last thing they'd ever do is attend a religious service (except through invitation for a wedding etc), and for whom religion is an irrelevance but who may abhor the attitudes of many religions towards women, gay people etc.
with
B) a 100% believing and committed evangelical christian whose whole life revolves around a church and its activities and attendance and who seeks out a family and friends who largely do the same.
Chalk and cheese in the extreme. But in the eyes of the census (and the policy implications that flow from it) they are both the same.
...What are the differences in policy implications?
Now seeing as one of the purposes of the census is to support public service provision, funding and policy lumping together:
A) a census christian who merely ticked that box because they were christened and as an adult neither believes in any of the key tenets of christianity, indeed may not even belief in god and the last thing they'd ever do is attend a religious service (except through invitation for a wedding etc), and for whom religion is an irrelevance but who may abhor the attitudes of many religions towards women, gay people etc.
with
B) a 100% believing and committed evangelical christian whose whole life revolves around a church and its activities and attendance and who seeks out a family and friends who largely do the same.
Chalk and cheese in the extreme. But in the eyes of the census (and the policy implications that flow from it) they are both the same.
What are the differences in policy implications?Just a few examples:
Just a few examples:Since I'd get rid of all of those, it seems as if it's merely a matter of privileging religious beliefs
Decisions about state-funded faith schools
Funding for faith groups
Determining whether special privileges for religious organisations are appropriate, such as:
a) CofE Bishops in the HoLs
b) Different rules on charitable status and needing to become a registered charity between faith-based charities and other charities
c) Complete exemption for buildings used for worship from business rates (they aren't even on the VOA database) while the best other organisations (such as charities) may get is 80% relief, so still paying 20%.
Just a few examples:You are assuming practical hostility to faith schools and Lords spiritual. The charging of rates on buildings sounds like it is eminently sortable if not explicable.
Decisions about state-funded faith schools
Funding for faith groups
Determining whether special privileges for religious organisations are appropriate, such as:
a) CofE Bishops in the HoLs
b) Different rules on charitable status and needing to become a registered charity between faith-based charities and other charities
c) Complete exemption for buildings used for worship from business rates (they aren't even on the VOA database) while the best other organisations (such as charities) may get is 80% relief, so still paying 20%.
You are assuming practical hostility to faith schools and Lords spiritual. The charging of rates on buildings sounds like it is eminently sortable if not explicable.
Why do you assume pro gay equals anti religion?
Since I'd get rid of all of those, it seems as if it's merely a matter of privileging religious beliefsI'd get rid of them too. But in order to do that you'd need to win the argument to change public policy.
You are assuming practical hostility to faith schools and Lords spiritual.You are using emotive language again.
The charging of rates on buildings sounds like it is eminently sortable if not explicable.Sure - you could change the policy tomorrow - but it would be vigorously opposed by organised faith groups (who clearly have a vested interest in keeping their building free from business rates, unlike all other non domestic property) and who have influence way above their membership as a proportion of the population.
Sure - you could change the policy tomorrow - but it would be vigorously opposed by organised faith groups (who clearly have a vested interest in keeping their building free from business rates, unlike all other non domestic property) and who have influence way above their membership as a proportion of the population.Tax handouts seem to be available to all sorts of big wheels.
And they will use the census to imply that the majority in the UK are religious (even through perhaps just 10% or so are actually members of a religious organisation (and religious organisations own the building free from rates) and therefore the special importance of religion in the hearts of the UK population (non-sense of course) must be recognised in maintaining the status quo, which is effectively a tax handout to religious organisations, not available to any other organisation.
Tax handouts seem to be available to all sorts of big wheels.
There again you seem to be playing a notional campaign against tax relief against your own cause....the stealthy marginalising, shutting up and forgetting about religion.
Sorry, did you mean 'apart from the demonstrable history of organised religion in the West's vehement opposition to equal rights for homosexuals, why do we assume pro-gay equals anti-religion'?Gay holy matrimony or matrimony hasn't got a great deal of history though has it?
O.
Tax handouts seem to be available to all sorts of big wheels.All I want is a level playing field - the playing field is not level at the moment. Take two examples:
You are using emotive language again.That's surely just an argumentum ad populum on that level. Being religious does not mean you support those positions. Rather than seek to change the question, let's just argue to get rid of it as irrelevant.
But the point remains that the vast majority of the population (typically over 60-70%) oppose state funded faith schools, oppose religious selection in schools and oppose the Lords spiritual.
But that evidence is regularly batted away by either naive or deliberate misrepresentation of the census data to imply that we remain a majority religious country and therefore there must be support from that religious majority for faith schools and automatic places faith leaders in the HoLs.
That's surely just an argumentum ad populum on that level. Being religious does not mean you support those positions. Rather than seek to change the question, let's just argue to get rid of it as irrelevant.Of course, but the argument runs both ways - I think we are hearing it less, but how many times post the 2001 census did you hear people justifying the importance and privileges for christian organisations by claiming that we 'remain a overwhelmingly christian country' with reference to the 71% christian 2001 census data.
That's surely just an argumentum ad populum on that level. Being religious does not mean you support those positions. Rather than seek to change the question, let's just argue to get rid of it as irrelevant.But religion is not irrelevant. It is part of our heritage and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige. A bit of a profile. For others religion is a dread condition. With the census as a bit of epidemiology.
Of course, but the argument runs both ways - I think we are hearing it less, but how many times post the 2001 census did you hear people justifying the importance and privileges for christian organisations by claiming that we 'remain a overwhelmingly christian country' with reference to the 71% christian 2001 census data.Sorry, not understanding what you mean by the argument running both ways. It's precisely the sort of argument that you have put here that I was referring to as an ad populum. Policy should not be determined by sheer numbers, else we would on that logic give white people better tax breaks. The question should be irrelevant to policy, and removed, Playing about with the wording only serves to validate the argument about numbers.
But religion is not irrelevant. It is part of our heritage and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige. A bit of a profile. For others religion is a dread condition. With the census as a bit of epidemiology.Ah the old straw merchant is obviously offering you a good deal at the moment. Religion is irrelevant to the setting of policy in this way. I did not say it was it irrelevant to history or people, that's you just making shite up. And 'With the census a bit of epidemiology' is meaningless drivel.
But religion is not irrelevant. It is part of our heritage and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige. A bit of a profile. For others religion is a dread condition. With the census as a bit of epidemiology.I agree that religion isn't irrelevant - but its relevance and importance needs to be contextualised in the here and now in terms of public policy, not by reference to what used to be the case. And also there is an argument (and data from censuses and other sources is important in this respect) to be forward looking - how are trends likely to play out over the next few decades.
Of course, but the argument runs both ways - I think we are hearing it less, but how many times post the 2001 census did you hear people justifying the importance and privileges for christian organisations by claiming that we 'remain a overwhelmingly christian country' with reference to the 71% christian 2001 census data.You could try a referendum campaigning on the grounds that the numbers of those who claim affiliation on the census are getting smaller and since they are going south why dont we just save time and marginalised it fully and forget about it.
Ah the old straw merchant is obviously offering you a good deal at the moment. Religion is irrelevant to the setting of policy in this way. I did not say it was it irrelevant to history or people, that's you just making shite up. And 'With the census a bit of epidemiology' is meaningless drivel.On reflection you are probably right about the last bit.
Sorry, not understanding what you mean by the argument running both ways. It's precisely the sort of argument that you have put here that I was referring to as an ad populum. Policy should not be determined by sheer numbers, else we would on that logic give white people better tax breaks. The question should be irrelevant to policy, and removed, Playing about with the wording only serves to validate the argument about numbers.What I mean is that we can argue all we like about special privileges and fairness etc etc. However if those who want to maintain the special privilege for their religious organisation can simple counter - 'well but a majority of the population are christian' by pointing to the 2011 census. However disingenuous that claim might be it is a simple message and needs to be countered by a complex response. Ofter simple messages (even if wrong) are the ones that are listened to. Even more so when policy makers know full well that any attempt to roll back on the privileges of religious organisations results in a tsunami of protest, which is often highly effective not least because the organisations are, err, by definition, organised and also because religious organisations have proportionally far greater numbers of their members in established and influential positions.
You could try a referendum campaigning on the grounds that the numbers of those who claim affiliation on the census are getting smaller and since they are going south why dont we just save time and marginalised it fully and forget about it.Emotive language again Vlad.
What I mean is that we can argue all we like about special privileges and fairness etc etc. However if those who want to maintain the special privilege for their religious organisation can simple counter - 'well but a majority of the population are christian' by pointing to the 2011 census. However disingenuous that claim might be it is a simple message and needs to be countered by a complex response. Ofter simple messages (even if wrong) are the ones that are listened to. Even more so when policy makers know full well that any attempt to roll back on the privileges of religious organisations results in a tsunami of protest, which is often highly effective not least because the organisations are, err, by definition, organised and also because religious organisations have proportionally far greater numbers of their members in established and influential positions.Are you sure you aren't talking about the masons?
On reflection you are probably right about the last bit.Pish
It's actually worse than a bit of epidemiology. It is a means of eradication.
What I mean is that we can argue all we like about special privileges and fairness etc etc. However if those who want to maintain the special privilege for their religious organisation can simple counter - 'well but a majority of the population are christian' by pointing to the 2011 census. However disingenuous that claim might be it is a simple message and needs to be countered by a complex response. Ofter simple messages (even if wrong) are the ones that are listened to. Even more so when policy makers know full well that any attempt to roll back on the privileges of religious organisations results in a tsunami of protest, which is often highly effective not least because the organisations are, err, by definition, organised and also because religious organisations have proportionally far greater numbers of their members in established and influential positions.But in seeking to merely change the questions to be less leading you are accepting the validity of the arguments that religious people should be given special privileges.
Are you sure you aren't talking about the masons?No - although they may (or may not) have influence beyond their numbers as I don't think we know their numbers and they act in a secretive manner. I don't remember seeing a census question about mason membership and I doubt any mason is going to stand up and claim we are a majority mason country (for obvious reasons). ;)
But in seeking to merely change the questions to be less leading you are accepting the validity of the arguments that religious people should be given special privileges.But then we are back to the question ......Is representation a privilege.
But then we are back to the question ......Is representation a privilege.No, we are not back to that. People are represented by their elected members. Giving certain groups special privileges reduces the representation of others.
Gay holy matrimony or matrimony hasn't got a great deal of history though has it?
But religion is not irrelevant.
It is part of our heritage...
... and what I glean from the census is that people still want a vestige.
Religion is irrelevant. The religious people aren't, but their religion is.If religion is irrelevant why are you on here on a regular basis.
So is slavery and invading France.
Which is why it's important to ensure that the census is conducted impartially so as not to lend undue credence to what are, increasingly, fringe positions.
O.
Are we looking at antitheist payback here?
So is slavery and invading France.
If religion is irrelevant why are you on here on a regular basis.
Is it not that you wish it to be irrelevant?
What would you say is the difference between a fringe and a minority?
What would you say is the difference between a fringe and a minority?I think the distinction is that we usually refer to minorities in the context of a set of defined characteristics that individuals inherently have or do not have and where it isn't a choice. So in the UK black people represent a minority as you are either black or you are not black, and if you are not black you cannot become black and vice versa. So the total pool of potential black people is the same as the actual pool of black people - in other words black people are a minority in this example.
Firstly, it was intended within the context of this discourse, but more generally because religious people keep trying to get the public sphere to act upon as though it were.I dont think that is the definition of a fringe. Particularly the hat bit. So God is imaginary I'd like to see your workings on that.
No, it's that some people don't seem to have realised that what's important to them isn't necessarily more relevant in the broader, dare I say 'real', world.
I think when you have your leadership wear funny hats and speak to imaginary friends it becomes a fringe.
O.
I don't think that is the definition of a fringe.
Particularly the hat bit.
So God is imaginary I'd like to see your workings on that.
We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.
We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.Who is we?
Who is we?And how you can claim that depends on your definition of real world and whether that definition can be supported by the definition of the real world.
And it is a bit rich talking about the real world when you spend half your time trying to defend something (god) for which there is no real-world evidence of its existence.
And how you can claim that depends on your definition of real world and whether that definition can be supported by the definition of the real world.Typical definition of real:
We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.I ask again: Who is we?
It's a definition, it seems to fit in this instance. Suitable and sufficient, as they say in my industry.Oh no you are claiming it IS imaginary. It's not up to me to demonstrate it isn't.
It was between the hat and the dresses, but the hats seem to be more consistent.
Easy. You say 'God'. I say 'where?'. You say 'Oh, you can't detect it, but it's there.' I say 'so how can you demonstrate that it's not just a figment of your imagination if it's undetectable' and you then try to derail the conversation by making up allegations about antitheists trying to marginalise religion by removing their structural privileges.
Well then you need to find someone, because you religionistas have some absolute crazies out there.
O.
Typical definition of real:Good luck with proving imaginary.
'being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary'
Good luck with demonstrating that your purported god has objective existence.
Good luck with proving imaginary.I don't need to - the onus is on you.
I don't need to - the onus is on you.I was just concerned you believed God was imaginary. It seems you don't.
Unless you can demonstrate that your purported god has objective existence then it fails to meet the definition for being real. Good luck with providing your purported god has objective existence.
I don't need to - the onus is on you.I dont think my failure to demonstrate objective existence of anything has the consequence of deciding whether or not something is real or objectively real does it.
Unless you can demonstrate that your purported god has objective existence then it fails to meet the definition for being real. Good luck with providing your purported god has objective existence.
I dont think my failure to demonstrate objective existence of anything has the consequence of deciding whether or not something is real or objectively real does it.
Secondly why is the unreality of God the default position?
I dont think my failure to demonstrate objective existence of anything has the consequence of deciding whether or not something is real or objectively real does it.Which is why I am both atheist (I do not believe that god exists) and also agnostic (I do not know that god does not exist).
I was just concerned you believed God was imaginary. It seems you don't.Surely it should come as no surprise to you that as I don't believe that god exists that I also don't believe that god is real.
It has the consequence that you have failed to demonstrate its reality, so it's just a baseless claim.I understand Burden of proof. It is really on anybody who makes a positive assertion. Outrider hasn't been back to me after positively asserting that God IS an imaginary friend.
For the same reasons that have been explained to you multiple times - its called the burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)). The alternative is that anybody could make any unfalsifiable claim and it would be up to other people to disprove them, which is impossible if they are unfalsifiable, so we'd all be left having to believe endless, often mutually contradictory and fantastical, claims, which is a reasonable definition of being delusional.
What's more, since "God" refers to a whole host of different concepts, some of which are mutually exclusive, we'd have to do that even if you could argue "God" was a special case, which you've never managed to do.
I understand Burden of proof. It is really on anybody who makes a positive assertion. Outrider hasn't been back to me after positively asserting that God IS an imaginary friend.I ask yet again Vlad: Who is we?
I am talking about the default position and here you have been very clear on what you think that is. That God is not real because I cannot satisfy your definition of demonstration. But why and on what grounds are you saying that is the default position?
In law the burden of proof needs to be established case by case as far as I understand.
The default position I think is different from the burden of proof but something that needs to be agreed. What then are your grounds for holding God as not real as the default position so I can either agree with them or otherwise?
I am talking about the default position and here you have been very clear on what you think that is. That God is not real because I cannot satisfy your definition of demonstration. But why and on what grounds are you saying that is the default position?
In law the burden of proof needs to be established case by case as far as I understand.
The default position I think is different from the burden of proof but something that needs to be agreed. What then are your grounds for holding God as not real so I can either agree with them or otherwise?
I ask yet again Vlad: Who is we?Vlad doesn't seem to have used 'we' here. I know he did previously but your comment looks out of place here.
You don't seem to have answered.
Vlad doesn't seem to have used 'we' here. I know he did previously but your comment looks out of place here.He did in reply 242 and I asked him several teams who he means by we. In typical Vlad fashion he has failed to answer a very simple question.
We need take no advice or lectures on the real world from regular posters on this forum.Once again Vlad - who do you mean by we?
The burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) in philosophy is about the person making the claim. In the case where somebody is saying that something is objectively real, then of course the default position is to not accept it without sufficient reason being given to accept it.yes. You are going through the drill but holding back on the nub of the affair. What sufficient reason is lacking here? It seems that the lack of fulfilment of physical and empirical properties means that there is ''insufficient reason''. And that is ''true'' in empiricism and physicalism. The trouble is that neither physicalism nor empiricism are established by empirical or physical means. So why then are you justifying those as the default? You will be justifying your beliefs to yourself as well while you are at it.
Once again Vlad - who do you mean by we?Me and thems what's like me.
Me and thems what's like me.Damn few and they're all dead
Damn few and they're all deadWell said. Don't quite get it yet....but well said.
yes. You are going through the drill but holding back on the nub of the affair. What sufficient reason is lacking here?
Anything at all. Give me a definition of "God" (you're still ignoring that at least most of them must be false) and any objective reason at all to take its existence seriously.Objective reason. What is your understanding of that?
Objective reason. What is your understanding of that?
And you still haven't given any justification of why empiricism and physicalism are the default position.
I know it suits your agenda to pretend that other people are taking philosophical stances that they aren't, because it gives you something to talk about apart from the total absence of any actual supporting argument for your own position, but it really is both tedious and an absolutely obvious tactic.It's Vlad's online version of running around with shit on the end of a stick.
In the normal English sense of the word; objective (https://www.lexico.com/definition/objective) "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual." More technically perhaps, intersubjective; some reason that, in principle at least, doesn't depend on the beliefs or preconceptions of the individuals considering it.You state yours is the default position. That is a claim. You need to justify that.
Why would I want to justify a claim I've never made? I know it suits your agenda to pretend that other people are taking philosophical stances that they aren't, because it gives you something to talk about apart from the total absence of any actual supporting argument for your own position, but it really is both tedious and an absolutely obvious tactic.
You state yours is the default position.Is there a default position?
Oh no you are claiming it IS imaginary. It's not up to me to demonstrate it isn't.
You state yours is the default position. That is a claim. You need to justify that.
It seems you are arguing from empiricism and physicalism and scientism. Those are beliefs since they cannot be justified by empirical or physical means.
There is no pretending. That is what you strongly look like you are doing.
No, I'm concluding that it's imaginary after you and several billion others over the past two thousand years haven't managed to muster anything even vaguely convincing to suggest that it has a basis in fact. It goes in the same bin as unicorns, fairies and Atlantis, none of which are required to be 'proven' imaginary for the conclusion to be generally accepted.Yes I make a claim and am working on it but God stubbornly remains unfalsifiable.
You're making the claim, and failing to back it up. In excess of two thousand years of failure to provide any evidence - more than that if you extend the conclusion to gods in general rather than the specifics of your particular cult's claims - and to conclude that it's imaginary is just good sense.
O.
I already did, as have others, multiple times. If anybody claims something exists, then it's obviously up to them provide the reasoning, and, in this case, one of the multiple (and mutually exclusive) definitions of the term they are using.Have you explored the moral argument? Have you thought more about what it is about the universe that is necessary.....rather than contingent. My impression was that atheists round here have trouble getting past a scientific or natural explanation for Er, contingency and nature.
This has also been explained multiple times. Your task is to give some sort of objective (something that isn't obviously subjective would be a start) reason to think that one of the many, many versions of "God" has an objective existence.
The most obvious way would be empirical evidence or a logical argument of some kind. However, if you have some other method that can achieve the result of removing subjectivity, then please do bring it forward. I don't exclude the non-physical on philosophical grounds, I just don't see a way to investigate claims made about it, so they can be distinguished from guessing or mistakes. All you need to do is provide such a method.
You never will, of course, because parroting the same inaccurate nonsense about everybody else's philosophical position is much easier than actually addressing the problem that you clearly can't provide a definition of "God" and a reason to take it seriously.
My impression was that atheists round here have trouble getting past a scientific or natural explanation for Er, contingency and nature.
Have you explored the moral argument? Have you thought more about what it is about the universe that is necessary.....rather than contingent. My impression was that atheists round here have trouble getting past a scientific or natural explanation for Er, contingency and nature.
Okay, so why not pick one, find a reasonable summary of it, or even (!) express it in your own words, and start a thread and we can discuss it. However, I'm not going to sit through another hour long video (as I did when you pointed me at Feser) or similar, only to find it's ultimately comical.I didn’t find anything comical in it. What did you find comical?
Perhaps you need a different impression,Perhaps you need to give one.
Perhaps you need to give one.How about Chick Murray, Gordon?
I didn’t find anything comical in it. What did you find comical?
Contingent things have there explanation in something else.
Necessary things are their own explanation
There can only be one necessary thing two or more things are contingent on each other and contingent because there would be an ultimate explanation for why there were two.
If the universe is necessary but filled with contingent things then there must be.An unobserved necessary aspect about the universe which gives rise to contingent things.
We've discussed this more than once, Vlad. He made a very long-winded argument that there must be a reason why stuff exists and then it descended into farce as soon as he tried to bash the square peg of his favourite god into the round hole he'd just about argued for.I dont detect a final dismissal of necessity here but maybe a dismissal of thinking about it.
So how do things become their own explanation?
So why doesn't there need to be an explanation of why there's only one?
Maybe the whole universe is necessary, maybe nothing in necessary, or maybe everything that is self-consistent is necessary. How do we tell? Why would this have anything to do with a version of "God", and what version of "God"?
How about Chick Murray, Gordon?
I dont detect a final dismissal of necessity here but maybe a dismissal of thinking about it.
Regarding the universe being necessary, that makes universe necessity an emergent property...
If one considers necessity certain things that it logically can be and cannot be begin to surface.
As for Feser .The professor has acknowledged that other arguments are needed to support the christian conception of God but many of the properties implicit in necessity are classic theology of monotheism.
I maintain that there would need to be an explanation as to why there was more than one necessity. Since that could not be explained by either entity.
How about making it a coherent concept. How can something be its own explanation?Necessity less coherent than there just being contingency?
Why?
Such as?
In the video I watched he does indeed try to make the argument for a sort of god of monotheism but that's when it all falls apart. I think this is the one: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD (https://youtu.be/Sl3uoCi9VjI). The original link that I had and referenced in >this< (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg715909#msg715909) post doesn't seem to work any more but you might like to refresh your mind regarding our last discussion, so we don't do all the arguments all over again.
Until you've made it a coherent concept, it's difficult to say.
Necessity less coherent than there just being contingency?
I'll ask yet again: how can something be its own explanation?How it is. I dont know but logic dictates it should be since if x existence is dependent on y and that chain of dependence was infinite nothing would exist.
How it is. I dont know but logic dictates it should be since if x existence is dependent on y and that chain of dependence was infinite nothing would exist.
If you don't know how anything can be its own explanation, how are you going to recognise it, either in reality or as part of a logical argument?Holding contingency without necessity is I would move a strange philosophical position and I am being charitable with that.
Holding contingency without necessity is I would move a strange philosophical position and I am being charitable with that.
Many atheists see no problem with the necessity of er, a necessity and would say that the universe itself or as a whole is the necessary thing.
The problem of course is still with demonstrating the necessary since all the universe we see is contingent.
Secondly you've backed a bit of a loser here I'm afraid because if you insist on everything having an external explanation, what then is the explanation for the universe? Aren't you even a bit curious? There must be one. You've said as much.
If you insist on everything having an external explanation then you cannot propose seriously that the universe only has an internal explanation....which is to say, it's own explanation.
It looks like you have a bit of sorting out to do.
It's not me who's trying to argue about something that I cannot explain. You didn't even attempt to answer my question. If you have no idea how something can be its own explanation, how are you going to reason about it or recognise it?And yet you have gone some of the way to describe and explain the status of the universe by suggesting it has an external explanation.
I don't know if the universe has an explanation or not. It seems a reasonable starting assumption but physical laws themselves would seem to be the obvious answer. You can then ask for an explanation for those laws, but how do you know that they have one or that they aren't their own explanation, as you have no way of recognising if they are or not, and in any case we don't know exactly what they consist of?
Either there is something that literally has no explanation, there is an infinite regress of explanations, something has this strange, undefined property of being its own explanation, or the whole question of an explanation is somehow a misunderstanding when applied to reality as a whole.
I'm still not seeing a definition of a particular "God" and an argument for it amongst all this. It just looks like a glorified god-of-the-gaps argument: "here's something nobody knows the answer to, therefore (my favourite version of) god."
And yet you have gone some of the way to describe and explain the status of the universe by suggesting it has an external explanation.
I also see you are prepared to entertain the idea of something having it's own internal explanation. Of course it is worth considering whether the laws of physics are the necessary thing.
If as some here would have it they are mere patterns observed in the physical then we can take the materialist route and argue that the laws of physics are dependent on material and therefore are contingent on it.
Secondly, we might argue that physical laws might have been different or have changed overtime. That leaves room for another explanation which physical laws are dependent on and if that were the case that would render them contingent.
But suppose we can circumvent those objections there are questions which remain.
If not dependent for their existence on matter/energy how can the laws be said to exist. It must be in some novel way.
So I am not dismissing the laws of physics, but for them to be the necessary they cannot be contingent on there being any matter and they must, I suggest, have an independent existence.
Yes I make a claim and am working on it but God stubbornly remains unfalsifiable.
You need to drop your notion though that Christianity has been a two thousand year exercise to find God scientifically or philosophically although the philosophical arguments.
But that is not the main thrust of my reply. You claimed God was and is an imaginary friend.
Justify your claim.....or is it that you are still working on it?
Well, if it changes its mind and provides some evidence I'll update my conclusion, but until then...You needed to justify your positive assertion that God IS an imaginary friend.
Why? I'm not suggesting that's all that Christianity has been - that doesn't cover the political, economical and national vested interests that have also led to various schisms, Crusades and declarations, but it's been part of the exercise.
Yep.
Already done it, repeatedly. You claim god, you can't show god, I can therefore conclude reasonably that it's all in your head.
O.
You needed to justify your positive assertion that God IS an imaginary friend.
You then attempted to shift the burden of proof and then said that because there is no evidence to the contrary God IS an imaginary friend.
That seems to me classic NPF.
You cannot prove otherwise therefore God IS an imaginary friend. Your only possible way out of this is to show that God not existing is the default but then so far you have been NPFing on that.
And I did. It's a conclusion drawn from centuries of believers being unable to provide any reliable evidence to the contrary. You assert God, you don't justify God, I can reasonably conclude with that many people over that period of time being unable to produce anything that it's because there's nothing to find.Demonstrate reasonable deduction.
I don't need to PROVE if I can reasonably DEDUCE.
You keep asserting that arguments you don't have a counter to are 'fallacies' - I think perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word.
Nothing existing is the default - skepticism is the default - that's not the case until and unless you give some sort of basis for accepting the claim is the default. You claim 'God'... off you go and justify that, or I'm at liberty to presume that you're wrong.
O.
Demonstrate reasonable deduction.
Nothing existing is a positive assertion.
Give me a better explanation.Look you asserted that God is an imaginary friend. You are now assuming and asserting that God does not exist.
It would be if it weren't explicitly explained as a presumption in the absence of better evidence.
O.
Look you asserted that God is an imaginary friend. You are now assuming and asserting that God does not exist.The reason we do that is because we've asked theists to produce the evidence that God exists and they have failed to do so. The most reasonable explanation for why they can't demonstrate God's existence is that he/she/it doesn't.
Look you asserted that God is an imaginary friend. You are now assuming and asserting that God does not exist.
If you say you needn't go any further and obey your own rules then you can add special pleading to your list.
Now please demonstrate without resorting to shifting the burden of proof and NPF your assertions.
Let me help you. On what criteriao you dismiss any and all argument or testimony against your assertion?
And yes this will involve you making a statement on what constitutes evidence.
The reason we do that is because we've asked theists to produce the evidence that God exists and they have failed to do so. The most reasonable explanation for why they can't demonstrate God's existence is that he/she/it doesn't.Why is it the most reasonable explanation?
I stated a conclusion I'd come to - I didn't specifically point out that it was a conclusion at the time, but I've clarified that since. If you want me to revise that conclusion, you need to provide either a new perspective on the existing arguments, or some evidence.I'm obviously not going to get you to justify yourself as to your positive assertion that God is an imaginary friend and that he does not exist.
I've explained my methodology - feel free to point out the flaw in skepticism if you'd like, but it still tends to work better than anything else as a system.
Still already done. If you don't like the argument presented then by all means critique it, but I'm not going to change just because you don't like it.
On the lack of any logical argument in favour, and the absence of sufficient evidence.
It doesn't, really. You're making the claim 'god', I'm rejecting it. If you want to enter something into evidence, I can look at what you've decided constitutes evidence, and whether what you've proffered is actually sufficient, but I don't have to predetermine what constitutes evidence in the slightest as I'm not making the claim, I'm rejecting the claim (and choosing to phrase that rejection in a slightly amusing fashion).
O
And I'm still not seeing either a definition of a god or any sort of argument for its existence....
Where logically do you think the arguments for God fall down?
Why is it the most reasonable explanation?
Positive assertion again.
Also you keep talking of failure. In what sense does the evidence fail?
Why has the evidence and arguments been sufficient for others?
...God is the necessary being.
...
Still waiting for a definition and an argument from you......
I'm obviously not going to get you to justify yourself as to your positive assertion that God is an imaginary friend and that he does not exist.
Where do you think the arguments fall down?
I think that only works if you adopt a framework for evidence that is merely a restatement of empiricism, scientism, materialism and/or naturalism.
Is skepticism skeptical about itself? I'd love to hear the success criteria by which you judged it.
Why is it the most reasonable explanation?If you can think of a better one, please let's hear it.
Also you keep talking of failure.Yes. The failure of theists to make a case for God.
In what sense does the evidence fail?I'll let you know when you come up with some - unless it doesn't fail, in which case I'll become a theist.
Why has the evidence and arguments been sufficient for others?
Careful, an answer of ''it doesn't convince me'' is no reason on it's own why it ought to convince others.Agreed.
God is the necessary being.
The argument.....The illogicality of 'only contingency', The failure of infinities to logically produce anything except more numbers, the existence of morality, the non detection of necessity within or as part of or a property of the empirically or instrumentally observable universe.
And you see this is the problem. When asked to be corrected all the atheists do is to repeat that your wrong.
It's presented to support the contention 'God' - in many cases it's not evidence at all, and when it is it doesn't adequately support the argument being made.
And you see this is the problem. When asked to be corrected all the atheists do is to repeat that your wrong.
Imagine if education ran along those lines.
This maths is wrong
Where is it wrong Miss?
It's very wrong and shows no sign of being right.
But miss where is it wrong
It is wrong because I am very right and I am right because you are very wrong.
In fact it is so wrong you never did any maths at all. Take a detention for not handing in your homework...............(Is my amusing response.)
God is the necessary being.
The argument.....The illogicality of 'only contingency'...
The failure of infinities to logically produce anything except more numbers...
...the existence of morality...
...the non detection of necessity within or as part of or a property of the empirically or instrumentally observable universe.
Why 'being' - why does the necessary thing have to be something with an aspect of consciousness?The fact that you went on to being and missed necessity was either deliberate(goddodging) or subconscious (subconscious Goddodging). Your supposed inability to handle a sentence with the word necessity rather reinforces my suspicions.
Why is it illogical to only have contingent things?
That infinite things only produce more things isn't a problem when the only evidence we have is for things.
Morality - we have a multitude of moral stances and systems across a multitude of independent cultures and possibly ranging into other species: what about that suggests that the concept of morality requires some external source?
That last bit about 'non-detection of necessity' just doesn't mean anything to me as it's phrased.
O.
You haven't yet defined a way in which something could possibly be its own explanation. If you managed that, you'd still have to argue as to why that was the case, rather than no explanation, and then you'd have to establish that it was a being and conformed to some definition of "God" - which you still haven't provided.More importantly you haven't defined the logicality of ''contingency only.''
You haven't even defined what exactly it is you're arguing for.
Why?
Doesn't make any sense. Where is the actual argument here? Aren't many versions of "God" supposed to involve infinities?
Where is that argument?
How do you know what's necessary if you can't say how anything can be its own explanation?
You're all over the place, why don't you start a thread (as I suggested before) about one particular argument that you're prepared to defend and set it out in full? Do you need this (that I posted for Alan Burns but he's totally ignored it): Critical Thinking (pdf) (http://tailieuso.udn.vn/bitstream/TTHL_125/9262/3/CriticalThinking.TT.pdf) - it's a full book you can download? See chapters 8 & 9 for deductive arguments.
And you see this is the problem. When asked to be corrected all the atheists do is to repeat that your wrong.No they don't. They repeat their request that you supply some evidence.
Imagine if education ran along those lines.
...
No they don't. They repeat their request that you supply some evidence.Doesn't work because you've already said all the arguments were wrong.
It's more like thise lies:
"Where's your maths homework?"
"I gave it to you"
"Well where is it then?"
"Can you prove my homework doesn't exist? You are making a positive assertion when you say my maths homework doesn't exist".
"Show us some evidence you did your maths homework. After all, if it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to show it to me".
and so on.
More importantly you haven't defined the logicality of ''contingency only.''
Secondly you say the universe has an external explanation.
What is it?
If it is not natural in what way can it be said to exist?
If it is external to nature how can it avoid the definition of being supernatural?
You see, by insisting that nothing just is without needing an external explanation...
It's actually more important for you to make your case because you're the one trying to argue for something (burden of proof again). As I said before, I don't know how anything can be necessary in the way you define it and, apparently, neither do you. Until you can explain how something can possibly be its own explanation, I don't even know what we're talking about, let alone if it might exist or not.God is the necessary for the universe. The external explanation for nature. As such he is independent from nature and cannot be nature. He is the author of the physical laws and the ultimate moral law.
No, I didn't, I said it was a reasonable starting assumption.
As I said before, I've no idea but maybe it's a consequence of physical laws themselves, but I don't know.
Who said it wasn't natural?
How are you defining these terms?
I didn't insist any such thing. What is it about "I don't know" that's so hard for you to understand?
If you want to argue that a god exists, it's entirely up to you to provide both the definition of the god you're talking about and why we should take it seriously.
The fact that you went on to being and missed necessity was either deliberate(goddodging) or subconscious (subconscious Goddodging). Your supposed inability to handle a sentence with the word necessity rather reinforces my suspicions.
But let's talk morality. Yes there are many systems of morality but you seem to have missed that morality is a question of ought and right and wrong.
The evidence here is you don't consider morality 'real'......
Fine. Just apply your usual reasoning and judgment on how to deal with the unreal the next time you think you have the moral high ground.
So morality and necessity under the carpet.....be careful not to lift it my atheist padawan for the gateway to theism they are.
I accept that there's something necessary for there to be a universe resulting from it - that's the cause and effect of material existence, so far as we can tell. What I can't see is why the question is phrased so as to imply that whatever that necessary thing is requires some consciousness to it.Are all beings conscious? Is consciousness another word for being? Not so sure.
Are all beings conscious? Is consciousness another word for being? Not so sure.
But start with the ultimate necessary which by definition is it's own explanation. It is the only ultimate explanation. Therefore nothing compels it to do anything apart from itself. It is if you like, a will...... and that is a feature of consciousness.
The mystery for me is, why the insistence on unconsciousness?
It seems to me that the motivation for the external explanation of the universe being unconscious is adherence to Naturalism.
That's why I was querying it - whether it's your implication or my inference only you can know, it's how I read 'being' rather 'object' or 'phenomenon' which to me doesn't have the same implication of consciousness.''Contingency only'' is illogical.
If that made any sense as a concept - why is it the exception, why doesn't it need a cause like everything else? - then it brings us around to 'what makes you think there is some ultimate explanation, why does there have to be something which starts it all? Why can't reality be infinite?
Because we only see consciousness late on in the story of the universe, we see it emerge from complex interactions which have become increasingly complex with time; why presume something conscious predates the complexity when the only times we've seen it has been deriving from complexity. More than that, though, we have no evidence for anything conscious at that point, so why presume that it's there.
I don't have an explanation for the universe, I have possible explanations, some of which require the acceptance of more unevidenced assertions than others; so I default to the one which requires the fewest, which is an infinite reality in which our universe is just a natural consequence of other events.
O.
God is the necessary for the universe. The external explanation for nature. As such he is independent from nature and cannot be nature. He is the author of the physical laws and the ultimate moral law.
Now if you do not accept that the properties of God described here are also the necessary properties of the external explanation of nature then you are putting forward an internal explanation.
In other words if God is natural...
Nature then is it's own explanation.
You seem to be hedging.
Is that just a bunch of baseless assertions or an attempt at a definition? And you haven't provided any hint of an argument that there is such a thing as "the ultimate moral law".If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation. QED.
I'm not putting forward any explanation because I don't know.
You haven't even begun to establish that "God" refers to anything at all yet.
Maybe, maybe not; I don't know.
Admitting that I don't know something is not hedging. It is you who have claimed to have good reason to believe something called "God", although you seem to be struggling to even define it, so it's up to you to give the reasoning.
That's why I was querying it - whether it's your implication or my inference only you can know, it's how I read 'being' rather 'object' or 'phenomenon' which to me doesn't have the same implication of consciousness.So the default is nature is it's own explanation. It is therefore the necessary, What then is necessary about anything we observe using science?
If that made any sense as a concept - why is it the exception, why doesn't it need a cause like everything else? - then it brings us around to 'what makes you think there is some ultimate explanation, why does there have to be something which starts it all? Why can't reality be infinite?
Because we only see consciousness late on in the story of the universe, we see it emerge from complex interactions which have become increasingly complex with time; why presume something conscious predates the complexity when the only times we've seen it has been deriving from complexity. More than that, though, we have no evidence for anything conscious at that point, so why presume that it's there.
I don't have an explanation for the universe, I have possible explanations, some of which require the acceptance of more unevidenced assertions than others; so I default to the one which requires the fewest, which is an infinite reality in which our universe is just a natural consequence of other events.
O.
''Contingency only'' is illogical.
Infinities do not produce anything except more numbers. That is the only infinity type we observe.
Given both of the above, rather than illogical nonsense such as ''Contingency only'' an unobserved infinite regress of causes which would not provide the required stuff in any case...
...and it is the stuff which we have to account for, not the infinity.
I think the choice you made has far more inexplicable, not to say illogical steps(Your model of the universe is like a perpetual motion machine) than mine.
So the default is nature is it's own explanation.
It is therefore the necessary, What then is necessary about anything we observe using science?
If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation. QED.
However once you have allowed one thing to be it's own explanation, why stop at nature?
''Contingency only'' is illogical.
Infinities do not produce anything except more numbers. That is the only infinity type we observe.
Given both of the above, rather than illogical nonsense such as ''Contingency only'' an unobserved infinite regress of causes which would not provide the required stuff in any case and it is the stuff which we have to account for, not the infinity.
I think the choice you made has far more inexplicable, not to say illogical steps(Your model of the universe is like a perpetual motion machine) than mine.
Or there is no explanation.I am saying that if nature is it's own explanation something you seem to be in denial of implying. Then I ask what logical grounds are there to assume that only nature is it's own explanation.
Why not? You're forgetting, or ignoring, the burden of proof again. You are the one who thinks there is a good reason to go beyond nature to something else called "God" that is "supernatural" but I've still seen no definitions and no argument.
I don't understand what that's trying to convey.Again you seem to be arguing a perpetual motion machine.
Infinities do not produce anything. Things produce things, there may be infinite amounts of some of those things which may (or may not) produce infinite amounts of other things.
We have a partial explanation for our universe, but there is a limit to the evidence available. I still fail to see why any sort of infinite regress poses a problem, and nothing here changes that, nor do I see any sort of explanation of why you think an infinite reality could not produce the universe in which we find ourselves.
From what we see within the universe there is conservation of energy; why presume that, or an equivalent, does not extend outside of the universe? You have the ultimate inexplicable step of a self-creating, uncaused complex intelligence which chooses to incept a universe for no logical reason.
O.
I am saying that if nature is it's own explanation something you seem to be in denial of implying. Then I ask what logical grounds are there to assume that only nature is it's own explanation.
If something was not natural it would logically be supernatural.
I dont know but I know it isn't God is a piece of illogical. Just saying.
This is an excellent example of providing you guys with an argument /evidence and you then saying you haven't been provided with it
I don't know if anything can be its own explanation (you haven't said how it's logically possible), if it's possible, I don't know if the universe might be such a thing, and, if it is, I don't know if it's the only thing that is.
Or there is no explanation..
This is an excellent example of providing you guys with an argument /evidence and you then saying you haven't been provided with it
Our exchange in reply 510
Quote from: Your friendly illusion of self. on Today at 04:21:21 PM
If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation. QED.
Your replyQuoteOr there is no explanation..
What is so hard about this?
Once more.....If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation.
And another thing I observe from your responses that sometimes being unobserved is a problem eg for the necessary and sometimes it is no problem whatsoever. Eg productive infinities.Just thought I ought to tell you you've been found out on that one.
Infinities do though as you agree produce nothing and an infinity of things is er an infinity.
Sadly while you and Strangers are wallowing in your bath of logical contradiction.
Again you seem to be arguing a perpetual motion machine.
What in the universe is not contingent? What in the universe has no explanation?
And another thing I observe from your responses that sometimes being unobserved is a problem eg for the necessary and sometimes it is no problem whatsoever. Eg productive infinities Just thought I ought to tell you you've been found out on that one.
Infinities do though as you agree produce nothing and an infinity of things is er an infinity.
Sadly while you and Strangers are wallowing in your bath of logical contradiction. I have no intention of claiming in with you.
Doesn't work because you've already said all the arguments were wrong.
My version is on the money though.
You see Jeremy......Your wrong and i'm right...very very right.
Are all beings conscious? Is consciousness another word for being? Not so sure.Let's assume it doesn't have to be conscious. If it doesn't, the ultimate necessary could be the universe.
But start with the ultimate necessary which by definition is it's own explanation. It is the only ultimate explanation.
The mystery for me is, why the insistence on unconsciousness? It seems to me that the motivation for the external explanation of the universe being unconscious is adherence to Naturalism.Nobody is insisting on unconsciousness. It's just a simpler explanation than the ultimate something being conscious.
Let's assume it doesn't have to be conscious. If it doesn't, the ultimate necessary could be the universe.First of all being necessary. It is not compelled to act except by itself. That is at least analogous I would have thought with free will.
Job done. We can all go home.
Nobody is insisting on unconsciousness. It's just a simpler explanation than the ultimate something being conscious.
First of all being necessary. It is not compelled to act except by itself. That is at least analogous I would have thought with free will.No it isn't. It just means there is nothing outside of it that can make it do things. The Universe fits your definition.
Secondly for something unconscious it looks as though it has remarkable self control."Self control" doesn't really apply to unconscious things, does it. You don't say "this rock has remarkable self control: it hasn't moved from that spot for thousands of years".
Having apparently created once with one set of rules.Do you have evidence that this is true?
Well spotted. Unfortunately the logical context seems to have escaped you. If you suggest something possible (not contradictory), say X, that is unobserved and logically unsupported, in the course of a logical argument, in order to reach your conclusion, then pointing out that Y, which is equally unobserved and logically unsupported, is another possibility (also not contradictory), breaks your line of reasoning.No line of reasoning is broken until it is demonstrated to be illogical or wrong.
No it isn't. It just means there is nothing outside of it that can make it do things. The Universe fits your definition.There is also nothing inside the universe that looks remotely necessary so it, er, doesn't fit the definition.
"Self control" doesn't really apply to unconscious things, does it. You don't say "this rock has remarkable self control: it hasn't moved from that spot for thousands of years".
Do you have evidence that this is true?
No line of reasoning is broken until it is demonstrated to be illogical or wrong.Actually it does.
Saying that it could be something else breaks no reasoning whatsoever.
But I'm afraid your logical error is that you want the universe to be it's own explanation and want an external explanation as well. That is a cake and eat it argument.Please tell us how you are defining "explanation". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
No it isn't. It just means there is nothing outside of it that can make it do things. The Universe fits your definition.Do you have any evidence that the universe created itself more than once with different rules? If it did where is it's ability to do that located since everything seems to conform to the laws of nature which are invariable. If it is an unconscious ability why isn't it happening all the time?
"Self control" doesn't really apply to unconscious things, does it. You don't say "this rock has remarkable self control: it hasn't moved from that spot for thousands of years".
Do you have evidence that this is true?
Actually it does.No, Go on, I'll let you .....''correct'' me.
"Look at that swan over there"
"It's not a swan"
"How do you know?"
"All swans are white. That bird is grey, therefore it is not a swan".
"Not all swans are white (https://images.app.goo.gl/2a7eGhDjb1vtjwwb8)"
Please tell us how you are defining "explanation". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
There is also nothing inside the universe that looks remotely necessary so it, er, doesn't fit the definition.The Universe is not the things in it.
You are comparing something that cannot do anything to something responsible for everything.Why does the ultimate cause of everything in the Universe have to be "responsible"? It seems to me you are conflating two meanings of responsible. This table is responsible for stopping my computer from hitting the ground but it does not have any consciousness or awareness as far as I know.
Your example is more likely to support the idea that unconscious things don't tend to do anything.Nobody said the stone isn't contingent. We were critiquing your nonsense idea that "not being compelled to act, except by itself" is the same as being conscious.
Also no matter how hard it tries the stone cannot fail to be contingent.
That either the necessity is an external or that the universe is necessary leaves us with the same problemWell done. You are correct, if we say the Universe is necessary, we still have the problem of explaining its existence. If I think the Universe is necessary and you think God is necessary, we both have the problem of explaining a necessary entity, but you have the additional problem of showing that your entity even exists.
No line of reasoning is broken until it is demonstrated to be illogical or wrong.
Saying that it could be something else breaks no reasoning whatsoever.
But I'm afraid your logical error is that you want the universe to be it's own explanation and want an external explanation as well.
Do you have any evidence that the universe created itself more than once with different rules?No. You are the one who has an argument that rests on the uniqueness of our Universe, you show it's true.
If it did where is it's ability to do that located since everything seems to conform to the laws of nature which are invariable. If it is an unconscious ability why isn't it happening all the time?Why are you anthropomorphising the laws of nature?
*facepalm* You really have no clue at all, do you?I don't think here I am arguing my God I am just exploring necessity....and being treated to atheists apparently shitting themselves over it.
If all you want to do is argue that your version of god is a possibility, then you're wasting your time, because as long as it's unfalsifiable, it must also be possible, which applies to endless concepts of god(s). I'm not aware of anybody here who has argued that all versions of god(s) are impossible.
If, on the other hand, you want to construct a logical argument for your god, you either need a deductive argument or an inductive (probabilistic) one.
If you're trying to do a deduction, then it must be impossible for your premises to be true and the conclusion to be false (validity) and also your premises must be accepted as true (soundness). Hence, if there are other possibilities in any of your steps, it becomes invalid.
Even if you're trying to an inductive argument and you're into the territory of blind guesses, as everybody is with regard to the basis of existence, then one is as good as the other, to the existence of other guesses also undermine your position.
No, I don't. For fuck's sake, close down the straw man factory you seem to have running night and day, and pay some attention to what I've actually said.
As I keep on saying, you need to define your notion of "God", then present your premises, then a deductive or inductive argument.
No. You are the one who has an argument that rests on the uniqueness of our Universe, you show it's true.Then you are flip flopping between the universe having an external explanation and being it's own explanation.
Why are you anthropomorphising the laws of nature?
I don't think here I am arguing my God I am just exploring necessity....and being treated to atheists apparently shitting themselves over it.Please provide some evidence that atheists are shitting themselves. I suppose it is possible that they are shitting themselves laughing (if that's a thing) at the ineptness of your arguments.
insisting that the universe has an external explanationYou're insisting that the Universe has an external explanation, not us. You are the one advocating God remember.
and also suggesting that it is it's own explanationDon't be silly, the Universe is not an explanation, it is a Universe.
I don't think here I am arguing my God I am just exploring necessity....and being treated to atheists apparently shitting themselves over it.
insisting that the universe has an external explanation and also suggesting that it is it's own explanation or cause is llogical or special pleading at the very best?
I suggest the reason for the panic atheists are demonstrating is that they've entertained Necessity and are frightened of it's implications.
Please provide some evidence that atheists are shitting themselves. I suppose it is possible that they are shitting themselves laughing (if that's a thing) at the ineptness of your arguments.But what does that mean?
You're insisting that the Universe has an external explanation, not us. You are the one advocating God remember.
Don't be silly, the Universe is not an explanation, it is a Universe.
But what does that mean?
Is it a thing? Or a collection of things?
Necessity cannot emerge out of contingency. It is the other way round.
Sadly it seems that round here. Thinking about contingency and necessity is taboo......and there is an almost 'superstiscious attitude towards it.
It's not that thinking about it - or indeed, anything - is taboo, it's that claiming that some concept of necessity has been logically established has been rehashed so many times and shown to be not the case - Kalam, Intelligent Design etc.Kalam and intelligent design are not really arguments from contingency.
So when you start suggesting such and such is a 'necessary' element in an area where we have absolutely no knowledge - i.e. extra-universal 'physics' - then it all just dissolves into unsupportable claims and the counter-argument that we just can't, currently, know.
Coupled with your style of throwing out one or two hangers upon which an implied but not expressed argument is purported to rest, and then when no-one engages with the argument you've not actually made you claim that people are avoiding your points just makes for an experience that, frankly, isn't that rewarding compared to conversing with some other people here.
O.
Kalam and intelligent design are not really arguments from contingency.
Intelligent design is a teleological argument.
Kalam depends on the universe having a beginning rather than necessity.
No, they are arguments from necessity - they attempt to show that a God is a necessary element of our existence - and they fail.The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for
Which also attempts to show that there must be a creative God in order for us to be here, and which also fails.
It depends on the universe having a beginning, but it attempts from that to claim that therefore there MUST BE a god.
O.
The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for
Simulated universe theory courtesy of Neil de grasse Tyson. Who also appealed to the teleological argument.
Nowhere is the conclusion.,therefore the creator is The ultimate necessity made except maybe necessary for this universe.
The Kalam depend on the universe having a beginning.
A beginning is unnecessary for the argument from contingency which is as good for an infinite chain of events as a beginning of events.
The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for simulated universe theory courtesy of Neil de grasse Tyson. Who also appealed to the teleological argument.
Nowhere is the conclusion.,therefore the creator is The ultimate necessity made except maybe necessary for this universe.
The Kalam depend on the universe having a beginning.
A beginning is unnecessary for the argument from contingency which is as good for an infinite chain of events as a beginning of events.
The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for
Simulated universe theory courtesy of Neil de grasse Tyson. Who also appealed to the teleological argument.
Nowhere is the conclusion.,therefore the creator is The ultimate necessity made...
But what does that mean?What does what mean? Which bit are you having trouble comprehending?
Is it a thing? Or a collection of things?
Necessity cannot emerge out of contingency. It is the other way round.
Sadly it seems that round here. Thinking about contingency and necessity is taboo......and there is an almost 'superstiscious attitude towards it.
Vlad,As those around him when he put forward the argumentrightly commented, it could not be tested and therefore was unfalsifiable. If you know differently that that has somehow changed, has any body told Dr Tyson that the Religionethics guys, the Corinthian Casuals of physics and philosophy, had falsified the argument he made?
Neither statement is true but even if either or both had been claimed by NdGT, so what? He’d have just been wrong, as is your use of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Yes, but their are ancilliary arguments to get there from the basic Kalam...which Lane Craig uses. As I have pointed out the Kalam is about a universal beginning. Not largely about necessity.
Isn’t it a fairly common tenet of Christianity that “God” is “the ultimate necessity”?
Something which is unknowable, and probably meaningless anyway as it would require a “before” before time itself.Not sure what your meaning is here, since something other than time is being proposed.
It’s not “good” for anything as it just adds an unwarranted assumption to the already unknowable.Contingency and necessity 'unwarranted'? Do tell.
Did he? Where? Not that it matters much, because if he did then in that instance he's also wrong.Yes there are several threads covering the occasion. He made it at a conference and those around him commented that it was unfalsifiable. So how you've come up with 'wrong' I don't know
If that's not the conclusion then a) what the hell is William Lane Craig's point and b) why is it proposed as an argument for God?The Kalam presents a creator of a finite universe or at least a universe with a beginning Craig makes ancilliary arguments to the basic Kalam.
The argument from contingency typically assumes that not everything can be contingentNot unreasonably
and that therefore there is something that is a beginningIt is not about beginning to exist it is merely about existence, beginnings or infinity is irrelevent, the nub of the argument being, I suppose, why something and not nothing. Necessities are unavoidable though once we reach that which is it's own explanation......and that is why beginnings, endings, infinities are not relevent to it
- it could be argued that it could be something that is uncaused within a larger, extant reality, but I've never seen it deployed as such. The argument from contingency is just another attempt to claim that there is some 'necessary' (i.e. uncaused) start point to realityBy that do you mean a universe that has a beginning?
; it is explicitly not consistent with an infinite chain of eventsOutrider we have talked and apparently agreed that infinities produce nothing
, which presumes the exact opposite that everything is contingent with no exceptions.And would be most illogical to do so since necessities are unavoidable. In other words is the infinite chain events necessary in that it is it's own explanation? or is it contingent,(.....There could have been an infinity of nothing....or it could have had a beginning and go on infinitely....or it could be finite?), and there is an even further explanation for why the chain is infinite.
As those around him when he put forward the argumentrightly commented it could not be tested and therefore was unfalsifiable. If you know differently that that has somehow changed, Has any body told Dr Tyson that the Religionethics guys, the Corinthian Casuals of physics and philosophy had falsified the argument he made?
Yes, but their are ancilliary arguments to get there from the basic Kalam...which Lane Craig uses. As I have pointed out the Kalam is about a universal beginning. Not largely about necessity.
Not sure what your meaning is here, since something other than time is being proposed.
Contingency and necessity 'unwarranted'? Do tell.
Vlad,I never used the words ''before time'' I'm talking about time and other than time.
Again so what? Neither NdGT nor PZ Myers think the cosmological or the teleological arguments for “God” to be sound. They concur that they’re false because of the logical flaws on which they rely. A localised spat between two academics about whether or not one of them had unwittingly implied these arguments doesn’t change that.
You can’t “get there from basic Kalam” without relying on false logic, and in any case you’re trying to have it both ways: either an ultimate cause where, presumably, the buck stops or an infinite past. Which is it?
“Before” is a temporal-related term. You can’t have a something that’s “before” time. If you want to try something like “outside time” instead that’s just word salad – what would it even mean? You might as well call it “magic” for all the explanatory use it has.
Nature observably exists. Whether it had a beginning, how it began etc are currently unknown. These questions are though in principle at least investigable. Just magicking “God” as your answer though is non-investigable and therefore non-falsifiable. It’s just white noise as it explains nothing. It’s unwarranted, which is presumably why you never even attempt to make an argument of your own for such a thing.
God?, God?
We are still schooling ourselves about contingency and necessity aren't we?
It certainly feels like first day in a new school on this thread.
I never used the words ''before time'' I'm talking about time and other than time.
God?, God? We are still schooling ourselves about contingency and necessity aren't we?
It certainly feels like first day in a new school on this thread.
Vlad,Befores are to do with time, Hillside. ''Other than time'' cannot have any befores can it?
If you don’t mean something like “God created the universe before the universe could be” then what on earth do you mean by “other than time”?
Confused by these terms? I'm not the person who saw the phrase ''other than time'' and translates it as God doing something ''before time''......you are.
Continually getting horribly confused about what these terms mean and imply despite having them explained to you isn’t “schooling” anything.
For you, no doubt. So how about finally listening to what your teachers are telling you, and not ignoring or misrepresenting it when they do?You call yourself a teacher while sitting in the equivalent of An argos novelty plastic schoolmaster outfit? As I said to Outrider, the argument from contingency and necessity is about existence, beginnings or infinities are irrelevent to it.
As I said to Outrider, the argument from contingency and necessity is about existence, beginnings or infinities are irrelevent to it.
This nonsense about necessity started out with an argument for "God" (#488 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17483.msg802192#msg802192)), then you backtracked (#531 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17483.msg802424#msg802424)).No. You are all over the place with everything must have an external explanation.
Certainly does but I think you've got the relationship backwards. You have talked about necessity as something which is its own explanation but you have totally failed to define how that can possibly be the case for anything. You started off talking about it as an argument for this "God", which you still haven't defined, then it wasn't an argument for "God", now you seem to be backing off from any connection to "God".
You're all over the place. Why don't you stop, do some thinking, and come back (possibly with a new thread), when you've got something coherent to say that you think you might be able to stick to, rather than changing the subject every time things get tricky for you?
This nonsense about necessity started out with an argument for "God" (#488 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17483.msg802192#msg802192)), then you backtracked (#531 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17483.msg802424#msg802424)).I notice though that even talking about contingency and necessity brings forth quasi mystical talk.....''The universe just is'', the universe must both be it's own explanation...and yet not'' ''Nothing is necessary'' ''No one I think is in my tree''.....I made the last one up but it almost seems consistent with the direction of travel.
Certainly does but I think you've got the relationship backwards. You have talked about necessity as something which is its own explanation but you have totally failed to define how that can possibly be the case for anything. You started off talking about it as an argument for this "God", which you still haven't defined, then it wasn't an argument for "God", now you seem to be backing off from any connection to "God".
You're all over the place. Why don't you stop, do some thinking, and come back (possibly with a new thread), when you've got something coherent to say that you think you might be able to stick to, rather than changing the subject every time things get tricky for you?
No. You are all over the place with everything must have an external explanation.
What then is the external explanation of the universe? You want the universe to have an external explanation because that satisfies one ingrained way of thinking but You also want the universe to be it's own final explanation.
...the universe must both be it's own explanation...and yet not'' ''Nothing is necessary''...
Befores are to do with time, Hillside. ''Other than time'' cannot have any befores can it?
Confused by these terms? I'm not the person who saw the phrase ''other than time'' and translates it as God doing something ''before time''......you are.
You call yourself a teacher while sitting in the equivalent of An argos novelty plastic schoolmaster outfit? As I said to Outrider, the argument from contingency and necessity is about existence, beginnings or infinities are irrelevent to it.
No. You are all over the place with everything must have an external explanation.
What then is the external explanation of the universe?
You want the universe to have an external explanation…
…because that satisfies one ingrained way of thinking…
… but You also want the universe to be it's own final explanation.
Finding yourself thus disappearing up your own fundament you are unleashing your Gatling gun on the messenger.
And that goes for Bluehillside.
I notice though that even talking about contingency and necessity brings forth quasi mystical talk.....''The universe just is'', the universe must both be it's own explanation...and yet not'' ''Nothing is necessary''
''No one I think is in my tree''.....I made the last one up but it almost seems consistent with the direction of travel.
Vlad,As I told you before. I am not wedded to the universe having a start or not.
Ah, the old Vlad sidestep makes its ever-welcome return then. What you were actually asked was, if you don’t think a created universe would have had to have been created prior to its existence what do you mean by “other than time”? It was a question (I know I know, asking Vlad a question right? What on earth was I thinking…?).
As I told you before. I am not wedded to the universe having a start or not.
I have also said that the argument from contingency and dependency does not depend on there being a beginning.
''Other than time'' could mean not subject to entropy like the rest of us.
Nobody has corrected me. All that is going on with you guys is the abandonment of logic, the adoption of scientism, wanting cake, eating cake and a hefty dose of posse-ing and gaslighting.
And as Outy corrected you, they’re not irrelevant at all. Why not deal with the corrections rather than repeat your mistakes?
Nobody has corrected me.
All that is going on with you guys is the abandonment of logic, the adoption of scientism, wanting cake, eating cake and a hefty dose of posse-ing and gaslighting.
I have also said that the argument from contingency and dependency does not depend on there being a beginning.
Vlad,Wrongggggggggg!
Fine, then you are no longer wedded to the cosmological argument.
Wrongggggggggg!
Also, there is more than one cosmological argument.
It's simple, Hillside. Did the universe have a beginning or not.
What has contingency and necessity got to do with time? You haven't even defined what you mean by time.
All you are doing is taking a view of the universe from Essex and saying ''this is what there is stretching forwards and backwards forever and ever.'' The stench of scientism in your posts renders your approach as Mystical bollocks.
Vlad,Well let's see.
Wrongly so – if there was “no beginning”, ie the universe is endlessly old, then what on earth do you think the point of a god capable of unvere creation would be?
Well let's see.
The universe would then be the necessary thing. In other words it would be it's own explanation.
But then there is the question of course of why a universe, rather than no universe.
There also remains the question of whether the universe could be any other way?
What is the explanation for the constants being the way they are? What keeps it going if it is a perpetual motion machine? Why is it infinite?
In other words there doesn't seem to be anything about the universe that is necessary.
Then there is the problem of infinity of events. Does an infinity account for stuff. As we know infinities are unproductive. Why is there not an infinity of nothing happening?
Which is more likely. What is the explanation of matter?
Obviously contingency cannot be an explanation. So somewhere lurking in the universe must be the necessary......according to you guys. Or the explanation of the universe is external to it.
Finally the cosmological argument of contingency is about existence. The universe could be there for ever therefore but why is there something rather than nothing?
That there has always been a something is when you think about it is no answer Hillside.
What has contingency and necessity got to do with time?
You haven't even defined what you mean by time.
How can we tell, if you won't post the actual argument that you keep on hinting at? And, BTW, it's not up to anybody else to go searching for it, especially as you don't seem to understand Kalam (for example), there is no guarantee that, even if we did, we'd be thinking about the same thing.I defined what I mean by God to Outrider.
Wow - are you going for some sort of hypocrisy gold medal or something?
You haven't defined what you mean by "God" (and it looks like it changes from post to post sometimes) you keep wittering about necessity but you haven't explained how it's possible for anything at all to be necessary, and you won't even set out this beedin' argument you keep on hinting at.
And time is an (observer dependent) direction through the space-time manifold.
Well let's see.
The universe would then be the necessary thing. In other words it would be it's own explanation.
But then there is the question of course of why a universe, rather than no universe.
There also remains the question of whether the universe could be any other way?
What is the explanation for the constants being the way they are? What keeps it going if it is a perpetual motion machine? Why is it infinite?
In other words there doesn't seem to be anything about the universe that is necessary.
Then there is the problem of infinity of events. Does an infinity account for stuff. As we know infinities are unproductive. Why is there not an infinity of nothing happening?
Which is more likely. What is the explanation of matter?
Obviously contingency cannot be an explanation. So somewhere lurking in the universe must be the necessary......according to you guys. Or the explanation of the universe is external to it.
Finally the cosmological argument of contingency is about existence. The universe could be there for ever therefore but why is there something rather than nothing?
That there has always been a something is when you think about it is no answer Hillside.
I defined what I mean by God to Outrider.
God is the necessary, the ultimate, the perfect, creator, sustainer, the fundemental, the foundation, the ground of being,
Now I know you are thinking all these could be traits of something impersonal. Personal, so how is God personal. Lane Craig's ancillary argument to his Kalam is a good resource here. To me the necessity produces the contingency independently of anything else. The necessity is not coerced, there is no external rule to force the necessity to be compliant, there is no natural law which dictates it should be done in a certain way hence contingency, there is no external opportunity to be provided, there is no gap. All this then is at least, highly analogous to volition, God does not need the universe. It must be here through a decision.
But God is also holy, perfect morally. God is loving. The universe is here for it's benefit not God's. And this is Gods revelation of himself because the moral reality, like the mathematical reality, is not to be found in the basic physical properties of matter and energy except in expression by certain complex arrangements. Morality does not change with physics.
And that is how I am defining God.
Wrongggggggggg!
Also there is more than one cosmological argument.
It's simple Hillside. Did the universe have a beginning or not.
What has contingency and necessity got to do with time? You haven't even defined what you mean by time.
All you are doing is taking a view of the universe from Essex and saying ''this is what there is stretching forwards and backwards forever and ever.'' The stench of scientism in your posts renders your approach as Mystical bollocks.
...
And that is how I am defining God.
God is the necessary, the ultimate, the perfect, creator, sustainer, the fundemental, the foundation, the ground of being,
Now I know you are thinking all these could be traits of something impersonal.
Personal, so how is God personal. Lane Craig's ancillary argument to his Kalam is a good resource here. To me the necessity produces the contingency independently of anything else. The necessity is not coerced, there is no external rule to force the necessity to be compliant, there is no natural law which dictates it should be done in a certain way hence contingency, there is no external opportunity to be provided, there is no gap. All this then is at least, highly analogous to volition, God does not need the universe. It must be here through a decision.
But God is also holy, perfect morally. God is loving. The universe is here for it's benefit not God's. And this is Gods revelation of himself because the moral reality, like the mathematical reality, is not to be found in the basic physical properties of matter and energy except in expression by certain complex arrangements. Morality does not change with physics.
Vlad,Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity. Now, you are implying it is the universe. However what could you be talking about. Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent. So there must be something about the universe which is necessary. But a necessary thing has to be. Does the universe have to be when there are alternatives. That it is demands an explanation.
Wrong again. Either you think the universe is infinitely old (in which case no cause to kick it off would be necessary and so the cosmological argument is irrelevant) or you think it began at some point in time in which case the question “how?” has various plausible hypotheses as tentative answers, but nothing more. If you want to introduce an implausible answer though (ie, “God”), then you can’t just duck the same questions about that god with the special pleading of magic.
Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity. Now, you are implying it is the universe.Well yes, the Universe could be the necessary thing. You have done nothing to show that it couldn't.
However what could you be talking about.
Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent.
So there must be something about the universe which is necessary.
If you want the universe to be the necessary thing then you have to start to imbue it with properties more common to theology and magic.e.g infinity and contingency only(sorry that last one was nonsense)
The following are not explanations of the existence of the universe.
The universe has been around for ever.
The universe just is.
Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity.
Now, you are implying it is the universe. However what could you be talking about. Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent. So there must be something about the universe which is necessary. But a necessary thing has to be. Does the universe have to be when there are alternatives.
Well yes, the Universe could be the necessary thing. You have done nothing to show that it couldn't.You seem to be owning nothing. Zero debating position.
The Universe. That's pretty clear. If somebody is saying "the Universe could be necessary", they are clearly saying that the necessary thing is the Universe.
Who say that is the case?
Yes: the Universe.
[qute]But a necessary thing has to be. Does the universe have to be when there are alternatives. That it is demands an explanation.
Why does an alternative have to be necessary when there is the Universe? That demands an explanation.
Why?
The following are not explanations of the existence of the God.
God has been around for ever.
God just is.
You seem to be owning nothing. Zero debating position.
I am not here to entertain you. If you have no position we have zero argument.
In terms of God it looks like forever to us here in the universe but the necessary, whatever it is is independent of time since it must be independent of that which is contingent on it.
But here's another thing about infinities Jeremy. How can an infinite universe be established or demonstrated? The universe would be committing the great crime of being unfalsifiably infinite.
I'll lay more of my cards on the table. I'm not a great one for the delineation of natural and supernatural and indeed neither are many around here who seem to be quite comfortable both investing the universe with supernatural powers.''Being self explaning. conjuring itself into existence, being infinite, deciding to be etc'' and demolishing/suspending logic with nonsense on stilts like ''contingency only.'' But hey why am I telling you this because you don't own any of it apparently? so whether necessity is ''in'' or ''out'' of the universe. It cannot be contingent.
Preempting your next statement as ''nobody owns anything opposing you'' fine, we have no argument then.
Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing…
…then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity.
Now, you are implying it is the universe.
However what could you be talking about. Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent.
So there must be something about the universe which is necessary. But a necessary thing has to be. Does the universe have to be when there are alternatives. That it is demands an explanation.
If you want…
…the universe to be the necessary thing then you have to start to imbue it with properties more common to theology and magic.e.g infinity and contingency only(sorry that last one was nonsense)
The following are not explanations of the existence of the universe.
The universe has been around for ever.
The universe just is.
If you want to bury your head in the sand by stopping at the universe either had a beginning or it has been round infinitely, Hillside, you and your wee wizards are entirely free to do so.
Infinities also are unproductive. Suppose I owed you a fiver and I said I could only pay you back when outrider gave me the fiver he owed and outrider said he could only pay me back when Never Talk to Strangers gave him the fiver he owed and so on to infinity, would you ever get your fiver?....... No, something actually has to put something into the system. And the fiver.
You seem to be owning nothing. Zero debating position.
...
Preempting your next statement as ''nobody owns anything opposing you'' fine, we have no argument then.
I do have a position. The position I have is that your arguments in favour of god are bollocks.Except that there seems to be nothing in the universe that does not look contingent.
Every argument you make about God works just the same if you substitute the word Universe for “God” and every argument you make about the Universe works the same if you substitute “God” for “Universe”. Your arguments only work with special pleading for god.
Vlad,Beg pardon you are the one who seems to be stating that the universe is necessary and then being in denial of that. You seem to be keen to point out the unfalsifiability of God while turdpolishing the unfalsifiability of an infinite universe.
What explanation? You haven’t provided one.
Yes, if the conjecture “the universe is its own explanation” is correct then the universe is what you would call “necessary”. So?
No I’m not. I’m just suggesting it as one plausible explanation given the absence of a reason to discount it.
But why assume that what’s observable within the universe must also apply to the universe itself?
If it is then it “has to be” as you put it. You can assert that “there are alternatives” if you like but it’s your job then to make an argent to validate the claim.
I don’t “want” anything. Be nice if you stopped lying about that.
All of it is nonsense, but if you want to equate theology with “don’t know” then by all means carry on.
Depends what you mean by “explanations”, but they are plausible possibilities at least – which is all anyone says regardless of your misrepresentations.
Did that means something in your head when you typed it? Arriving at a “don’t know” isn’t burying your head in the sand, especially when the supposed alternatives (“God” etc) are epistemically white noise.
Suppose I said “God” and this god must have been caused by another god, and that god must have been caused by another god, and…. and so on to infinity. How does that help you, unless you want to inject special pleading into the equation to make on of these gods magic?
You’re all over the place here, and I suspect that at some dimly aware level you know it too.
Except that there seems to be nothing in the universe that does not look contingent.The Universe is not a thing in the Universe.
No special pleading in contingency and necessity.Your argument is nothing but special pleading. Your only attempt at refuting the point that all the arguments that can be applied to the Universe can also be applied to God is that "God is different" but you don't ever try to justify that: special pleading.
If you can demonstrate what in the universe is necessaryI haven't claimed that anything in the Universe is necessary. I claimed that it is possible that the Universe itself is necessary.
If God is necessary, demonstrate what is necessary about it.
If the universe is the necessary demonstrate what is necessary about it,
The following are not explanations of the existence of the universe.
The universe has been around for ever.
The universe just is.
If you want to bury your head in the sand by stopping at the universe either had a beginning or it has been round infinitely, Hillside, you and your wee wizards are entirely free to do so.
Infinities also are unproductive.
Suppose I owed you a fiver and I said I could only pay you back when outrider gave me the fiver he owed and outrider said he could only pay me back when Never Talk to Strangers gave him the fiver he owed and so on to infinity, would you ever get your fiver?
....... No, something actually has to put something into the system. And the fiver.
No, but they are viable alternatives which show that attempts to suggest it MUST be due to a god do not need to be accepted.Viable alternatives?
Your graciousness knows no bounds... it's, dare I say it, infinite...
But they don't need to produce, they simply need to maintain which they do perfectly adequately.
Yes. After an infinite amount of absolute time, and - depending on where you start and finish within the infinite - after a finite amount of subjective time.
If it's infinite, then no you don't, that's the point. However, if you want to make that argument, nothing is non-productive; you have to put something in to your prime mover in order for it to be.
O.
Viable alternatives?Neither is God.
They are not answers to the question why something and not nothing.
Infinities are not productive. As demonstrated.Really? So God isn't eternal. Where did God come from then?
God on the other hand is not an infinity either of things or events.
Unfortunately the universe looks as though it is running down. How does that ride with an infinitely old universe. Not that an infinitely old chain of things or events is an explanation for itself.The observable Universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. We don't know what was before that or even if it is a meaningful question to ask what was before that.
So to get the Fiver you still need a start. As I said infinities don’t produce. Someone actually has to put something in.
Yes. After an infinite amount of absolute time, and - depending on where you start and finish within the infinite - after a finite amount of subjective time.
Viable alternatives?
They are not answers to the question why something and not nothing.
Infinities are not productive. As demonstrated.
God on the other hand is not an infinity either of things or events.
God is therefore what gives rise to things...even an infinity of things or events WHICH COLLECTIVELY I SUPPOSE IS AN INFINITE SPACE TIME.
Maintainance is a good point. The universe is going certainly, but that gives us no clue as to whether that has been going on forever.
Unfortunately the universe looks as though it is running down. How does that ride with an infinitely old universe?
Not that an infinitely old chain of things or events is an explanation for itself.
Neither is God.Eternal is originally a theological concept meaning outside of time and not subject to it. In the argument from contingency infinite space time is contingent. There is nowhere and when for God like there is for the rest of us.
Why is there a god rather than nothing?
Really? So God isn't eternal. Where did God come from then?
The observable Universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. We don't know what was before that or even if it is a meaningful question to ask what was before that.
Neither is a god.sorry Never things seemed to have flipped. It seems I now have the position of interrogator rather than you guys.
You haven't demonstrated any such thing.
Assertions. Why should we take this guess seriously?
Indeed it doesn't. Maybe some larger context has been going forever, or nothing has been going forever and we just have the space-time manifold with a finite past direction, or maybe there are multiple independent time dimensions that branch off or cycle, or... anything else we might dream up.
This section of space-time does, but we have no idea about before the big bang (if that even makes sense) or any larger context.
Neither is a god. You still haven't actually explained how anything at all can be its own explanation, let alone your favourite variety of god.
You still seem to be having trouble with the burden of proof. Nobody else has to provide and defend an alternative answer in order to dismiss a baseless guess. You need to come up with an actual argument.
In the argument from contingency infinite space time is contingent.
An infinite universe is unfalsifiable.
sorry Never things seemed to have flipped. It seems I now have the position of interrogator rather than you guys.
Eternal is originally a theological concept meaning outside of time and not subject to it. In the argument from contingency infinite space time is contingent. There is nowhere and when for God like there is for the rest of us.
An infinite universe is unfalsifiable.
Beg pardon you are the one who seems to be stating that the universe is necessary…
…and then being in denial of that.
You seem to be keen to point out the unfalsifiability of God…
…while turdpolishing the unfalsifiability of an infinite universe.
If the universe is the necessary demonstrate what is necessary about it,
So to get the Fiver you still need a start. As I said infinities don’t produce. Someone actually has to put something in.
Viable alternatives?
They are not answers to the question why something and not nothing.
Infinities are not productive. As demonstrated.
God on the other hand is not an infinity either of things or events.[/.quote]
God, in pretty much every formulation I've seen, is an effect in need of an establishing cause.QuoteGod is therefore what gives rise to things...even an infinity of things or events WHICH COLLECTIVELY I SUPPOSE IS AN INFINITE SPACE TIME.
And what gives rise to this god? Sounds like Christiany's 'Prelude to Special Pleading' in E-flat to me.QuoteMaintainance is a good point. The universe is going certainly, but that gives us no clue as to whether that has been going on forever.
The universe fairly strongly indicates it had a very definite beginning, and that it could conceivably age for an infinite amount of time into the future. REALITY, in which the universe occurs, no indication on whether that has a beginning or not.QuoteUnfortunately the universe looks as though it is running down.
I presume you are referring to the heat death of the universe, or some similar long-term static state in the distant future?QuoteHow does that ride with an infinitely old universe?
You are conflating 'reality' and 'the universe' - the universe is a specific structure, and the heat death of the universe as a concept doesn't invalidate either an infinite universe or an infinite reality, because it establish a scenario where the universe remains in existence forever.QuoteNot that an infinitely old chain of things or events is an explanation for itself.
Not that it needs to be, all it needs to be is a viable explanation to establish that some divine creator (or any other causative 'urge') is not necessarily involved.
O.
Yep.What is this stuff that has always but unfalsifiably always been there.
Is that a question that needs answering? Is that a phenomenon to which the question 'why' has any meaning? Is that not, to paraphrase, begging the question?
Well, as asserted, but regardless, that's not an issue so long as they ALREADY CONTAIN everything we need to establish.
And what gives rise to this god? Sounds like Christiany's 'Prelude to Special Pleading' in E-flat to me.
The universe fairly strongly indicates it had a very definite beginning, and that it could conceivably age for an infinite amount of time into the future. REALITY, in which the universe occurs, no indication on whether that has a beginning or not.
I presume you are referring to the heat death of the universe, or some similar long-term static state in the distant future?
You are conflating 'reality' and 'the universe' - the universe is a specific structure, and the heat death of the universe as a concept doesn't invalidate either an infinite universe or an infinite reality, because it establish a scenario where the universe remains in existence forever.
Not that it needs to be, all it needs to be is a viable explanation to establish that some divine creator (or any other causative 'urge') is not necessarily involved.
O.
What is this stuff that has always but unfalsifiably always been there.
Where is this necessary material?
When you explained how an infinity can produce anything you talked about a start. Of course were not talking about a fiver which is contingent on a start but the universe.
So are you saying the universe had a start or that it has an external explanation ,or that there is necessary stuff in the universe?
What is this stuff that has always but unfalsifiably always been there.
Where is this necessary material?
When you explained how an infinity can produce anything you talked about a start. Of course were not talking about a fiver which is contingent on a start but the universe.
So are you saying the universe had a start or that it has an external explanation ,or that there is necessary stuff in the universe?
…You seem not to have noticed that several of your recent regular interlocutors (not I, I hasten to add) have been running rings around you - so I'd say it is high time you stopped digging.
Hi Gordon,To be pedantic, I think you are misusing 'can't' here.
Technically I suppose given the depth of the hole he’s dug for himself people are running rings above him rather than around him…
(Pedant’s note: the word “circumstance” by the way comes from “encircled” so you can’t have “under the circumstances” – only “in the circumstances”. I know, I know – I’ll get me jacket…)
To be pedantic, I think you are misusing 'can't' here.
VladHi Gordon
Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then stop digging.
Now - nobody here is claiming what you accuse them of claiming, and your persistence here looks very much like you are kite-flying in order to avoid explaining your own position.
You seem not to have noticed that several of your recent regular interlocutors (not I, I hasten to add) have been running rings around you - so I'd say it is high time you stopped digging.
Hi GordonPut the bong down
You strike me as a guy that puts style over substance.
You made me recall that film where an unarmed man confronts his well tooled up adversary with a display of flamenco dancing.
I'm not sure your sure what they are saying but you sure like the floppy floppy sound they are making ha ha ha.
Please demonstrate an infinite universe.
Put the bong down
Hi Gordon
You strike me as a guy that puts style over substance.
You made me recall that film where an unarmed man confronts his well tooled up adversary with a display of flamenco dancing.
I'm not sure your sure what they are saying but you sure like the floppy floppy sound they are making ha ha ha.
Please demonstrate an infinite universe.
Please demonstrate an infinite universe.
Put the bong downI'm not the one af ma hied on Irn Bru.
Vlad,Stop Gaslighting.
.. . and slowly step away backwards, climb on to your pet unicorn Eunice and float gently away while she leave a rainbow trail of glitter behind her. You'll feel better in the morning I'm sure.
I'm not the one af ma hied on Irn Bru.'Hied'? Are you channeling James Doohan?
Stop Gaslighting.
Once more for the hard of thinking...And i've questioned it.
Nobody is making that claim, Vlad, it's only been mentioned as a possibility,
Vlad,I would feel as pissed as you if my turdpolishing had failed yet again.
I'll add "gaslighting" to the ever-growing list of words you either don't understand or pretend not to understand.
And i've questioned it.Deeply dishonest drivel
And you guys don't like it.
If nobody is going actually to own any claim then I take my leave unopposed.
If I am opposed then you are a bit hypocritical to get upset by being opposed.
Again if you suggest the universe doesn't need an explanation then you have made the universe the necessary. You haven't got rid of the necessary but you have a huge problem identifying where the necessity lies.
If you decide it was stuff that exists forever you have to ask why it exists rather than nothing existing while remembering that the necessary is not under any obligation to exist except it's own.
The necessary is also not dependent on what it is responsible for.
If you cannot see how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot see the universe as necessary in which case it must have an external explanation for it.
That's it, for now.
I would feel as pissed as you if my turdpolishing had failed yet again.Unfortunately, you have just pished and shat yourself.
And i've questioned it.
And you guys don't like it.
If nobody is going actually to own any claim then I take my leave unopposed.
If I am opposed then you are a bit hypocritical to get upset by being opposed.
Again if you suggest the universe doesn't need an explanation then you have made the universe the necessary. You haven't got rid of the necessary but you have a huge problem identifying where the necessity lies.
If you decide it was stuff that exists forever you have to ask why it exists rather than nothing existing while remembering that the necessary is not under any obligation to exist except it's own.
The necessary is also not dependent on what it is responsible for.
If you cannot see how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot see the universe as necessary in which case it must have an external explanation for it.
That's it, for now.
And i've questioned it.
And you guys don't like it.
If nobody is going actually to own any claim then I take my leave unopposed.
If I am opposed then you are a bit hypocritical to get upset by being opposed.
Again if you suggest the universe doesn't need an explanation then you have made the universe the necessary.
If you decide it was stuff that exists forever you have to ask why it exists rather than nothing existing...
If you cannot see how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot see the universe as necessary in which case it must have an external explanation for it.
What is this stuff that has always but unfalsifiably always been there.
Where is this necessary material?
When you explained how an infinity can produce anything you talked about a start. Of course were not talking about a fiver which is contingent on a start but the universe.
So are you saying the universe had a start or that it has an external explanation ,or that there is necessary stuff in the universe?
Vlad,This is the (only) thing of interest in your post. You seem to be making a division in the universe.
People can “see” that as only one possibility, namely because you cannot assume that the determinism seen within the universe necessarily applies to the universe.
The universe appears to have had a start. We know nothing reliable about what might or might not be outside of the universe; it could very well be an infinite reality, it could be a god.Contingency only is not a logical option imho and is really a misinterpretation of the meaning of the observations of science I MV.
It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that there is anything 'necessary', it's also not possible to entirely rule it out.
O.
This is the (only) thing of interest in your post.
You seem to be making a division in the universe.
You have a “within the universe” where one thing applies and “the universe” where something else might apply. The two are therefore clearly different.
What is the distinction?
Also,the term “within the universe” suggests a “without the universe” rather than “The universe” which could be taken as the same as “within the universe”......what’s the difference as you see it?
Really Hillside, I’m having to do a lot of sifting through the “playing the man” dross to get to the interesting stuff. Unfortunately it remains a rehash of your unjustified assertion.
The difference is that we observe a deterministic universe. You cannot though just assume that there must therefore also have been a deterministic cause of the universe itself as a whole.
Contingency only is not a logical option imho and is really a misinterpretation of the meaning of the observations of science I MV.
Really Hillside, I’m having to do a lot of sifting through the “playing the man” dross to get to the interesting stuff.
Unfortunately it remains a rehash of your unjustified assertion.
What is the difference between a deterministic universe and the universe itself as a whole?
You made the distinction, not I please justify.
It's not from the observations of science. Science suggests there is a start to the universe; in the absence of any observable phenomena from outside of the universe, any conjecture is just that, conjecture.Not really, I think I’ve said repeatedly that if the universe is itself necessary, what is it about the universe that is necessary? for all we see is contingency. Necessity cannot logically be avoided. It has nothing to do with any views on extra universal existence.
As to whether it's logical or not, it's absolutely logical, it just doesn't fit with our cognitive understand which has evolved and developed inside of a universe with apparently finite phenomena. It's exactly as 'logical' as the concept of a self-actualising immensely power complex consciousness deliberately instigating an overwhelmingly empty universe in order to create a time-space framework in which other consciousnesses can linearly experience their existence whilst outside of the framework the consciousness judges based on absolute knowledge and punishes based on the inevitable outcome of the system it decided to instigate.
Which is to say, whether it's logical or not depends on what assumptions (if any) you make about that extra-universal existence.
O.
O.
Vlad,Any one can see that you haven’t answered the questions.
No you’re not. Identifying your lying isn’t “playing the man” at all. You had explained to you repeatedly that people were positing only one of various possibilities (it was even said in bold, italics and large font size) and you kept telling those same people that instead they’d made an unjustifiable claim of fact (that they wouldn't then "own").
That’s called lying, and you should stop it.
Still lying then. There is no unjustified assertion.
One concerns how the universe functions, the other what the universe is.
I just did.
Your “argument” from contingency asserts that the way the universe itself functions must also to be necessary for it to exist at all. Please justify.
Necessity cannot logically be avoided.
Any one can see that you haven’t answered the questions.
I have no further questions for this witness, Milud.
What is the difference between a deterministic universe and the universe itself as a whole?
Why not?Because if you could get something from nothing there would be an explanation of why something and not nothing. If something has always been there in infinite time and space there is still the, question of why infinite time and space and the explanation for it. The explanation for why something and not nothing? That explanation has no further explanation and must be its own reason for being since it is not dependent on something for its existence.
You keep on saying this, and it may or my not be true, but until you provide a proper argument, it's just a baseless assertion.
How is it logically possible for something to be its own explanation, and why would there need to be such a 'thing'?
Not really, I think I’ve said repeatedly that if the universe is itself necessary, what is it about the universe that is necessary?
Necessity cannot logically be avoided.
It has nothing to do with any views on extra universal existence.
Because if you could get something from nothing there would be an explanation of why something and not nothing. If something has always been there in infinite time and space there is still the, question of why infinite time and space and the explanation for it. The explanation for why something and not nothing? That explanation has no further explanation and must be its own reason for being since it is not dependent on something for its existence.
sorry, i’m not getting it
You only need necessity in the past if you have reason to think that something in the present was a requirement; if we are a happy accident, every single one of our potentially infinite antescedant events could be an equally contingent event.
O.
sorry, i’m not getting it. Are you saying that necessity was in the past or continuing with contingency only.
Secondly I would think there was a difference between the existence of eternal stuff and an infinite chain of events.
This stuff which you have as necessary must be independent of contingency I would have thought.
I'm not saying anything was demonstrably 'necessary', that's the point. You only need to show that something was necessary if you need to justify the existence of something subsequent to it - otherwise it's just something that happened. If you think the point of existence was humanity (or conscious life, or whatever) then you need to establish what was necessary in order to start that particular chain and keep it on track. If, however, you're happy to accept that we're just one particular point on an unguided path of nature, then there is nothing necessary, there's just prior things that happened to occur.Even an unguided path and nature either need or are an explanation but i'm blowed why I should accept them as possibly the ultimate explanation which needs no more explanation especially when you are simultaneously counselling not to.
If reality is infinite, that's an infinite number of things that just happened, and none of them had to happen because we weren't a goal.
It's possible - there could be an extended period of nothing happening. Again, in the absence of any information on extra-universal activities, we have no way to establish if time - or some corollary of time - even has a meaning out there.
Depends on what it's necessary or contingent to or for, but importantly I don't see why you need to have anything 'necessary' at all.
O.
All I can say is that a necessity is something not constrained to do anything apart from what it comes up with.
Begging the question and contradicting yourself in the space of one sentence! The whole idea of something necessary being able to "come up with" something is begging the question, by assuming the conclusion you want. You still haven't explained how anything at all can be its own explanation, so you have no basis from which to make deductions about its nature.
Secondly, your previous objections to the universe being necessary is that it could have been different. If this necessary something "comes up with" something, the immediate implication is that it could have come up with something different, implying it would have been different, and leading you right back to the objection you had about the universe.
It's blindingly obvious why you don't want to set out a complete argument, because then you would actually have to defend it and make it self-consistent.
Even an unguided path and nature either need or are an explanation but i'm blowed why I should accept them as possibly the ultimate explanation which needs no more explanation especially when you are simultaneously counselling not to.
It sounds like you want an infinite number of contingencies from an infinite number of necessities and if not, why not?
All I can say is that a necessity is something not constrained to do anything apart from what it comes up with.
There is no outside space in which it has degrees of freedom in.
It certainly isn't constrained by an infinite time since infinite time has an explanation external to it solicited by the question, why infinite time?
As opposed to time starting 13 billion years ago or just finite time.
As for an extended period of time when nothing happened..... that could be infinite time couldn't it,
The 'happening' therefore might hardly be said to be necessary then can it since it might have been a 'not happening' for an infinite amount of time.
Time is irrelevant in the question of contingency which is basically about existence rather than how long that existence has happened. By necessity we are talking about what is necessary for there to be something rather than nothing as far as we are concerned.
We have no information on which to base an understanding of what was necessary for, say, the universe. However, if reality is infinite there is nothing 'necessary' for reality to be, reality has always been and there was nothing preceding it to be 'necessary'.
If something is infinite back in time, and therefore doesn't have a beginning, how can there be anything before it on which it depends?
O.
Reality contains the contingent so we are back to the question ''What is it abouttheuniversereality that is necessary rather than contingent?
You are bringing time into it again. Contingency isn't about time since you could have an infinite time of nothing if you take one definition or time and events are dependent on change as you have pointed out.
And then we are into entropy, maximum order, perpetual motion machines and the like, Prime movers, actualisation and all that.
And, again, if reality is infinite then the concept of something being 'necessary' for the universe to be has no meaning.Then you have really stated that there is something about reality which is necessary that is it has to be, is no ways contingent and has no possible explanation itself.
Bl
Then you have really stated that there is something about reality which is necessary that is it has to be, is no ways contingent and has no possible explanation itself.I don't understand why you think that is a problem?
I don't understand why you think that is a problem?Look around you. We are surrounded by contingency.
You cannot avoid necessity with hand waving Outrider.
This 'universe as a whole' shite doesn't go anywhere near saying why the universe or reality requires no explanation...
(which FYI would make it Necessary)
...because that sounds like emergence...
Why not? You've suggested it with nothing but hand waving. In fact, hand waving and misrepresentation pretty much sums up all that you've posted on the subject.If you stop before you meet necessity then you won't end up there. As long as we end with something that has no external explanation, In outriders case, ''reality'' we have come to the necessary whether we wanted to or not. The trouble is reality is at least partly contingent which logically makes something in ''reality'', Necessary.
Still waiting for the first hint of an actual reasoned argument from you....
If you are saying that emergent properties are not dependent on anything then it's you who doesn't understand emergence.
I guess we can add 'emergence' to the long list of things you don't understand. ::)
If you stop before you meet necessity then you won't end up there. As long as we end with something that has no external explanation, In outriders case, ''reality'' we have come to the necessary whether we wanted to or not. The trouble is reality is at least partly contingent which logically makes something in ''reality'', Necessary.
If you are saying that emergent properties are not dependent on anything then it's you who doesn't understand emergence.
Not until you made necessity (or even 'Necessity') a logically self-consistent concept.It's been done. It's contingency only that is suspect mate. If reality really needs no explanation then that is a quasi mystical understanding which ignores the sea of contingency around us. I am not saying realty isn't necessary but part of it is contingent and not necessary. That is unavoidable.
Woosh. The universe as a whole is not like an emergent phenomenon.But since there are laddies around here who say that the deterministic universe is contingent but the universe as a whole might not be what are they talking about, apart from emergence?
But since there are laddies around here who say that the deterministic universe is contingent but the universe as a whole might not be what are they talking about, apart from emergence?
It's been done.
It's contingency only that is suspect mate.
IVlad is making an excellent case that he believes his arse and his elbow are interchangeable.
You still don't seem to grasp that it's you who are trying to make a case for something.
I have absolutely no idea what possible depth of convoluted misunderstanding has led you to even suggest emergence. As and example (that I've already been through), the structure of the space-manifold means that causation happens within it, along timelike directions. The manifold itself does not an cannot change because it contains time. The manifold and its contents aren't emergent, they are the basics of what exists (as far as we can tell from current science).Causation happening within something? By George, I think he's got it although no doubt he will assail me with several posts to argue he hasn't.
Since you haven't defined how anything can be its own explanation, we can only guess if the manifold and its contents might be necessary even though its contents aren't, in much the same way as its contents are subject to time and causation but the manifold itself isn't.
Emergence has nothing to do with it.
Where? Exactly how is it possible for something to be its own explanation?
Is it, why? Regardless, I don't think anybody is arguing for contingency only. As I keep saying: I don't know. What's more I can't possibly know until you properly define the concepts.
You still don't seem to grasp that it's you who are trying to make a case for something.
Vlad is making an excellent case that he believes his arse and his elbow are interchangeable.They are in my expressing my feelings for you guys......I need to give you guys either the arse or the elbow.
They are in my expressing my feelings for you guys......I need to give you guys either the arse or the elbow.because logic and arguments are not available to you.
Causation happening within something? By George, I think he's got it although no doubt he will assail me with several posts to argue he hasn't.
Look around you. We are surrounded by contingency.We can’t observe the Unicerse as a whole. We can only observe the things in it, and then only things that are less than 13 billion light years away.
This 'universe as a whole' shite doesn't go anywhere near saying why the universe or reality requires no explanation (which FYI would make it Necessary) because that sounds like emergence...which is always contingent.
If it isn't an issue for you you must be the victim of some kind of Numbness.
Then you have really stated that there is something about reality which is necessary that is it has to be, is no ways contingent and has no possible explanation itself.
You cannot avoid necessity with hand waving Outrider.
So once again if there is something in the universe which is necessary what must it be like.
So reality must have something in it which is necessary. What then is it?
And lastly that classic 70s hit its magic by pilot is going through my head and lastly ....in an infinity of lastly.....An infinity is unfalsifiable.
We can’t observe the Unicerse as a whole. We can only observe the things in it, and then only things that are less than 13 billion light years away.That statement suggests that the necessary might not be in this part of the universe. Is that what you wanted to convey?
.
I've said no such thing - I've not said that reality is necessary, I've said that it is. And, again, the concept of there being an explanation for an infinite thing is meaningless;Then you have arrived at your necessity. However Infinite things have huge issues as discussed to which we can add the question ''if they become something else then in what way are they infinite?''
O.
Since you have moved us onto infinities in an attempt to escape necessity( failed i'm afraid because you still promote something that apparently needs no explanation and that is definitionally a Necessity) I'm not sure that I would use the term the universe to happen, happen suggests a beginning.
For the universe to happen? I've no idea; potentially any number of things, from complex powerful intelligences to entirely natural fluctuations in a quantum foam.
Since you have moved us onto infinities in an attempt to escape necessity( failed i'm afraid because you still promote something that apparently needs no explanation and that is definitionally a Necessity) I'm not sure that I would use the term the universe to happen, happen suggests a beginning.
Another quezzy for you ''Is infinite time actually time?''
Firstly, you are again conflating the terms 'universe' and 'reality' - the universe is the observable, measurable space-time that we are demonstrably existing within. It does not appear to be infinitely old, although it may potentially continue infinitely into the future; reality, in the context that has been made clear in this thread, is the postulated extra-universal 'place' in which some unknown physics holds sway which may well potentially be infinite in age, or may not exist in a state where time has any meaning whatsoever.So basically your saying it's shaped like a bassoon?
Secondly, as a postulated thing which is timeless or infinite, to suggest that anything is necessary for it to exist makes no sense, because necessity implies a time prior to for the necessary elements to array; if it's timeless, or infinite, there is no such time/space, and therefore there is no necessity. An infinite reality makes the concept of a necessary cause meaningless.
I've tried to be careful to separate time - a measurable demonstrable part of the space-time of the universe - from any corollary to time in the broader reality, but I can't promise that I've always been successful, it's a difficult concept to try and get an in-universe brain around. Is a potentially infinite time-corrolary outside of the universe actually time (or an equivalent) - of course, it's sort of in the definition. If it's not time, or a time-corrolary, then it's not time.
O.
Firstly, you are again conflating the terms 'universe' and 'reality' - the universe is the observable, measurable space-time that we are demonstrably existing within. It does not appear to be infinitely old.But if it is the explanation for the universe then it is necessary for the universe without needing an explanation for itself. If you say no, the universe is covered by the infinity of reality it is you who is conflating reality with the universe.
An infinite reality makes the concept of a necessary cause meaningless.
I've tried to be careful to separate time - a measurable demonstrable part of the space-time of the universe - from any corollary to time in the broader reality.Well then we might well be on the same page on that.
Then you have arrived at your necessity.
However Infinite things have huge issues as discussed to which we can add the question ''if they become something else then in what way are they infinite?''
Since you have moved us onto infinities in an attempt to escape necessity( failed i'm afraid because you still promote something that apparently needs no explanation and that is definitionally a Necessity)
I'm not sure that I would use the term the universe to happen, happen suggests a beginning.
One could say for the universe to be. That avoids time altogether......oh oh that includes infinite time.
Another quezzy for you ''Is infinite time actually time?''
But if it is the explanation for the universe then it is necessary for the universe without needing an explanation for itself.
If you say no, the universe is covered by the infinity of reality it is you who is conflating reality with the universe. Well then we might well be on the same page on that.
We have no way of knowing if it's 'necessary' for the universe - we have one instance of universe which may or may not have emerged within a broader reality, of which we can deduce nothing whatsoever. Given that time, as we understand it, may not be a part of that reality, concepts like necessity which are predicated on sequential events differentiated with respect to time may be meaningless.necessity as a concept is not predicated on sequential events.
It may be that reality is a necessary element for the universe, it may not - we have no way of knowing at this time, we may never know.
Again I have no idea what you're driving at here.
O.
necessity as a concept is not predicated on sequential events.
But if there are no sequential events (i.e. nothing that is contingent on this 'necessity') then what conceptual value does 'necessity' have?Not all explanatory chains are sequential events Gordon.
Not all explanatory chains are sequential events Gordon.
For example consciousness as a brain function. We arent talking Brain" then "brain function" then Consciousness.
We are talking about this explanatory hierarchy happening simultaneously.
As a concept Time is irrelevant to Necessity as colour is to the concept of cars.
Not all explanatory chains are sequential events Gordon.
For example consciousness as a brain function. We arent talking Brain" then "brain function" then Consciousness.
We are talking about this explanatory hierarchy happening simultaneously.
As a concept Time is irrelevant to Necessity as colour is to the concept of cars.
Yes, they are - if cause does not predate effect, how can it be considered a cause.yes there are sequential events which are explanatory chains but to say all chains are sequential in time is wrong. Since The building you are standing in is contingent on its solid foundations which are contingent on solid ground.
Who isn't?
No. Brains happened - until there was a brain, there was no possibility of brain function. Until there was brain function there was no possibility of consciousness. The timeframes might be miniscule, but they have to happen in that order, you can't have consciousness from a brain that's not there yet.
No, time is a necessary concept for necessity to be; you couldn't have a car without space-time for it to exist within, without a need to navigate a four-dimensional area in the first place.
O.
necessity as a concept is not predicated on sequential events.
Then please cite an example of effect preceding cause.You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon
Vlad,So time is the necessity then.
Yes it is. If A is necessary for B, then A must occur prior to B. Your only way out of that is to invoke magic - "A is outside time" or some such white noise, and if you do that you can assert anything you like. Any attempt at reason or logic is out of the window, and all bets are off. You may as well assert A to be outside geometry too, so square triangles are fine as well.
You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon…
Since I am thinking…
…of vertical explanatory hierarchies eg Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule substance reaction process etc.
Vlad,In your view then how long is it respectful for a brain capable of functioning to wait for it to function.
It’s got nothing at all to do with atheism – just that thing to which you are a stranger: logic.
You’ve never shown any evidence of doing that but ok…
None of which gets you off the hook of a necessary thing not being there before the thing that’s contingent on it.
What always happens with the religious that attempt at least to try rational argument to justify their claims is that they resort to magic (”outside time” etc) to escape when the effort collapses into incoherence. It’s just the cartoon again with the complex formula on the blackboard with “miracle happens here” added.
That statement suggests that the necessary might not be in this part of the universe. Is that what you wanted to convey?Nobody has claimed that the "necessary" is part of the Universe except you constructing your straw men.
In your view then how long is it respectful for a brain capable of functioning to wait for it to function.
How long is it respectful for consciousness to operate without being seen as presumptuous?
Nobody has claimed that the "necessary" is part of the Universe except you constructing your straw men.
The Universe is not any of the things in it.
VladI am talking of things existing because something else is IN PLACE. NOW.
None of which gets you off the hook of a necessary thing not being there before the thing that’s contingent on it.
You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon
Since I am thinking of vertical explanatory hierarchies eg Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule substance reaction process etc.
The universe is none of the things in it. What is it then.
What do you mean by "vertical" here. Clearly you do not mean "all on the same straight line that passes through the centre of gravity". So what do you really mean?Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule group of molecules wetness. Something cannot be wet unless everything else were in place.
The universe is none of the things in it. What is it then.
Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule group of molecules wetness. Something cannot be wet unless everything else were in place.
The moment there were quarks under the laws of physics wetness was possible providing conditions were suitable.
Vlad,Are you saying for example that the moment there were quarks they were intrinsically unable to form sub atomic particles like protons and neutrons under the laws of physics and were sub atomic particles from then on inevitable, regardless of time. In other words is time part of the explanation?
None of which gets you off the hook of a necessary thing not being there before the thing that’s contingent on it.
yes there are sequential events which are explanatory chains but to say all chains are sequential in time is wrong. Since The building you are standing in is contingent on its solid foundations which are contingent on solid ground.
So what if there is a time delay between a quark and the proton it comprises although is there?
But since you are insisting on time being the thing things are dependent on by which all is explained you have arrived at time as the necessary.
You see ......it doesn't go away.
Would you now agree that infinite stuff is dependent on infinite Time?
I believe Swinburne and Krauss think as much. Krauss's and Swinburne's critics are not so sure though.
Ah, you are talking about reductionism. Wetness is contingent on the properties and interactions of water and other molecules which are contingent on the properties and interactions of electrons and photons and so on, all the way "down" to quantum fields which, as far as we know are not contingent on anything - they just "are". Quantum fields might be the "necessary" you are looking for.
And the foundations could not have been put there if there was not solid ground already there - solid ground is a prerequisite of solid foundations, and has to occur earlier in the time sequence. Identifying it now as a necessary step is to implicitly require that it was there at an earlier point, even if I wasn't there to witness it.I need my foundations and the ground it stands on to be solid now. If that is not maintained. I don't have a building. If the electricity supply is not maintained moment by moment, I don't get my cheese toastie no matter that I have a glorious nuclear power station down the road.
If you're attempting to establish necessity then demonstrating one must pre-date the other is, dare I say it, a necessary part of the argument - you can't conclude until you've met the prior conditions.
No, I've said that time is necessary for necessity - if you don't have time, you can't have necessity, but you can have a timeless reality.
It doesn't need to go away, it was never there.
No.
O.
And again, if a timeless reality is the explanation for time then time doesn't explain reality and we have arrived at our Necessity.
No, I've said that time is necessary for necessity - if you don't have time, you can't have necessity, but you can have a timeless reality.
Is reductionism pro emergence though, I'm not sure on that since the existence of wetness is not explained by studying a single atom.
You will have to ask some of your atheist mates that one Gordon
Since I am thinking of vertical explanatory hierarchies eg Quark sub atomic particle atom molecule substance reaction process etc.
And the foundations could not have been put there if there was not solid ground already there - solid ground is a prerequisite of solid foundations, and has to occur earlier in the time sequence. Identifying it now as a necessary step is to implicitly require that it was there at an earlier point, even if I wasn't there to witness it.You have tried to demonstrate that time is necessary for contingency since that which explains but needs no explanation is definitionally ''The necessary''. So you haven't got round that. Your timeless reality is actually not far off traditional descriptions for God and God has been comfortably referred to as the necessary being for ages.
If you're attempting to establish necessity then demonstrating one must pre-date the other is, dare I say it, a necessary part of the argument - you can't conclude until you've met the prior conditions.
No, I've said that time is necessary for necessity - if you don't have time, you can't have necessity, but you can have a timeless reality.
It doesn't need to go away, it was never there.
No.
O.
I see you've gone nuclear by deploying the 'get out of jail' card that is so beloved by over-reaching theists: 'I'm way out of my depth here - therefore 'quantum'.If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.
All you need now is a puff of smoke and an audience to exclaim 'Wow'!
If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.
I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on the floor of a rough pub.
If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.
You are indeed out of your depth
I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on the floor of a rough pub.
I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on the floor of a rough pub.
That's a good question to which I do not know the full answer.Let's have the part answer.
Let's have the part answer.
...since that which explains but needs no explanation is definitionally ''The necessary''.
You are diddling with words to try and airbrush concepts you find inconvenient.
You have tried to demonstrate that time is necessary for contingency since that which explains but needs no explanation is definitionally ''The necessary''.
So you haven't got round that. Your timeless reality is actually not far off traditional descriptions for God and God has been comfortably referred to as the necessary being for ages.
Your confusion is that the necessity needs no explanation and is hence the necessity par excellence. You are diddling with words to try and airbrush concepts you find inconvenient.
Is time then part of the explanation for all things?
For example time does not feature in all scientific formula can you explain then why it is necessary for Necessity?
It also doesn't feature in mathematic reality...or Moral reality(But that is another story)
No, you are attempting a false dichotomy where you've decided that anything that isn't contingent is by definition necessary - those restrictions only apply in circumstances where time has any meaning, and if you're considering an infinite reality then attempting to conjure a 'before' doesn't work. You need a 'before' in order to define anything as either necessary or contingent.
It's actually about as far from a spontaneously self-creating complex, conscious, immensely powerful, directed intelligence as you can get, but don't mind quibbling little details like what I've actually suggested get in the way of your attempt to redirect.
No, I'm pointing out a viable explanation for our current situation that shows there isn't an absolute need to find a 'necessary' element upon which all else is contingent, directly or indirectly.
Maybe, maybe not - we need more information on all things before we can make a judgement like that.
Some scientific formula describe a state at an instant, and so time is not relevant in that particular formulation - science when you have to try to apply it to real world situations gets involved with time an awful lot.
What relevance to 'mathematical' or 'moral' realities have to the discussion?
O.
Contingency and necessity both involve lots of things you are turdpolishing of definition in pursuit of a 'natural' explanation. What happens in space time is irrelevant to the explanation for the existence of space time. The explanation that needs no explanation is necessary, by definition.
That which changes has an explanation for that change. Is contingent, you'll notice here that time is irrelevant here because it is change which is important. So what is this timeless reality? Can it be demonstrated or is it notional? what are it's notional properties How is it distinguishable from God? What are it's properties? What is it's relationship with infinite time. What is it's relationship with time.
With everything taking time and nothing being instantaneous, what about quantum entanglement?
If you feel uncomfortable with the word quark Gordon edit it out and the sense still remains.
I am as out of my depth on this message board as I am standing in the thin layer of piss on the floor of a rough pub.
Let's have the part answer.
It wouldn't help. The part that I know about isn't the part that tells us whether the Universe has a cause or not.You simply don't know but it cannot be a simply because you are saying the universe cannot have a cause because everything in it has a cause. What then is it about the universe that doesn't need a cause, either you know or you don't. If you don't then you are not really opposing me.
Fortunately, it is not important because I am not claiming either that the Universe is uncaused or caused. I simply don't know. What is at issue is your claim that the Universe must be caused because all the things in it are caused, which is clearly an erroneous argument.
Then please cite an example of effect preceding cause.Ask BlueHillside about quantum borrowing as a possible solution to the origin of the universe. Yes, the same Bluehillside who is adamant the explanation must come before the effect.
Contingency and necessity both involve lots of things you are turdpolishing of definition in pursuit of a 'natural' explanation.
That which changes has an explanation for that change. Is contingent...
www. Humeenjoyedpocketbilliards.com
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com with added vodka
Vlad,
Yes it is. If A is necessary for B, then A must occur prior to B. Your only way out of that is to invoke magic - "A is outside time" or some such white noise, and if you do that you can assert anything you like. Any attempt at reason or logic is out of the window, and all bets are off. You may as well assert A to be outside geometry too, so square triangles are fine as well.
www. Humeenjoyedpocketbilliards.comHas Hume taken over from Dawkins as your spunkmeister?
So, Professor Al-Khalili, please explain: given your expertise in matters 'quantum' I'm sure you'll be able to easily explain how this fits into your 'necessary vs contingent' theories.Quantum Borrowing[move]
What then is it about the universe that doesn't need a cause, either you know or you don't.I've already told you that I don't.
If you don't then you are not really opposing me.Yes I am, because you are claiming that the Universe must have a cause, therefore God.
there is nothing to say until Vlad comes up with some sort of argument that needs to be addressed.There's plenty to say like: "Vlad your argument fails because x, y, z.
Contingency and necessity both involve lots of things you are turdpolishing of definition in pursuit of a 'natural' explanation.
What happens in space time is irrelevant to the explanation for the existence of space time.
The explanation that needs no explanation is necessary, by definition.
That which changes has an explanation for that change.
Is contingent, you'll notice here that time is irrelevant here because it is change which is important.
So what is this timeless reality? Can it be demonstrated or is it notional?
what are it's notional properties
How is it distinguishable from God?
What are it's properties?
What is it's relationship with infinite time. What is it's relationship with time.
With everything taking time and nothing being instantaneous, what about quantum entanglement?
And what about......quantum borrowing?
There's plenty to say like: "Vlad your argument fails because x, y, z.
But he hasn't made a coherent argument,Errr, yes. I believe that was implicit in my previous answer.
he's just wittering about 'necessity', which he hasn't even properly defined, and then getting everybody else to run round saying what they think might be necessary.It's like a puzzle. The objective is to get Vlad to understand the basic rules of logical argument; to get him to understand that putting labels on things is not the same as understanding. Some people enjoy doing that and some don't. If you are in the "don't" category... well, there are other threads to amuse yourself with.
Why are people playing Vlad's game?
The objective is to get Vlad to understand the basic rules of logical argument...
He's getting people to try to refute hand-waving, meaningless waffle.
Stranger,Tell them about quantum borrowing Hillside and why you think it's a possible explanation for the universe.
Yes - that’s all he ever does. And his MO is to do it by referencing writers he hasn’t read using words he doesn’t understand to support the fallacies on which he relies to distract from the vapidity of his assertions. He’ll never, ever, ever though answer any question that’s put to him. Just a few posts ago for example I asked him, “given the current level of understanding that physics gives us, why do you think the universe must be contingent on something else?” with, as always, no reply.
Maybe we should just keep asking him until he finally tries at least to answer or just decides to ply his trollery elsewhere?
Stranger,I'll say it again Hillside. There is no evidence of necessity in the universe only contingency that is one of the reasons The other is because of its nature it might be in the universe but unlike contingent matter in which case we are going to have a lot of troubleusingsciece and it seems that the scientistical mind shorts information on necessity out.
Yes - that’s all he ever does. And his MO is to do it by referencing writers he hasn’t read using words he doesn’t understand to support the fallacies on which he relies to distract from the vapidity of his assertions. He’ll never, ever, ever though answer any question that’s put to him. Just a few posts ago for example I asked him, “given the current level of understanding that physics gives us, why do you think the universe must be contingent on something else?” with, as always, no reply.
Maybe we should just keep asking him until he finally tries at least to answer or just decides to ply his trollery elsewhere?
I'll say it again Hillside. There is no evidence of necessity in the universe only contingency that is one of the reasons/
The other is because of its nature it might be in the universe but unlike contingent matter in which case we are going to have a lot of troubleusingsciece and it seems that the scientistical mind shorts information on necessity out.
Doing intellectual and logical limbo dancing is not going to get rid of the concept of necessity.
There is no evidence of necessity in the universe...
How do you know unless you can tell us how it's even possible for something to be its own explanation and hence 'necessary'? Even if there isn't any such evidence, so what?Ask Blue Hillside about Quantum Borrowing hypothesis. On March 30 on the Did the Universe pop out of nothing thread he offered it up to explain how the universe could itself be the Ultimate necessity.
You seem to be pretending that if people can't point to something you'll accept as 'necessary' that means you have somehow made a point.
Where is your actually argument?
Ask Blue Hillside about Quantum Borrowing hypothesis. On March 30 on the Did the Universe pop out of nothing thread he offered it up to explain how the universe could itself be the Ultimate necessity.
So what? What point are you trying to make? Where is your argument?That I'm not the only one prepared to consider whether the universe is it's own explanation.
How do you know unless you can tell us how it's even possible for something to be its own explanation and hence 'necessary'? Even if there isn't any such evidence, so what?See Hillside on quantum Borrowing Hypothesis about how the universe is it's own explanation. I have reposted it on the philosophy board.
You seem to be pretending that if people can't point to something you'll accept as 'necessary' that means you have somehow made a point.Isn't that how atheists operate?
That I'm not the only one prepared to consider whether the universe is it's own explanation.
See Hillside on quantum Borrowing Hypothesis about how the universe is it's own explanation. I have reposted it on the philosophy board.
Isn't that how atheists operate?
Again, so what? You're still not producing an argument. You haven't explained how you think it's logically possible for something to be its own explanation, neither have you drawn any conclusion from whether we can identify such a thing or not.If the universe has always been here without being created once or being recreated moment by moment by an external entity. Then it has no external explanation.
As I said previously, I don't know if it's logically possible and, if it is, I don't know whether such a thing exists, and if it does, I don't know what it is. Now what? Where is your argument?
Blue didn't use that phrase in the post you quoted, and anyway I'm not asking him because I'm trying to get you to actually come up with your argument.Which phrase didn't he use?
I'm saying that I simply don't know, so where do you go from there?
No.
Which phrase didn't he use?
If you want to give Hillside a free pass and not me, I wonder what that could mean.
If the universe has always been here without being created once or being recreated moment by moment by an external entity. Then it has no external explanation.
So we say colloquially that it is it's own explanation in that it needs no external explanation.
It is here because it created itself or that it is eternal, that it is not contingent (all these are internal explanations i.e.belonging to the thing itself) or it has an external explanation.
I don't know whether you've got it, or are getting it or not getting it.......and to tell the truth....i'm past giving a shit.
But the two clearly aren't the same. If it is its own explanation (somehow), then it has an explanation and that explanation is itself, that's not the same as not having an explanation.
I don't know whether you've got it, or are getting it or not getting it.......and to tell the truth....i'm past giving a shit.
You're the one who brought up this necessity shite as a supposed argument for some version of "God". Can I take it that you concede that no such argument actually exists, or if it does, you don't know how to / can't be arsed to present it?Of course it exists. It has been presented to you, Even Hillside has at least tried to provide an example of how something is it's own explanation and doesn't need an external explanation.
Of course it exists. It has been presented to you...
Of course it exists. It has been presented to you, Even Hillside has at least tried to provide an example of how something is it's own explanation and doesn't need an external explanation.
Vlad,I suggest that it was Hillsides, I cannot prove it because it is unfalsifiable. Just read my e-lips. No evidence of necessity in the universe. Quantum field explanation but as was pointed out to Krauss, the quantum fields are not nothing and don't yet have an explanation.
Just to be clear, I haven't suggested anything: I merely linked to a speculation about one possible way a universe could have come about - ie from a quantum fluctuation. I have no idea how plausible or credible that is, just that it's one of various speculations and hypotheses.
And still none of this has anything to do with the question you can't or won't answer, namely how you would propose to justify your assertion that the the universe must have been caused by something else.
If the quantum field are necessary then they showed remarkable self control just creating the universe once unless they have been creating it moment by moment.
Is this supposed to be a joke?If the quantum vacuum or whatever it's called has been around for ever then it has been churning out virtual particles for ever. If you have it creating real stuff once and then putting it's feet up that is hardly indicative of a ''natural'' process. One way round that is for real particles to be actually 'virtual' and the vacuum recreating them moment by moment.
I suggest that it was Hillsides, I cannot prove it because it is unfalsifiable. Just read my e-lips. No evidence of necessity in the universe. Quantum field explanation but as was pointed out to Krauss, the quantum fields are not nothing and don't yet have an explanation.
If the quantum field are necessary then they showed remarkable self control just creating the universe once unless they have been creating it moment by moment.
Perhaps if you just give us your understanding of quantum borrowing it might help clarify the situation.
If the quantum vacuum or whatever it's called has been around for ever then it has been churning out virtual particles for ever. If you have it creating real stuff once and then putting it's feet up that is hardly indicative of a ''natural'' process. One way round that is for real particles to be actually 'virtual' and the vacuum recreating them moment by moment.
Vlad,I'm not into the Kalam argument at the moment. It requires the universe to have a beginning. And since things don't create themselves then the Kalam comes into it's own. That's why even DeGrasse Tyson doesn't turn his nose up at making a virtually identical argument.
Still not getting it then. Your “argument” (ie some version of the cosmological/kalam cribbed from WLC) depends on the notion that the universe must have been caused/created by something else. I’m merely asking you to justify the positive claim “must”. Why is this so hard for you to do?
If you prefer resile from that though to a “perhaps” – ie, “perhaps the universe was caused by something other than the universe itself” no-one would disagree. Perhaps it was. Perhaps anything. So what though?
What makes you so sure there’s just one universe?
No it wouldn’t because the only “situation” here is your inability to propose an argument to justify your claim that the universe must have been created by something else. The details such as they are of other possibilities are neither here nor there – it's your job to establish that there are no other possible explanations so your "must" is the only option left. So far at least, you’ve shown no inclination even to try to do that. Your claim = your burden of proof. Deal with it.
Vlad,Don't be shy Hillside, remind us of what you mean by quantum borrowing and why it's a possible explanation for the universe........or is this a case of ''ve ask ze qvestions''.
Still not getting it then. Your “argument” (ie some version of the cosmological/kalam cribbed from WLC) depends on the notion that the universe must have been caused/created by something else. I’m merely asking you to justify the positive claim “must”. Why is this so hard for you to do?
If you prefer resile from that though to a “perhaps” – ie, “perhaps the universe was caused by something other than the universe itself” no-one would disagree. Perhaps it was. Perhaps anything. So what though?
What makes you so sure there’s just one universe?
No it wouldn’t because the only “situation” here is your inability to propose an argument to justify your claim that the universe must have been created by something else. The details such as they are of other possibilities are neither here nor there – it's your job to establish that there are no other possible explanations so your "must" is the only option left. So far at least, you’ve shown no inclination even to try to do that. Your claim = your burden of proof. Deal with it.
Don't be shy Hillside, remind us of what you mean by quantum borrowing and why it's a possible explanation for the universe........or is this a case of ''ve ask ze qvestions''.
I'm not into the Kalam argument at the moment. It requires the universe to have a beginning. And since things don't create themselves…
…then the Kalam comes into it's own. That's why even DeGrasse Tyson doesn't turn his nose up at making a virtually identical argument.
No the argument I am giving at the moment is the contingency argument where things can be created in an infinity.
So maybe a quantum vacuum can suspiciously create the stuff once and for all for a universe with a beginning or create particles for ever. Necessity and contingency ad infinitum.
I cannot prove there is a God since God is unfalsifiable, just like an infinite universe although for some reason scientists hate infinities.
What is constant though is there IS a necessary entity which acts under it's own volition since nothing that springs from it is anything but contingent. And nothing in it or about it that is anything but contingent is a pretty good description of the universe.
But then of course there are questions about ''why the quantum vacuum which isn't really a vacuum............ and not something else'' and other issues regarding the vacuum.
I'm not into the Kalam argument at the moment. It requires the universe to have a beginning. And since things don't create themselves then the Kalam comes into it's own. That's why even DeGrasse Tyson doesn't turn his nose up at making a virtually identical argument.
No the argument I am giving at the moment is the contingency argument...
...where things can be created in an infinity.
I cannot prove there is a God since God is unfalsifiable...
What is constant though is there IS a necessary entity which acts under it's own volition...
But then of course there are questions about ''why the quantum vacuum which isn't really a vacuum............ and not something else''...
Don't be shy Hillside, remind us of what you mean by quantum borrowing and why it's a possible explanation for the universe........or is this a case of ''ve ask ze qvestions''.
VladLast evening is not march 30 when Hillside proposed it. I'm surprised to find that seemingly Hillside feels he isn't either.
As I recall it was you who brought up quantum borrowing in a reply last evening: so I'm surprised to find that you aren't an authority on it yourself.
You mean all the other possible necessary entities.
Utter bollocks. Why on earth do you assert there to be a “necessary entity” given that you have no means to eliminate the other possible explanations for the universe?
You mean all the other possible necessary entities.
Vlad,Unless this is some BDSM site i've blundered into then I see no reason why you shouldn't answer some of the questions and not be so reticent............ on the other hand you do give the impression of strutting about referring to yourselves as ''My interlocutors''.
Not when it' "ve" who is making the positive claim you don't. What is it about the concept of the burden of proof that confuses you so? It's your claim ("must"), you justify it.
But you haven't actually made an argument for a necessary entity, let alone connected it to anything like a god concept.Are you trying to get me to be rude to you so I get kicked off and the board can go back to being ''an atheist hang''?
Are you trying to get me to be rude to you so I get kicked off and the board can go back to being ''an atheist hang''?
I'm trying to get you to actually produce an argument, if you have one. What's so hard? Either you have some reasoning that takes us from premisses on which people can agree, to a (singular) 'necessity' (defined in a self-consistent way), and from there to it being anything like a god, or you don't.You had your chance and muffed it somewhat.
You had your chance and muffed it somewhat.
You had your chance and muffed it somewhat.Lying non sequitur drivel.
Chance to do what? I'm not the one claiming that there is an argument that I'm unable to actually articulate.For no argument you certainly seem to have a mighty reply. The necessary entity is the last entity as described in Occam's razor in the full explanation of anything empirically or instrumentally observable before you go beyond necessity.
Do you have an argument or not?
For no argument you certainly seem to have a mighty reply. The necessary entity is the last entity as described in Occam's razor in the full explanation of anything empirically or instrumentally observable before you go beyond necessity.Gibberish with added Godwin's
That was your last chance. I don't think anyone else around here will help you because zay ask ze qvestions.
For no argument you certainly seem to have a mighty reply.
The necessary entity is the last entity as described in Occam's razor in the full explanation of anything empirically or instrumentally observable before you go beyond necessity.
Lying non sequitur drivel.Before you wrote this Sane, tell me, did you look at the screen, screw your eyes up and whisper ''I'm going to hurt you''?
Before you wrote this Sane, tell me, did you look at the screen, screw your eyes up and whisper ''I'm going to hurt you''?No. I just rolled my eyes and thought why is the lying liar drivelling nonsense again.
My only reply is to ask you to actually produce the argument you claim to have.I have put the case
Is that supposed to make some sense? The universe (this bit of expanding space-time) is the only thing we know exists, you have yet to make the case for anything else.
I have put the casepish
There is nothing observed that is not contingent in many ways and definitions of the word contingent. If you can't be asked to find out the possible definitions of necessity that isn't my fault.
We know that the universe exists but it is legally permissable to make suggestions as to whether it exists for external reasons or internal reasons. I have and have given multiple reasons why I think it so.
That others have done so and have not been assailed by you to explain, i'm afraid flags up a bias about you. So for that reason I have learned that communcation with you is a worthless exercise.
If you wish we could put this into a debate format to see if we fare better,
They tried a debating format on here but imho Atheists didn't go a bundle on it......first a side thread was set up. Where they could bear pit the debate and posse those in it...and then it was removed.
pisThere, corrected it for you.hs
There, corrected it for you.Been wanking yourself silly over Hume again. Dawkins must be so jealous that he's been replaced in wanktheon.Humeonanist......and again.
BeenIt's a good job i'm on hand to correct you.......and talking of being on hand did you hear about Hume............?wankHume-ing yourself silly overHumeAutoeroticist again. Dawkins must be so jealous that he's been replaced inwankHumetheon.
It's a good job i'm on hand to correct you.......and talking of being on hand did you hear about Hume............?Trouble is you are always in hand when you think of Hume. There was a time that that you only had wood for Dawkins.
Trouble is you are always in hand when you think of Hume. There was a time that that you only had wood for Dawkins.You do go onan on.
You do go onan on.Oh look you have again spilled your seed and thought it was a post.
Oh look you have againNot your night is it?spilled your seedHumed and thought it was a post.
Not your night is it?Seems fine to me but then I'm not a liar. Must be difficult for you.
Seems fine to me but then I'm not a liar. Must be difficult for you.Where's your sense of Hume-er?
Unless this is some BDSM site I've blundered into then I see no reason why you shouldn't answer some of the questions and not be so reticent............ on the other hand you do give the impression of strutting about referring to yourselves as ''My interlocutors''.
Where's your sense of Hume-er?With my sense of li-ar
Hark who's talking about strutting about! POT KETTLE BLACK!
Hi Owlswing,
The issue here I think is that he doesn’t know what the word “interlocutor” means (as with various other words he misuses or redefines), combined with his continuing problem with the burden of proof – ie, when he makes assertions of fact then it’s legitimate to be asked to justify them. Instead though he just demands endless answers from the people asking why he believes what he believes, and then ignores or lies about the answers he’s given.
It’s very odd behaviour, but there it is nonetheless.
It’s particularly dispiriting too, by the way, to see his behaviour when he blunders into areas about which people here (Outy, Stranger, torridon et al) clearly know much more than he does and they take the time to explain things only for him to evade, lie, abuse etc in reply.
A major waste of brain cells, then?
Hi Owlswing,Regards their knowledge and we can throw you into the mix some of the intellectual wunderkinder mentioned neither want to share it or own it.
The issue here I think is that he doesn’t know what the word “interlocutor” means (as with various other words he misuses or redefines), combined with his continuing problem with the burden of proof – ie, when he makes assertions of fact then it’s legitimate to be asked to justify them. Instead though he just demands endless answers from the people asking why he believes what he believes, and then ignores or lies about the answers he’s given.
It’s very odd behaviour, but there it is nonetheless.
It’s particularly dispiriting too by the way to see his behaviour when he blunders into areas about which people here (Outy, Stranger, torridon et al) clearly know much more than he does and they take the time to explain things only for him to evade, lie, abuse etc in reply.
Owls,If you give an ear to New atheism it's no surprise you get your minds fucked. Now that IS a tagline.
Should be his tagline... ;)
Regards their knowledge and we can throw you into the mix some of the intellectual wunderkinder mentioned neither want to share it or own it.
If you give an ear to New atheism it's no surprise you get your minds fucked. Now that IS a tagline.
Vlad,The very thing you have to say that is actually worth hearing and you won't share it.
Using words that actually are words (well, most of them anyway) is a good start. Your problem though is in throwing them together apparently at random. By all means have another go if you like though, only this time as a comprehensible sentence.
See above. If you think “new” atheism (ie just atheism) has its arguments wrong then (finally) try at least to explain why rather revisit your usual recipe of misrepresentation and insult.
Oh, any progress by the way on an honest-to-goodness, not fallacy-reliant argument to show why you think the universe itself must have been caused by something else?
Anything?
The very thing you have to say that is actually worth hearing and you won't share it.
Why not tell us about quantum borrowing?
There is nothing honest to goodness about argument on here, Hillside. I have told Strangers I will gladly debate any issue in a more formal setting with a chairperson for debate and I extend the same invitation to you. Unfortunately IMO you lack the necessary discipline to use the freedom of this board properly, others suffer a similar lack of emotional and intellectual continence and so we end up with posse-ism.
See above. If you think “new” atheism (ie just atheism) has its arguments wrong then (finally) try at least to explain why rather revisit your usual recipe of misrepresentation and insult.
Oh, any progress by the way on an honest-to-goodness, not fallacy-reliant argument to show why you think the universe itself must have been caused by something else?
There is nothing honest to goodness about argument on here, Hillside. I have told Strangers I will gladly debate any issue in a more formal setting with a chairperson for debate and I extend the same invitation to you. Unfortunately IMO you lack the necessary discipline to use the freedom of this board properly, others suffer a similar lack of emotional and intellectual continence and so we end up with posse-ism.Stop lying.
Coming back on this board after a good absence and seeing the same argument the posse had with Alan Burns being played over almost makes one believe that the universe is infinitely old with virtual fallacies coming out of your quantum foam. I shan't even mention the treatment of Nicholas Marks or the intellectually bankrupt nadir of Nearly Sane's bisyllabic responses which only have the virtue of economy.
There cannot be any natural balance, no self control and composure around here because unfortunately the religionists and the reasonable were bored off. Just like ''just atheism'' was hounded away by the loud and incontinent New atheists.
So how about it....? A proper Debate?.
Stop lying.My Goodness.....Three syllables.
My Goodness.....Three syllables.yawn
yawnI knew it was to good to last.
There is nothing honest to goodness about argument on here, Hillside. I have told Strangers I will gladly debate any issue in a more formal setting with a chairperson for debate and I extend the same invitation to you. Unfortunately IMO you lack the necessary discipline to use the freedom of this board properly, others suffer a similar lack of emotional and intellectual continence and so we end up with posse-ism.
Coming back on this board after a good absence and seeing the same argument the posse had with Alan Burns being played over almost makes one believe that the universe is infinitely old with virtual fallacies coming out of your quantum foam. I shan't even mention the treatment of Nicholas Marks or the intellectually bankrupt nadir of Nearly Sane's bisyllabic responses which only have the virtue of economy.
There cannot be any natural balance, no self control and composure around here because unfortunately the religionists and the reasonable were bored off. Just like ''just atheism'' was hounded away by the loud and incontinent New atheists.
So how about it....? A proper Debate?.
I knew it was to good to last.Boring
Stop lying.
NS,Well there is the penchant for writing gibberish, his random use of terms he appears not to understand or want to define, and his fellation of fallacies as well.
He can't. That's all he has.
Well there is the penchant for writing gibberish, his random use of terms he appears not to understand or want to define, and his fellation of phallasies as well.
In a debate all have to abide by the rules Hillside, that would include me.....and you, of course. There would be moderation of course......if someone is prepared to act in the role.
With you? How would such a thing be possible unless you abandoned your unremitting mendacity?
often on the same bill with The Hexagons of Lightning
In a debate all have to abide by the rules Hillside, that would include me.....and you, of course. There would be moderation of course......if someone is prepared to act in the role.
Should no one come forward........No debate and Religionethics can carry on as an occasional atheist hang.
In a debate all have to abide by the rules Hillside, that would include me.....and you, of course. There would be moderation of course......if someone is prepared to act in the role.You appear to be admitting to lying
Should no one come forward........No debate and Religionethics can carry on as an occasional atheist hangout.
Vlad,If there are any lies in a proper debate it can......I would sit down for this be pointed out.....rather than some clown shouting ''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel'',''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''.........There would be drawbacks though and you might end up having to tell us about
Are you suggesting that your lying isn't pathological after all? That you can turn it off at will? Why have you waited all these years to reveal this nugget?
If there are any lies in a proper debate it can......I would sit down for this be pointed out.....rather than some clown shouting ''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel'',''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''.........There would be drawbacks though and you might end up having to tell us aboutThen don't write lying drivel.
QUANTUM BORROWING
You appear to be admitting to lyingI'm afraid I will only discuss things in proper debate.
I'm afraid I will only discuss things in proper debate.I see no indication that you know what that might be.
If there are any lies in a proper debate it can......I would sit down for this be pointed out.....rather than some clown shouting ''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel'',''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''.........
There would be drawbacks though and you might end up having to tell us about
QUANTUM BORROWING
I have put the case
There is nothing observed that is not contingent in many ways and definitions of the word contingent. If you can't be asked to find out the possible definitions of necessity that isn't my fault.
We know that the universe exists but it is legally permissable to make suggestions as to whether it exists for external reasons or internal reasons.
That others have done so and have not been assailed by you to explain, i'm afraid flags up a bias about you.
If you wish we could put this into a debate format to see if we fare better,
Vlad,When I used the search facility on quantum borrowing because I could not find the citations. I'm afraid I could not find them.
But that’s not what happens is it? What actually happens is that when you tell lies the lies are identified and explained. To put it another way, you’ve just tried another lie.
And now another one. I’ve told you already about quantum borrowing as a possibility, I’ve given you links to articles about it, and I’ve explained the context that the only work the possibility needs to do is to show a “could be”. I’ve also explained that you on the other hand have asserted a claim of certainty – ie, that the universe must have been caused by something else – so the (much, much higher) burden of proof is all with you to justify that claim. Endlessly running away from that while trying to redirect to irrelevancies is just more lying.
It appears that you can’t turn it off after all then.
No, you haven't - you said there was an argument for a god and you haven't even got as far as an argument for some (singular) necessity.Since apparently nobody on your side has to make a case for anything there is no example from your side of a case made.
Your argument, so it's up to you to say what definitions you're using.
Or for no reason at all. Yes, of course we can ask the question, and make speculative suggestions about what the answer is, but suggestions and speculation do not constitute arguments in support of one of those things, rather than the others.
It's only you who have said you have an argument for something (as opposed to just making speculative suggestions).
As I've said before, if all you're saying is that it's possible that there is some necessary thing, then what's the point? Of course it's possible. Many, many versions of god(s) are also possible, so you might just as well go straight to one of them and be done with it.
A logical argument is supposed to turn a possibility into a certainty, or at least something that is probably right.
Currently you seem to be struggling with the whole concept of what a logical argument actually is and what it's supposed to accomplish. I don't see how a debate about an argument for god would work until you at least grasped the difference between an argument and a series of speculative suggestions.
Since apparently nobody on your side has to make a case for anything there is no example from your side of a case made.
Instead of an argument then Your side have merely been criticising piecemeal.
If then you have no arguments thenwe have no real beef.
You need to then stop criticising my side for making piecemeal arguments.
The nearest we have got to an atheist argument is because of so called deficiencies in the theological argument.
Aside from the theological argument why do you believe the universe and the field of existence to be God free. What is the positive argument for God free.
I have no idea but it can't be God is not sufficient particularly when most of you flip flop between hard arsed atheism and a bit of a mealy mouthed " well we dont really know" As I said I will gladly debate any issue with you in the formal way.
Since apparently nobody on your side has to make a case for anything there is no example from your side of a case made.
The nearest we have got to an atheist argument is because of so called deficiencies in the theological argument.
Aside from the theological argument why do you believe the universe and the field of existence to be God free. What is the positive argument for God free.
You seem not to understand that the burden of proof here is yours, Vlad.
Critiquing arguments offered by others, such as finding that the various arguments for 'God' are flawed, does not then require that a counter-argument must be offered.
Is it finally sinking in? Nobody else (apart from you) is trying to make a case for anything, as far as I've seen.You make that sound like a good thing rather than arrogant presumption of your belief in God free.
You make that sound like a good thing rather than arrogant presumption of your belief in God free.
You may not have made the case for God free explicitly but it is implied by presumption that it is the status quo.
And so your decision on who has the burden of proof is based on your perception and presumption.
Secondly God is unfalsifiable...
I do not believe God exists because of argument although I find them pretty sound and obviously sound enough for you guys not to be absolutely sure .
*facepalm*No it just means they cannot prove it scientifically.
No, I've found the 'arguments' to be universally hopeless. It's exactly the fact that many versions of god are unfalsifiable, that means nobody can be sure.
Just an admission of being wrong would be nice then.
Also why do you think that you making a counter argument which turns out to be wrong makes me wrong?
I think we can agree that a burden of proof lies with those with a positive assertion So that includes God and God Free.
We need to distinguish between what we know, what we can prove and what we believe.
I do not believe God exists because of argument although I find them pretty sound and obviously sound enough for you guys not to be absolutely sure .I believe in God because of .my experience of God which leads me to say about the experience "This God is existence par excellence.
So finally the burden of proof in this case Gordon seems to be decided by your perception. That the universe is God free.
I will repeat that. The burden of proof you think I have above and beyond yours of justifying God Free is based on your perception.
I then personally cannot take that seriously because of what I have already described.
*facepalm*YOU could find them universally hopeless for a number of reasons. However if you are still unsure then either or collectively they introduce some doubt into your atheism
No, I've found the 'arguments' to be universally hopeless. It's exactly the fact that many versions of god are unfalsifiable, that means nobody can be sure.
You're still not getting it, VladI dont need to provide anything. However were we to agree to you paying me a salary that would obviously change.
1. Rejecting certain arguments for 'God' does not imply 'the conclusion 'God free', does not require a counter-argument is offered and involves no burden of proof: it merely indicates the view that there are no good current reasons to conclude 'God' because the arguments offered in support of 'God' can be shown to fail.
2. Who here is arguing specifically that there is no 'God' or that, to use your phrase, the universe is 'God free'? If people aren't specifically arguing that, and they aren't, then they have no burden of proof.
3. You need to ensure that you understand when people are offering an argument themselves or are critiquing arguments offered by others - it is an important difference that seems to escape you.
4. That you find some of these 'God' arguments sound is something you would need to defend, but the burden of proof in the soundness of these arguments remains yours and not your challengers.
5. Your feeling that you had a personal experience of 'God' is, of course, subjective: and in one sense can't be challenged, since it can't be shared. However, if you accept 'God' on basis of your feelings of personal experience alone then you must extend the same weight to the personal experiences of others who also feel they have had similar encounters with divine, including different conceptions of the divine.
6. As regards to personal feelings of encountering 'God' the burden of proof is still yours though, since you'd need to provide some inter-subjective basis to justify your conclusion that the divine is real - after all, if all you have to offer are feelings of having encountered something divine you could simply be wrong, so there needs to be a basis of some sort to exclude the risks of error.
No it just means they cannot prove it scientifically.
If you are saying nobody has the cojones around here to make a positive case for God Free or rather own up to trying a piecemeal
stealthy case then I'm forced to agree with you.
I'm not saying that though, and neither is anyone else.Er I am.
YOU could find them universally hopeless for a number of reasons. However if you are still unsure then either or collectively they introduce some doubt into your atheism
Er I am.
The it is up to you to offer a 'God free' argument.Oh I see. I misunderstood you
Oh I see. I misunderstood you
Do you mean nobody is explicitly saying the universe is God free
While cunningly, sneakingly, underhandedly, slimingly, craftily, oleaginously, lubriciously, mostly, frictionlessly suggesting it?
You're still not getting it, VladYou may not specifically argue it but by making it the status quo you are in fact asserting it. Of course this comes from borrowing a legal term and making God free or God's analogous to innocent until proven guilty. God free until proved otherwise.
1. Rejecting certain arguments for 'God' does not imply 'the conclusion 'God free', does not require a counter-argument is offered and involves no burden of proof: it merely indicates the view that there are no good current reasons to conclude 'God' because the arguments offered in support of 'God' can be shown to fail.
2. Who here is arguing specifically that there is no 'God' or that, to use your phrase, the universe is 'God free'? If people aren't specifically arguing that, and they aren't, then they have no burden of proof.
You may not specifically argue it but by making it the status quo you are in fact asserting it. Of course this comes from borrowing a legal term and making God free or God's analogous to innocent until proven guilty. God free until proved otherwise.
God free though is a positive state since this is reality we are talking about.
Therefore assuming God free is a positive statement.
Yes there are logical fallacies and yes they can be found in any class of argument.....if you claim no argument then there can be no logic nor fallacies.Coming up with an alternative does not make an argument false.....less so if that alternative is wrong.
Wrong again.I'm not talking about you Gordon. I freely acknowledge you are saying precious little if anything at all.
Then argue for it: it isn't my claim.
Then argue for it: it isn't my claim.
I'm not coming up with alternative arguments though - you seem you be just thrashing around now.
I'm not talking about you Gordon. I freely acknowledge you are saying precious little if anything at all.
A monkey's gibberish would make more sense than yours does. ;DAnything in particular or is your interjection merely due to say a short circuit in the toaster making the synapses fire?
Anything in particular or is your interjection merely due to say a short circuit in the toaster making the synapses fire?
I rest my case. ::)You certainly rest A case.
I'm not talking about you Gordon. I freely acknowledge you are saying precious little if anything at all.
Well - once you've dismissed the established 'God' arguments as having failed, and ignored any other incoherent white noise (such as AB advances), there is little else left to say.Sounds like it should all work in theory. It will be nice to see it tried out.
Sounds like it should all work in theory. It will be nice to see it tried out.
In the meantime those asserting that people who propose or suggest God have THE burden of proof ought to be making a case for why God free should be the default.
Sounds like it should all work in theory. It will be nice to see it tried out.
In the meantime those asserting that people who propose or suggest God have THE burden of proof ought to be making a case for why God free should be the default.
Well - once you've dismissed the established 'God' arguments as having failed, and ignored any other incoherent white noise (such as AB advances), there is little else left to say.I don't see how the idea that the universe could not have had a creator has been established.
I don't think English is your first language, you screw up your sentences so badly. ::)Tokking complote billex you should stopping making.
It does: it has been my approach for many years now.How are you defining making a claim here.
Why ought they so do that if that isn't a claim they are making?
You're really not getting this.
It does: it has been my approach for many years now.It's the 'your (ftp://your) approach' bit that worries me there Gordon.
When I used the search facility on quantum borrowing because I could not find the citations. I'm afraid I could not find them.
Outrider sent me a reply initially asking what I meant so I believe he was at least a little in the dark.
You put it as an alternative possible to the solution to the universe and I criticised it as such. Just because you never said it must be so doesn't make the idea free from criticism.
I bring it up again because if it were possible for an infinite universe then quantum borrowing would have been creating virtual particles for ever thus putting necessity as time dependent in doubt. Since in an infinity that which creates and the created exist infinitely.
I believe that necessity being time related was a piece of nonsense by Stephen Laws to whom we can say "stop woah yeh wait a minute mr postman"
So if you put an alternative prepare to have it criticised and do man up.
I don't see how the idea that the universe could not have had a creator has been established.
Nor that the universe is somehow itself the necessary entity.
They both are unfalsifiable and yet by implication they are the foundation for me supposedly having THE burden of proof.
If you are saying ah, that is because we can see the universe and we cannot see God that is an argument based on empiricism which itself is unfalsifiable. So it seems that your choice of establishing the burden rather acknowledging burdens all round, to me shows a deficiency in rigour.
It's the 'your (ftp://your) approach' bit that worries me there Gordon.
I don't see how the idea that the universe could not have had a creator has been established.
Nor that the universe is somehow itself the necessary entity.
They both are unfalsifiable and yet by implication they are the foundation for me supposedly having THE burden of proof.
If you are saying ah, that is because we can see the universe and we cannot see God…
…that is an argument based on empiricism which itself is unfalsifiable.
So it seems that your choice of establishing the burden rather acknowledging burdens all round, to me shows a deficiency in rigour.
Vlad,Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.
That’s because it’s not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make to not accept the claim “creator”.
That’s also not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make to not accept the claim “creator”.
Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.
Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably isn't a God or creator, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it.
Careful now.....Ockham's razor has the word Necessity in it.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.By giving me the burden (which I accept) you are saying that the status quo/default position is that God does not exist that is a positive assertion and therefore gives you the burden of proof.
If you claim a god exists, then you have the burden.
If you claim no gods exist then you have the burden.
This is really simple stuff and I cannot believe after all this time you do not understand the burden of proof concept
Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.
Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably isn't a God or creator, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it.
Careful now.....Ockham's razor has the word Necessity in it.
Vlad,And I suppose your ''win'' here is by declaring everything is possible.
You’re completely confused still (either that or lying again). The burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim (“creator”). To justify not accepting that claim all the rationalist needs to show is that there are other possibilities.
By giving me the burden (which I accept) you are saying that the status quo/default position is that God does not exist that is a positive assertion and therefore gives you the burden of proof.
And I suppose your ''win'' here is by declaring everything is possible.
I should coco.
Vlad,But just because you act as though there are no Gods, why should it be the status quo? That doesn't seem a good enough reason why that should be the default position. It sounds most subjective.
Depends what you mean by “god free”.
If you mean, “act as if there are no gods” then it’s the “status quo” as you put it because I’ve never seen a sound reason to do otherwise.
Sorry, but if you think I have the Burden of Proof it is because you assert that God Free is the status quo. Now please demonstrate that.
Let me help you out and put it another way. If you think there probably isn't a God or creator, what is that probability and how do you arrive at it.
Careful now.....Ockham's razor has the word Necessity in it.
Vlad,How does that square with everything's possible?
Utter bollocks. The “status quo” is that nothing exists unless there’s sound reason to conclude otherwise.
Sigh - you do understand that noting that there are no good arguments for 'God' does not then lead to the claim 'God Free'?I'm afraid it advises not to multiply entities beyond necessity Gordon.
It sounds like you are inviting someone to fall into the NPF, and I doubt anyone here is that naive. So, if you have proposals for a method that would show the probability of there being no 'God' then please feel free to share your workings.
No it doesn't.
Vlad,''Contingency only'' is not coherent or consistent.
Everything coherent and logically consistent, yes. Why is that hard to understand?
And I suppose your ''win'' here is by declaring everything is possible.
I should coco.
In the meantime those asserting that people who propose or suggest God have THE burden of proof ought to be making a case for why God free should be the default.
But just because you act as though there are no Gods, why should it be the status quo? That doesn't seem a good enough reason why that should be the default position. It sounds most subjective.
Secondly,…
…what do you mean ''Acting as if there are no Gods''?
I have you down as a very active Goddodger…
…who uses a fair amount of(professional?) expertise in defending the indefensible…
…although I hope you, like St Augustine will finally acknowledge looking back on it that that is what you have been doing.
How does that square with everything's possible?
Vlad,
Utter bollocks. The “status quo” is that nothing exists unless there’s sound reason to conclude otherwise.QuoteExistence depends on reason?and conclusion?
That's rubbish you are not proceeding from nothing exists. You are proceeding from something that is indistinguishable from a God free universe i.e. a God free universe.
''Contingency only'' is not coherent or consistent.
That's rubbish you are not proceeding from nothing exists. You are proceeding from something that is indistinguishable from a God free universe i.e. a God free universe.
Just the universe, actually. We have good reason to think the universe exists, and no case has been made that any of the thousands of god-concepts refer to anything real.I accept the universe exists, what does that have to do with not accepting the existence of God?
This isn't hard.
Vlad,Anyone?
That’s because it’s not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make not to accept the claim “creator”.
That’s also not a claim that anyone makes or needs to make not to accept the claim “creator”.
I accept the universe exists, what does that have to do with not accepting the existence of God?
That's rubbish you are not proceeding from nothing exists.
You are proceeding from something that is indistinguishable from a God free universe i.e. a God free universe.
Vlad,I'm only using because it is supposed to be the status quo which is allowing you supposedly to say that I have the burden.
You’re the one using the phrase “god free”
Anyone?
One does not have to make the claim because......The default position is that God does not exist because..................,.?
I'm only using because it is supposed to be the status quo which is allowing you supposedly to say that I have the burden.
Vlad,Well then you have to say what those sound grounds are.
No it isn’t. The foundational idea is that we should not accept that anything exists unless there are sound grounds for thinking otherwise.
Vlad,Evidently.
I don't care why you're using it.
I'm afraid it advises not to multiply entities beyond necessity Gordon.
I have to disagree with the no good arguments. It seems that the possibilities put forward to answer the question of why something and not nothing regarding the physical world are no good though, By dint of mainly starting with something, er, physical
Vlad,It is the thing you are saying I have a burden of proof for. It is that which supposedly does not exist until you have sound reason to believe it does. It is the thing you are acting as if it isn't there.
I don't care why you're using it. What Im asking you is what you mean by it given its ambiguity.
Well then you have to say what those sound grounds are.
Vlad,I act as if little green irish men smoking upside down pipes with pots of Gold don't exist because. I see none of those empirical markers claimed which I should see and would probably act the same as I do now even if they did exist. That is the reason for my agleprechaunism.
What's so confusing? You are (presumably) an a-leprechaunist. Is that because you make the claim that there are categorically no such thing, or because you have no reasons for thinking they do exist?
It is the thing you are saying I have a burden of proof for.
It is that which supposedly does not exist until you have sound reason to believe it does.
It is the thing you are acting as if it isn't there.
Vlad,Oh here we go again.
You know that already
I act as if little green irish men smoking upside down pipes with pots of Gold don't exist because. I see none of those empirical markers claimed which I should see and would probably act the same as I do now even if they did exist. That is the reason for my agleprechaunism.
Vlad,''There's no good reason'' is a positive statement. Therefore, what do you mean by good reason since it's you who is having trouble seeing it.?
No it isn’t. The claim you have the burden of proof for is “God”. “God free” on the other hand is a phrase you’ve tried, presumably deliberately ambiguously so you can hide behind it.
Why are you refusing to define your own term?
Wrong. “Does not exist” is a positive statement. It is not the same as, “there’s no good reason to think exists”.
''There's no good reason'' is a positive statement. Therefore, what do you mean by good reason since it's you who is having trouble seeing it.?
It fucking is the same…
…and anyway you've already owned up to saying you assume it doesn't exist and that's why I have the burden of proof!
Vlad,I have not experienced the physical markers given in the description and seen no physical record or report of them. That is the reason I do not believe in them. I would act as if they did not exist even if they did exist.
Or, to put it another way, not because you assert them definitively not to exist, but because you have no good reasons to think they do exist.
Vlad,I agree God does not exist is not the same as I believe God does not exist.
This burden of proof thing really has got you foxed still hasn’t it. “God” is your claim, you yell me what reasons you think to be good enough to accept it. I’m not having trouble seeing anything because – so far at least – you’ve offered nothing to see (other than the white noise assertion “god”).
Let’s say that I asserted Zeus to be real – what would you mean by good reason to accept my claim since you seem to be having trouble seeing it?
Not even close. Try again, only try this time to grasp your category error – “X does not exist” and “I have no good reason to believe X exists” are fundamentally different categories of statement. Trying to squeeze them both into “god free”/"X free" so as to hide behind the ambiguity is dishonest.
He lied.
Again.
Explain why the existence of god is anymore credible than the existence of fairies?Fairies are little chaps and chapesses with wings no new indigenous animal species have been discovered in this country as far as I know. Mind you, there must be something that keeps voting Tory.
Fairies are little chaps and chapesses with wings no new indigenous animal species have been discovered in this country as far as I know. Mind you, there must be something that keeps voting Tory.
God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. The unseeable necessity which explains the contingency, the cause of morality in the universe whose holiness is unmatched.
god is another creation of the human imagination for which there is no verifiable evidence.Lets see your verifiable evidence for that being the case.
However there are ''no good reasons'' for belief IS in the same category. In other words you are trying to disguise a positive assertion
I have not experienced the physical markers given in the description and seen no physical record or report of them. That is the reason I do not believe in them. I would act as if they did not exist even if they did exist.
That is different from atheism…
… which rejects the markers........
…and why do I not reject the markers for God? Because I am not a fucking empiricist.
I agree God does not exist is not the same as I believe God does not exist.
However there are ''no good reasons'' for belief IS in the same category. In other words you are trying to disguise a positive assertion
Fairies are little chaps and chapesses with wings no new indigenous animal species have been discovered in this country as far as I know.
Lets see your verifiable evidence for that being the case.
Jeez, the fact that you'll do anything rather than actually attempt to supply a reason to believe in your god, is speaking volumes.
Let us see yours for that not being the case.I'm not making the case.
Vlad,Well first of, Hillside, they would cease to be Leprechauns........ so that looks like a non starter to me.
No, it says that what you call “markers” is logically false reasoning for reasons you understand already because you’d identify them as fallacious too if I tried the same arguments to justify the claim “leprechauns”.
When Tegmark...
No actual answer then.... ::)Tegmark and his physicalised mathematics. I like it.
Tegmark and his physicalised mathematics. I like it.
A mathematical reality creates a physical level 4 multiverse.
Which wasn't the point. I didn't ask you if you liked it, I pointed out that people who propose ideas (such as Penrose and Tegmark), go about attempting to justify them, rather than pretending it's up to other people to show they are wrong or to show that there are no good reasons to believe them.I do both. I give explanation and recognise my burden although not the burden. If you dont accept those you need to say why not complain that I'm not justifying and you dont have to.
That's because they have a basic grasp of the burden of proof.
Which wasn't the point. I didn't ask you if you liked it, I pointed out that people who propose ideas (such as Penrose and Tegmark), go about attempting to justify them,Yeh, I do as far as I can
Rather than pretending it's up to other people to show they are wrong or to show that there are no good reasons to believe them.But it is up to people to show them they are wrong. What do you suppose falsifiability is?
But it is up to people to show them they are wrong. What do you suppose falsifiability is?
Try and think of it this way, Vlad.You are free to take that view. However it seems that 'failure' is dependent merely on there being alternatives. It is my view that we have to look at the alternatives and i'm afraid, atheism since I think Russell has thrown up all sorts of claims of incoherence that have not been properly analysed.......or stood scrutiny over time. An obvious example being The Courtier's reply.
Let us just say for the sake of discussion that your belief in 'God' is on the basis of accepting, say, the ontological argument. Let us further say that someone comes along (let's call him Kant) and points out that the ontological argument is flawed and should be rejected.
So, while they have shown the argument that you used to justify your belief in 'God' fails, they have not attempted to show that there is no 'God' - in other words the object of your religious faith, 'God', may well exist even if the the argument you've used to justify you faith fails.
Some atheists, like me, simply take the view that all arguments for 'God' fail, or are simply incoherent, and in the absence of any other more convincing arguments I proceed on the basis that 'God' isn't a serious proposition: a bit like fairies, but that does not require me to then offer an argument to show there is no 'God' since I'm not making that claim.
You are free to take that view. However it seems that 'failure' is dependent merely on there being alternatives.
It is my view that we have to look at the alternatives and i'm afraid, atheism since I think Russell has thrown up all sorts of claims of incoherence that have not been properly analysed.......or stood scrutiny over time. An obvious example being The Courtier's reply.
I don't think there is actually anyone on here with deep philosophical understanding. Bluehillside is very good but I feel his skills lie in defending indefensible positions and thinking on his feet rather than to look at stuff dispassionately. Too much time playing the man I fear.......Put it this way there have been other forums where you can be surer of better scrutiny on all sides. Here, alas there is now, only one.
No it isn't: failure, in the sense I used it in the post you are replying to, is when an argument is showed to be flawed, usually by being fallacious.Since you brought them up......They would have a field day on this forum.
Really? Then lets have your critique of Russell and Myers and you can explain where they have gone wrong.
I think Messrs Dunning and Kruger would like a word with you.
Try and think of it this way, Vlad.They haven't shown it................. where is their demonstration. I cannot find it in your post.
Let us just say for the sake of discussion that your belief in 'God' is on the basis of accepting, say, the ontological argument. Let us further say that someone comes along (let's call him Kant) and points out that the ontological argument is flawed and should be rejected.
So, while they have shown the argument that you used to justify your belief in 'God' fails
Well first of, Hillside, they would cease to be Leprechauns........ so that looks like a non starter to me.
Yeh, I do as far as I can
Vlad,Feel free to demonstrate the specific fallacious statement you have in mind.
Utter lying, pig ignorant, flat stupid, contemptible wrongness. I’ve explained this to you over and over again, so why do you keep trolling about it?
Yet again: THE CHARACTERISTICS YOU ATTACH TO “GOD”, TO LEPRECHAUNS, OR TO ANYTHING ELSE HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE ARGUMENTS YOU TRY TO JUSTIFY THE BELIEF ARE FALSE.
Is this clear to you now? A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy – whether you use it to justify the belief in a kind god or in a musical leprechaun makes no difference – it’s still a flat wrong argument.
How many times are you going to try this fuckwittery? The argument doesn’t care about the characteristics of its outcome – regardless of whether it leads to “god”, to leprechauns, to unicorns, to the Loch Ness monster, or to anything else makes absolutely no difference to that. A wrong argument cannot magically become a sound argument just because you happen to like its outcome.
Is there any chance at all you will now stop lying about this?
They haven't shown it................. where is their demonstration. I cannot find it in your post.
I'm not a big ontological argument fan although as Russell himself said it is easy for the modern mind to think it fallacious but harder to track down where the actual fallacy is.
Do you think you might fit into that description Gordon?
Question though is where do we get our idea for perfection from and could obvious God dodging be because of God's holiness.(My own experience is yes, it could)
Feel free to demonstrate the specific fallacious statement you have in mind.
What 'wrong argument' are we talking about?
Vlad,So let me get this straight.
The day irony died. To my best of my recollection, you have never, ever, ever, tried to justify anything you believe with an actual argument - either at all or that isn't obviously flat wrong.
Of all the countless lies you've told here, surely this must be the biggest of all.
Vlad,Just going down the list of fallacies is not enough. Anyone can do that. You have to point out where they occur.
So then we go down the list of a fallacies and you reply, “yeah, but how many people actually try that argument then?” as a diversionary tactic. Sorry, not playing your stupid games: if you think there is a “god” then, finally after all these years, make an argument for it that you think isn’t a fallacy.
Then all we’d need to to test it would be to compare it against the codified list of logical fallacies. If your argument isn’t wrong, well and good; if it is though, then you will have to withdraw it and try something else.
What are you so afraid of?
Don't be silly: my post merely observed that arguments have been found to be fallacious and there are no end of examples of both fallacious arguments and the citing of fallacies being committed to be found in this wee forum - SfG is packed with them, so clearly you haven't been paying attention or you simply don't understand what constitutes fallacious arguments.And where is it fallacious Gordon?
So he did, but did recognise that it was indeed fallacious.
So let me get this straight.
When I say I tried to justify anything with an argument that is the biggest lie i've told because I have never, ever, ever tried to justify anything with an argument
AND when I did try to justify with an argument I was obviously flat wrong?
When you talk contradictory Bollocks you don't do things by half do you?
And where is it fallacious Gordon?
Just going down the list of fallacies is not enough. Anyone can do that. You have to point out where they occur.
Vlad,Well' let the readership decide for themselves shall we? So, You've moved from ''Never ever EVER'' made an argument to ''rarely''. To be fair on you Hillside I'll retire before you blow a Gasket..
When by "argument" we mean the actual meaning of the term, to the best of my recollection yes. For the most part you rely on assertion, interwoven occasionally with either ignoring what's said to you in rebuttal, misrepresenting it (your favourite that - the straw man), or just insulting the person whose makes the argument that falsifies you. There have been no arguments inasmuch as nothing you have tried has been logically sound.
Yes. When on the rare occasion you've even tried an argument it's been modelled precisely as a fallacy. How then could you have not been flat wrong?
There's no contradiction. Stop lying.
Vlad,You are the one asserting there are fallacies........Justify.
Time after time after time I have done. In reply though you have consistently just ignored the explanation, lied about it or thrown insult at it while you make your escape.
If you genuinely think you have an argument to justify your claim "god" that isn't logically false, then why not - finally - tell us what it is?
What are you so afraid of?
Well' let the readership decide for themselves shall we? So, You've moved from ''Never ever EVER'' made an argument to ''rarely''. I suppose that's some kind of progress.
You are the one asserting there are fallacies........Justify.
Vlad,Sorry, I rarely make arguments.
Stop lying. By "never making an argument" you know perfectly well that I mean by the word "argument" the standard definition of that term - ie, a connected series of premises that justify a conclusion. That's the thing you've never done. What you have done though is to rely either just on unqualified assertions, or on statements that fail the basic requirements necessary for an an argument.
So now you've had your dishonest fun, how about that actual argument for "god" - ie, some connected premises that justify the assertion "god"?
Why are you so afraid of even trying to do that?
Sorry, I rarely make arguments.
Sorry, I rarely make arguments.
Vlad,So I have never ever ever made an argument and when I did I was flat wrong.
The day irony died. To my best of my recollection, you have never, ever, ever, tried to justify anything you believe with an actual argument - either at all or that isn't obviously flat wrong.
Of all the countless lies you've told here, surely this must be the biggest of all.
I do both. I give explanation and recognise my burden although not the burden. If you dont accept those you need to say why not complain that I'm not justifying and you dont have to.
But it is up to people to show them they are wrong. What do you suppose falsifiability is?
I have explained why none of what you said amounts to an argument. So have other people. Many, many, many times. Anybody who is bringing forward a hypothesis or conjecture has the burden of proof. It really isn't up to other people to say why it's false.Science IS a process of falsification. Have you not read Popper. It is a far more effective goal than verification.
Falsifiability is about making testable predictions. You can't falsify something that makes no such predictions. Are you really that out of your depth?
Science IS a process of falsification. Have you not read Popper. It is a far more effective goal than verification.
Yes, I have read Popper. It looks like you didn't even read my post. Once you produce a god hypothesis that makes testable predictions, we can talk about falsification.What's the point of starting arguments for stuff that is unfalsifiable. I.e. infinite universe and God when we can't even agree on the definition of falsifiability?
What's the point of starting arguments for stuff that is unfalsifiable. I.e. infinite universe and God when we can't even agree on the definition of falsifiability?
What's the point of starting arguments for stuff that is unfalsifiable. I.e. infinite universe and God when we can't even agree on the definition of falsifiability?
What? You're saying that infinite universe and some concept called "God" (that you still haven't properly defined) are unfalsifiable but we don't agree about what falsifiability means? This after you mentioned Popper.I do agree with it. You don't agree with my definition and it's place in science. Popper points out that it is a better approach than verification and that means science progresses faster through people finding out that something is incorrect rather than repeated attempts to verify. It is a demarcation If you can possibly falsify it then t is science ifnot it's something else. So it is up to others to point out where a testable is wrong.
What is it about falsifiability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/falsifiability), as introduced by Popper, that you don't agree with? You were the one who mentioned Popper. Falsifying a hypothesis requires that it make testable predictions of the outcomes of experiments or observations.
The concept of falsifiability doesn't change the burden of proof. Nobody is going to go to much trouble (expensive experiments or difficult observations) trying to falsify something if there is no good reason to think it's true in the first place. If something is, by its nature, unfalsifiable, then reasoning is the only way you can make an argument for it. If somebody wants to argue that the universe is infinite or that there is some god or other, it's still up to them to make the case. It's not up to other people to argue the case against it. That's why Tegmark and Penrose went to the trouble of making their arguments. Just like you never, ever do for your "God".
It is a demarcation If you can possibly falsify it then t is science ifnot it's something else.
Vlad,I think proper, disciplined science would just call it unfalsifiable Hillside. But you have form on putting how Hillside feels about things above all.
Yes, a guess.
I think proper, disciplined science would just call it unfalsifiable Hillside. But you have form on putting how Hillside feels about things above all.
Vlad,
Actually, "proper, disciplined science" would call it "not even wrong" because it's white noise.QuoteIt has a proper word to describe exactly what it knows about what it cannot know and that is unfalsiable. Science doesn't have rants you see Hillside, it isn't derogatory.Do they still do Tizer? All I can say is, you lucky Bugger.
Anyway, you were finally going to attempt a non-fallacious argument for "God" I believe. I've got the Twiglets in and a bottle of Tizer chilling in the fridge - go for it!
It has a proper word to describe exactly what it knows about what it cannot know and that is unfalsiable. Science doesn't have rants you see Hillside, it isn't derogatory.
Vlad,I'm afraid you couldn't help yourself and added white noise and not even wrong. How unscientific of you but illustrative of how an atheist mind handles science. Atheist imperialism by the looks of it.
“unfalsiable”?
Anyway, falsifiability is the capacity of a statement or claim to be contradicted by reason or evidence. A statement can falsification-apt but unfalsifiable because there’s insufficient data to falsify it, or it can be falsification-inapt because it’s just white noise. Religious claims are the latter category, and in science they’re referred to as “not even wrong”.
Glad to have cleared that up for you.
Now then, about that non-fallacious argument for “God” you were going to attempt…?
I'm afraid you couldn't help yourself and added white noise and not even wrong. How unscientific of you but illustrative of how an atheist mind handles science. Atheist imperialism by the looks of it.
Vlad,I don't recall going beyond ''I cannot prove God.'' Like you I just do possibilities. I criticise your possibilities....and you criticise me......as it's always been.
Clueless avoidance noted.
So anyway, about that non-fallacious argument for "God" you were going to make. What's stopping you exactly?
I don't recall going beyond ''I cannot prove God.''
Like you I just do possibilities.
I criticise your possibilities....and you criticise me......as it's always been.
Now I think I deserve an example of one of your fallacy uncoverings.
Vlad,If anyone can find the necessity, and I don't mean abstract one's that generate nothing, that isn't God then my goose is cooked. ''No such thing as a necessity'' is just bollocks as far as I am concerned.
Yes you have – you claim that what you call “God” is a necessity remember? Not a maybe, not a perhaps, not even just a possibility – it is, according to you, an actual, stone cold, must be true necessity.
First, utter BS (see above), and second I don’t “just do possibilities” at all. I do probabilities too – like gravitational theory or evolutionary theory being more probably true than not. What is this massive blind spot you have re distinguishing between a possibility and a probability?
A Trumpian truth switcheroo, just Trumpian…
You “deserve” nothing given your abject failure ever to answer a question despite being given countless answers to your own, and in any case every time you’re tried argument by assertion, circular reasoning, the negative proof fallacy (one of your favourites), the ad hom (another of your favourites) and on and wearily on you have been given “uncoverings”. That you just ignore it, lie about it or throw insult at it while you make your escape doesn’t change that.
You could of course prove wrong my conviction that all you have if fallacies though, at least in principle: all you’d have to do is to frame an argument to justify your belief “God” that isn’t modelled as a fallacy.
Again, what’s stopping you?
Blimey Hillside. At least the police give times and dates and descriptions of events when reading a charge sheet.
You “deserve” nothing given your abject failure ever to answer a question despite being given countless answers to your own, and in any case every time you’re tried argument by assertion, circular reasoning, the negative proof fallacy (one of your favourites), the ad hom (another of your favourites) and on and wearily on you have been given “uncoverings
Vlad,Bluehillside MAGA.......Make atheism grate again.
A Trumpian truth switcheroo, just Trumpian…
Vlad,You can cut and paste stuff, I hope you know.
It’s OK old son, you can say it. Really you can. Look, I’ll even say it for you if that helps:
“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”
There you go. All done now. Doesn’t that feel so much better though? Once you’ve got your breath back there’s tea and biscuits waiting outside (I've ordered garibaldis especially). Remember though, if ever the temptation to slip back into fallacy, casuistry, diversionary tactics etc come back just keep saying it to yourself over and over again until it goes away:
“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”
“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”
“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”
“I Vlad...”
I do agree with it. You don't agree with my definition and it's place in science. Popper points out that it is a better approach than verification and that means science progresses faster through people finding out that something is incorrect rather than repeated attempts to verify. It is a demarcation If you can possibly falsify it then t is science ifnot it's something else. So it is up to others to point out where a testable is wrong.
I have no idea what you think I disagree with and the fact remains that you can't falsify something that doesn't make testable predictions. What on earth you think falsification has go to do with the burden of proof and your own inability to come up with anything remotely like an argument, is a mystery.Burden of proof is a legal term. In which the Burden has to be discussed and established. There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion, and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist. We live in a God free universe. That is why society in general atheists and believers makes a distincton between the mainstream religion and stuff like leprechauns, because out there Stranger, the so called default position is merely an opinion. Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.
Burden of proof is a legal term. In which the Burden has to be discussed and established.
There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion,…
…and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist.
We live in a God free universe.
That is why society in general atheists and believers makes a distincton between the mainstream religion and stuff like leprechauns,…
…because out there Stranger, the so called default position is merely an opinion.
Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.
Burden of proof is a legal term.
In which the Burden has to be discussed and established.
There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion, and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist.
We live in a God free universe. That is why society in general atheists and believers makes a distincton between the mainstream religion and stuff like leprechauns, because out there Stranger, the so called default position is merely an opinion. Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.
Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything.
I would agree. contingency is not dependent on beginnings and actually I don't think even Aquinus would have said that a universal beginning was necessary.
Assumption that an infinite regress cannot happen
This itself falls foul of the proof by logic objection. i.e infinite regresses may not occur in reality. It also falls foul of the first objection. Since contingency can occur infinitly so to can necessity.
Infinite regress itself does not rule out that that this universe has an external creator.
Natural processes are not ruled out
Natural processes as observed are contingent but assuming non contingent matter, we have to ask.1) Why does it keep changing forever. 2) why is it not observed ordinarily 3) If it is not dependent on anything else for change and cannot be changed why does it change? In short if we are dependent on natural forces some things that traditionally were very unnatural and traditionally supernatural things have to start happening. At the very least it would have to be the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Because it does everything without external dependence
non contingent matter clearly has something resembling a will because for an unconscious process it demonstrates superb self control.
No specific God is supported by the argument
1) How does that help atheism?
2)There are other arguments for specific Gods and theologies.
Proof by logic I think this is the argument that not everything proved by logic is found in reality. This rather concedes that the logic has or might eventually be found to be sound.
This has consequences for the objections since it undermines all objections based on infinity and poppings out of nowhere. But less for a God or personal necessary since because logically they would be able to speak for themselves where as an infinite nature remains infinitely silent.
Objects may spontaneously come into existence Hume thought so again, skewered by the proof by logic objection as well as how it is distinguishable from teleportation, replication or miracle?
We don't know if the universe is contingent
But the things in it are and the whole universe, the ensemble cannot be necessary without emergence. but then I'm prepared to accept that there may be something necessary about the universe. But what is it. It cannot be affected by contingent things since that would make it contingent itself so it cannot be ordinary matter or quantum situations which are observer dependent. Also it must act on its own without recourse to any other influence. Something akin to a will if you will. It must also be self controlled otherwise chaos would be more likely.
Infinitely old things are not contingent
Again skewered by both the proof by logic argument and Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything. The point is though there is no suggestion here that subsequently they are not necessary either.
Existence not necessarily due to God.
Again no suggestion of there being no necessity. And in my review I have touched on what the necessary must be to distinguish it from the contingent. Out of this we learn that it is not contingent, therefore not dependent on the contingent or affected by it, it acts on it's own and it is self controlled in fact it could be described as analogous to a conscious being rather than an unconscious one.
So there it is Fans My objections to, well, your objections.
One final word about Stephen Laws who holds that contingency and necessity are spatio temporal terms completely misses the point and tries to turn a philosophical into a scientific question. He just doesn't seem to understand the philosophy and if the quantum realm has been around for ever then it has been creating virtual particles forever.
I suspect he means Stephen Law
I'm not aware of Stephen Laws and an admittedly cursory internet search only throws up a former senior Civil Servant.
O.
I suspect he means Stephen Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Law
Burden of proof is a legal term.
In which the Burden has to be discussed and established.
There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion, and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist.
Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.
Now if you want an in depth iteration of the argument from contingency which is comprehensive in it's summary of the forms of the argument and objections I would recommend the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
I was looking at the Wikipedia entry for the Aquinus version and more particularly the objections. I will now proceed to examine those of objections, What I will give are observations.
Assumption that an infinite regress cannot happen
This itself falls foul of the proof by logic objection. i.e infinite regresses may not occur in reality.
Natural processes are not ruled out
Natural processes as observed are contingent but assuming non contingent matter...
Proof by logic
...
This has consequences for the objections since it undermines all objections based on infinity and poppings out of nowhere.
It's also a philosophical term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))No, As I've said before I admit in some sense I have a burden of proof and no I cannot meet it evidentially but perhaps introduce an element of doubt in equally unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs at the root of some ones atheism.
In philosophy the burden lies upon whomever is making the claim - which you already know, it's why you go to such great lengths to try to depict any rejection of religion as 'a positive claim'.
It isn't a positive assertion,Of course it is saying the status quo is that God does not exist is the same as saying that God does not exist
even if it's a standalone point and not a refutation of the claim of 'god' (which it very obviously is, even if only implicitly). At that point you're attempting to get someone to prove the negative;or I am asking someone to justify the grounds of the default and the Burden namely that the status quo is a God free universe i.e. naturalism...In which I am not asking them to prove the negative. There is no God is a positive assertion and carries a burden anyway by dint of that.
Contingency is intrinsically dependent upon beginnings - if something doesn't begin, how can something else be said to 'cause' it? If A doesn't predate B (which requires B, at least, to have a beginning) then how can B be depended upon it?I agree contingency does but I rather think the statement
Your failure to understand infinity is not an argument.Not sure what you are getting at here
It does - if there was no 'before' there was no 'creation' and therefore no 'creator'.That has something coming from nothing.
I can't make head nor tail of most of this, but in response to the 'perpetual motion machine' reference, that's not a problem in a closed system.Surely a system where things can come from nothing must be the most open system possible. There is also the question of why a closed system and not an open one.
Perpetual motion machines in open systems don't work because entropy leaches energy out of the system and the total energy of the system reduces.QuoteBut the question is, do machines work without entropy?QuoteIf reality were a closed system (and if it's infinite it's implicitly so)It would also be divided into the necessary and contingentQuotethen reality can be a perpetual motion machine of recycled conserved energy, momentum and any number of other facets.You can decide whether its' the necessary or the contingent part that does the recycling.QuoteIn the absolute it doesn't; in the pragmatic, because most (but not all) of the people arguing for 'god' aren't arguing in the general, they're on their way to trying to justify special exemptions for their specific.Or atheists have deluded themselves into thinking that it being a good argument for God, God is somehow undone because it lacks specificity.QuoteThat only applies where disproof has occured.
I don't think a) that's what 'Proof by Logic' is intended to refer to, nor b) that you can rely on a possible future logical proof to claim current justification. You either have the proof, or you don't, you can't have a 'just give me a minute, but in the meantime presume that I'll be right later'.
Proof by logic is used a lot by your side. Hence the demand to show people the necessary being and physical evidence even while arguments are being debated and are unsettled. Not everything which is logical is physically evidenced. I don't think even you would disagree with that. Not everything that is logical is falsifiable.QuoteYou doubly can't rely on a future logical proof coming from the entity your alleging to have proof for as proof for the entity you can't currently prove.I'm not talking about logical proof, I'm talking not even talking about future. I'm talking about self revelation.QuoteHume's methodology was wrong, and the phenomena Hume was observing had other explanations. We have demonstrable experiments showing the apparent spontaneous emergence of quanta, and their antiparticle counterparts; you're more than welcome to critique the papers.But aren't they fluctuations in the quantum field....or am I thinking of the third album by the Hexagons of Light?QuoteWe also don't have to limit our conjecture to the universe; it's entirely plausible that there is a fully functioning extra-universal reality out there, and who knows how that operates.You mean something like Heaven or God or at least the necessary for this universe?.QuoteNo, not skewered at all. You've failed to explain how concepts of necessity or contingency can apply to something infiniteDon't you think you've already made a case for exactly that in your ''extra universal reality''Quote(or, equally, to something outside of time or an equivalent).I've said that if the quantum field or something else is the ultimate necessity or anything behind it, it has been creating particles infinitely.
QuoteWho said anything about matter? There may be aspects of the natural world, perhaps some natural larger context than the universe, we are totally unaware of. The argument simply doesn't rule out the natural - nor could it without claiming omniscience about nature.if these objects are outside the universe, in what sense are they natural?QuoteSee above. Nobody is making a case for the infinite - just the logical possibility undermines the logic of the original argument (which was trying to make a case).Isn't establishing the logical possibility making a case though otherwise how, according to you could it be logical?
No, As I've said before I admit in some sense I have a burden of proof…
…and no I cannot meet it evidentially…
…but perhaps introduce an element of doubt in equally unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs at the root of some ones atheism.
No, As I've said before I admit in some sense I have a burden of proof and no I cannot meet it evidentially but perhaps introduce an element of doubt in equally unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs at the root of some ones atheism.
Of course it is saying the status quo is that God does not exist is the same as saying that God does not exist or I am asking someone to justify the grounds of the default and the Burden namely that the status quo is a God free universe i.e. naturalism...
In which I am not asking them to prove the negative. There is no God is a positive assertion and carries a burden anyway by dint of that.
''Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything'' means that contingency and transiency could stretch back to infinity, In which case so does necessity
That has something coming from nothing. Surely a system where things can come from nothing must be the most open system possible.
There is also the question of why a closed system and not an open one.
But the question is, do machines work without entropy?
It would also be divided into the necessary and contingent You can decide whether its' the necessary or the contingent part that does the recycling.
Or atheists have deluded themselves into thinking that it being a good argument for God, God is somehow undone because it lacks specificity.
That only applies where disproof has occured.
Proof by logic is used a lot by your side. Hence the demand to show people the necessary being and physical evidence even while arguments are being debated and are unsettled. Not everything which is logical is physically evidenced.
I'm not talking about logical proof, I'm talking not even talking about future. I'm talking about self revelation.
But aren't they fluctuations in the quantum field....
You mean something like Heaven or God or at least the necessary for this universe?
Don't you think you've already made a case for exactly that in your ''extra universal reality''
Vlad,
It’s also a term in logic and rhetoric.Quote“If you accept one truth claim without justification there is no basis for rejecting any other truth claim without justification” isn’t a “positive assertion” – it’s a testable principle.It may be but saying that the status quo is that God does not exist is a positive assertion
Yet another straw man – “God does not exist” is not a claim that atheism requires. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?Quoteit may not be but it is the claimed status quo in any demand for a theist to provide proofQuoteIn the absence of good reason to conclude otherwise, that’s a sensible basis on which to proceed yes.But then it isn't Good reason for God in the case of establishing good reason for naturalism or God-free, Does God free have good reason? Now it's your turn to make a case in logic.QuoteNo it isn’t – it's a testable principle.How is the claim that the status quo is that God does not exist a testable principle?
It may be but saying that the status quo is that God does not exist is a positive assertion
it may not be but it is the claimed status quo in any demand for a theist to provide proof
But then it isn't Good reason for God in the case of establishing good reason for naturalism or God-free, Does God free have good reason? Now it's your turn to make a case in logic.
How is the claim that the status quo is that God does not exist a testable principle?
If something's definitively wrong then by all means show it. However, there is no 'unfalsifiability' about the rejection of insufficiently supported assertion such as 'gods'. If you don't have sufficient evidence to support the contention, the rejection of the claim is not debatable as 'unfalsifiable', it's the null hypothesis which isn't there to be validated.But we still come down to the assumption of God free or naturalism.
You're attempting a false dichotomy there. It's not incumbent upon someone rejecting your hypothesis of 'god' to come up with a better explanationBut you've already offered a 'better' explanation.....God Free or Naturalism;
either you validate your case or its rejected and we revert to 'we don't know'.If you don't know then you should also be laying the burden of proof on your God free alter egos.
If someone posits unproven but logically plausible possibilities in response to your claim in order to show that your stance isn't the only possibility that is not a positive claim, it's the argument put forward to refute yours. I'm fine with that
Within the infinity, things can be contingent or necessary, but the infinite itself is beyond contentions that require time.So are you saying the infinite has an existence independent of the contingent? In which case it is unavoidably necessary but is it real or abstract since abstract necessities produce nothing ?
Possibly - we don't know for sure if the universe is a closed system or not, and the only way to be sure would be to be outside of it and observe energy loss to the wider reality. As to that wider reality, if it's infinite then by definition it must be a closed system, there is no 'outside' for energy to leak to.and an infinite run down leading to heat death. If the universe is infinite surely then it should have met heat death an infinitely long time ago.
Which returns to begging the question, what makes you think 'why' has any meaning? If reality is infinite how does 'why' make any sense - it simply is. Infinite in what senseWhy is it infinite?
Is a god or heaven outside of the universe plausible... depends on which god. As a general concept, yes, it's plausible. Is there a 'necessary' component for the universe, I'd suggest that's more than plausible and verging on the likely. Outside of reality on the other hand... I don't think so, no.Then by definition it is necessary
No. The idea of something being 'necessary' for reality makes no sense, when reality is defined as everything that there is.But it is nonsense to say that when contingency exists within reality and far more sensible to say reality is divided into the necessary and the contingent. The necessity is that which has to be not that which comes and goes and therefore does not have to exist.
There is nothing outside for it be dependent upon. And the idea that the universe is necessary because we (or, indeed, anything else) are in it only has validity if you can show that we or that something else was the point.The necessary is not dependent on the contingent. Necessity does not need contingency, A real rather than abstract necessity decides on contingency, It makes it's own decisions as to what it creates since there are no constraints and the only degrees of freedom it has are those it allows itself to have.....That is why some call it God
Otherwise there is no necessity, only proximate contingency.QuoteThere cannot be contingency without necessity, ''only ANY contingency'' really does make no sense.
Vlad,Truth claims about God. Yes I accept that but God free or naturalism as the status quo which does not need justification is the non justified belief here.
Saying “gods do not exist” is a positive statement yes, but it’s not one that atheism requires and nor that anyone I know of makes. It’s just another of your straw men.
No, the “status quo” as you wrongly put it is simply that beliefs that are truth claims should be justified with sound arguments if their proponents want them to be taken seriously. If not, why should anyone accept one non-justified belief but reject any other non-justified belief?
That’s your problem with your belief “god” remember?
As you won’t tell us what you mean by “god free” I have no idea what you’re asking. If though in a rare moment of honesty/clarity you mean “proceed on the basis of no gods without reference to claims that there actually are no gods” – ie, atheism – the “case in logic” is already made with the falsifications of the arguments theists have attempted to justify their beliefs in gods.
No idea – it’s your straw man, you tell me.
But we still come down to the assumption of God free or naturalism.
But you've already offered a 'better' explanation.....God Free or Naturalism
If you don't know then you should also be laying the burden of proof on your God free alter egos.
So are you saying the infinite has an existence independent of the contingent?
In which case it is unavoidably necessary but is it real or abstract since abstract necessities produce nothing?
...and an infinite run down leading to heat death.
If the universe is infinite surely then it should have met heat death an infinitely long time ago. Why is it infinite?
Then by definition it is necessary
But it is nonsense to say that when contingency exists within reality and far more sensible to say reality is divided into the necessary and the contingent. The necessity is that which has to be not that which comes and goes and therefore does not have to exist.
The necessary is not dependent on the contingent. Necessity does not need contingency, A real rather than abstract necessity decides on contingency, It makes it's own decisions as to what it creates since there are no constraints and the only degrees of freedom it has are those it allows itself to have.....That is why some call it God
There cannot be contingency without necessity, ''only ANY contingency'' really does make no sense.
Truth claims about God. Yes I accept that but God free or naturalism as the status quo which does not need justification is the non justified belief here.
Are you really ignorant of the term God free universe…
...and naturalism?
Can you justify that the ''case in Logic'' is won? How was naturalism justified finally?
As you won’t tell us what you mean by “god free” I have no idea what you’re asking. If though in a rare moment of honesty/clarity you mean “proceed on the basis of no gods without reference to claims that there actually are no gods” – ie, atheism – the “case in logic” is already made with the falsifications of the arguments theists have attempted to justify their beliefs in gods.
No, we don't. There may be any number of other explanations.It makes no sense to me unless one realises that one has to endow it with God like powers and abilities. Something you seem to have been doing quite happily for hours. To me it has the unsubstantiated elements of either ''contingency only'' or an invisible necessary element to it. An infinity. and ''just is'', popped out of nowhere
I think it's 'better', inasmuch as it makes more sense to me and requires fewer unsubstantiated elements, but I can't justify the claim..
Can you justify that the ''case in Logic'' is won?
How was naturalism justified finally?
Can you give evidence of these falsifications dates and references for example, Can you say how they amount to the case in logic already made?
It makes no sense to me unless one realises that one has to endow it with God like powers and abilities.
To me it has the unsubstantiated elements of either ''contingency only'' or an invisible necessary element to it. An infinity. and ''just is'', popped out of nowhere
Vlad,I genuinely believe that the former is the basic assumption or status quo of the latter.
“X does not exist”; and
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists”?
Or do you keep conflating them just for trolling purposes?
Vlad,And that logic is?
Yes. The logic that falsifies the arguments attempted by theists stands.
Depends on whether you mean philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism. The former isn’t “justified” as a claim of certainty so I don’t subscribe to it. The latter is justified as the naturalistic model is all we have that’s investigable and verifiable - which is all that methodological naturalism claims to do.
unpopular penile insertion preferences.I wouldn't say your posts here are 'unpopular'.
I genuinely believe that the former is the basic assumption or status quo of the latter.
Secondly the latter is not the status quo of my burden of proof…
…since your opinion that you have no good reason is your opinion.
So I couldn't really give a shit.
Which 'god-like' powers and abilities? The point of gods is that the bypass the laws of nature to suspend the natural order.QuoteNo, they establish a nature, give it order and laws and intervene when those made in their image mess up possibly to the point of suspending the natural order
So if you want to define the ability to create universes as 'god like'. It's traditional to and maintain them and to be independent of contingency so they are sovereign and not subject to any mysterious overarching laws of nature.Quotetraditionally a property of God Yes.
It's infinite, it didn't 'pop out' of anywhere, there is nowhere and nowhen that it isn't.
O.
And that logic is?
Since we are talking about the default position being naturalism…
…it should be obvious that I am talking about philosophical naturalism…
…which is assumed as the status quo if the burden of proof is on the theist.
It is a positive assertion and the implicit position.
No, they establish a nature, give it order and laws and intervene when those made in their image mess up possibly to the point of suspending the natural order.
It's traditional to and maintain them and to be independent of contingency so they are sovereign and not subject to any mysterious overarching laws of nature.
Vlad,
The logic codified as the various rhetorical fallacies on whch you rely.
Vlad,Hillside. What is the status quo if the burden of proof is on the theist?
Then justify that genuine belief as it’s evidently wrong. “X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it. So what if that were true you would be asking for naturalism
Has this finally sunk in now?
That’s just incoherent.
No it isn’t. Logic and, in particular, rhetorical logic and rhetoric are codified. My opinion on the matter is neither here nor there – either the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “God” are constructed as one or more of these codified fallacies or they aren’t. So far at least, all of them have been.
That’s your problem
Yes I know, because you can hide behind that to keep trolling. What does that say about you though?
So, from the human perspective, they suspend the normal operation of nature. As to establishing nature and giving it order and laws, that's not what reality is doing. Reality is simply being, the universe happens within it, but reality doesn't 'create' any natural laws, the laws simply are as they have always been (possibly).If they are this way then they are necessary. It sounds like you've rediscovered the Gods of Old.
Vlad,Evidence please. Yesterday you swore blind I never ever EVER made any arguments....oh yes, but you also said when I did I was gave logically false argument.
The logic codified as the various rhetorical fallacies on whch you rely.
“We” weren’t – you just introduced it a few posts ago, and after discussion of default positions but ok…
That’s called a non sequitur – another fallacy. The “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false until there’s good reason to think otherwise. When “X” is “God”, that’s called atheism. The claim x exists is false is based on a presumption of naturalism. So why does that presumption not have to be justified? Since proceeding as if the claim exists is false is actually indistinguishable from what a lot of you guys do now and maybe for the rest of your lives. There is no 'as if' about it. It is your working pragmatic assumption. Something that needs overturning for any difference to be made. I'm not trying to switch my burden of proof. I'm just making sure you realise what it is you are suggesting.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of fact. When you attempt to satisfy that burden with logically false arguments (as, so far at least, you always have) you fail to satisfy that burden.
Which are?
Hillside. What is the status quo if the burden of proof is on the theist?
The burden of proof on a claim that there are no good reasons for God is satisfied with evidence. Let's 'ave it my son.
Evidence please.
Yesterday you swore blind I never ever EVER made any arguments....oh yes, but you also said when I did I was gave logically false argument.
Now a little experiment.
Which one of those then is wrong? Not making arguments or making arguments?
.Any examples?
Yes – your efforts are called fallacies or, if you prefer, failed attempts at arguments. To be an actual argument you’d have to have connected premises that lead logically to a conclusion, something you’ve never managed to supply.
Any examples?
Vlad,lets see 'em then.
Of your use of fallacies? Thousands of them (none of which you've ever engaged with).
lets see 'em then.
It may be but saying that the status quo is that God does not exist is a positive assertion
lets see 'em then.
Oh I see. I misunderstood you
Do you mean nobody is explicitly saying the universe is God free
While cunningly, sneakingly, underhandedly, slimingly, craftily, oleaginously, lubriciously, mostly, frictionlessly suggesting it?
I like this I don't make the claim God does not exist. But we should all proceed as if God doesn't exist.......I should Coco.
You’ve had explained over and over and over again that atheism does not require the claim “God does not exist” yet still you persist with exactly the same misrepresentation.
So anyway:
can you now grasp that the only cogent “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false
You’ve had explained over and over and over again that atheism does not require the claim “God does not exist” yet still you persist with exactly the same misrepresentation.
So anyway:
can you now grasp that the only cogent “default position” is to proceed as if the claim “X exists” is false
I like this I don't make the claim God does not exist. But we should all proceed as if God doesn't exist...
....I should Coco.
I like this I don't make the claim God does not exist. But we should all proceed as if God doesn't exist.......
I should Coco.
if these objects are outside the universe, in what sense are they natural?
Isn't establishing the logical possibility making a case though otherwise how, according to you could it be logical?
Argument by arbitrary redefinition. Have you been taking lessons from Alan Burns?The only natural things observed are in the universe. Atheists in the past have discounted the probability of God on the grounds that he is outside the universe.
I was using the 'universe' to mean the expanding space-time we can directly observe. Why on earth would you want to classify any larger context as not being natural (other than to suit your agenda, that is)? There are certainly scientific conjectures about larger contexts.
If they are this way then they are necessary. It sounds like you've rediscovered the Gods of Old.No, I've shown why you don't need to anthropormize fundamental forces of nature.
Argument by arbitrary redefinition. Have you been taking lessons from Alan Burns?In crime it is perfectly clear what the status quo is. Not so that God does not exist. Once you have claimed or declared that as the status quo you have claimed it. Because it is actually a positive assertion then it needs it's own justification.
I was using the 'universe' to mean the expanding space-time we can directly observe. Why on earth would you want to classify any larger context as not being natural (other than to suit your agenda, that is)? There are certainly scientific conjectures about larger contexts.
I can't believe I'm having to explain the very basis of reasoned argument to you (again). You go on about philosophy a lot but you (apparently) can't grasp the basics of logic, something that is absolutely central to philosophy.
YET AGAIN: The whole point of making an argument for something is to move it from the merely possible to a certainty or at least probably true. If it can be shown it is no better than any other logically possible guess, there is no case. Anything at all that contains no contradictions and there is no evidence against it, is logically possible.
You can't make a case for something just by saying it's a possibility. If your 'argument' can be shown to reduce to that, because there are other equally possible answers, you haven't made a case.
You can compare it to the legal burden of proof. If the prosecution's case is that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime, and the defence can show that ten other people had just as much opportunity, then the prosecution's argument is undermined. It's not up to the defence to make a case against any of the other nine people.
No, I've shown why you don't need to anthropormize fundamental forces of nature.You have made them necessary.....You still haven't grasped the full meaning of that. Whatever decided to create the universe. Then allows THE laws of nature to rule over it the eternal laws of nature. What you've rediscovered is a pantheon to make and rule over the things of the universe.
as if[/i] there are no such things a leprechauns? Presumably you do because you have no sound reasons to think them to be real.I would live my life as if they didn't exist even if they did and I'm sure there are indeed real small Irish people for whom I am,this very moment living my life agnostic of there existence.
In crime it is perfectly clear what the status quo is. Not so that God does not exist. Once you have claimed or declared that as the status quo you have claimed it. Because it is actually a positive assertion then it needs it's own justification.
If I positively assert Gods existence. If I say God exists then I have a burden of proof.
Some might say that even if I say I believe it or act it some would still say I have a burden of proof...
...and so it is with being an agnostic atheist.
So do I have a burden because I believe there is a God?
You have made them necessary.....You still haven't grasped the full meaning of that.
Whatever decided to create the universe.
Then allows THE laws of nature to rule over it the eternal laws of nature.
What you've rediscovered is a pantheon to make and rule over the things of the universe.
You have or nearly have rediscovered the Gods.
It's your idea, if I've not grasped what you mean you need to explain it better.Necessity is not my idea. It is the name given for anything that needs no explanation.
What makes you think there's a decision? That's the bit that turns 'nature' into 'gods' - intent, consciousness, deliberation, a purpose. There's no evidence for any of those, no reason to presume that they're involved.
We have observable phenomena which are the laws of nature. You want to invent something that decided to implement those, which then also chose to sit back at some point and leave them to do their work, leaving no trace... It's almost like it's an idea DESIGNED to be shaved clean by Ockham's Razor.
No, there is more to the claim 'gods' than just 'creation' - arguably, for some of the religions of the world, that's not even part of the requirement.
Only if you set such a low bar for a defintion of god and a burden of a proof that the existence of anything is deemed to be evidence of a god, at which point I've also proven all the other gods, leprechauns, the invisible pink unicorn, sentient toffee and Gandalf.
O.
Necessity is not my idea. It is the name given for anything that needs no explanation.But you haven't shown that there is either such a thing or that the concept makes any sense.
No matter how many times you repeat this drivel, it will remain drivel. Nobody is making the claim "God does not exist", it's not even a meaningful statement because of the ambiguity of the term "God".Again.......Why have you settled on God does not exist as the status quo. "Because theists haven't proved God is no answer" I'm afraid. The status quo is how things are and yours is that reality has no God. How then did you arrive at the status quo, God does not exist.
Yes. Just as somebody who claims that ghosts exist, that aliens are abducting people and sticking probes up their backsides, or the Higgs boson exists, or that homoeopathy works. It's always those making the claim that need to provide the reasoning or evidence.
The default response is always to assume that none of these things are true until we have evidence or sound reasoning.
That depends if you want to justify your beliefs.
No. For exactly the same reason I'm not going to accept any of the above as being true (except the Higgs because we have both reasoning and evidence), I'm not going to accept any of the thousands of god(s) that humans have dreamt up exists, because that is always the rational response to any proposal without supporting evidence or reasoning.
Yes. Why should your favourite version of god be treated differently to any other claim anybody makes?
But you haven't shown that there is either such a thing or that the concept makes any sense.If there were two boxes one for what was contingent and one that was for the necessary for what was in the contingent box. The if the necessary box was empty then tit would be illogical to suppose there would be anything in the contingent box.Doubting necessity is not making a full commitment to logic IMHO.
Necessity is not my idea. It is the name given for anything that needs no explanation.
Again.......Why have you settled on God does not exist as the status quo.
"Because theists haven't proved God is no answer" I'm afraid.
If there were two boxes one for what was contingent and one that was for the necessary for what was in the contingent box. The if the necessary box was empty then tit would be illogical to suppose there would be anything in the contingent box.Doubting necessity is not making a full commitment to logic IMHO.You're very confused here, for contingent things than you need the previous cause so you with this approach have all previous causes in the 'necessity' box. That's in contradiction of the idea you are putting forward that necessity is only a thing that needs no explanation.
That's not a definition of it that I've ever heard - it's that which is deemed a requirement, that which had to exist for something else to occur. If it happened to, but you can't show that the event couldn't occur other ways then it's not necessary.Yes I can see with your definition but it is not exclusive of mine which is otherwise expressed as not needing or having any external explanation. There are abstract necessities. These exist in say mathematical reality.In fact I believe that they might well demonstrate the importance of single necessity.
O.
If there were two boxes one for what was contingent and one that was for the necessary for what was in the contingent box. The if the necessary box was empty then tit would be illogical to suppose there would be anything in the contingent box.Doubting necessity is not making a full commitment to logic IMHO.
Yes I can see with your definition but it is not exclusive of mine which is otherwise expressed as not needing or having any external explanation.
There are abstract necessities. These exist in say mathematical reality.
In fact I believe that they might well demonstrate the importance of single necessity.
You're very confused here, for contingent things than you need the previous cause so you with this approach have all previous causes in the 'necessity' box. That's in contradiction of the idea you are putting forward that necessity is only a thing that needs no explanation.No, If it's existence is due to something else then it is contingent and goes in the contingency box. I think you can probably see that were the necessary box to end up empty. Then everything in the contingency box would vanish. In fact you could not even start filling it up. So whatever is responsible for there being contingent things has to be without contingency and therefore necessary.
That, however, misuses the normal understanding,It is the normal understanding.
It is the normal understanding.Since in 2 posts you put up contradictory ideas of necessity, it's not even clear it's your understanding.
Then make an actual argument, rather than just asserting it. How can you be sure that anything is necessaryBecause as the Box sorting shows without a necessary we would not have anything in the contingency box.
No, If it's existence is due to something else then it is contingent and goes in the contingency box. I think you can probably see that were the necessary box to end up empty. Then everything in the contingency box would vanish. In fact you could not even start filling it up. So whatever is responsible for there being contingent things has to be without contingency and therefore necessary.
Because as the Box sorting shows without a necessary we would not have anything in the contingency box.Repetition of assertion is not an argument. Repetition of an assertion based on a concept you haven't shown to be logically possible is just a waste of time.
Since in 2 posts you put up contradictory ideas of necessity, it's not even clear it's your understanding.Look why should I put necessary things in the contingent box ?
You really need to try and write more clearly, as that isn't the simple reading of your post. Your post which didn't amount to an argument but just a badly written reassertion. You need to demonstrate that there is such a necessity.I have done. If there were still things in the box then there would be no explanation for that and hence they would exist necessarily and we can relabel the box. What you need to remember is that the necessary is not dependent on the contingent. It is the necessary which is responsible for the contingent.
However before you get there you have to show that it is logically possible for something to not have an explanation. You haven't even attempted that as far as I can see.
Look why should I put necessary things in the contingent box ?As already covered you need to try and write more clearly, and even better try and think a bit more clearly. If there is a box for necessary things some contingent things are necessary for other contingent things , then your already pointless box idea, pointless because it is not an argument and is based on a begging of the question then is just logically contradictory.
A contingent thing can be necessary for another contingent. But it is not existent itself necessarily.
I have done. If there were still things in the box then there would be no explanation for that and hence they would exist necessarily and we can relabel the box. What you need to remember is that the necessary is not dependent on the contingent. It is the necessary which is responsible for the contingent.
Do you know all this anyway and are trying a hand wave.
No, this is you just repeating your assertion again. You have not shown that it is logically possible for a thing to exist that has no explanation.I've just demonstrated that if there is no such thing as something that cannot be explained by something external then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.
Indeed you haven't shown it to be logically coherent
It is the normal understanding.
I've just demonstrated that if there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.What that amounts to as a statement, when you break down your overwrought prose, is 'If X, then X'. This is obviously redundant and also obviously not a demonstration that the idea of a thing existing without an explanation is logically possible or coherent.
No, if A is necessary for B it means that if A isn't then B isn't, it has nothing to say about whether there's an explanation for A, you cannot presume that even if you can't explain A that it is somehow necessary for B, that's an entirely different sequence of logic.No. inexplicable can and is often used for something that cannot be explained now but maybe in the future. Necessary is a specific philosophical concept which means something that has no external explanation.
There's already a word for something that can't be explained - inexplicable. There's no need to try to coopt another word into the job.
No. inexplicable can and is often used for something that cannot be explained now but maybe in the future. Necessary is a specific philosophical concept which means something that has no external explanation.Err no
No. inexplicable can and is often used for something that cannot be explained now but maybe in the future. Necessary is a specific philosophical concept which means something that has no external explanation.
What that amounts to as a statement, when you break down your overwrought prose, is 'If X, then X'. This is obviously redundant and also obviously not a demonstration that the idea of a thing existing without an explanation is logically possible or coherent.What is not a demonstration? My statement that i've demonstrated or the box model demonstration or the box model demonstration.
What is not a demonstration? My statement that i've demonstrated or the box model demonstration or the box model demonstration.None of it is a demonstration. I note you have just ignored me translating your prose into a logical statement showing that it is redundant.
I'm afraid you are going to have to elucidate what YOU mean.
None of it is a demonstration. I note you have just ignored me translating your prose into a logical statement showing that it is redundant.That all I am saying is If X then X is your contention. So please demonstrate that is what I am in fact doing.
So please start again and show that your concept of necessity is logically possible.
Even given the time constraints of the use of inexplicable - and that could be qualified as 'intrinsically inexplicable', you're trying to conclude an argument you've not made. If you want to suggest that something that can't be explained must be necessary, you're going to have to make the case, it's not part of the definition of the word.If it is intrinsically inexplicable then there is no external reason for it therefore it is necessary.
O.
If it is intrinsically inexplicable then there is no external reason for it therefore it is necessary.
That all I am saying is If X then X is your contention. So please demonstrate that is what I am in fact doing.
Secondly you seem to be suggesting that the model does not demonstrate what I say I have claimed for it.
Do you for instance accept that there are contingent things? Things that exist because of something else lets call them X now if there are only X then that IS a case of If X, then X.
So unless there is one thing that has no external explanation then there can be no contingent things. If there is no necessity then there is no contingency. If Things with external explanation have no explanation then they have no external explanation then they are necessary which is impossible and illogical. It does not matter if all eggs end up in one basket then there is no explanation for them to since that makes them necessary. In all though there is x then y.
No, your premise does not lead to your conclusion. Just because you don't have an explanation (or, because there may not be an explanation) you can't presume that it's therefore necessary. ifnithas no external explanation the it is definitionally Necessary The universe we actually have may or may not exist within an infinite reality - if it turns out that it does, that doesn't change the fact that it could have happened another way. That broader reality, therefore, cannot be considered 'necessary', whether or not you can explain it, unless you can show there was no other way for the universe to exist.. Your argument seems largely an empirical one. Empiricism is not logic. In fact it is based on a rather circular argument and cannot be demonstrated by empirical means. If there is another way for the universe to exist then that makes it contingent. If your broader reality could be different from the way it is then it is either contingent or it is the way it is because that is how it, itself decides to be. If the latter is thecase it is still the necessary because there is no external explanation.
At the moment, given that your conjecture is that 'God did it', by definition you can't also try to claim that the broader reality is necessary.
Your just asserting your concept of necessity again. No attempt at showing logical possibility.Try this then:
As for if X, then X - this was in reply to your post
'I've just demonstrated that if there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.'
Which leaving aside the empty and wrong assertion of demonstration, breaks down into:
'If there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external' - X
'then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.' - also X since it's the same statement.
Unless you manage to reach a semi coherent approach, I honestly don't see any point in engaging with you. Your are either so bereft of a basic understanding of philosophy and logic, combined with an unwillingness to learn, that your posts are mere retreads of juvenile mistakes, or you are indulging in some witless wummery.
Same problem. Those are logically the same statement. FNo they aren't. the same thing.
Try this then:Dear dog, trying to parse what you write is problematic. You need to write clearer. You pack double negatives into statements that don't require them. Why would you write 'If there is no such thing as something' - all that is amounts to 'if there is nothing'
'If there is no such thing as something that cannot be explained by something external' - X
'then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.' - Y not X, sorry for the previous typo.
No they aren't. the same thing.See my update, and as you have put it here we are back at your empty assertions
The statement actually is If there is no necessity there is no contingent.....and the box model is the demonstration.
Dear dog, trying to parse what you write is problematic. You need to write clearer. You pack double negatives into statements that don't require them. Why would you write 'If there is no such thing as something' - all that is amounts to 'if there is nothing'
So the first statement becomes 'If there is nothing that cannot be explained by something external' (as an aside you haven't defined 'external', or then shown it is logically coherent, and possible, so the statement is essentially meaningless at this point)
So the second statement 'there is nothing that can be explained by something external' not only doesn't derive from the If X, but now means 'is not X'
So you now have If X, then not X
Something which cannot be externally explained X is not the same as something that can be externally explained YFFS! You put up two contradictory statements which amounted to If X, then not X.
So now we have If not X then not Y which is basically the formula for contingency
So X is differentiated from Y and the dependence of Y on X is established.
FFS! You put up two contradictory statements which amounted to If X, then not X.What is the way then of expressing for your sake that Y is dependent on X for it's existence ?
What is the way then of expressing for your sake that Y is dependent on X for it's existence ?you have to show it, not express it. As pointed out repeatedly, you have not shown your concept of necessity to be logically coherent or possible. You are on the 12th floor of a a building that doesn't have the bottom eleven floor built.
Your argument seems largely an empirical one. Empiricism is not logic.
If there is another way for the universe to exist then that makes it contingent.
If your broader reality could be different from the way it is then it is either contingent or it is the way it is because that is how it, itself decides to be.
If the latter is the case it is still the necessary because there is no external explanation.
you have to show it, not express it. As pointed out repeatedly, you have not shown your concept of necessity to be logically coherent or possible. You are on the 12th floor of a a building that doesn't have the bottom eleven floor built.So nothing is necessary for anything? I think you've gotten mixed up into something there nearly sane.
So nothing is necessary for anything? I think you've gotten mixed up into something there nearly sane.Nope. Haven't said that. And you are using necessary in two ways here as you did in your hopelessly confused box 'demonstation'.
Dear dog, trying to parse what you write is problematic. You need to write clearer. You pack double negatives into statements that don't require them. Why would you write 'If there is no such thing as something' - all that is amounts to 'if there is nothing'This is not the same as saying there is nothing.
So the first statement becomes 'If there is nothing that cannot be explained by something external'
So the second statement 'there is nothing that can be explained by something external' not only doesn't derive from the If X, but now means 'is not X'That is not the second statement which is (then there is nothing that can be explained by something external. Which is clearly impossible.
Nope. Haven't said that. And you are using necessary in two ways here as you did in your hopelessly confused box 'demonstation'.
We are back at you being either so bereft of an understanding of philosophy and logic, or si fundamentally dishonest as to make this a waste of time. So I will leave you to whatever it is you are getting out of this because you are tedious at this.
It's not empirical; it cites a possible example to show a situation that meets your premise but doesn't support your conclusion, showing that your logic is flawed.It is.
I'm not aware that I suggested it wasn't?
We have no way to know if the broader reality could be any other way - perhaps, at some point, it was?
Again, that's not what necessary means.
I would live my life as if they didn't exist even if they did and I'm sure there are indeed real small Irish people for whom I am,this very moment living my life agnostic of there existence.
“X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it. It stands independently of whether or not X exists.
Atheism requires the latter, but not the former…
Vlad,Since Gordon's contention that I live my life according to not having a reasonable reason to believe in Leprechauns is undermined by the possibility of my life style not changing were there to be Leprechauns shows Gordon's contention to be false. Whether one would or could live with the knowledge of God and it not change their lifestyles I'm not sure. Citing not recieving reason to change one's point of view to accommodate God is no explanation for why you hold that point of view before hand. It also doesn't explain the vehemence at which, whatever your point of view is, is defended to the point where you choose to camouflage it. In other words I don't know what it is but I know it isn't God.
I wondered whether you’d go down your usual route of utter irrelevance so as to avoid the argument, and sure enough you didn’t disappoint. The characteristics of leprechauns or of “God” have absolutely nothing to do with the point of the argument, which I set out for you only recently (Reply 976). Try reading it for comprehension this time – it’s perfectly clear:
Thus in the absence of non-fallacious arguments for “God”, proceeding as if there are no gods while simultaneously accepting gods as an unfalsifiable possibility (among countless other unfalsifiable possibilities) is not only logically consistent but unavoidable.
What’s not to “coco” about that?
No matter how many times you repeat this drivel, it will remain drivel. Nobody is making the claim "God does not exist", it's not even a meaningful statement because of the ambiguity of the term "God".
Again.......Why have you settled on God does not exist as the status quo.
Since Gordon's contention that I live my life according to not having a reasonable reason to believe in Leprechauns is undermined by the possibility of my life style not changing were there to be Leprechauns shows Gordon's contention to be false. Whether one would or could live with the knowledge of God and it not change their lifestyles I'm not sure. Citing not recieving reason to change one's point of view to accommodate God is no explanation for why you hold that point of view before hand. It also doesn't explain the vehemence at which, whatever your point of view is, is defended to the point where you choose to camouflage it. In other words I don't know what it is but I know it isn't God.
Vlad,And to the person making the judgment on good reason. But that still doesn't explain the point of view held by that person into which God cannot be subsequently incorporated in other words that persons status quo.
Utter and irrelevant gibberish. Try again:
“X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it.
Thus in the absence of non-fallacious arguments for “God”, proceeding as if there are no gods while simultaneously accepting gods as an unfalsifiable possibility (among countless other unfalsifiable possibilities) is not only logically consistent but unavoidable.It seems to me that when it comes to a point of view of how reality is we can only go to unfalsifiable possibilities. Since the expectation is that those with some kind of belief have to give account and justify. Why are you not providing for your belief in an unfalsifiable possibility?
And to the person making the judgment on good reason.
But that still doesn't explain the point of view held by that person into which God cannot be subsequently incorporated in other words that persons status quo.
In conversion something makes the status quo no longer viable there can be defence of the status quo but eventually this breaks down in conversion.
It seems to me that when it comes to a point of view of how reality is we can only go to unfalsifiable possibilities.
Since the expectation is that those with some kind of belief have to give account and justify.
Why are you not providing for your belief in an unfalsifiable possibility?
It seems to me that when it comes to a point of view of how reality is we can only go to unfalsifiable possibilities.
Since the expectation is that those with some kind of belief have to give account and justify.
Why are you not providing for your belief in an unfalsifiable possibility?
Vlad,That suggests the idea of God is felt to be not serious. We should be hearing why
If someone thinks he has good reason to justify his belief “god” (or his belief leprechauns) and he wants others to take the claim seriously
then making those arguments would be a good way to discharge the burden of proofI'm not sure why since God is unfalsifiable.
So far at least all you’ve managed is either no argument at all (ie, unqualified assertions) or fallacious attempts at argumentsLet's see evidence,
so there’s no reason for anyone to take your faith belief seriouslyBut some do without necessarily accepting it. It seems to me that you are taking your attitude toward it and superimposing that on others. If Christianity is funny, what is it about the unfalsifiable possibility which makes up your view of reality which makes it serious?
Anyway, as you've just ignored the question again can you now grasp that when someone has no good reasons to accept the claim "X exists" it’s a consistent position to have no certain view on X’s non-/existence, but at the same time to proceed as if it doesn’t exist – and that when X is called “God” that’s atheism?Yes that's all very well but why not proceed as if you aren't sure whether X exists or not. What is more attractive about a universe without God, what is more real about that 'possibility'? If you want people to take you seriously Hillside you need to be providing these answers for them rather taking the piss out of their enquiries about the unfalsifiable possibility you have committed to.
That suggests the idea of God is felt to be not serious. We should be hearing why
I'm not sure why since God is unfalsifiable.
Let's see evidence,
But some do without necessarily accepting it. It seems to me that you are taking your attitude toward it and superimposing that on others. If Christianity is funny, what is it about the unfalsifiable possibility which makes up your view of reality which makes it serious?
Yes…
…that's all very well but why not proceed as if you aren't sure whether X exists or not.
What is more attractive about a universe without God, what is more real about that 'possibility'? If you want people to take you seriously Hillside you need to be providing these answers for them.
Vlad,Flannel.
Clearly wrong. If we could “only go to unfalsifiable possibilities” any unfalsifiable possibility would be as valid as any other. That would be chaotic. What we actually do is to use tools and methods to convert some of those possibilities to functional probabilities.
And if you don’t like the tools and methods we have because they’re empirical,Got there in the end.
Because they’re not unfalsifiable at allsee previous.
You’re doing a Stephen LawsSTOP! woah yeh wait a minute Mr Postman
How “going nuclear” here – “OK, even if I’m guessing so are you so our guesses are equal”.There is no probabilty for an unfalsifiability for the origin of the universe as far as I can see. And if we look at probabilities that are touted they make the way the universe is very, very unlikely so, so much for trying to use probabilty, particularly when you can never say what the probability for God is and show your working out
It’s utter bollocks for reasons that have been explained to you many times already: we have methods to sift the more probably true from the more probably not true,But unfortunately no empirical ones which establish empiricism.
You’re doing a Stephen Laws “going nuclear” here – “OK, even if I’m guessing so are you so our guesses are equal”.Once again, thank you your LAWdship.
Flannel.
Got there in the end.
Since you have revealed yourself as an empiricist then empiricism is an unfalsifiable possibility.
see previous.
STOP! woah yeh wait a minute Mr Postman
There is no probabilty for an unfalsifiability for the origin of the universe as far as I can see. And if we look at probabilities that are touted they make the way the universe is very, very unlikely so, so much for trying to use probabilty, particularly when you can never say what the probability for God is and show your working out
But unfortunately no empirical ones which establish empiricism.
An open thank you to Dr Stephen Law
For years Hillside has been telling us that God and leprechauns are on an equal footing and that that both are guesses and of equal value…
…and now he makes use of this argument
Quote from: bluehillside Retd. on Today at 04:42:44 PM
You’re doing a Stephen Laws “going nuclear” here – “OK, even if I’m guessing so are you so our guesses are equal”.
Once again, thank you your LAWdship.
PS If I've caused you embarrassment if you've used the Leprechaun argument.
Vlad,Flannel, First box of possibilities? How was that derived? Hillside writes down all the things he thinks are ridiculous?, accurate or what?
And now you’ve completely fucked up Law’s argument. The argument says that if you treat everything as epistemically equivalent guesses, the result is chaotic. That’s why it’s essential to be able to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities – and we have tools and methods to do that. That doesn’t mean though that the first box of possibilities only doesn’t still have your god/my leprechauns/the Loch Ness monster/whatever in it.
Evidence for empiricism please Hillside Full logical argument, I want it on my desk by Monday, I don't care how you do it, I just want it done.
Flannel, First box of possibilities? How was that derived?
Hillside writes down all the things he thinks are ridiculous?, accurate or what?
Vlad,It seems to me that Law undermines your argument that we can treat all arguments for all unfalsifiables equally. Law's argument therefore undermines Russell's Teapot too.
It has been. Many times. If though by “empiricism” you actually mean your personal, made-up, straw man redefinition of that term then no-one can do that.
It was “derived” as the set of truth claims (and possible truth claims) that have no reliable means of investigation or verification. I just listed some of them for you (have you forgotten already?) but it’s a very, very big box.
No, anyone can “write down” any truth claim with no reliable means of investigation or verification they like. If you want to call them all “ridiculous” that’s up to you.
Anyway, as you completely fucked up Law’s argument and then claimed your victory just as a pigeon playing chess and knocking over the pieces, crapping on the board and flying away will claim its victory I’ll have the family-size pack of Savlon sent over asap.
It seems to me that Law undermines your argument that we can treat all arguments for unfalsifiables equally. Law's argument therefore undermines Russell's Teapot too.
Yours, Russell's and Law's argument seem to proceed from Horses laugh argument
Russell and yourself plumping for analogising God with the most ridiculous sounding thing you can think of. Law is making a heirarchy of which arguments to take more seriously, hence proceeding from the establishment of the most ridiculous and then going from there.
Since there is some kind of heirarchy you are applying Law's argument to, let's see what that heirarchy is and how you arrived at it.
Vlad,So a real infinity, Philosophical Empiricism, Philosophical physicalism, Philosophical Philosophical Naturalism would end up in Box A along with the leprechauns. I think you've undermined a lot of people's cases for an infinitely old universe there.
Love you way you go straight from an un-argued assertion to a “therefore”. Any chance of telling us why that seems to be the case to you?
A mistake you’ve had corrected often, so why return to it? The “horse laugh” as you put it is to mock something without a qualifying argument. The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand (which is what’s actually in play) is to show that when exactly the same argument for a conclusion someone thinks to be not ridiculous can also lead to a plainly ridiculous conclusion then it’s probably a bad argument. Here’s a link to put you straight (again):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Wrong again - see above.
I have no idea what you mean by “hierarchy” here, but broadly the two categories are:
1. Box A: claims with no reliable means of investigation and verification. Call these claims “possibilities” if you like; and
2. Box B: claims with reliable means of investigation and verification. Call these claims “probabilities” if you like.
Of course claims in Box A can move to Box B if reliable means of investigation and verification for them are found, and equally claims in Box B can move to Box A if it can be shown that the reliable mean of investigation and verification were unreliable. That’s why “truth” is a probabilistic claim – it’s defined solely by our ability to discern it and we’re fallible creatures.
Anyway, you’ve had all this explained to you before now several times so why you insist on making a fool of yourself again about it is anyone’s guess.
So a real infinity, Philosophical Empiricism, Philosophical physicalism, Philosophical Philosophical Naturalism would end up in Box A along with the leprechauns. I think you've undermined a lot of people's cases for an infinitely old universe there.
I never saw you making the Leprechaun argument with them.
The verdict on you for that oversight is you are a humbug.
Truth is probabilistic is an opinion.
One you think that like your moral argument and your empiricism has triumphed overall.
No, the thing now Hillside is that you have to choose between your two darlings Russell or Law's
Vlad,We are talking philosophical positions so I don't see why you've introduced certainty here other than a get out as you have been rumbled. Working, pragmatic assumption of these philosophies will get you the T-shirt just as well as certainty though.
Depends whether you intend the actual meanings of these terms or your personal redefinitions of them. If it’s the latter, we’d need another box called “White Noise”, or perhaps "Straw Men".
Even if you mean various philosophical positions that make claims of certainty
(“the universe is certainly physical” etc) that’s not a claim anyone I know of subscribes to, and nor is it necessary reasonably to assign values to truth claims - the methodological versions are just fine for that purpose.No, they aren't because a theist can use the methodology......The Atheist is not arguing theism from any methodology. Also you cannot argue theism using, say , methodological empricism and insist that theism has no methodology.....you would have roundly contradicted yourself.
Why would I as they’re entirely unnecessary for it?If you foolishly let the cat out of the bag that infinite universes and creators are in the same category as Leprechauns then at the very least attacking creators as as ridiculous as leprechauns while leaving infinite universes of scott-free shows inconsistency and lack of rigour at the very least.
How would you eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown that falsifies what you think to be a truth?God or no god is a question of known unknowns i'm afraid .
No you need to justify why Infinite universes should be in the same category as Leprechauns.
No, the actual “thing now” is that you should decide between lying and not lying. I have very little hope of you opting for the latter, but you could start by responding honestly to my last post rather than just ignoring it or misrepresenting it. For example, can you now grasp the difference between a "horse laugh" and the reductio ad absurdum?
We are talking philosophical positions so I don't see why you've introduced certainty here other than a get out as you have been rumbled.
Working, pragmatic assumption of these philosophies will get you the T-shirt just as well as certainty though.
No, they aren't because a theist can use the methodology......
The Atheist is not arguing theism from any methodology.
Also you cannot argue theism…
…using, say , methodological empricism and insist that theism has no methodology.....you would have roundly contradicted yourself.
If you foolishly let the cat out of the bag that infinite universes and creators are in the same category as Leprechauns then at the very least attacking creators as as ridiculous as leprechauns while leaving infinite universes of scott-free shows inconsistency and lack of rigour at the very least.
God or no god is a question of known unknowns i'm afraid .
No you need to justify why Infinite universes should be in the same category as Leprechauns.
lad,
I haven’t – you have. You redefine various terms to mean “there certainly are no gods” and having set up your straw man you attack the people who don’t subscribe to them in any case. I’m not sure why you bother with the deceit though as there’s a perfectly good word for what you’re striving for – physicalism – though again it’s still a straw man.
Have you finally grasped this or something? Yes, working pragmatic positions are all I’ve ever argued for – the clue is that generally they have the word “methodological” at the beginning, and they make no claims to absolutes at all. If you’re changing horses now because you’ve finally got it though, well and good. Presumably now then we’ll no longer be treated to your endless idiocies about materialism nor being able to justify itself. Halle-flippin’-llujah. Well done.
Oh dear. What methodology do you think theist can argue from exactly (and while we’re here, why have you never done it as you claim to be one)?
Er, the atheist doesn’t “argue theism” at all. Obviously. What the atheist actually does is to use logic to falsify the attempts theists make to justify their beliefs with reason. Call that a “methodology” or not as you wish, but that’s all that’s required for atheism. The day I can’t falsify an argument tried by a theist to justify his belief "god" is the day I’ll stop being an atheist. There’s precious little sign of that happening any time soon though.
Again, atheists don’t “argue theism”. Are you trying to say “argue against theism” or something?
Er no. As ever, you have the burden of proof arse-backwards. If a theist wants to try logic and reason to justify his beliefs then he can’t complain when his fallacies are identified. If though you think theism has a different methodology to justify its claims, then why not finally tell us what it is?
Well that was stupid. The category in question is “truth claims with no means of investigation and verification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Your god, other peoples’ gods, leprechauns, dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri and Jack Frost all fit that category. Your usual stunt to avoid the problem at this point is to say that your god and my leprechauns have different characteristics, which is true but utterly irrelevant.
But a reason or evidence no-one’s yet thought to substantiate the claim isn’t. That was the point.
Arguably infinite universes aren’t (that’s just another of your straw men) but your god is for the reason I just explained. Either way, you’ve just posted another evasion in any case: what I actually asked you was whether you now grasp the difference between a horse laugh argument and the reductio ad absurdum. He former is just pointing and laughing; the latter is reasoning that when identical arguments attempted to justify one conclusion (god) can lead equally well to a plainly daft conclusion (leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong.
I don’t have to justify anything fo that to be the case - it’s a simple point in logic.
Once again old son, an epic fail.
Methodological empiricism doesn't even establish philosophical empiricism, same for all the other methodologies.
So I don't understand why you think they will be any more succesful for God.
If though you think empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, materialism...delete as applicable, has a different methodology to justify its claims, then why not finally tell us what it is?
Look, you alerted us to Laws's heirarchy of guesses.
So I want to know…
…is how you operate it with a view to the following
a) How does it decided what are 'better' guesses, as you put it?
b) What heirarchy can you get out of it?
c) How can it possibly notbe counter to Russell's Teapot…
…and equating God with Leprechaun's but not it seems infinite universes.
No, Leprechauns are falsifiable being little green irishmen at the end of rainbows, God and an infinite universe....... not so.
Conceptually at least the infinite universe conjecture could be falsifiable. Gods and leprechauns on the other hand aren’t.
No, Leprechauns are falsifiable being little green irishmen at the end of rainbows, God and an infinite universe....... not so.
Vlad,
And your god rewards people who pray hard enough to "him".
I don’t have to. They just have to have scientifically investigable characteristics.
Go on then - falsify leprechauns.
Not sure whether that is a necessary for theism.
I don’t have to. They just have to have scientifically investigable characteristics.
Falsify the infinite universe.
Vlad,That is irrelevent to the issue of a God swayed by hard prayer.
An interventionist god is a central tenet of most varieties of Christianity.
Dear god but you struggle. Again – and slooooooowly – there is a category of truth claims that is “assertions of fact with no mean of investigation or verification”. Your god, other peoples' gods and leprechauns are all in that category.I have done not two or three posts back.
If you think that any of them are not in that category, tell us why. .
Because Leprechauns are tiny Irishmen dressed in green and found at the end of rainbows there are plenty of properties here to make a scientific observation. Not so with the God of Christianity.
Some may cite Jesus but Christianity claims that Jesus was also fully human.
Other humans have reportedly detected the divine about him and the ''Jesus affair''.
Indeed I did hear that one of the Greek philosophers conjectured way back that if the platonically perfect human appeared, imperfect people would be made to feel so uncomfortable by the perfection they would end up putting the perfect person to death. Whether that story is a myth or not the idea expressed through it is certainly unfalsifiable.
Surely we can engage them in our search for the beardy-looking guy on the cloud surrounded by kids with harps then, right?He was only on secondment from art, and often got in the way anyway.
It also claims the unknown God of the Areopagites is the same character. (Apostle Paul's Areopagus speech in Acts 17:23,) and the God of monotheism. The new testament expands God's character giving an overview only partially percieved in the Old Testament.
Christianity claims a lot of things; for instance, it claims that the god of the New Testament is the same character as the one in the Old Testament...
Magic as understood by the early Jewish christians was distinguished by St Peter and others in the encounter with Simon Magus. Others have detected something fundamental about Jesus in a way that links him to Divinity.
Well, maybe - other humans have alleged that other humans reported to someone (but not necessarily them) that there was something magical about Jesus, which they attribute to divinity.
I don't know if you are one of those who would put forward the idea of imperfection in humanity but I find myself rather irritated by people who are better physically than myself and who lack apparent vice and are worthier in what they do. Does that give you some idea of where I am going with the idea of perfection?
If only the concept of a 'perfect' human made any sort of sense at all that might be a point - not necessarily valid, but at least a point.
Magic as understood by the early Jewish christians was distinguished by St Peter and others in the encounter with Simon Magus. Others have detected something fundamental about Jesus in a way that links him to Divinity.What makes Jesus magic divine and Simon Magus magic not divine? How do you tell the difference?
He was only on secondment from art, and often got in the way anyway.
It also claims the unknown God of the Areopagites is the same character. (Apostle Paul's Areopagus speech in Acts 17:23,) and the God of monotheism. The new testament expands God's character giving an overview only partially percieved in the Old Testament.
Some would say the picture of God evolves.
Magic as understood by the early Jewish christians was distinguished by St Peter and others in the encounter with Simon Magus.
Others have detected something fundamental about Jesus in a way that links him to Divinity
I don't know if you are one of those who would put forward the idea of imperfection in humanity but I find myself rather irritated by people who are better physically than myself and who lack apparent vice and are worthier in what they do. Does that give you some idea of where I am going with the idea of perfection?
If on the other hand you have ever argued against God's design on the grounds of imperfection then any claim that the idea of '' a 'perfect' human makes no sense'' is disingenuous
What makes Jesus magic divine and Simon Magus magic not divine? How do you tell the difference?
That's OK, those Irish fellahs in the black hats you saw were only dressed up for St Patrick's day, they weren't the REAL leprechauns...No, They were too big and had a ford van.
15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”
20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”
Maybe Peter and John were agents of Satan and what the people received was Satan's spirit.
Maybe God is the bad guy and Satan is the good guy. After all, Christians claim that it was Satan who saved Adam and Eve from eternal servitude in God's garden.
It's just occurred to me that the Holy Spirit caused people to start spreading the Christian message at the expense of their own safety. A lot of the people who were infected with the Holy Spirit were eventually executed by the authorities.
There are certain insect pathogens that alter the behaviour of the host so that they get predated and the pathogen can then spread itself by being dispersed by the predator. The Holy Spirit is actually a disease, and in the early days: a harmful one.
That's OK, those Irish fellahs in the black hats you saw were only dressed up for St Patrick's day, they weren't the REAL leprechauns...You have to remember the bible is a collection of books. The idea of a loving God is there in the Old testament. Of course, I can't expect you as a public campaigning evangelical New atheist to go in without confirmation bias. Yes the OT does go on about the roughness of life after the alienation of man from God and each other and how God hence would no longer have unbroken communion with God and vice versa so life in a lot of the OT is messy but also there is a bit of colourful myth in there too.
It doesn't 'expand' it, it represents a shift in personality that would warrant psychiatric investigation in a person. As to the contention that this is a monotheism, well that's a whole other bucket of fudges. Some would say the picture of the god evolves, almost as though the old idea wasn't working any more so they had to come up with something else...
It's funny but eye witness testimony is still used today and it forms part of empirical observation funnily enough. There is no rule to say second and third hand bits need be unreliable that's why people are writing histories today. Vested interest is a bit of a ludicruous handle to give to the early christians who knew they were risking looking a bit of a tit relating the Good news.
You missed out the whole host of second and third hand bits, the unreliability of eye-witness testimony in the first place, and the vested interests which selectively excised and edited whatever passed for the original texts that they had before you got to the bit where they linked him to something nonsensical.
You have to remember the bible is a collection of books. The idea of a loving God is there in the Old testament. Of course, I can't expect you as a public campaigning evangelical New atheist to go in without confirmation bias. Yes the OT does go on about the roughness of life after the alienation of man from God and each other and how God hence would no longer have unbroken communion with God and vice versa so life in a lot of the OT is messy but also there is a bit of colourful myth in there too.
As far as the old idea of a personal God 'not working' is concerned that has never been true. It has worked for centuries. You may as well dismiss science on these same grounds that you are dismissing God.
It's funny but eye witness testimony is still used today and it forms part of empirical observation funnily enough. There is no rule to say second and third-hand bits need be unreliable that's why people are writing histories today. Vested interest is a bit of a ludicrous handle to give to the early Christians who knew they were risking looking a bit of a tit relating the Good news.
Plus the point that becoming a Christian depended on a first-hand experience of God in Jesus.
So your puzzlement at perfection was disingenuous then?
I have argued that, but as a follow on from the premise that a perfect god would have created a perfect universe in which humanity didn't have to struggle to stay alive in the first instance; I've also deployed it in response to the claim of intelligent design, showing the inherent compromises that are the obvious result of the trial and error of evolution from natural selection rather than poor engineering.
Maybe Peter and John were agents of Satan and what the people received was Satan's spirit.I think it's about being able to identify Good and evil.
Maybe God is the bad guy and Satan is the good guy. After all, Christians claim that it was Satan who saved Adam and Eve from eternal servitude in God's garden.
It's just occurred to me that the Holy Spirit caused people to start spreading the Christian message at the expense of their own safety. A lot of the people who were infected with the Holy Spirit were eventually executed by the authorities.
There are certain insect pathogens that alter the behaviour of the host so that they get predated and the pathogen can then spread itself by being dispersed by the predator. The Holy Spirit is actually a disease, and in the early days: a harmful one.
You have to remember the bible is a collection of books. The idea of a loving God is there in the Old testament.
Of course, I can't expect you as a public campaigning evangelical New atheist to go in without confirmation bias. Yes the OT does go on about the roughness of life after the alienation of man from God and each other and how God hence would no longer have unbroken communion with God and vice versa so life in a lot of the OT is messy but also there is a bit of colourful myth in there too.
As far as the old idea of a personal God 'not working' is concerned that has never been true. It has worked for centuries. You may as well dismiss science on these same grounds that you are dismissing God.
It's funny but eye witness testimony is still used today and it forms part of empirical observation funnily enough.
There is no rule to say second and third hand bits need be unreliable that's why people are writing histories today.
Vested interest is a bit of a ludicruous handle to give to the early christians who knew they were risking looking a bit of a tit relating the Good news.
Plus the point that becoming a christian depended on a first hand experience of God in Jesus.
So your puzzlement at perfection was disingenuous then?
don't agree with your premise. It seems to me that is your perfect God and your perception of perfection.
I can put the case that a universe given a measure of independence, to do things for it's own sake and for those within it to appreciate it is a far more perfect universe than a clockwork one.
It is amazing how easy Christians find it to interpret what is written in the Bible in such a way to make it say the exact opposite of what is actually written.Loving God Psalms and Song of Song
It's not funny, it's alarming.You what?
when you're trying to establish grounds for imprisoning gay people you really need a more solid justification than 'Bob's grandmother's friend's neice reportedly said her ex-boyfriend saw him cast a demon into a herd of pigs'...
Is it? Would Roman records not lend more credibility specifically because they could be said to be less-likely to suffer from those vested interests?
So there have been no Christians since about 100AD, when those people who could remember Jesus died out? Or can you in fact become a Christian if you believe in Jesus, regardless of whether you ever met him (and regardless of whether he was ever divine)?People don't commit to a dead man, they have to believe he is still around in living spiritual form. I would have thought.
The old testament god was a capricious sociopath given to fits of violent vengeance disproportionate to any perceived crimes or sin.The new testament god is poorly depicted mish-mash[/quote] And your literary qualifications stretch further than ''I know what I like.''?
of that and some nurturing mother-goddess with a beardWhat's wrong with that?
Given that we know the whole 'fall of man' bit is nonsense.Er Human History? everyday experience?
Except that I didn't dismiss the idea of a 'personal god', I dismissed the claim that Christianity is a monotheism.That's extreme...are you a jesus Myther too?
You what?
Rome.....Now that WAS a vested interest
People don't commit to a dead man, they have to believe he is still around in living spiritual form. I would have thought.
And your literary qualifications stretch further than ''I know what I like.''?
What's wrong with that? (god depicted as a nurturing Earth-mother type with a beard)
Er Human History? everyday experience?
That's extreme...
...are you a jesus Myther too?
It's not funny that we have places where great weight is placed on eye-witness testimony, it's tragic. It's not even vaguely contentious that eye-witness testimony is terribly unreliable.
when you're trying to establish grounds for imprisoning gay people you really need a more solid justification than 'Bob's grandmother's friend's neice reportedly said her ex-boyfriend saw him cast a demon into a herd of pigs'...
If he's only around in spiritual form - assuming that's a valid assumption in the first place - the presumably they very much are committing to a dead man.No they aren't they are committing to Christ who is God.
Human history is a gradual progression from primitive to more advanced, from savage to increasingly restrained, and from prone to the violent predations of life to exerting more control.You do realise that those are euphemisims for causing the extinction of many species in our ecosystem, deforestation and getting to the brink of climate devastation don't you?
History, to date, is the story of the rise of man, not the fall.Sentimental bollocks
Which is not to avoid pointing out that the 'fall of man' referenced was the specifics of the allegation of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit nonsense.Fall of man happening all the time. Some atheists were just one Dawkins away from being rabble roused.
Really? You have any number of 'divine' entities of varying power: father, Jesus, holy spirit, angels of varying degrees, Lucifer, other fallen angels, arguably saints... how does that constitute a 'monotheism'?Only the first three are divine.
That is irrelevent to the issue of a God swayed by hard prayer.
I have done not two or three posts back.
Because Leprechauns are tiny Irishmen dressed in green and found at the end of rainbows there are plenty of properties here to make a scientific observation. Not so with the God of Christianity.
Some may cite Jesus but Christianity claims that Jesus was also fully human. Other humans have reportedly detected the divine about him and the ''Jesus affair''. Indeed I did hear that one of the Greek philosophers conjectured way back that if the platonically perfect human appeared, imperfect people would be made to feel so uncomfortable by the perfection they would end up putting the perfect person to death. Whether that story is a myth or not the idea expressed through it is certainly unfalsifiable.
Vlad,I think it was CS Lewis or perhaps it was Anthony Hopkins who said Prayer doesn't change God.....it changes me. God is sovereign. I know you think you have no goof reason to think God exists you have told us enough. I have no good reason intellectually to think he may not and that the claim that there are no good reasons is hyperbolic.
No it isn’t – ether you think there’s a god who intervenes in response to prayers or you don’t. Makes no difference to me as I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor by the way have you), and I have no good reason to think “he” exists at all (and nor by the way have you – or at least no good reason that you’ve ever felt like sharing).
And that leprechauns like dancing a jig.I'm grinning.
And that your god cured little Timmy of his rickets.I'm on the floor. Fine. Now disprove the existence of any of them.[/quote] I don't have to. All I have to do is to demonstrate that the case against Leprechauns is falsifiable and I have done[/quote] What’s stopping you?[/quote]Laughing hysterically...... No, I restricted my self to observable features
I think it was CS Lewis or perhaps it was Anthony Hopkins who said Prayer doesn't change God.....it changes me.
God is sovereign.
I know you think you have no goof reason to think God exists you have told us enough. I have no good reason intellectually to think he may not and that the claim that there are no good reasons is hyperbolic.
I'm smiling
I'm grinning.
I'm on the floor.
I don't have to. All I have to do is to demonstrate that the case against Leprechauns is falsifiable and I have done
Laughing hysterically...... No, I restricted my self to observable features…
As long as Leprechauns are tiny wee irish folk at the end of rainbows. The case against them is falsifiable.....and you can take that to the bank.
It's funny but eye witness testimony is still used todayAnd it's still unreliable.
and it forms part of empirical observation funnily enough.
Just because predatory behaviour is acceptable in insects doesn't mean it is in humans. A dirty great portion of victim blaming you've served up there Jeremy.
No, I really meant, what the hell is this?
Right... that doesn't actually even begin to address the point that I made.
No they aren't they are committing to Christ who is God.
You do realise that those are euphemisims for causing the extinction of many species in our ecosystem, deforestation and getting to the brink of climate devastation don't you?
Sentimental bollocks
Fall of man happening all the time.
Some atheists were just one Dawkins away from being rabble roused.
Only the first three are divine.
Just in case you were struggling with the analogy. People were executed in ancient Rome for the crime of spreading Christianity. Furthermore, Christianity itself promotes this as being virtuous behaviour on the part of the victim.Jeremy.......when you undertake a tactical victim blaming....you really commit.
Perhaps this is the characteristic that made it so successful: any religion that did not encourage its followers to keep spreading it even at the cost of their own lives would die out as soon as it was actively oppressed. Christianity instills a suicidal disregard for their own lives in its proselytisers and therefore oppression has no effect on its spread. In fact, if it convinces people that martyrdom is good and to be actively sought, oppression will help its spread.
And it's still unreliable.But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.
And, funnily enough, people have invented lots of scientific protocols to eliminate the unreliability of eye witnesses. That's what the whole repeatability thing is about.
Anyway the above is all moot. Can you show me any eye witness testimony from people that met the risen Christ?
No. Thought not.
But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.
Super - in relation to these how did you exclude the risks of mistakes or lies?Historians presumably put the same proviso on all ancient texts. As memos they are open to scrutiny and would be at the time in fact there is in them recommendations to people to check out the facts for themselves.
Again. No explanation of how the Leprechaun with its empirically detectable features is unfalsifiable and in the same category as God and the infinite universe.
You messed up by introducing law's hierarchy of guesses. The explanation of which is completely at odds with an observable being like the Leprechaun.
Now explain why God is down in the heirarchy with Leprechauns
Without owning up to personal opinion and your heirarchy being based on ridiculousness.
But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.
Vlad,When last I looked Ireland was not in orbit.It is still considerably larger than a teapot.AND Leprechauns were still Irish. NOT some kind of space irish.
Not sure how many times this has to be explained you, but whether your truth claim involves a non-material or a material (leprechauns would be both by the way, as presumably would be an interventionist god) makes no difference whatever to the point that undoes you. The orbiting teapot would be material, but the clam is that it’s orbiting beyond the reach of any instruments to detect it. There’s no means to investigate/falsify the claim, just as there’s no means to investigate/falsify the claim “leprechauns” or the claim “god”. Inasmuch as these claims also have (supposedly) non-material characteristics, the problem is compounded because there’s no method to falsify either of them even conceptually.
I know it’s your thing, but resorting to lying doesn’t help you here. The only “messing up” was your mangling of the going nuclear issue. Try to focus now: truths are probabilistic – there’s no way to be categorically certain of anything (the unknown unknowns problem). Does that mean that we should treat all truth claims as of equal epistemic value (ie, go nuclear)? No of course not – we have tools and methods to grade them relative to each other but with no appeal to absolutes, and I gave you the example (which you just ignored) of jumping out of the window vs taking the lift. Presumably even you can grasp that of the two statements “defenestration is the safer way to the ground” and “taking the lift is the safer way to the ground” it’s simple and reasonable to assign a probabilistic truth value to each with no appeal to certainty?
So to your god/leprechauns problem: how would you propose to rank either as more probably true than the other? I’ll help you: you can’t.
Yet again, because neither have any known means of investigation or verification. Write it down 100 times, and if it hasn’t sunk in by then write it down 100 more. Keep going until the 20-watt bulb finally flickers into life.
See above.
Yet again, 0/10 – See me
Historians presumably put the same proviso on all ancient texts.
As memos they are open to scrutiny and would be at the time in fact there is in them recommendations to people to check out the facts for themselves.
It seems that the only arguments around Jesus at this time were theological.
Vlad,Jesus was alleged to have been around for around thirty years not 30 seconds Hillside.
And I can show you memos from people who saw the basketball video that attest to there being no gorilla involved. So?
Jesus was alleged to have been around for around thirty years not 30 seconds Hillside.
No doubt they do.I dont know how you are with uncertainty Gordon. Some atheists wear it as a badge of honour. At the end of the day none of it is cctv. However Jesus myth is obviously fringe stuff. Given historical certainty the only contemporary arguments in Paul's time are theological ones.At the end of the day you have to judge for yourself but the go to man for you is atheist historian Bart Ehrman.
The facts as regards the provenance of these memos are what, and on what basis have these facts been verified?
Even if so, that doesn't get round the risks of mistakes or lies or the uncertainties around provenance no matter what was said about Jesus: whether he was 'God' incarnate, or that he wore cool sandals.
Buddha was reported to be around for around 80 years, do you believe the magical stories about him?To be honest I'm more interested in the theology of these guys the miracles come down the list.
O.
To be honest I'm more interested in the theology of these guys the miracles come down the list.
If you think I'm one of your caricatures who is excited by a miracle the you are mistaken.
I dont know how you are with uncertainty Gordon.
Some atheists wear it as a badge of honour. At the end of the day none of it is cctv. However Jesus myth is obviously fringe stuff. Given historical certainty the only contemporary arguments in Paul's time are theological ones.
At the end of the day you have to judge for yourself but the go to man for you is atheist historian Bart Ehrman.
I subscribe the Bertrand Russell's advice:"Do not feel absolutely certain of anything"Frankly I concluded that final dismissal of the theological aspects of the account was God dodging.
Even so, the risks I mentioned earlier still apply.
But I'm asking you about how you dealt with the risks and provenance issues in relation to the memos you mentioned.
When last I looked Ireland was not in orbit.It is still considerably larger than a teapot.AND Leprechauns were still Irish. NOT some kind of space irish.
Jesus was alleged to have been around for around thirty years not 30 seconds Hillside.
Frankly I concluded that final dismissal of the theological aspects of the account was God dodging.
Vlad,You cannot be fucking serious, man.
And once more you just ignore every rebuttal you've been given. Why are you doing this to yourself?
Yet again: how would you propose to rank either "god" or leprechauns as more probably true or not true than the other?
Frankly I concluded that final dismissal of the theological aspects of the account was God dodging.
You cannot be fucking serious, man.
You cannot be fucking serious, man.
Or Buddha vs the Christian trinity?One thing at a time. Leprechauns have an appearence which is empirically observable. They have a habitat Ireland. Therefore not only should we see them but Chris, Michaela and Bill should be able to do a naturewatch on them.
Or Zoroaster vs Amaterasu Omikami?
Or dao vs angels?
Then you concluded wrongly: for my part the prospect of 'God' doesn't involve even a small twitch, never mind a dodge - since it isn't a serious proposition.It certainly is a serious proposition. So serous in fact that Neil De Grasse Tyson proposed a creator of the universe no less.
One thing at a time. Leprechauns have an appearence which is empirically observable.
They have a habitat Ireland.
Therefore not only should we see them but Chris, Michaela and Bill should be able to do a naturewatch on them.
If however you say there is no distinction between Leprechauns and theism then that must be true also of the following philosophies or world views Humanism, secularism, materialism, naturalism, empiricism, scientism, physicalism.
Consistent exercise of any of these constitutes a world view whether you claim them to be true is neither here nor there. If you think they are probably true that is quite enough.
If you have argued from any or all these viewpoints and offered that as refutation then to single out theism as worthy of the Leprechaun treatment is not only humbug it is special pleading.
So how IS naturalism different from Leprechauns?
One thing at a time. Leprechauns have an appearence which is empirically observable. They have a habitat Ireland. Therefore not only should we see them but Chris, Michaela and Bill should be able to do a naturewatch on them.
If however you say there is no distinction between Leprechauns and theism…
… then that must be true also of the following philosophies or world views Humanism, secularism, materialism, naturalism, empiricism, scientism, physicalism.
Consistent exercise of any of these constitutes a world view whether you claim them to be true is neither here nor there. If you think they are probably true that is quite enough.
If you have argued from any or all these viewpoints and offered that as refutation then to single out theism as worthy of the Leprechaun treatment is not only humbug it is special pleading.
So how IS naturalism different from Leprechauns?
Vlad,Any argument against philosophical supernaturalism proceeds from philosophical naturalism which is in the same league as Leprechauns. Methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate philosophical naturalism.
And various supernatural, non-material characteristics too. Just like your claim “god”. Either way though, let’s say you set up your hide, have your binoculars at hand and enough cheese and pickle sandwiches to last for, ooh, ages and you look and look and look and look. And then you look some more. And not once does a leprechaun appear. Then what?
Your mistake here is to think that somehow positing “god” as non-material (while ignoring the presumably material bits he’d need to cure little Timmy of his rickets or to give brain cancer to babies) and leprechauns as material (while ignoring their ability to flit in and out of the material world at will) is relevant. If neither of the ever showed up no matter how hard you looked then epistemically they’d still be the same category of claim.
What you seem dimly to be edging toward here but can’t quite articulate is that, if you could look with the appropriate instruments in every possible place for an infinite amount of time then conceptually at least you’d know whether god/leprechauns had shown up while in their physical manifestations. The problem with that though is that there is no way to look in every possible place for an infinite amount of time, so who can say that either hadn’t popped up at some place or time you’d missed?
It gets worse. Posit god/leprechauns in their non-material modes (whatever that would mean) and then you’d only have moved from “conceptual but impossible means of verification” to “not even a conceptual mans of verification”. And that doesn’t help you either.
So there we have it: your god and my leprechauns are epistemically identical claims no matter how much you twist in the wind about that. If you still think I’m wrong about though, then why not finally tells us what steps someone presented with the two claims should do to distinguish the truth value of one from the other.
After all, I’ve done it for you re the relative values of truth claims about jumping out of the window vs taking the lift. Why can’t you do it for me re god vs leprechauns?
As claims of fact re their supposed existence, epistemically that’s right.
Why on earth would you think that? These matters all concern ways of thinking about the world, not claims of the objective existence of something. Good grief but you’re out of your depth here
See above.
Not even close.
Er, the former is a methodology or a process and the latter is a factual claim about the existence of something. Obviously.
Perhaps if you went away for a bit, gave your head a wobble and then tried again?
Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Quick, hoist the 'they're picking on me' victimisation of Christianity card - you'll note I didn't single out Christianity, I put it along with all the other claims of magic.
The 'no magic' bit.
Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Any argument against philosophical supernaturalism proceeds from philosophical naturalism which is in the same league as Leprechauns. Methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate philosophical naturalism.
That might satisfy Essex, but then so does Mark Francois.
So naturlism doesn't accept 'sufficiently advanced technology' until it has an explanation (i.e. it's not 'sufficiently advanced' any more). That's still a fairly significant difference.I'm sorry but if and until Leprechauns as proposed have not been observed to the satisfaction of science any claims of an advanced technology for them can be dismissed.
Way to avoid all the significant points, though, and try to run away to your default no-score draw position of 'yeah but you can't philosophically prove methodoligically philosophical naturo-nihilistic faith rock harmonies either'.
I'm sorry but if and until Leprechauns as proposed have not been observed to the satisfaction of science any claims of an advanced technology for them can be dismissed.
If God is the creator then to doubt that he could do anything less seems pretty illogical to me.
The challenge to show why Leprechauns should be considered differently from Philosophical naturalism is still there. After all, for nature to be here one of two unnatural things would have to have happened. It has been here forever or It popped out of nowhere/Arose spontaneously.
The divine has no empirical or physical properties.
Vlad,Strictly speaking it includes the belief that the universe could arise spontaneously from absolutely nothing (not something observed)* or being eternal (Also something not observed).
Ah the sound of Vlad bailing out because he can’t deal with any of the rebuttals he’s been given (and what on earth would “philosophical supernaturalism” be in any case?).
Leprechauns are story book charactersHow do you know?
I'm sorry but if and until Leprechauns as proposed have not been observed to the satisfaction of science any claims of an advanced technology for them can be dismissed.
If God is the creator then to doubt that he could do anything less seems pretty illogical to me.
The challenge to show why Leprechauns should be considered differently from Philosophical naturalism is still there.
After all, for nature to be here one of two unnatural things would have to have happened.
It has been here forever or It popped out of nowhere/Arose spontaneously.
The divine has no empirical or physical properties.
I'm sorry but if and until Leprechauns as proposed have not been observed to the satisfaction of science any claims of an advanced technology for them can be dismissed.
If God is the creator then to doubt that he could do anything less seems pretty illogical to me.
The challenge to show why Leprechauns should be considered differently from Philosophical naturalism is still there.
After all, for nature to be here one of two unnatural things would have to have happened. It has been here forever or It popped out of nowhere/Arose spontaneously.
The divine has no empirical or physical properties.
Strictly speaking it includes the belief that the universe could arise spontaneously from absolutely nothing (not something observed)* or being eternal (Also something not observed).
*borrowing means something is coming from somewhere.
Just as your god can.As can philosophical naturalism.
Why should we accept that a philosophy that is vehemently anti supernatural appeal to one of two supernatural providences. That is more unforgiveable than what is the more natural explanation. i.e. the universe has an external cause.
Why would I think it was a creator - you've not done anything to establish that it actually is at all, yet suddenly we're leaping to specific claims. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Only if anyone's advocating Philosophical Naturalism. Hands up, anyone?You must be sitting on yours because you've been arguing from it over the last few posts.
How can you establish that neither of those is possible in an entirely natural system?There you go again. They are unfalsifiable and so lie with the Leprechauns
Spontaneous activity at that scale is not in keeping with what we've seen in nature so far, admittedly, but we have examples of behaviour in nature which are entirely consistent with the idea of an eternal reality - conservation of energy and momentum, for instance.And presumably consistent with a universe that came into being. And plenty to show that is not the case entropy for instance....Again unfalsifiable and with the Leprechauns. If the universe was eternal it would have died a heat death an infinitely long time ago.
QuoteJust as your god can.As can philosophical naturalism.
Why should we accept that a philosophy that is vehemently anti supernatural appeal to one of two supernatural providences.
QuoteSpontaneous activity at that scale is not in keeping with what we've seen in nature so far, admittedly, but we have examples of behaviour in nature which are entirely consistent with the idea of an eternal reality - conservation of energy and momentum, for instance.And presumably consistent with a universe that came into being.
And plenty to show that is not the case entropy for instance....
Again unfalsifiable and with the Leprechauns.
If the universe was eternal it would have died a heat death an infinitely long time ago.
Vlad,I think you need to outline exactly how you arrive at that. Careful now you don't want to include philosophical naturalism ha ha (This should be good.)
That’s your problem remember? Epistemically “god is” and “leprechauns are” are the same category of claim.
As can philosophical naturalism.
Why should we accept that a philosophy that is vehemently anti supernatural appeal to one of two supernatural providences. That is more unforgiveable than what is the more natural explanation. i.e. the universe has an external cause.
You must be sitting on yours because you've been arguing from it over the last few posts.
There you go again. They are unfalsifiable and so lie with the Leprechauns
And presumably consistent with a universe that came into being. And plenty to show that is not the case entropy for instance....Again unfalsifiable and with the Leprechauns. If the universe was eternal it would have died a heat death an infinitely long time ago.
I think you need to outline exactly how you arrive at that. Careful now you don't want to include philosophical naturalism ha ha (This should be good.)
Vlad,Well then an avenue we haven't explored is you establishing a heirarchy of guesses as per Law's law of going nuclear and how you do it. careful again.
What’s the point as you just ignore it or lie about it every time I do it?
Again:
“God is”: an asserted truth with no known means of investigation or verification.
“Leprechauns are”: an asserted truth with no known means of investigation or verification.
Highly debateable. I suppose Ryan air and Shannon airport are asserted truths with no means of investigation or investigation....
“Leprechauns are”: an asserted truth with no known means of investigation or verification.
Highly debateable. I suppose Ryan air and Shannon airport are asserted truths with no means of investigation or investigation....
What they and Leprechauns ARE though is epistemically Irish with physical attributes
Well then an avenue we haven't explored is you establishing a heirarchy of guesses as per Law's law of going nuclear and how you do it. careful again.
Is Shannon airport reputedly magical,They do a great display at Christmas. Apparently it has been sighted at the end of a rainbow on occasion
God is epistemically Jewish.Had to laugh at that.
As to whether Leprechauns have physical attributes, what are you basing that on?
They do a great display at Christmas. Apparently it has been sighted at the end of a rainbow on occasion.
on account of them being described a Tiny Irish people Dressed in Green and supposedly observable at the end of rainbows
Except that there is no 'end of the rainbow', and whilst they might be described as tiny irish people dressed in green that's up there alongside descriptions of Bigfoot, Nessie and the Virgin Mary all of which have reportedly been seen by people who just don't happen to have a decent camera around...
Ah, so that's a no, then.Your not seeing it are you? The reasons people don't entertain Bigfoot and Nessie is because they are described as having physical features and live in specific areas but science hasn't found them but has found Shannon Airport and the odd chipmunk which are smaller than bigfoot. As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.
Except that there is no 'end of the rainbow', and whilst they might be described as tiny irish people dressed in green that's up there alongside descriptions of Bigfoot, Nessie and the Virgin Mary all of which have reportedly been seen by people who just don't happen to have a decent camera around...
O.
Your not seeing it are you? The reasons people don't entertain Bigfoot and Nessie is because they are described as having physical features and live in specific areas…
…but science hasn't found them…
…but has found Shannon Airport and the odd chipmunk which are smaller than bigfoot.
As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.
Now that we've taken down Leprechauns in the heirarchy of Guesses…
…suggested by Law....stop, woah, yeh, wait a minute mr postman...
…and supplied reasons..and Invisible Pink Unicorns have been dismissed as a logical impossibility…
It is high time we dealt with the flying spaghetti monster (epistemically Italian).
They do a great display at Christmas. Apparently it has been sighted at the end of a rainbow on occasion Had to laugh at that.on account of them being described a Tiny Irish people Dressed in Green and supposedly observable at the end of rainbows[/font][/size]
Honestly, I blame fucking Dawkins for this ignorance regarding the Little fellers.
Nice try. Theoretical physics is an empirical discipline that entails reason and testable predictionsTestable predictions Hillside?.....For the multiverse and Infinite universe. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
I'm concerned at your standard of Leprechaunology: you haven't mention pots of gold - you heretic you!My apologies your Grace.
Testable predictions Hillside?.....For the multiverse and Infinite universe. It's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
Theoretical physics is an empirical discipline that entails reason and testable predictions, at least in principle
Theoretical physics is an empirical discipline that entails reason and testable predictions, at least in principle
Vlad,It was you who switched to broaden the whole thing to theoretical physics Hillside, That is disingenuous in my opinion since it looks as though you wish to exploit some kind of halo effect. I was talking of Multiverse and Infinite universe which are untestable even in principle.
So here’s what I actually wrote:
Now let’s look at that again shall we, only with the important part emphasised:
Can you see what you did there? You cut out the critical qualifier in order dishonestly to be able to criticise only your straw man version of what I said.
A word of advice: if you intend to persist with you relentless lying you might want to try to be a bit less obvious when you do it. I don’t expect you to apologise (why start now?) but you should. You really should.
Jeremy.......when you undertake a tactical victim blaming....you really commit.
Do you accept no wrong in the Roman persecutions? You seem to make them sound more like more law enforcement against criminals.
But I can show you memos from the early church which attest to an historical Jesus which note that several eyewitness to Jesus ministry were still around.I take it that means you agree that you do not have any eye witness testimony. It makes me wonder why you keep banging on about it.
I take it that means you agree that you do not have any eye witness testimony. It makes me wonder why you keep banging on about it.There is an extreeeeeeeeeeemly high probability that Paul interviewed eyewitnesses.
It was you who switched to broaden the whole thing to theoretical physics Hillside,…
As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.
That is disingenuous in my opinion since it looks as though you wish to exploit some kind of halo effect.
As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.
I was talking of Multiverse and Infinite universe…
“…which are untestable even in principle.
There is an extreeeeeeeeeeemly high probability that Paul interviewed eyewitnesses.
I didn't ask if you could name people who claimed to have met eye witnesses, I asked if you have any eye witness accounts.I am sure there are eye witness accounts incorporated and that's as good as it gets for much of any ancient history...in other words, good enough.
I am sure there are eye witness accounts incorporatedIncorporated into what specifically?
and that's as good as it gets for much of any ancient history...in other words, good enough.Good enough for what? Good enough for history books to talk about how Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and overthrew the Roman Republic...
I think your disbelief of the accounts is due though to other factors based around the belief that these things just don't happen. More than if there aren't any signed witness statements I would imagine.Dead people coming alive again just doesn't happen.
What the Epistles are are memos of a fairly sophisticated organisation established for a couple of decades whose members believe in a historical Jesus and that miracles and teaching occurred around him and their increased understanding of his divine connection and nature and that they are at least earnest in their beliefs.Paul's genuine letters do not argue for a sophisticated organisation, if by sophistication you mean with a priestly hierarchy. However, I would agree that, by the time the books of the New Testament were all finished, there was a sophisticated Christian church. This is not evidence for miracles, only people's belief in miracles.
We have no problem with our recollections of the millenium. Why then start to think it was different for people in the first century?
Incorporated into what specifically?Historians also look for what events throw up, their legacy if you will and the epistles are in that category. In fact for someone with a problem with eye witness accounts they are better since what they show has been tested by time. In the case of the epistles twenty odd years.
Good enough for what? Good enough for history books to talk about how Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and overthrew the Roman Republic...
... oh wait, bad example: we do have eye witness accounts for those events.
Historians gather the available evidence, evaluate it and draw conclusions based on its credibility and then write down their conclusions in books. By the way, the evaluation absolutely does include asking if it is contemporary and written by somebody who was there.
You don't have any accounts of Jesus' ministry from anybody who was there. You don't have eye witness accounts of his resurrection. You do have the fact that dead people don't come alive again. No neutral historian presented with that fact and the accounts of Paul and the Evangelists would conclude that Jesus did rise from the dead.
Dead people coming alive again just doesn't happen.
Paul's genuine letters do not argue for a sophisticated organisation, if by sophistication you mean with a priestly hierarchy. However, I would agree that, by the time the books of the New Testament were all finished, there was a sophisticated Christian church. This is not evidence for miracles, only people's belief in miracles.
I can remember exactly what I was doing on the night of 31st December 1999/Jan 1st 2000.
As it happens, I saw a man walk in his bare feet down the middle of the River Thames between London Bridge and Tower Bridge.
Also, on the same night, I watched the London fireworks from a twelfth floor flat in the Crystal Palace area.
There you are: you have an eye witness account to somebody walking on water. It must be true. Do you believe it? Do you believe my other account? Is there any reason to reject one and tentatively believe the other?
The thing is, before you even get to questions like that, you have to have an eye witness account and you don't have one for the resurrection of Jesus.
Historians also look for what events throw up, their legacy if you will and the epistles are in that category. In fact for someone with a problem with eye witness accounts they are better since what they show has been tested by time. In the case of the epistles twenty odd years.The epistles attest to an active Christian community. What they can't do is tell us if the beliefs of the people in those communities were true or mistaken. Descriptions of Jesus' life are remarkably hard to come by in the epistles and, in fact, Paul's epistles tell us that there was a lt of dissent in Christian communities about what to believe. Why did Paul need to write 1 Corinthians, for example, if all the Christians were toeing the official Pauline line?
As for the man walking on the Thames, I did hear about that and took no action when I heard it was a professional illusionist out to top his previous effort. Miracles alone don’t grab me.If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it. So much for your fictitious eye witness testimony.
The epistles attest to an active Christian community. What they can't do is tell us if the beliefs of the people in those communities were true or mistaken. Descriptions of Jesus' life are remarkably hard to come by in the epistles and, in fact, Paul's epistles tell us that there was a lt of dissent in Christian communities about what to believe. Why did Paul need to write 1 Corinthians, for example, if all the Christians were toeing the official Pauline line?The expectation that all Christians should be toeing the Pauline line comes from a caricature view I would say or a conflation of early Christianity and medieval Catholicism.
If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it. So much for your fictitious eye witness testimony.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEc_jeGBVxs
Dynamo walking on the Thames.
In which the house liar shoots himself in both feet:You really believe strongly in your own turdpolishing abilities don't you.
1. A witness without a working knowledge of conjuring techniques would have reported seeing Dynamo walking on water
2. Dynamo wasn’t walking on water (there was a platform just under the surface)
3. The witness account was therefore wrong, whether or not he reported accurately what he thought he saw
4. In ancient times authors who wrote down the accounts generations later and who weren’t there had no means of verifying the original claims
5. If nonetheless someone wants to give credence to narratives that are outside of all knowledge about how the universe works, then he has no grounds to deny any such narratives about any supposed miracle taken from any religious faith
Coming next: Vlad doctoring what I just wrote to claim I said something else entirely, and then refusing to apologise for it when he’s found out.
He thought he made the story up which would have made me going on about an illusionist doing it look stupid had it not been for him being wrong.
If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it.
You really believe strongly in your own turdpolishing abilities don't you.
Here is what Jeremy claimed:
Quote from: jeremyp on Today at 10:45:43 AM
If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up. Look at that: in the space of forty minutes somebody made a story up out of whole cloth and somebody else independently confirmed it.
He thought he made the story up which would have made me going on about an illusionist doing it look stupid had it not been for him being wrong.
That you are defending it just adds to my suspicion that you are trying to build up a portfolio showcasing your turdpolishing abilities.
I'm afraid it would take handwaving and illusionism of a Dynamo to magic Jeremy's error away.
For anyone wondering what a liar spitting his dummy sounds like, wonder no more.In the quote you included some of what Jeremy wrote. Was this to pass his error of as mine?
And for anyone wondering what a liar missing the point entirely looks like, wonder no more either.
The expectation that all Christians should be toeing the Pauline line comes from a caricature view I would say or a conflation of early Christianity and medieval Catholicism.You're the one who claims that there was some sort of community that validates what happened to Jesus. It's not my fault that Paul's letters give the lie to that idea. Early Christians couldn't even agree as to whether there was resurrection according to Paul. You'd have thought that all the strong eye witness evidence that you claim existed at the time (but somehow doesn't now) would have settled the debate.
It seems possible that you saw this somewhere and your mind just didn’t accept that you had seen it.Have you got any evidence other than my post above that I later claimed was made up? Nope.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qEc_jeGBVxsNot down the middle.
Dynamo walking on the Thames.
Not down the middle.Quote from: jeremyp on Today at 10:45:43 AM
Not in 1999 or 2000.
Not between Tower Bridge and London Bridge.
Not actually walking on water.
If you did hear about a man walking down the centre of the Thames, it's quite remarkable, because I made the story up.
In the quote you included some of what Jeremy wrote. Was this to pass his error of as mine?
I think you are going to extraordinary lengths here. It looks odd.
You're the one who claims that there was some sort of community that validates what happened to Jesus. It's not my fault that Paul's letters give the lie to that idea.They don't, there was an orthodox community that agreed with Paul. Many other sects interpreted the resurrection as a different event. Gnostics among others viewed Jesus as some kind of Holy Hologram......not of this earth at all and reinterpret the miracles to follow suit. What we find amongst all christian believers is that Jesus was special. Of course some doubted it and maybe some even abandoned the faith but not, I would imagine , enough for your liking.
Presumably your thinking here is that, having been caught out in a big lie, your best strategy to worm your way out of it is to try an even bigger one.Saying that you made up a story about a man walking on the Thames and being reminded that an illusionist did it only to defend it by saying it wasn't real(we know that he was an illusionist) and it wasn't actually in the middle is regrettable. That you rush in to defend his faux pas is rather pitiful.
Doesn’t work.
Saying that you made up a story about a man walking on the Thames and being reminded that an illusionist did it only to defend it by saying it wasn't real(we know that he was an illusionist) and it wasn't actually in the middle is regrettable. That you rush in to defend his faux pas is rather pitiful.
The Whopping Liar,Since part of your MO is IMO, projection, You are by now, I should imagine, questioning your own exploitation of this board ''could I not put my brilliance forward in a harsher arena?'' i would be asking if I were you .let me therefore give some words of encouragement Go.....be gone.....out......away with you....get some kind of oversight.
Here's a thought: why don't you pick one day a year - say tomorrow - when you commit not to pollute this mb with your unremitting lying? You could of course return to it as your standard MO for the remaining 364 days but it'd be a breath of fresh air for the rest of us if you were to try it at least.
Deal?
Since part of your MO is IMO, projection, You are by now, I should imagine, questioning your own exploitation of this board ''could I not put my brilliance forward in a harsher arena?'' i would be asking if I were you .let me therefore give some words of encouragement Go.....be gone.....out......away with you....get some kind of oversight.
The Whopping Liar,Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnnnnnnnnnn.
So that'd be a "no" then - you intend continuing with your lying unabated. You remind me of someone who always cheats at the line calls in tennis, and then feels all smug about his "win". What you get from lying about what's said to you is beyond me, especially as you're so easily and regularly found out when you do it. Oh well - each to his own I guess.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnnnnnnnnnn.
Quote from: jeremyp on Today at 10:45:43 AM
You didn't and there is a video to prove it....and yes it was an illusionist.
Were you honestly completely ignorant of this stunt?
I can remember exactly what I was doing on the night of 31st December 1999/Jan 1st 2000.
As it happens, I saw a man walk in his bare feet down the middle of the River Thames between London Bridge and Tower Bridge.
You are being totally dishonest. This was what I first said about the incident:The video is clearly a man walking on the Thames.Man Thames Thames Man.......as that other great illusionist Tommy Cooper would have put it.
Your video is clearly not that event. The man:
- did not walk down the centre of the Thames
- did not walk between London Bridge and Tower Bridge
- Did not do it on the night of 31st December 1999.
- used trickery rather than actually walking on water
If it is your intent to show that instead of making up the event, I was actually unconsciously elaborating another superficially similar but wholly mundane piece of human conjuring, I find that an interesting hypothesis. What other miraculous story might be a misremembering of a superficially similar but wholly mundane event?
You'd better go to hospital. That bullet wound in your foot looks bad.
They don't, there was an orthodox community that agreed with Paul. Many other sects interpreted the resurrection as a different event.
The video is clearly a man walking on the Thames.Man Thames Thames Man.......as that other great illusionist Tommy Cooper would have put it.
Are you now claiming the video is of an actual miracle?Of course I'm not. I have been mentioning that it was performed by an illusionist from the off. The clue being the use of the word"Illusionist"
Of course I'm not.
Your not seeing it are you? The reasons people don't entertain Bigfoot and Nessie is because they are described as having physical features and live in specific areas but science hasn't found them but has found Shannon Airport and the odd chipmunk which are smaller than bigfoot.
As opposed to Theology, multiverse, infinite universes being studied in universities across the world.
Now that we've taken down Leprechauns in the heirarchy of Guesses suggested by Law....
and Invisible Pink Unicorns have been dismissed as a logical impossibility
It is high time we dealt with the flying spaghetti monster (epistemically Italian).
So you are claiming that the video is of a conjuring trick and you are claiming that I saw it but don't remember seeing it and then unconsciously used it as a model for my example.I asked you if you really were unaware of this stunt since it seems you were given your confidence in having made it up.
Do you not see how you have just torpedoed your own arguments?
Quite apart from the fact that people DO entertain the idea of Bigfoot and Nessie and gods, because they don't operate from a requirement of needing evidence, or because they MISATTRIBUTE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.I have been over why I am not a leprechaunist nor an invisible pink unicorn and as far as I know nobody else has explained why they reject either. I don't believe I have pulled the words Burden of proof into my aleprechaun and aunicornism. So let's try again, why are you skeptical of Bigfoot or Nessie and not of undemonstrable greater unconscious 'realities' that go on forever and ever?
People being conned is hardly a new development - let's charge people to study something... and if we pick something that's not there they can never point out that we taught them wrong. It's a license to print money...A lot of positive assertions there. Since you are so keen on people acting on a Burden of proof, fill your boots.
Except that you haven't. In the absence of any physical evidence you've attributed physicality to leprechauns based on old stories which depict them physically manifesting.Again, why are you aleprechaunist?
At the same time, in the absence of any physical evidence, you've attribute an entirely non-physical existence to a god, despite old stories which depict it physically manifesting... God could still be God without a burning bush. Add consciousness to your greater reality and you have the physical manifestation par excellence i.e. the whole universe. My own theology is although God can act through the physical He isn't physical...in other words God can be in the universe but not be the universe
Since physical nature carries no notion of alienation from God and it's consequences it is hard to see how physical determinism comes into it. what physically determines a decision for or against God?
Like an omnipotent, omniscient god which punishes and rewards people for their alleged deployment of the logically impossible notion of 'free will'?
Whether pasta is epistemically Italian or not is a matter of some debate; pasta, and indeed spaghetti, are just the Italian words for a timeless foodstuff.I can just about tolerate the idea of a timeless greater reality but timeless Pasta?....
I have been over why I am not a leprechaunist nor an invisible pink unicorn and as far as I know nobody else has explained why they reject either.
A lot of positive assertions there.
Since you are so keen on people acting on a Burden of proof, fill your boots. Again, why are you aleprechaunist?...
God could still be God without a burning bush.
Add consciousness to your greater reality and you have the physical manifestation par excellence i.e. the whole universe.
My own theology is although God can act through the physical He isn't physical...in other words God can be in the universe but not be the universe.
Since physical nature carries no notion of alienation from God and it's consequences it is hard to see how physical determinism comes into it.
what physically determines a decision for or against God?I can just about tolerate the idea of a timeless greater reality but timeless Pasta?....
I am equally sceptical of both; I don't posit an infinite reality and an accepted explanation for what is, I posit it as a viable alternative to a self-creating consciousness to point out the flaw in attempted 'god of the gaps' arguments like 'why something not nothing'.Why something and not nothing is not a God of the Gaps argument when the something is well, er, virtually everything.
For all the same reasons that I don't believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns or self-creating Zombie Jews.And those reasons are?
Arguably, no. God could still be a god, but it wouldn't be 'God' as depicted in the Judao-Christian tradition.untrue.
Timeless pasta is perfectly al dente no matter how long it's boiled for; divine pasta is a pasta greater than any other pasta that can be conceived, and what pasta is greater than perfectly al dente pasta?And your posts are Spaghetti Bollocksnase.
Why something and not nothing is not a God of the Gaps argument when the something is well, er, virtually everything.
An unconscious infinite entity is almost inconcievable I would have thought since the probabilty that consciousness could arise even spontaneously was quite high in an infinity.
You still haven't realised that something could exist infinitely and yet be maintained and owe it's infinite existence to something else by something external to it.
After all if we are postulating a perpetual motion machine, something has to keep it going.
And those reasons are?
And your posts are Spaghetti Bollocksnase.
The 'gap' in 'god of the gaps' is the gap in our knowledge, not any perceived gap in the phenomena.Well then we could quite as easily be talking about 'a greater unconscious reality of the Gaps'. I don't suppose you mind that......proving at the end of the day it's just this ''God'' bit that bothers you, not that there is a gap to be filled.
Disproof is too strong, since I have pointed out how something can be maintained and exist infinitely because of something else. And you have just handwaved the question why something and not nothing away.
No, I know that. An infinite reality is not intended as a disproof of the concept of a god, but it is a disproof of the cosmological argument for a god.
I asked you if you really were unaware of this stunt since it seems you were given your confidence in having made it up.I was not conscious of having seen the stunt before, but that is irrelevant. The event I described is a fictitious miraculous event. If it was unconsciously based on your Youtube video, which is possible - I see a lot of Youtube videos - it torpedoes your argument about the eye witnesses because it is clearly possible that they could have seen some other non miraculous event and embellished it consciously or unconsciously until it became a miraculous event.
I have yet to receive a reply.
I have torpedoed nothing.Only in the sense that your arguments are totally insubstantial.
Well then we could quite as easily be talking about 'a greater unconscious reality of the Gaps'. I don't suppose you mind that......proving at the end of the day it's just this ''God'' bit that bothers you, not that there is a gap to be filled.
Disproof is too strong, since I have pointed out how something can be maintained and exist infinitely because of something else. And you have just handwaved the question why something and not nothing away.
I was not conscious of having seen the stunt before, but that is irrelevant. The event I described is a fictitious miraculous event. If it was unconsciously based on your Youtube video, which is possible - I see a lot of Youtube videos - it torpedoes your argument about the eye witnesses because it is clearly possible that they could have seen some other non miraculous event and embellished it consciously or unconsciously until it became a miraculous event.When we see a chap walking on the Thames, No embellishment needed Jeremy. It is what it is. How it is what it is is another matter. In this case the fact that it was done by an illusionist and a technical team doesn't reduce the likelihood that he was on the Thames walking around. Also can one truly call a fucking excellent recreation of an alleged miracle something that needs embellishing. I don't know.
Only in the sense that your arguments are totally insubstantial.
I've not 'hand-waved' away the argument 'why something and not nothing', I've a) pointed out one possible reason that doesn't rely on gods and b) implicitly already included it in the 'I don't think we have enough evidence to confidently answer that question yet' category.Well, I think we are still at the ''whatever it was, what could it be like and what couldn't it be like.'' stage and I've already offered a ''whatever it is it isn't bound by anything to do anything''(sovereignty) and it shows remarkable self control''. We can both I think happily speculate at this level without falling out.
O.
Well, I think we are still at the ''whatever it was, what could it be like and what couldn't it be like.'' stage and I've already offered a ''whatever it is it isn't bound by anything to do anything''(sovereignty) and it shows remarkable self control''.
We can both I think happily speculate at this level without falling out.
I'm not sure how, in the absence of any sort of demonstration of consciousness, you could conclude that 'self-control' is meaningful at all. It's possible that it's show self-control, if it's there (and if it turns out that the whole 'Noah's flood' episode was an exaggeration!), but the idea that it might be free of constraints implies an independence that isn't warranted.Of course it's warranted. It is only in philosophical naturalism that there is no warrant and once past the universe it's doubtful we can apply that.
Of course it's warranted. It is only in philosophical naturalism that there is no warrant and once past the universe it's doubtful we can apply that.
An infinite reality responsible for everything would be independent except perhaps from logic. Therefore aside from that it would have complete autonomy or self control. If it is not independent then it is being controlled and therefore is not the thing we are trying to track down.
You see we cannot have it as the ultimate thing but under the control of something else.
The presumption, in the absence of anything, is that there's nothing- But only in philosophical naturalism. Which is not supported by methodological naturalism. Whether that makes philosophical materialism more disreputable for it. I don't know.
It would however be more likely to be lawless and chaotic. The very opposite I would have thought to purely mechanistic.
A purely mechanistic universe need not be being 'controlled' by something else, but it would render the concept of 'self control' to be meaningless.
Autonomy would perhaps fit, although it has implications of 'self' control in common usage.unavoidably.
Equally you can't necessarily attribute to it traits which imply consciousness - it's plausibly a natural occurence with natural laws that determine it's actvities.I think you are missing the point that something without constraint and without control which is definitionally self control would tend to chaos. With a purely mechanistic and governed universe...by governor I am thinking of a mechanism analogous to the governor of a steam engine.i.e. it either runs away through positive feedback or shuts itself down through negative feedback. We have to ask why an intricate mechanism and not chaos...There's your homework.
- But only in philosophical naturalism. Which is not supported by methodological naturalism. Whether that makes philosophical materialism more disreputable for it. I don't know.
It would however be more likely to be lawless and chaotic. The very opposite I would have thought to purely mechanistic.
I think you are missing the point that something without constraint and without control which is definitionally self control would tend to chaos.
With a purely mechanistic and governed universe...by governor I am thinking of a mechanism analogous to the governor of a steam engine.i.e. it either runs away through positive feedback or shuts itself down through negative feedback. We have to ask why an intricate mechanism and not chaos...There's your homework.
No, in any field of investigation you start with no preconceptions, then look to see what you can justify. Whether that justification comes from observable phenomena or logical deduction or whatever.But you have started out with a preconception. The assumption of nothing outside what you can see. Classic philosophical empiricism.
Why would it? Everything we see in nature is mechanisticClassic philosophical empiricism and philosophical naturalism - and not may I add universally supported.
I think perhaps you're using 'self control' there in a way that doesn't conform to the common usage.Since there is nothing stopping our self governing eternal machine being conscious I cannot really be faulted for it, can I?
I'm not sure 'why' makes sense. Let's presume that either was possible - a reality in which that 'chaotic' nature held sway would collapse and disappear, whereas a moderating feedback would result in something stable. Given that we have something stable we have to presume at least some element of 'governance', but we can't presume that there's a 'why' to that, although we're perfectly at liberty to go looking for a 'how'.The why lies in your eternal mechanism itself the how might be equally inscrutable but hey, that shouldn't stop our speculations should it?
But you have started out with a preconception. The assumption of nothing outside what you can see.
I offered observable phenomena as one possibility, I also suggested concepts derived from pure logic. I'm not ideologically beholden to materiality, but it's difficult to look past it to derive an initial basis from anything else.QuoteClassic philosophical empiricism.Classic philosophical empiricism and philosophical naturalism - and not may I add universally supported.
If you have a reliable argument to show something that's demonstrably both natural and non-mechanistic then I'll take a look - again, I don't preclude the possibility, but I work from the balance of probabilities based upon what we already have.QuoteHowever, I'm going to travel along with you and your eternal mechanism. If ''whatever it is'' is an eternal machine then it's intricacies are eternal.
Possibly - arguably even probably.QuoteBut the question is, if we can accept something as intricate as this existing forever then why not an intelligence forever?
It's possible.QuoteSince intelligence is just intricate mechanism....and if consciousness is intricate intelligence then why not an eternal consciousness? If we are starting the heirarchy with a machine we have no warrant not to go the whole hog.
You need an explanation for the universe we are in - the observable phenomena that we can measure. An infinite reality is one possibility - amongst others. Is it, as a mechanistic construct, sufficient an argument to explain the universe - potentially, yes, so why complicate it by adding further complexity or constraint? I don't discount them, but they aren't necessary for the idea to make sense.QuoteSince there is nothing stopping our self governing eternal machine being conscious I cannot really be faulted for it, can I?
It does add a layer of complexity for which we have no evidence, though; why presume an intelligence, a direction, an intent?QuoteThe why lies in your eternal mechanism itself the how might be equally inscrutable but hey, that shouldn't stop our speculations should it?
How always makes sense; if there is an observable phenomenon, to ask 'how does that happen' so far always has a potentially viable answer. Why, doesn't. Why implies a choice, a selection, a reason, something deciding 'A' vs 'B'.
O.
If you have a reliable argument to show something that's demonstrably both natural and non-mechanistic then I'll take a look - again, I don't preclude the possibility, but I work from the balance of probabilities based upon what we already have.If we start thinking of it as a sophisticated machine there is nothing logically to stop it being an intelligent sophisticated machine.
Possibly - arguably even probably.
It's possible.
You need an explanation for the universe we are in - the observable phenomena that we can measure. An infinite reality is one possibility - amongst others. Is it, as a mechanistic construct, sufficient an argument to explain the universe - potentially, yes, so why complicate it by adding further complexity or constraint? I don't discount them, but they aren't necessary for the idea to make sense.
It does add a layer of complexity for which we have no evidence, though; why presume an intelligence, a direction, an intent?
If we start thinking of it as a sophisticated machine there is nothing logically to stop it being an intelligent sophisticated machine.
We are talking of the infinite machine here. It seems therefore almost perverse for us to conceive of it as something like an appliance all of which we have constructed are subservient to us and all that we have found in nature. You aren't making it into your own image but that of your machine as it were.
I have restricted my layers of complexity to sophisticated machinery the same as you have I have not effectively added more layers of complexity than you, my conception of consciousness here being just sophisticated mechanism. Consciousness being a recognised phenomenon in any case.
I do not add constraint to the eternal machine. Our fate and direction are down to it. It's fate and direction are down to it.
But no intrinsic reason to think that it is intelligent.It is not just a machine it is the infinite machine responsible for the universe but for at least two reasons not dependent on it. Given the nature of the universe we can argue that a high level of sophistication and intricacy could be expected from it. Firstly in terms of computation. On the other hand although there are no logical barriers to how intricate this machine could be and that the choice of a non intelligent machine by you is an arbitrary one. It has other properties as the ultimate thing which I believe render it unlike any unconscious thing in our experience.
I'm deducing from the available until I've established the (potentially) necessary, and then stopping at that point. A mechanistic reality could explain the universe; it doesn't need any additional layers or complexity in order to satisfy the requirements, so until we see something that it can't explain there's no need to go adding elements.But we don't know what is necessary to produce and sustain a universe. In fact, it is likely that it needs to be highly sophisticated. A mechanistic intelligence fulfils so much here if only in terms of computation. It goes no further than being a mechanistic reality. It has the beauty of fulfilling what people have been trying to explain to Alan over countless posts....intelligence and consciousness are mechanistic realities.
It's a degree of complexity that isn't warranted to fulfil the requirement of being able to explain the universe.We don't actually know that, the limits you are placing are not warranted by logic and are arbitrary. Mechanistic reality is not being exceeded.
It is not just a machine it is the infinite machine responsible for the universe but for at least two reasons not dependent on it. Given the nature of the universe we can argue that a high level of sophistication and intricacy could be expected from it. Firstly in terms of computation.
On the other hand although there are no logical barriers to how intricate this machine could be and that the choice of a non intelligent machine by you is an arbitrary one.
It has other properties as the ultimate thing which I believe render it unlike any unconscious thing in our experience.
But we don't know what is necessary to produce and sustain a universe.
In fact, it is likely that it needs to be highly sophisticated.
A mechanistic intelligence fulfils so much here if only in terms of computation.
It goes no further than being a mechanistic reality.
It has the beauty of fulfilling what people have been trying to explain to Alan over countless posts....intelligence and consciousness are mechanistic realities.
We don't actually know that, the limits you are placing are not warranted by logic and are arbitrary. Mechanistic reality is not being exceeded.
That is just one line of speculation though based around the ultimate, infinite machine though. It is debateable whether it acts by chance since a) that would make it not ultimate and b) we would be introducing an entity(chance) beyond necessity against Occam's razor.
It's actions derive solely from itself. We can argue from that that how the universe is is derived entirely from how the infinite machine is and how the infinite machine is derives from itself.
Since unconscious behaviour is chancey and potentially chaotic then without invoking intelligence and consciousness we can impute order, autonomy, self direction and control to our infinite machine.
You could argue, and it has been done, this is just a rehash of the Intelligent Design argument. We have no idea how many universes might or might not have emerged from an infinite reality, we have no reason to presume that ours is in any way special in a broader sense, or to presume that it's anything more than the unguided, incidental ongoing reaction to entirely undirected forces.The multiverse question just pushes the boundaries of the universe question. You still have these universes deriving from an infinite machine. In other words it does not matter if we are talking one or a million. In terms of intelligent design. There is no merit or virtue in choosing and imposing a limit to the level of sophistication of an intricate machine and one should honestly now be looking at the reasons one is imposing one to suit. Particularly as we can acknowledge intricate mechanism, computing power and self direction and control...Probably therefore most of the goals of developing AI.
I'm not saying that it's not possible, I'm just arguing that it's not necessary.We need then to see this argument
The choice is not an arbitrary oneOf course it is since we are mutuality suggesting it is an intricate mechanistic reality there is no logical recourse to limiting it's intricacy
it's an application of Ockham's Razor in the absence of any concrete information;I hate to say it but this looks like the beginnings of downfall. First of all we agreed our speculation would start with mechanistic reality and therefore because we acknowledged what we are saying was unfalsifiable but not illogical, that we could proceed speculatively using logic. You seem to be doubling back on that suspending logic to go into science as it suits. That methodology is not valid IMHO. We can acknowledge therefore that intricate mechanism might be needed and there are no logical limits to that and that we do not actually know what level of intricacy is necessary. The question then becomes ''Is it possible or valid to use Ockhams razor here at all?'' I would argue it is not but I await your argument for the simplest of intricate mechanisms being sufficient.
complexity sufficient to manifest consciousness is, in all the examples we're aware of, in excess of the complexity required for undirected natural reactions.But that is, with all due respect, an incomplete description of the universe since within it there is consciousness and there are directed reactions and there are also artificial intelligence. In fact, in our experience the conditions of the early universe are only reproducible with intricate and intelligent mechanism.
It goes significantly beyond it, because it introduce intent, it presumes significance to certain things for which we do not have any reason.If you can find intent from self direction etc. then that is because it has inevitably come out of what we have mutually proposed. Your objections on it are rather based on your preference rather than logic.
I'm not limiting possibilities, I'm simply limiting my presumptions to what might be considered necessary.Anything not going in a particular direction or even a direction IS operating by chance. I am not advocating a particular direction because I have no idea what that is. You seem to be contradicting yourself over this
It doesn't operate by chance, it operates by strict mechanical physical laws, but there is no reason to presume it does so with any particular direction.
We could look at how the universe emerged, certainly. However, you cannot examine how an infinite reality 'derives' from anything; it's infinite, it doesn't derive at all.I'm not arguing that it derives but clearly in the universe there is derivation occurring. The mechanistic infinite reality doesn't derive therefore and because of that nothing about it can derive from chance nor it's direction derive from anything else.
The multiverse question just pushes the boundaries of the universe question. You still have these universes deriving from an infinite machine. In other words it does not matter if we are talking one or a million.
In terms of intelligent design. There is no merit or virtue in choosing and imposing a limit to the level of sophistication of an intricate machine and one should honestly now be looking at the reasons one is imposing one to suit.
Particularly as we can acknowledge intricate mechanism, computing power and self direction and control...Probably therefore most of the goals of developing AI.
Of course it is since we are mutuality suggesting it is an intricate mechanistic reality there is no logical recourse to it's limits of intricacy.
I hate to say it but this looks like the beginnings of downfall.
First of all we agreed our speculation would start with mechanistic reality and therefore because we acknowledged what we are saying was unfalsifiable but not illogical, that we could proceed speculatively using logic.
You seem to be doubling back on that suspending logic to go into science as it suits. That methodology is not valid IMHO.
We can acknowledge therefore that intricate mechanism might be needed and there are no logical limits to that and that we do not actually know what level of intricacy is necessary.
The question then becomes ''Is it possible or valid to use Ockhams razor here at all?'' I would argue it is not but I await your argument for the simplest of intricate mechanisms being sufficient.
But that is, with all due respect, an incomplete description of the universe since within it there is consciousness and there are directed reactions and there are also artificial intelligence.
In fact, in our experience the conditions of the early universe are only reproducible with intricate and intelligent mechanism.
If you can find intent from self direction etc. then that is because it has inevitably come out of what we have mutually proposed.
Anything not going in a particular direction or even a direction IS operating by chance.
I am not advocating a particular direction because I have no idea what that is. You seem to be contradicting yourself over this I'm not arguing that it derives but clearly in the universe there is derivation occurring.
The mechanistic infinite reality doesn't derive therefore and because of that nothing about it can derive from chance nor it's direction derive from anything else. It remains therefore by your own admission underived and self directed and, obviously ordered and controlled and if that comes out as ''intent'' then so be it.
It does if you're trying to demonstrate that particular behaviour in this universe can be used to deduce something about the extra-universal state that brought it about.You need to demonstrate that that is the case for goodness sake
There is merit - it's a degree of complexity beyond what's required.
We can acknowledge the possibility, but not the necessity.
Ockham's Razor once again - why presume a sufficiently complex reality as to warrant an overarching consciousness when a less complex (and, therefore, more likely) one without a consciousness is sufficient to explain the observable phenomena.
To you, perhaps.we know nothing of the sort.
Yep.
Is it not logical to look for the nearest analogy?
Agreed.
Ockham's Razor fairly clearly defines when it is appropriate for use; in the absence of firm information, the explanation with the fewest or least unwarranted assumptions or additional elements is likely the best fit. In this instance there is nothing that REQUIRES a consciousness in the extra-universal region that decides our universe will be,
There is also time, yet it seems at least plausible, if not likely, that time (as we understand it) is a facet of the universe, not the broader reality outside it. If something as apparently fundamental to our understanding as time isn't present, how can we presume that consciousness is? What would consciousness even mean in a timeless state?Of course it's self directed for there is nothing else to do so. There is no room for an accidental pathway or any crack under the door for it to inadvertently flow under. There are no degrees of freedom provided externally or laws external to it. There is nothing aside from itself. Of course there is a direction. It's own. Here then is my advice for you: Don't be so stupid in future. Don't conflate what you have declared underived with the obviously derived and don't confuse or categorise the underived or the universe for that matter with iron filings.
I'm not sure what this is intended to imply.
No, it comes from the implication of 'direction' when there's nothing to suggest that anything is directed in the first instance.
Yes, but you can't derive anything about intent purely because something is heading in a particular direction. Iron filings align along magnetic field lines, but there is no intent to that, it's a purely physical reaction to prior causes.
No, there are results of physical activity, but there is no evidence of an intent in the broader sweep of it.
No, it's not 'self-directed' - there is no 'direction', there is no 'target' there are just inevitable results of the current situation.
O.
You need to demonstrate that that is the case for goodness sake.
we know nothing of the sort.
Of course it's self directed for there is nothing else to do so.
There is no room for an accidental pathway or any crack under the door for it to inadvertently flow under. There are no degrees of freedom provided externally or laws external to it. There is nothing aside from itself. Of course there is a direction. It's own.
Here then is my advice for you: Don't be so stupid in future.
Don't conflate what you have declared underived with the obviously derived and don't confuse or categorise the underived or the universe for that matter with iron filings.
Consciousness is proposed as mechanistic.
Having proposed one infinite mechanistic reality it is a bit late and illogical asking how we can have a mechanistic reality.
What about intelligence?
or the fact that we don't even need to invoke consciousness or intelligence but the obviousness of being underived and autonomous and self directing, self determining as to what is derived from it........You've arrived at that yourself.
Demonstrate what? That a universe could be the result of blind natural forces in an extra-universal reality?If that extra-universal is as you have said underived there is nothing external to it to be blind to. You can be blind in the world but not blind if you are all the world is. In other words what is it you can be blind to and blunder through?
If that extra-universal is as you have said underived there is nothing external to it to be blind to.
You can be blind in the world but not blind if you are all the world is.
In other words what is it you can be blind to and blunder through?
The direction of the universe is dependent on the nature of our proposed ultimate extra universal reality. Everything we know as unguided is undetermined or determined by a range of determiners. We have but one determiner here, our ultimate extra universal reality. we cannot say then that it is unguided or undirected.
Again with the 'direction' and the 'self' and the 'determining'... it's not aimed, there is nothing in the background targetting a particular point. There is matter, there are natural laws, and there is an ongoing process - unguided, undirected, unconscious, simply being.
O.
Again, there is the universe, which is all the observable aftermath of the Big Bang that we reside within. Then, as a possible explanation for that universe, we are considering an infinite broader mechanistic reality which, as it's infinite, is not derived.Well actually we've ceased to consider the latter since you keep bottling it back into the former.
Well actually we've ceased to consider the latter since you keep bottling it back into the former.
Although to give you some due, you seem to be speculating an underived from which everything is derived.
An infinite, eternal reality which, as it has no initiation, is not 'derived' from anything, is not dependent upon anything, merely is..Since I agree with this, have argued this and been shouted down by others about it and you don't seem to have picked up on it our discussions are somewhat handicapped I feel.
Since I agree with this, have argued this and been shouted down by others about it and you don't seem to have picked up on it our discussions are somewhat handicapped I feel.
Since I agree with this, have argued this and been shouted down by others about it and you don't seem to have picked up on it our discussions are somewhat handicapped I feel.
This has been my position from the start.First of all it questionable that something that is extra universal can be said to be ''natural''.....are you confusing ''natural'' with ''conscious'' here?
Hence we can both agree that an entirely natural, undirected, unguided reality in which our universe manifests without any deliberate intent is entirely plausible?
Your new name speaks volumes, you have stuck your wisdom where the sun don't shine. ;D ;D ;DYou mean well and truly up my ''Littlerose''?
First of all it questionable that something that is extra universal can be said to be ''natural''.....are you confusing ''natural'' with ''conscious'' here?
But yes, this something extra to our universe is not directed or guided, for what else is there to guide it or direct it? That our universe manifests because of it and it alone...I think we can agree on.
You mean well and truly up my ''Littlerose''?
You've shown it? Where?
That was all I was trying to show, that there is a viable model that doesn't require a consciousness directing something.
Your rose bushes wouldn't appreciate suppositories pushing up their roots. ;DWhat about me antirynhums....ooh err Missus.
What about me antirynhums....ooh err Missus.
You've shown it? Where?
Scroll back a bit... just there, between when the thread started and here.We don't know what level of sophistication of process is needed to effectively turn a computation into a physical reality nor how many steps are needed.
O.
We don't know what level of sophistication of process is needed to effectively turn a computation into a physical reality nor how many steps are needed.
My insistence on talking about consciousness rather than sovereignty was to underline to you that having suggested an intricate mechanism as starting point logically there was no warrant to call suggesting a mechanistic consciousness unreasonable whereas arbitrarily limiting it's sophistication to the level of a bicycle was probably unreasonable.
I'm glad we agree on the sovereignty of the extra universal reality though.
We don't have any reason to presume anything was conducting any computation.Not really since an underived wouldn't be subject to law or laws. It would be the law.
If you're going to accept that it's there, in the absence of any information you're going to have to accept that it's potential capacity is unknowable; at the same time, though, there's no reason to presume that a consciousness is there at all.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sovereignty'; presumably the physical laws that hold sway within the universe are a specific implementation or subset of broader natural laws, if that's what you're aiming at.
O.
Not really since an underived wouldn't be subject to law or laws. It would be the law.
Right...?
O.
Right...?Yep. Are you suggesting the ultimate underived reality is subject to something else?
O.
Yep. Are you suggesting the ultimate underived reality is subject to something else?
Translated: I can't know that a consciousness is not necessary, I cannot deny having suggested the extra universal reality as an intricate and infinite machine means I have no logical warrant to say....''this sophisticated and no more''. I cannot deny the probability of an infinite machine being infinitely intricate. I cannot deny consciousness in the universe.
If you're going to accept that it's there, in the absence of any information you're going to have to accept that it's potential capacity is unknowable; at the same time, though, there's no reason to presume that a consciousness is there at all.
Translated: I can't know that a consciousness is not necessary,
I cannot deny having suggested the extra universal reality as an intricate and infinite machine means I have no logical warrant to say....''this sophisticated and no more''.
I cannot deny the probability of an infinite machine being infinitely intricate.
I cannot deny consciousness in the universe.
Therefore I have no reason to think the extra universal reality is conscious.
Or, conversely, that it is.I'm not proposing this I'm translating what you said demonstrating at the same time the leap of faith you've made in your argument from several reasons to suggest consciousness to no reasons at all.
On the contrary, I showed why Ockham's Razor justifies warrants that.
I don't need to.
Why would I want to?
You arrived at an appropriate conclusion, but you've made a right balls-up of the route.
O.
On the contrary I showed why you couldn't use Ockham's razor here since you don't know the steps and also because we are using the same step namely intricate machine although we could argue that you forewent the infinite intricate machine for something like a bicycle.
On the contrary, I showed why Ockham's Razor justifies warrants that.
.
I'm not proposing this I'm translating what you said.
On the contrary I showed why you couldn't use Ockham's razor here since you don't know the steps
and also because we are using the same step namely intricate machine
although we could argue that you forewent the infinite intricate machine for something like a bicycle.
Mistranslating, that's why I corrected it for you.Got there in the end. Did you spot how you got from lots of reasons to suggest consciousness to no reasons by shear leap of faith?
That's when you use Ockham's Razor. If you know the steps then you have information on which to base a decision
Got there in the end. Did you spot how you got from lots of reasons to suggest consciousness to no reasons by shear leap of faith?
No, I see how I got from no reasons to suggest consciousness to still no reasons to suggest consciousness and decided that I therefore didn't need to include consciousness. Would you like to explain where it is that you see the need to introduce consciousness to the broader reality responsible for the universe so that I can point out to you again why it's not necessary?Already have done. You yourself introducing the idea of the extra universal reality being an intricate mechanism and then wanting to rein back on how intricate and then logically not being able to.
O.
Already have done.
You yourself introducing the idea of the extra universal reality being an intricate mechanism and then wanting to rein back on how intricate and then logically not being able to.
Not knowing what steps or processes are involved in getting from computation to realising the universe.
Suggesting an infinite extra universal entity and then asking us to believe that it's infinite intricacy is limited to something like a bicycle.
However I also pointed out the properties that being underived confer on whatever it is is underived and how they hardly conform to any common understanding of unconsciousness but conforms more to what we understand as self direction, sovereignty, lawmaker etc.
Show us what you think you've got.
No, I see how I got from no reasons to suggest consciousness to still no reasons to suggest consciousness and decided that I therefore didn't need to include consciousness. Would you like to explain where it is that you see the need to introduce consciousness to the broader reality responsible for the universe so that I can point out to you again why it's not necessary?
Not to any effect.I'm afraid it logically ramps itself up and unfortunately you guys have been so successful in reducing consciousness to mere mechanism you have to live with the logical consequences i.e. You have no logical warrant in saying ''This sophisticated and no more'' when stating that greater reality is a mechanism -
I introduce the idea of a mechanism, you were trying to ramp up the necessary complexity
I've pointed out that you can sufficient complexity for a universe without sufficient complexity for consciousness.How did you manage to demonstrate that for goodness sake? Did you in fact show that you can do without intelligence, How did you get round the probability of chaos with unconsciousness?
but there is no need for an intelligence to do any computation, and I've never introduced it.Positive assertion where's the evidence?
Nobody has suggested 'infinite intricacy'I did. Please demonstrate why in an infinite reality I am categorically wrong to suggest infinite intricacy.
I've posited sufficient intricacy to result in a universeI posit sufficient intricacy for the universe but wouldn't presume to state what that is. Nor why an infinite intricacy would be bound to use it's all it's intricacy on setting up a universe
, on the basis that we have observable evidence of one of those.There is a universe yes, but that offers us nothing.
You tried to claim 'self direction', without explaining what the evidence was that there was any directionYou aren't then owning that we have settled on, for the purposes of our speculation,i.e. an underived greater reality. There is no evidence as such because it is all unfalsifiable. We then proceed from logic although you are riffing on some strange methodology which involves dodging back and forward into science, asking for physical evidence, going on what we can observe etc. whenever logic gets too hot.
No, I see how I got from no reasons to suggest consciousness to still no reasons to suggest consciousness and decided that I therefore didn't need to include consciousness. .Circular argument, perhaps?
No, they conform to your deist interpretation, hence terms like 'sovereignty'.No they are legitimate because we talk about natural laws, sovereign nations, Self direction can apply to machinery. So your accusations of spinning this to preference is spurious. Your insistence on a particular level of mechanism though.....More obviously to preference.
No they are legitimate because we talk about natural laws, sovereign nations, Self direction can apply to machinery. So your accusations of spinning this to preference is spurious. Your insistence on a particular level of mechanism though.....More obviously to preference.
Again you are ducking in and out of science and disowning the proposal of a mechanistic greater reality.
There are still problems therefore with unconsciousness and nailing down a necessary sophistication of mechanism. However even if we rule out consciousness we still have the properties of being underived. Something it seems obvious that you are not used to contemplating as well as the debateability of referring to the extra universal as natural.
I would also add that it is possible to that one of the steps to a physical universe is the physical realisation of mathematics, something which we know nothing about how to go about it.
Liar boy,From the makers of the courtiers reply...............ugh, You've got Dunning krugers.....No returns for EVER.......You've got Dunning Krugers.......No returns For EVER......... Vlad's got Dunning Kruger........run away everyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Circular argument, perhaps?
No they are legitimate because we talk about natural laws, sovereign nations, Self direction can apply to machinery. So your accusations of spinning this to preference is spurious. Your insistence on a particular level of mechanism though.....More obviously to preference.
Again you are ducking in and out of science and disowning the proposal of a mechanistic greater reality.
There are still problems therefore with unconsciousness and nailing down a necessary sophistication of mechanism.
However even if we rule out consciousness we still have the properties of being underived.
Something it seems obvious that you are not used to contemplating
as well as the debateability of referring to the extra universal as natural.
I would also add that it is possible to that one of the steps to a physical universe is the physical realisation of mathematics, something which we know nothing about how to go about it.
Fortunately since the greater reality looks underived and autonomously controlled and not directed we cannot argue an unconscious entity in the traditional sense of something sleepwalking for there is nothing else for it to walk through. However if you are positing that only a certain level of mechanism is needed to start a universe it is encumbent on you to show not only me but a waiting world how you arrived at this since “going with what I see” doesn’t actually do it.
No, I'm simply not conferring on that proposed mechanistic greater reality anything more than is required for a universe to manifest. I'm not declaring it impossible, I'm just pointing out that it's not necessary.
However if you are positing that only a certain level of mechanism is needed to start a universe it is encumbent on you to show not only me but a waiting world how you arrived at this since “going with what I see” doesn’t actually do it.
In terms of Maths following the physical rather than the other way round. Maths is arguably what is known as an abstract necessity. That implies it has a consistent reality of its own irrespective of physicality.
Unlike you I have no philosophical commitment to empiricism, naturalism, etc.
I have no reason not to suppose that an infinite mechanism probably encompasses consciousness for once mechanism is postulated there are no logical limitations.
However even if we put consciousness aside. We still end up with an underived, autonomous, entity which has produced a universe who’s structure is penetrable by reason. Now that reasonableness can only come from the entity itself.
So there we have it..........and so far we have only looked at the aspects of our universe penetrable by science.
it's not for me to prove that this has to be a process without a conscious guide,It is since you've asserted it. Trouble is you need to show how it is possible not just assert that it is. I look forward to that immensly. In the meantime I would like to here your justification for discounting the necessity for consciousness in the infinite mechanism.
Maths has a contextual consistency,Not all maths is expressed in physicality
but that does not necessitate a separate reality of its own.Reality? Do you mean physicality? since not all maths is expressed physically that is highly debatable. It does remain abstractly necessary and one can guarantee that when you are pulling several g's falling into a black hole you'll find that 1+1 still equals 2.
Maths is a descriptor of activity that occurs within realityNot all maths describes physical things,
not an external reality that impinges upon ours.What????????? Again highly debateable.
No, like me you have no philosophical commitment to empiricism; unlike me, you try to ignore it because you don't like when you don't like the conclusions,We are in the area of unfalsifiability though, we have already conceded for the sake of our speculations that empiricism does not have domain. Hence my accusation of you dodging out of what we are speculating on back to the comfort of the falsifiable
whereas I have a more pragmatic approach that when pure logic is insufficient, or when there is insufficient certainty on start conditions that the next best most reliable font of knowledge is empirical.Blow me if your not trying to make that all sound like a virtue.... when in fact it's use here could be looked on as a form of cowardice..... And what you've said is what is called in the trade a commitment to philosophical empiricism
Except, as noted, Ockham's Razor.I have an old barbeque in my back garden....How did it get there....it grew from seed...how do we know? Ockham's razor of course.
Why? Why is that 'reasonableness' not merely a manifestation of the same consistent set of natural unreasoned laws that hold sway in the broader reality?Is reasonableness the same as unreasoned, I'm not sure. The way of the greater reality is the only way to go. There are no laws governing the greater reality it governs itself since laws could be said to be other. If there were laws governing the greater reality it would not be the ultimate thing would it? The laws then would be the ultimate thing. If the laws and the greater reality were dependent on each other then there is a further explanation to be sought.
If you have a reliable methodology to suggest that there are others, and a sufficiently reliable method to be able to claim to have a good confidence about the status of those, by all means introduce them.Empiricism is not a method for the unfalsifiable. So we are left with logic.
Physics, as I understand it, has nothing to say about the influence on natural laws but that I would have thought is part of the parameters of science although I believe some physicists do think about fine tuning.
natural laws - yes, that idea of principals of physics bereft of influence from conscious beings
It is since you've asserted it. Trouble is you need to show how it is possible not just assert that it is. I look forward to that immensly.
In the meantime I would like to here your justification for discounting the necessity for consciousness in the infinite mechanism.
Not all maths is expressed in physicality Reality? Do you mean physicality? since not all maths is expressed physically that is highly debatable.
It does remain abstractly necessary and one can guarantee that when you are pulling several g's falling into a black hole you'll find that 1+1 still equals 2.
Not all maths describes physical things, What????????? Again highly debateable.
We are in the area of unfalsifiability though, we have already conceded for the sake of our speculations that empiricism does not have domain. Hence my accusation of you dodging out of what we are speculating on back to the comfort of the falsifiable.
Blow me if your not trying to make that all sound like a virtue.... when in fact it's use here could be looked on as a form of cowardice.....
And what you've said is what is called in the trade a commitment to philosophical empiricism
I have an old barbeque in my back garden....How did it get there....it grew from seed...how do we know? Ockham's razor of course.
Is reasonableness the same as unreasoned, I'm not sure.
The way of the greater reality is the only way to go. There are no laws governing the greater reality it governs itself since laws could be said to be other.
If there were laws governing the greater reality it would not be the ultimate thing would it?
The laws then would be the ultimate thing.
If the laws and the greater reality were dependent on each other then there is a further explanation to be sought.
Empiricism is not a method for the unfalsifiable. So we are left with logic.
Physics, as I understand it, has nothing to say about the influence on natural laws but that I would have thought is part of the parameters of science although I believe some physicists do think about fine tuning.
Physics is the study of how natural laws affect reality - implicit in that is that natural laws interact with each other, so if something is influencing the natural laws it too is part of the remit of physics.Not sure they do. Dawkins and Carroll take it so seriously as to advocate multiverse and call it a'problem'. Only to be taken to task byothers,I grant you.
Some scientists probably do think about fine tuning - most of them probably think 'what a load of old nonsense', whilst a few of them find that they can support the idea but at the expense of going beyond what the evidence will support.
O.
Not sure they do. Dawkins and Carroll take it so seriously as to advocate multiverse and call it a'problem'. Only to be taken to task byothers,I grant you.
When we see a chap walking on the Thames, No embellishment needed Jeremy. It is what it is.You understand that walking on water with no hidden platform or other trickery would be a miracle whereas hat the man in the Youtube video did is not?
Again, you fail to appreciate what this is - I'm not attempting to prove this is the case, I'm proposing a viable alternative to counter the claims of arguments like the Cosmological argument that there must be a creator deity of some kind. I don't have to prove, I have to establish viability.I have acknowledged that we are are in unfalsifiable territory. That is enough. You have yet to wean yourself off the drug of empiricism.
Until, and unless, you can establish that it is a necessity, and not merely a possibility, I don't need to.
It's not even slightly debatable - imaginary numbers, five- and six-dimensional geometry are just two elements of Mrs. O. degree in Maths that spring to mind which have real correlate.
The maths, though, is not determined by the physical - it's an indendent, purely abstract conceptualisation which can be used to describe physical reality to a degree, but can also be used to describe other things, and doesn't need to be used to describe physical reality.
What is the physical reality represented by 4?
You keep forgetting that I'm not the one that needs to make an ironclad case, here.
Careful, you're letting those ad hominem admissions that you're losing the argument slip in again.
Call it what you like, but unless you've actually got an argument...
If you lack sufficient information about the nature and origin of barbecues I can probably find you a website? If you could do me the same for universes then I'll drop Ockham's Razor, sound like a deal?
The way you appear to pull terms out of the ether I'm not sure either, I've made a best faith attempt to understand what I think you were trying to say.
Or the laws and the reality are aspects of each other - the same thing seen at a different scale, or different perspectives on the same thing. Bringing it back to the universe, for the moment, is the universe a space in which particular versions of natural laws apply, or is it the application of those particular physical laws, is it the space in which those particular laws hold sway?
Possibly, see above.
Presuming that the laws and reality were in some way independent.
For you, I'm happy to posit that it's possible, because that's my remit.
Empiricism can though be a guide to the possible - again, that's my remit, you have the more rigorous requirement as you're making a definitive claim.
You understand that walking on water with no hidden platform or other trickery would be a miracle whereas hat the man in the Youtube video did is not?
I claimed a miracle. You think I saw the youtube video and embellished it. Why do you not accept that the mythical eye witnesses to the resurrection - or the people who wrote down the stories - could have embellished a more mundane event?It was tried once with Elvis Presley, didn't work that time.
The multiverse is one of the many reasons why it's fairly easy to dismiss the 'fine tuning' argument; they take it seriously because it's an intriguing idea in its own right, it only serves an ancillary purpose of rendering the fine-tuning argument moot.Here we go, You seem to be making a ''My unfalsifiable supposition trumps your observation''. How are we in a position to dismiss fine tuning with an unfalsifiable or if we consider the fine tuning as evidence of a God: Dismissing one unfalsifiable with another unfalsifiable?
I have acknowledged that we are are in unfalsifiable territory. That is enough. You have yet to wean yourself off the drug of empiricism.
It seems that consciousness is your big, fear, Yes I think we can use the word fear here, or, maybe the hint of omnipotency?
Here we go, You seem to be making a ''My unfalsifiable supposition trumps your observation''. How are we in a position to dismiss fine tuning with an unfalsifiable or if we consider the fine tuning as evidence of a God: Dismissing one unfalsifiable with another unfalsifiable?
I don't need to :)Then why, we ask ourselves are you hanging around here. Fortunately for us you have left us the droppings of challengeable notions.
Religions are one of my fears. Large-scale organisations with a totalitarian bent and a demonstrable history of misogyny, homophobia, racism and anti-intellectualism that they are weaning themselves from far more slowly than the rest of humanity's projects. The idea of a conscious creator of our universe is one of the underpinnings of these religions, hence it's a strategic argument for its knock-on benefits.Once we factor in pagan and atheist large scale organisation with a totalitarian bent, a demonstrable history of mysogeny, homophobia racism and anti intellectualism all that you seem justifiably against, rather than just labelling bad things 'religious', therefore are the founding principles of Christianity and the other world religions.
Oh, and a "Quest for Truth"TM for my ideological drive towards empiricism and "Philosophical Materialism"(c) of course, but mainly the first.
O.
I see you still haven't managed to understand the basics of logical argument and the burden of proof..... ::)I think we are into unfalsifiability and logic as notions on safer foundations than ''burden of proof'' Me old fruit.
I think we are into unfalsifiability and logic as notions on safer foundations than ''burden of proof'' Me old fruit.
Then why, we ask ourselves are you hanging around here.
Once we factor in pagan and atheist large scale organisation with a totalitarian bent, a demonstrable history of mysogeny, homophobia racism and anti intellectualism all that you seem justifiably against, rather than just labelling bad things 'religious', therefore are the founding principles of Christianity and the other world religions.
Unfortunately for you we can accept that consciousness could be mechanistic and in an infinite mechanism is highly probable and not at all dismissible so that removes another leg from your stool since you have recreated that which you fear , well not you perhaps, logic.
You seem to be plumping for consciousness possible in a non infinite universe but dismissable in an infinite greater reality.
And another thing you seem to be keen on empirical observation and ''all that we know'' All that we know is that if life and universes are to be created it is likely that intelligent beings will be doing the creating.
Spectacularly proving my point.No it isn't . It's a grey area, a bit of a moveable feast, Do you have a burden of proof because you believe something? What constitutes a claim? Can you argue from a philosophy all your life and claim you don't hold it? Can you implicitly claim? Did a theist make a claim sometime in the past and therefore that's it...... All theists have made the claim? Can I commute my claim to a belief? What influence does acknowledging that a claim is unfalsifiable have on your burden or are rabid redneck non claimers allowed to harrass you FOREVER???? I don't know but I do know when something is unfalsifiable etc.
It's not one or the other, the burden of proof is integral to any logical approach to anything, and you keep completely misunderstanding other people's approach, apparently because you simply have no grasp of logic in general and the burden of proof in particular.
Of course I grasp logic.
Shits and giggles, mainly, with the occasional high-minded venture into anti-theism for good measure.All right then The Romans and the Nazis
Oh boy... Pagan organisations are, wait for it.... religious organisations!
I have not suggested that religious organisations have a monopoly on the worst of human behaviour, but it's one of the more obvious proponents. As to what constitutes the 'found principles of Christianity' you don't have to go far on this board to find that homophobia's high on that listFound principles, what the fuck are they?
and you don't have to travel far in the media to find the racism inherent in much of the US's Christianity or the misogyny to most African expressions of not just Christianity but all the Abrahamic faiths.Misogyny has apparently been rife in the small New atheist community and what are we to make of people who believe the ideal cultural state and goal of humanity is to be middle class British or swedish or american wasp culture. where for instance in the states and UK are the leading Black atheists? Why is the world ticketyboo as long as it is European? I guess you can be racist and not actually aware as it's effects seep out.
Let's overlook the loaded use of the term 'creation' in there, with its implicit creator that you're trying to establish here.I don't know what other word you would use that wasn't loaded the other way.
You keep using the word 'know', but you don't seem to be using it in a consistent manner. Empirical knowledge is inherently qualified, but confidence can be built with iterative investigation though alone it will never reach proof. We have one example of life, and no definitive explanation of how it arose, and therefore we 'know' squat with regards to that. We have one universe, and that's the subject of this discussion because we know precisely nothing about exactly how that came about, either. So all that we know of the 'creation' of life and universe is... nothing.I'm parodying you.
Percy Pants on Fire,Only when you're around with your nifty footwork partnering that old turdpolisher, Stud.
No it isn't . It's a grey area, a bit of a moveable feast...
Can you argue from a philosophy all your life and claim you don't hold it?
Did a theist make a claim sometime in the past and therefore that's it All theists have made the claim? Can I commute my claim to a belief? What influence does acknowledging that a claim is unfalsifiable have on your burden or are rabid redneck non claimers allowed to harrass you FOREVER???? I don't know but I do know when something is unfalsifiable etc.
Of course I grasp logic.
No it isn't. If you make a claim, it's your burden of proof.Yes, I get that what i'm not clear about is what you guys mean by making a claim. Because of all the 'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin' and shenanigans that have gone on at the atheist logic manufactory.(Courtiers reply and Dunning Kruger. Russells Teapot and Law's one guess is not as good as another for example).
All right then The Romans and the Nazis
You what?
Found principles, what the fuck are they?
Misogyny has apparently been rife in the small New atheist community and what are we to make of people who believe the ideal cultural state and goal of humanity is to be middle class British or swedish or american wasp culture.
Where for instance in the states and UK are the leading Black atheists?
Why is the world ticketyboo as long as it is European?
I guess you can be racist and not actually aware as it's effects seep out.
I don't know what other word you would use that wasn't loaded the other way.
I'm parodying you.
No it isn't. If you make a claim, it's your burden of proof. What you continually seem to get confused about is that if your attempt at supporting a claim basically involves a guess, and people point out that other guesses are available, that does undermine your attempted support for your claim but the other guesses don't constitute claims in themselves.Guess? Another word kidnapped and bebuggered by atheists on this board.
Because of all the 'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin' and shenanigans that have gone on at the atheist logic manufactory.(Courtiers reply and Dunning Kruger. Russells Teapot and Law's one guess is not as good as another for example).
Yes, I get that what i'm not clear about is what you guys mean by making a claim.
Because of all the 'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin' and shenanigans that have gone on at the atheist logic manufactory.(Courtiers reply and Dunning Kruger. Russells Teapot and Law's one guess is not as good as another for example).
Guess? Another word kidnapped and bebuggered by atheists on this board.
The Romans had a religion that was intertwined with their social and political lives to my understanding, but I'm not sufficiently up to speed with the detail to comment. As to the decidedly Catholic Nazis, what was your point there?Decidedly catholic? Hitler? Himmler? Those that worshipped Hitler...... Catholic?
Christianity's totalitarianism comes from the religion By contrast, the USSR and China's political and cultural totalitarianism adopted atheism to nullify the competing power systems religious organisations would try to wield.First of all Atheism is integral to Marxism Religion is rejected because it is seen to drug people into a torpor so no doubt you will argue that religion causes totalitarianism. Therefore Atheism is at the heart of the founding principles of Marxism and Russian and other Totalitarianism Secondly, where in Christ and the new testament does the totalitarianism come from when it seems to be the story of people suffering from Totalitarianism, a totalitarianism muched admired by AC Grayling who among others blames christianity for it's demise?
A typo, my fault - it should have read 'founding principals'.I'm afraid all one has to do is substitute the P for protestant with A for atheist.....or academic given the crisis of misogyny in academia.
Misogyny has been rife throughout western culture, where it has been embedded by centuries of pernicious influence from... hmm... what's the 'P' for in 'WASP culture' again? Misogyny has been observed in the behaviour of some atheists, some very prominent atheists; can you show where it derives from the atheism, like I can show where it's expressly required in the foundational document of the Abrahamic religions?
You mean like Clive Aruede? There is some evidence to suggest that so far as the UK is concerned not only are Black (and other minority ethnic communities) still a small percentage of the populace, they are also more likely to be religious in nature, so the answer there is in part that there are just a particularly small number of black atheists out there at all, and they are in many instances wary of 'outing' themselves within their communities. It's a situation that a number of atheist movements in the UK are actively addressing.And what position does he hold in the atheist world? After all the four horsemen were suspiciously white, male, middle class, academic and moving out from them........
In which ol' Perce first tells us that he grasps logic, and then dismisses as "'fiddlin' and a 'diddlin'" the perfectly reasonable logical arguments that undo his attempts at it.Yeah right.
Decidedly catholic? Hitler? Himmler? Those that worshipped Hitler Catholic?
First of all Atheism is integral to Marxism
Religion is rejected because it is seen to drug people into a torpor so no doubt you will argue that religion causes totalitarianism.
Therefore Atheism is at the heart of the founding principles of Marxism and Russian and other Totalitarianism
Secondly, where in Christ and the new testament does the totalitarianism come from when it seems to be the story of people suffering from Totalitarianism
a totalitarianism muched admired by AC Grayling who among others blames christianity for it's demise?
I'm afraid all one has to do is substitute the P for protestant with A for atheist.....
or academic given the crisis of misogyny in academia.
And what position does he hold in the atheist world?
After all the four horsemen were suspiciously white, male, middle class, academic and moving out from them........
Yeah right.
Courtiers reply: Gives licence for a person to talk about stuff they boast of knowing nothing about.
Dunning Kruger: Takes licence to talk about stuff they might have expertise in away because supposedly they don't know anything about it.
A couple of contradictory belters there, Old chap.
Trying to keep up with this and work, so the typos are flowing: decidedly Christian (although not an insignificant portion of that was Catholic). They followed Hitler, arguably at least some of them idolised Hitler, but they worshipped the Christian Trinity in the vast majority. May 1939 census in Germany listed 54% Protestant, 40% Catholic and a further 3.5% other believers in the Christian god.Hitler and the Nazis followed Neitszchian principles not Catholic. Neitszche beloved of many atheists so at the end of the day your musings on it being Christian are at best alternative history. Of course once you ditch God there is just materialism left and obviously you begin to think that you leave morality behind.
Yep. That's only tangentially related to the Marxist-Leninism of Soviet USSR, and even less relevant to China.
Marx rejected religion in his ideology because it saw it as a dulling of the human mind to accept fairy stories. Lenin and Stalin enforced it because it was politically useful at suppressing dissenting power structures.
No. Marx advocated atheism and thought the state should not have a religion, but he didn't advocate persecution of the religious. It wasn't until Lenin interpreted religion as intended to enact the 'exploitation and stupefaction of the working class' that it became a target. It wasn't until Lenin's primacy that the USSR required atheism and it was arguably Stalin that actively hunted down the churches.
It was that backdrop that flavoured the early Communist China antipathy towards religion, which mellowed as the Leninist elements that shaped the Cultural Revolution faded away, and in the late 70s China remained just as communist but instituted freedom of religion policies so long as those religions were state run and state sanctioned - it wasn't the atheism they believed in, it was the power.
You have an all-knowing god who has distilled his wisdom into inviolable tenets; the largest branch of Christianity has it as an express article of faith that, on questions of religion, their leader is infallible. The idea that there is absolute right in the hands of the faithful is written into the stories that are the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Grayling's allowed to admire what he likes, I don't know to what it is you're referring, but it doesn't change what I'm saying.
Except that Western Europe isn't predominantly the result of the influence of White Anglo-Saxon Atheists, is it?
Another area that could be seen to be working its way out of Abrahamic influence, slowly.
He's the founder and chair of The Association of Black Humanists, and a member of the board of Humanists UK.
Hardly suspicious, given that describes the majority of the leading musical acts in the world, the majority of the best paid actors, the majority of leading academics, the majority of leading clergy.... Current head of British Humanist Association - Tamar Gosh (Vice Chair Ann O'Connell). American Athesists founded by Madalyn O'Hare, current vice presidents Alison Gill and Debbie Gillard (under a male president). How long before we get a female Archbishop of Canterbury, do you reckon? Or Archbishop of Abuja? A female Pope?
O.
.But Outrider, the same type of story could be told of early Christianity only with far less or indeed anything to suggest totalitarianism.
Yep. That's only tangentially related to the Marxist-Leninism of Soviet USSR, and even less relevant to China.
Marx rejected religion in his ideology because it saw it as a dulling of the human mind to accept fairy stories. Lenin and Stalin enforced it because it was politically useful at suppressing dissenting power structures.
No. Marx advocated atheism and thought the state should not have a religion, but he didn't advocate persecution of the religious. It wasn't until Lenin interpreted religion as intended to enact the 'exploitation and stupefaction of the working class' that it became a target. It wasn't until Lenin's primacy that the USSR required atheism and it was arguably Stalin that actively hunted down the churches.
It was that backdrop that flavoured the early Communist China antipathy towards religion, which mellowed as the Leninist elements that shaped the Cultural Revolution faded away, and in the late 70s China remained just as communist but instituted freedom of religion policies so long as those religions were state run and state sanctioned - it wasn't the atheism they believed in, it was the power.
Another area that could be seen to be working its way out of Abrahamic influence, slowly
In which Ol' Perce (presumably deliberately) misdescribes two issues he doesn't like but can't rebut, and just ignores the rest. For someone who claims to "grasp logic" the near-total reliance on straw men and avoidance is remarkable.While of course demonstrating that you guys hadn't thought either one out clearly. I predict a great falling out between Myers and New atheism........Oh, it's happened already.
While of course demonstrating that you guys hadn't thought either one out clearly.
In which Percy fails to grasp that he's the one who hasn't thought things through (at all it seems), but seeks to accuse others of his own failings.Dunning Kruger
Again from Wiki re Dunning-Kruger:
"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)
Uncannily accurate.
Dunning Kruger
Dunning Kruger...
"In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence."Dunning Kruger went to the trouble of staging scientific tests which established some kind of behaviour. The testing of subjects was carefully done so that each person could be properly assessed. And now Hillside and the Wee wizards have reduced this to a playground taunt.An ad hominem. Is there nothing the New Atheist philistineswnt disrespect?
QED
As for courtiers reply I'm afraid it does if you follow the logic give licence for anyone to talk about whatever they no nothing about and be justified.
Hitler and the Nazis followed Neitszchian principles not Catholic.
Of course once you ditch God there is just materialism left and obviously you begin to think that you leave morality behind.
It's interesting that you have conceded much in our speculations especially an understanding of the underived and that now you are attempting a moral argument since that is where I wanted to go. I'm not sure that arguing morality as if it were an absolute and then saying at the end of the day ''well, it's not really real'' is necessary that convincing though.
I still cannot see how you are deriving totalitarianism from Christ and the New Testament.
Marxism has revolution and atheism and antireligion in it's very DNA as does Neitszchism.
Fucking hell....... So if say, an atheist academic got caught say holding someone's breast, that wouldn't be exploitation of his academic position or his opportunity as an atheist celebrity of great zeal, that would be down to his ancestral religious heritage.
No. From the wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply):But there is no argument to it because the claim is that there is nothing to it. Now you know the rules, those who make the claim need to validate it. It's not up to me to invalidate the claim that there is nothing to it.
"A key element of a courtier's reply, which distinguishes it from an otherwise valid response that incidentally points out the critic's lack of established authority on the topic, is that the respondent never shows how the work of these overlooked experts invalidates the arguments that were advanced by the critic."
But there is no argument to it because the claim is that there is nothing to it. Now you know the rules, those who make the claim need to validate it. It's not up to me to invalidate the claim that there is nothing to it.
There may be a valid courtiers reply but it certainly cannot be used to defend Dawkins here.
Oh, fuck.....just when I thought it was safe to go back on the water............ It was tried once with Elvis Presley, didn't work that time.
How do you know? Perhaps in 2,000 years time people will be arguing that Presley was resurrected and that there were eye witness accounts of the resurrected Presley.
Really? Did Nietzsche (1844-1900) feature heavily in, for instance, the 4th Lateran Conference's decision that Jews should have to wear special markings to identify them in 1215? Was he pivotal in the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain? The far-right, including the Nazis, undoubtedly feel an affinity for some elements of Nietszche, but Christian anti-Semitism long predates his involvement.Two things here ..........have you forgiven the germans for what they did 1932-1945? If so what is the special problem with 1215 AD, secondly what happened in 32-45 was nazi antisemitism along racial lines. Secondly If Neitszche wasn't there in 1215 I doubt Jesus and the apostles were there either. In fact they would have not been as welcome as Neitszche if at all. So out of Jesus and the Apostles and the 4th Lateran council which do you think we should take our christianity from?
On the contrary, once you ditch God and have to justify your own actions rather than cleaving the bronze-age tribalism dressed up as divine wisdom, you can finally start to actually be an active participant in moral decisions.Who do you think you have to justify your actions to that I don't? If I belonged to one of the commandment religions I might agree that I dont need to participate in making moral decisions although we have societal rules that hold the same place as commandments. But christianity is not clear cut like that being a relationship and so yes I do have to make moral decisions.
Who is arguing that morality is absolute? It doesn't take long to look around the world and see that morality is a product of culture.You said you make moral decisions yourself. Are you now contradicting yourself .You cannot claim that you are making moral decisions and I'm not a nd then say yours are down to culture. You seem confused here.
You have an absolute authority in the form of an all-knowing god who conveniently only reveals his wisdom through particular individuals who are elevated to a near-divine status as unquestionable prophets... what more do you need for totalitarianism?That is a caricature of christianity. Christianity ushers in the age of the holy spirit the mutual body of christ and the widespread use of different gifts by all Christians. Not at all like the Old testament. What an example of how ignorance of what you speak leads quickly to false accusation.
Marxism has revolution at its foundation, but atheism is an aspiration of Marx not a tool - Lenin introduced it as a tool for political gain. Neitszche's atheism wasn't an area that the Nazis particularly focussed on, and certainly was at odds with the Christianity that permeate the German military and civilian life at the time.but not the Nazi party. MARXISM MUCH LIKE ATHEISM. Humanity marches forward religion disappears....then utopia.
Two things here ..........have you forgiven the germans for what they did 1932-1945? If so what is the special problem with 1215 AD, secondly what happened in 32-45 was nazi antisemitism along racial lines.
Secondly If Neitszche wasn't there in 1215 I doubt Jesus and the apostles were there either.
In fact they would have not been as welcome as Neitszche if at all.
So out of Jesus and the Apostles and the 4th Lateran council which do you think we should take our christianity from?
Who do you think you have to justify your actions to that I don't?
If I belonged to one of the commandment religions I might agree that I dont need to participate in making moral decisions although we have societal rules that hold the same place as commandments. But christianity is not clear cut like that being a relationship and so yes I do have to make moral decisions.
The uncomfortable truth is that without God the final arbiter is "Not getting caught"
You said you make moral decisions yourself. Are you now contradicting yourself .You cannot claim that you are making moral decisions and I'm not a nd then say yours are down to culture.
You seem confused here.
That is a caricature of christianity.
Christianity ushers in the age of the holy spirit the mutual body of christ and the widespread use of different gifts by all Christians.
Not at all like the Old testament.
What an example of how ignorance of what you speak leads quickly to false accusation. but not the Nazi party. MARXISM MUCH LIKE ATHEISM.
Humanity marches forward religion disappears....then utopia.
But there is no argument to…etc
Perce,I don't recall getting the assessment forms or a D-K profiling form or a visit from the district psychologist but let me get my diary.............wait, it did happen......3rd July 2014, Inside Hillside's head.
etc
As Stranger noted, there’s little point in explaining why someone who fits the D-K profile fits the D-K profile because he lacks the ability to understand why he fits the D-K profile.
The 'special problem' with 1215 is how much that example of Christian anti-Semitism predates the Nietszche you were trying to blame the worst example of Christian anti-Semitism in history upon.Nazi antisemitism.
And – and here’s the slam dunk – having consistently done all that (and more) you then trumpet your “victory” over people way above your intellectual pay grade who calmly, rationally and generously take the time to dismantle your efforts point-by-point.Don't know what you're talking about......I don't even play the trumpet! Ha Ha Ha
I don't recall getting the assessment forms or a D-K profiling form or a visit from the district psychologist but let me get my diary.............wait, it did happen......3rd July 2014, Inside Hillside's head.
Nazi antisemitism.
Since I take my cue from Jesus and the apostles. I take no more blame for what you reckon proceeds from the 4th Lateran council than you do for the atheist megaatrocities of the 20th century.
Since the pope has publicly repented the sins of the 4th lateran council I wait eagerly for Ricky Gervais to do the same on behalf of celebrity atheists.
Don't know what you're talking about......I don't even play the trumpet! Ha Ha Ha
Vlad shoots, He scores, shirt over head, victory lap of honour, he leaves the ''intellectual''* for dust.
.
* Turdpolisher
German anti-Semitism. Nazi anti-Semitism. They're both Christian influenced at the very least, arguably entirely Christian.Go on then ''name that tune.'' Argue it.
What 'atheist mega-atrocities'? Do you mean the atrocities committed by the likes of Mao, Stalin and Pot which derived from their political ambitions and were entirely incidental to their atheism?And the same argument could be made for Christianity.......especially Christianity but not so much atheism I feel.
Perce,Whoosh........
Me:
“And – and here’s the slam dunk – having consistently done all that (and more) you then trumpet your “victory” over people way above your intellectual pay grade who calmly, rationally and generously take the time to dismantle your efforts point-by-point.”
It’s not just that you fit the profile for D-K: you’re a poster boy for it.”
You:
Uncanny right? QED (again)
As Ippy would say – my deepest sympathies
Whoosh........
Argue it.
And the same argument could be made for Christianity.......especially Christianity but not so much atheism I feel.
Perce,I've already told you you are making a mockery of the science involved here by turning science into a sloganised playground taunt in the time honoured fashion of the witchunter and the dillitante you will help to reduce whatever value this has.
That's another irony meter reduced to a pile of cogs and springs.
And which version, The Bavarian prime minister's, Jesus and the apostles or Hitler's was the closest to actual Christianity or put another way who's view is more or less reflective of the neitszchian ubermann and one's own ideal image of oneself?
In 1922, after the Bavarian Prime Minister said that his position as both a man and a Christian prevented him from being an anti-Semite, Hitler's response was "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." He followed that up in 1928 in response to criticism (from the Catholic Church, I believe) that "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian."
And which version, The Bavarian prime minister's, Jesus and the apostles or Hitler's was the closest to actual Christianity or put another way who's view is more or less reflective of the neitszchian ubermann and one's own ideal image of oneself?
Hitler's speech here is very reminiscent of Thatcher's reinterpretation of Christianity that it's all about ''choice''. Jesus here being the archetypal Thatcherite.
You might suggest - and others certainly have - that Hitler's own faith was questionable, and that he was using the faith to motivate the German people. That may be the case, but the subsequent rise of Nazism and the Holocaust that follows it shows that it worked. Hitler, perhaps his other leaders, may have been less devout than they seemed, may even have not believed at all, but the religion they espoused in part motivated the German people that followed them.
Does it matter? Don't Christians frequently have different ideas about what Christianity is?Yes it does matter since there is a danger of opting for the worst version which here happens to be the least biblically accurate.
biblically accurate.
And which version, The Bavarian prime minister's, Jesus and the apostles or Hitler's was the closest to actual Christianity or put another way who's view is more or less reflective of the neitszchian ubermann and one's own ideal image of oneself?
Hitler's speech here is very reminiscent of Thatcher's reinterpretation of Christianity that it's all about ''choice''. Jesus here being the archetypal Thatcherite.
Yes it does matter since there is a danger of opting for the worst version which here happens to be the least biblically accurate.
I did a bit of digging around this 'positive Christianity' business touted by Outrider as what looks like a ''clincher''. Theologically it looks as a movement decidedly dodgy.
And of course there are the overwhelming eugenic and nationalistic aspects of Nazism and so the trail goes back to Galton and thus the actual role of Christianity seems highly exaggerated by Outrider
Well God obviously........but I don't think that answer is somehow going to wash with you.
So who determines which version of Christianity is the most biblically accurate?
How does that determination come about? Do we get a vote? Is it down to Biblical scholars? Is it the followers of the various churches?
I've already told you you are making a mockery of the science involved here by turning science into a sloganised playground taunt in the time honoured fashion of the witchunter and the dillitante you will help to reduce whatever value this has.
Being social science though it is an advance on your usual pop science though,
You need to stop disrespecting it with your pretensions to being a gifted amateur psychologist......Now......your use of it
IS an example of D-K.
Perce,You think you are a psychologist. Classic sign of D-K.
This car crash of a reply bears no relation to anything that's been said to you. Again:
1. The D-K effect is a cognitive bias
2. People who suffer from it exhibit certain behaviours
3. You exhibit those behaviours
QED
You think you are a psychologist. Classic sign of D-K.
And where does his work go back to?
So the social policies 'goes back' to Galton's work on biology,
Your approach seems to one of rather than studying the bible you look around and think these ''old christians are always a squabblin' and a hobblin'' and you are taking your cue from that.
There is a great book by Microbiologist and Christian Marty Hewitt about why christians should believe in Evolution and why they don't in his native america. He states that biblical scholarship is lacking in the US because of the frontier nature of american history with it's lack of church structure and the individualistic nature of American society that grew from it. He states that Americans tend to view the bible as what he calls unmediated by others or proper scholarship.
My wife taught languages in North Carolina and they were thinking of introducing Spanish to their curriculum so the parents were invited. One woman stood up and objected by saying ''If english was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my boy''. Devout? Yes Potentially dangerously dense? highly likely, i'm afraid. Lacking in biblical mediation and scholarship......... definitely.
I don't personally care what any of the holy books say for their own sake, but what religious people say, believe and do has a profound impact on the world I live in.There are still very large atheist regimes with Nuclear weapons and who contributed greatly to Global warming. I'm trying to think of a Christian theocracy that has them. No, I can't think of one.
And are they Christians influencing the world in which I live? Do you believe that their particular brand of Christianity is solely down to their lack of sufficiently rigorous theology?
Devout - so, Christian, then. And their influence in the world, based on their devotion, is the effects of Christianity on the world I live in. This is why Christianity is dangerous.
There are still very large atheist regimes...
Perce,A Christian theocracy never had nukes, Soviet Russia, China and North Korea have done.
I suppose if you're gong to tell a lie you may as well make it a whopping one.
Classic D-K.
There are still very large atheist regimes with Nuclear weapons and who contributed greatly to Global warming.
I'm trying to think of a Christian theocracy that has them. No, I can't think of one.
I've already told you you are making a mockery of the science involved here by turning science into a sloganised playground taunt in the time honoured fashion of the witchunter and the dillitante you will help to reduce whatever value this has.
Being social science though it is an advance on your usual pop science though,
You need to stop disrespecting it with your pretensions to being a gifted amateur psychologist......Now......your use of it
IS an example of D-K.
I'm no psychologist, but D-K is not a psychological disorder: it's something we can all fall prey to in fields about which we know a little. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.I don't doubt it, that's why I'm sneakingly interested in testing my D-K.
A Christian theocracy never had nukes, Soviet Russia, China and North Korea have done.
I'm quite prepared to take a Dunning-Kruger test under proper conditions from bona fide people. Are you? Given your reluctance at leaving a trial.......rather like the cat who crept into the crypt, made a statement and crept out again.
Perce,You mean why am I vexed about nukes and not moustaches?
So now all you have to do is to find some path from atheism to having nukes. Most dictators seemed to have moustaches for some reason - why aren't you vexed about moustachioed regimes?
You mean why am I vexed about nukes and not moustaches?
Perce,
Item 4.
You probably need to copyright that list concept before Channel 5 turns this into a bargain basement Bingo-based game show...
"Typical flaw... number 4."
"Usual tricks, number 6."
Had to laugh, Apparently Dunning Kruger first tried out there test on undergraduate psychology students.
Wannabee psychologists take note.......Hillside.
2, 3 & 4......And one from your bottom? (with apologies to Countdown and Carol Vorderman)
......And one from your bottom? (with apologies to Countdown and Carol Vorderman)
......And one from your bottom? (with apologies to Countdown and Carol Vorderman)