Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on July 30, 2020, 12:14:44 PM
-
It is time I think to submit these bad boys to some kind of scrutiny rather than the time honoured skeptics way of hearing them, whacking off to petit mal and going on sweet way.
-
It is time I think to submit these bad boys to some kind of scrutiny rather than the time honoured skeptics way of hearing them, whacking off to petit mal and going on sweet way.
Your claim, your burden of proof.
-
Vlad is off with the fairies again!
-
It is time I think to submit these bad boys to some kind of scrutiny rather than the time honoured skeptics way of hearing them, whacking off to petit mal and going on sweet way.
There are no disproofs of god(s) in general (there are for some specific definitions of god), nor need there be. You've yet again forgotten the burden of proof.
-
What on earth has epilepsy got to do with anything?
-
Your claim, your burden of proof.
Disproof of God isn’t my claim.
-
Disproof of God isn’t my claim.
In order to disprove anything there would have to be a claim. Asking for a disproof of anything without a claim is meaningless.
-
There are no disproofs of god(s) in general (there are for some specific definitions of god), nor need there be. You've yet again forgotten the burden of proof.
I haven’t claimed to have disproved God.
At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?
-
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis. Job done, time for lunch?
O.
-
In order to disprove anything there would have to be a claim. Asking for a disproof of anything without a claim is meaningless.
Disproving something with no eye or claim to an alternative seems meaningless.
Have you seen anything pop out of nowhere yet.........Hurry up people have got to move on with their lives you know.
I tell you what I suspect . The stock in trade here is absolutes.
Now supposing we switch to probabilities, you chaps don’t look so hot in my humble opinion.
-
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same basis. Job done, time for lunch?
O.
put that scotch egg back...........what type of evidence are we talking about.......ha ha.
-
put that scotch egg back...........what type of evidence are we talking about.......ha ha.
You're asking for a disproof of gods, there it is. Until sufficient evidence to justify the claim has been presented, it can be dismissed on the same grounds as it was offered. If there's a particular disproof you'd like to look at, by all means suggest it (and the claim that it specifically counters) and we can all join in.
O.
-
I haven’t claimed to have disproved God.
At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?
What belief do you think I have 'appointed' as the default position?
-
Disproving something with no eye or claim to an alternative seems meaningless.
Have you seen anything pop out of nowhere yet.........Hurry up people have got to move on with their lives you know.
I tell you what I suspect . The stock in trade here is absolutes.
Now supposing we switch to probabilities, you chaps don’t look so hot in my humble opinion.
You can try and switch the burden of proof all you want but it just makes you look like an idiot.
-
I haven’t claimed to have disproved God.
At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?
Because non-belief in anything is the default position. It is up to those with a belief in the existence of something - God, UFOs, etc - to come up with evidence and arguments for their belief. If they can't, non-belief wins. Occam's razor - look it up.
-
You can try and switch the burden of proof all you want but it just makes you look like an idiot.
I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.
In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.
Why are you saying that atheism is the status quo?
-
Because non-belief in anything is the default position. It is up to those with a belief in the existence of something - God, UFOs, etc - to come up with evidence and arguments for their belief. If they can't, non-belief wins. Occam's razor - look it up.
I can see Not UFOs being the status quo but not not God being the status quo.
I think you'll agree there has to be a justification behind the status quo.
Most people have never seen a UFO. Because seeing them or not seeing them is the basis of establishing the status quo.
How then is not God the status quo?
-
I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.
In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.
Why are you saying that atheism is the status quo?
I didn't say that I thought something could come from nothing, just that for the first premise of the Kalam to stand it would have to be demonstrated that 'everything that has a beginning has a cause'. In the absence of such a demonstration, the argument is worthless.
You need to make a specific claim for it to be disproved. Are you going to make one?
I don't even know what the statement 'atheism is the status quo' means, never mind me not saying it. Note default position is not the same as status quo. The Default Position play cover versions of Bing Crosby records.
-
If everything that exists needs a pre-existent cause, then so does God.
If God can exist without a pre-existent cause, why not the universe?
Bertrand Russell (quoted from memory).
-
You're asking for a disproof of gods, there it is. Until sufficient evidence to justify the claim has been presented, it can be dismissed on the same grounds as it was offered. If there's a particular disproof you'd like to look at, by all means suggest it (and the claim that it specifically counters) and we can all join in.
O.
I have seen at least 2 documents on line claiming disproof of God. I had no hand in their formulation but you can bet your arse that the arguments in them have appeared here.
-
I have seen at least 2 documents on line claiming disproof of God. I had no hand in their formulation but you can bet your arse that the arguments in them have appeared here.
Well, at the risk of being presumptive about on-line resources I've perhaps not read, I'd suggest that they're either disproofs of particular conceptions of a god, or they're over-reaching (possibly both). For my part, until there's a specific claim there can't be a disproof, so which claim are we discussing the disproof of?
O.
-
If everything that exists needs a pre-existent cause, then so does God.
If God can exist without a pre-existent cause, why not the universe?
Bertrand Russell (quoted from memory).
Fine.....show me something that exists without a pre existent cause.......shouldn't be difficult since we got the universe on our doorsteps.
-
I have seen at least 2 documents on line claiming disproof of God. I had no hand in their formulation but you can bet your arse that the arguments in them have appeared here.
Then cite them, and link them to posts here that you think echo the nature of these alleged disproofs, and since any disproof must involve a rebuttal of something we need to know about what it is that is being rebutted.
So I think you need to supply some details, Vlad.
-
I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.
In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.
Why are you saying that atheism is the status quo?
Why should I even try to disprove something that no one has proved to exist? It seems a rather fruitless waste of time to me. As far as the idea that something popped out of nothing, I haven't a clue how that even makes sense, including any idea that a god popped out of nothing of course. My position, like that of many others, is simple. In the light of the total lack of evidence that god(s) exists, I see no reason to believe in it/them.
-
Well, at the risk of being presumptive about on-line resources I've perhaps not read, I'd suggest that they're either disproofs of particular conceptions of a god, or they're over-reaching (possibly both). For my part, until there's a specific claim there can't be a disproof, so which claim are we discussing the disproof of?
O.
That sounds as if the opportunity for missing the mark entirely vis a vis God is wide open. Particularly when one doesn't apparently have to Know anything about theology.
-
That sounds as if the opportunity for missing the mark entirely vis a vis God is wide open. Particularly when one doesn't apparently have to Know anything about theology.
What mark? It's not that one doesn't have to know anything about theology, it's that no-one can know anything theological, there's no reference point, no reliable source... it's like making truth claims about the Maiar's descent to Arda.
O.
-
Why should I even try to disprove something that no one has proved to exist? It seems a rather fruitless waste of time to me. As far as the idea that something popped out of nothing, I haven't a clue how that even makes sense, including any idea that a god popped out of nothing of course. My position, like that of many others, is simple. In the light of the total lack of evidence that god(s) exists, I see no reason to believe in it/them.
Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.
-
Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.
Let's see them then: are they secret or something?
-
Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.
As I've never seen any definitive proof that any god exists/doesn't exist I'll carry on with my own way of thinking, thanks, Vlad, unless, of course, you can produce these watertight disproofs that you seem to be going on about. The ball's in your court. :D
-
Nobody least of all by me will be asked to disprove God.
When you see these disproofs you will hurry to share ownership of them like a mouse in a cheese shop.
This is interesting. Vlad is deploying the same evasive tactics to assert the existence of these disproofs of God as he deploys to assert the existence of God.
My prediction is that Vlad will never supply us with any concrete instance of what he claims is a disproof of God.
-
This is interesting. Vlad is deploying the same evasive tactics to assert the existence of these disproofs of God as he deploys to assert the existence of God.
My prediction is that Vlad will never supply us with any concrete instance of what he claims is a disproof of God.
It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR
-
At the moment you have self appointed your belief as the default position. Why have you done this.?
Disbelieve of the claim of existence of anything (gods, ghosts, alien abductions, scientific hypotheses about new phenomenon, anything at all) is always the default.
It's not as if you've even defined a specific definition of "God" - there is not even a claim here to try to disprove, just hot air and silly bluster.
-
I'm not denying I have a burden of proof.
Of course you are.
In terms of being an idiot I'm not the one who has based his belief on the hope of something popping out of nothing.
Who has ever claimed that something popped out of nothing?
-
It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR
Had a quick look, and rather worryingly came across this sentence fairly early on:
To the believers in God and/or the believers in the proposition that we can rationally prove God’s existence
(and that the issue of God’s existence is not a simple matter of faith): I present these arguments unanalyzed, and
unsupported; in other words, these may or may not be good arguments, and they do not necessarily represent
my opinion.
Presumably you've read this in detail, having cited it, so what is your view regarding each of the 18 disproofs described: if we are to discuss them, which one should we start with?
-
It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR
Just because some people have put forward disproofs of specific types of gods, doesn't mean that it's necessary unless somebody has given a good reason to believe them in the first place. The burden of proof does not change. It's up to those proposing a god to both define it properly and give reasons to take it seriously. Something you seem to want to avoid doing at all costs.
-
Had a quick look, and rather worryingly came across this sentence fairly early on:
Presumably you've read this in detail, having cited it, so what is your view regarding each of the 18 disproofs described: if we are to discuss them, which one should we start with?
More importantly is to try to understand what if any claim Vlad is making.
-
More importantly is to try to understand what if any claim Vlad is making.
True - my guess is he's just kite-flying again.
-
True - my guess is he's just kite-flying again.
Not flying kites Gordon just getting discussion going...Response numbers speak for themselves....for all the thanks I get for that. Given that .......your resentment is almost comical.
-
Just because some people have put forward disproofs of specific types of gods, doesn't mean that it's necessary unless somebody has given a good reason to believe them in the first place. The burden of proof does not change. It's up to those proposing a god to both define it properly and give reasons to take it seriously. Something you seem to want to avoid doing at all costs.
But how then is that different from one theist criticising the religion of another.
For many of the disproofs one has to ask how the argument is atheist.
-
But how then is that different from one theist criticising the religion of another.
For many of the disproofs one has to ask how the argument is atheist.
when did you stop sexually assaulting children?
-
But how then is that different from one theist criticising the religion of another.
For many of the disproofs one has to ask how the argument is atheist.
Why should they be? As is so often the case, you are fighting an army of straw men of your own construction. As I said in #3 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg808506#msg808506), there are no disproofs of god(s) in general (and there is no need for any because of the burden of proof), only arguments against some specific definitions of god.
-
It's almost worth carrying on withholding so you guys make bigger arses of yourselves.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/disproofs-of-god.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj9_7Toq_XqAhVkoXEKHQCuAocQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3DOG54A6mBkshnlaSrUgDR
Wow. You've actually done it.
OK I read the first four and skimmed most of the others. They are all bollocks.
-
if we are to discuss them, which one should we start with?
I would start with the introductory note:
Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, the editors of The Impossibility of God, have the following introductory point: “Standard definitions of God include:
God is the perfect being.
God is the being most worthy of worship.
God is the adequate object of religious attitudes.
God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
I don't see any reason why any of those properties would have to be true of the alleged creator of the Universe. (Actually, I'm not sure what the third one even means.)
-
I would start with the introductory note:
I don't see any reason why any of those properties would have to be true of the alleged creator of the Universe. (Actually, I'm not sure what the third one even means.)
I don't know what any of them mean
-
Fine.....show me something that exists without a pre existent cause.......shouldn't be difficult since we got the universe on our doorsteps.
God, according to you.
I might add that the first cause argument ignores the possibility that time is a loop, and thus the possibility that A causes B causes C causes D causes E causes A causes B... etc. ad infinitum.
-
Fine.....show me something that exists without a pre existent cause.......shouldn't be difficult since we got the universe on our doorsteps.
As I keep pointing out: the space-time manifold.
Since it contains time (as one of its four dimensions), it can't possibly have a pre existent cause, because that implies the cause existed at an earlier time and all of time (whether finite or infinte) is internal to it.
-
As I keep pointing out: the space-time manifold.
Since it contains time (as one of its four dimensions), it can't possibly have a pre existent cause, because that implies the cause existed at an earlier time and all of time (whether finite or infinte) is internal to it.
A few points here is time dependent on the manifold or is the other way round.
Is it not possible that there are more dimensions?
Also when you say the manifold, what is it we are looking at?
-
God, according to you.
I might add that the first cause argument ignores the possibility that time is a loop, and thus the possibility that A causes B causes C causes D causes E causes A causes B... etc. ad infinitum.
Let us think of the universe as a loop.
Is it static or is it looping dynamically like say a Catherine wheel. The same question applies to a loop as it does to any universe. What keeps it dynamic. Why is work possible.
Scientifically how would infinite expansion affect circularity. In what sense could the same events happen if the context was never ever to be the same.
Then of course we have the same issue of why something and not nothing.
-
Let us think of the universe as a loop. Is it static or is it looping dynamically like say a Catherine wheel. The same question applies to a loop as it does to any universe. What keeps it dynamic. Why is work possible.
Relativity implies that time is a block - if it's a loop, all parts of the loop are there, and it's our understanding that is dependent upon its location in that time-space to give the impression of 'before' and 'after'.
Scientifically how would infinite expansion affect circularity.
If it's only space which is expanding it would have no effect on the time component, as the dimensions are orthogonal to each other.
Then of course we have the same issue of why something and not nothing.
If we have looped time we don't have that issue, there was never nothing.
O.
-
Relativity implies that time is a block - if it's a loop, all parts of the loop are there, and it's our understanding that is dependent upon its location in that time-space to give the impression of 'before' and 'after'.
If it's only space which is expanding it would have no effect on the time component, as the dimensions are orthogonal to each other.
If we have looped time we don't have that issue, there was never nothing.
O.
That isn’t an answer to the question why something and not nothing.
-
That isn’t an answer to the question why something and not nothing.
Why God and not nothing?
-
That isn’t an answer to the question why something and not nothing.
It is, there is not point in time at which there was nothing - it's not a viable option.
O.
-
Why God and not nothing?
Don’t know. I’m still open to whatever is necessary being in the universe. Any suggestions? Requirements are. Cannot just be an abstract necessity, Cannot be dependent for its existence or state on anything else, cannot be made from parts, cannot be emergent.
-
It is, there is not point in time at which there was nothing - it's not a viable option.
O.
Irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.
-
Irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.
Within this framework, to have 'nothing' is impossible - your question is invalid, it's like asking why a round circle and not a square one.
O.
-
It is, there is not point in time at which there was nothing - it's not a viable option.
O.
It isn’t. Show us the something that it is that has always been here.
-
It isn’t. Show us the something that it is that has always been here.
It is a looped universe, there is no time at which it isn't in existence, there is no start or finish, it's a closed system.
O.
-
Within this framework, to have 'nothing' is impossible - your question is invalid, it's like asking why a round circle and not a square one.
O.
You mean there is another framework in which it is possible? How then is it impossible?
Secondly you seem to be saying that you can get something ( which seems to be both unfalsifiable and non identifiable from nothing and this is the way do it. But you have already said that nothing is impossible. So what then is the something from which it owes its existence.
If you are saying existence is temporal then how can it be independent of time?
And all this apart from the statement something has always been here being irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.
-
It is a looped universe, there is no time at which it isn't in existence, there is no start or finish, it's a closed system.
O.
Why is it in existence at all? And why is it looped. The only apparent reason for suggesting a looped universe at all is to avoid an open universe. It seems to exist just to make sure that we get something for nothing.
Can a loop be termed as an infinity? What is it that keeps it dynamic and not static?
-
You mean there is another framework in which it is possible? How then is it impossible?
If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing. In other models there is; so why something and not nothing might have meaning in other models, but this model doesn't answer the question of 'why something and not nothing' so much as it renders that particular issue moot if it holds. For other models you need to look to those models for an answer to the question.
Secondly you seem to be saying that you can get something ( which seems to be both unfalsifiable and non identifiable from nothing and this is the way do it.
No, I'm pointing out that this is one of the models whereby there is no possibility of a 'nothing' moment from which something could emerge - it is and fills the whole expanse of time, there is no time in which it doesn't exist for something to happen to create that something.
But you have already said that nothing is impossible.
Exactly, so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.
So what then is the something from which it owes its existence.
It doesn't.
If you are saying existence is temporal then how can it be independent of time?
Time is part of this model of universe, that's why the universe can loop it back upon itself.
And all this apart from the statement something has always been here being irrelevant to the question why something and not nothing.
It's not irrelevant, it's definitional; it gives the background as to why the question is meaningless.
Why is it in existence at all?
What makes you think that there's a 'why'?
And why is it looped.
That's the nature of space-time in this model.
The only apparent reason for suggesting a looped universe at all is to avoid an open universe.
It's a model that avoids certain logical difficulties, but poses others - in the absence of any solid information that's the case with all models.
It seems to exist just to make sure that we get something for nothing.
To exactly the same extent that positing 'gods' avoids the need to actually come up with an explanation in favour of 'theologically serious' magic? You can impugn the intent of whomever proposes the argument if you'd like, but it doesn't constitute an argument against it or in favour of alternative explanations.
O.
-
If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing. In other models there is; so why something and not nothing might have meaning in other models, but this model doesn't answer the question of 'why something and not nothing' so much as it renders that particular issue moot if it holds. For other models you need to look to those models for an answer to the question.
No, I'm pointing out that this is one of the models whereby there is no possibility of a 'nothing' moment from which something could emerge - it is and fills the whole expanse of time, there is no time in which it doesn't exist for something to happen to create that something.
Exactly, so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.
It doesn't.
Time is part of this model of universe, that's why the universe can loop it back upon itself.
It's not irrelevant, it's definitional; it gives the background as to why the question is meaningless.
O.
But not even Krauss put his money on the question being meaningless. You have still to demonstrate how the answer it has always been here is meaningless rather than your answer being non sequitur.
This is turd polishing even greater than Hillside. The King is dead, long live the King.
Any progress on showing what it is in the universe that has been around for ever?
If not what evidence do you have for something being around for ever. It should be far easier if what you say is true. Let’s have the evidence.
-
If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing........... so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.
so the something owes its existence to nothing?
........................But.....you have said.....there is no possibility of nothing.
-
If that model holds true, there is no possibility of nothing. In other models there is; so why something and not nothing might have meaning in other models, but this model doesn't answer the question of 'why something and not nothing' so much as it renders that particular issue moot if it holds. For other models you need to look to those models for an answer to the question.
No, I'm pointing out that this is one of the models whereby there is no possibility of a 'nothing' moment from which something could emerge - it is and fills the whole expanse of time, there is no time in which it doesn't exist for something to happen to create that something.
Exactly, so the 'something' can't have emerged from it, the something is all there is.
It doesn't.
Time is part of this model of universe, that's why the universe can loop it back upon itself.
It's not irrelevant, it's definitional; it gives the background as to why the question is meaningless.
What makes you think that there's a 'why'?
That's the nature of space-time in this model.
It's a model that avoids certain logical difficulties, but poses others - in the absence of any solid information that's the case with all models.
To exactly the same extent that positing 'gods' avoids the need to actually come up with an explanation in favour of 'theologically serious' magic? You can impugn the intent of whomever proposes the argument if you'd like, but it doesn't constitute an argument against it or in favour of alternative explanations.
O.
This post is like you leaving a field of cow pats. Some will turn out to be just shite, some will fertilise Roses.
But If time is looped, and it’s not just a circular answer, a bit of magic, and a huge portion of Godphobia. Wouldn’t that make each event its own explanation?
-
But not even Krauss put his money on the question being meaningless.
In the general it isn't, in respect of this particular model it is.
You have still to demonstrate how the answer it has always been here is meaningless rather than your answer being non sequitur.
The answer 'it's always been there' isn't quite what I was saying; I was saying it encompasses all of time, so there is no 'when' for something to exist to have caused it, there is no 'nothing' outside of it, the concept of 'outside' or 'else' is meaningless. You still have to justify that model, of course, but within that model your question doesn't mean anything.
This is turd polishing even greater than Hillside. The King is dead, long live the King.
It's always nice to have greatness acknowledged, but the ad hominem award for you failing to grasp the argument isn't exactly a prestigious (or even rare) award.
Any progress on showing what it is in the universe that has been around for ever?
Within this model of the universe? Everything has been around for ever, that's the nature of the cyclic model.
O.
-
A few points here is time dependent on the manifold or is the other way round.
Time is a direction through the manifold*. If you think of the manifold as the surface of the earth, then you could consider time to be (say) the north to south direction.
Is it not possible that there are more dimensions?
Of course it's possible.
Also when you say the manifold, what is it we are looking at?
What are you asking for here? Mathematically, it's a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold) with metric signature -2 (or +2, depending on your sign convention - as long as you're consistent, it makes no difference).
* The exact direction depends on the observer.
-
This post is like you leaving a field of cow pats. Some will turn out to be just shite, some will fertilise Roses.
As is the nature of any body of conjecture, surely?
But If time is looped, and it’s not just a circular answer, a bit of magic, and a huge portion of Godphobia. Wouldn’t that make each event its own explanation?
But if 'god' is real, isn't that an actual bit of magic; doesn't that make god his own explanation? Isn't that a huge portion of reality-phobia?
Ultimately, though, yes it would result in an entirely self-contained, self-referential natural cycle.
O.
-
If that model holds true it is impossible for there to be nothing.
OK let’s loop time. Now is it time or entropy that makes things happen? If entropy then eventually we are going to reach heat death. What is it then that keeps our perpetual motion machine going. What is it which is bending time back on itself? What is it that is guiding every particle back to its exact position relative to everything. And not just once but forever and ever.
What makes you think that there's a 'why'?
Because of reason. It is a great question which has served humanity exceedingly well. Creating the unquestionable has never been a good course of action and looks like special pleading for starters or having something to hide.
Why something and not nothing
There has always been something here.......not an answer, not a definition.
[/quote]
-
Time is a direction through the manifold*. If you think of the manifold as the surface of the earth, then you could consider time to be (say) the north to south direction.
Of course it's possible.
What are you asking for here? Mathematically, it's a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Riemannian_manifold) with metric signature -2 (or +2, depending on your sign convention - as long as you're consistent, it makes no difference).
* The exact direction depends on the observer.
What is it physically?
-
As is the nature of any body of conjecture, surely?
But if 'god' is real, isn't that an actual bit of magic; doesn't that make god his own explanation? Isn't that a huge portion of reality-phobia?
Ultimately, though, yes it would result in an entirely self-contained, self-referential natural cycle.
O.
I haven’t demonstrated reality phobia but you have demonstrated Godphobia in such abundance I could bag it up and sell it by the roadside.
-
OK let’s loop time. Now is it time or entropy that makes things happen?
No. All things that 'happen' are our experience moving through the four dimensional space that's already there. Entropy is our explanation for a local pattern of activity that tends towards uniform order at a particular point.
If entropy then eventually we are going to reach heat death.
That's the conventional model of entropy, yes; this model requires some mechanism to change that at some point - I'm not sure what that would be, I'm not aware of any significant examples.
What is it then that keeps our perpetual motion machine going.
Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, gravitation, electro-magnetism, strong- and weak-nuclear forces... all the bits that we understand to part of physics now.
What is it which is bending time back on itself?
Possibly nothing, it's possible that it's just the nature of space-time that it curves.
What is it that is guiding every particle back to its exact position relative to everything.
Statistics - give it an infinite number of iterations to align a finite number of elements, and one of those iteration will duplicate a prior one.
And not just once but forever and ever.
That's the nature of looped time, once it happens once it happens forever.
Because of reason.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to the be apologist for religion and claim to be the force of 'reason' - god is the ultimate excuse for stopping looking for difficult answers.
It is a great question which has served humanity exceedingly well.
But there are situations where it doesn't apply - any time you don't have a conscious actor, why becomes irrelevant. How is significant, but why requires choices.
Creating the unquestionable has never been a good course of action and looks like special pleading for starters or having something to hide.
Saying that you need to justify 'why' is not making something unquestionable, it's just establishing the fundamentals. If you want to ask 'why' you need to explain who it is you think is making the choice; otherwise the question you want to is 'how'.
Why something and not nothing
What does 'nothing' mean in this model?
There has always been something here.......not an answer, not a definition.
Everything is this, there is no 'other', there is no 'outside' there is no 'boundary'... it's part of the definition of the model.
I haven’t demonstrated reality phobia but you have demonstrated Godphobia in such abundance I could bag it up and sell it by the roadside.
How can you be afraid of something that you don't believe exists? Now 'religiophobia' would be a potentially valid accusation, religion worries me, religious people worry me, but gods worry me as much as unicorns, pixies, Sauron and Thanos' big, shiny, universe-fisting glove.
O.
-
What is it physically?
What is anything physically? All we can do is give the most accurate description of it we can. In this case the most accurate description we have is a 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold with metric signature -2.
The best analogy is to forget 2 of the space dimensions and think of time and one space dimension plotted on a surface of some kind. Unfortunately, there are a number of complications:
- The lines of space and time are not absolute, they depend on the observer.
- Even where it's 'flat', the geometry is not Euclidean (the normal geometry you learn at school).
- It isn't generally 'flat', it's 'curved'. What this means is that the geometry varies. You can think of this as the surface being curved through a third dimension, but that is just another analogy. Curving through an extra dimension does change the geometry of the surface, but the geometry can change without an extra dimension and you can't model all the possible changes in geometry by literally curving through an extra dimension.
- Even if you select one observer and draw its lines of space and time on the surface, the curvature is such that they won't be valid everywhere. There will be places where the coordinates become degenerate (like latitude and longitude do at the poles) or you'll get coordinate singularities (where the values go infinite, like at the event horizons of black holes) and you have to switch to alternative coordinates to understand what's happening.
-
Don’t know.
So why criticise people who say they don't know why the Universe and not nothing.
Everything below is irrelevant to the point.
I’m still open to whatever is necessary being in the universe. Any suggestions? Requirements are. Cannot just be an abstract necessity, Cannot be dependent for its existence or state on anything else, cannot be made from parts, cannot be emergent.
-
So why criticise people who say they don't know why the Universe and not nothing.
Everything below is irrelevant to the point.
I’m not sure I am criticising them. I’m criticising those who say it is an invalid question because by some means a state of nothingness is impossible.
-
Relativity implies that time is a block - if it's a loop, all parts of the loop are there, and it's our understanding that is dependent upon its location in that time-space to give the impression of 'before' and 'after'.
If it's only space which is expanding it would have no effect on the time component, as the dimensions are orthogonal to each other.
If we have looped time we don't have that issue, there was never nothing.
O.
Bob’s your uncle !!!!!!! In what dimension are you looping time in again?
-
Vlad - you can't "disprove" "God" any more than you can disprove leprechauns. What you can do though is to falsify the arguments attempted by theists/leprechaunists to justify the claims gods/leprechauns. And that's all that's required for atheism/a-leprechaunism.
You know this already though.
Rest: why are you feeding the house troll again?
-
I’m not sure I am criticising them. I’m criticising those who say it is an invalid question because by some means a state of nothingness is impossible.
That's not what they are doing though. They are pointing out some alternative possible answers to the question.
-
That's not what they are doing though. They are pointing out some alternative possible answers to the question.
To me there is a contributor to the thread who states that a state of nothingness is impossible although he does qualify by suggesting that is the case if one model is correct.
I think his argument only takes him to there is something rather than nothing, where we all are in fact, rather than an answer to why something and not nothing.
Those appealing to maths for infinities cannot seriously then argue against an alternative nothing.
I’m thinking of having a picture of Richard Dawkins tattooed on my arse. I can envisage it not being there. Once in position it will be more or less a permanent feature. But does that make an unsullied arsecheek an impossibility.......don’t think so.....
I call the Above the “My arse, Dawkins face” hypothesis. Of course I’ll probably never get to see it to prove it..........So i’ll Just have to sit on it.
-
Bob’s your uncle !!!!!!! In what dimension are you looping time in again?
Time is a(at least one) dimension.
O.
-
Time is a(at least one) dimension.
O.
How would you know time was looped without reference to other dimensions?
Why is it looped for billions of years and not billions of nanosecond.
-
How would you know time was looped without reference to other dimensions?
Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been. I can travel in a straight line on Earth - no reference to up or down, left or right - and end up back where I started.
Why is it looped for billions of years and not billions of nanosecond.
Again, what's with the 'why'? What makes you think there's a reason? It may be that there are constraints within the proposed structure (remember this is currently all just conjecture), it may be that there is some ethereal, temporal pipe-bender out there...
O.
-
Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been. It may be that there are constraints within the proposed structure (remember this is currently all just conjecture), it may be that there is some ethereal, temporal pipe-bender out there...
O.
Why do I not remember being here before since according to you we all have?. Could it be that moment only occurs once.
-
Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been. I can travel in a straight line on Earth - no reference to up or down, left or right - and end up back where I started.
Again, what's with the 'why'?
It's a perfectly legitimate question for the enquiring mind but obviously not the mind that has fucked itself about by New Atheism.
-
Most modern physicists think that there are a number of other dimensions, as well as the three familiar ones of space and one of time, that we can't directly experience.
-
Most modern physicists think that there are a number of other dimensions, as well as the three familiar ones of space and one of time, that we can't directly experience.
Extra dimensions are an aspect of string theory but not, for example, one of its major rivals as a "theory of everything", loop quantum gravity.
-
Because you travel for a while and then you find you're somewhere you've already been. I can travel in a straight line on Earth - no reference to up or down, left or right - and end up back where I started.
Sometimes it feels like time is looped on this forum. I have a very strong feeling we've been here before.
-
Sometimes it feels like time is looped on this forum. I have a very strong feeling we've been here before.
Apparently, there's a theory for that.
-
It's a perfectly legitimate question for the enquiring mind but obviously not the mind that has fucked itself about by New Atheism.
It's a legitimate question to a point, but it's loaded with implicit assumptions which should probably be addressed first.
O.
-
Outy,
It's a legitimate question to a point, but it's loaded with implicit assumptions which should probably be addressed first.
Quite - the trouble with the "why" question is that just gives you an infinite regress:
"Why something and not nothing?"
"God"
"OK, why God and not not God?"
"Er..."
-
Outy,
Quite - the trouble with the "why" question is that just gives you an infinite regress:
"Why something and not nothing?"
"God"
"OK, why God and not not God?"
"Er,The properties of the necessary entity are more God like than non Godlike"
A necessary entity negates a need for an infinite regression which is shown for what it is.
... Dawkinsian preference.
-
The properties of the necessary entity are more God like than non Godlike
Since you haven't even managed to explain what could possibly make something necessary, this this goes way beyond a totally baseless assertion and well into fantastical wishful thinking.
-
Vlad,
Anecessary entity negates a need for an infinite regression which is shown for what it is Dawkinsian preference.
Ah, the old special pleading ploy eh? You might want to think of your notion "god" as a "necessary entity", but that doesn't get you off the hook. If you think a god was necessary for the universe, why was it necessary for there to be a universe (and therefore supposedly a god to create it) at all? Why not no god and no universe?
See - infinite regress like I told you.
-
Vlad,
Ah, the old special pleading ploy eh? You might want to think of your notion "god" as a "necessary entity", but that doesn't get you off the hook. If you think a god was necessary for the universe, why was it necessary for there to be a universe (and therefore supposedly a god to create it) at all? Why not no god and no universe?
See - infinite regress like I told you.
specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.
Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.
-
specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.
Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.
24-carat gobbledegook.
-
specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.
Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.
hic!
-
24-carat gobbledegook.
I suppose you are going to revert to type Micawber and say that something will inevitably turn up.
-
"Er,The properties of the necessary entity are more God like than non Godlike"
A necessary entity negates a need for an infinite regression which is shown for what it is.
... Dawkinsian preference.
Except that you haven't established that there is a necessary entity, or what any necessary properties of one would be.
All of which calls into question what you consider 'god-like' properties to be - even if there is a necessary entity for the universe I don't see any reason why consciousness would necessarily be a trait which would seem to be a requirement for a 'god'.
As to the idea that infinite regression is something dependent upon Professor Dawkins, our understanding of reality has proceeded from the idea of a chain of cause and effect for centuries before the good Professor rose to prominence; if you want to posit something that supercedes that understanding then you need a pretty solid reason to do so which so far we've not seen.
In fact, it's almost like you want to dismiss the infinite regress because of some preconceived deistic fetish for a creation myth....
O.
-
Vlad,
specially pleading. I’ve agreed that necessity is an aspect of the whole of reality (minding the fallacy of division)The necessity entity I’ve conceded could even be in this universe (minding the fallacy of division). You cannot wash away necessity. If the universe contains the necessary then there are no more explanations external to the necessity it contains. The only trouble with the universe containing the necessary is appointing time and place to it, appointing dimension to it, discriminating it from the universal shedload of contingency.
Infinitely regressed chains and heirarchies don’t actually deliver since if you actually end up getting something it has to be introduced at some point.
It isn’t necessary for there to be a universe because ultimately the contingent isn’t necessary.
See, the problem here is that there's no way to tell whether you have an idea or even (finally) an argument in your head but you're so deeply inarticulate that there's no way to know what it is, or instead whether you simply have no cogent thoughts at all so only incoherence appears when you attempt a reply.
Currently I lean toward the latter explanation for this latest dog's breakfast of a post, but I could be wrong about that.
-
Perhaps we can sum up by saying there is something which exists, because we exist.
"That which exists" is beyond human comprehension, and we may call it God, because it must be the source of all existence.
The question to ponder is the relationship between "that which exists" and us.
In our universe, there is much which exists which by its material nature is unable to ponder its existence and reasons behind existence. It would appear that humans have an apparently unique attribute in this respect compared to other known matter in the universe. So the question to ponder is : why are we able to contemplate our existence, and where in a material world does this attribute originate?
-
Perhaps we can sum up by saying there is something which exists, because we exist.
Perhaps not: but it is your claim so you demonstrate it.
"That which exists" is beyond human comprehension, and we may call it God, because it must be the source of all existence.
If this thing is 'beyond human comprehension' then you clearly can say nothing meaningful about it, so it might as well not exist.
The question to ponder is the relationship between "that which exists" and us.
Which is begging the question - a fallacy.
In our universe, there is much which exists which by its material nature is unable to ponder its existence and reasons behind existence.
Who can say for sure, but you're begging the question again, so your point is pointless.
It would appear that humans have an apparently unique attribute in this respect compared to other known matter in the universe.
The universe is a big place, Alan, so if I were you I'd reserve judgement.
So the question to ponder is : why are we able to contemplate our existence, and where in a material world does this attribute originate?
That doesn't take much pondering Alan: it is just active biology (brains to be more precise).
-
Except that you haven't established that there is a necessary entity, or what any necessary properties of one would be.
All of which calls into question what you consider 'god-like' properties to be - even if there is a necessary entity for the universe I don't see any reason why consciousness would necessarily be a trait which would seem to be a requirement for a 'god'.
As to the idea that infinite regression is something dependent upon Professor Dawkins, our understanding of reality has proceeded from the idea of a chain of cause and effect for centuries before the good Professor rose to prominence; if you want to posit something that supercedes that understanding then you need a pretty solid reason to do so which so far we've not seen.
In fact, it's almost like you want to dismiss the infinite regress because of some preconceived deistic fetish for a creation myth....
O.
I don’t dismiss infinite regress. It exists in mathematical reality. What I tend to dismiss is the ability of an infinite regress to deliver anything physically hence my counter argument involving the hierarchy of dependence each of its members owed a fiver from its predecessor or immediately lower level.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, He is the public face of “who created God?” In fact I believe he presents it as a knock down argument. The trouble is it is not an atheist argument.
Possible replies are 1) We don’t know who created God. No doubt those who announce that it is an honest answer in an atheist will present it as a failure in a believer 2) a reply could be who cares who created God.
So you see infinite regress even if it were true is not an atheist argument and it’s use against God is a busted flush.
-
Except that you haven't established that there is a necessary entity, or what any necessary properties of one would be.
All of which calls into question what you consider 'god-like' properties to be - even if there is a necessary entity for the universe I don't see any reason why consciousness would necessarily be a trait which would seem to be a requirement for a 'god'.
I have argued that where there is contingency there is necessity. The necessary for the universe is that which explains the existence of the contingent universe and which is not explained by the contingent universe.
That from the get go gives it the divine property of creatorhood. Because it is autonous it is sovereign. Property two. Because it is the sole arbiter of how the universe is it’s activities are not accidental or due to chance and that in my view makes it personal.
-
That from the get go gives it the divine property of creatorhood.
Not necessarily - something not being contingent does not make it a creator, it makes it a source. 'Creator' implies design and intent which isn't necessarily the case, and which leads to the 'god-like' interpretation but overreaches what you think you've demonstrated.
Because it is autonous it is sovereign.
Autonomy, again, is a step beyond what's been established - independence and autonomy are not the same.
Because it is the sole arbiter of how the universe is it’s activities are not accidental or due to chance and that in my view makes it personal.
No, 'arbiter' implies, again, deliberate decision making which isn't established in merely determining that something is not contingent. Any decision, any act of will, any deliberation, as has been amply demonstrated in the ongoing discussions with Alan Burns on free will, is based upon predicates; will is not 'necessary by virtue of not being contingent' because if it's not contingent then it isn't will, it's random.
O.
-
get go
Horrible Americanism. Please avoid it. it’s
"Its" - no apostrophe if you mean "belonging to it". "It's" means "it is".
-
Not necessarily - something not being contingent does not make it a creator, it makes it a source. 'Creator' implies design and intent which isn't necessarily the case, and which leads to the 'god-like' interpretation but overreaches what you think you've demonstrated.
A creator can be a source yes. I say creator because it does not do things by accident nor by any natural law. It is acting only in accordance with itself. There is nothing natural which approaches this level of freedom to act so to liken it to any natural source is inadequate and a god like interpretation far more adequate.
No, 'arbiter' implies, again, deliberate decision making which isn't established in merely determining that something is not contingent. Any decision, any act of will, any deliberation, as has been amply demonstrated in the ongoing discussions with Alan Burns on free will, is based upon predicates; will is not 'necessary by virtue of not being contingent' because if it's not contingent then it isn't will, it's random.
O.
Unfortunately if you are depending on what you have argued with Alan all you have done is argued that there is nothing in nature that has the level of freedom to act as the necessary being has.
A random source would imply a random universe and not one at all penetrable to reason.
For example things would be more likely to pop out of nothing if we’re we talking about a random source only. All arguments based on the conservation of energy are then predicated on a non random source.
-
Blimey I think Steve has a new job, teaching English grammar! ::)
-
Horrible Americanism. Please avoid it.
The hell I will.
-
A creator can be a source yes. I say creator because it does not do things by accident nor by any natural law. It is acting only in accordance with itself. There is nothing natural which approaches this level of freedom to act so to liken it to any natural source is inadequate and a god like interpretation far more adequate.
This totally contradicts what you've previously claimed abut things that are necessary. If it has a choice, then it could have chosen differently, in which case, it would have been different, and something that could have been different (according to what you've said before) can't be necessary.
Unfortunately if you are depending on what you have argued with Alan all you have done is argued that there is nothing in nature that has the level of freedom to act as the necessary being has.
No. A choice also requires a time dimension, so anything that makes a choice must be contingent on time.
A random source would imply a random universe and not one at all penetrable to reason.
As I already pointed out, given enough randomness, you'd get any degree of order just by chance. Specifically, given an infinite amount you would necessarily have arbitrarily large amounts of order.
For example things would be more likely to pop out of nothing if we’re we talking about a random source only.
Like entire orderly universes, given enough randomness.
All arguments based on the conservation of energy are then predicated on a non random source.
Somewhat irrelevant but I don't know why people obsess about energy conservation. To the extent it's applicable (and it's not at all straightforward in general relativity - it applies locally but it's not at all clear how to apply it generally), it's due to a symmetry in the laws of physics, just like conservation of momentum.
Also, as I pointed out some time ago, when we were talking about Feser's 'base of hierarchy', Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures might necessarily exist, fits the the notion far, far better than something with thoughts and the ability to choose (all examples of which that we know of actually require order to exist). That's where Feser's argument became comical as he tried to bash the square peg of his notion of god into the round hole he'd just argued for.
-
I have argued that where there is contingency there is necessity. The necessary for the universe is that which explains the existence of the contingent universe and which is not explained by the contingent universe.
You haven't demonstrated that the Universe is contingent.
-
A creator can be a source yes.
It can be, yes, but a source isn't necessarily a creator.
I say creator because it does not do things by accident nor by any natural law.
If it is not 'by accident' then it's by design... which requires inputs, which makes your 'designer' dependent upon something prior to spur the design.
There is nothing natural which approaches this level of freedom to act so to liken it to any natural source is inadequate and a god like interpretation far more adequate.
That's just the argument from ignorance writ poetic; we can't explain it, therefore gods....
Unfortunately if you are depending on what you have argued with Alan all you have done is argued that there is nothing in nature that has the level of freedom to act as the necessary being has.
On the contrary, if you actually engage with the content of the argument you'll see that it's pertinent; you are suggesting a conscious decision by your 'source' - acts of will require prior events to shape the will, or you simply have randomness. So if the creation is an act of will, or the manifestation of an act of will, then your creator is no longer 'necessary by dint of not being contingent' because it's contingent upon the prior events that inform the act of will.
A random source would imply a random universe and not one at all penetrable to reason.
Perhaps; certain elements of quantum mechanics appear to be random at the individual level, but over time and enough iterations settle into reliable patterns enough that accurate rates can be determined. If the fine detail of an event is less important than the general effects then you could have random effects leading to stability.
For example things would be more likely to pop out of nothing if we’re we talking about a random source only. All arguments based on the conservation of energy are then predicated on a non random source.
Except that 'something from nothing' is not the model that's put forward (the 'nothingness' of a vacuum is a equilibrium point between matter and anti-matter, particles and anti-particles, and can spontaneously break down and remerge), whilst the conservation of energy is a trait that may have emerged as part of that ongoing stability (or, indeed, may be an older facet of a stable or cyclic infinitely old reality).
O.
-
A creator can be a source yes.
Creators are a sub-set of sources.
Therefore all creators are sources, but not all sources are creators. Therefore until or unless you can demonstrate that the universe specifically has a creator rather than a source that isn't a creator then the rest of your argument is redundant.
And seeing as your argument attempts, as its conclusion, to demonstrate god then your argument is inherently circular - in other words using the presumption of a creator rather than just a source to justify the requirement of, err, a creator.
D- at best.
-
D- at best.
And more likely a Z- and a note to listen to what he is told in and take on board contents of the lessons in future!
-
Creators are a sub-set of sources.
Therefore all creators are sources, but not all sources are creators. Therefore until or unless you can demonstrate that the universe specifically has a creator rather than a source that isn't a creator then the rest of your argument is redundant.
And seeing as your argument attempts, as its conclusion, to demonstrate god then your argument is inherently circular - in other words using the presumption of a creator rather than just a source to justify the requirement of, err, a creator.
I’m afraid this looks very much like a “He can’t be a boy because he’s called Sue” argument.. You need to look at the implications of what it is to be the necessary entity rather than a contingent one. Those implications are independent on whether we are talking about a source or creator. The source of the universe has those implications. So no redundancy of argument there i’m Afraid.
And to remind you of the argument.
I was answering the query as to why I was arguing that the necessary entity is God. My answer is that aspects of it’s nature fit those of God rather than yet another,natural and contingent thing.
-
And more likely a Z- and a note to listen to what he is told in and take on board contents of the lessons in future!
Oh yes you had to say Z because you have greater sense of outrage at Christians than he has.
I’m afraid there doesn’t seem to be anyone here qualified to talk about how the Universe just isn’t because they have grown up thinking that the universe just is.
-
And to remind you of the argument.
I was answering the query as to why I was arguing that the necessary entity is God. My answer is that aspects of it’s nature fit those of God rather than yet another,natural and contingent thing.
Except something with thoughts and the ability to make choices is virtually the exact opposite of all the claims you've made about what would be necessary - not that you've done much of a job of defining it, but that which you have said pretty much rules out any sort of thinking being. See above (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809278#msg809278).
-
Vlad,
don’t dismiss infinite regress. It exists in mathematical reality. What I tend to dismiss is the ability of an infinite regress to deliver anything physically hence my counter argument involving the hierarchy of dependence each of its members owed a fiver from its predecessor or immediately lower level.
You’ve missed the point. If you want to assert “X can’t exist by itself, therefor Y created it” you have to explain why Y could exist by itself (ie required no antecedent of its own). And when you can’t do that – essentially all you have is “it’s magic innit” – you’d added nothing of explanatory value. You may have well have made X exist by itself to begin with.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, He is the public face of “who created God?” In fact I believe he presents it as a knock down argument. The trouble is it is not an atheist argument.
Nothing is an “atheist argument”. Rather there are falsifications of the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs, leaving atheism as the default alternative.
Possible replies are 1) We don’t know who created God. No doubt those who announce that it is an honest answer in an atheist will present it as a failure in a believer…
No, it just puts the theist in the same position as the non-theist who says “we don’t know how the universe came to be”. Thus the theist’s "don’t know" adds nothing to the "don’t know" we have already.
2) a reply could be who cares who created God.
Presumably someone who thinks there’s a god and justifies the belief by caring about how universe came to be should. If not, the non-theist could equally say, “who cares about what created the universe?”
So you see infinite regress even if it were true is not an atheist argument and it’s use against God is a busted flush.
So you see, no it isn’t. If you think a "don’t know" about the origin of the universe justifies the belief “god”, then a "don’t know" about the origin of that god justifies whatever antecedent belief claim I care to put in place…and so on forever. If on the other hand you want to assert “the buck stops here” for your god, you have no basis to deny “the buck stops here” for the universe itself. Anything else is just special pleading.
-
Except something with thoughts and the ability to make choices is virtually the exact opposite of all the claims you've made about what would be necessary - not that you've done much of a job of defining it, but that which you have said pretty much rules out any sort of thinking being. See above (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809278#msg809278).
Sounds very much a You haven't described God and your description of God is appalling argument.
You'll have to spell out what you mean by thinking. It certainly wouldn't be an emerged brain, it wouldn't be thought stimulated by a need to be environmentally aware although having CREATED the universe it could contemplate that. It could okf course eternally contemplate itself.
Since your tribe has appealed to things for which there is no known actual real example namely actual infinity and something popping spontaneously out of nothing. You cannot credibly appeal to a "We know nothing of anything actual that thinks like a brain" and the AI that has resulted from it."
Serious theology has always looked upon stuff like right hand of God and the mind as God as metaphor for something far better.
Cue Prof......"They can't do that grrrrrrrrrrrrr"
-
You'll have to spell out what you mean by thinking. It certainly wouldn't be an emerged brain, it wouldn't be thought stimulated by a need to be environmentally aware although having CREATED the universe it could contemplate that. It could okf course eternally contemplate itself.
Why wouldn't it be an emerged brain - or, rather, in what other way could something capable of thought come into being?
Serious theology has always looked upon stuff like right hand of God and the mind as God as metaphor for something far better.
You mean 'serious theology' has always had to rely on hand-waving and 'ineffability' to cover for a lack of any concrete basis for anything?
Cue Prof......"They can't do that grrrrrrrrrrrrr"
Of course they can - in fact, what option do they have - but we can reasonably dismiss it as high-falutin' navel-gazing and move on to potentially worthwhile contributions.
O.
-
Vlad,
You’ve missed the point. If you want to assert “X can’t exist by itself, therefor Y created it” you have to explain why Y could exist by itself (ie required no antecedent of its own). And when you can’t do that – essentially all you have is “it’s magic innit” – you’d added nothing of explanatory value. You may have well have made X exist by itself to begin with.
Nothing is an “atheist argument”. Rather there are falsifications of the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs, leaving atheism as the default alternative.
No, it just puts the theist in the same position as the non-theist who says “we don’t know how the universe came to be”. Thus the theist’s "don’t know" adds nothing to the "don’t know" we have already.
Presumably someone who thinks there’s a god and justifies the belief by caring about how universe came to be should. If not, the non-theist could equally say, “who cares about what created the universe?”
So you see, no it isn’t. If you think a "don’t know" about the origin of the universe justifies the belief “god”, then a "don’t know" about the origin of that god justifies whatever antecedent belief claim I care to put in place…and so on forever. If on the other hand you want to assert “the buck stops here” for your god, you have no basis to deny “the buck stops here” for the universe itself. Anything else is just special pleading.
Hillside, if your presence here was anything beyond collecting a portfolio for your art of the turdpolish. You would know that I concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe. For the same reasons as you are here, you continue to promote the nonsensical line that everything could be contingent.....end of.
-
Sounds very much a You haven't described God and your description of God is appalling argument.
You'll have to spell out what you mean by thinking. It certainly wouldn't be an emerged brain, it wouldn't be thought stimulated by a need to be environmentally aware although having CREATED the universe it could contemplate that. It could okf course eternally contemplate itself.
It's not actually up to me to do anything, since I'm not arguing for a solution, I'm merely pointing out that there is a prima facie contradiction in what you have proposed. Contemplation is something that requires time, as does any sort of thinking or making choices. Hence the idea of a conscious being, in any normal sense, is necessarily contingent.
If you want to make the argument, it's up to you to define your god in such a way as it could possibly be necessary, but you've yet to even explain how anything can possibly be necessary, so so far, you've achieved bugger all as far as arguing for a god from necessity.
Since your tribe has appealed to things for which there is no known actual real example namely actual infinity and something popping spontaneously out of nothing. You cannot credibly appeal to a "We know nothing of anything actual that thinks like a brain" and the AI that has resulted from it."
I'm still not aware of anybody suggesting that something popped out of nothing, that appears to just be one of your many straw men, and again, suggesting other possibilities simply shows the flaws in your argument - nobody needs to make a positive argument for them. It's you who is trying to argue for a particular conclusion.
The burden of proof is still a total mystery to you, isn't it?
Serious theology has always looked upon stuff like right hand of God and the mind as God as metaphor for something far better.
Well make the case then.
I've suggested over and over again, that you start a thread with a definition of a god and complete argument for it that you're prepared to get behind and defend. It seems you lack the intellectual courage to do so, preferring to piss about making vague statements and then trying to switch the burden of proof.
-
Why wouldn't it be an emerged brain - or, rather, in what other way could something capable of thought come into being?
You mean 'serious theology' has always had to rely on hand-waving and 'ineffability' to cover for a lack of any concrete basis for anything?
Of course they can - in fact, what option do they have - but we can reasonably dismiss it as high-falutin' navel-gazing and move on to potentially worthwhile contributions.
O.
Does a thought need to come into being after all you've spent two months arguing that a whole fucking universe need not come into being.
-
Does a thought need to come into being after all you've spent two months arguing that a whole fucking universe need not come into being.
Thinking is a process, it requires time, the "whole fucking universe" - the space-time manifold - cannot come into being because it includes time, there can never have been a time at which it did not exist.
-
Does a thought need to come into being after all you've spent two months arguing that a whole fucking universe need not come into being.
To be precise, I've argued that there may be a broader reality beyond our universe which is infinite in time; I personally hold to the understanding that our universe has only existed for about 14 billion years, and therefore is finite back in time (although it may have an infinite future ahead of it).
We discussed, although I don't propose the idea, a universe looped in space-time which has no beginning.
Having clarified that - does a thought need to come into being? If it doesn't, in what way is it a thought - a thought is a process, it has a start and an end, it is a response to stimuli and a stimulus to other things (including other thoughts). If a thought doesn't start, it's not a thought, it's... I don't know, a concept?
O.
-
You haven't demonstrated that the Universe is contingent.
When I use the words the contingent universe I am using it in the same sense as some astronomers refer to stuff like the gamma ray universe or the infrared universe without mentioning other aspects of the universe. Now, I have conceded that the necessary could be in the universe as well as the contingent universe.
Unfortunately that doesn't mean we can treat it like another contingent thing which is what you guys seem to be unable to resist doing.
-
Vlad,
Hillside, if your presence here was anything beyond collecting a portfolio for your art of the turdpolish. You would know that I concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe. For the same reasons as you are here, you continue to promote the nonsensical line that everything could be contingent.....end of.
Tantrum over? Fine. Now then - if you "concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe" what need is there for assertions about a "necessary" god, let alone one that requires many more assumptions than that universe would?
-
Vlad,
Tantrum over? Fine. Now then - if you "concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe" what need is there for assertions about a "necessary" god, let alone one that requires many more assumptions than that universe would?
Because dear boy, only a Moderator: content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
Oh........you done exactly that again.
-
Because dear boy, only a Moderator: quoted content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
Oh........you done exactly that again.
You still haven't provided any real definition of necessary in this context, or shown that it is coherent.
-
I’m afraid this looks very much like a “He can’t be a boy because he’s called Sue” argument.. You need to look at the implications of what it is to be the necessary entity rather than a contingent one. Those implications are independent on whether we are talking about a source or creator. The source of the universe has those implications. So no redundancy of argument there i’m Afraid.
And to remind you of the argument.
I was answering the query as to why I was arguing that the necessary entity is God. My answer is that aspects of it’s nature fit those of God rather than yet another,natural and contingent thing.
You are talking complete non-sense.
From:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
'It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings'
So firstly for an entity to make it off the starting grid it needs to exist. There is no evidence that god exists so the notion of god doesn't really fit the argument at all.
But beyond that you cannot reasonably conclude that god (or a creator), even were it to exist, is a necessary entity as you have quite reasonably accepted that other non-creator 'sources' for the universe are available (and so the universe can exist without god or a creator) and therefore, at best god or a creator is merely a contingent entity but in reality isn't even that as there is no evidence for the existence of god or a creator in the first place.
-
You still haven't provided any real definition of necessary in this context, or shown that it is coherent.
Use my definition (see above) - it seems clear and from a credible source.
-
Because dear boy, only a moron would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
And as there are perfectly plausible explanations for the universe, that are based on evidence and do not require god, it seems pretty well impossible to cogently argue that god is a necessary entity for the universe to exist.
-
Vlad,
Because dear boy, only a Moderator: quoted content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
Oh........you done exactly that again.
So you've been found out again then. Fair enough.
Oh, by the way - I think I found you on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k1EhYj7YEk[/quote]
-
Because dear boy, only a Moderator: quoted content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
Since you haven't explained how it's possible for anything to be necessary, let alone how we should 'treat' such a thing, this is nothing but childish name-calling.
-
Vlad,
Oh, by the way - I think I found you on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k1EhYj7YEk
People in glasshouses Hillside, people in glasshouses.......any way you put forward that guys behaviour as if it was a bad or sad thing.
I can’t be the only guy who has radio mast enthusiasts shouting at them to get life.
-
Use my definition (see above) - it seems clear and from a credible source.
Despite the source it seems based on a begging of the question that there are such things as necessary entities, and it backs that up with a ad populum 'commonly.
ETA The idea of contingent entities is also begging the question.
-
And as there are perfectly plausible explanations for the universe, that are based on evidence and do not require god, it seems pretty well impossible to cogently argue that god is a necessary entity for the universe to exist.
And the band played on.,
Do you do requests?
Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations
-
Despite the source it seems based on a begging of the question that there are such things as necessary entities, and it backs that up with a ad populum 'commonly.
Not sure it really does - I think all it is saying (at least in the definition) is that a necessary entity both exists and must exist. It may well be that no entities fulfilled that definition and therefore that there are no necessary entities.
ETA The idea of contingent entities is also begging the question.
Again not sure I agree - in definitional terms a contingent entity is merely something that exists, but doesn't need to exist. I think we can comfortable feel assured that the universe if stuffed with contingent entities (based on that definition).
-
And the band played on.,
Would you like to actually engage in the discussion, or are you content to make meaningless, pointless and, in my view, diversionary, comments.
-
Not sure it really does - I think all it is saying (at least in the definition) is that a necessary entity both exists and must exist. It may well be that no entities fulfilled that definition and therefore that there are no necessary identities.
Again not sure I agree - in definitional terms a contingent entity is merely something that exists, but doesn't need to exist. I think we can comfortable feel assured that the universe if stuffed with contingent entities (based on that definition).
Disagree. If the universe(s) are deterministic then all entities (and non entities) are necessary.
And your first point is wrong because of the start saying
'It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities' - not 'possibly existent', existent
-
And the band played on.,
Do you do requests?
Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations
-
Disagree. If the universe(s) are deterministic then all entities (and non entities) are necessary.
And your first point is wrong because of the start saying
'It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities' - not 'possibly existent', existent
Isn’t the assumption of determinism just as begging of the question as the assumption of contingency or any assumption you care to mention?
-
Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations
Once again, the burden of proof sails majestically about 30,000ft above Vlad's head... ::)
Isn’t the assumption of determinism just as begging of the question as the assumption of contingency or any assumption you care to mention?
And yet again....
-
Prof,
Would you like to actually engage in the discussion, or are you content to make meaningless, pointless and, in my view, diversionary, comments.
Prof, meet Vlad - that's what he does. Hell, that's all he does.
-
Once again, the burden of proof sails majestically about 30,000ft above Vlad's head... ::)
And yet again....
If they are perfectly plausible explanations for the whole universe he should have no problem in showing how they are full and final explanations for the universe.
He’s the one stating these exist....... let us feast on the analysis of his contention!!!!
-
Isn’t the assumption of determinism just as begging of the question as the assumption of contingency or any assumption you care to mention?
Not assuming it. You will see the word 'if' in my post.
-
Vlad,
If they are perfectly plausible explanations for the whole universe he should have no problem in showing how they are full and final explanations for the universe.
He’s the one stating these exist....... let us feast on the analysis of his contention!!!!
I don't suppose there's any point in asking why you jumped from what he actually said ("perfectly plausible") to your misrepresentation ("full and final explanations") is there?
Thought not.
What do you get from your trolling? Seriously though, what?
-
If they are perfectly plausible explanations for the whole universe he should have no problem in showing how they are full and final explanations for the universe.
He’s the one stating these exist....... let us feast on the analysis of his contention!!!!
A possible explanation is not the same as a full and final one so your demand here is nonsensical.
-
IF God exists, then God exists necessarily, but that leaves entirely unanswered the question of whether God exists. It's like the ontological argument, which fails because it is purely deductive, and deductive arguments can say nothing about the material world.
-
IF God exists, then God exists necessarily, but that leaves entirely unanswered the question of whether God exists. It's like the ontological argument, which fails because it is purely deductive, and deductive arguments can say nothing about the material world.
Surely the 'If God exists, then God exists necessarily' is simply a circular statement based on your definition of 'God'?
-
Name what it is which is the necessary entity as defined as the explanation that needs no external explanation in each of these perfectly plausible explanations
Firstly there is no requirement for there to be anything that is a necessary entity (see my comment 134).
But if you pushed me, I'd say that energy comes pretty close to being a required entity for those explanations. Could the universe exist without energy - discuss.
But as others have pointed out - I'm not the one making a claim for necessary entities, let alone specifying that god is one - that's you making those claims and the onus therefore rests with you to justify those claims.
-
IF God exists, then God exists necessarily, but that leaves entirely unanswered the question of whether God exists. It's like the ontological argument, which fails because it is purely deductive, and deductive arguments can say nothing about the material world.
Apart from, as NS pointed out, the circularity, a valid deductive argument can tell us about the material world if and only if its premises can be shown to be true. If can tell us probabilistically about the material world if there is reasonably good evidence that its premises are true.
-
Firstly there is no requirement for there to be anything that is a necessary entity (see my comment 134).
You came to this party a bit later than everyone else.
Let me spell it out. The necessary entity as far as the contingent universe is concerned is the final and full explanation for the contingent universe.
So if you say it’s energy then definitionally that is your offer of the necessary entity. But then, I can ask. Why a fixed amount of energy as suggested in the conservation of energy and why a certain amount of energy. I could also ask why does it start of maximally ordered. I could ask has it been around for ever and even , if it is the necessary entity.......How come Missus Higgins at the Duracell factory put it into tins. In other words if we examine energy it looks more like a contingent thing.
Why don’t birds get electrocuted on power lines but a giraffe, if it sticks it’s neck out sufficiently can electrocute itself on a tramline? Answer potential difference.
-
But if you pushed me, I'd say that energy comes pretty close to being a required entity for those explanations. Could the universe exist without energy - discuss.
Yes, it's possible (zero-energy universe hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe)). In any case, energy isn't a something in and of itself - you have to have something (or arrangement of things) that has energy. Its conservation depends on the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics (Noether's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem)). In special relativity energy and momentum are combined into the energy-momentum 4-vestor. Both are conserved in any one frame of reference but different observers will disagree about what is energy and what is momentum. In general relativity the we have the energy-momentum-stress tensor, and energy can be said to be conserved locally but it's far from clear how to generalise that to curved space-time (Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html), Conservation of energy - Relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#Relativity)).
Energy really isn't a thing (entitiy) at all, it's a property of things.
-
Apart from, as NS pointed out, the circularity, a valid deductive argument can tell us about the material world if and only if its premises can be shown to be true. If can tell us probabilistically about the material world if there is reasonably good evidence that its premises are true.
Hells bells,Never talk to strangers, neighbourhood watch for a Natural cause for nature street, Natural cause for nature Estate, natural cause for nature town, natural cause for nature shire, The United Kingdom of the natural cause for nature........is now giving a lecture on circular argument.
-
Hells bells,Never talk to strangers, neighbourhood watch for a Natural cause for nature street, Natural cause for nature Estate, natural cause for nature town, natural cause for nature shire, The United Kingdom of the natural cause for nature........is now giving a lecture on circular argument.
Clearly that went over your head too. Still waiting for anything remotely like some actual reasoning from your good self....
-
The necessary entity as far as the contingent universe is concerned is the final and full explanation for the contingent universe.
A necessary entity (in the context of the universe) is something which exists which, if it failed to exist would mean the universe could not exist. It doesn't need to be a full and final explanation for anything, merely that the universe cannot exist unless it exists.
I do not think a case has been made that a necessary entity is even required in this context.
-
A necessary entity (in the context of the universe) is something which exists which, if it failed to exist would mean the universe could not exist. It doesn't need to be a full and final explanation for anything, merely that the universe cannot exist unless it exists.
I do not think a case has been made that a necessary entity is even required in this context.
Note that isn't in line with the definition you put up which allows for multiple necessary entities.
-
So if you say it’s energy then definitionally that is your offer of the necessary entity. But then, I can ask. Why a fixed amount of energy as suggested in the conservation of energy and why a certain amount of energy. I could also ask why does it start of maximally ordered. I could ask has it been around for ever and even , if it is the necessary entity.......How come Missus Higgins at the Duracell factory put it into tins. In other words if we examine energy it looks more like a contingent thing.
I only talked about energy, not the amount etc of energy. For something to be a necessary entity it is required to exist for the universe to exist - I don't think the definition goes beyond that into amounts of energy etc.
And indeed it may be that energy is not a necessary entity - I only posited it as the nearest thing we perhaps have for discussion and NTTS has rebutted this notion.
I'm not claiming that there is any necessary entity for the universe.
-
Note that isn't in line with the definition you put up which allows for multiple necessary entities.
That's fine - there can be many (or no) necessary entities - the point being that any necessary entity needs to be such that if it didn't exist the universe couldn't exist. It could be that a single necessary entity is ... err ... necessary, but not sufficient and that another one or many further necessary entities are also required for sufficiency of universe existence.
-
Why don’t birds get electrocuted on power lines but a giraffe, if it sticks it’s neck out sufficiently can electrocute itself on a tramline? Answer potential difference.
And why is that in any way relevant to the discussion Vlad?
-
And why is that in any way relevant to the discussion Vlad?
It isnt that there is not energy it is just that in the system with the birds there is no potential difference and therefore nothing happens. So you could Potentially....get it?....potentially have all the energy in the universe going through the wires and the birds could sit quite happily.....notionally at least.
A potential difference needs to be actualised before anything happens and where we have a pd we have an example of entropy which ultimately brings us to heat death. So what we are looking for is an actualiser.
-
That's fine - there can be many (or no) necessary entities - the point being that any necessary entity needs to be such that if it didn't exist the universe couldn't exist. It could be that a single necessary entity is ... err ... necessary, but not sufficient and that another one or many further necessary entities are also required for sufficiency of universe existence.
There certainly can be lost of abstract necessities but they dont actually do anything in, for or to the physical universe.
Therefore you could say they are necessary but not sufficient. But what they are not is contingent. When the last brain has gone one and one will still be Two.
Which brings us to whether we can have more than Plato's, the one.....or whether we have Olympus. Is it just the yun or is it yin and yang ?
Supposing there were two necessary beings? How would they have carved up the universe. To avoid a subordinate necessary being I.e.dependent on the higher being which would render one beings freedom of action to be contingent. The universe would have to be split 50:50. Which would be inevitable if they were equal. At this point both necessities are thus controlled by this third entity and or both entities become contingent on another.
Now If there are two sets of rules or laws in the universe. Would there not be a conflict for example. Supposing one necessity had dominion over women and the other had dominion over who could travel at what speed the you could envisage a world where only men were capable of interstellar travel......and other horrors.
So you see prof the idea of actual necessary entities plural is a bit of a non starter.
-
It isnt that there is not energy it is just that in the system with the birds there is no potential difference and therefore nothing happens. So you could Potentially....get it?....potentially have all the energy in the universe going through the wires and the birds could sit quite happily.....notionally at least.
A potential difference needs to be actualised before anything happens and where we have a pd we have an example of entropy which ultimately brings us to heat death. So what we are looking for is an actualiser.
Actually the point is about current, not potential difference. The PD between the wires and the 'ground' is the same in both cases - the bird isn't electrocuted because there is no current flow through the animal due to the insulating effect of the air. And the damage caused is largely due to the energy transferred to the various organs and tissues in the animal - which involves a complex relationship between current flow and path and the resistance of the various tissues.
Hope you understand this a little better now.
However I'm still at a loss why this is relevant to potential necessary entities for the existence of the universe.
-
Supposing there were two necessary beings? How would they have carved up the universe. To avoid a subordinate necessary being I.e.dependent on the higher being which would render one beings freedom of action to be contingent. The universe would have to be split 50:50. Which would be inevitable if they were equal. At this point both necessities are thus controlled by this third entity and or both entities become contingent on another.
Now If there are two sets of rules or laws in the universe. Would there not be a conflict for example. Supposing one necessity had dominion over women and the other had dominion over who could travel at what speed the you could envisage a world where only men were capable of interstellar travel......and other horrors.
So you see prof the idea of actual necessary entities plural is a bit of a non starter.
Nope - you are completely misunderstanding the issue. You are implying that these necessary entities are somehow in conflict - that isn't the case, typically they are completely interdependent - needing to work together.
So here is an example. Where nerve cells meet there is a structure called a synapse. For the nerve signal to travel from one nerve to another it needs to cross that synapse. To do so the first nerve cell releases a molecule, a neurotransmitter, that can cross the gap. But for the signal to move along the second neurone that cell must have receptors that bind to the neurotransmitter.
So both the neurotransmitter and the receptor are necessary for transmission of the signal - however neither is sufficient - if you have the neurotransmitter but not the receptor, no transmission. Likewise if you have the receptor but no neurotransmitter, again no signal. You need both. Neither is subordinate to the other.
So you can consider both the neurotransmitter and the receptor as being necessary entities for nerve signal transduction from one nerve cell to another. There is no conflict - quite the reverse, both entities work together and indeed are required to work together, to get the desired response.
-
Nope - you are completely misunderstanding the issue. You are implying that these necessary entities are somehow in conflict - that isn't the case, typically they are completely interdependent - needing to work together.
Then they are contingent on that need and neither is the final or full explanation. Why would they need to work together?
So here is an example. Where nerve cells meet there is a structure called a synapse. For the nerve signal to travel from one nerve to another it needs to cross that synapse. To do so the first nerve cell releases a molecule, a neurotransmitter, that can cross the gap. But for the signal to move along the second neurone that cell must have receptors that bind to the neurotransmitter.
So both the neurotransmitter and the receptor are necessary for transmission of the signal - however neither is sufficient - if you have the neurotransmitter but not the receptor, no transmission. Likewise if you have the receptor but no neurotransmitter, again no signal. You need both. Neither is subordinate to the other.
So you can consider both the neurotransmitter and the receptor as being necessary entities for nerve signal transduction from one nerve cell to another. There is no conflict - quite the reverse, both entities work together and indeed are required to work together, to get the desired response.
Oh fuck we are back into contingency and nature again. What we are talking about is what is necessary for nature not what is necessary in nature. There is no conflct because they are parts of a whole and therefore are not necessary but contingent on each other. what would you say was the final explanation for why there are neurotransitters and receptors. what needs to be in place to have neurotransmitters and receptors and what of those things that are not dependent on neurotransmitters and receptors but are dependent on what everything is dependent on, that is what we are really after
What you are merely agreeing with therefore is the contention that the universe is not necessary. That it is just a souped up machine like a bicycle. for something to be necessary it has to be the final and full explanation for the universe not part of it. For example you have merely produced a perpetual motion machine.
So to sum up if they are in agreement then that is because they are parts of the same one thing and therefore not at all analogous to multiple necessary beings at all.
-
Oh fuck we are back into contingency and nature again.
Nope - I am providing a real example - you know something that actually exists outside of the bizarre Vlad fantasies.
-
for something to be necessary it has to be the final and full explanation for the universe not part of it.
No it doesn't - for it to be necessary all the is required is that the universe could not exist without it - nothing more, nothing less.
-
Nope - you are completely misunderstanding the issue. You are implying that these necessary entities are somehow in conflict - that isn't the case, typically they are completely interdependent - needing to work together.
Then they are contingent on that need and neither is a final or full explanation eg, Give a full explanation of how a bicycle works.........Answer, Wheel'' It doesn't work does it. Why would they need to work together unless they were parts of the same thing?
[quote}
So here is an example. Where nerve cells meet there is a structure called a synapse. For the nerve signal to travel from one nerve to another it needs to cross that synapse. To do so the first nerve cell releases a molecule, a neurotransmitter, that can cross the gap. But for the signal to move along the second neurone that cell must have receptors that bind to the neurotransmitter.
So both the neurotransmitter and the receptor are necessary for transmission of the signal - however neither is sufficient - if you have the neurotransmitter but not the receptor, no transmission. Likewise if you have the receptor but no neurotransmitter, again no signal. You need both. Neither is subordinate to the other.
So you can consider both the neurotransmitter and the receptor as being necessary entities for nerve signal transduction from one nerve cell to another. There is no conflict - quite the reverse, both entities work together and indeed are required to work together, to get the desired response.
[/quote]
Oh fuck we are back into contingency and nature again. What we are talking about is what is necessary for nature not what is necessary in nature. There is no conflct because they are parts of a whole and therefore are not two necessary entities but two parts of the one thing but contingent on each other. what would you say was the final explanation for why there are neurotransmitters and receptors. what needs to be in place to have neurotransmitters and receptors and what of those things that are not dependent on neurotransmitters and receptors but are dependent on what everything is dependent on, that is what we are really after
What you are merely agreeing with therefore is the contention that the universe is not necessary. That it is just a souped up machine like a bicycle. for something to be necessary it has to be the final and full explanation for the universe not part of it. For example you have merely produced a perpetual motion machine.
So to sum up if they are in agreement then that is because they are parts of the same one thing and therefore not at all analogous to multiple necessary beings at all. And this is why there is probably only one ultimate necessary entity.
What do you think then is necessary for the universe to exist. With energy I demonstrated that if all energy were potential nothing would happen since there is no energy transferrence and no potential difference even if there were potential energy.Energy cannot therefore be the necessary entity.
-
So to sum up if they are in agreement then that is because they are parts of the same one thing and therefore not at all analogous to multiple necessary beings at all.
Rubbish - the neurotransmitter and the receptor are completely separate and distinct entities. Both are necessary for the effect (neural transmission) - if either did not exist the effect doesn't happen - they are both necessary entities according to the definition.
-
Then they are contingent on that need and neither is a final or full explanation ...
I refer you back to reply 164 - for something to be a necessary entity it doesn't need to be a final or full explanation of anything. All it needs to be is something that were it not to exist would render the thing being considered (universe, bicycle, neural transmission) impossible.
-
No it doesn't - for it to be necessary all the is required is that the universe could not exist without it - nothing more, nothing less.
And what is that?Rubbish - the neurotransmitter and the receptor are completely separate and distinct entities. Both are necessary for the effect (neural transmission) - if either did not exist the effect doesn't happen - they are both necessary entities according to the definition.
They are not necessary for the universe to exist nor for stars to exist. If they are interdependent i.e they do not function on there own then there is no way they can be called necessary beings since you have found the contingency in both of them. They are parts of the same thing.
-
And what is that?They are not necessary for the universe to exist nor for stars to exist.
Indeed they are not as I was using the example of neurones, just as you are using the example of the bicycle.
But to return to the universe - a necessary entity does not need to be a final or full explanation of the universe. All it needs to be is something that were it not to exist would render the universe impossible.
-
And what is that?
I am not claiming that such a thing even exists, let alone what it is.
You are claiming that this is god - which is therefore for you to justify. And given that there is no evidence that god even exists it is a pretty major stretch for you to argue that this (not proven entity) is, in fact, the (note you don't accept plural) necessary entity for the universe to exist.
Perhaps you shouldn't try to run before you can walk. Demonstrate that god exists, and once you have done that we can start a conversation about whether god is a or the necessary entity for the universe to exist.
-
Indeed they are not as I was using the example of neurones, just as you are using the example of the bicycle.
But to return to the universe - a necessary entity does not need to be doesn't need to be a final or full explanation of the universe. All it needs to be is something that were it not to exist would render the universe impossible.
Yes Professor it does.
If the universe is just a sophisticated machine then you are just looking for the piece that if you removed it it would stop it. Is that the same as the explanation for why it exists in the first place or whether the whole thing has any necessity contained within it.
Right now I think we are looking for whatever is at the base of the hierarchies of dependence.
-
If the universe is just a sophisticated machine then you are just looking for the piece that if you removed it it would stop it.
Well done - you've finally got it.
Is that the same as the explanation for why it exists in the first place ...
Classic anthropomorphic bollocks - why does the universe need to have a reason to exist. Sadly your are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and however hard we try to explain this to you, you simple continue to shout look everything it terribly, terrible, tiny - why can't you understand this.
Wake up, smell the coffee, turn the telescope the right way around and you may start to understand that the universe doesn't revolve around you - nor me, nor humans, nor the earth, nor life. The universe is completely uninterested in any of these matters. Why - because if has no consciousness (although consciousness may develop in it) and the notion of why the universe exists, if why means a conscious reason, is completely irrelevant.
-
That's fine - there can be many (or no) necessary entities - the point being that any necessary entity needs to be such that if it didn't exist the universe couldn't exist. It could be that a single necessary entity is ... err ... necessary, but not sufficient and that another one or many further necessary entities are also required for sufficiency of universe existence.
No, the definition you put up covers nothing about the necessary entity for existence.
-
Well done - you've finally got it.
Classic anthropomorphic bollocks - why does the universe need to have a reason to exist. Sadly your are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and however hard we try to explain this to you, you simple continue to shout look everything it terribly, terrible, tiny - why can't you understand this.
Wake up, smell the coffee, turn the telescope the right way around and you may start to understand that the universe doesn't revolve around you - nor me, nor humans, nor the earth, nor life. The universe is completely uninterested in any of these matters. Why - because if has no consciousness (although consciousness may develop in it) and the notion of why the universe exists, if why means a conscious reason, is completely irrelevant.
Oh I see sir You need the science and technology section this is religion and ethics.
What you need to do sir is go down the fucking corridor
Stop at the pissing lift go down to the arsholing fifth floor where you'll find the shitting general department Now go straight ahead past the ladies and gents shithouse and it's the sodding second on the farting left.
-
Oh I see sir You need the science and technology section this is religion and ethics.
What you need to do sir is go down the fucking corridor
Stop at the pissing lift go down to the arsholing fifth floor where you'll find the shitting general department Now go straight ahead past the ladies and gents shithouse and it's the sodding second on the farting left.
A post in which the sophistication of Vlad's argument reaches rock bottom.
-
No, the definition you put up covers nothing about the necessary entity for existence.
I think it does - or rather it certainly does in the way I am reading it.
According to the definition a necessary entity is that could not have failed to exist. That is put in the context of other things we know exist, e.g. the universe, a synapse, a bicycle. So a necessary entity is something that could not have failed to exist or the universe, bicycle, synapse (that we know exist) could not have come into existence.
-
A post in which the sophistication of Vlad's argument reaches rock bottom.
All you have done is to try and change the question. Your justification was a strange mix of ad hominem and a paeon to science and the great cosmic unconsciousness. As fascinating as your new question is there is a board for it in this forum.
My suggested approach for further investigation into my question is too backtrack any hierarchies of dependency or contingency.
As far as your question "what things would stop the universe being the universe if they were removed" I'm going to open a new thread.
-
My suggested approach for further investigation into my question is too backtrack any hierarchies of dependency or contingency.
The problem remains that you have yet to provide anything like an argument that we should take any sort of god seriously as where such a hierarchy ends, and that any sort of thinking being, in any normal sense, appears to be in contradiction with what little you've done in defining what such an entity would be like. See #106 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809278#msg809278).
-
All you have done is to try and change the question.
No I haven't - you were the one who raised the notion of a necessary entity and all I have done is engage in the discussion on what a necessary entity is (in other words a definition), whether a necessary entity is actually required for the universe (I'm not convinced it is), if there is one could there be more than one (I think there could be) and finally whether god meets the criteria for a necessary entity (I don't believe it does as there are plenty of explanations for the universe that do not require god and indeed god has never been demonstrated event to exist).
Your justification was a strange mix of ad hominem and a paeon to science and the great cosmic unconsciousness. As fascinating as your new question is there is a board for it in this forum.
By a paeon to science all you really mean is arguments based on logic and evidence - yup, that's the best type of argument rather than unevidenced and illogical supposition.
As far as your question "what things would stop the universe being the universe if they were removed" I'm going to open a new thread.
Why is there a need for a new thread - this discussion simply follows naturally from your proposition of a necessary entity for the universe.
-
The problem remains that you have yet to provide anything like an argument that we should take any sort of god seriously as where such a hierarchy ends, and that any sort of thinking being, in any normal sense, appears to be in contradiction with what little you've done in defining what such an entity would be like. See #106 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809278#msg809278).
Theologians have realised for centuries that many human labels and natural processes are merely metaphor. So when you use a term like thinking, in normal sense you are being appropriate. We would say therefore that what God does is not think in the normal.sense. His thinking is unlimited, it is not evolved and I think a chief difference is that his thinking is in no way shaped by the need to survive.
-
No I haven't - you were the one who raised the notion of a necessary entity and all I have done is engage in the discussion on what a necessary entity is (in other words a definition), whether a necessary entity is actually required for the universe (I'm not convinced it is), if there is one could there be more than one (I think there could be) and finally whether god meets the criteria for a necessary entity (I don't believe it does as there are plenty of explanations for the universe that do not require god and indeed god has never been demonstrated event to exist).
By a paeon to science all you really mean is arguments based on logic and evidence - yup, that's the best type of argument rather than unevidenced and illogical supposition.
Why is there a need for a new thread - this discussion simply follows naturally from your proposition of a necessary entity for the universe.
I have outlined some of the conflicts that would ensue with two necessary beings with universe forming abilities and that the terms of conflict or in fact agreement constitute a third entity and render the whole arrangement contingent.
You on the other hand have merely discussed a mechanism of parts.
In short there would either be conflict and resultant chaos in the universe or there would be cooperation in which the two would have to act as parts of a greater whole. Contingency is introduced and the result cannot be necessity.
-
Theologians have realised for centuries that many human labels and natural processes are merely metaphor. So when you use a term like thinking, in normal sense you are being appropriate. We would say therefore that what God does is not think in the normal.sense. His thinking is unlimited, it is not evolved and I think a chief difference is that his thinking is in no way shaped by the need to survive.
None of this had-waving actually constitutes either an argument for a god or a definition that doesn't conflict with what you've previously stated about necsssity, or, for that matter, explain how anything can be necessary in the sense you seem to mean.
Specifically, not being evolved, being unlimited, and not for survival, in no way removes the necessity of existing in time dimension in order to think at all or make any choices. A thinking entity must be contingent on time unless you're going to stretch the notion to the absurd an comical extent that Feser attempts - which would mean, for example, that mathematics can think.
-
None of this had-waving actually constitutes either an argument for a god or a definition that doesn't conflict with what you've previously stated about necsssity, or, for that matter, explain how anything can be necessary in the sense you seem to mean.
Specifically, not being evolved, being unlimited, and not for survival, in no way removes the necessity of existing in time dimension in order to think at all or make any choices. A thinking entity must be contingent on time unless you're going to stretch the notion to the absurd an comical extent that Feser attempts - which would mean, for example, that mathematics can think.
I'm sorry but if you insist on talking science, science cannot deal with an infinite universe.......where would it set up it's equipment? Nor can it deal with things popping out of nothing. Again, where would it set up its equipment.
So as far as the big question is concerned that seems to wrap it up for science.
We are therefore very much on our own
-
Think in terms of possible worlds: one could imagine (and some people on here probably do, wistfully) a world in which I never existed, and ditto for anyone and anything else. If there are an infinite number of alternative universes, then such universes presumably exist. However, one can't imagine a situation in which God exists in some universes but not in others: if there's a God then God made the whole multi-shebang, and therefore exists in all possible universes. On the other hand, if God does not exist in this universe, God doesn't exist in any. In that sense, God is necessary - if God exists at all. The question of God's existence, however, is left entirely open.
-
I'm sorry but if you insist on talking science...
I was talking about logic, actually. Specifically the contradictions that appear to exist between any normal notion of a thinking entity and what little you've said about necessity.
...science cannot deal with an infinite universe...
It already does. The simplest topological interpretation of a universe with zero or negative spatial curvature is that it is infinite in volume. We also treat space-time as a continuum, which involves the infinitesimal - there are actually more points in space between any two locations (continuum infinity) than there are integers (countable infinity).
Nor can it deal with things popping out of nothing.
Vacuum fluctuations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation). However, as far as the universe goes, this idea of popping out of nothing appears to be nothing but one of your straw men. Who do you think is putting forward this idea?
-
Think in terms of possible worlds: one could imagine (and some people on here probably do, wistfully) a world in which I never existed, and ditto for anyone and anything else. If there are an infinite number of alternative universes, then such universes presumably exist. However, one can't imagine a situation in which God exists in some universes but not in others: if there's a God then God made the whole multi-shebang, and therefore exists in all possible universes. On the other hand, if God does not exist in this universe, God doesn't exist in any. In that sense, God is necessary - if God exists at all. The question of God's existence, however, is left entirely open.
No, that's you just using the circularity of your definition in a more long winded way.
-
I was talking about logic, actually. Specifically the contradictions that appear to exist between any normal notion of a thinking entity and what little you've said about necessity.
It already does. The simplest topological interpretation of a universe with zero or negative spatial curvature is that it is infinite in volume. We also treat space-time as a continuum, which involves the infinitesimal - there are actually more points in space between any two locations (continuum infinity) than there are integers (countable infinity).
Vacuum fluctuations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation). However, as far as the universe goes, this idea of popping out of nothing appears to be nothing but one of your straw men. Who do you think is putting forward this idea?
what is the empirical evidence that the universe is infinite? Where is the imaging of an infinite volume?
Regarding continuum infinity........what has that got to do with anything?
-
I was talking about logic, actually.
Is that what it was......
Vacuum fluctuations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation). However, as far as the universe goes, this idea of popping out of nothing appears to be nothing but one of your straw men. Who do you think is putting forward this idea?
apparently the energy produced comes from somewhere and some time. It is borrowed.
Although it does offer support to those who think the universe is being recreated moment by moment and certainly if whatever it is these things are popping out of is the necessary entity then it could demonstrate that a contingent universe could have existed forever AND need a source to create it....OUTRIDER take note.
-
No, that's you just using the circularity of your definition in a more long winded way.
It is also entirely dependent on your definition of god - it is possible to define god in a manner which means that he/she/it only exists in a particular universe or even a part of that universe. Indeed most purported gods have been defined in largely that manner by original believers as they had no concept of the extent of our universe, let alone multiverses.
Also not all purported gods are considered to be omnipotent universe creators.
-
It is also entirely dependent on your definition of god - it is possible to define god in a manner which means that he/she/it only exists in a particular universe or even a part of that universe. Indeed most purported gods have been defined in largely that manner by original believers as they had no concept of the extent of our universe, let alone multiverses.
Also not all purported gods are considered to be omnipotent universe creators.
While true, I think Steve (WM) would distinguish between gods and God. Whether there is any good reason to do so other than the definitional claims is another matter.
-
Vlad,
what is the empirical evidence that the universe is infinite?
It's a plausible hypothesis, not a claim of fact and in any case what is the evidence of any kind that your speculation "god" is infinite?
Answering one unknown with another unknown doesn't help you one bit no matter how much special pleading you do for it, which amounts only to "it's magic innit". You know this already though don't you so presumably you keep trolling because it excites you in some way.
-
While true, I think Steve (WM) would distinguish between gods and God. Whether there is any good reason to do so other than the definitional claims is another matter.
But it is all definitional.
If you define god or God as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers who created the universe and without which the universe could not exist, then of course if the universe exists then so must God, by that definition. But the point is that the definition has no substance to it - there is no evidence that this definition defines a real rather than an imaginary entity.
-
what is the empirical evidence that the universe is infinite? Where is the imaging of an infinite volume?
It's the simplest model, using our best tested theory of space-time, that fits with what we observe. Anyway, it wasn't a claim, it was about the fact that science can deal with the notion.
Is that what it was......
Yes - and I'm still waiting from you to produce some, or to provide any answers to the contradictions you seem to have set up from what little you have said.
-
Prof,
It is also entirely dependent on your definition of god -...
He doesn't have one - or at least not one that's coherent, cogent or consistent.
-
It's the simplest model, using our best tested theory of space-time, that fits with what we observe. Anyway, it wasn't a claim, it was about the fact that science can deal with the notion.
empirical evidence please.
-
Vlad,
It's a plausible hypothesis,
it is falsified and or verified in what way?
-
But it is all definitional.
If you define god or God as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers who created the universe and without which the universe could not exist, then of course if the universe exists then so must God, by that definition. But the point is that the definition has no substance to it - there is no evidence that this definition defines a real rather than an imaginary entity.
Yes, it's all definitional - we are agreeing on that. But that's not what Steve is claiming. He's merely taking the definition of 'God' and discussing it circularly - he's not claiming that because the universe exists, god does. It's not at the stage of claiming the universe as evidence.
-
empirical evidence please.
I'll and that to the list of things you don't understand. ::)
-
Prof,
He doesn't have one - or at least not one that's coherent, cogent or consistent.
Just for clarity here, 'he' here is Steve not Vlad, and I don't think he's actually put forward a definition, rather made a statement that is dependent on a circular definition
-
Vlad,
empirical evidence please.
Why are you repeating this idiocy? Conjectures, hypotheses etc don't have evidence - that's why they're just conjectures and hypotheses rather than facts and theories. All that's required of them is plausibility, why is why your white noise claim "god" fails at the first hurdle even as an hypothesis.
-
I'll and that to the list of things you don't understand. ::)
Look,can you falsify or verify that the universe is an infinite volume. Yes or no?
-
Just for clarity here, 'he' here is Steve not Vlad, and I don't think he's actually put forward a definition, rather made a statement that is dependent on a circular definition
That's right - and that demonstrates his implicit assumption that god must mean what he thinks it does.
-
Vlad,
Why are you repeating this idiocy? Conjectures, hypotheses etc don't have evidence - that's why they're just conjectures and hypotheses rather than facts and theories. All that's required of them is plausibility, why is why your white noise claim "god" fails at the first hurdle even as an hypothesis.
Plausibility is not a scientific term. Sounds like you have opened a can of turdpolish in the hope that a piece of legalese you had in your pocket can be slid craftily and frictionlessly into the conversation.
-
Look,can you falsify or verify that the universe is an infinite volume. Yes or no?
We can falsify or verify the theory that makes the prediction. That's what science does. It builds models and tests them against reality. It's very rare to be able to directly test every aspect of a model (in fact, strictly speaking, it's actually impossible for any theory).
-
That's right - and that demonstrates his implicit assumption that god must mean what he thinks it does.
I think Steve's faith is way less absolute than that.
-
Vlad,
Look,can you falsify or verify that the universe is an infinite volume. Yes or no?
Dear god but you struggle. Before the Large Hadron Collider the Higgs-Boson was a plausible explanation for a known gap in scientific understanding. The evidence for it arrived when the LHC produced its results.
Imagine though that before those results were available the Higgs-Boson hypothesis was widely and seriously discussed, when some fuckwit arrived with, “look, can you falsify or verify the Higgs-Boson. Yes or no?”. What would you think of him?
-
No, that's you just using the circularity of your definition in a more long winded way.
No, that you just being typically snide.
-
No, that you just being typically snide.
Maybe you can address my point in reply 192 and 202.
I don't think I am being snide, but I do agree that the issue is entirely definitional and circular - in effect you make an implicit assumption about the nature of god (omnipotent, creator, omnipresent and singular) and then use that the universe must require that god if god exists.
But that is a 'no shit Sherlock' kind of argument but built on the flimsiest of foundations, namely that unless you can prove that god (as you assume he/she/it to be) actually exists then the rest is mere handwaving. And indeed the argument doesn't progress the discussion of whether god actually exists further one iota.
-
Vlad,
Dear god but you struggle. Before the Large Hadron Collider the Higgs-Boson was a plausible explanation for a known gap in scientific understanding. The evidence for it arrived when the LHC produced its results.
Imagine though that before those results were available the Higgs-Boson hypothesis was widely and seriously discussed, when some fuckwit arrived with, “look, can you falsify or verify the Higgs-Boson. Yes or no?”. What would you think of him?
No Hillside I expect science to search for the necessary entity.......or give up.
As long as particles were discoverable any particle proposed has been expected to be able to be detected. Shit analogy and straw man from Le maison de Hillside. Purveyors of exqueezeet tared poleeshe since two sousand et four.
-
We can falsify or verify the theory that makes the prediction. That's what science does. It builds models and tests them against reality. It's very rare to be able to directly test every aspect of a model (in fact, strictly speaking, it's actually impossible for any theory).
So in this case is it a yes or a no?
-
No, that you just being typically snide.
Ah your old mind reading schtick. Even If I was being snide, it won't invalidate the point that you are creating a circularity. Any chance you could address that rather indulge in a evasive ad hominem because 'nasty man hurty you'?
-
No Hillside I expect science to search for the necessary entity.......or give up.
Begging the question that there is any necessary entity, that there is only a single entity, and that a necessary entity is possible. And then assuming that it is findable by science, and that it is the point of science - quite impressively flawed short sentence from you.
-
So in this case is it a yes or a no?
Of course we can't directly measure the size of the universe (except to say that it's at least as large as the observable universe) but, if you recall, your claim was "science cannot deal with an infinite universe" (#183 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809433#msg809433)), which isn't the same thing at all as asking for direct evidence. All you are doing here is showing us (yet again) how little you understand.
And while you're asking all these dimwitted questions (you only seemed to raise the issue of the universe to avoid my points in #182 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809430#msg809430)), I'm still waiting for any hint of an argument for how something can be necessary and that thing having the characteristics of some god or for any resolution of the apparent logical contradictions involved...
-
Begging the question that there is any necessary entity, that there is only a single entity, and that a necessary entity is possible. And then assuming that it is findable by science, and that it is the point of science - quite impressively flawed short sentence from you.
No, I’m putting the necessary entity through as a particle.
I’m afraid then sir, I’m going to have to ask you to leave as you have no jurisdiction here....or anywhere actually.
-
No, I’m putting the necessary entity through as a particle.
I’m afraid then sir, I’m going to have to ask you to leave as you have no jurisdiction here....or anywhere actually.
'Green ideas sleep furiously'
-
Begging the question that there is any necessary entity, that there is only a single entity, and that a necessary entity is possible. And then assuming that it is findable by science, and that it is the point of science - quite impressively flawed short sentence from you.
Of course there is a necessary entity since there are hierarchies of dependency among other things.
You do raise interesting points though. Is it findable by science? I say no but we have a whole bunch of young philosophers here, half togas, letting the fabric fall over their glistening thighs, their biceps rippling as they athletically vie to catch a metaphor here, a fallacy there................................a whole bunch of , Er, philosophers here who suggest that we’re it to exist it would be an uncontious, natural type thing and therefore presumably......detectable.
-
Of course there is a necessary entity since there are hierarchies of dependency among other things. ...
Vacuous assertion does not a demonstration make.
-
Of course there is a necessary entity since there are hierarchies of dependency among other things.
Only if you consider that complexity derives in a hierarchical top-down manner, without redundancy. That isn't always the case - in many cases complexity derives from self assembly of simpler components and there is often redundancy - in other words no one simple components is absolutely required to exist (a necessary entity) for the more complex entity to arise. Each simple components may easily be replaced by another simple entity with similar properties. In this case there is no necessary entity.
The reverse is also true (see my synapse example) where more than one entity is a necessary entity meaning that without them the more complex entity cannot exist.
-
Vacuous assertion does not a demonstration make.
I think ‘ There is a necessary entity’ might be an assertion but whether it is vacuous......you need to demonstrate it.
There is a necessary entity derived from hierarchies of dependencies make it more than just an assertion.
-
There is a necessary entity derived from hierarchies of dependencies make it more than just an assertion.
That is an assertion and one that I have challenged - I don't think you can presume that there must always be a necessary entity.
-
Only if you consider that complexity derives in a hierarchical top-down manner, without redundancy. That isn't always the case - in many cases complexity derives from self assembly of simpler components and there is often redun
. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gK-byzdp-DQ dancy - in other words no one simple components is absolutely required to exist (a necessary entity) for the more complex entity to arise. Each simple components may easily be replaced by another simple entity with similar properties. In this case there is no necessary entity.
The reverse is also true (see my synapse example) where more than one entity is a necessary entity meaning that without them the more complex entity cannot exist.
-
. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gK-byzdp-DQ
I genuinely think you have lost it now Vlad.
-
I genuinely think you have lost it now Vlad.
I think he lost the plot a long time ago. ;D
-
No I thought it was most apt.
-
I think he lost the plot a long time ago. ;D
At least I had it.
-
I think ‘ There is a necessary entity’ might be an assertion but whether it is vacuous......you need to demonstrate it.
There is a necessary entity derived from hierarchies of dependencies make it more than just an assertion.
No, added on some extra magic words 'hierarchies of dependencies' makes no difference to it being an assertion. And I don't have to demonstrate anything since as ever you are trying to reverse the burden of proof. ' Vacuous' is a statement of opinion but, given you have done nothing other than assert something with no demonstration, one that has for me validity
-
At least I had it.
Which health problem was that, dear? ;D
-
No I thought it was most apt.
Explain please
All I saw was an orchestra playing the music from Desert Island Disks. I'm struggling to see what relevance that could possible have, nor the comedy value if that was what you were aiming at.
-
Maybe you can address my point in reply 192 and 202.
I don't think I am being snide, but I do agree that the issue is entirely definitional and circular - in effect you make an implicit assumption about the nature of god (omnipotent, creator, omnipresent and singular) and then use that the universe must require that god if god exists.
But that is a 'no shit Sherlock' kind of argument but built on the flimsiest of foundations, namely that unless you can prove that god (as you assume he/she/it to be) actually exists then the rest is mere handwaving. And indeed the argument doesn't progress the discussion of whether god actually exists further one iota.
This is complete nonsense. I was dealing solely with the hypothetical necessity of God, and suggesting that even if it is a quality of God, it doesn't demonstrate that God exists, only that IF God exists, God exists necessarily. I was trying to demolish the necessity argument for God's existence, not defend it, so you might try reading what I've actually written.
-
Which health problem was that, dear? ;D
The clap since you ask and yes I did inform Richard, Sam, Daniel and Chris by letter so not as to embarrass them as public figures.
-
This is complete nonsense. I was dealing solely with the hypothetical necessity of God, and suggesting that even if it is a quality of God, it doesn't demonstrate that God exists, only that IF God exists, God exists necessarily. I was trying to demolish the necessity argument for God's existence, not defend it, so you might try reading what I've actually written.
It doesn't even mange that. As already pointed out, it only works in the sense you wrote, and I did point out what you meant to Prof D, because you are using the definition circularly. There is no demonstration in any of your posts on this that If God exists, God exists necessarily.
-
No, added on some extra magic words 'hierarchies of dependencies' makes no difference to it being an assertion.
Shouldn’t you be asking what I mean by “hierarchies of dependency” rather than going ugh, magic words......you used magic words.......he used magiiiic woooords he used Maaaagic wooooooooords. Mim mim mim mim mim mim?
-
Shouldn’t you be asking what I mean by “hierarchies of dependency” rather than going ugh, magic words......you used magic words.......he used magiiiic woooords he used Maaaagic wooooooooords. Mim mim mim mim mim mim?
Further irrelevant waffling from you that does nothing to advance your claim
-
... only that IF God exists, God exists necessarily.
Only if you define god in a manner that necessarily requires god to be a creator for example. However if you define god in a different manner - for example (a dictionary definition) as:
a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes
Then god could exist, but not exist necessarily - in other words their existence would not be required for the universe to exist etc.
Only if you presume that god has the attributes of the judeo-christian god would you conclude that IF God exists, God exists necessarily and of course other kinds of deity with other attributes are (purportedly) available.
-
Only if you define god in a manner that necessarily requires god to be a creator for example. However if you define god in a different manner - for example (a dictionary definition) as:
a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes
Then god could exist, but not exist necessarily - in other words their existence would not be required for the universe to exist etc.
Only if you presume that god has the attributes of the judeo-christian god would you conclude that IF God exists, God exists necessarily and of course other kinds of deity with other attributes are (purportedly) available.
Quite, but I'm talking about the Judaeo-Christian God, who is creator of al (though I don't think God is omnipotent or omniscent, only omnibenevolent. The Bible specifically says that God is love, but nowhere tells us that God is all-powerful or all-knowing, I don't think, and given the suffering in the world, I think you have to jettison either the power or the love if you want to believe in God. I'm buggered if I'm worshipping an all-powerful but unloving God. In fact, as a non-realist Christian, I don't think that God exists objectively anyway.
-
Now, I have conceded that the necessary could be in the universe as well as the contingent universe.
That doesn't make sense. Everything in the Universe is clearly contingent on the Universe itself.
Can you please stop with the pretence that the Universe is something in the Universe.
-
Quite, but I'm talking about the Judaeo-Christian God, who is creator of al ...
Even if you accept the bible as correct, where does it was that god created everything - certainly Genesis only talks about heaven and earth - nowhere does it talk about creating everything else in the universe, let alone multi-universes. Then it talks about light vs dark, but as this is considered to be night and day this must only refer to the sun. Everything from there-on-in is completely earth-centric. So this could be easily read as a god who is the creator of our solar system at most.
-
That doesn't make sense. Everything in the Universe is clearly contingent on the Universe itself.
Can you please stop with the pretence that the Universe is something in the Universe.
No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.
Your use of the word universe is what is essentially meaningless.
No one has any conception of what the implications of your use of the word universe is.
The nearest I can get to the mystery is that you are accusing me of the fallacy of composition.
So in this scheme I am saying that because all the things in the universe are contingent the whole universe or as you put it ....the universe is contingent. I'm not saying that at all.
I on the other hand could accuse you of the fallacy of division whereby even if the universe as you put it was necessary none of the things in it need be.
The first question that needs to be answered is HOW THE FUCK THEN if everything in the universe is contingent does the universe end up necessary. Within your strange mysticism you have a necessary universe and a universe made up of contingent things. same universe....or different universe?
-
No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.
...
He asserted.
-
He asserted.
I'm taking necessity as a fundamental here alternatives being something for nothing and existing for infinite time. So if you reject necessity you know what your choices are.
Secondly the necessary is that which is at the base of all the hierarchies of dependency.
Thirdly, any sign of the thing which pops out of nothing which you seem to have bet the house on?
-
No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.
No - these are theoretical concepts that need to be tested - and nowhere is it claimed that there must only be a single necessary entity, merely that a necessary entity would be something that were it not to exist the universe could not exist. There might be zero necessary entities, there could be one, there could the thousands or millions of necessary entities.
-
I'm taking necessity as a fundamental here alternatives being something for nothing and existing for infinite time. So if you reject necessity you know what your choices are.
Secondly the necessary is that which is at the base of all the hierarchies of dependency.
Thirdly, any sign of the thing which pops out of nothing which you seem to have bet the house on?
More assertion, no demonstration, followed by a misrepresentation.
-
Vlad,
So just to be clear then:
1. You assert there to be something you call “God” but you have no coherent, cogent or consistent explanation of what you mean by that term.
2. You assert this god to have certain characteristics and behaviours, but all this happens supposedly “outside time and space” or some such (and it seems outside logic too), so any pretence of reasoned underpinning for this god is replaced effectively with “it’s magic innit”.
3. In the absence of reason or logic to justify your belief “God” you throw as much dust in the air as you can by misrepresenting or just insulting the arguments that falsify your unqualified claims and assertions, and then indulge in an endless series of meaningless questions so as to misrepresent or insult again the legitimate answers you’re given.
As you’re evidently here merely to pollute this mb with your trolling rather than to contribute to it, why do you expect anyone to feed you?
-
Everything in the Universe is clearly contingent on the Universe itself.
In a theoretical sense I'm not sure that is true - there could be something in the universe that could still exist outside of the universe - that would not be contingent on the universe. However once we move from the theoretical to the real world it is challenging to find any evidence of something in the universe which could equally as well exist even if the universe did not exist.
-
Vlad,
So just to be clear then:
1. You assert there to be something you call “God” but you have no coherent, cogent or consistent explanation of what you mean by that term.
2. You assert this god to have certain characteristics and behaviours, but all this happens supposedly “outside time and space” or some such (and it seems outside logic too), so any pretence of reasoned underpinning for this god is replaced effectively with “it’s magic innit”.
3. In the absence of reason or logic to justify your belief “God” you throw as much dust in the air as you can by misrepresenting or just insulting the arguments that falsify your unqualified claims and assertions, and then indulge in an endless series of meaningless questions so as to misrepresent or insult again the legitimate answers you’re given.
As you’re evidently here merely to pollute this mb with your trolling rather than to contribute to it, why do you expect anyone to feed you?
Total bollocks..........Produce of Essex.
-
In a theoretical sense I'm not sure that is true - there could be something in the universe that could still exist outside of the universe - that would not be contingent on the universe. However once we move from the theoretical to the real world it is challenging to find any evidence of something in the universe which could equally as well exist even if the universe did not exist.
Actually Prof I can completely agree with this.
-
Vlad,
Total bollocks..........Produce of Essex.
"Feed the troll, tuppence a bag
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag..."
No thanks.
-
No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.
OK. What is the necessary entity that is in the Universe?
I on the other hand could accuse you of the fallacy of division whereby even if the universe as you put it was necessary none of the things in it need be.
No you have that wrong. The fallacy of division would be asserting that because the Universe is necessary, the things in it are necessary.
The first question that needs to be answered is HOW THE FUCK THEN if everything in the universe is contingent does the universe end up necessary.
Because the Universe is not the things in it.
-
Your use of the word universe is what is essentially meaningless.
No one has any conception of what the implications of your use of the word universe is.
Unadulterated drivel. We have a very good and well tested theory that describes the universe as a whole, it's called "general relativity" and the space-time manifold (as I keep on explaining to you and you keep on ignoring) is not something that is obviously contingent on anything else. It contains time so did not, as a whole, start to exist, and there was never a time at which it didn't exist (regardless of whether the past timelike direction within it is finite or infinite).
And I'm still waiting for the first hint of an argument from you as to how things can be necessary, why a necessary thing might be anything like a thinking being, or any attempt to address the apparent contradictions between what little you've said about necessity and such a being.
-
Actually Prof I can completely agree with this.
Blimey!
-
Because the Universe is not the things in it.
What is it then Jeremy?
-
Although it does offer support to those who think the universe is being recreated moment by moment and certainly if whatever it is these things are popping out of is the necessary entity then it could demonstrate that a contingent universe could have existed forever AND need a source to create it....OUTRIDER take note.
Except that relativity shows us that the universe isn't being recreated moment to moment, there is no universal 'now', time is a dimension that exists in its entirety and our sense of time is a facet of our interpretation of our subjective movement through it.
As to the idea that a universe infinite in age was created... how? When was the 'before' that allowed something to exist to cause it? When was it not there, in order for there to be an act of creation which created it? It's a logical contradiction.
Apart from that, though, fair point...
O.
-
Except that relativity shows us that the universe isn't being recreated moment to moment, there is no universal 'now', time is a dimension that exists in its entirety and our sense of time is a facet of our interpretation of our subjective movement through it.
As to the idea that a universe infinite in age was created... how? When was the 'before' that allowed something to exist to cause it? When was it not there, in order for there to be an act of creation which created it? It's a logical contradiction.
Apart from that, though, fair point...
O.
Irrelevant.
If the equivalent of the quantum foam which is pumping out virtual particles has been around forever. It has been doing it forever. What then does the speed of light have to do with it since because of the quantum foam producing virtual particles there have been virtual particles around for ever And ....they are created.
If the universe is down to something like proceeding from a quantum foam. By quantum borrowing. That is how a contingent universe can exist forever.
-
Irrelevant.
You suggested that reality was constantly in the process of being recreated, moment to moment. Relativity and the absence of a universal 'now' shows definitively that this is not the case - that's not 'irrelevant'.
From that continual creation idea you drew the prospect of a cause for an infinite reality, but if that continual creation isn't happening then we're back to a singular, infinite reality where there isn't a 'before' for something causitive to exist, the notion is not viable.
If the equivalent of the quantum foam which is pumping out virtual particles has been around forever. It has been doing it forever. What then does the speed of light have to do with it since because of the quantum foam producing virtual particles there have been virtual particles around for ever And ....they are created.
Who mentioned the speed of light? The quantum foam is an activity happening within the space-time of our universe - it may or may not also occur outside in some format.
O.
If the universe is down to something like proceeding from a quantum foam. By quantum borrowing. That is how a contingent universe can exist forever.
[/quote]
-
From that continual creation idea you drew the prospect of a cause for an infinite reality, but if that continual creation isn't happening then we're back to a singular, infinite reality where there isn't a 'before' for something causitive to exist, the notion is not viable.
Who mentioned the speed of light? The quantum foam is an activity happening within the space-time of our universe - it may or may not also occur outside in some format.
O.
If the universe is down to something like proceeding from a quantum foam. By quantum borrowing. That is how a contingent universe can exist forever.
I think a lot of people struggle with the concept of time - considering it to be linear, constant and directional - thus there must always be a before and an after.
It is the equivalent of someone who lives in a one-dimensional world - so you exist on a line where you can move in one direction only. You see a person ahead of you moving faster in the direction you are moving. Eventually the distance between you and them is too great to see them. Suddenly they appear behind you. For a one-dimension, one direction thinking person this seems impossible. But it is perfectly possible, of course if the line is actually a circle.
-
You suggested that reality was constantly in the process of being recreated, moment to moment. Relativity and the absence of a universal 'now' shows definitively that this is not the case - that's not 'irrelevant'.
How does the speed of how something is done affect the doing of it. Sloths do thing but at a very slow rate. Time is therefore irrelevant.
From that continual creation idea you drew the prospect of a cause for an infinite reality, but if that continual creation isn't happening then we're back to a singular, infinite reality where there isn't a 'before' for something causitive to exist, the notion is not viable.
or we are back to the contingent universe having a starting point.
So we have three options
Infinite necessary creating infinite contingent universe
Infinite necessary creating finite contingent universe
Infinite contingent universe without necessity
only two of those do not present a huge logical difficulty.
-
What is it then Jeremy?
It is the Universe.
-
It is the Universe.
OK since you aren’t making sense. I suppose we are going to have to just guess what it is you are getting at. Have a nice day.
-
OK since you aren’t making sense. I suppose we are going to have to just guess what it is you are getting at. Have a nice day.
Well we've been having to guess what you mean by "God" since the start of the message board.
-
Well we've been having to guess what you mean by "God" since the start of the message board.
When asked how the universe is necessary. “Alright, how is god necessary is no answer”.
Yes....as soon as you explain how the universe is necessary. I am going to land the question “ How then does that mean God cannot exist or be cannot be necessary” on you.
But that requires you to finally do the decent thing and demonstrate how the universe ....which you say is not the contingent things in it..how the universe is the necessary entity.
-
How does the speed of how something is done affect the doing of it. Sloths do thing but at a very slow rate. Time is therefore irrelevant. or we are back to the contingent universe having a starting point.
The speed at which something is done changes the rate at which the individual moves through time, and therefore you can have more than one frame of reference for time co-existing. Therefore there can be no universal now, from which we can conclude that time is not a singular point, it exists as a dimension... which still doesn't explain where speed (of light or anything else) came into the equation
So we have three options
Infinite necessary creating infinite contingent universe
Infinite necessary creating finite contingent universe
Infinite contingent universe without necessity
You are missing an entire possibility of a broader reality outside the universe(s) which may or may not be necessary or contingent in its own right.
only two of those do not present a huge logical difficulty.
All three of those present huge logical difficulties or there would no longer be a debate about them, we'd have a general agreement on which was the case and our philosophy students could go back to contemplating the moral implications of the Pokemon universe.
O.
-
Well we've been having to guess what you mean by "God" since the start of the message board.
God is the necessary entity. That has been said several times.
-
The speed at which something is done changes the rate at which the individual moves through time, and therefore you can have more than one frame of reference for time co-existing. Therefore there can be no universal now, from which we can conclude that time is not a singular point, it exists as a dimension... which still doesn't explain where speed (of light or anything else) came into the equation
As nice as all that might be what does it have to do with say the quantum whatever creating virtual particles for an infinite length of time?
You are missing an entire possibility of a broader reality outside the universe(s) which may or may not be necessary
No, I think that comes under infinite necessity or contingent in its own right.
In one sense you aren’t contingent in your own right but in whatever you are contingent on’s right. That aside I have included it as “an infinite contingency without necessity”( AKA powerful sorcery less plausible than magic).
-
God is the necessary entity. That has been said several times.
That capitalised 'God' though, is doing an awful lot of work. To appropriate a possible necessary element of reality's existence and transpose a complete mythology/theology onto it is a significant overreach.
A god, potentially, could be a necessary entity, but there are other logical possibilities and even if it is a god, it's a far cry from the necessarily being the Abrahamic one.
O.
-
God is the necessary entity. That has been said several times.
You can say that until the cows come home - it doesn't make it true. And JeremyP is correct - until you define what you mean by god (even in the theoretical manner) it is impossible to even engage in such a discussion.
And the problem, as Steve has found out, is that it often ends up as a purely circular argument - in effect you define god as the necessary entity and use that definition to conclude that god is essential for the universe to exist, and therefore as the universe exists, so must god. It is a non-sense argument of the highest order.
-
All three of those present huge logical difficulties or there would no longer be a debate about them, we'd have a general agreement on which was the case and our philosophy students could go back to contemplating the moral implications of the Pokemon universe.
O.
Infinities are a problem as we have long known. Whether some entity that has been around for ever has the same problem as an infinity of entities has.....i’m Not so sure.
However, that being said there is one of the options that is in a league of its own and that is contingency without necessity.
Definitionally it should be reclassified as necessity even if it popped out of nothing. So no Outrider.....infinite contingency without necessity not only takes the Oscar but on the same day wins the lottery, scoops the sweepstake, comes up on Ernie, wins the pools, gets a peerage, is voted man of the year, comes first in the Miss world contest, becomes a grandmother, gets the Nobel prize and shouts “bingo” all at the same time.
-
God is the necessary entity. That has been said several times.
Utterly meaningless.
-
You can say that until the cows come home - it doesn't make it true. And JeremyP is correct - until you define what you mean by god (even in the theoretical manner) it is impossible to even engage in such a discussion.
And the problem, as Steve has found out, is that it often ends up as a purely circular argument - in effect you define god as the necessary entity and use that definition to conclude that god is essential for the universe to exist, and therefore as the universe exists, so must god. It is a non-sense argument of the highest order.
It was put forward here to counter Jeremy’s complaint that I never say what God is.......perhaps read posts before replying Prof?
-
Infinities are a problem as we have long known.
No. You keep saying you've established that infinities are a problem, William Lane Craig conveniently has an unspecified problem with infinities, but so far as I can see the only issue arising from infinity that has been posited was someone trying to treat infinity as a real number rather than a concept and wondering why arithmetic didn't work.
However, that being said there is one of the options that is in a league of its own and that is contingency without necessity.
That's only an issue for you because you have a blind spot for an infinite timeframe where issues of contingency and necessity have no meaning.
Definitionally it should be reclassified as necessity even if it popped out of nothing.
It's infinite - it didn't 'pop out' of anything, there as no 'thing' from which it could pop out, and no time at which it didn't exist for it to 'pop' into or out of.
So no Outrider.....infinite contingency without necessity not only takes the Oscar but on the same day wins the lottery, scoops the sweepstake, comes up on Ernie, wins the pools, gets a peerage, is voted man of the year, comes first in the Miss world contest, becomes a grandmother, gets the Nobel prize and shouts “bingo” all at the same time.
And all because the Lady Gentleman loves Milk Tray the 'infinity problem'.
O.
-
Utterly meaningless.
Doesn’t seem to be a problem when one says the universe is the necessary entity.
Now if you say it’s just the word God that is meaningless then your nicked for God dodging.
-
When asked how the universe is necessary. “Alright, how is god necessary is no answer”.
Yes....as soon as you explain how the universe is necessary. I am going to land the question “ How then does that mean God cannot exist or be cannot be necessary” on you.
But that requires you to finally do the decent thing and demonstrate how the universe ....which you say is not the contingent things in it..how the universe is the necessary entity.
You're being a total hypocrite apart from anything else. You haven't defined how anything at all can be necessary.
You've still not grasped the buden of proof.
And as I keep on saying, and you've now ignored at least three times, the space-time manifold doesn't appear to be obviously contingent on anything else - regardless of whether any of its dimensions are infinite or not.
And you still haven't addressed the contradiction of any thinking, choice making entity necessarily requiring time in order to exist.
-
Doesn’t seem to be a problem when one says the universe is the necessary entity.
We have good reason to think the universe actually exists. Nobody, as far as I know, has made any claim other than it might be necessary.
Now if you say it’s just the word God that is meaningless then your nicked for God dodging.
The unqualified word "God" is meaningless (because there are way too many different interpretations of it for it to convey anything useful by itself), as is the claim that it is necessary. I can't dodge something that doesn't mean anything.
-
It was put forward here to counter Jeremy’s complaint that I never say what God is.......perhaps read posts before replying Prof?
I do read posts - thanks Vlad. That you don't like or understand my response doesn't mean I haven't read the post.
Defining god as the necessary entity for the universe is entirely meaningless as it really tells us nothing about god at all - and indeed could lead to the conclusion that god is simply energy, or the unifying theory of relativity. That would, of course, crush your notion of the loving judeochristian god into dust. I don't believe that is your intention, so defining god in this manner is merely a (not very subtle) trick to try and argue that god exists, and by inference you mean the judeochristian god.
-
No. You keep saying you've established that infinities are a problem, William Lane Craig conveniently has an unspecified problem with infinities, but so far as I can see the only issue arising from infinity that has been posited was someone trying to treat infinity as a real number rather than a concept and wondering why arithmetic didn't work.
That's only an issue for you because you have a blind spot for an infinite timeframe where issues of contingency and necessity have no meaning.
It's infinite - it didn't 'pop out' of anything, there as no 'thing' from which it could pop out, and no time at which it didn't exist for it to 'pop' into or out of.
And all because the Lady Gentleman loves Milk Tray the 'infinity problem'.
O.
If you do not realise how illogical contingency without necessity is even after the explanations provided then I’m not sure anyone here can help you.
If there is something that doesn’t need or doesn’t have an external explanation then that is what is called a necessary entity. Timeframes have nothing to do with it.
-
No. You keep saying you've established that infinities are a problem, William Lane Craig conveniently has an unspecified problem with infinities, but so far as I can see the only issue arising from infinity that has been posited was someone trying to treat infinity as a real number rather than a concept and wondering why arithmetic didn't work.
That's only an issue for you because you have a blind spot for an infinite timeframe where issues of contingency and necessity have no meaning.
It's infinite - it didn't 'pop out' of anything, there as no 'thing' from which it could pop out, and no time at which it didn't exist for it to 'pop' into or out of.
And all because the Lady Gentleman loves Milk Tray the 'infinity problem'.
O.
Even if infinities were no problem contingency without necessity is a logical problem of megatitanic proportions.
-
God is the necessary entity. That has been said several times.
That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.
-
I do read posts - thanks Vlad. That you don't like or understand my response doesn't mean I haven't read the post.
Defining god as the necessary entity for the universe is entirely meaningless as it really tells us nothing about god at all - and indeed could lead to the conclusion that god is simply energy, or the unifying theory of relativity. That would, of course, crush your notion of the loving judeochristian god into dust. I don't believe that is your intention, so defining god in this manner is merely a (not very subtle) trick to try and argue that god exists, and by inference you mean the judeochristian god.
It tells us that she is a necessary entity from which a description can be derived as to his properties.
If energy is the necessary entity that has huge implications not least for energy that I can tell from the replies on this thread have not been contemplated.
-
That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.
My point exactly - if your definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then all sorts of things become candidates for god, most of which don't come close to the standard definitions of god or gods, which typically require some kind of supernatural or divine elements. And if the the definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then the notions of a personal and beneficent god are entirely irrelevant.
-
If energy is the necessary entity that has huge implications not least for energy that I can tell from the replies on this thread have not been contemplated.
For the sake of arguments - if energy is the necessary entity does this mean that god is simply energy and energy is god.
If so this kinds of rides roughshod through the notions of religion, worship etc.
-
That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.
That doesn't work as a definition. The Universe might be the necessary entity but we don't usually mean the Universe when we talk about God. Furthermore, there is no reason why the creator of this Universe (if such a creator exists) should not be contingent on some other object.
Sorry Jeremy you have said that the universe is the necessary entity. You have said that contingent things are not the universe.
Can I check. Do you mean that contingent things are not part of the universe or that they are merely part of the universe?
-
Even if infinities were no problem contingency without necessity is a logical problem of megatitanic proportions.
If you do not realise how illogical contingency without necessity is even after the explanations provided then I’m not sure anyone here can help you.
Only within a finite time-frame - infinite age means that concept of an origin is meaningless, as therefore is the nature of that origin.
If there is something that doesn’t need or doesn’t have an external explanation then that is what is called a necessary entity.
No, 'necessary' is about whether it had to exist or not - there's nothing, even in an infinite reality, which requires it to have existed, we have no idea if it's possible for reality not to exist.
O.
-
For the sake of arguments - if energy is the necessary entity does this mean that god is simply energy and energy is god.
If so this kinds of rides roughshod through the notions of religion, worship etc.
It means that energy has a few more properties that are not found in contingent things.
Thinking of which there are things which disqualify energy from being the necessary entity.
For information though, there are theologies which have energy as a necessary entity.
-
My point exactly - if your definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then all sorts of things become candidates for god, most of which don't come close to the standard definitions of god or gods, which typically require some kind of supernatural or divine elements. And if the the definition of god goes no further than the necessary entity then the notions of a personal and beneficent god are entirely irrelevant.
There are god candidates?!? Name a few, please.
-
There are god candidates?!? Name a few, please.
Me for one! ;D
-
Only within a finite time-frame - infinite age means that concept of an origin is meaningless, as therefore is the nature of that origin.
No it’s been demonstrated how an infinite contingent universe of temporary particles can be has been and been created from a quantum foam.
We cannot go back now and pretend that cannot be.
-
No, 'necessary' is about whether it had to exist or not - there's nothing, even in an infinite reality, which requires it to have existed, we have no idea if it's possible for reality not to exist.
O.
Nothing external which requires it to exist.
I think you are misreading the term necessary to exist.
All that means since basically all this is known as the argument from contingency is for X to exist Y is necessary.
-
Me for one! ;D
Seconded.
-
It means that energy has a few more properties that are not found in contingent things.
Energy obviously isn't the necessary entity because it isn't an entity at all, it's a property. However, what are the properties required for something necessary?
So you can ignore it for the fourth time (at least) if I suggested the space-time manifold is necessary, would that make it "God" - what extra properties would it need?
Thinking of which there are things which disqualify energy from being the necessary entity.
Wow! Vlad's said something sensible!
For information though, there are theologies which have energy as a necessary entity.
They are wrong (at least with respect the the scientific definition of energy).
-
No it’s been demonstrated how an infinite contingent universe of temporary particles can be has been and been created from a quantum foam.
Gibberish.
-
There are god candidates?!? Name a few, please.
Upthread I have, for the sake of arguments, proposed:
Energy
Unifying relativity theory
If these are determined to be necessary for the universe to exist, then surely by your own definition these are god.
-
Energy obviously isn't the necessary entity because it isn't an entity at all, it's a property. However, what are the properties required for something necessary?
I like that........it’s Prof Davey’s suggestion and I even put that there are several disqualifications stopping that being the case and yet this guy homes in on me. Why? Because Davey is an atheist
.aaaan aaaatheist. I ask you.
-
Upthread I have, for the sake of arguments, proposed:
Energy
Unifying relativity theory
If these are determined to be necessary for the universe to exist, then surely by your own definition these are god.
Never talk to strangers! he has proposed energy again..... Never......... come quickly and tear his suggestion apart........Never talk?........Never talk? .........are you there never talk?
-
No, 'necessary' is about whether it had to exist or not - there's nothing, even in an infinite reality, which requires it to have existed, we have no idea if it's possible for reality not to exist.
Exactly - the notion of necessary is conditional on other elements - so a necessary element for the universe is only necessary if the universe exists. Were the universe not to exist, then it would clearly not be necessary.
-
I like that........it’s Prof Davey’s suggestion and I even put that there are several disqualifications stopping that being the case and yet this guy homes in on me. Why? Because Davey is an atheist
.aaaan aaaatheist. I ask you.
I've already had the argument with Davey.
I note you've ignored my questions and my suggestion (for the fourth time, at least).
-
Sorry Jeremy you have said that the universe is the necessary entity. You have said that contingent things are not the universe.
Can I check. Do you mean that contingent things are not part of the universe or that they are merely part of the universe?
Is that meant to be a reply to the post you quoted? It doesn't address the point at all.
-
Never talk to strangers! he has proposed energy again..... Never......... come quickly and tear his suggestion apart........Never talk?........Never talk? .........are you there never talk?
We are discussing hypotheticals here - I clearly said 'for the sake of arguments'. Would you like to address the issue please - were energy or unifying relativity to be determined to be necessary for the universe to exist (therefore being a necessary entity) would you accept that these are, therefore, god?
-
And lo, to avoid the Uncreated Creator they created the Uncreated Created......and saw it was illogical but not God.
-
And lo, to avoid the Uncreated Creator they created the Uncreated Created......and saw it was illogical but not God.
More gibberish.
You're still studiously ignoring the actual points being made here. Yet again: the space-time manifold doesn't obviously depend on anything else for its existence, so, if it were necessary, would that make it "God"? Would it need extra properties? If so, what are they?
How can we tell if anything is necessary?
-
Exactly - the notion of necessary is conditional on other elements - so a necessary element for the universe is only necessary if the universe exists. Were the universe not to exist, then it would clearly not be necessary.
Utterbollocks. You are saying that that which is necessary is only necessary because that which is contingent on it exists.
That is arse about face.
That’s like saying without me my mum and dad wouldn’t exist.
-
More gibberish.
You're still studiously ignoring the actual points being made here. Yet again: the space-time manifold doesn't obviously depend on anything else for its existence, so, if it were necessary, would that make it "God"? Would it need extra properties? If so, what are they?
How can we tell if anything is necessary?
I’m afraid it’s the takeaway message of what people on here have been arguing for the Uncreated creator.
Regarding the space time manifold, which because of the madness and hellish tipsy turkey universe the atheists here are building,now looks like an oasis of sanity, how does the manifold account for the contingent universe?
-
Utterbollocks. You are saying that that which is necessary is only necessary because that which is contingent on it exists.
That is arse about face.
No it isn't - it is merely stating the obvious fact that the necessity relates only to the contingent state.
That’s like saying without me my mum and dad wouldn’t exist.
No it isn't - it is like saying that the existence of your mum and dad is only necessary if a child exists. If you didn't exist, then nor would the existence of your mother and father be necessary and they could also not exist.
-
No it isn't - it is merely stating the obvious fact that the necessity relates only to the contingent state.
No it isn't - it is like saying that the existence of your mum and dad is only necessary if a child exists. If you didn't exist, then nor would the existence of your mother and father be necessary and they could also not exist.
I hope you are saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.
-
No it’s been demonstrated how an infinite contingent universe of temporary particles can be has been and been created from a quantum foam.
Infinite in terms of space, but not an infinitely old universe, and I'm not talking about the universe anway, I'm considering the broader physical reality in which our universe (possibly) resides.
We cannot go back now and pretend that cannot be.
We don't need to, we just to remain clear on what it is that's being demonstrated - I appreciate that you're fielding commentary from at least three different sources, and it can be difficult to keep them straight sometimes, I do that myself on occasion.
O.
-
I’m afraid it’s the takeaway message of what people on here have been arguing for the Uncreated creator.
You're once again forgetting that it's you who are trying to make an argument here - write out 100 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".
Regarding the space time manifold, which because of the madness and hellish tipsy turkey universe the atheists here are building,now looks like an oasis of sanity, how does the manifold account for the contingent universe?
Again, people are suggesting alternatives to your argument. Of course you cannot put them all together and make something coherent, that's the point - there are many, many different possibilities, which means you have not made your case.
Regarding the manifold, it (and its contents), in and of themselves, don't appear to depend on anything external. Contingency, like time itself, is entirely internal to it. It (assuming general relativity is at least approximately correct) is a four-dimensional object. It didn't start to exist and it won't ever cease to exist because time is internal to it.
-
Infinite in terms of space, but not an infinitely old universe, and I'm not talking about the universe anway, I'm considering the broader physical reality in which our universe (possibly) resides.
We don't need to, we just to remain clear on what it is that's being demonstrated - I appreciate that you're fielding commentary from at least three different sources, and it can be difficult to keep them straight sometimes, I do that myself on occasion.
O.
Are you saying that the quantum foam could not have been producing virtual particles for an infinite time then?
-
You're once again forgetting that it's you who are trying to make an argument here - write out 100 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".
Again, people are suggesting alternatives to your argument. Of course you cannot put them all together and make something coherent, that's the point - there are many, many different possibilities, which means you have not made your case.
Regarding the manifold, it (and its contents), in and of themselves, don't appear to depend on anything external. Contingency, like time itself, is entirely internal to it. It (assuming general relativity is at least approximately correct) is a four-dimensional object. It didn't start to exist and it won't ever cease to exist because time is internal to it.
im not really interested in something existing for ever. I’m interested in whether it can produce contingent things. For example the number four is an abstract necessity which produces nothing at all. So what is it within the manifold which gives rise to contingent things.......and don’t just say the manifold did it.
-
im not really interested in something existing for ever. I’m interested in whether it can produce contingent things. For example the number four is an abstract necessity which produces nothing at all. So what is it within the manifold which gives rise to contingent things.......and don’t just say the manifold did it.
It really isn't up to me to make an argument for this. I pointed at something that doesn't appear to have an external explanation for it, which is pretty much all you've said about a necessity entity yourself. And it doesn't exist forever - it just exists. Time is something inside it.
If you'd actually try to make an argument and resolve the contradictions in your own position, you'd be in a position in which other people would have to point out flaws and logical alternatives. As it is, you're just trying to shift the burden of proof and get other people to come up with complete explanations that you can then pick issues with.
Matthew 7:5
-
Regarding the manifold, it (and its contents), in and of themselves, don't appear to depend on anything external. Contingency, like time itself, is entirely internal to it.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand There we go again with the uncreated created Schlick.
-
It really isn't up to me to make an argument for this. I pointed at something that doesn't appear to have an external explanation for it, which is pretty much all you've said about a necessity entity yourself. And it doesn't exist forever - it just exists. Time is something inside it.
If you'd actually try to make an argument and resolve the contradictions in your own position, you'd be in a position in which other people would have to point out flaws and logical alternatives. As it is, you're just trying to shift the burden of proof and get other people to come up with complete explanations that you can then pick issues with.
Matthew 7:5
If you can say the manifold is not created, but it contains created things , say they are all necessary and say it isn’t necessary to explain how that happens. You cannot rightly expect further explanation from someone who merely proposes something that is not created.
You have a duty to explain your notion of the uncreated created You also need to explain what the non contingent parts are......or give up.
So nothing wrong with not knowing a lot about a lot wrong slagging someone of for not knowing.
-
I hope you are saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.
Is that supposed to be a joke? In which case don't you mean:
I hope you aren't saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.
Frankly I often struggle with the coherence of your posts Vlad so it is difficult to know what on earth you mean.
-
Are you saying that the quantum foam could not have been producing virtual particles for an infinite time then?
No, I'm saying that it could have been doing so outside of the universe but inside the broader, infinite reality that I've been depicting as a viable prospect.
O.
-
Is that supposed to be a joke? In which case don't you mean:
I hope you aren't saying that they do exist but not as my mum and dad.
Frankly I often struggle with the coherence of your posts Vlad so it is difficult to know what on earth you mean.
Can we just clarify..........are you saying that if you didn’t exist the people who would have been your parents wouldn’t exist. Try a yes no answer.
-
No, I'm saying that it could have been doing so outside of the universe but inside the broader, infinite reality that I've been depicting as a viable prospect.
O.
I’m happy with the term broader, infinite reality. But obviously it’s existence is not dependent on the temporary part. In other words it is complete without the temporary bit.
-
Can we just clarify..........are you saying that if you didn’t exist the people who would have been your parents wouldn’t exist. Try a yes no answer.
No - I am saying that if I didn't exist the people who are my parents wouldn't have necessarily needed to exist - they could have existed, they could not have. It is only if I exist that they necessarily have to exist also.
Parents are only a necessary entity if there is a child.
-
If you can say the manifold is not created, but it contains created things , say they are all necessary and say it isn’t necessary to explain how that happens. You cannot rightly expect further explanation from someone who merely proposes something that is not created.
You have a duty to explain your notion of the uncreated created You also need to explain what the non contingent parts are......or give up.
So nothing wrong with not knowing a lot about a lot wrong slagging someone of for not knowing.
You are making the specific (even if somewhat meaningless) claim that something called "God" is a necessary being. You have not explained how it is possible for anything to be necessary, pretty much all you've said is that it would have no external explanation. Neither have you explained how something that is anything like most conceptions of gods (as thinking beings that make choices) can exist without depending on time.
It really isn't up to other people to create anything any more coherent than your undefined and incoherent nonsense. So, no, I have no duty at all to explain anything. I've pointed out that there is something (which we have strong evidence for) that doesn't appear to have an external explanation. That, in and of itself, is far more credible, coherent, and meaningful than your vague hand-waving about some undefined "God".
Write out 500 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".
-
You are making the specific (even if somewhat meaningless) claim that something called "God" is a necessary being. You have not explained how it is possible for anything to be necessary, pretty much all you've said is that it would have no external explanation. Neither have you explained how something that is anything like most conceptions of gods (as thinking beings that make choices) can exist without depending on time.
It really isn't up to other people to create anything any more coherent than your undefined and incoherent nonsense. So, no, I have no duty at all to explain anything. I've pointed out that there is something (which we have strong evidence for) that doesn't appear to have an external explanation. That, in and of itself, is far more credible, coherent, and meaningful than your vague hand-waving about some undefined "God".
Write out 500 times: "I must remember the burden of proof".
I have stated what I mean by necessity, necessary and necessary entity 500 times now.
-
No.
Phew, I was worried for you.
-
I have stated what I mean by necessity, necessary and necessary entity 500 times now.
You've actually defined it two ways: something for which there is no external explanation and something which is its own explanation. You have not said how it is possible for anything to have these characteristics or how we would recognise it (or them).
I've provided you with what appears to meet your first definition. You have provided nothing but hand-waving about an undefined notion of "God".
As I said, nobody is under any obligation to try to provide you with an alternative to your vague hand-waving that is anything more than other vague hand-waving. Nevertheless, myself, and others, have done so.
It really is about time you applied the same criteria for explanation to yourself that you are attempting to apply to other people's ideas and stop being such a hypocrite.
-
Phew, I was worried for you.
Thanks for the majoring editing of my response.
To be clear - parents are only a necessary entity if there is a child. If there is no child then those same people could exist or could not exist - those people are no longer a necessary entity.
-
You've actually defined it two ways: something for which there is no external explanation and something which is its own explanation. You have not said how it is possible for anything to have these characteristics or how we would recognise it (or them).
I think this is a huge problem but it needn’t stop us saying it is illogical for there not to be one since in any case if we are saying the universe didn’t need one then that definitionally makes the universe the necessary thing. However we can discount things which are contingent as being the necessary entity.
If we are arguing that the universe is the necessary entity then that entity has to be in the universe but not a part of the contingent universe. If
We still have an issue because we do not know what it is like.
However Logic dictates it must be there and our inability to recognise it or even detect or measure it does not I’m afraid have any bearing on whether it exists or not.
-
I think this is a huge problem but it needn’t stop us saying it is illogical for there not to be one since in any case if we are saying the universe didn’t need one then that definitionally makes the universe the necessary thing.
Why? Where is this argument? Why do we need one necessary thing? Perhaps, for example, literally everything that is logically self-consistent exists. We know nothing about the basis for existence or the extent of what might exists outside of this bubble of space-time we are able to directly observe.
If we are arguing that the universe is the necessary entity then that entity has to be in the universe but not a part of the contingent universe.
I gave the entire space-time manifold and its contents as a possibility because it doesn't appear to need an external reason to exist. That doesn't mean that there is some necessary part of it (something that is inside it).
We still have an issue because we do not know what it is like.
However Logic dictates it must be there and our inability to recognise it or even detect or measure it is not I’m afraid have any bearing on whether it exists or not.
Regardless of the fact that you haven't provided a proper argument for necessity, it's you who is trying to claim it is something specific that is called "God". Instead of trying to support your own claim, or addressing its apparent contradictions, you seem intent on arguing (from ignorance) against other people's ideas.
Write out 500 more times: "I must remember the burden of proof".
-
If we are arguing that the universe is the necessary entity ...
It is completely meaningless to describe anything as a necessary entity, let alone the necessary entity unless you also state what it is a necessary entity for.
-
It is completely meaningless to describe anything as a necessary entity, let alone the necessary entity unless you also state what it is a necessary entity for.
I think it is fairly obvious what THE necessary entity is necessary for. And it has been stated in the context of the universe and reality. To pretend you are in the dark on that is pretty disingenuous IMHO.
It is also a convention to talk about abstract necessities. Things that are there no matter what but don't actually do anything. These would be mathematical necessities.
One can envisage something that exists without external reasons but with reasons of there own. Just because someone doesn't like the handle or name doesn't mean it's existence is jeapordised. It might be meaningless to you because of your brain architecture or you've got yourself into fixed or sloppy ways of thinking.
-
I gave the entire space-time manifold and its contents as a possibility because it doesn't appear to need an external reason to exist. That doesn't mean that there is some necessary part of it (something that is inside it).
So are you suggesting it as a kind of shell of necessity around contingency?
-
So are you suggesting it as a kind of shell of necessity around contingency?
Possibly, or the entire thing is necessary because there was no other way for it to be, or it's just one of many other possibilities that are all realised simply because there is no reason for them not to exist.
Once again: it is you who are proposing a specific answer here, one that you have made no serious attempt to justify and one that you continually refuse to address objections to. It's not up to other people to propose and defend alternatives to an incoherent, apparently contradictory, notion that you have made no serious attempt to argue for or defend yourself. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite.
-
I think it is fairly obvious what THE necessary entity is necessary for. And it has been stated in the context of the universe and reality. To pretend you are in the dark on that is pretty disingenuous IMHO.
I never said I was in the dark - I said it was meaningless to describe anything as a necessary entity, let alone the necessary entity unless you also state what it is a necessary entity for. There is a difference.
But nonetheless in the current thread we've discussed necessary entities for:
The universe (brought up by you)
A bicycle (brought up by you)
Neurotransmission (brought up be me), and most recently
Children (brought up by you)
The broader point is that the necessary entity or entities for each are different and therefore the context of the discussion is important particularly when you are clearly trying to guide the discussion towards a purported THE necessary entity - implying a universality, with a objective in trying to imply this to be god.
But we can see through your wheeze - and of course there is no such things as THE necessary entity, because as I have pointed out this is entirely context specific. So there are only context specific necessary entities and there may be more than one of these for any given context (children being a very obvious example).
-
Possibly, or the entire thing is necessary because there was no other way for it to be, or it's just one of many other possibilities that are all realised simply because there is no reason for them not to exist.
OK let’s factor that in. Vlad, in one heirarchy of dependency is a contingent being on his parents who in turn are contingent on there parents. Now, nothing about that changes in the face of determinism, does it. I think therefore that determinist line is a bit of a cul de sac although i’ve Seen even respectable atheist debaters drop it in. Hierarchies of contingency still remain.
Once again: it is you who are proposing a specific answer here, one that you have made no serious attempt to justify and one that you continually refuse to address objections to. It's not up to other people to propose and defend alternatives to an incoherent, apparently contradictory, notion that you have made no serious attempt to argue for or defend yourself. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite.
I have two entities
The contingent
The necessary
People are trying without any force from me to eliminate one or the other. That they do that with the necessary tells me that they themselves have spotted the divine attributes that come with being the necessary entity.
-
OK let’s factor that in. Vlad, in one heirarchy of dependency is a contingent being on his parents who in turn are contingent on there parents. Now, nothing about that changes in the face of determinism, does it. I think therefore that determinist line is a bit of a cul de sac although i’ve Seen even respectable atheist debaters drop it in. Hierarchies of contingency still remain.
Regardless of all that, there still doesn't appear to be any external explanation for the whole of space-time and its contents, so it could easily fit one of your definitions of necessity.
And you didn't addresses the possibility that things may exist simply because there is no reason they can't.
I have two entities
The contingent
The necessary
People are trying without any force from me to eliminate one or the other. That they do that with the necessary tells me that they themselves have spotted the divine attributes that come with being the necessary entity.
Drivel. People are pointing that you haven't made an argument for any of this, you've just asserted it and what little you said about it is full of holes and contradictions - none of which, it would seem, you are prepared to even try to defend, while at the same time trying to put everything anybody else even suggests under a microscope as if it was a solid counter-claim, rather than just a alternative possibility.
You haven't even shown that what you regard as necessary even makes coherent sense, let alone shown any "divine attributes". You won't even address the obvious glaring contradiction in identifying a "necessary entity" with anything like most conceptions of gods.
As I said: stop being a hypocrite and defend your own positive claim at least to the degree you seem to want other people to defend mere alternative suggestions.
-
Regardless of all that, there still doesn't appear to be any external explanation for the whole of space-time and its contents, so it could easily fit one of your definitions of necessity.
I fear you are making the fallacy of division here by imbuing the components of a thing with a property of the whole. If something is dependent on something else it is contingent.
And you didn't addresses the possibility that things may exist simply because there is no reason they can't.
sounds like you are talking about necessary entities there. When haven’t I been talking about the possibility of those?
-
...... I have two entities
The contingent
The necessary
People are trying without any force from me to eliminate one or the other. That they do that with the necessary tells me that they themselves have spotted the divine attributes that come with being the necessary entity.
I find there are multiple examples of contingency, but I haven't a clue whether there is a necessary at all. For me, postulating one(or more than one) has as many problems as not having a necessary as I have no idea how a necessary can be its own reason for existing.
As to divine attributes, you would have to tell me first as to why it has to be an entity, and then tell me what these attributes were. I can only think of one, which is the idea that the necessary is essential for creation. You yourself have already accepted that the divine doesn't have to be good, omnipotent(except for our universe) or even singular. It does seem to be a shaky edifice to hang the divine idea on.
-
I fear you are making the fallacy of division here by imbuing the components of a thing with a property of the whole. If something is dependent on something else it is contingent.
You're pissing about with definitions here. If the whole of the space-time manifold has no external explanation, it fits one of your definitions of necessity and any notion of contingency would be internal to it.
sounds like you are talking about necessary entities there. When haven’t I been talking about the possibility of those?
Once again, your refusing to defend your own claims and simply ignoring or criticising other suggestions. If everything that is self-consistent exists, simply because there is no reason for it not to, does that make everything "God"? If the whole of space-time is necessary does that make it "God".
More to the point, where the hell is anything remotely like an argument for your claim?
How can you make the idea of necessity logically self-consistent? What is your definition of "God" and why would something necessary be anything like it?
Why are you so afraid of actually producing an argument?
-
You're pissing about with definitions here. If the whole of the space-time manifold has no external explanation, it fits one of your definitions of necessity and any notion of contingency would be internal to it.
Once again, your refusing to defend your own claims and simply ignoring or criticising other suggestions. If everything that is self-consistent exists, simply because there is no reason for it not to, does that make everything "God"? If the whole of space-time is necessary does that make it "God".
More to the point, where the hell is anything remotely like an argument for your claim?
How can you make the idea of necessity logically self-consistent? What is your definition of "God" and why would something necessary be anything like it?
Why are you so afraid of actually producing an argument?
I am making a few points here
1) It should be clear to thread participants what the argument from contingency is.
2)It should be clear how contingent entities and non contingent or necessary entities come out of that discussion.
3) These arguments have been put in different ways with multiple analogies
4) People instinctively suspect talk of necessary entities as being God talk
5) The characteristics of necessary beings are different from contingent being.
6) some have acknowledged that a necessary entity is logical and the debate here is what it is using the painful process of discounting constraints on contingent beings for necessary entities.
So please dont complain that there isnt argument going on here.
-
Argument: a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
Assertion: a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
Vlad’s scores:
Assertions: 5,621; Arguments: 0
-
1) It should be clear to thread participants what the argument from contingency is.
Why? Where is the specific argument you are referring to?
2)It should be clear how contingent entities and non contingent or necessary entities come out of that discussion.
Since you haven't explicitly given an argument or referenced one, it isn't clear at all.
3) These arguments have been put in different ways with multiple analogies
So where is one of them that you are prepared to defend?
4) People instinctively suspect talk of necessary entities as being God talk
Do they?
5) The characteristics of necessary beings are different from contingent being.
In what way, exactly? What are the characteristics of something necessary? How would we recognise it? Why are you calling it a "being"?
6) some have acknowledged that a necessary entity is logical and the debate here is what it is using the painful process of discounting constraints on contingent beings for necessary entities.
But you're not even doing that. You're refusing to support what few claims that you have explicitly made and then raising rather silly objections to other possibilities.
So please dont complain that there isnt argument going on here.
You haven't made an argument and you will not defend what few claims you have made. As usual, you are trying to reverse the burden of proof.
So, once again, stop being a hypocrite, put forward a specific argument so that others can subject to the same sort of scrutiny that you seem to want to apply to even the most casual alternative suggestions.
-
5) The characteristics of necessary beings are different from contingent being.
Utter and complete garbage.
Let's first remind ourselves of the definitions we are using for necessary and contingent beings or entities:
A necessary entity is something that exists and could not have failed to exist
A contingent entity is something that exists and could have failed to exist
So lets look at the example you raised of children and parents.
If I exist then my parents could not have failed to exist - they are necessary entities. However if I do not exist (and nor do any of my siblings) then my parents could have failed to exist - they are contingent entities.
The characteristics of the people who are my parents are identical in each case - it is the context (in this case the presence of a child) that determines whether they are necessary or contingent entities.
-
Utter and complete garbage.
Let's first remind ourselves of the definitions we are using for necessary and contingent beings or entities:
A necessary entity is something that exists and could not have failed to exist
A contingent entity is something that exists and could have failed to exist
So lets look at the example you raised of children and parents.
If I exist then my parents could not have failed to exist - they are necessary entities. However if I do not exist (and nor do any of my siblings) then my parents could have failed to exist - they are contingent entities.
The proporties of the people who are my parents are identical in each case - it is the context (in this case the presence of a child) that determines whether they are necessary or contingent entities.
You see Never Talk......argument around issues regarding argument from contingency.
Here you see Professor Davey on about a particular definition of necessity against which all other understandings are wrong so he is leading me to believe. I will examine this therefore to see if it actually negates anything I’ve said"
-
You see nearly Sane.......argument around issues regarding argument from contingency.
Here you see Professor Davey on about a particular definition of necessity against which all other understandings are wrong. I will examine this therefore to see if it actually negates anything I’ve said"
This is the only definition that has been proposed on this thread that has any kind of external validity.
Your suggestion that the characteristics of necessary entities are different from contingent entities is non-sense on stilts.
-
This is the only definition that has been proposed on this thread that has any kind of external validity.
Your suggestion that the characteristics of necessary entities are different from contingent entities is non-sense on stilts.
Don’t think so.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
-
You see Never Talk......argument around issues regarding argument from contingency.
Here you see Professor Davey on about a particular definition of necessity against which all other understandings are wrong so he is leading me to believe. I will examine this therefore to see if it actually negates anything I’ve said"
Don’t think so.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
What's actually quite amusing here is that you and the Prof clearly are talking about different definitions but using the same web page, so you, Vlad, are you going to have to have the intellectual courage to actually explain the concept of necessity you're talking about. Somehow I doubt you will do that because that would mean you actually being explicit about at least part of the argument you keep hinting at but are avoiding at all costs stating in any way - because then people could challenge it and your attempt to reverse the burden of proof might unravel......
-
Don’t think so.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
What are you on about Vlad.
That is the definition that I provided and that I am using.
-
Stranger,
What's actually quite amusing here is that you and the Prof clearly are talking about different definitions but using the same web page, so you, Vlad, are you going to have to have the intellectual courage to actually explain the concept of necessity you're talking about. Somehow I doubt you will do that because that would mean you actually being explicit about at least part of the argument you keep hinting at but are avoiding at all costs stating in any way - because then people could challenge it and your attempt to reverse the burden of proof might unravel......
It should be apparent by now that not only will Vlad never make an argument but that he seems not to grasp even what the term “argument” requires. As you’ve observed, his MO is only to critique the arguments he doesn’t like by mischaracterising or just insulting them, and to scatter his posts with various references and terms he clearly doesn’t understand. He's either an intelligent person pretending to be stupid, or the other way around. My money's on the latter.
Vlad: never explain, never apologise.
-
What are you on about Vlad.
That is the definition that I provided and that I am using.
No Davey, what are YOU on about ?The piece distinctly qualifies what can be a candidate for the necessary being. If any one was still in doubt that a necessary being and a contingent being are the same thing It would save time if you could point out where you cited the self same piece on this board.
-
No Davey, what are YOU on about ?The piece distinctly qualifies what can be a candidate for the necessary being. If any one was still in doubt that a necessary being and a contingent being are the same thing It would save time if you could point out where you cited the self same piece on this board.
#126 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809344#msg809344).
Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...
-
#126 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809344#msg809344).
Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...
Thank you. It seems that having quoted that there are two types of entities. Davey now seems to be informing us that there is no difference between them. That which he quotes clearly gives the distinction.
-
#126 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg809344#msg809344).
Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...
Ah the old "you haven't made an argument AND NOT ONLY THAT your argument isn't clear" Gambit
-
Thank you. It seems that having quoted that there are two types of entities. Davey now seems to be informing us that there is no difference between them. That which he quotes clearly gives the distinction.
Off you go then and explain your point of view....
Ah the old "you haven't made an argument AND NOT ONLY THAT your argument isn't clear" Gambit
Don't be silly - all you've done is make a few disjointed claims that you utterly refuse to either defend or put into a coherent and complete argument. Why are you so terrified of committing to an actual argument?
-
Stranger,
Vlad, you really are going to have to properly explain yourself and your argument. I've broken out the popcorn, this is going to be fun...
Good luck with that – he’s cost me a fortune in twiglets and tizer over the years waiting in vain for an actual argument for whatever it is he believes in.
He’ll duck and dive
And twist and turn
Or just act all aloof
But never, ever will he accept
That his is the burden of proof
He’ll lie about the arguments
Or make shit up
On the hoof
But he’ll never address his problem
That his is the burden of proof
He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof
-
He’ll duck and dive
And twist and turn
Or just act all aloof,
But never, ever will he accept
That his is the burden of proof
He’ll lie about the arguments
Or make shit up
On the hoof
But he’ll never address his problem
That his is the burden of proof
He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof
;D
-
Stranger,
Good luck with that – he’s cost me a fortune in twiglets and tizer over the years waiting in vain for an actual argument for whatever it is he believes in.
Was this the argument which never happened but was really awful?
He’ll duck and dive
And twist and turn
Or just act all aloof
But never, ever will he accept
That his is the burden of proof
He’ll lie about the arguments
Or make shit up
On the hoof
But he’ll never address his problem
That his is the burden of proof
He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof
They seek him here, They seek him there
Is he in Heaven, Is he in Hell
That Damned evasive Pimp!
Well done Hillside.
When every body's agreed we are in unfalsifiable and speculation country can Burden of proof really be used as a get out of jail free card if your speculation goes tits up? I'm not sure.
-
When every body's agreed we are in unfalsifiable and speculation country can Burden of proof really be used as a get out of jail free card if your speculation goes tits up? I'm not sure.
Of course you're not because you simply don't get the burden of proof at all, do you?
Anyway, you are the one here who is proposing a specific idea that there is a (singular) necessary entity and it can be identified as some sort of (undefined) notion of "God". This is clearly your burden of proof. What's missing from you is any sort of coherent definitions or anything remotely like an argument. You won't address the objections to your claims and you won't even define your terms.
All you are doing is trying to get other people to make suggestions and then criticise them. Classic Vled burden of proof shifting.
-
Vlad:
When every body's agreed we are in unfalsifiable and speculation country...
Me:
He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof
Uncanny.
-
Vlad:
Me:
Uncanny.
Nothing gained here Hillside since by proof you mean empirical proof. We know this due to your apparent blindness and incomprehension of ''argument''. Something in your book which can be simultaneously not given and appallingly bad at the same time.
-
Nothing gained here Hillside since by proof you mean empirical proof.
Oh look, another straw man.
-
Oh look, another straw man.
No yours is a straw man since I acknowledged I was stupid enough to be hustled by an atheist drilled in tactics to get me to get the burden of proof at some time on this board.
I have therefore accepted my burden of proof.
Since many of you think that even expressions of belief have a BOP I therefore merely ask those people take on their BOP.
And those who do not think that mere belief carries a BOP should STF........IMHO
-
No yours is a straw man since I acknowledged I was stupid enough to be hustled by an atheist drilled in tactics to get me to get the burden of proof at some time on this board.
I have therefore accepted my burden of proof.
Since many of you think that even expressions of belief have a BOP I therefore merely ask those people take on their BOP.
And those who do not think that mere belief carries a BOP should STF........IMHO
OH DEAR! ::)
-
No yours is a straw man since I acknowledged I was stupid enough to be hustled by an atheist drilled in tactics to get me to get the burden of proof at some time on this board.
I have therefore accepted by burden of proof.
Since many of you think that even expressions of belief have a BOP I therefore merely ask those people take on their BOP.
And you still don't get it.
Expressions of a blind faith belief doesn't have a burden of proof (but you can't expect anybody else to accept them), claims, that you expect others to accept, do. Suggestions for possible alternatives to somebody's claim, only have to be self-consistent in order to undermine a positive claim, they don't have any burden of proof beyond that.
You (at least appear) to be making a specific claim, namely, that there is a necessary entity that can be identified with some version of "God". You have not provided an argument for it or even properly defined the terms. All you're doing is trying to treat people's suggestions for alternative as if they were making positive claims.
This really isn't rocket science FFS.
-
Thank you. It seems that having quoted that there are two types of entities. Davey now seems to be informing us that there is no difference between them. That which he quotes clearly gives the distinction.
The difference is the context.
You cannot say that an entity is necessary or not without also stating what it is necessary for - in other words the context.
So use the child/parent example (the context). If I exist then my father cannot fail to exist and therefore my father is a necessary entity. If I do not exist then my father can exist or not, so is a contingent entity.
If we change the context and talk about the existence of the universe - my father is not necessary for the universe to exist, so my father could exist or could not exist in the context of the existence of the universe. My father is a contingent entity in that context.
In each case the characteristics of my father are identical, but depending on the context my father may be a necessary entity or a contingent one.
It isn't rocket science.
And while we are on the parent/child context lets nail your nonsense that there can only be one necessary entity. Clearly is I exist then my father is a necessary entity, but if I exist then my mother is a necessary entity too. And if I exist a functioning uterus is a necessary entity as are a whole range of other entities, e.g. oxygen, water etc etc. There are many necessary entities if I exist.
-
Vlad:
Nothing gained here Hillside since by proof you mean empirical proof. We know this due to your apparent blindness and incomprehension of ''argument''. Something in your book which can be simultaneously not given and appallingly bad at the same time.
Me:
He’ll send in his
Brigades of straw men
He’ll even hit the roof
But forever it’ll be lost on him
That his is the burden of proof
Uncanny redux.
-
And you still don't get it.
Expressions of a blind faith belief doesn't have a burden of proof (but you can't expect anybody else to accept them), claims, that you expect others to accept, do. Suggestions for possible alternatives to somebody's claim, only have to be self-consistent in order to undermine a positive claim, they don't have any burden of proof beyond that.
You (at least appear) to be making a specific claim, namely, that there is a necessary entity that can be identified with some version of "God". You have not provided an argument for it or even properly defined the terms. All you're doing is trying to treat people's suggestions for alternative as if they were making positive claims.
This really isn't rocket science FFS.
yes we all know that. And I have admitted my burden which you seem oblivious to.
If you do not claim that I am wrong in my claim then I absolve you and you can fuck off on your own sweet way. The trouble is there are thousands of posts where you guys claim my argument is bad, wrong, and that I have never made an argument.......... often by the same people.
I have ceased though to do anything more for you and see this board as a platform for my ideas and my message. It has been also useful for the monitoring and demonstrating thephenomenon of Goddodgery.
-
yes we all know that. And I have admitted my burden which you seem oblivious to.
So where's your argument?
If you do not claim that I am wrong in my claim then I absolve you and you can fuck off on your own sweet way.
My claim is that you have gone no way towards making a case for it. A few hand-waving assertions and vague hints that an argument exists, do not constitute an argument.
It has been also useful for the monitoring and demonstrating thephenomenon of Goddodgery.
Something else you've never once tried to support with any sort of coherent argument.
-
So where's your argument?
I think we have been through this before.
-
I think we have been through this before.
Yes Vlad, I keep asking for one and you keep dodging or ignoring it.
-
Stranger,
Yes Vlad, I keep asking for one and you keep dodging or ignoring it.
He's never made an actual argument to justify his beliefs and he never will. Misrepresenting or throwing insults at the falsifying arguments he can't address is all he has. 'twas ever thus and 'twill ever be.
-
Yes Vlad, I keep asking for one and you keep dodging or ignoring it.
I don't think anything has been ignored, You've had Contingency, simulated universe, The moral argument.
All over the world these debates are raging except in Essex where ''it's been settled roight and if your not happy then you can french kiss with shotguns''
-
Correction:
"He's never made an actual argument that isn't shit to justify his beliefs and he never will. Misrepresenting or throwing insults at the falsifying arguments he can't address is all he has. 'twas ever thus and 'twill ever be."
-
I don't think anything has been ignored, You've had Contingency, simulated universe, The moral argument.
We've had none of those from you - and the idiotic inclusion of the SU just underlines that you haven't even got a consistent definition of the god you're trying to argue for.
Ignoring the total idiocy of SU, where are the specific versions of these other two arguments that you're prepared to get behind? Why not present them yourself, one thread for each maybe, with a proper summary of the premises and logical steps?
-
It is very sad that Vlad gets his kicks winding up other posters with his drivel.
-
Correction:
"He's never made an actual argument that isn't shit to justify his beliefs and he never will. Misrepresenting or throwing insults at the falsifying arguments he can't address is all he has. 'twas ever thus and 'twill ever be."
Are you going to 1) apologise then for your utterly appalling and continued misrepresentation which can best be described as Utter stupidity of the most moronic order.
2)now you have described the answers given as ''shit'', acknowledge, here and now your burden of proof on those claims.
-
It is very sad that Vlad gets his kicks winding up other posters with his drivel.
Having read the last couple of pages, I would say that Vlad is the one currently getting wound up.
-
Vlad: “Here are the names of the arguments for “God” William Lane Craig tries.”
Rational people: “But they’re terrible arguments and here’s why.”
Vlad: “Here are the names of the arguments for “God” William Lane Craig tries.”
Rational people: “Yes we know, you’ve told us that and we’ve told you why they’re wrong. Can you set out why you think the falsifications you’ve been given are wrong?”
Vlad: “Er, WLC is my guy and I have no idea why your falsifications could be wrong so I’ll just lie about them or throw insults at them and hope no-one notices I’m screwed.”
Rational people: “Tantrum over? OK, so do you have any arguments to justify your belief “God” that aren’t shit?”
Vlad: “Checkmate!”
-
Having read the last couple of pages, I would say that Vlad is the one currently getting wound up.
Yes Jeremy, but if I remember correctly didn't you also say ''the universe just is'' ?
-
Vlad: “Here are the names of the arguments for “God” William Lane Craig tries.”
Rational people: “But they’re terrible arguments and here’s why.”
Vlad: “Here are the names of the arguments for “God” William Lane Craig tries.”
Rational people: “Yes we know, you’ve told us that and we’ve told you why they’re wrong. Can you set out why you think the falsifications you’ve been given are wrong?”
Vlad: “Er, WLC is my guy and I have no idea why your falsifications could be wrong so I’ll just lie about them or throw insults at them and hope no-one notices I’m screwed.”
Rational people: “Tantrum over? OK, so do you have any arguments to justify your belief “God” that aren’t shit?”
Vlad: “Checkmate!”
Are you going to 1) apologise then for your utterly appalling and continued misrepresentation which can best be described as Utter stupidity of the most moronic order.
2)now you have described the answers given as ''shit'', acknowledge, here and now your burden of proof on those claims.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
-
NS,
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
To his credit, at least Vlad has Grand Master status.
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
Wasn't it Pigeon month incorporating Sparrow Times that reviewed Rationalwiki.couldn't.org.pissupinabrewery as more loaded than a shitty nappy with more bias than a drunk leaning tower of Pisa.
-
Wasn't it Pigeon month incorporating Sparrow Times that reviewed Rationalwiki.couldn't.org.pissupinabrewery as more loaded than a shitty nappy with more bias than a drunk leaning tower of Pisa.
Thank you for proving the point.
-
NS,
To his credit, at least Vlad has Grand Master status.
think you missed the letters -batory out there.
-
NS,
think you missed the letters -batory out there.
:)
-
Yes Jeremy, but if I remember correctly didn't you also say ''the universe just is'' ?
Nope.
-
So there we have it
Infinite regression as an atheist knock down argument BLOWN
Atheist accusations of magic and supernaturalism BLOWN by suggestion of atheists that things can pop out of nothing.
-
I've given up on Vlad of the irrational name changes.
What's wrong with Vlad?
It doesn't matter what anyone's response is addressed to any one of Vlad's posts are there'll never be a rational answer given in return, in fact when in the past I've weakened against my better judgement and tried to have an exchange with Vlad, I have always made sure I'm sitting down before I read his response just in case the response Vlad returns is a sensible one that actually is an answer or a good counter to the original question asked.
Regards to all, including you Vlad.
-
So there we have it
Infinite regression as an atheist knock down argument BLOWN
Atheist accusations of magic and supernaturalism BLOWN by suggestion of atheists that things can pop out of nothing.
It wasn't atheists that came up with the idea of stuff popping out of nothing.
-
It wasn't atheists that came up with the idea of stuff popping out of nothing.
I’m sorry but i’m Sure i’m Being invited to not only keep it in mind but to rank it’s probability as higher than anything actually being necessary. This of course is a misunderstanding of the word necessary which would then apply to the phenomenon of a universe popping out of nothing.
If the universe is the necessary being then it would have been necessary to have shown what it is that popped out of nothing.
Of course there are huge problems with popping out of nothing since it would look exactly like creatio ex nihilo.
-
I've given up on Vlad of the irrational name changes.
What's wrong with Vlad?
It doesn't matter what anyone's response is addressed to any one of Vlad's posts are there'll never be a rational answer given in return, in fact when in the past I've weakened against my better judgement and tried to have an exchange with Vlad, I have always made sure I'm sitting down before I read his response just in case the response Vlad returns is a sensible one that actually is an answer or a good counter to the original question asked.
Regards to all, including you Vlad.
Ippy I only recall exchanges between us on the NSS campaigns to limit religious broadcasting and schooling. I recall those as good debate. If you are now calling disagreement with you as irrational then definitionally you can now only have rational argument with those who agree with you.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
[I’m sorry but i’m Sure i’m Being invited to not only keep it in mind but to rank it’s probability as higher than anything actually being necessary. This of course is a misunderstanding of the word necessary which would then apply to the phenomenon of a universe popping out of nothing.
You've had your "popping out of nothing" straw man corrected several times now. Why then are you repeating it?
If the universe is the necessary being then it would have been necessary to have shown what it is that popped out of nothing.
Gibberish. All that would be "necessary" would be to propose various hypotheses that are plausible.
Of course there are huge problems with popping out of nothing...
The first of which is that it's just another of your army of straw men.
...since it would look exactly like creatio ex nihilo.
If anyone proposed it it might "look" like that notwithstanding any underlying physics that could explain it, just as it would look like creation ex nihilo if you tried the same claim for "God".
In other words, trying to answer a "don't know" about the universe with an assertion that answers none of the same questions about itself is a dead end, no matter how much you pray in aid special pleading magic to get you off the same hook.
But then again you know all this already don't you what with it having been explained so often.
-
I’m sorry but i’m Sure i’m Being invited to not only keep it in mind but to rank it’s probability as higher than anything actually being necessary.
Your god allegedly popped out of nothing. The stuff he used to make the universe allegedly popped out of nothing.
-
jeremy,
Your god allegedly popped out of nothing. The stuff he used to make the universe allegedly popped out of nothing.
No silly - haven't you been paying attention? Vlad's god is magic you see, so none of that reason and logic stuff applies. We should think ourselves blessed really to have such a great theologian among us to explain this stuff - he starts with "God is magic", and then - er - well, that's all of it really. So, there's no need to ask any questions at all about this God now he's played his ace. "Magic" is the beginning, middle and end of it. Job done.
What shall we talk about now then?
-
What shall we talk about now then?
Where did the magic come from?
-
jeremy,
Where did the magic come from?
You don't seem to grasp the intellectual heft of Vlad's theological insight - Puff the Magic God just is of course. So there you go - all questions answered by the brilliant device of answering absolutely no questions at all. Genius!
Was there anything else?
-
jeremy,
You don't seem to grasp the intellectual heft of Vlad's theological insight - Puff the Magic God just is of course. So there you go - all questions answered by the brilliant device of answering absolutely no questions at all. Genius!
Was there anything else?
;D
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
You've had your "popping out of nothing" straw man corrected several times now. Why then are you repeating it?
Gibberish. All that would be "necessary" would be to propose various hypotheses that are plausible.
The first of which is that it's just another of your army of straw men.
If anyone proposed it it might "look" like that notwithstanding any underlying physics that could explain it, just as it would look like creation ex nihilo if you tried the same claim for "God".
In other words, trying to answer a "don't know" about the universe with an assertion that answers none of the same questions about itself is a dead end, no matter how much you pray in aid special pleading magic to get you off the same hook.
But then again you know all this already don't you what with it having been explained so often.
How can physics have anything to say about something coming from nothing? But were not talking about physics here are we Hillside? no....we are talking about your darling Lawrence Krauss and his bowl of pedigree chum.
-
jeremy,
You don't seem to grasp the intellectual heft of Vlad's theological insight - Puff the Magic God just is of course. So there you go - all questions answered by the brilliant device of answering absolutely no questions at all. Genius!
Was there anything else?
The necessary entity does not need or have any external explanation. Please provide then what it is in or about the universe which fulfils that criteria. Lane Craig at least has a magician in his scheme.
As for plausible alternatives stop offering contingent entities which are contingent on themselves or anything in nature. Stop turdpolishing the shiteings of Krauss. Stop supporting the ''there may not be a necessary entity'' bollocks of Nearly Sane.
-
The necessary entity does not need or have any external explanation. Please provide then what it is in or about the universe which fulfils that criteria. Lane Craig at least has a magician in his scheme.
As for plausible alternatives stop offering contingent entities which are contingent on themselves or anything in nature. Stop turdpolishing the shiteings of Krauss. Stop supporting the there may not be a necessary entity bollocks of Nearly Sane.
You mean the challenge to the begging the question fallacy that you haven't dealt with.
-
Your god allegedly popped out of nothing. The stuff he used to make the universe allegedly popped out of nothing.
No, my God is proposed as an eternal entity, Popping out of nothing is a wee Hume-ian dodge.
-
No, my God is proposed as an eternal entity, Popping out of nothing is a wee Hume-ian dodge.
which creates an infinite regress and special pleading and logical incoherence. Lot of fail
-
You mean the challenge to the begging the question fallacy that you haven't dealt with.
I hope you mean begging the question about there being a necessary entity. The necessary entity is just the thing which has no external explanation. Be it God, something in the universe or whatever.
Most atheists have no trouble with the idea they don't mind as long as it's unconscious and contingent.
I take it you are prepared to tolerate the popping out of nothing because Hume did.
In terms of an infinite regress delivering anything try it yourself with the infinitely owed £5 test.
-
I hope you mean begging the question about there being a necessary entity. The necessary entity is just the thing which has no external explanation. Be it God, something in the universe or whatever.
Most atheists have no trouble with the idea they don't mind as long as it's unconscious and contingent.
I take it you are prepared to tolerate the popping out of nothing because Hume did.
In terms of an infinite regress delivering anything try it yourself with the infinitely owed £5 test.
You need to demonstrate your claim. You haven't yet again. Failed again.
-
which creates an infinite regress and special pleading and logical incoherence. Lot of fail
No nobody created God or whatever the necessary being is. Then buck and logical incoherence stops there i'm afraid.
If you state that infinite regress is logically incoherent I would agree. If you say that contingency without necessity isn't i'd have to disagree.
I've noticed a lot of assertion without actual explanation from you.
Which cosmological model do you not find illogical, coherent and not specially plead?
-
No nobody created God or whatever the necessary being is. Then buck and logical incoherence stops there i'm afraid.
If you state that infinite regress is logically incoherent I would agree. If you say that contingency without necessity isn't i'd have to disagree.
I've noticed a lot of assertion without actual explanation from you.
Which cosmological model do you not find illogical, coherent and not specially plead?
Nice to see you assert necessity/necessary (terms you use interchangeably which show as ever you don't define terms), as being meaningful. But yet again no demonstration.
-
Nice to see you assert necessity/necessary (terms you use interchangeably which show as ever you don't define terms), as being meaningful. But yet again no demonstration.
The infinitely owed £5 mental exercise is a good demo imho of how infinite regressions are not productive and of the concept of necessity. The last person on here to try it to my recollection had to admit that at some point a fiver actually has to be placed into the system. But you might be able to solve the conundrum.
-
The infinitely owed £5 mental exercise is a good demo imho of how infinite regressions are not productive and of the concept of necessity. The last person on here to try it to my recollection had to admit that at some point a fiver actually has to be placed into the system. But you might be able to solve the conundrum.
Your problem, not mine.
-
I fear gang there is going to be no progress from atheists on the question of why a universe until someone declares full throatedly that for the universe to contain it's own necessity there has to be matter with special properties and then take the issue of what that material must be like fully by the horns.
Short of that honchos, honchas and amoebas your just shootin' the messenger.
-
I fear gang there is going to be no progress from atheists on the question of why a universe until someone declares full throatedly that for the universe to contain it's own necessity there has to be matter with special properties and then take the issue of what that material must be like fully by the horns.
Short of that honchos, honchas and amoebas your just shootin' the messenger.
and Vlad evades the need to show necessity again.
-
Your problem, not mine.
Damn right......you're a humian,an antiphilosopher. Too light for heavy intellectual work, Too heavy for light intellectual work and can't be arsed to do any intellectual work.
-
Damn right......you're a humian,an antiphilosopher. Too light for heavy intellectual work, Too heavy for light intellectual work and can't be arsed to do any intellectual work.
just to help you out - intellectual work is not spunking on the floor and then licking it up - despite your approach.
-
No, my God is proposed as an eternal entity, Popping out of nothing is a wee Hume-ian dodge.
"Eternal" implies that your god exists in time. Where did time and your god pop out of?
-
What is the status quo and default position in an argument about necessity.
What is the status quo and default position in an argument about how or whether the universe came about?
-
No, my God is proposed as an eternal entity, Popping out of nothing is a wee Hume-ian dodge.
You can't just propose God into existence.
-
A is owed £5 by B who can only give A the £5 when he gets it from C who can only give it to B when he gets it from C.
Now I think we will never get our fiver if the sequence is infinitely regressed. So somewhere along the line the line the fiver has to be introduced or it has been around for ever or it has popped out nothing.
Nowhere then is it the infinite regression which explains the fiver.
In all three there is a necessary entity.
-
A is owed £5 by B who can only give A the £5 when he gets it from C who can only give it to B when he gets it from C.
Now I think we will never get our fiver if the sequence is infinitely regressed. So somewhere along the line the line the fiver has to be introduced or it has been around for ever or it has popped out nothing.
Nowhere then is it the infinite regression which explains the fiver.
In all three there is a necessary entity.
You definitely need to take more water with it. ::)
-
You can't just propose God into existence.
God, or something very much like him comes from the argument from contingency. Something classically naturalistic does not. An infinitely existent being or something which pops out of nothing
are not characteristically classically naturalistic.
If we are playing by naturalistic rules we need evidence for infinite existence or something that popped out of nothing as we do for God. Which is why I’m always asking those who have suggested that the universe has existed infinitely to show what it is that is necessary and from now on what is infinite or miraculously just appeared about the universe.....to which we could add show us what just is about the universe..................if we are going to play the naturalist card.
As it is any expectation that it is just God who needs proof is just special pleading.
-
You definitely need to take more water with it. ::)
You could try making the tiny bit of effort needed to follow an argument for a change. Person 1 is owed £5 by P2, who in owed £5 by P3, who is owed £5 by P4, and so on for ever, because there is an infinitely long chain of debtors and creditors. None of them can pay the £5 they owe until they get the £5 they are owed, which means that no-one will ever get the money they are owed. It is supposed to prove the impossibility of an infinite regression. Whether it does so is another matter, but the argument is really quite simple.
-
A is owed £5 by B who can only give A the £5 when he gets it from C who can only give it to B when he gets it from C.
Now I think we will never get our fiver if the sequence is infinitely regressed. So somewhere along the line the line the fiver has to be introduced or it has been around for ever or it has popped out nothing.
Nowhere then is it the infinite regression which explains the fiver.
In all three there is a necessary entity.
You haven't explained why your god is not subject to infinite regress.
-
You definitely need to take more water with it. ::)
To get a laugh out of an old joke Floo you need to
A) vary it a bit eg either you need to put more water with it or I do. That brings out the tutu OJ’s nature of my posts in a way just saying you need more water with this.
B) Use it in a different context now and then
C) Really Labour it so the idea of progressively working harder on a joke to get fewer laughs becomes the joke itself.
Repition doesn’t always fail.......for example if you replied to this post by saying I need to take more water with it.
-
God, or something very much like him comes from the argument from contingency.
No she doesn't.
Something classically naturalistic does not. An infinitely existent being or something which pops out of nothing
are not characteristically classically naturalistic.
OK. Let's have an infinite something and call it the "cosmos"
As it is any expectation that it is just God who needs proof is just special pleading.
As is an expectation that it is just God who does not need proof.
-
You haven't explained why your god is not subject to infinite regress.
Infinite regression is not productive as I have shown because everyone is waiting on someone an infinitely long time ago and only gets a fiver if someone puts one in. In other words I guess i’m Saying nothing is.
However if God WAS so what?
-
No she doesn't.
OK. Let's have an infinite something and call it the "cosmos"
As is an expectation that it is just God who does not need proof.
Ok Jeremy call it cosmos. Now show me something that fits the bill namely it is Cosmotic and it’s been around for ever.. As far as we know there is nothing empirically observable that isn’t contingent.
I have accepted God needs proof
-
Infinite regression is not productive as I have shown because everyone is waiting on someone an infinitely long time ago and only gets a fiver if someone puts one in. In other words I guess i’m Saying nothing is.
However if God WAS so what?
If time is infinite, how long did God wait before creating the Universe?
-
Ok Jeremy call it cosmos. Now show me something that fits the bill
You show me a god first.
namely it is Cosmotic and it’s been around for ever..
Bzzzzttt wrong. Time is a property of this Universe which is a part of the cosmos (assuming the cosmos exists). It doesn't make sense to say the cosmos has been around forever.
As far as we know there is nothing empirically observable that isn’t contingent.
Who's claiming the cosmos is observable?
-
If time is infinite, how long did God wait before creating the Universe?
An infinitely long time?
-
You show me a god first.
Bzzzzttt wrong. Time is a property of this Universe which is a part of the cosmos (assuming the cosmos exists). It doesn't make sense to say the cosmos has been around forever.
Who's claiming the cosmos is observable?
If it is not observable then it is a conjecture based on an argument.
-
You show me a god first.
Bzzzzttt wrong. Time is a property of this Universe which is a part of the cosmos (assuming the cosmos exists). It doesn't make sense to say the cosmos has been around forever.
Who's claiming the cosmos is observable?
You show me a god first.
Bzzzzttt wrong. Time is a property of this Universe which is a part of the cosmos (assuming the cosmos exists). It doesn't make sense to say the cosmos has been around forever.
Who's claiming the cosmos is observable?
Answer 1 you are joshing, of course although if we are playing by naturalistic rules, a proposal should be detectable by naturalistic means. I’m afraid that means we’ve already dispensed with God but now you are required to empirically and naturalistically show a cosmos.
I can wait.....10.....9.....8.......7.......
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
How can physics have anything to say about something coming from nothing? But were not talking about physics here are we Hillside? no....we are talking about your darling Lawrence Krauss and his bowl of pedigree chum.
Yet again, physics says a lot about possible answers - they're called conjectures or hypotheses. These conjectures and hypotheses may or may not turn out to be correct if and when the methods and tools of physics ever develop sufficiently to verify them. You're basically someone pre-Einstein saying, "Newtonian physics can't explain the very large and the very small, therefore elves".
Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer, still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".
The necessary entity does not need or have any external explanation.
If you're relying on magic for your method, any wild guess doesn't need anything - it's all white noise.
Please provide then what it is in or about the universe which fulfils that criteria. Lane Craig at least has a magician in his scheme.
WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes?
As for plausible alternatives stop offering contingent entities which are contingent on themselves or anything in nature. Stop turdpolishing the shiteings of Krauss. Stop supporting the ''there may not be a necessary entity'' bollocks of Nearly Sane.
Just repeating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. You do realise that right?
So, just to be clear - do you have anything other than, "currently we don't have a scientific answer, therefore magic" to offer?
It's ok, you can say "no" if you like. We all know that's all you have in any case.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Answer 1 you are joshing, of course although if we are playing by naturalistic rules, a proposal should be detectable by naturalistic means. I’m afraid that means we’ve already dispensed with God but now you are required to empirically and naturalistically show a cosmos.
No, what "dispenses" with "God" is your utter inability to suggest a method of any kind - naturalistic or otherwise - to test the claim. Your claim, your problem.
-
Contingency......
....that is the Necessary.
:)
-
Contingency......
....that is the Necessary.
:)
Black, that is the white.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Black, that is the white.
When you have magic as your "method", why not? Or purple? Or fish? Or anything?
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
No, what "dispenses" with "God" is your utter inability to suggest a method of any kind - naturalistic or otherwise - to test the claim. Your claim, your problem.
Bullshit. God is just another unfalsifiable, like Cosmos, infinity, spontaneous appearance etc.
Wishing for the one I love namely scientific evidence, method and equipment for these is not enough and is just cheap shot scientism.
If you are not making any claims or suggestions or express or harbour no rational beliefs Hillside then one is functionally a human custard tart. Slowly festering.....although money in the bank and engaging hobbies go a long way to alleviate.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Yet again, physics says a lot about possible answers - they're called conjectures or hypotheses. These conjectures and hypotheses may or may not turn out to be correct if and when the methods and tools of physics ever develop sufficiently to verify them. You're basically someone pre-Einstein saying, "Newtonian physics can't explain the very large and the very small, therefore elves".
Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer, still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".
If you're relying on magic for your method, any wild guess doesn't need anything - it's all white noise.
WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes?
Just repeating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. You do realise that right?
So, just to be clear - do you have anything other than, "currently we don't have a scientific answer, therefore magic" to offer?
It's ok, you can say "no" if you like. We all know that's all you have in any case.
Where’s this fucking infinite cosmos then?
-
Ippy I only recall exchanges between us on the NSS campaigns to limit religious broadcasting and schooling. I recall those as good debate. If you are now calling disagreement with you as irrational then definitionally you can now only have rational argument with those who agree with you.
Thanks Vlad this post of yours brilliantly illustrates the comments I've made in that last post of mine that you're referring to.
The only time I used the word irrational was when referring to your use of so many pointless and irrational name changes, there's nothing wrong with Vlad, why don't you stick with it?
Regards, ippy.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Yet again, physics says a lot about possible answers - they're called conjectures or hypotheses. These conjectures and hypotheses may or may not turn out to be correct if and when the methods and tools of physics ever develop sufficiently to verify them. You're basically someone pre-Einstein saying, "Newtonian physics can't explain the very large and the very small, therefore elves".
Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer, still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".
If you're relying on magic for your method, any wild guess doesn't need anything - it's all white noise.
WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes?
Just repeating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. You do realise that right?
So, just to be clear - do you have anything other than, "currently we don't have a scientific answer, therefore magic" to offer?
It's ok, you can say "no" if you like. We all know that's all you have in any case.
Careful Hillside many decent people are allergic to scientism. To put a scientistical ingredient into a bouillabaisse where detection is harder is irresponsible.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Bullshit. God is just another unfalsifiable, like Cosmos, infinity, spontaneous appearance etc.
Wrong again. Scientific conjectures and hypotheses rest on known principles; "God" is what you get when you replace that with magic.
Wishing for the one I love namely scientific evidence, method and equipment for these is not enough and is just cheap shot scientism.
I wondered whether you'd fall straight into that howler again, and sure enough you didn't disappoint. Yet again, no-one says that the gap in scientific knowledge will necessarily one day be filled; what's actually being said is that the fact of a gap doesn't justify filling it with whatever incoherent guess happens to take your fancy.
I don't suppose there's any chance of you stopping lying about that is there, what with it being one of your favourite go to porkies?
If you are not making any claims or suggestions or express or harbour no rational beliefs Hillside then one is functionally a human custard tart. Slowly festering.....although money in the bank and engaging hobbies go a long way to alleviate.
You appear to have spilt a tin of l alphabet soup and posted the results again. Was that car crash of a sentence supposed to express a coherent thought of some kind?
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Careful Hillside many decent people are allergic to scientism. To put a scientistical ingredient into a bouillabaisse where detection is harder is irresponsible.
No-one's arguing for scientism. Stop lying.
-
Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer, still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".
If you're relying on magic for your method, any wild guess doesn't need anything - it's all white noise.
WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes?
Explanatory gap in the answer to why something and not nothing.
Firstly it looks as if it’s all gap.
Secondly does the usual God of the gaps apply here, not sure it does since the unfalsifiable “always nature” therefore no God has its own difficulties here.
God isn’t magic since the necessary comes logically out of the argument from contingency.
Always been is more interesting than popping out of nothing which is far more like magic than god. But always been has no more credentials in logic than God.
So Hillside it still looks like you remained banjaxed.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Wrong again. Scientific conjectures and hypotheses rest on known principles; "God" is what you get when you replace that with magic.
I wondered whether you'd fall straight into that howler again, and sure enough you didn't disappoint. Yet again, no-one says that the gap in scientific knowledge will necessarily one day be filled; what's actually being said is that the fact of a gap doesn't justify filling it with whatever incoherent guess happens to take your fancy.
I don't suppose there's any chance of you stopping lying about that is there, what with it being one of your favourite go to porkies?
You appear to have spilt a tin of l alphabet soup and posted the results again. Was that car crash of a sentence supposed to express a coherent thought of some kind?
Trouble is though sport and you can blame your darling Professor Brian Greene and NDGT for this. Simulated universe is back on the menu.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
No-one's arguing for scientism. Stop lying.
Accusing people of lying, when they are at worst mistaken, as you frequently do, looks a bit childish.
-
Accusing people of lying, when they are at worst mistaken, as you frequently do, looks a bit childish.
So no one ever lies on here?
-
So no one ever lies on here?
Of course not!
-
Of course not!
Then how can you state that 'they are at worst mistaken'?
-
Black, that is the white.
Does anything in this universe exist without contingency?
-
So no one ever lies on here?
Where I am coming from on this is that there is a case for every god of the gaps accusation to be representative of scientism.
How more so than saying that God may have created the universe was a God of the gaps theory and that it is stupidity to believe in anything but a natural solution which it seemed to me what Hillside was saying.
-
Does anything in this universe exist without contingency?
If everything in the universe is contingent the necessary must be extra universal.
-
If everything in the universe is contingent the necessary must be extra universal.
...I propose that contingency in itself could be the necessary.
-
An infinitely long time?
I thought you said that's not possible.
-
If it is not observable then it is a conjecture based on an argument.
If God is not observable, it is a conjecture based on an argument.
-
Answer 1 you are joshing, of course although if we are playing by naturalistic rules,
Who said that?
a proposal should be detectable by naturalistic means.
That about wraps it up for God.
I’m afraid that means we’ve already dispensed with God but now you are required to empirically and naturalistically show a cosmos.
No I'm not. I'm not claiming the cosmos exists, only that it is a viable alternative to believing in God
-
Who said that?
That about wraps it up for God.
Which means we must rely on a naturalistic explanation
6........5.........4...........
-
Who said that?
That about wraps it up for God.
No I'm not. I'm not claiming the cosmos exists, only that it is a viable alternative to believing in God
If the universe is part of the cosmos then the rest of it is unobservable......do I have that right.
It is responsible for the universe? Do I have you right on that one?
-
Which means we must rely on a naturalistic explanation
6........5.........4...........
Why? Are you using "god" as a term for "any explanation of the Universe that can't be investigated naturalistically"? If so, I think you are abusing the definition.
-
Cap'n Pgeon,
Explanatory gap in the answer to why something and not nothing.
Nope, wrong question. "Why?" implies intention; the actually question is "how?"
Firstly it looks as if it’s all gap.
Not if you entertain the various competing hypotheses it doesn't but either way that's irrelevant. A god of the gaps is still a god of the gaps no matter the size of the gap.
Secondly does the usual God of the gaps apply here, not sure it does since the unfalsifiable “always nature” therefore no God has its own difficulties here.
Yes it does. "Science can't answer, therefore God" is god of the gaps whichever way you look at it. "Always nature" is just another of your many straw men.
God isn’t magic since the necessary comes logically out of the argument from contingency.
Absent any method to test the claim or to investigate its properties, that's exactly what it is.
Always been is more interesting than popping out of nothing which is far more like magic than god. But always been has no more credentials in logic than God.
As it's just another of your straw men, I'll leave you to you private grief about that.
So Hillside it still looks like you remained banjaxed.
You can't "banjax" someone by ignoring or lying about the arguments that undo you - your pigeon chess "checkmate" is no such thing.
Trouble is though sport and you can blame your darling Professor Brian Greene and NDGT for this. Simulated universe is back on the menu.
Another tin of alphabet soup hits the linoleum then.
-
Wilks,
Accusing people of lying, when they are at worst mistaken, as you frequently do, looks a bit childish.
Or correct. Vlad's entire MO is to post mistakes or misrepresentations, have them corrected, then repeat exactly the same mistakes and misrepresentations. He's been caught doing it countless times - I have no idea what he gets from such trolling, but lying is essential to it. I'd have more time for your comment if he didn't have form as long as your arm for near pathological dishonesty.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Where I am coming from on this is that there is a case for every god of the gaps accusation to be representative of scientism.
Which when you began saying it could have been just a mistake, but as you've ignored the correction countless time and repeat it still then it's another lie.
How more so than saying that God may have created the universe was a God of the gaps theory...
It's precisely a god of the gaps when the "argument" goes thus:
1. Science doesn't have all the answers.
2. Therefore there are gaps in knowledge.
3. Therefore those gaps are explained by my assertion "God".
1 & 2 are fine; 3 isn't. And that's all you have.
... and that it is stupidity to believe in anything but a natural solution....
More lying. It's "stupidity" to believe things without good reasons to justify those beliefs. No-one says that the justifications have to be naturalistic in nature, but they do have to be something.
...which it seemed to me what Hillside was saying.
Given the number of times I've expressly explained that that's not what I'm saying, why are you lying about this again?
-
Cap'n Pgeon,
Nope, wrong question. "Why?" implies intention;
Can you demonstrate that or is it more New Atheist arsepull?
-
Why? Are you using "god" as a term for "any explanation of the Universe that can't be investigated naturalistically"? If so, I think you are abusing the definition.
Before I offer apology
Are you a) admitting that some things are uninvestigable because they are beyond the scope of science?
B) Because they are supernatural or beyond nature.
C) They are natural but are uninvestigable because science does not yet have the means but will have.
-
Cap'n Pgeon,
Nope, wrong question. "Why?" implies intention; the actually question is "how?"
Not if you entertain the various competing hypotheses it doesn't but either way that's irrelevant. A god of the gaps is still a god of the gaps no matter the size of the gap.
Yes it does. "Science can't answer, therefore God" is god of the gaps whichever way you look at it. "Always nature" is just another of your many straw men.
Absent any method to test the claim or to investigate its properties, that's exactly what it is.
As it's just another of your straw men, I'll leave you to you private grief about that.
You can't "banjax" someone by ignoring or lying about the arguments that undo you - your pigeon chess "checkmate" is no such thing.
Another tin of alphabet soup hits the linoleum then.
science can’t answer but God is a stupid idea, eh Hillside? Why because Essex man fink it is stoopid.
You just can’t lay off the horse laugh can you.
I’m glad though you have come round to science can’t answer though.
Let’s see you get out of that.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Which when you began saying it could have been just a mistake, but as you've ignored the correction countless time and repeat it still then it's another lie.
It's precisely a god of the gaps when the "argument" goes thus:
1. Science doesn't have all the answers.
2. Therefore there are gaps in knowledge.
3. Therefore those gaps are explained by my assertion "God".
1 & 2 are fine; 3 isn't. And that's all you have.
More lying. It's "stupidity" to believe things without good reasons to justify those beliefs. No-one says that the justifications have to be naturalistic in nature, but they do have to be something.
Given the number of times I've expressly explained that that's not what I'm saying, why are you lying about this again?
a lot of this is fucking shite.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Can you demonstrate that...
Yes: "why" means "for what purpose or reason". To have a purpose or reason, you need to demonstrate first something capable of having a purpose or reason.
"How" on the other hand just means "by what process", which is only as far as you can go without begging the question.
Suggest you try a dictionary the next time you're confused.
...or is it more New Atheist arsepull?"
"arsepull" is just a typically scatological diversionary tactic you try when you cannot deal with an argument that undoes you.
Before I offer apology
Yeah right. have you forgotten the Vlad family motto: "Never explain, never apologise"?
Are you a) admitting that some things are uninvestigable because they are beyond the scope of science?
B) Because they are supernatural or beyond nature.
You can't "admit" something you've been given no good reason to think to be true. I have no idea how you'd define, investigate or verify claims of a "supernatural", and nor have you. That's your problem.
C) They are natural but are uninvestigable because science does not yet have the means...
That's certainly true, That's why we have people called "scientists" busy researching to find out more.
... but will have.
That's unknowable. It's also the lie on which you rest your false accusation of scientism.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
a lot of this is fucking shite.
Do you have an argument to show that to be the case, or are you back to full "I'll just insult the arguments that falsify me and hope no-one notices the difference" mode?
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Yes: "why" means "for what purpose or reason". To have a purpose or reason, you need to demonstrate first something capable of having a purpose or reason.
"How" on the other hand just means "by what process", which is only as far as you can go without begging the question.
Suggest you try a dictionary the next time you're confused.
"arsepull" is just a typically scatological diversionary tactic you try when you cannot deal with an argument that undoes you.
Yeah right. have you forgotten the Vlad family motto: "Never explain, never apologise"?
You can't "admit" something you've been given no good reason to think to be true. I have no idea how you'd define, investigate or verify claims of a "supernatural", and nor have you. That's your problem.
That's certainly true, That's why we have people called "scientists" busy researching to find out more.
That's unknowable. It's also the lie on which you rest your false accusation of scientism.
We have no idea but are adamant it can’t be God because well God is like Leprechauns and orbiting teapots doesn’t seem to be a very reasonable position to hold.
As for position C . Science isn’t yet at that place........could be scientism.......might not be. True in some cases I suppose but not I fear in cosmogeny.....and that is the time old issue of where you are going to put your equipment even if you have any?
-
Before I offer apology
Are you a) admitting that some things are uninvestigable because they are beyond the scope of science?
B) Because they are supernatural or beyond nature.
C) They are natural but are uninvestigable because science does not yet have the means but will have.
What’s the functional difference between “uninvestigable” and “does not exist”.
-
What’s the functional difference between “uninvestigable” and “does not exist”.
One is a claim which carries burden of proof and one is more of an admission of one’s limitations.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Yes: "why" means "for what purpose or reason". To have a purpose or reason, you need to demonstrate first something capable of having a purpose or reason.
"How" on the other hand just means "by what process", which is only as far as you can go without begging the question.
Complete paranoid New atheist invention. I shan’t be pandering to it. Asking for explanation is begging the question and assuming God? Utter bullshit.
-
Moderator Some posts regarding the current UK govt have been removed as a derail
-
One is a claim which carries burden of proof and one is more of an admission of one’s limitations.
Yes but what is the functional difference? Why should we treat something that is uninvestigable as existing?
-
Yes but what is the functional difference? Why should we treat something that is uninvestigable as existing?
Why should we treat it as not existing? You seem to be at a form Pascal’s wager here.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
We have no idea but are adamant it can’t be God because well God is like Leprechauns and orbiting teapots doesn’t seem to be a very reasonable position to hold.
No it isn't, which is why no-one I know of holds it. Still, as it's one of your favourite go to straw men and you seem to get something from it why not just keep on lying about that?
As for position C . Science isn’t yet at that place........could be scientism.......might not be. True in some cases I suppose but not I fear in cosmogeny.....and that is the time old issue of where you are going to put your equipment even if you have any?
Irrelevant. Your mistake was to misrepresent "there are gaps in scientific knowledge" (not scientism) with "science will have all the answers" (scientism), the latter being something no-one I know of subscribes to.
Complete paranoid New atheist invention. I shan’t be pandering to it. Asking for explanation is begging the question and assuming God? Utter bullshit.
Aw, are basic words confusing you again? Here are the first definitions I found when I looked online (Merriam Webster):
"Why:
1: the cause, reason, or purpose for which
know why you did it
that is why you did it"
"How: 1
a: in what manner or way
How did you two meet each other?
How did he die?
How do you know that?"
So now I've cleared that up for you, let's just nail your final lie and we'll be done. You can ask for any explanation you like (even though you'll never provide any of your own incidentally) - no-one says otherwise. You're begging the question some when you frame that as purposive (why) rather than process (how).
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Why should we treat it as not existing? You seem to be at a form Pascal’s wager here.
Because, obviously, if you treat one non-investigable claim as existing then you have no grounds not to treat any other non-investigable claims as existing too. You're back to god/leprechauns territory again.
This burden of proof thing has got you seriously foxed hasn't it.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
No it isn't, which is why no-one I know of holds it. Still, as it's one of your favourite go to straw men and you seem to get something from it why not just keep on lying about that?
Irrelevant. Your mistake was to misrepresent "there are gaps in scientific knowledge" (not scientism) with "science will have all the answers" (scientism), the latter being something no-one I know of subscribes to.
Aw, are basic words confusing you again? Here are the first definitions I found when I looked online (Merriam Webster):
"Why:
1: the cause, reason, or purpose for which
know why you did it
that is why you did it"
"How: 1
a: in what manner or way
How did you two meet each other?
How did he die?
How do you know that?"
So now I've cleared that up for you, let's just nail your final lie and we'll be done. You can ask for any explanation you like (even though you'll never provide any of your own incidentally) - no-one says otherwise. You're begging the question some when you frame that as purposive (why) rather than process (how).
bollocks doesn't get any better with more exposure Hillside. Why, sorry, how do you keep doing it?
Answer. That's easy Vlad I pull it out m'ass and Just keep posting it.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Because, obviously, if you treat one non-investigable claim as existing then you have no grounds not to treat any other non-investigable claims as existing too. You're back to god/leprechauns territory again.
This burden of proof thing has got you seriously foxed hasn't it.
trouble is it doesn't exist is a claim with a burden of proof .....that is unavoidable.
Also you have admitted that for you investigation is just science investigation.
So the filthy stench of philosophical empiricism hangs over your post.
-
Why should we treat it as not existing? You seem to be at a form Pascal’s wager here.
Because there's nothing you can do with it. If you can't even investigate it, what's the point of doing anything about it?
-
trouble is it doesn't exist is a claim with a burden of proof .....that is unavoidable.
"It doesn't exist" is a positive claim. "I'm going to proceed as if it doesn't exist" is not.
Also you have admitted that for you investigation is just science investigation.
So the filthy stench of philosophical empiricism hangs over your post.
The filthy stench of pseudo-intellectualism hangs over all of your posts.
-
Because there's nothing you can do with it. If you can't even investigate it, what's the point of doing anything about it?
Well you cant investigate it empirically. However if it is also at the centre of moral reality.....well, were all, most of us a bit morally competent perhaps we can investigate that Avenue.
-
Well you cant investigate it empirically.
You said "investigable" - no qualifications. Stop moving the goalposts.
However if it is also at the centre of moral reality
How can you be sure that something is at the centre of morality if you can't investigate it?
-
"It doesn't exist" is a positive claim. "I'm going to proceed as if it doesn't exist" is not.
The filthy stench of pseudo-intellectualism hangs over all of your posts.
As I say you seem to be taking a Pascal's wager type affair.
Pseudo intellectual Mi, wirklich, poùrquoi.
-
As I say you seem to be taking a Pascal's wager type affair.
No, why?
-
No, why?
No I’ll take your word for it. Why are you turning I have no proof into I shall pretend God doesn’t exist? When you could act as if you don’t know whether God exists or not?
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
bollocks doesn't get any better with more exposure Hillside. Why, sorry, how do you keep doing it?
You were confused about the difference between "why" and "how". I explained the different to you, and gave you dictionary references to that effect.
Why do you think the dictionary writers are wrong?
Answer. That's easy Vlad I pull it out m'ass and Just keep posting it.
No, I "pull" it from dictionaries - something you seem to be unable to grasp.
trouble is it doesn't exist is a claim with a burden of proof .....that is unavoidable.
And your trouble remains that "it doesn't exist" isn't a claim that anyone makes, for reasons that have been explained to you approximately 43,126 times already but that you continue to ignore or to lie about nonetheless
Also...
You can't have a "also" when your prior effort has crashed and burned...
''' you have admitted that for you investigation is just science investigation.
No, I've said that - so far at least - "science investigation" as you put it is the only testable method on the table to distinguish between reasoned conclusions and just guessing about stuff. I've also invited you approximately 3,456 times to suggest an alternative method to do the job but that's when you always run away remember?
So the filthy stench of philosophical empiricism hangs over your post.
Spitting the dummy won't help you either.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
Well you can't investigate it empirically.
Or it seems by any other method either. That's your problem remember?
However if it is also at the centre of moral reality.....well, were all, most of us a bit morally competent perhaps we can investigate that Avenue.
However, if my Grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle as Gino D' Acampo memorably put it. If something, then anything. If the moon is made of cheddar cheese, then there could be mice there. Your problem remains to demonstrate that "if" remember?
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
No I’ll take your word for it. Why are you turning I have no proof into I shall pretend God doesn’t exist?
"Pretend"? Why are you begging the question and lying again?
When you could act as if you don’t know whether God exists or not?
Which is what atheists actually do, just as a-leprechaunists do in response to the claim "leprechauns". Why is this so hard for you to grasp, or is your need to lie so pathologcal that you do understand it but feel compelled to lie about it anyway?
-
Why are you turning I have no proof into I shall pretend God doesn’t exist?
If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.
When you could act as if you don’t know whether God exists or not?
What's the difference?
-
If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.
What's the difference?
I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.
Isnt that complete and utter bollocks......if not, why not?
-
If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.
What's the difference?
I disagree. Acting like an agnostic might stop someone acting like a disrespectful arsehole.
-
I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.
Isnt that complete and utter bollocks......if not, why not?
As Whoopi said to Mick
https://youtu.be/3B2q-8AM_Ig
-
If there's no evidence of God's existence, it's not pretending to act as if he doesn't.
What's the difference?
I'm acting like Tony Manero. Does that mean I'm not acting?
-
I'm acting like Tony Manero. Does that mean I'm not acting?
'Al Pacino! Attica! Attica! Attica!'
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.
Isnt that complete and utter bollocks......if not, why not?
He isn't saying that, so stop lying about it.
1. Do you know that leprechauns don't exist?
No you don't.
2. Do you act as if leprechauns don't exist?
Yes you do.
3. Is that therefore "a special type of acting that involves no pretence"?
No, it's just normal reasoning that involves no pretence.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp (or to not lie about)?
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
"Pretend"? Why are you begging the question and lying again?
Which is what atheists actually do, just as a-leprechaunists do in response to the claim "leprechauns". Why is this so hard for you to grasp, or is your need to lie so pathologcal that you do understand it but feel compelled to lie about it anyway?
What then do you feel about people who act like agnostics and arent willing to, as Dawkins would say in his high cultured womanly way, be beastly to people who act as though God is reeeeeal.?.
-
Cap'n Pigeon,
"Pretend"? Why are you begging the question and lying again?
No if you know you dont know whether God exists and then act as if he doesn't that is pretence. You are taking on a role dear boy.
When you fail to realise that you are Moderator: content removed.
As for me dear boy. I've made money from acting dont you know. While were about it......could any one iron this cheque for me?
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
What then do you feel about people who act like agnostics and arent willing to, as Dawkins would say in his high cultured womanly way, be beastly to people who act as though God is reeeeeal.?
What are you even trying to say here?
No if you know you dont know whether God exists and then act as if he doesn't that is pretence. You are taking on a role dear boy.
See whether you can work out for yourself why that’s so fucking stupid (clue: it’s just been explained to you about six times).
When you fail to realise that you are Moderator: quoted content removed.
Rational actually – you should try it.
As for me dear boy. I've made money from acting dont you know. While were about it......could any one iron this cheque for me?
Trust me, there’s no acting in your complete fucking cluelessness or dishonesty. Whichever it is, it’s real enough.
Try again:
1. You don’t claim definitively leprechauns to not exist.
2. Nonetheless, you proceed on the basis that they don’t exist.
Step 2 doesn’t require a special pretence does it. QED
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
What are you even trying to say here?
See whether you can work out for yourself why that’s so fucking stupid (clue: it’s just been explained to you about six times).
Rational actually – you should try it.
Trust me, there’s no acting in your complete fucking cluelessness or dishonesty. Whichever it is, it’s real enough.
Try again:
1. You don’t claim definitively leprechauns to not exist.
2. Nonetheless, you proceed on the basis that they don’t exist.
Step 2 doesn’t require a special pretence does it. QED
I am not on Leprechaun sites berating Leprechaunists who believe in them for believing them.
That is a peculiar aspect of what you do. Are you for instance on here against God, Christ, early christianity or historic christianity? ZIn fact as I have said before which part of your argument is atheist?
Secondly I would proceed as if Leprechauns did not exist even if they did.
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
I am not on Leprechaun sites berating Leprechaunists who believe in them for believing them.
Utterly irrelevant, and no-one here “berates” theists for believing in gods either.
That is a peculiar aspect of what you do.
No it isn’t because I don’t do it. Stop lying.
Are you for instance on here against God, Christ, early christianity or historic christianity? ZIn fact as I have said before which part of your argument is atheist?
See above. The only thing I’m “against” is theists insisting I take their claims seriously when the arguments they attempt to justify them are demonstrably wrong.
Secondly I would proceed as if Leprechauns did not exist even if they did.
Yes – so just as atheists do with regard to gods then.
As you’ve just ducked and run from having your latest set of fuck ups and lies exposed, can we take it that you still don’t intend ever to suggest a method to investigate your claim “God” then?
Thought so.
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
What are you even trying to say here?
See whether you can work out for yourself why that’s so fucking stupid (clue: it’s just been explained to you about six times).
Rational actually – you should try it.
Trust me, there’s no acting in your complete fucking cluelessness or dishonesty. Whichever it is, it’s real enough.
Try again:
1. You don’t claim definitively leprechauns to not exist.
2. Nonetheless, you proceed on the basis that they don’t exist.
Step 2 doesn’t require a special pretence does it. QED
In which case I am resolved to act according to the extremely remote chance that a tribe of Pygmy Irish men who are found at the ends of Irish rainbows with pots of Gold exist. Not only does THAT not require special pretence it has no pretence about it. Unlike an atheist who can’t prove God doesn’t exist but acts as though he has.
-
Unlike an atheist who can’t prove God doesn’t exist but acts as though he has.
What if they.... just proceed as if Gods did not exist even if they did?
Would that be a reasonable way to go through life?
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
In which case I am resolved to act according to the extremely remote chance that a tribe of Pygmy Irish men who are found at the ends of Irish rainbows with pots of Gold exist.
Only if you think proceeding as if all claims with no good reason to justify them should be treated as if they’re real anyway. You’d quickly come a cropper though - first because there’s an unfathomably large number of them (you'd be worn out before breakfast), and second because as many supposed gods are as juvenile and insecure as yours they threaten all sorts of grisly punishments if you “worshipped” the wrong ones (worship is a big thing for theists apparently, though why you’d want to subject yourself to such a dehumanising subjugation is anyone’s guess). How then would you select one unjustified belief from all the other unjustified beliefs?
Not only does THAT not require special pretence it has no pretence about it. Unlike an atheist who can’t prove God doesn’t exist but acts as though he has.
Or an a-leprechaunist who can’t prove there aren’t leprechauns but proceeds without believing in them nonetheless. You for example.
Keep trying – it’ll sink in eventually…
…or maybe not.
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
Only if you think proceeding as if all claims with no good reason to justify them should be treated as if they’re real anyway. You’d quickly come a cropper though - first because there’s an unfathomably large number of them (you'd be worn out before breakfast), and second because as many supposed gods are as juvenile and insecure as yours they threaten all sorts of grisly punishments if you “worshipped” the wrong ones (worship is a big thing for theists apparently, though why you’d want to subject yourself to such a dehumanising subjugation is anyone’s guess). How then would you select one unjustified belief from all the other unjustified beliefs?
Or an a-leprechaunist who can’t prove there aren’t leprechauns but proceeds without believing in them nonetheless. You for example.
Keep trying – it’ll sink in eventually…
…or maybe not.
I have good reason to believe in God and arguments support that rather than steer me into the mire of “ I don’t know but it can’t be God because he is a big leprechaun/ sub Planck length teapot” in other words if that is the best you got then potentially there isn’t much substantial to sink in.
I find I cannot avoid God who’s existence I am convinced of and his surrounding philosophies are basically sound. Obviously I would say God has to be experienced and your behaviour hints to me that this God business is occupying a lot of your emotional energy. Of course any activity at that level is between you and God.
I think you need to examine why you are prepared to countenance the popping out of nothing and the infinite material theories both unnatural, why you are prepared to tolerate almost any solution to the universe as long as it is unconscious.
I have given reasons aplenty as to why I don’t think Leprechauns are likely but am resolved as of now to act according to how probable I think they are and have given reasons.
Not only will you not resolve to do that with God you will not give your reasons.......which incidentally cannot be the same reasons for why you disbelieve in Leprechauns.....if they are the same reasons I disbelieve in Leprechauns......but hey we will never know because of your swerve argument.
This message has been brought to you by Vlads humble opinion.
-
I think you are trying to say you are acting as if but you dont actually know but that it is a special type of acting that involves no pretence.
No. The sentence was a bit ambiguous though, so let me clarify:
If there is no evidence of God's existence, why bother acting as if he does exist? Acting as if God exists without any evidence is pretending that he exists.
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
Only if you think proceeding as if all claims with no good reason to justify them should be treated as if they’re real anyway. You’d quickly come a cropper though - first because there’s an unfathomably large number of them (you'd be worn out before breakfast), and second because as many supposed gods are as juvenile and insecure as yours they threaten all sorts of grisly punishments if you “worshipped” the wrong ones.
As a monotheist I would say there is only one God so there is only one to miss. Which makes Dawkins smirky “ which God?”completely redundant.
-
I disagree. Acting like an agnostic might stop someone acting like a disrespectful arsehole.
Why shouldn't I act like a disrespectful arsehole towards something that shows no evidence of existing? I've been disrespectful towards your god for thirty years or more and never once has he punished me for it or even just asked me to stop.
-
I am not on Leprechaun sites berating Leprechaunists who believe in them for believing them.
This isn't a Christian site.
And nobody is berating you for being a Christian. They are berating you for not being able to substantiate the claims you make and for not engaging with their arguments in an honest way.
-
I have good reason to believe in God
Excellent. What is it?
-
Excellent. What is it?
That he was brainwashed as a child?
-
No. The sentence was a bit ambiguous though, so let me clarify:
If there is no evidence of God's existence, why bother acting as if he does exist? Acting as if God exists without any evidence is pretending that he exists.
Yes it can be. If you don’t have any evidence. God however is not conjured by argument but by his own being so where as you are proceeding from a gamble he doesn’t exist I proceed from an encounter with him.
Further, I suggest that a lot of people don’t actually want an encounter. The bad news for those is they probably are having one and are trying to avoid it.
-
Excellent. What is it?
The moral argument. Namely moral irrealism has no moral arbitration and neither has science or matter.
The argument from Contingency.
-
That he was brainwashed as a child?
Nope, I chose as a child not to join the the Sunday school crocodile as it proceeded round the village.
We had a long Garden and a wood at the bottom great place to hide.
-
God however is not conjured by argument but by his own being so where as you are proceeding from a gamble he doesn’t exist
It's also a gamble that unicorns don't exist but I don't act as if one might leap out of the bushes and skewer me with its horn at any moment.
I proceed from an encounter with him.
What's your evidence that the encounter was real and not part of your imagination?
-
The moral argument. Namely moral irrealism has no moral arbitration and neither has science or matter.
That's an argument from adverse consequences.
The argument from Contingency.
That's special pleading.
-
It's also a gamble that unicorns don't exist but I don't act as if one might leap out of the bushes and skewer me with its horn at any moment.
Unicorns are not the only things that might want to skewer you with their horns Jeremy.
-
Unicorns are not the only things that might want to skewer you with their horns Jeremy.
That's OK, as long as whatever else you are thinking of shows no signs of existing, I shan't worry.
-
That's an argument from adverse consequences.That's special pleading.
No you are perfectly entitled to offer the universe as necessary but we are of course back to what actually is it that is necessary since there are many contingent things.
-
That's OK, as long as whatever else you are thinking of shows no signs of existing, I shan't worry.
Oh they exist alright.
-
It's also a gamble that unicorns don't exist but I don't act as if one might leap out of the bushes and skewer me with its horn at any moment.
What's your evidence that the encounter was real and not part of your imagination?
I am aware of what my imagination is. Have you ever imagined something and were also convinced of its existence?
-
No you are perfectly entitled to offer the universe as necessary
I'm not offering anything, only pointing out that an argument that there ust be something necessary is a long way from proving God.
but we are of course back to what actually is it that is necessary since there are many contingent things.
As long as you acknowledge that the necessary thing doesn't have to be a god, much less your god.
-
Have you ever imagined something and were also convinced of its existence?
Yes. God.
However, I realised eventually, it was just my imagination.
-
I am aware of what my imagination is. Have you ever imagined something and were also convinced of its existence?
I have until I realised what I had imagined wasn't credible, there being no evidence to support it.
-
Cap’n Pigeon,
I have good reason to believe in God…
Then rather than tell us only the bad ones, why not share the good ones you claim you have? Why the big secret?
…and arguments support that…
Not yet they don’t. Do you have some arguments though that aren’t easily falsified?
… rather than steer me into the mire of “ I don’t know but it can’t be God because he is a big leprechaun/ sub Planck length teapot” in other words if that is the best you got then potentially there isn’t much substantial to sink in.
A “mire” entirely of your own imagining as it’s not something anyone (least of all I) have ever argued. “I know it can’t be God” and “I have no sound reasons to think it is a god” are fundamentally different positions - it’d be helpful if you’d finally stop lying about that.
I find I cannot avoid God…
Fallacy of reification.
… who’s existence I am convinced of and his surrounding philosophies are basically sound.
Except they’re not, for reasons that have been given to you many times and that you just ignore or misrepresent.
Obviously I would say God has to be experienced and your behaviour hints to me that this God business is occupying a lot of your emotional energy. Of course any activity at that level is between you and God.
I’d say the same about you and leprechauns, and in any case that’s another fallacy of reification. It only “works” if you just assume your premise.
I think you need to examine why you are prepared to countenance the popping out of nothing and the infinite material theories both unnatural, why you are prepared to tolerate almost any solution to the universe as long as it is unconscious.
I think you need to examine why you just ignore or misrepresent the corrections you’ve been given many times to these basic mistakes and straw men.
I have given reasons aplenty as to why I don’t think Leprechauns are likely but am resolved as of now to act according to how probable I think they are and have given reasons.
Same as a rational person will in response to your assertion “God” then. Good.
Not only will you not resolve to do that with God…
Nope, that’s precisely what I’ll do.
…you will not give your reasons...
Stop lying – my reasons are precisely that all the arguments you’ve tried so far to justify your belief “God” are easily falsified. Finally manage an argument that isn’t incoherent of plainly wrong and I’ll sign up on the spot.
....which incidentally cannot be the same reasons for why you disbelieve in Leprechauns...
Of course they can – a junk argument is a junk argument whether it produces gods or leprechauns alike.
..if they are the same reasons I disbelieve in Leprechauns...
They are the same reasons – when the arguments attempted to justify the beliefs gods/leprechauns are the same they’re both wrong.
...but hey we will never know because of your swerve argument.
Epic dishonesty and epic hypocrisy. You’re only one here who swerves arguments – I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve run away whenever a simple question has been asked of you. We all know it, so why pretend otherwise?
This message has been brought to you by Vlads humble opinion.
…and troll.
As a monotheist I would say there is only one God so there is only one to miss. Which makes Dawkins smirky “ which God?”completely redundant.
More stupidity. Many monotheists would say there is only one god – only each of them think it's a different god. As the arguments for all of them are equally falsifiable, how should I select any one of them from the crowded field of contenders (this is the part where you always head for the exit pronto though isn’t it. Go right ahead and do it again - it’s fine. I expect nothing more of you).
The moral argument. Namely moral irrealism has no moral arbitration and neither has science or matter.
A fallacy called the argmentum ad consequentiam.
The argument from Contingency.
An argument that relies on the fallacy of special pleading (among others).
0/2 so far Go on, have another go. You claimed to have good reasons - what are they?
-
That he was brainwashed as a child?
He couldn't have been brainwashed legally in the UK, because any use of torture is against the law here.
Regards, ippy.
-
He couldn't have been brainwashed legally in the UK, because any use of torture is against the law here.
Regards, ippy.
And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.
-
And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.
Examples?
-
Wilks,
And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.
"Indoctrination" is a better fit I think, especially in respect of faith schools that focus on children before their critical faculties have developed.
-
And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.
You're right the North Koreans gave up on it because they found it didn't work, they tried very hard to expunge all memories out of the US POWs minds and then indoctrinate these cleaned out, freshly 'brainwashed' minds, with their own Korean ideas.
ippy.
-
Examples?
Look up brainwashing during the Korean war, Proff Google will explain it for you L R.
Regards, ippy.
-
Wilks,
"Indoctrination" is a better fit I think, especially in respect of faith schools that focus on children before their critical faculties have developed.
I agree with you.
-
I'm not offering anything,
Jeremy’s criterion for himself.
As long as you acknowledge that the necessary thing doesn't have to be a god, much less your god.
Jeremy’s criteria for me
Jeremy you seem just to be doing a variation on the I don’t know but it’s very unlikely to be your God.
Because you aren’t offering anything I don’t know what handle you have on the necessary entity and the properties it unavoidably has. I think if you really thought about the implications God would no longer be the laughable suggestion your heroes have been promoting.
-
You're right the North Koreans gave up on it because they found it didn't work, they tried very hard to expunge all memories out of the US POWs minds and then indoctrinate these cleaned out, freshly 'brainwashed' minds, with their own Korean ideas.
ippy.
I just love it when people equate an average Home Counties schooling and village life with North Korea.
What’s more laughable is Hillside’s comment......who probably had a Home Counties suggesting that his peers in neighbouring counties were subjected to Indoctrination.
Unfortunately when I exposed myself to proper church attendance, bible study, prayer groups and theology my thought was blimey. They don’t teach any of this stuff. My second thought was how fucking bland what you are told about is.
Since I’m Captain Pigeon then I counterchristen Hillside Superbland........ More soulless than Harlow town centre, More empty than a Modern high street Art gallery, more Tasteless than boiled boiled mince It’s SUPERBLAND.
-
I have until I realised what I had imagined wasn't credible, there being no evidence to support it.
When I imagine stuff I know it’s an activity. What you mean is mistake. I can imagine I saw someone in the town centre but when I get a different ID I know I’m wrong because there is proof otherwise.
You see to write something off as imagination I need to be presented with a truer picture which atheism just doesn’t provide, tells you it doesn’t need to and if you are triply unlucky tells you it already has. See, amongst yourselves you are all lovely people but to the rest of us....lovely people who like to dress inshiny shiny leather and mindgame,
If you did believe you must have asked yourself why you ought to stop believing and given yourself the answer I’m sorry I don’t have to prove anything. That doesn’t seem a very good option to me and certainly not for someone after evidence.
I think the trouble is no one really looked at one of my earlier replies or they might have done and imagined they saw something else
-
When I imagine stuff I know it’s an activity. What you mean is mistake. I can imagine I saw someone in the town centre but when I get a different ID I know I’m wrong because there is proof otherwise.
You see to write something off as imagination I need to be presented with a truer picture which atheism just doesn’t provide, tells you it doesn’t need to and if you are triply unlucky tells you it already has. See, amongst yourselves you are all lovely people but to the rest of us....lovely people who like to dress inshiny shiny leather and mindgame,
If you did believe you must have asked yourself why you ought to stop believing and given yourself the answer I’m sorry I don’t have to prove anything. That doesn’t seem a very good option to me and certainly not for someone after evidence.
I think the trouble is no one really looked at one of my earlier replies or they might have done and imagined they saw something else
So many of your posts are drivel, most of us tune out!
-
So many of your posts are drivel, most of us tune out!
Tune out? You mean Goddodging.
-
Tune out? You mean Goddodging.
I reckon if any god exists it would be Vlad dodging. ;D
-
Moderator:
Three posts consisting primarily of blunt personal remarks about another member, and were devoid of wit or lighthearted humour that characterises 'banter', have been removed.
-
Nope, I chose as a child not to join the Sunday school crocodile as it proceeded around the village.
We had a long Garden and a wood at the bottom, a great place to hide.
If you turned to Christianity as an adult then I would have to say that you are an ad-mans dream come true.
-
If you turned to Christianity as an adult then I would have to say that you are an ad-mans dream come true.
When did you turn to paganism? When I was hiding from Christianity in the woods I never came across any tree gods.
I suppose had I been a pagan I couldn’t see the wood for the tree gods.
-
I reckon if any god exists it would be Vlad dodging. ;D
I had to laugh at that one.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
I had to laugh at that one.
So anyway, a few posts back (Reply 515) I went to the trouble of setting out your most recent suite of lies, misrepresentations, straw men and logical fallacies. Entirely predictably you’ve ignored that, presumably to leave your way clear to repeat the same lies, misrepresentations, straw men and logical fallacies (and more besides) in future posts.
What do you expect this behaviour to achieve exactly, or is the behaviour its own reward for you because it pleases you in some way?
-
When did you turn to paganism? When I was hiding from Christianity in the woods I never came across any tree gods.
I suppose had I been a pagan I couldn’t see the wood for the tree gods.
In reality you have never come across gods of any sort.
-
Moderator:
Three posts consisting primarily of blunt personal remarks about another member, and were devoid of wit or lighthearted humour that characterises 'banter', have been removed.
Damn! I missed them! >:(
-
Wilks,
Damn! I missed them!
You won’t have missed anything. What do you think about avocados? Nice right? You know how sometimes though you cut one open and it’s all hollowed out and black inside? That’s what it’s like reading one of the Cap’n’s posts – you post a knock down rebuttal to one of his many lies, straw men etc and that’s the reply. Never though will he actually try to engage with the rebuttal itself.
Try it for yourself if you don’t believe me. There are countless lies, fallacies etc to go at but pick any one you like – maybe his signature straw man of “I don’t know the origin of the universe, but it definitely wasn’t god”. No-one I know of says that, nor ever has (what atheists actually say is, “I have no sound reasons to believe there to be god(s)” – a fundamentally different position) but he posts the same straw man over and over again no matter how often the mistake/lie is explained to him.
Try asking him why he does it and see what you get – it’ll be a rotten avocado because that’s all he has.
-
Wilks,
You won’t have missed anything. What do you think about avocados? Nice right? You know how sometimes though you cut one open and it’s all hollowed out and black inside? That’s what it’s like reading one of the Cap’n’s posts – you post a knock down rebuttal to one of his many lies, straw men etc and that’s the reply. Never though will he actually try to engage with the rebuttal itself.
Try it for yourself if you don’t believe me. There are countless lies, fallacies etc to go at but pick any one you like – maybe his signature straw man of “I don’t know the origin of the universe, but it definitely wasn’t god”. No-one I know of says that, nor ever has (what atheists actually say is, “I have no sound reasons to believe there to be god(s)” – a fundamentally different position) but he posts the same straw man over and over again no matter how often the mistake/lie is explained to him.
Try asking him why he does it and see what you get – it’ll be a rotten avocado because that’s all he has.
I hate to say it but I don’t think Wilkins and Gordon we’re talking about anything I posted and in fact I think I may be the member at whom they were aimed.
I think you were thinking Removed posts.....must be Vlad.
-
When did you turn to paganism? When I was hiding from Christianity in the woods I never came across any tree gods.
I suppose had I been a pagan I couldn’t see the wood for the tree gods.
When, precisely, are you going to read what is posted by others.
I have stated on this Forum more times than I care to count that ALL my beliefs are matters of FAITH and not of FACT!
You and other dyed in the wool Christians, insist on stating that your God is a matter of fact despite the very real fact that you cannot show one iota of proof that he is a FACT!
Thus, as you have no faith in the Pagan beliefs, you would not have seen a Tree God even if he were standing six inches in front of you pissing on your shoes to show his contempt for Christians who deny his existence!
)O(
-
When, precisely, are you going to read what is posted by others.
I have stated on this Forum more times than I care to count that ALL my beliefs are matters of FAITH and not of FACT!
You and other dyed in the wool Christians, insist on stating that your God is a matter of fact despite the very real fact that you cannot show one iota of proof that he is a FACT!
Thus, as you have no faith in the Pagan beliefs, you would not have seen a Tree God even if he were standing six inches in front of you pissing on your shoes to show his contempt for Christians who deny his existence!
)O(
Great......mention the one God, the atheist right belief police are on it like a shot.
Man beats a drum for the Tree Gods .....nary an atheist in sight......Telling.
-
Great......mention the one God, the atheist right belief police are on it like a shot.
Man beats a drum for the Tree Gods .....nary an atheist in sight......Telling.
Possibly because I am not making a claim that the tree God is a fact?
-
Possibly because I am not making a claim that the tree God is a fact?
No I have come across atheists for whom Christianity itself is a claim and you just have to be Christian.
Besides I am not debating with you. I want to know from them why they make the distinction between the pagan Gods.....ok and God who seems to be not OK.
As you know since there are those proposing eternal matter and prepared to suspend cause and effect.....I e support magic my contention is that their beef is with the divine.
Since pagan gods seem OK then atheism it could be argued is Goddodging.
-
Possibly because I am not making a claim that the tree God is a fact?
You are not claiming pagan gods to be a fact. Are you then claiming them to be a fiction? I am now saying that I cannot demonstrate God empirically and from that point of view the default position is agnosticism rather than atheism.
I take it that your position is the same regarding your gods.
-
Great......mention the one God, the atheist right belief police are on it like a shot.
Man beats a drum for the Tree Gods .....nary an atheist in sight......Telling.
For myself, andI can't speak for anyone else, it is more of a practical point.
Paganism does not have any privileged position in society. It doesn't get automatic access to our government, nor does it have a route to affect policy as a group of people in a direct fashion in our so-called democracy.
If your "one God" was treated in the same way as "Tree Gods" I doubt you'd get many challenges to your various spurious assertions about Christianity, and for that matter atheists.
-
For myself, andI can't speak for anyone else, it is more of a practical point.
Paganism does not have any privileged position in society. It doesn't get automatic access to our government, nor does it have a route to affect policy as a group of people in a direct fashion in our so-called democracy.
If your "one God" was treated in the same way as "Tree Gods" I doubt you'd get many challenges to your various spurious assertions about Christianity, and for that matter atheists.
I dont see privilege as a primarily Cof E issue given the structure and effect of privilege in this country.
Paganism I think we tend to categorise as hobby and past time.
Your privilege argument is therefore skewed. Your antitheistic argument still aggressive and what irritates me with paganism is their limp theism in the face of such vehement antitheism.
Own up. Pagans are ok as long as they are assisting antitheism in its righteous elimination of beliefs.
-
I dont see privilege as a primarily Cof E issue given the structure and effect of privilege in this country.
Paganism I think we tend to categorise as hobby and past time.
Your privilege argument is therefore skewed. Your antitheistic argument still aggressive and what irritates me with paganism is their limp theism in the face of such vehement antitheism.
Own up. Pagans are ok as long as they are assisting antitheism in its righteous elimination of beliefs.
Mince
-
I dont see privilege as a primarily Cof E issue given the structure and effect of privilege in this country.
Paganism I think we tend to categorise as hobby and past time.
Your privilege argument is therefore skewed. Your antitheistic argument still aggressive and what irritates me with paganism is their limp theism in the face of such vehement antitheism.
Own up. Pagans are ok as long as they are assisting antitheism in its righteous elimination of beliefs.
As I said previously, I can't speak for anyone else, but for me Pagans are ok, Christian are ok, Muslims are ok, Hindus are ok and atheists are ok, other options are available.
My privilege statement is not skewed. Of course, privilege is at work in more than the area of just the Church, did I say otherwise? That'll be a no. I am saying that the Church is in a position to use its privilege in a way that Pagans cannot. As both belief systems are just that, I fail to see why one should be considered more valid than the other and therefore get special treatment.
If you could please point out where my argument is antitheistic and also where it is aggressive I would be very grateful.
Also I have never used Pagans to assist me in the "righteous elimination of beliefs".
In fact I don't think I'm really into all that. So I think in your haste to reply you have me mixed up with someone else entirely.
-
I dont see privilege as a primarily Cof E issue given the structure and effect of privilege in this country.
Paganism I think we tend to categorise as hobby and past time.
Your privilege argument is therefore skewed. Your antitheistic argument still aggressive and what irritates me with paganism is their limp theism in the face of such vehement antitheism.
Own up. Pagans are ok as long as they are assisting antitheism in its righteous elimination of beliefs.
Some of your posts read like computer-generated random strings of words.
-
Paganism I think we tend to categorise as a hobby and past time.
Which only goes to show that you know less about Paganism than you do about logical argument.
In fact, every post you make containing the word paganism merely confirms your total and complete ignorance of anything pagan except how to spell the word pagan.
Own up. Pagans are ok as long as they are assisting antitheism in its righteous elimination of beliefs.
You really are very good at talking bollocks when trying to belittle anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.
How can Pagans who believe in all the Greek, Roman, Celtic and Norse gods be antitheistic?
There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on this Forum from persons far wiser than I, NS, Gordon, Trent, Bluehillside etc, for instance, over the years explaining exactly why your posts are complete and total bollocks and still you keep talking great piles of shite! I suppose that is why you use a nom de plume that is an object usually shoved up your arse to shift damn great piles of the stuff!
Enough, I'm back to ignoring your drivel, it has gone way, way, beyond both ignorance (on Paganism anyway) and boring (on everything else!).
Farewell, and May the Goddess watch over you and yours always.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light
Owlswing
)O(
-
Which only goes to show that you know less about Paganism than you do about logical argument.
In fact, every post you make containing the word paganism merely confirms your total and complete ignorance of anything pagan except how to spell the word pagan.
You really are very good at talking bollocks when trying to belittle anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.
How can Pagans who believe in all the Greek, Roman, Celtic and Norse gods be antitheistic?
There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on this Forum from persons far wiser than I, NS, Gordon, Trent, Bluehillside etc, for instance, over the years explaining exactly why your posts are complete and total bollocks and still you keep talking great piles of shite! I suppose that is why you use a nom de plume that is an object usually shoved up your arse to shift damn great piles of the stuff!
Enough, I'm back to ignoring your drivel, it has gone way, way, beyond both ignorance (on Paganism anyway) and boring (on everything else!).
Farewell, and May the Goddess watch over you and yours always.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light
Owlswing
)O(
I dont believe I saw the answer to my question. If you are not presenting paganism as a fact are you presenting it as a fiction...or just weird shit as gleaned from your posts to me?
-
I don't believe I saw the answer to my question. If you are not presenting paganism as a fact are you presenting it as a fiction...or just weird shit as gleaned from your posts to me?
Just for once listen to what is said to you instead of what you want to hear!
Paganism is a FACT!
I have stated and I state yet again in the forlorn hope that sometime in the dim and distant future you will listen to what is said to you and not what you want to hear!
I do not claim that the existence of Pagan GODS and GODDESSES are FACTS - I state categorically that their EXISTENCE is a statement of FAITH!
If you can't understand the difference you are, probably a bigger idiot than your posts suggest!
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN US ENDS HERE!
-
Stop that pigeon!
I dont believe I saw the answer to my question.
Says the man who’s never answered any of the countless questions he’s been asked…
If you are not presenting paganism as a fact are you presenting it as a fiction...or just weird shit as gleaned from your posts to me?
No, he’s posting it as something he believes to be a fact but he knows he can’t justify as such to other people.
Oh, and that of course is the difference between his approach and to his faith beliefs yours – neither of you can justify them as objectively true, but you pretend otherwise. In the unlikely event that Owls ever asserted that paganism should be the established faith with the queen as its head, that its beliefs should be taught as facts to young children in special schools, that a daily act of worship to its deities should be mandated by law for all schools, that its clerics (druids?) should routinely be consulted on matters of moral import and their views broadcast, that pagan officials should sit by right in the legislature etc then – but only then – should you expect the same response that your faith attracts when it arrogate such rights to itself.
But then again, you knew that already didn’t you.
-
Stop that pigeon!
Says the man who’s never answered any of the countless questions he’s been asked…
No, he’s posting it as something he believes to be a fact but he knows he can’t justify as such to other people.
Oh, and that, of course, is the difference between his approach and to his faith beliefs yours – neither of you can justify them as objectively true, but you pretend otherwise. In the unlikely event that Owls ever asserted that paganism should be the established faith with the queen as its head, that its beliefs should be taught as facts to young children in special schools, that a daily act of worship to its deities should be mandated by law for all schools, that its clerics (druids?) should routinely be consulted on matters of moral import and their views broadcast, that pagan officials should sit by right in the legislature etc then – but only then – should you expect the same response that your faith attracts when it arrogate such rights to itself.
But then again, you knew that already didn’t you.
A comment upon the highlighted above.
Druidry is one branch of Paganism, based originally, if I remember aright, mostly in Wales and supposedly wiped out by one of the Caesars on Anglesey.
The Norse, Celtic. Greek, Roman all have their own followers.
However, just because you are a member of a Coven based in Manchester does not stop your Coven identifying with A Goddess and A God from any of the old Pagan religions.
There used to be a group, in Surrey, I think, whose attendant deities were a Hindu Goddess and a Sikh God. The rituals were basically the same as those of another group whose Goddess and God were both of Welsh origin.
One of the beauties of the path, you choose your deities, you do not have them forced upon you by your postcode and the colour of your skin!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Hi Owls,
A comment upon the highlighted above.
Druidry is one branch of Paganism, based originally, if I remember aright, mostly in Wales and supposedly wiped out by one of the Caesars on Anglesey.
The Norse, Celtic. Greek, Roman all have their own followers.
However, just because you are a member of a Coven based in Manchester does not stop your Coven identifying with A Goddess and A God from any of the old Pagan religions.
There used to be a group, in Surrey, I think, whose attendant deities were a Hindu Goddess and a Sikh God. The rituals were basically the same as those of another group whose Goddess and God were both of Welsh origin.
One of the beauties of the path, you choose your deities, you do not have them forced upon you by your postcode and the colour of your skin!
Owlswing
)O(
Thanks for the gen. I like the last part especially. One of the many oddities about the faith claims of Vlad and his ilk is that he/they seem to be oblivious to the remarkable co-incidence of the only true god just happening to be the one most proximate to him/them in time and place. Born at a different time or elsewhere no doubt he'd be just assertive about Allah or Zeus etc being the real deal instead. What are the chances eh? ;)
-
Hi Owls,
Thanks for the gen. I like the last part especially. One of the many oddities about the faith claims of Vlad and his ilk is that he/they seem to be oblivious to the remarkable co-incidence of the only true god just happening to be the one most proximate to him/them in time and place. Born at a different time or elsewhere no doubt he'd be just assertive about Allah or Zeus etc being the real deal instead. What are the chances eh? ;)
That is indeed a killer objection to any religion claimed as objectively true. Fortunately, I don't believe in the objective truth of Christianity, only in its (much more important) subjective, "true for me" truth.
-
That is indeed a killer objection to any religion claimed as objectively true. Fortunately, I don't believe in the objective truth of Christianity, only in its (much more important) subjective, "true for me" truth.
I've never really understood the idea of 'true for me'. What is the meaning for you and why is it much more important?
-
NS,
I've never really understood the idea of 'true for me'. What is the meaning for you and why is it much more important?
Doesn’t it just mean something like, “I know I can’t justify this belief with reason, but I find it meaningful nonetheless so choose to accept it as if I could”? The great advantage for the believer is that he doesn’t have to tie himself in rhetorical knots to rationalise the belief, and for the rest of us there’s no expectation that we too should take the belief seriously.
-
NS,
Doesn’t it just mean something like, “I know I can’t justify this belief with reason, but I find it meaningful nonetheless so choose to accept it as if I could”? The great advantage for the believer is that he doesn’t have to tie himself in rhetorical knots to rationalise the belief, and for the rest of us there’s no expectation that we too should take the belief seriously.
Exactemundo.
-
NS,
Doesn’t it just mean something like, “I know I can’t justify this belief with reason, but I find it meaningful nonetheless so choose to accept it as if I could”? The great advantage for the believer is that he doesn’t have to tie himself in rhetorical knots to rationalise the belief, and for the rest of us there’s no expectation that we too should take the belief seriously.
It seems to me to try and give some extra validity to it by smuggling in the concept of truth. It's trivially true to say I like marmite but I wouldn't talk about true there. It's a fact but 'true for me' always feels like something extra is being stated.
-
NS,
It seems to me to try and give some extra validity to it by smuggling in the concept of truth. It's trivially true to say I like marmite but I wouldn't talk about true there. It's a fact but 'true for me' always feels like something extra is being stated.
I’m not so sure about that. It seems to me to be statement about the value someone finds just from having the belief without being overmuch concerned with whether the object of the belief is real or not. It’s akin to mindfulness or to yoga perhaps in that respect, so even if someone says “but you have no sound reasons to think the object of your beliefs are real” the answer can legitimately be, “I know. So what though?”. That seems to me to be different from the position most theists take – various Christians here for example have said that, if ever there was evidence that Jesus wasn’t resurrected then their faith would fall apart. To them it matters – really matters – that the statements on fact on which their faith relies are actually, unequivocally true.
-
NS,
I’m not so sure about that. It seems to me to be a statement about the value someone finds just from having the belief without being overmuch concerned with whether the object of the belief is real or not. It’s akin to mindfulness or to yoga perhaps in that respect, so even if someone says “but you have no sound reasons to think the object of your beliefs are real” the answer can legitimately be, “I know. So what though?”. That seems to me to be different from the position most theists take – various Christians here, for example, have said that, if ever there was evidence that Jesus wasn’t resurrected then their faith would fall apart. To them it matters – really matters – that the statements on the fact on which their faith relies are actually, unequivocally true.
Put simply, as I have tried to do ever since the first objection to my religion was posted on this forum - my belief in my deities is a matter of FAITH and NOT FACT!
When I was a kid, quite a few moons ago - the religion I was brought up in was actually referred to even by its priests etc, as the Christian FAITH, not the Christian FACT!
Not that I have any hope of the Christian Philistines hereon ever seeing or ceding the point!
-
NS,
I’m not so sure about that. It seems to me to be statement about the value someone finds just from having the belief without being overmuch concerned with whether the object of the belief is real or not. It’s akin to mindfulness or to yoga perhaps in that respect, so even if someone says “but you have no sound reasons to think the object of your beliefs are real” the answer can legitimately be, “I know. So what though?”. That seems to me to be different from the position most theists take – various Christians here for example have said that, if ever there was evidence that Jesus wasn’t resurrected then their faith would fall apart. To them it matters – really matters – that the statements on fact on which their faith relies are actually, unequivocally true.
and to someone saying it's 'True to me' just seems like saying it really really matters but I'm trying to avoid being questioned on it by smuggling the idea of truth into opinion. What does 'true' mean there?
-
I think Owlswing is trying to run with both the hare and the hounds.
I don't know what Hillside is playing at.
-
I think Owlswing is trying to run with both the hare and the hounds.
I don't know what Hillside is playing at.
And what about Mr Micawber?
-
And what about Mr Micawber?
If he could kindly explain what he means as ''true for me'' and if Mr Hillside explain precisely what he considers as objective truth things might proceed rather more spiffingly.
-
If he could kindly explain what he means as ''true for me'' and if Mr Hillside explain precisely what he considers as objective truth things might proceed rather more spiffingly.
Wouldn't that be lovely, Mr Wisdom?
-
Wouldn't that be lovely, Mr Wisdom?
One lives in hope Mr sane.
-
I think Owlswing is trying to run with both the hare and the hounds.
A CHALLENGE TO THE CHRISTIANS ON THIS FORUM WHO cONSIDER PAGANISM TO BE A LOAD OF RUBBISH!
TO Vlad and any and all other Christians who think that Pagan beliefs are nonsense and that Christianity is the ONE TRUE RELIGION.
I hereby offer you a chance to prove it, and me to disprove it!
On the night of the next Full moon, the Harvest Moon, on September 2 at 0622 I will ask the Goddess to protect me from the prayers of anyone of a non-Pagan belief system until the next Full Moon, the Hunters Moon, on October 1 at 2205.
You, Vlad, and any others, who consider that my belief in my deities is rubbish as the only true deity is the God of the Christians, will on Sundays September 6, 13, 20, 27 say prayers to your God for him to smite me with a dislocated left hip!
If by October 2 I have suffered the specified injury I will change back to being a fully functional Christian, a status I dumped at age 15!
If, on the other hand, I have not suffered from a dislocated hip you will meet me between 10.00 and 12.00 in Trafalgar Square, at the bottom of the steps from the National Gallery, so I can show myself uninjured. I will be identifiable by the tattoo on my left forearm of the Green Man, The God of the Forests and Woods.
Please note that I have absolute confidence that I WILL not be injured on one of two counts - One - your God is incapable of hurting someone under the Goddess’ protection - and/or two - that you will not have the guts to try it, just in case you are proven wrong, that for all your prayers I am unhurt.
I was going to ask, if I was unhurt, that you each kiss my nether regions but I decided to be merciful!
-
Atheist someone who cannot disprove God but acts as though he has.
Wow, in one sentence, Vlad demonstrates, yet again, that he doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor the fact the the unqualified word "God" is meaningless, and, in using it as a signature, apparently wants to advertise his ignorance in every post.
-
A CHALLENGE TO THE CHRISTIANS ON THIS FORUM WHO cONSIDER PAGANISM TO BE A LOAD OF RUBBISH!
TO Vlad and any and all other Christians who think that Pagan beliefs are nonsense and that Christianity is the ONE TRUE RELIGION.
I do not believe paganism is a load of rubbish or nonsense. I do believe that Christianity in its New Testament formulation is the most comprehensive account of the divine we have.
I hereby offer you a chance to prove it, and me to disprove it!
Since I do not believe what you attribute to me I don’t want to prove it.
On the night of the next Full moon, the Harvest Moon, on September 2 at 0622 I will ask the Goddess to protect me from the prayers of anyone of a non-Pagan belief system until the next Full Moon, the Hunters Moon, on October 1 at 2205.
You, Vlad, and any others, who consider that my belief in my deities is rubbish as the only true deity is the God of the Christians, will on Sundays September 6, 13, 20, 27 say prayers to your God for him to smite me with a dislocated left hip!
If by October 2 I have suffered the specified injury I will change back to being a fully functional Christian, a status I dumped at age 15!
If, on the other hand, I have not suffered from a dislocated hip you will meet me between 10.00 and 12.00 in Trafalgar Square, at the bottom of the steps from the National Gallery, so I can show myself uninjured. I will be identifiable by the tattoo on my left forearm of the Green Man, The God of the Forests and Woods.
Unfortunately as Peter Cook once said I shall not be taking part since I shall be watching television at that those times. If you are in a public place please observe social distancing.
-
Wow, in one sentence, Vlad demonstrates, yet again, that he doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor the fact the the unqualified word "God" is meaningless, and, in using it as a signature, apparently wants to advertise his ignorance in every post.
Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.
You will note that that not unreasonable request does not shift any burden from the theist position.
You will note that but your arseclenching fanaticism will probably prevent it from sinking in.
-
and to someone saying it's 'True to me' just seems like saying it really really matters but I'm trying to avoid being questioned on it by smuggling the idea of truth into opinion. What does 'true' mean there?
It may mean that to some but it can also mean that as an inner experience that experience is true for me but it may not be for you. There may be no way of demonstrating that truth intellectually, but if you carry out certain practices regularly like meditation or prayer you may have a similar inner experience which will be true for you. Hope and faith are suggested as preliminary requirements, 'hope' meaning being open to the possibility and 'faith' being persistent with a method or way that is suggested.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
If he could kindly explain what he means as ''true for me'' and if Mr Hillside explain precisely what he considers as objective truth things might proceed rather more spiffingly.
Mr Hillside has on numerous occasions taken you through epistemology 101, explained the probabilistic nature of truth, shown you that a statement is true only inasmuch as it cannot be refuted but necessarily only according to the current state of knowledge, illustrated the argument with analogies like the sandcastle model etc only for you to ignore or misrepresent every part of it. What then would be the point of doing it again? Dear god, if you can’t even grasp the basics of the burden of proof what hope is there of you ever grasping the basics of knowledge theory?
Try to grasp this at least: Owls’ truth about a goddess and my truth about an apple falling if I drop it are on an epistemological spectrum. When there’s not much supporting argument or evidence we call the former truth beliefs “subjective”, and when there’s lots of supporting argument and evidence we call the latter truth beliefs “objective”. They’re both beliefs though - the probability of the former isn’t zero (how would you know definitively that his Goddess doesn’t exist?), and the probability of the latter isn’t 1 (how would you know definitively that one day the apple wouldn’t go sideways?).
What though is the point of even trying to explain this to you again?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.
Again I see that you fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent the category difference between atheism and agnosticism. It’s quite possible to be an agnostic atheist – “the truth or otherwise of the claim “God” is unknowable, but the arguments you try to justify that claim are all wrong”.
You will note that that not unreasonable request does not shift any burden from the theist position.
Gibberish.
You will note that but your arseclenching fanaticism will probably prevent it from sinking in.
And the ad hom fallacy to finish.
0/10 – see me
-
Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.
Here we go again...
The default position, as has been explained to you endless times, is not to accept a proposition as true unless you are given reason to do so. That's about belief. If the proposition is unfalsifiable, then you have to accept that it might be true, then you can call that being agnostic if you want but that is about absolute knowledge, hence you can be an agnostic atheist.
If the proposition is meaningless, such as "God exists", without any qualification as to the meaning of the word "God", that leads ignosticism (I have no idea what you even mean).
The problem with the label agnostic is that it is often taken as a sort of 50/50 "don't know" position, which simply doesn't apply when you see no reason whatsoever to take an idea seriously. Although strictly it means that nothing is or can be known about the existence or nature of God, which is also not a default position, but an actual claim in itself.
Have you got all that?
-
Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.
Those are positions on two different questions - it's like asking why there's no reflection on whether the default for a Ford racing car is red or two-door...
You will note that that not unreasonable request does not shift any burden from the theist position.
But a theist position doesn't say anything about gnosticism - are you a gnostic theist or an agnostic one?
You will note that but your arseclenching fanaticism will probably prevent it from sinking in.
You will note that ad hominems fail to hide the fact that you fail to understand the terminology you're attempting to deploy.
O.
-
Is anybody agnostic in practise? You either believe in God or you don't. Nobody says that they don't know.
-
Is anybody agnostic in practise? You either believe in God or you don't. Nobody says that they don't know.
One cannot know for sure that no god exists, however unlikely the existence of such an entity is.
-
Wow, in one sentence, Vlad demonstrates, yet again, that he doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor the fact the the unqualified word "God" is meaningless, and, in using it as a signature, apparently wants to advertise his ignorance in every post.
I've just noticed his signature. :) Typical Vlad stereotyping! For me, as an atheist, I would amend it as follows:
As an atheist I cannot disprove God but as I find no reason at all to believe there is a God and as the idea holds no particular meaning or significance for me, I quite naturally and sensibly act as if God does not exist.
-
I think the trouble with the word 'God' is that it has become a 'catch all' word and it has become anthropomorphised. I believe there are about a dozen different Hebrew words in the Bible all translated as 'God'. The word itself, I believe, has its origin associated with 'that which is to be invoked', which can invite people to have a variety of 'gods' according to what they desire to invoke, examples might be a god of good fortune, a god of power, a god of life, a god of love etc. The last words of Jesus on the cross was said to be "Eloi! Eloi! Lema sabachthani?" and translated as, "My God! My God! Why did Thou forsake Me?" I believe that 'El' was 'Power' and it could be translated as 'My power, my power, why have you left me?'
-
Here we go again...
The default position, as has been explained to you endless times, is not to accept a proposition as true unless you are given reason to do so. That's about belief. If the proposition is unfalsifiable, then you have to accept that it might be true, then you can call that being agnostic if you want but that is about absolute knowledge, hence you can be an agnostic atheist.
If the proposition is meaningless, such as "God exists", without any qualification as to the meaning of the word "God", that leads ignosticism (I have no idea what you even mean).
The problem with the label agnostic is that it is often taken as a sort of 50/50 "don't know" position, which simply doesn't apply when you see no reason whatsoever to take an idea seriously. Although strictly it means that nothing is or can be known about the existence or nature of God, which is also not a default position, but an actual claim in itself.
Have you got all that?
I don’t think it’s meaningful saying God exists has no meaning then calling yourself an Atheist.
So to update the definition of atheist. Someone who doesn’t know the meaning of the existence of God, cannot prove the non existence of God but acts as though he has.
-
I don’t think it’s meaningful saying God exists has no meaning then calling yourself an Atheist.
So to update the definition of atheist. Someone who doesn’t know the meaning of the existence of God, cannot prove the non existence of God but acts as though he has.
You act as if you can prove the existence of god, which you can't.
-
You act as if you can prove the existence of god, which you can't.
He has proved his existence to me since I am a natural sceptic, cannot pretend to an encounter, tried to dodge God and was conscious of being insufficiently open to Jesus prior to full commitment to him.
The atheist experience does not mirror this and I have two decades experience of not being a Christian or theist of any sort.
-
He has proved his existence to me since I am a natural sceptic, cannot pretend to an encounter, tried to dodge God and was conscious of being insufficiently open to Jesus prior to full commitment to him.
The atheist experience does not mirror this and I have two decades experience of not being a Christian or theist of any sort.
Just because you believe god exists doesn't mean it is so. People over the ages have claimed they have had experiences which have proved to them that many less than credible things are true. I have had many more of those sort of experiences than most during my 70 years, I think there is a natural explanation for them rather than a supernatural one.
-
Just because you believe god exists doesn't mean it is so. People over the ages have claimed they have had experiences which have proved to them that many less than credible things are true. I have had many more of those sort of experiences than most during my 70 years, I think there is a natural explanation for them rather than a supernatural one.
Atheism as argument from unbelief. There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.
-
enki,
I've just noticed his signature. :) Typical Vlad stereotyping! For me, as an atheist, I would amend it as follows:
As an atheist I cannot disprove God but as I find no reason at all to believe there is a God and as the idea holds no particular meaning or significance for me, I quite naturally and sensibly act as if God does not exist.
There's a simpler way of saying it: As an atheist I cannot disprove God, but I can disprove the arguments you attempt to justify your belief "God".
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Atheism as argument from unbelief.
Wrong.
There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.
No-one says otherwise, including atheists. There may be anything. I'd be nice if you'd finally stop lying about that.
Oh, and I explained the rudiments of epistemology to you again a few posts ago. I see you've just ignored that though. Why is that - are the words too long, or can you simply not grasp the arguments no matter how simply they're put?
-
Atheism as argument from unbelief. There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.
If you watch any Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Lawrence Krauss, content on YouYube Vlad, you'll find any one of them will define atheism for you, go on enjoy yourself Vlad, you know you will.
-
Atheism as argument from unbelief.
False. Misunderstanding the burden of proof for about the 10,000th time.
There may be a natural explanation for all your experiences but not necessarily for other people.
Misunderstanding the burden of proof for about the 10,001st time.
-
If you watch any Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Lawrence Krauss, content on YouYube Vlad, you'll find any one of them will define atheism for you, go on enjoy yourself Vlad, you know you will.
That’s as may be though Lawrence Krauss strikes me that in many ways he is trying to grasp something.
-
That’s as may be though Lawrence Krauss strikes me that in many ways he is trying to grasp something.
Even if Lawrence is trying to grasp something that'll not prevent him from describing atheism to you Vlad.
-
There being no response from any of the Christians on this Forum I hereby withdraw my challenge as specified in #567 and claim victory by default there not being one single Christan with the guts to accept my challenge to
prove that their God is able to thwart the will of my Goddess!
Pagans 1 Christians 0
-
There being no response from any of the Christians on this Forum I hereby withdraw my challenge as specified in #567 and claim victory by default there not being one single Christan with the guts to accept my challenge to
prove that their God is able to thwart the will of my Goddess!
I think people are just prioritising Owlswing. Toenails need to be clipped, ships need put into bottles, the tops of cereal boxes need to be folded in, etc, etc......
-
Even if Lawrence is trying to grasp something that'll not prevent him from describing atheism to you Vlad.
I've heard he's a good multitasker.
-
I think people are just prioritising Owlswing. Toenails need to be clipped, ships need put into bottles, the tops of cereal boxes need to be folded in, etc, etc......
Also Matthew 4:7, and Luke 4:12, both quoting Deuteronomy 6:16.
-
I think people are just prioritising Owlswing. Toenails need to be clipped, ships need put into bottles, the tops of cereal boxes need to be folded in, etc, etc......
Your humour is on a par with your understanding of logic - i.e. abysmal and boring!
You lost! Man up and accept it!
-
Is anybody agnostic in practise? You either believe in God or you don't. Nobody says that they don't know.
Agnosticism isn't about whether you believe in gods, it's about whether you think it's possible to definitively know about the existence of gods.
Given the lack of any meaningful definition of 'god', the philosophical difficulty of proving the non-existence of something and the inherent limitations of human cognition I am very much an agnostic atheist. I really don't believe in God, but I don't think it's possible to 'prove' there aren't any.
O.
-
Your humour is on a par with your understanding of logic - i.e. abysmal and boring!
You lost! Man up and accept it!
Regarding putting God to the test. Mr Micawber is quite right and we should not try to use God in that way.
Regarding my humour......Firstly, I find it funny, and secondly, you don’t......it’s a win win situation for me.
-
Agnosticism isn't about whether you believe in gods, it's about whether you think it's possible to definitively know about the existence of gods.
Given the lack of any meaningful definition of 'god', the philosophical difficulty of proving the non-existence of something and the inherent limitations of human cognition I am very much an agnostic atheist. I really don't believe in God, but I don't think it's possible to 'prove' there aren't any.
O.
Right since now meaningful definition seems to be the latest thing from atheist central you need to define what you mean by meaningful definition. Careful now.....because not making what you mean by meaningful might mean you undo your argument.
-
Stop that Pigeon,
Right since now meaningful definition seems to be the latest thing from atheist central you need to define what you mean by meaningful definition. Careful now.....because not making what you mean by meaningful might mean you undo your argument.
Right, so in the last few posts alone you’ve been educated in epistemology 101, corrected on your mistakes about the meanings of atheism and agnosticism, and schooled on the burden of proof. Yet you just ignore all that as if nothing had been said, and instead you slide sideway into yet another trolling effort. Is there perhaps some crab in your ancestry?
“Meaningful definition” is necessary for any discourse (you know, that thing you have no interest in) and as “God” is your claim, it’s your job to define the term. You’ve been asked this before, and (in one of the vanishingly rare times you actually tried to answer a question) the best you could do was to suggest a CV as if what your (supposed) god (supposedly) does would tell us what he (supposedly) is.
It’s your claim, you define it. And while you're about it, maybe too give some indication that you finally understand the various other matters in which you've been schooled.
-
Stop that Pigeon,
Right, so in the last few posts alone you’ve been educated in epistemology 101, corrected on your mistakes about the meanings of atheism and agnosticism, and schooled on the burden of proof. Yet you just ignore all that as if nothing had been said, and instead you slide sideway into yet another trolling effort. Is there perhaps some crab in your ancestry?
“Meaningful definition” is necessary for any discourse (you know, that thing you have no interest in) and as “God” is your claim, it’s your job to define the term. You’ve been asked this before, and (in one of the vanishingly rare times you actually tried to answer a question) the best you could do was to suggest a CV as if what your (supposed) god (supposedly) does would tell us what he (supposedly) is.
It’s your claim, you define it. And while you're about it, maybe too give some indication that you finally understand the various other matters in which you've been schooled.
Again, and again, and again I have to tell you that this theist is not seeking to remove any burden of proof from himself. That of course is what Religionethics Atheists are for.
What we want to know is on what grounds can atheism be established as the status quo or default position. That should be, for an atheist a simple thing. The reason should be meaningful. So Hillside, state what those reasons are.......or leave this board and perhaps consider becoming a hermit.
-
Right since now meaningful definition seems to be the latest thing from atheist central you need to define what you mean by meaningful definition. Careful now.....because not making what you mean by meaningful might mean you undo your argument.
Confucius says 'Do not ask the question unless you are certain you can handle all of the possible answers'...
O.
-
Stop that Pigeon,
Right, so in the last few posts alone you’ve been educated in epistemology 101, corrected on your mistakes about the meanings of atheism and agnosticism, and schooled on the burden of proof. Yet you just ignore all that as if nothing had been said, and instead you slide sideway into yet another trolling effort. Is there perhaps some crab in your ancestry?
“Meaningful definition” is necessary for any discourse (you know, that thing you have no interest in) and as “God” is your claim, it’s your job to define the term. You’ve been asked this before, and (in one of the vanishingly rare times you actually tried to answer a question) the best you could do was to suggest a CV as if what your (supposed) god (supposedly) does would tell us what he (supposedly) is.
It’s your claim, you define it. And while you're about it, maybe too give some indication that you finally understand the various other matters in which you've been schooled.
The claim may be mine. The need to make definitions of terms clear eg meaningful.....is Outriders.
You are welcome.
-
Confucius says 'Do not ask the question unless you are certain you can handle all of the possible answers'...
O.
Confucius says is onomatopoeia taken from an engine stalling ......in this case the one driving your argument ha ha.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Again, and again, and again I have to tell you that this theist is not seeking to remove any burden of proof from himself.
Again and again and again that’s exactly what you do.
That of course is what Religionethics Atheists are for.
Stop lying.
What we want to know…
Who’s “we”?
…is on what grounds can atheism be established as the status quo or default position.
You know that already because it’s been explained to you countless times. A-theism, a-leprechaunism, a-anything ism is the “status quo or default position” because the burden of proof is always with the person making the claim to justify it. The only alternative is to treat all such claims as true, which collapses immediately you try it.
That should be, for an atheist a simple thing.
It is – see above.
The reason should be meaningful.
It is – see above.
So Hillside, state what those reasons are.......or leave this board and perhaps consider becoming a hermit.
I just did – see above.
Oh, and I see you’re still sliding away from your various cock ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism, burden of proof etc.
Why is that?
The claim may be mine. The need to make definitions of terms clear eg meaningful.....is Outriders.
You are welcome.
Bollocks. Your claim = your job to define what you mean by it.
You're welcome.
-
You know that already because it’s been explained to you countless times. A-theism, a-leprechaunism, a-anything ism is the “status quo or default position”
So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.
Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.
Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.
You really are utterly fucking shameless aren’t you. What was the rest of the sentence you just carefully cropped?: “…because the burden of proof is always with the person making the claim to justify it.”
If the burden of proof is satisfied, it’s reasonable to accept the claim; if the burden of proof isn’t satisfied, it isn’t reasonable to accept the claim. What the claim happens to be is a second order issue.
Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
You really are utterly fucking shameless aren’t you. What was the rest of the sentence you just carefully cropped?: “…because the burden of proof is always with the person making the claim to justify it.”
If the burden of proof is satisfied, it’s reasonable to accept the claim; if the burden of proof isn’t satisfied, it isn’t reasonable to accept the claim. What the claim happens to be is a second order issue.
Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
You couldn’t even bring yourself, even after making the definition to give a yes/no answer to the question provided.
So I will answer yes
Anaturalism
A materialism
A physicalist
A scientism
A empiricism
Are all under the definition provided by you are all the status quo and default positions.
In which case, on what grounds are we disputing the existence of God?
Hillside........over to you.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
You couldn’t even bring yourself, even after making the definition to give a yes/no answer to the question provided.
So I will answer yes
Anaturalism
A materialism
A physicalist
A scientism
A empiricism
Are all under the definition provided by you are all the status quo and default positions.
In which case, on what grounds are we disputing the existence of God?
Hillside........over to you.
So you’ve just been caught in yet another lie and you blithely carry on as if nothing happened. What does this behaviour say about you do you think?
Yet again, no claim should be accepted just because it’s been made. When though the claim is justified with reason, then there’s no good reason to reject it. Once you grasp the principle you can populate it with any claim you like.
Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
So you’ve just been caught in yet another lie and you blithely carry on as if nothing happened. What does this behaviour say about you do you think?
Yet again, no claim should be accepted just because it’s been made. When though the claim is justified with reason, then there’s no good reason to reject it. Once you grasp the principle you can populate it with any claim you like.
Any news on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
You are really playing the man here.
I am proceeding in the light of your declaration that a-anything represents the status quo and default position.
Regardless of whether you and/or I are bullshitters of the order of Melchizedek. The situation remains that naturalism, materialism, empiricism, physicalist and scientism carry the burden of proof so if not from these where does the argument against theism actually come from?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
You are really playing the man here.
I haven’t done that at all. Stop lying.
I am proceeding in the light of your declaration that a-anything represents the status quo and default position.
Dear god, have you finally got it then?
Regardless of whether you and/or I are bullshitters of the order of Melchizedek. The situation remains that naturalism, materialism, empiricism, physicalist and scientism carry the burden of proof so if not from these where does the argument against theism actually come from?
Down to the level of axioms, every truth claim carries the burden of proof if it's to be accepted – gravity making things fall, germs causing disease, anything at all. Where “the argument against theism actually come from” is the failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof. It’s not difficult.
Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
I haven’t done that at all. Stop lying.
Dear god, have you finally got it then?
Down to the level of axioms, every truth claim carries the burden of proof if it's to be accepted – gravity making things fall, germs causing disease, anything at all. Where “the argument against theism actually come from” is the failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof. It’s not difficult.
Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
Unless there is appeal to naturalism, materialism, physicalist, scientism,empiricism how can your CLAIM of “The failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof” be satisfied?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Unless there is appeal to naturalism, materialism, physicalist, scientism,empiricism how can your CLAIM of “The failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof” be satisfied?
Because, obviously, the case against theism requires none of these positions. Either the arguments attempted for theism fail in their own right as matters of logic, or they don't. And so far at least, it's the former.
Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.
Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.
Of course, but, yet again, you are trying to pretend that people are adopting philosophical positions (which is what these are) that they are not.
Empirical evidence (science) and the use of logic have been shown to work (hence your ability to post nonsense on the internet), and one does not need to adopt a philosophical stance, such as naturalism, to make that observation.
-
Unless there is appeal to naturalism, materialism, physicalist, scientism,empiricism how can your CLAIM of “The failure of theists to satisfy the burden of proof” be satisfied?
Once again, the "claim" is a statement of personal experience. I have never seen a definition of "god" and a reason to take it seriously. A reason could be a sound argument, evidence, or the presentation of another means to distinguish probable truth from guessing, and the use of that.
There is no appeal to the endless philosophical -isms you keep on pretending that people are using.
-
So would you agree that the following are the status quo and the default position.
Simple yes or no.
Anaturalism
Amaterialism
Aphysicalism
Ascientism
A-empiricism.
For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.
-
For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.
Or more likely, he is enjoying winding up other posters.
-
Slart,
For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.
Or spectacularly dishonest. I've never been sure which - probably some of each.
-
Or more likely, he is enjoying winding up other posters.
Stop projecting.
-
Stop projecting.
Do you deny enjoying the reactions your comments get from others posters?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Because, obviously, the case against theism requires none of these positions. Either the arguments attempted for theism fail in their own right as matters of logic, or they don't. And so far at least, it's the former.
Any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
No you’ve said that theists have failed to satisfy the burden of proof.
Obviously to argue that they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof because they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof is no argument.
Some arguments have failed in logic maybe. But big arguments are made and have not been refuted certainly the only way to refute an external cause for the universe would be to conclusively demonstrate either spontaneous existence or infinite substance both of which come out of an ism.
Secondly, since the burden of proof is, according to you on “anything” when are you going to use theterm a-physicalist instead of a- leprechaunist? The answer is never because your a-leprechaunist Schlick is pure horses laugh.
-
For an obviously reasonably intelligent bloke, you are really spectacularly stupid.
But you aren’t sure you want to say why at this stage?
-
Confucius says is onomatopoeia taken from an engine stalling ......in this case the one driving your argument ha ha.
I'm impressed that you think you recognise an argument - it's telling that you identify an argument when I'm not making one, but at least it shows that you're aware of the concept...
O.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
No you’ve said that theists have failed to satisfy the burden of proof.
So far, yes.
Obviously to argue that they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof because they have failed to satisfy the burden of proof is no argument.
And one I haven’t made.
Some arguments have failed in logic maybe. But big arguments are made and have not been refuted certainly the only way to refute an external cause for the universe would be to conclusively demonstrate either spontaneous existence or infinite substance both of which come out of an ism.
You’ve fucked up on the burden of proof again. It’s not necessary to “refute an external cause for the universe” – all that’s necessary is to refute the arguments attempted to demonstrate the positive claim that that there is an external cause.
Secondly,…
You don’t have a “secondly” when your attempt at a firstly just crashed and burned.
…since the burden of proof is, according to you on “a-anything” when are you going to use theterm a-physicalist instead of a- leprechaunist?
Gibberish. What are you even trying to say here?
The answer is never because your a-leprechaunist Schlick is pure horses laugh.
The answer is “never” because the question is incoherent.
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
Do you deny enjoying the reactions your comments get from others posters?
Well , to be honest my heart did warm strangely when someone suggested I was “utterly fucking shameless “ but the standard of most posts grieves me.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Well , to be honest my heart did warm strangely when someone suggested I was “utterly fucking shameless “…
What else do you expect when you doctor quotes?
…but the standard of most posts grieves me.
Then stop posting them.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
So far, yes.
And one I haven’t made.
You’ve fucked up on the burden of proof again. It’s not necessary to “refute an external cause for the universe” – all that’s necessary is to refute the arguments attempted to demonstrate the positive claim that that there is an external cause.
You don’t have a “secondly” when your attempt at a firstly just crashed and burned.
Gibberish. What are you even trying to say here?
The answer is “never” because the question is incoherent.
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
The claim you have made is that theist have failed to satisfy the burden of proof. Please demonstrate how.
Plausible alternatives to your claim are an inability in logical argument on the part of atheist, an inability to detect the divine, lying about their experience of the divine or the logic of the divine, just being mistaken about the divine.
-
Well , to be honest my heart did warm strangely when someone suggested I was “utterly fucking shameless “ but the standard of most posts grieves me.
It should be your own posts which give you the most grief, they are well below the standard of those of most other posters.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
The claim you have made is that theist have failed to satisfy the burden of proof.
Actually strictly it’s that I’ve never seen an argument from a theist that does this, but near enough.
Please demonstrate how.
I have done every time one such has been attempted here. If you think any argument for “god” has been attempted that isn’t fallacious, then it’s your job to tell us what it is.
Plausible alternatives to your claim are an inability in logical argument on the part of atheist,…
Could be. Luckily though logical fallacies are codified, so it’s easy to see whether or not the argument of the theist aligns with one (or more) of these codified fallacies. So far at least, they all have.
…an inability to detect the divine,…
And speaking of aligning with codified logical fallacies, that one is called begging the question.
…lying about their experience of the divine…
And so’s that (with a sprinkle of ad hom thrown in).
…or the logic of the divine,
No lying needed – the logic tried so far is bust (see above).
…just being mistaken about the divine.
More begging the question, plus some shifting of the burden of proof again. It’s not about being mistaken about “the divine” – even if every possible argument to justify the claim “the divine” was as flat wrong as the ones you try, there could still be a divine (or leprechauns) just as a matter of dumb luck. It’s actually only about being mistaken about the arguments attempted to justify the claim “the divine”. And your only way to show that would be to find some logic of your own more coherent or robust than that which, currently at least, knocks you out of the park.
And no, ignoring, misrepresenting, quote doctoring or just plain lying about that doesn’t do that job for you no matter how much you cling to it.
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
The claim you have made is that theist have failed to satisfy the burden of proof. Please demonstrate how.
Already explained to you multiple times, by myself and others. See #614 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg812051#msg812051)
Plausible alternatives to your claim are an inability in logical argument on the part of atheist...
Is that a joke?
...an inability to detect the divine, lying about their experience of the divine or the logic of the divine, just being mistaken about the divine.
Here we go with the burden of proof again. Define "the divine" and give an argument or evidence for why we should take the notion seriously?
-
It should be your own posts which give you the most grief, they are well below the standard of those of most other posters.
If the standard is turdpolishing I would agree with you.
-
If the standard is turdpolishing I would agree with you.
Your posts are way below that standard. :P ;D
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Actually strictly it’s that I’ve never seen an argument from a theist that does this, but near enough.
I have done every time one such has been attempted here. If you think any argument for “god” has been attempted that isn’t fallacious, then it’s your job to tell us what it is.
Could be. Luckily though logical fallacies are codified, so it’s easy to see whether or not the argument of the theist aligns with one (or more) of these codified fallacies. So far at least, they all have.
And speaking of aligning with codified logical fallacies, that one is called begging the question.
And so’s that (with a sprinkle of ad hom thrown in).
No lying needed – the logic tried so far is bust (see above).
More begging the question, plus some shifting of the burden of proof again. It’s not about being mistaken about “the divine” – even if every possible argument to justify the claim “the divine” was as flat wrong as the ones you try, there could still be a divine (or leprechauns) just as a matter of dumb luck. It’s actually only about being mistaken about the arguments attempted to justify the claim “the divine”. And your only way to show that would be to find some logic of your own more coherent or robust than that which, currently at least, knocks you out of the park.
And no, ignoring, misrepresenting, quote doctoring or just plain lying about that doesn’t do that job for you no matter how much you cling to it.
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
I am not trying to shift burden of proof.
You need to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden of proof.
The second thing you need to do is, since you think it necessary to mention our aleprechaunism to say why you have not found it necessary to mention our mutual anaturalism.
In fact I could in your scheme of things state that I am anaturalistic for the same reasons as I am a leprechaunist is. Since your scheme of things is flawed though it probably isn’t a good idea,
-
Already explained to you multiple times, by myself and others. See #614 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg812051#msg812051)
Is that a joke?
Here we go with the burden of proof again. Define "the divine" and give an argument or evidence for why we should take the notion seriously?
Look you guys are the brains trust who decided that I never make an argument and those arguments I make are always wrong.
-
Your posts are way below that standard. :P ;D
Not being an atheist I cannot expect the Lord Dawkins to bestow or develop the gift of shitshining in me can I?
-
Not being an atheist I cannot expect the Lord Dawkins to bestow or develop the gift of shitshining in me can I?
I don't know what you are actually supposed to be? If you are a Christian you are not doing the faith any good at all, your posts make a mockery of the faith. Satan must be rubbing his hands with glee, assuming he exists.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Actually strictly it’s that I’ve never seen an argument from a theist that does this, but near enough.
I have done every time one such has been attempted here. If you think any argument for “god” has been attempted that isn’t fallacious, then it’s your job to tell us what it is.
Could be. Luckily though logical fallacies are codified, so it’s easy to see whether or not the argument of the theist aligns with one (or more) of these codified fallacies. So far at least, they all have.
And speaking of aligning with codified logical fallacies, that one is called begging the question.
And so’s that (with a sprinkle of ad hom thrown in).
No lying needed – the logic tried so far is bust (see above).
More begging the question, plus some shifting of the burden of proof again. It’s not about being mistaken about “the divine” – even if every possible argument to justify the claim “the divine” was as flat wrong as the ones you try, there could still be a divine (or leprechauns) just as a matter of dumb luck. It’s actually only about being mistaken about the arguments attempted to justify the claim “the divine”. And your only way to show that would be to find some logic of your own more coherent or robust than that which, currently at least, knocks you out of the park.
And no, ignoring, misrepresenting, quote doctoring or just plain lying about that doesn’t do that job for you no matter how much you cling to it.
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
These are plausible alternatives Hillside and you are a prime user of the term don’t blame my if you are hoist by/on/up your own petard.
-
I don't know what you are actually supposed to be? If you are a Christian you are not doing the faith any good at all, your posts make a mockery of the faith. Satan must be rubbing his hands with glee, assuming he exists.
Since you have kin who are Christians shows what a good atheist you are.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
I am not trying to shift burden of proof.
That’s exactly what you do every time you complain that theism doesn’t disprove the claim “God”. You’ve tried it several times in your recent posts alone. That’s why you’re continually corrected when you do it albeit that you just ignore the corrections and then try it again.
You need to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden of proof.
I have done. Every time you (or anyone else here) has tried an argument to justify their claim “God”, I’ve shown you (and them) why it’s fallacious. That you ignore, misrepresent, quote doctor of just flat out lie about the falsifications you’re given doesn’t change that.
The second thing you need to do is, since you think it necessary to mention our aleprechaunism to say why you have not found it necessary to mention our mutual anaturalism.
Was there a cogent thought in your head when you typed that incomprehensible gibberish?
In fact I could in your scheme of things state that I am anaturalistic for the same reasons as I am a leprechaunist is.
I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here. Have you?
Since your scheme of things is flawed though it probably isn’t a good idea,
My only “scheme of things” is that believing things for bad (or no) reasons is a bad idea. If you think that’s “flawed” then why not say why rather than just assert it?
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
Since you have kin who are Christians shows what a good atheist you are.
I know many decent Christians who would be more than shocked by your posts!
-
Floo,
I know many decent Christians who would be more than shocked by your posts!
As, presumably, would Jesus be.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
That’s exactly what you do every time you complain that theism doesn’t disprove the claim “God”. You’ve tried it several times in your recent posts alone. That’s why you’re continually corrected when you do it albeit that you just ignore the corrections and then try it again.
I have done. Every time you (or anyone else here) has tried an argument to justify their claim “God”, I’ve shown you (and them) why it’s fallacious. That you ignore, misrepresent, quote doctor of just flat out lie about the falsifications you’re given doesn’t change that.
Was there a cogent thought in your head when you typed that incomprehensible gibberish?
I have no idea what you’re even trying to say here. Have you?
My only “scheme of things” is that believing things for bad (or no) reasons is a bad idea. If you think that’s “flawed” then why not say why rather than just assert it?
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
Your argument fails whenever I acknowledge the burden of proof onTheism.
There is thence no shifting of anything at all.
You and anyone else in your position needs to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden.
Since you also say that anything has the burden of proof any argument based in the following needs proof. Naturalism, Materialism, Physicalism, Scientism, empiricism.
Since you are generally shite in flagging up when you are arguing from one of these I have made it encumbent on myself to remind you. No thanks or reward from you is necessary.
-
Floo,
As, presumably, would Jesus be.
I suppose you haven’t asked him how he feels every time you try to pull a tarpaulin over him.
-
I know many decent Christians who would be more than shocked by your posts!
Put em on.
-
Stop tha Pigeon!
Your argument fails whenever I acknowledge the burden of proof onTheism.
No, it succeeds every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.
There is thence no shifting of anything at all.
Yes there is, every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.
You and anyone else in your position needs to demonstrate your conclusion that theism fails in its burden.
Again, I have done every time I’ve shown the argument attempted to justify theism to be fallacious. Find me an argument to justify theism I haven’t shown to be fallacious and you’ll have a point.
Since you also say that anything has the burden of proof any argument based in the following needs proof. Naturalism, Materialism, Physicalism, Scientism, empiricism.
So?
Since you are generally shite in flagging up when you are arguing from one of these…
…he lied. Again.
[qupte]I have made it encumbent on myself to remind you. No thanks or reward from you is necessary.[/quote]
Why remind me of something that has no relevance to the failings of theism in logic?
I suppose you haven’t asked him how he feels every time you try to pull a tarpaulin over him.
So far as I know Jesus (reportedly) said nothing about tarpaulins. He did though have something to say about bearing false witness – which is why he’d be ashamed of you.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
These are plausible alternatives Hillside and you are a prime user of the term don’t blame my if you are hoist by/on/up your own petard.
So we should add "plausible" to the ever-growing list of words you don't understand then. Fair enough.
-
Stop tha Pigeon!
No, it succeeds every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.
Yes there is, every time you complain the atheism doesn’t “disprove God”.
Again, I have done every time I’ve shown the argument attempted to justify theism to be fallacious. Find me an argument to justify theism I haven’t shown to be fallacious and you’ll have a point.
So?
…he lied. Again.
[qupte]I have made it encumbent on myself to remind you. No thanks or reward from you is necessary.
Why remind me of something that has no relevance to the failings of theism in logic?
So far as I know Jesus (reportedly) said nothing about tarpaulins. He did though have something to say about bearing false witness – which is why he’d be ashamed of you.
He’s ashamed of people who are ashamed of him definitely.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
He’s ashamed of people who are ashamed of him definitely.
Are there such people? Either way, that wouldn't get the liars off the hook.
-
Look you guys are the brains trust who decided that I never make an argument and those arguments I make are always wrong.
Firstly, you're avoiding the point and secondly, I didn't say either of those things. What I do say is that you don't seem to get what an argument entails, even though you (sometimes) seem to be attempting them, so what you actually come up with is fallacies (shifting the burden of proof being your latest favoutite), assertions, avoidance (as in this case), or total incoherence.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Are there such people? Either way, that wouldn't get you liars off the hook.
Blessed are the Turdpolishers, for they shall inherit the earth
Blessed are the New atheists for the kingdom of Essexheaven is theirs.
Blessed are those who play the man for evidently it give them them some kind of hard on.
The sermon on the Stansted Mountfitchet by His eminence the very reverend B. Lou Hillside.
Reverend Hillside I believe you have some form in eventually losing it in discussions with Christians and calling them liars. Since I am almost your last adversary on this particular forum I expect no other description from you.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Blessed are the Turdpolishers, for they shall inherit the earth
No argument then.
Blessed are the New atheists for the kingdom of heaven is theirs.
No argument then.
Blessed are those who play the man for evidently it give them them some kind of hard on.
Is that why you do it?
The sermon on the Stansted Mountfitchet by His eminence the very reverend B. Lou Hillside.
My former home town and very nice it was too. Still no argument from you though.
Reverend Hillside I believe you have some form in eventually losing it in discussions with Christians and calling them liars.
Only the ones who demonstrably lie, which seems fair enough to me.
Since I am almost your last adversary…
"Adversary"? Hardly…
…on this particular forum I expect no other description from you.
The description is because you’re caught out lying so much, not because you’re the “last adversary” as you put it.
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
Firstly, you're avoiding the point and secondly, I didn't say either of those things. What I do say is that you don't seem to get what an argument entails, even though you (sometimes) seem to be attempting them, so what you actually come up with is fallacies (shifting the burden of proof being your latest favoutite), assertions, avoidance (as in this case), or total incoherence.
No. I accept theism has a burden of proof.
I am prepared to run with the idea for the moment that a-anything is the status quo and default position and that it is subsequently anything that has the burden of proof.
But for some reason no one seems to be willing to join me in following through with this and declaring that they are anaturalist, amaterialist, aempiricist, aphysicalist even though they find it easy to confess atheism and aleprechaunism.
Or declare that they are naturalist etc and take the burden?
Why won’t they follow their own logic.
-
My former home town
I hear it’s come on a lot since then.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
No. I accept theism has a burden of proof.
Then stop telling us that atheism doesn’t “disprove God” as if that was a critique of atheism.
I am prepared to run with the idea for the moment that a-anything is the status quo and default position and that it is subsequently anything that has the burden of proof.
Why wouldn’t you be? Either you accept nothing without good reason or you accept everything without good reason. Anything in between would be arbitrary.
But for some reason no one seems to be willing to join me in following through with this and declaring that they are anaturalist, amaterialist, aempiricist, aphysicalist even though they find it easy to confess atheism and
Or declare that they are naturalist etc and take the burden?
Why won’t they follow their own logic.
Several reasons:
1. It’s irrelevant.
2. People are “a-all these things” until and unless there’s good reason not to be.
3. There are good reasons to accept some of them, and there aren’t good reasons to accept others of them.
4. Given your form here, it’s very likely that you’re using your own private redefinitions of these terms in any case. Why would anyone want to join you in that?
5. It’s irrelevant (did I mention that already?).
I hear it’s come on a lot since then.
I hear the opposite. Not even a blue plaque either...
-
No. I accept theism has a burden of proof.
I am prepared to run with the idea for the moment that a-anything is the status quo and default position and that it is subsequently anything that has the burden of proof.
You keep saying that, but other things you say are inconsistent with it. You could change your silly signature for a start...
But for some reason no one seems to be willing to join me in following through with this and declaring that they are anaturalist, amaterialist, aempiricist, aphysicalist even though they find it easy to confess atheism and aleprechaunism.
Or declare that they are naturalist etc and take the burden?
Why won’t they follow their own logic.
I am a- all those philosophical positions, as I keep saying. All you are doing is pretending that saying that empirical evidence is one way of distinguishing the probably true from guessing, makes you philosophically an empiricist, physicalist, materialist, or whatever.
I know of two ways of doing the job of distinguishing the probably true from guessing: empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning. I make no claim that there can't be other ways or that the physical world is all that exists, but people who make claims that cannot be supported by some methodology that can distinguish the probably true from guessing have to both show that the methodology works (if it isn't one of the aforementioned well established ones), that it supports their claims, and cannot be used to support absurd or contradictory claims.
I do not deny that there might be a whole host of truths about reality that are non-physical and cannot be supported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, I just see no way to tell if there are or not because I know of no way to test claims about them.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Then stop telling us that atheism doesn’t “disprove God” as if that was a critique of atheism.
Why wouldn’t you be? Either you accept nothing without good reason or you accept everything without good reason. Anything in between would be arbitrary.
Several reasons:
1. It’s irrelevant.
2. People are “a-all these things” until and unless there’s good reason not to be.
3. There are good reasons to accept some of them, and there aren’t good reasons to accept others of them.
4. Given your form here, it’s very likely that you’re using your own private redefinitions of these terms in any case. Why would anyone want to join you in that?
5. It’s irrelevant (did I mention that already?).
I hear the opposite. Not even a blue plaque either...
It would be a brown plaque in your case.
-
You keep saying that, but other things you say are inconsistent with it. You could change your silly signature for a start...
I am a- all those philosophical positions, as I keep saying. All you are doing is pretending that saying that empirical evidence is one way of distinguishing the probably true from guessing, makes you philosophically an empiricist, physicalist, materialist, or whatever.
I know of two ways of doing the job of distinguishing the probably true from guessing: empirical evidence and sound logical reasoning. I make no claim that there can't be other ways or that the physical world is all that exists, but people who make claims that cannot be supported by some methodology that can distinguish the probably true from guessing have to both show that the methodology works (if it isn't one of the aforementioned well established ones), that it supports their claims,
I’m afraid in my opinion this is a declaration of your empiricism and that is not supported by any methodology. To which you can add Cakeandeatitism.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
I’m afraid in my opinion this is a declaration of your empiricism…
It wasn’t, but in any case if not empiricism to make sense of the world what would you propose instead?
… and that is not supported by any methodology.
Of course it is. Try taking arsenic instead of aspirin for your headache and compare the results.
To which you can add Cakeandeatitism.
Another straw man.
It would be a brown plaque in your case.
So having dismantled your last set of howlers this is all you can manage for a reply?
Were you beaten as an aid to potty training or something? You seem to be scatologically obsessed – unhealthily so.
Oh, and any news yet on your balls ups re epistemology, atheism/agnosticism and the burden of proof by the way or are you determined to keep ducking and diving about these things?
-
I’m afraid in my opinion this is a declaration of your empiricism...
Which just goes to show (once again) that you don't understand the terms you are using. I make no philosophical claim that "...all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses." (empiricism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/empiricism)).
...and that is not supported by any methodology.
Using empirical evidence to discover things about the physical world is a methodology (not a philosophical position). It's also a methodology you test the validity of every time you use technology (a product of using that methodology) to post ignorant drivel over the internet.
Oh, and once again you avoided the actual point of having to come up with some methodology that works if you aren't going to use one of the two that are so far established.
-
Or more likely, he is enjoying winding up other posters.
Yes - it occurred to me later that he might be a wind-up merchant.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
It wasn’t, but in any case if not empiricism to make sense of the world what would you propose instead?
Nobody is suggesting replacing methodological empiricism. That is the type of straw man you stinkingly, putridly and Essexly accuse others of.
However what turns your statement into philosophical empiricism is the sanctimonious suggestion that it is only empiricism that makes sense of the world thus trying to establish empiricism as a status quo and default whereas you have argued that it is not the default position. A-empiricism being the default.
Empiricism like atheism as far as you are concerned remains a “true for you” position.
-
Which just goes to show (once again) that you don't understand the terms you are using. I make no philosophical claim that "...all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses." (empiricism (https://www.lexico.com/definition/empiricism)).
Using empirical evidence to discover things about the physical world is a methodology (not a philosophical position). It's also a methodology you test the validity of every time you use technology (a product of using that methodology) to post ignorant drivel over the internet.
Oh, and once again you avoided the actual point of having to come up with some methodology that works if you aren't going to use one of the two that are so far established.
Good account of methodological empiricism.
Nobody is arguing for the replacement of that.
However when arguing that a methodology is needed some people find it impossible to separate the methodological from the empiricism. There are other consequences of this.
Your argument at present comes across as until something has a methodology it cannot be. However one can envisage an early naturalist looking for a new species who gets his arm ripped off by one.
The naturalist’s methodology failed to conjure the creature, the creature itself was not versed in methodology and yet there they both are, Methodology confounded by ontology.
methodological moral realism to me sounds most promising to satisfy those for whom method is evidence and somewhere along the line examination into one’s own morally realistic standing.
-
Yes - it occurred to me later that he might be a wind-up merchant.
You said that like it was a bad thing.
-
Blessed are the Turdpolishers, for they shall inherit the earth
Blessed are the New atheists for the kingdom of Essexheaven is theirs.
Blessed are those who play the man for evidently it give them them some kind of hard on.
The sermon on the Stansted Mountfitchet by His eminence the very reverend B. Lou Hillside.
Reverend Hillside I believe you have some form in eventually losing it in discussions with Christians and calling them liars. Since I am almost your last adversary on this particular forum I expect no other description from you.
I wonder if Satan has a special prize for people like you who make a joke of Christianity? ::)
-
You said that like it was a bad thing.
So you admit to being a WUM, if so for once you are being honest.
-
Reverend Hillside...
MR Hillside! "Reverend" followed by surname alone is WRONG, no matter how common it has become in this barbarous age, and the "Reverend" is not required! Get it right! >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
MR Hillside! "Reverend" followed by surname alone is WRONG, no matter how common it has become in this barbarous age, and the "Reverend" is not required! Get it right! >:( >:( >:( >:(
Wot? Even for ministers of hard arsed atheism?
-
Wot? Even for ministers of hard arsed atheism?
Even for ministers of lard-arsed aleprechaunism.
-
Your argument at present comes across as until something has a methodology it cannot be.
Nope, as I said in #654 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg812113#msg812113) "I do not deny that there might be a whole host of truths about reality that are non-physical and cannot be supported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, I just see no way to tell if there are or not because I know of no way to test claims about them."
methodological moral realism to me sounds most promising to satisfy those for whom method is evidence and somewhere along the line examination into one’s own morally realistic standing.
First you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as "moral realism" and find an objective way of dealing with it. If you can manage that, you could solve all the world's moral dilemmas in one fell swoop, so the very best of luck with that...
-
Nope, as I said in #654 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17682.msg812113#msg812113) "I do not deny that there might be a whole host of truths about reality that are non-physical and cannot be supported by empirical evidence or logical reasoning, I just see no way to tell if there are or not because I know of no way to test claims about them."
First you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as "moral realism" and find an objective way of dealing with it. If you can manage that, you could solve all the world's moral dilemmas in one fell swoop, so the very best of luck with that...
I think on those rare occasions when we face an actual moral dilemma and we have to choose between self interest we have found moral realism or it has found us.
The time to worry about not meeting moral dilemma is when you have either blunted your conscience or are dodging it.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Nobody is suggesting replacing methodological empiricism.
And no-one said that you were. Your problem though remains that, if you think methodological empiricism can’t investigate you claims about a supposed non-material, then you need to find some other method that can – which is when you always run away.
That is the type of straw man you stinkingly, putridly and Essexly accuse others of.
No, the only straw man here is the one you just attempted. Stop lying.
However what turns your statement into philosophical empiricism is the sanctimonious suggestion that it is only empiricism that makes sense of the world thus trying to establish empiricism as a status quo and default whereas you have argued that it is not the default position. A-empiricism being the default.
More gibberish. What’s odd about this is that you’ve had your misunderstanding/lying about empiricism shown to you before now repeatedly and at some length, then you fail to engage with the arguments that undo you, then a bit later you return with exactly the same misunderstanding/lying about empiricism. What’s the point in schooling you when you behave this way?
Yet again…
…philosophical materialism (which is presumably what you mean by "philosophical empiricism") does not make the claim that all that exists must ultimately be physical. It may be that all that exists is ultimately physical, but that’s not a claim that philosophical materialism makes. What you’re thinking of is called physicalism – which does posit that all that exists is ultimately physical. This seems to me to be unknowable however, and is not a position anyone I know of takes.
Still with me? Good. What philosophical materialism actually says is that, so far at least, materialism is the only position that can be shown reliably and predictably to derive from first principles explanatory models that are coherent and logically robust. Methodological materialism on the other hand is the practical application of philosophical materialism to produce real world outcomes that are generally accepted as “true” - like medicines and parachutes. It’s a bottom up approach, not one that makes larger statements about ultimate reality.
Your repeated lie is to pretend that philosophical materialism is actually physicalism, and then to complain irrelevantly that physicalism is unknowable even though no-one here argues for it.
Your repeated cheat on the other hand is conveniently to ignore the problem that your claims of the non-material have absolutely no method of any kind to distinguish them from just guessing about stuff. Even if you weren’t lying about materialism and managed to reduce it to just guessing too, all that would give you would be two positions of just guessing.
Empiricism like atheism as far as you are concerned remains a “true for you” position.
And for people who value rationality above irrationality, who take medicines, who fly on aeroplanes, who have MRI scans, who take the stairs other than jump out of the window, who...
So now your repetition of your previous fuckwittery has been shown to you, what’s your plan? For the first time ever to try to address the problem honestly and openly, or to ignore it/lie about it/throw insult at it as is your standard MO while you beat a hasty retreat, ready to try exactly the same fuckwittery further down the line?
Hmmm…I wonder….
-
I think on those rare occasions when we face an actual moral dilemma and we have to choose between self interest we have found moral realism or it has found us.
The time to worry about not meeting moral dilemma is when you have either blunted your conscience or are dodging it.
No, moral dilemmas are not always about self-interest at all. Quite apart from the obvious differences over things like abortion, homosexuality, the age of consent or of criminal responsibility, euthanasia, and so on, there are complex situations, for example, is it ethical to kill one person in order to save five others. Depending on how you frame the question and exactly how personal you make the act of "killing" the one person, you tend to get very different answers. See, for example: Trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem).
Compare:
"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?"
To:
"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"
Things can get even more complicated when we talk about the most moral way to organise a society, crime, punishment/rehabilitation, attitude towards drugs, and so on. If we think of the idea of maximising some idea of human "well being" (and what's the objective reason why that should be 'moral' - and should it include non-human animals as well?) and we could objectively define that, then how do you aggregate it across society. If you take a simple average, it might lead to the maximum average would mean a small proportion of society being enslaved, for example.
And, to the extent that there is agreement on any of these complex issues, you'd then have to show that it was not simply due to the fact that humans are social animals and the commonality can't be put down to biological and cultural evolution.
Unless you have an objective methodology that can lead us to moral answers, even if there is some sort of "moral realism", there might as well not be because we can't access it in an objective way.
-
No, moral dilemmas are not always about self-interest at all. Quite apart from the obvious differences over things like abortion, homosexuality, the age of consent or of criminal responsibility, euthanasia, and so on, there are complex situations, for example, is it ethical to kill one person in order to save five others. Depending on how you frame the question and exactly how personal you make the act of "killing" the one person, you tend to get very different answers. See, for example: Trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem).
Compare:
"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?"
To:
"As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"
Things can get even more complicated when we talk about the most moral way to organise a society, crime, punishment/rehabilitation, attitude towards drugs, and so on. If we think of the idea of maximising some idea of human "well being" (and what's the objective reason why that should be 'moral' - and should it include non-human animals as well?) and we could objectively define that, then how do you aggregate it across society. If you take a simple average, it might lead to the maximum average would mean a small proportion of society being enslaved, for example.
And, to the extent that there is agreement on any of these complex issues, you'd then have to show that it was not simply due to the fact that humans are social animals and the commonality can't be put down to biological and cultural evolution.
Unless you have an objective methodology that can lead us to moral answers, even if there is some sort of "moral realism", there might as well not be because we can't access it in an objective way.
I'm sorry but you seem , by making moral dilemmas merely intellectual arguments based on reason and empiricism , to have stepped back from moral reality and indeed moral reasoning.
I'm sorry but intelligence and articulate does not equal morality.
Back I'm afraid into self interest or political and cultural hegemony for the fulfilled in society and Id satisfaction for the inarticulate.
How the hell is human well being to be calculated?
It seems to me by a narrow oligarchy. Harris,Pinker, the swedish number crunchers?
Focus on social morality by a few seems not to fulfil the conditions for moral involvement
IMHO.
-
Stop that pigeon!
I'm sorry but you seem , by making moral dilemmas merely intellectual arguments based on reason and empiricism , to have stepped back from moral reality and indeed moral reasoning.
I'm sorry but intelligence and articulate does not equal morality.
Back I'm afraid into self interest or political and cultural hegemony for the fulfilled in society and Id satisfaction for the inarticulate.
How the hell is human well being to be calculated?
It seems to me by a narrow oligarchy. Harris,Pinker, the swedish number crunchers?
Focus on social morality by a few seems not to fulfil the conditions for moral involvement
IMHO.
Evasive gibberish. If you seriously think there's objective morality:
1. Demonstrate it
2. Explain how we'd identify it
-
Stop that pigeon!
Evasive gibberish. If you seriously think there's objective morality:
1. Demonstrate it
2. Explain how we'd identify it
I think its meaningless until one is personally engaged and finds ones own moral pulse. Short of that one merely spectators as a moral neutral. I dont think examining the morality of others counts as the detection of moral realism.
-
Stop that Pigeon!
I think its meaningless until one is personally engaged and finds ones own moral pulse. Short of that one merely spectators as a moral neutral. I dont think examining the morality of others counts as the detection of moral realism.
"Ones own moral pulse" (sic) is subjective, the antithesis a supposedly objective morality. Try again.
If you seriously think there's objective morality:
1. Demonstrate it
2. Explain how we'd identify it
-
I'm sorry but you seem , by making moral dilemmas merely intellectual arguments based on reason and empiricism , to have stepped back from moral reality and indeed moral reasoning.
I'm sorry but intelligence and articulate does not equal morality.
Back I'm afraid into self interest or political and cultural hegemony for the fulfilled in society and Id satisfaction for the inarticulate.
How the hell is human well being to be calculated?
It seems to me by a narrow oligarchy. Harris,Pinker, the swedish number crunchers?
Focus on social morality by a few seems not to fulfil the conditions for moral involvement
IMHO.
Gibberish.
The fact remains that if you are going to claim that morality is somehow objective, then you need an objective methodology of some kind that can resolve the obvious and glaring different stances people have on moral issues.
If you haven't got such a methodology, that doesn't mean that there definitely isn't "moral reality" but it does mean that we have no way to tell if there is or not, or what it is, if it exists.
Back to the burden of proof - if you claim there is a "moral reality", it's up to you to provide the reasoning.
-
Gibberish.
The fact remains that if you are going to claim that morality is somehow objective, then you need an objective methodology of some kind that can resolve the obvious and glaring different stances people have on moral issues.
If you haven't got such a methodology, that doesn't mean that there definitely isn't "moral reality" but it does mean that we have no way to tell if there is or not, or what it is, if it exists.
Back to the burden of proof - if you claim there is a "moral reality", it's up to you to provide the reasoning.
If morality is irreal and you are an irrealist then we are entitled to think that you are play acting when it comes to morality.
The atheist shit juggernaut has tried to pass the following of as morality.
Political and cultural hegemony, behaviour, reason, science.
These are not morality.
Luckily when faced with true moral dilemma which requires a moral solution your Huff about is it objective, can I demonstrate it scientifically is soon forgotten.....and probably a good job to.
Morality is nearer to maths than taste I would move. It is a domain in which we seek sense and solutions.
-
If morality is irreal and you are an irrealist then we are entitled to think that you are play acting when it comes to morality.
The atheist shit juggernaut has tried to pass the following of as morality.
Political and cultural hegemony, behaviour, reason, science.
These are not morality.
Luckily when faced with true moral dilemma which requires a moral solution your Huff about is it objective, can I demonstrate it scientifically is soon forgotten.....and probably a good job to.
None of this hand-waving, gibberish, and bluster actually addresses the point I made. Why am I not surprised?
Morality is nearer to maths than taste I would move. It is a domain in which we seek sense and solutions.
Is this a joke?
-
Stop that Pigeon!
Stop that Former Azure Slope! It's getting increasingly tiresome.
-
Pidge,
If morality is irreal and you are an irrealist then we are entitled to think that you are play acting when it comes to morality.
Bullshit. Are you “play acting” when you find some art or music to be better than other art or music? Why not?
The atheist shit juggernaut has tried to pass the following of as morality.
Ad hom.
Political and cultural hegemony, behaviour, reason, science.
These are not morality.
Straw man.
Luckily when faced with true moral dilemma which requires a moral solution your Huff about is it objective, can I demonstrate it scientifically is soon forgotten.....and probably a good job to.
Gibberish.
Morality is nearer to maths than taste I would move. It is a domain in which we seek sense and solutions.
You can “seek” whatever you like – that tells you nothing though about whether there’s an objective, “out there” morality to be found.
Again…
…if you seriously think there's objective morality:
1. Demonstrate it
2. Explain how we'd identify it
Why keep ducking and diving about this?
-
Response to #680
Why does a man in a swamp keep struggling when he knows it is going to bring about his death even faster than staying still?
-
Stop that Former Azure Slope! It's getting increasingly tiresome.
+1
Every time I see it, the theme tune (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6-LG5VpGk) to Dastardly and Muttley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastardly_and_Muttley_in_Their_Flying_Machines) gets planted in my head.
-
jeremy,
+1
Every time I see it, the theme tune to Dastardly and Muttley gets planted in my head.
Yes I know - that was the reference I was making!
-
+1
Every time I see it, the theme tune (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6-LG5VpGk) to Dastardly and Muttley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastardly_and_Muttley_in_Their_Flying_Machines) gets planted in my head.
I’m a bit disappointed that it’s that and not “why is BlueHillside always starting with an ad hominem”.
-
jeremy,
Yes I know - that was the reference I was making!
If I’m the pigeon does that make you Thick Bastardly.
Damn this predictive text.
-
I’m a bit disappointed that it’s that and not “why is BlueHillside always starting with an ad hominem”.
Is it an ad hominem if it is a truthful characterisation?
-
Pidge,
I’m a bit disappointed that it’s that and not “why is BlueHillside always starting with an ad hominem”.
That would be because he knows what the term means whereas you, clearly, do not.
-
Is it an ad hominem if it is a truthful characterisation?
I don’t think that matters.
-
Pidge,
I don’t think that matters.
Then, as with so much else, you think wrongly. Try looking it up.
-
Pidge,
That would be because he knows what the term means whereas you, clearly, do not.
I think your wrong there Thick.......Damn this predictive text.
-
Pidge,
Then, as with so much else, you think wrongly. Try looking it up.
Look up yourself you silly man.
-
Pidge,
Look up yourself you silly man.
I don't need to - but you do.
-
Pidge,
I don't need to - but you do.
Let’s not forget poisoning the well either, Thick..........Damn this predictive text.
-
Pidge,
Let’s not forget poisoning the well either, Thick..........Damn this predictive text.
Your ignorance is showing again. As you can’t be arsed to look it up for yourself, I’ll do it for you:
The ad hom is a fallacy of (ir)relevance. If you say, “it’s my contention that the sun is 93 million miles away” and I reply, “but you’re fat” that’s an ad hom. That’s because my reply does not follow from your contention – it’s a non sequitur (another term you don't understand).
On the other hand, if the person’s behaviour is relevant to the attempted discourse – your propensity for playing pigeon chess, your frequent lying etc come to mind here especially – then referring to these behaviours isn’t an ad hom at all. Why? Because it's relevant.
Here’s a link to get you started:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
And here’s the relevant extract from it:
“Not ad hom[edit]
There is common confusion about what is, and what isn't, ad hominem — that is, what does and does not employ fallacious reasoning. Generally, ad hominem does not mean "crass insult".
When debating about a person[edit]
As ad hominem arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (non sequitur)-if the argument and the person's character are related then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person's ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones, is relevant.”
Long ago and far away I cautioned you against attempting words and terns you clearly don’t understand, of which there are very many ("philosophical materialism" etc).
Perhaps you should have listened.
-
Pidge,
Your ignorance is showing again. As you can’t be arsed to look it up for yourself, I’ll do it for you:
The ad hom is a fallacy of (ir)relevance. If you say, “it’s my contention that the sun is 93 million miles away” and I reply, “but you’re fat” that’s an ad hom. That’s because my reply does not follow from your contention – it’s a non sequitur (another term you don't understand).
On the other hand, if the person’s behaviour is relevant to the attempted discourse – your propensity for playing pigeon chess, your frequent lying etc come to mind here especially – then referring to these behaviours isn’t an ad hom at all. Why? Because it's relevant.
Here’s a link to get you started:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
And here’s the relevant extract from it:
“Not ad hom[edit]
There is common confusion about what is, and what isn't, ad hominem — that is, what does and does not employ fallacious reasoning. Generally, ad hominem does not mean "crass insult".
When debating about a person[edit]
As ad hominem arguments are only fallacious if they do not follow (non sequitur)-if the argument and the person's character are related then there may not be a fallacy. In particular, a criticism is not an ad hominem argument if a person's merits are actually the topic of the argument. If the subject of the debate is the inherent trustworthiness of someone, or what prior probability you would assign to them telling the truth, then their previous track record is relevant to the subject. If debating a person's ability to do a task, then their effectiveness at that task or suitably similar ones, is relevant.”
Long ago and far away I cautioned you against attempting words and terns you clearly don’t understand, of which there are very many.
Perhaps you should have listened.
I’m sorry Hillside, I’m afraid that starting off by suggesting somebody is incapable of anything more intelligent than a pigeon is irrelevant to any argument being made. What you are saying in effect is this person is stupid and on that we must judge the argument. Therefore ad hominem. The statement is irrelevant but pretends to relevance
Secondly. It is poisoning the well...... I suggest you get your coat, knitted balaclava and Mittens tied together with elastic and make like a tree.
-
Pidge,
I’m sorry Hillside, I’m afraid that starting off by suggesting somebody is incapable of anything more intelligent than a pigeon is irrelevant to any argument being made.
Another straw man. The soubriquet is a reference to you playing pigeon chess, not to your stupidity:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
What you are saying in effect is this person is stupid and on that we must judge the argument.
Not stupid, dishonest.
Therefore ad hominem.
Therefore not.
The statement is irrelevant but pretends to relevance
It’s relevant because it describes one of your behaviours here, which then pollutes any attempt at discourse.
Secondly.
Your firstly just collapsed – there is no “secondly”.
It is poisoning the well......
It’s no such thing. Stop lying.
If I try to sell my services to you as, say, a plasterer and, based on your knowledge of all my lousy efforts hitherto at plastering your walls, you say “but you’re shit at plastering” have you "poisoned the well"?
No? Why not?
That’s right – because you’ve made a criticism that's a) true, and b) relevant.
I suggest you get your coat, knitted balaclava and Mittens tied together with elastic and make like a tree.
And I suggest you stop being so dishonest. A simple apology would be a good place to start - try using the first three words of your last post and go from there...
...actually, on reflection, maybe just stop there too.
-
Is anyone else getting the smell of........wait a minute........urine?........burning?........charred ammonia?..........no wait.....it’s Hillsides pissed-on bonfire.
-
Pidge,
Is anyone else getting the smell of........wait a minute........urine?........burning?........charred ammonia?..........no wait.....it’s Hillsides pissed-on bonfire.
More lying doesn't help you. Try instead actually addressing your mistake...
...and when you've done that, try addressing the countless others you made before the last one - you know, like those people who have been found guilty of a crime and then ask for another 939 offences to be taken into account. Just think how much better you'd feel if you did that, what with the burden of all that lying you've been doing for years finally lifted from your shoulders...
-
Pidge,
More lying doesn't help you. Try instead actually addressing your mistake...
...and when you've done that, try addressing the countless others you made before the last one - you know, like those people who have been found guilty of a crime and then ask for another 939 offences to be taken into account. Just think how much better you'd feel if you did that, what with the burden of all that lying you've been doing for years finally lifted from your shoulders...
I’m thinking Hillside you must uniquely for this board ad hominem and poison the well in this way. And since there is a lot of exemplar material on this forum......the very post I am quoting from for instance......it was perhaps predictable that you would project your manifold use of two fallacies back on to me when it was pointed out.
-
Pidge,
I’m thinking Hillside you must uniquely for this board ad hominem and poison the well in this way. And since there is a lot of exemplar material on this forum......the very post I am quoting from for instance......it was perhaps predictable that you would project your manifold use of two fallacies back on to me when it was pointed out.
I just told you that more lying wouldn’t get you out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself. Why didn’t you take that advice?
So anyway, after that odd little detour into your latest failure of understanding when do you propose to demonstrate this supposed objective morality of yours, and to explain how anyone would identify such a thing even if it did exist? Or will this be yet another trigger for you to run away scattering even more lies, straw men and gratuitous insults behind you while you make good your escape?
-
I’m sorry Hillside, I’m afraid that starting off by suggesting somebody is incapable of anything more intelligent than a pigeon is irrelevant to any argument being made. What you are saying in effect is this person is stupid and on that we must judge the argument. Therefore ad hominem. The statement is irrelevant but pretends to relevance
Incorrect. It is an insult not an ad hominem.
-
jeremy,
Incorrect. It is an insult not an ad hominem.
Not even that actually - it concerns his dishonesty, not his stupidity.