-
I decided that arguing over the details of atheist denominations wasn’t quite my thing but prior to withdrawal I did some research into strong atheism and to revisit disproofs of Gods of the strong atheists. I alighted on the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy and reading the article on Atheism found myself commenting internally on what it had to say and thought this would be more useful than the Gish galloping, mobbing of the ‘’debate’’ on what is atheism on the searching for God thread.
I will be concentrating on commenting on the article saying what I think is wrong with it rather than commenting on peoples posts so misrepresentation or plausible deniability won’t rear their ugly head.
Here is the link to the original article
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH3a
There is the introduction with a brief definition of the term atheist. It then speculates a large number of atheists in the world and then a list of things which make polling hard…..
The article goes on to say that atheists mostly have considered the most reasonable conclusions are obtained by evidence to which I would add mostly empirical evidence.
I wondered therefore about the actual competence of atheism (as a state some are in )to handle any evidence that isn’t empirical despite demands for ‘’any evidence at all’’
Crucially for the atheist ‘’the evidence for the existence of God is too weak or that the arguments for God not existing are more compelling.’’
The article then lists the categories of the arguments :
ontological,
teleological,
cosmological,
miracles,
prudential
Interestingly The Cosmological argument is not linked to anywhere in the encyclopedia could this be because of the lack of interest by atheists? Certainly the atheists on this forum seemed only, until recently, to have a vague understanding of the kalam cosmological theory and the cosmological theory as mediated through Dawkins and when Degrasse Tyson announce the simulated universe theory, I think he and others were surprised when told of the similarities between his theory and centuries old theology. Also missing of course, and a glaring omission at that, is the moral argument
We are then told
there are atheist disproofs involving conceptual problems with several properties that are essential to any being worthy of the title “God.”
This I found most interesting. Atheists presenting the qualifications for the worthiness of God. I find this laughable and intriguing at the same time ‘’I’ll tell you when you can call yourself God, sonny, and not before.’’
Inductive arguments are listed
God’s non-existence is analogous to the non-existence of Santa Claus.(horses laugh argument)
The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing, all good being.(Is that actually an atheist argument as well as having the problem of defining good?)
Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the God hypothesis an unlikely explanation.( scientism?)
Widespread non-belief (argumentum ad populum)
the lack of compelling evidence show that a God who seeks belief in humans does not exist.
Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and (Naturalism)only physical entities and causes exist,(Physicalism)Here’s the fascinating quote.
(These) have also led many to the atheism conclusion.
I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing by some but try using the number of believers as evidence for God.
-
I decided that arguing over the details of atheist denominations wasn’t quite my thing but prior to withdrawal...
Given your dismal performance, probably running away was your best option. ::)
I did some research into strong atheism...
Why? Nobody here is advocating strong atheism. I guess if you want to waste your time, that's up to you. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
The rest is necessarily one giant straw man for the above reason. I note, however, that you're still telling blatant lies about people here and others. You just can't help yourself, can you?
Certainly the atheists on this forum seemed only, until recently, to have a vague understanding of the kalam cosmological theory...
Two big fat whoppers here: it's not a theory, it's car crash of an attempt at a deduction, and the idea that people here had no more than a "vague understanding" until recently, is absurd.
...Tyson announce the simulated universe theory, I think he and others were surprised when told of the similarities between his theory and centuries old theology.
Surprised? Surprised that somebody could be so mindlessly stupid as to think it was anything remotely like theism.
If you want to do a pointless exercise in demolishing the straw man of strong atheism and attacking arguments that people have never made here*, then go right ahead, but if you think you can sit on this thread and not have your blatant lies called out, then think again.
* Prize example: "I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing..." Vlad playing with straw!
-
Given your dismal performance, probably running away was your best option. ::)
Why? Nobody here is advocating strong atheism. I guess if you want to waste your time, that's up to you. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
The rest is necessarily one giant straw man for the above reason. I note, however, that you're still telling blatant lies about people here and others. You just can't help yourself, can you?
Two big fat whoppers here: it's not a theory, it's car crash of an attempt at a deduction, and the idea that people here had no more than a "vague understanding" until recently, is absurd.
Surprised? Surprised that somebody could be so mindlessly stupid as to think it was anything remotely like theism.
If you want to do a pointless exercise in demolishing the straw man of strong atheism and attacking arguments that people have never made here*, then go right ahead, but if you think you can sit on this thread and not have your blatant lies called out, then think again.
* Prize example: "I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing..." Vlad playing with straw!
Sorry but it looks like the article wasn't aware there are no strong atheists on the religionethics message board.
If you think I have got an argument wrong please feel free to state what you see as the proper version.
-
Sorry but it looks like the article wasn't aware there are no strong atheists on the religionethics message board.
So why raise their arguments here? Apart from to sneak in some lies about what people here (that we didn't understand Kalam until recently, for example), that is.
If you think I have got an argument wrong please feel free to state what you see as the proper version.
If you want to do some pointless intellectual masturbation and just stick to demolishing arguments that nobody here has made, go right ahead, just leave out your own lies and unjustified speculations about other atheist thinkers and people here.
-
So why raise their arguments here? Apart from to sneak in some lies about what people here (that we didn't understand Kalam until recently, for example), that is.
If you want to do some pointless intellectual masturbation and just stick to demolishing arguments that nobody here has made, go right ahead, just leave out your own lies and unjustified speculations about other atheist thinkers and people here.
I would say that the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall. It is possible that some were aware of the Kalam and just didn't bring it up.
The IEP article gets to soft atheists, Lack of belief atheists and atheists by default in due course so don't feel your being left out
Thanks for dropping in.
-
I would say that the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall.
No idea what you even mean. What Dawkins argument?
It is possible that some were aware of the Kalam and just didn't bring it up.
Kalam was extensively discussed here when Alien/Alan brought it up ages ago. Why would you expect atheists to bring up a crap argument for God, anyway? And, of course, it was even more extensively discussed elsewhere.
-
Vlad,
The article goes on to say that atheists mostly have considered the most reasonable conclusions are obtained by evidence to which I would add mostly empirical evidence.
What other type of evidence do you think there is?
How would you know that it was evidence at all?
How could non-empirical “evidence” (whatever it might be) be examined, tested and verified?
Good luck with it.
-
I decided that arguing over the details of atheist denominations wasn’t quite my thing but prior to withdrawal I did some research into strong atheism and to revisit disproofs of Gods of the strong atheists. I alighted on the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy and reading the article on Atheism found myself commenting internally on what it had to say and thought this would be more useful than the Gish galloping, mobbing of the ‘’debate’’ on what is atheism on the searching for God thread.
I will be concentrating on commenting on the article saying what I think is wrong with it rather than commenting on peoples posts so misrepresentation or plausible deniability won’t rear their ugly head.
Here is the link to the original article
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH3a
There is the introduction with a brief definition of the term atheist.
As far as citable authorities go, its choice of definition of 'atheist' isn't a great start, is it, given what we've covered here and we're just enthusiastic amateurs.
I wondered therefore about the actual competence of atheism (as a state some are in )to handle any evidence that isn’t empirical despite demands for ‘’any evidence at all’’
The article doesn't even seem to imply a basis for this 'demand', but as you appear to agree that it's somehow a limitation - given the lack of any alternative methodology being suggested, what are the other options? We're covering the attempts at formulating a justification from logic below, what other sorts of 'evidence' are there?
Crucially for the atheist ‘’the evidence for the existence of God is too weak or that the arguments for God not existing are more compelling.’’
It's not that the arguments for gods not existing are more compelling, it's the arguments for a gods aren't sufficient to warrant a rebuttal.
The article then lists the categories of the arguments :
ontological,
teleological,
cosmological,
miracles,
prudential
Interestingly The Cosmological argument is not linked to anywhere in the encyclopedia could this be because of the lack of interest by atheists?
I think it's an errant Oxford comma in the list; looking at the article they seem to categorise it as a subset of the teleological argument.
Certainly the atheists on this forum seemed only, until recently, to have a vague understanding of the kalam cosmological theory and the cosmological theory as mediated through Dawkins and when Degrasse Tyson announce the simulated universe theory, I think he and others were surprised when told of the similarities between his theory and centuries old theology.
I think the majority of the discussion was around William Lane Craig's attempts to make the Cosmological Argument the new 'fetch' - it didn't happen.
Also missing of course, and a glaring omission at that, is the moral argument.
Which they're presumably considering a version of the ontological argument.
This I found most interesting. Atheists presenting the qualifications for the worthiness of God. I find this laughable and intriguing at the same time ‘’I’ll tell you when you can call yourself God, sonny, and not before.’’
I have literally no idea where in the article you're finding that interpretation.
Inductive arguments are listed
God’s non-existence is analogous to the non-existence of Santa Claus.(horses laugh argument)
And yet the reference that you cited, presumably as you feel it has some degree of authority, saw sufficient to list that out, but chooses not to give your cosmological special pleading an entry, and doesn't think the argument from morality merits a mention?
The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing, all good being.(Is that actually an atheist argument as well as having the problem of defining good?)
Theodicy appears to have its own entry, so someone thinks it merits consideration.
Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the God hypothesis an unlikely explanation.( scientism?)
They're depicted as a counter to the intelligent design argument, showing that the existence of existence isn't only explicable by the intervention of a supernatural intelligence.
Widespread non-belief (argumentum ad populum)
The equally widespread presence of various beliefs could therefore just as easily be cited as a demonstration of Islam, Christianity or Trumpism - I've not seen anyone offer this argument anywhere in favour of atheism, and damned few in favour of theism, let alone any one specific religious outlook.
the lack of compelling evidence show that a God who seeks belief in humans does not exist.
Could be in trouble if the Scots get rid of the 'Not Proven' verdict...
Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and (Naturalism)only physical entities and causes exist,(Physicalism)Here’s the fascinating quote. I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing by some but try using the number of believers as evidence for God.
Quite. Possibly why it appears so rare on either side.
Sorry but it looks like the article wasn't aware there are no strong atheists on the religionethics message board.
It's rather more of a concern that it doesn't appear to have kept up with the spread of atheistic beliefs - the so called 'negative' atheists are considered as an anomoly in the article, but in my experience represent the majority of the atheists making arguments - whether that disguises a broader swathe of 'positive' atheists who aren't talking about it is possible, but to not even address that disparity suggests that perhaps this isn't updated particularly frequently.
I would say that the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall. It is possible that some were aware of the Kalam and just didn't bring it up.
As I said above, the person I'd most associate with trying to bring the Cosmological argument to prominence has been William Lane Craig for about the last ten to fifteen years; I don't recall Professor Dawkins being particular involved with the idea, I'm sure he's addressed it at some point.
The IEP article gets to soft atheists, Lack of belief atheists and atheists by default in due course so don't feel your being left out
Which seems odd given that they're the people making the running.
O.
-
No idea what you even mean. What Dawkins argument?
Kalam was extensively discussed here when Alien/Alan brought it up ages ago. Why would you expect atheists to bring up a crap argument for God, anyway? And, of course, it was even more extensively discussed elsewhere.
Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
Dawkins omitted the argument from contingency. These omissions might be excusable in the layman, even theists would have believed this was the argument, bearing out Nearly Sane's point that few are believers because of cosmological arguments.....but not so excusable in a scientist. One suspects that if Dawkins wasn't sloppy here he wasn't prepared to advertise the argument from contingency because of it's potential persuasive power.
Dawkins further compounded his mistake by saying in non sequitur that Aquinas argument did not give an all loving God etc. It wasn't meant to and didn't need to since the God and attributes of the necessary being established by the cosmological argument in no ways constitute any form of atheism.
By now we can see that Dawkins has form for attacking arguments his opponent hasn't made. There must be a term for that.
Apparently when Dawkins specifically addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument he made the same error by adding points to the argument and then he refuted his own points!
The same or similar error is made by those who think the main properties of any simulated universe creator are not the same or similar to those of theistic creators (gods).
-
Continuing a review of the internet encyclopedia of philosophy article on atheism……..Section 1. What is Atheism?
Atheism is the view that there is no God.
Well lookie here.There have been many thinkers in history who have lacked a belief in God. Some ancient Greek philosophers, such as Epicurus, sought natural explanations for natural phenomena.
So was Epicurus an atheist because he was philosophically naturalist or vice versa. His default position is going to be Naturalism, that is going to be the ‘’status quo’’ he is insisting on. Naturalistic critiques of theism are going to involve, for the naturalist, revolving round the ability or lack of ability to demonstrate God as ‘’one more object or thing’’
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God. Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist.
so whereas the naturalism has naturalism as the default position negative atheism of the Flew variety has empiricism as the default position So negative atheism would include someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter
Ah so this is the test then a negative atheist must pass. Have you? Do you pass the test or are you a closet positive atheist? it seems to me that the negative atheist must repudiate positive atheist claims and arguments entirely and never had harboured them. We should expect therefore equal repudiation of and repentance from strong atheist arguments as well as theism. But of course where is all this repudiation and repentence? Certainly not in the pages of Religionethics.
-
Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
Dawkins omitted the argument from contingency. These omissions might be excusable in the layman, even theists would have believed this was the argument, bearing out Nearly Sane's point that few are believers because of cosmological arguments.....but not so excusable in a scientist. One suspects that if Dawkins wasn't sloppy here he wasn't prepared to advertise the argument from contingency because of it's potential persuasive power.
Dawkins further compounded his mistake by saying in non sequitur that Aquinas argument did not give an all loving God etc. It wasn't meant to and didn't need to since the God and attributes of the necessary being established by the cosmological argument in no ways constitute any form of atheism.
By now we can see that Dawkins has form for attacking arguments his opponent hasn't made. There must be a term for that.
Apparently when Dawkins specifically addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument he made the same error by adding points to the argument and then he refuted his own points!
The same or similar error is made by those who think the main properties of any simulated universe creator are not the same or similar to those of theistic creators (gods).
Just to point out I didn't say that 'few are believers because of cosmological arguments' - I said that I've never encountered any theist who believes because of any of these type of arguments, not just the cosmological one.
-
Continuing a review of the internet encyclopedia of philosophy article on atheism……..Section 1. What is Atheism? Well lookie here.
Look at that, someone else that doesn't reflect the actual position of atheists, who would have thought?
So was Epicurus an atheist because he was philosophically naturalist or vice versa.
Maybe. Or maybe he came to the positions independently, and found that they were complementary, and saw that as a validation of his thought processes.
Ah so this is the test then a negative atheist must pass. Have you?
Nobody told me there would be a test. I think it's more like a 'protected term' situation - if you want to be a 'positive atheist' you have to pass a test, like a dietician, and 'negative atheists' are more like nutritionalists.
Do you pass the test or are you a closet positive atheist?
No, and no.
it seems to me that the negative atheist must repudiate positive atheist claims and arguments entirely and never had harboured them.
You mean like agnostics of either stripe who, on encountering a claim of 'there is no god' ask on what basis that claim is being made? You mean like that?
We should expect therefore equal repudiation of and repentance from strong atheist arguments as well as theism.
If you can point one out I'll address it. I think it's hiding behind the snipe.
But of course where is all this repudiation and repentence? Certainly not in the pages of Religionethics.
To borrow a phrase from BBC football commentary, you can only play what's in front of you.
O.
-
Just to point out I didn't say that 'few are believers because of cosmological arguments' - I said that I've never encountered any theist who believes because of any of these type of arguments, not just the cosmological one.
Many thanks for pointing that out and apologies for mistaking your experience for your views here.
-
Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
Dawkins omitted the argument from contingency. These omissions might be excusable in the layman, even theists would have believed this was the argument, bearing out Nearly Sane's point that few are believers because of cosmological arguments.....but not so excusable in a scientist. One suspects that if Dawkins wasn't sloppy here he wasn't prepared to advertise the argument from contingency because of it's potential persuasive power.
Dawkins further compounded his mistake by saying in non sequitur that Aquinas argument did not give an all loving God etc. It wasn't meant to and didn't need to since the God and attributes of the necessary being established by the cosmological argument in no ways constitute any form of atheism.
By now we can see that Dawkins has form for attacking arguments his opponent hasn't made. There must be a term for that.
Apparently when Dawkins specifically addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument he made the same error by adding points to the argument and then he refuted his own points!
Reference...? Actual quotes from the book? Excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.
It's been a long time since I read it, I don't recall these things but that doesn't mean that he didn't make those mistakes. The fact is that I really can't be arsed to search through it to check for myself, especially as I have a paper copy not a searchable e-book. It's up to you to provide supporting evidence if you can be bothered.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter anyway. It doesn't support your contention that "...the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall."
This appears to be just part of your fantasy that all atheists follow Dawkins' ideas as if they were theists following a holy book. It just isn't like that. I didn't think much of The God Delusion at the time, and said so. Dawkins is excellent when he's explaining evolution but he's often not so impressive in the atheist-theist debates.
The same or similar error is made by those who think the main properties of any simulated universe creator are not the same or similar to those of theistic creators (gods).
(https://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lol.gif)
You try to tell us about philosophy and you don't even get the basic logic of necessity and sufficiency. Hilarious!
-
Continuing a review of the internet encyclopedia of philosophy article on atheism……..Section 1. What is Atheism?
Other definitions are available as, they say. This is one reason why philosophy is often useless. Ask three philosophers to define something and you may well get four or five answers. People believe what they believe, not what one website says. Agnostic atheism is a widely held position that is well documented. I think I've only encountered one strong atheist on line and he's a Hindu too.
Ah so this is the test then a negative atheist must pass. Have you?
What test?
it seems to me that the negative atheist must repudiate positive atheist claims and arguments entirely and never had harboured them.
I don't think I've ever seen an argument for positive atheism in the general sense. How would you even go about arguing that every possible concept of god was false?
-
Vlad,
All comments and questions here relate to your post 9
1) Well lookie here. The same encyclopedia says this:
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.
which is much closer to my own view that I have no belief in any god whilst not ruling out the possibility of the existence of god rather than the assertive
Atheism is the view that there is no God.
2) You said:
so whereas the naturalism has naturalism as the default position negative atheism of the Flew variety has empiricism as the default position
I can't find any reference in this article to Flew's position of negative atheism having empiricism as the default position. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
3)You quoted the encycopedia as saying:
So negative atheism would include someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter
and then suggested it is a test that negative atheists must pass. Cherry picking at its worst. Here is the full quote:
So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle.
I am probably much closer to the second alternative. As to the idea of some sort of spurious test, get lost!
If someone was to start asserting positive statements from the standpoint of a strong atheist, then they would be falling into the same silly trap that Alan falls into with his own baseless assertions. Perhaps you could point out one or more on these pages so that I might challenge it as I have done with Alan's monotonous assertive dirges?
-
...
You try to tell us about philosophy and you don't even get the basic logic of necessity and sufficiency. Hilarious!
Vlad, just to follow on from this point of Stranger's, could you outline what you see as the necessary, and the sufficient conditions for something being regarded by you as a 'god'?
-
Reference...? Actual quotes from the book? Excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.
Source: p 100-101, The God Delusion, By Richard Dawkins
There is an itemised version here
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17683/what-does-dawkins-suggest-is-the-main-flaw-in-these-three-arguments-from-aquinas
You will see Dawkins omits the argument from contingency because it works against his conclusion that Aquinas merely wants to demonstrate a temporal terminator of a heirarchy of dependence in time. The argument is not dependent on time but proposes two modes of being the necessary following logically from heirarchies of dependency. Dawkins omits this and comes out with a simplistic and incorrect view of Aquinas, an ignorance that was common amongst laypeople and non philosophically oriented academics IMHO. The jury I think is out whether Dawkins did it deliberately but many atheists and theists have passed a guilty verdict on Dawkins for his argument here
You try to tell us about philosophy and you don't even get the basic logic of necessity and sufficiency. Hilarious!
Theological philosophy of couyrse merely sets out to demonstrate God as the sufficient reason for what people would term ''the natural universe'' and I would go further to say that they are also not so hung up about the philosophical ''God of the omnis''.
Having said that the argument from contingency does give rise to a singular entity necessary for the natural universe and nature. There must also be a reason for why there is something rather than nothing and this must necessarilyhave permanently existed since nothing comes from nothing. It did not emerge It did not and has not failed to exist since the universe is here. And that all provides sufficient reason for the universe.
The only reason to think God is not necessary then is God himself who is the only one who could switch himself off.
I don't see how that helps atheism in anyway.
-
There must also be a reason for why there is something rather than nothing
No.
and this must necessarilyhave permanently existed since nothing comes from nothing.
No.
It did not emerge It did not and has not failed to exist since the universe is here.
No.
And that all provides sufficient reason for the universe.
Therefore, no.
The only reason to think God is not necessary then is God himself who is the only one who could switch himself off.
Begging the question, much?
O.
-
Vlad, just to follow on from this point of Stranger's, could you outline what you see as the necessary, and the sufficient conditions for something being regarded by you as a 'god'?
What I see as the necessary is that singular entity on which all heirarchies of dependence are based. I'm not so hung up on whether that entity could have failed to exist, it didn't, it has always existed since nothing can come from nothing and thence the only reason for it failing to exist would be through it's own volition.
What is necessary to be regarded as a God by me.
Something which created the Universe of it's own volition and was entirely independent (for it's own existence) from it's creation.
-
Continuing a look at the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy entry on Atheism
Single Property Disproofs
Deductive disproofs have typically focused on logical inconsistencies to be found either within a single property or between multiple properties. Philosophers have struggled to work out the details of what it would be to be omnipotent, for instance. It has come to be widely accepted that a being cannot be omnipotent where omnipotence simply means to power to do anything including the logically impossible. This definition of the term suffers from the stone paradox. An omnipotent being would either be capable of creating a rock that he cannot lift, or he is incapable. If he is incapable, then there is something he cannot do, and therefore he does not have the power to do anything. If he can create such a rock, then again there is something that he cannot do, namely lift the rock he just created. So paradoxically, having the ability to do anything would appear to entail being unable to do some things. As a result, many theists and atheists have agreed that a being could not have that property.
I think that’s fair, that most atheists do not expect God to do impossible things….I wonder about(some) theists on this, It has also been argued that omniscience is impossible, and that the most knowledge that can possibly be had is not enough to be fitting of God. One of the central problems has been that God cannot have knowledge of indexical claims such as, “I am here now.” It has also been argued that God cannot know future free choices, or God cannot know future contingent propositions, or that Cantor’s and Gödel proofs imply that the notion of a set of all truths cannot be made coherent.).
The logical coherence of eternality, personhood, moral perfection, causal agency, and many others have been challenged in the deductive atheology literature.
I think this adds up to the God of the omnis which makes me wonder whether the Hebrew ‘’All powerful’’ is the absolute equivalent of the Greek Philosophical ‘’Omnipotent’’ whether the philosophically platonic moral perfection is the absolute equivalent of the term Holy.
Quotes from the IEP entry on Atheism.
-
Source: p 100-101, The God Delusion, By Richard Dawkins
Doesn't correspond to my edition.
There is an itemised version here
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17683/what-does-dawkins-suggest-is-the-main-flaw-in-these-three-arguments-from-aquinas
You will see Dawkins omits the argument from contingency because it works against his conclusion that Aquinas merely wants to demonstrate a temporal terminator of a heirarchy of dependence in time.
Taking this source at face value, again, I don't see why it matters. It's not a brilliant book and I don't think he was even trying to be compressive. As I said before: it doesn't support your contention that "...the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall."
Theological philosophy of couyrse merely sets out to demonstrate God as the sufficient reason for what people would term ''the natural universe''...
(https://media.tenor.com/images/263713fe77bb126ad55dc8408e262cf2/tenor.gif)
Not the subject at all. I was referring to the absurdity of equating a simulated universe to theism and your apparent inability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions to be classed as a god or gods.
Having said that the argument from contingency does give rise to a singular entity necessary for the natural universe and nature.
The argument is a crock of shit, for reasons that have been explained to you. It gives rise to nothing but hilarity.
There must also be a reason for why there is something rather than nothing and this must necessarilyhave permanently existed since nothing comes from nothing.
Now who's using temporal thinking? The space-time itself doesn't 'come from nothing' and yet may well be finite in the past.
-
Continuing a look at the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy entry on Atheism
Single Property Disproofs
Why is this relevant since nobody here is trying to disprove god in any general sense? It's a bit like me posting something on here against young earth creationism when nobody is arguing for it.
-
Something which created the Universe of it's own volition and was entirely independent (for it's own existence) from it's creation.
Created it from what?
-
What I see as the necessary is that singular entity on which all heirarchies of dependence are based. I'm not so hung up on whether that entity could have failed to exist, it didn't, it has always existed since nothing can come from nothing and thence the only reason for it failing to exist would be through it's own volition.
What is necessary to be regarded as a God by me.
Something which created the Universe of it's own volition and was entirely independent (for it's own existence) from it's creation.
Your first paragraph contradicts the third. And what about all the gods that don't create the universe? Plenty to choose from: Godchecker (https://www.godchecker.com/).
-
Created it from what?
In theism and deism there are two lines of argument.
Well there are two types of creators or causers in philosophy primary and secondary
Firstly there are people like Plato and some christian theologians which have God as a kind of sculptor who shapes and directs some fundamental pre existent energy which would otherwise be completely uniform and inert, needing division and dynamism to distinguish it from the non existent which would actually be nothing while pre existent matter would just be busy doing nothing. God here would be a secondary creator.
All that of course doesn't sit well with the alternative type of creator the primary creator, powerful enough to bring matter into existence. Here existence is owed to the will and power of God since there is nothing, except non existence, outside of God.
So things exist because God exists.
I suppose the question remains as to how God pulls this off and this is where simulated universe thinking can help us out.
Here the universe is created in the universe of the simulator or universe of the 'creator' but it's empirical reality it's physical nature emerges out of that ''other'' universe while being totally dependent on it
In the ''universes'' we simulate today the processes that define those ''universes'' emerge on screens refreshed at 50Hz per second. The processes in the simulated universe emerge in an independent time dependent on the programming.
What might a universe existing but whose existence is constantly refreshed look like? Perhaps at a fundamental quantum level, virtual particles coming into then popping out of existence, with the bigger perspective maintained.
-
Doesn't correspond to my edition.
That isn't my problem
Taking this source at face value, again, I don't see why it matters. It's not a brilliant book and I don't think he was even trying to be compressive. As I said before: it doesn't support your contention that "...the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall."
(https://media.tenor.com/images/263713fe77bb126ad55dc8408e262cf2/tenor.gif)
Not the subject at all. I was referring to the absurdity of equating a simulated universe to theism and your apparent inability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions to be classed as a god or gods.
As far as I can recall we never found out from you how claiming that, in the case of this being a simulated universe, ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'', is reasonable but the theistic suggestion that ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'' is not exactly the same.
-
Your first paragraph contradicts the third. And what about all the gods that don't create the universe? Plenty to choose from: Godchecker (https://www.godchecker.com/).
I don't see how it contradicts the third since the God as described in Paragraph I could easily fit into the category described in paragraph 3.
I didn't realise we were talking about Gods which didn't create the universe so that question is non sequitur.
-
I don't see how it contradicts the third since the God as described in Paragraph I could easily fit into the category described in paragraph 3.
I didn't realise we were talking about Gods which didn't create the universe so that question is non sequitur.
Slight clarification: I may have misunderstood but I thought your position was that something had the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a god if it could create something that would have the necessary and sufficient condions (not defined by you) of a 'universe' ?
-
Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
How bizarre. Fancy thinking that everything having a certain property means that some member of the set of everything has that property. All the ways that try to rescue the Cosmological argument boil down to "everything except God has a cause..." That exposes the argument for the naked special pleading it is.
-
How bizarre. Fancy thinking that everything having a certain property means that some member of the set of everything has that property. All the ways that try to rescue the Cosmological argument boil down to "everything except God has a cause..." That exposes the argument for the naked special pleading it is.
Rescue the cosmological argument from what?
Infinite regress?
The brute fact of the universe? Your own favourite and truly a special plead
Contingency without necessity?
Composite necessity?
Circular causation?
I think it was Sean M Carroll who said he was giving time to disprove the principle of sufficient reason
and indeed he who has stated that causation isn’t fundamental.
-
Slight clarification: I may have misunderstood but I thought your position was that something had the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a god if it could create something that would have the necessary and sufficient condions (not defined by you) of a 'universe' ?
By a universe I rather meant This universe. What we can’t say is whether “God” in the case of our universe is the Ultimate or a god within a pantheon with an eventual ultimate, that would need to be revealed.
-
By a universe I rather meant This universe. What we can’t say is whether “God” in the case of our universe is the Ultimate or a god within a pantheon with an eventual ultimate, that would need to be revealed.
In the post I replied to you used the term, 'the universe', not 'a universe'. From previous postings you seemed to imply that there could be muliple suffocient 'universes' in our current universe.
Your clarification seems to create further confusion so let us try a slightly different tack. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a 'created thing' to be a universe that would lead you to regard the thing creating it to be a god?
Btw, why use 'we' in your post here?
-
Rescue the cosmological argument from what?
From the contradiction in saying that "everything has a cause" and then claiming that God (who is the set of everything) does not have a cause.
The brute fact of the universe? Your own favourite and truly a special plead
But at least we know the Universe exists. Also, I don't rule out the possibility of an infinite regress nor do I rule out the possibility that there are things that are uncaused.
Contingency without necessity?
Composite necessity?
Circular causation?
By using fancy words you only disguise the bankruptcy of your argument, you don't repair it.
I think it was Sean M Carroll who said he was giving time to disprove the principle of sufficient reason
and indeed he who has stated that causation isn’t fundamental.
Yes, at the quantum level there is no cause and effect, only interactions.
-
In the post I replied to you used the term, 'the universe', not 'a universe'. From previous postings you seemed to imply that there could be muliple suffocient 'universes' in our current universe.
Your clarification seems to create further confusion so let us try a slightly different tack. What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a 'created thing' to be a universe that would lead you to regard the thing creating it to be a god?
In general use a god doesn't have to be the creator of the universe or even be responsible for it but is an entity which has superhuman responsibility for an aspect of it.
In scholastic theological terms the God of this universe was independent for her existence from the universe she created and created it out her own volition. Some 'schoolmen' went further to suggest God was fundamental for existence, period and in simulated universe theory there is actually no available mechanism to exclude a God of that description.
Btw, why use 'we' in your post here?
I like to mix things up a little.
-
Continuing a review of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on atheism Section b. Multiple Property Disproofs
Another form of deductive atheological argument attempts to show the logical incompatibility of two or more properties that God is thought to possess. A long list of properties have been the subject of multiple property disproofs, transcendence and personhood
Time to define ‘’personal’’ here. Individual and free would be a good start . Debates rage as to whether humans are free but there are no questions as to whether people are personal. Surely volition is a good word to describe an entity like God who is free. Free acts suggest free will. I see no contradiction between transcendence and personhood, justice and mercy,
But surely this is what the row over Christianity is all about. The crucifixion satisfies mercy and justice immutability and omniscience
Knowing only comes about after learning? Worth a debate?, immutability and omnibenevolence
Love only comes about through falling in love? Worth a debate? , omnipresence and agency
Perhaps as God is the conclusion of all hierarchies , perfection and love
perfection is love, perhaps , eternality and omniscience, eternality and creator of the universe
Did God create the universe in time? Is creation continual? , omnipresence and consciousness. (Blumenfeld 2003, Drange 1998b, Flew 1955, Grim 2007, Kretzmann 1966, and McCormick 2000 and 2003)
Source Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
-
The crucifixion satisfies mercy and justice
On what planet?
Ignoring the logical incoherence of a god having to engineer his own execution in order to sidestep one of his own rules, how does the crucifixion have anything to do with justice?
-
Reviewing the Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Atheismc. Failure of Proof Disproof
When attempts to provide evidence or arguments in favor of the existence of something fail, a legitimate and important question is whether anything except the failure of those arguments can be inferred. That is, does positive atheism follow from the failure of arguments for theism? A number of authors have concluded that it does. They have taken the view that unless some case for the existence of God succeeds, we should believe that there is no God.
One would expect then a detailed breakdown of where and how the arguments failed and theists, certainly on this ‘’forum’’, are often invited to search uncited volumes for where this supposedly happened or to search one’s dishonest conscience and just own up to having been schooled by random atheists. And all that gainst a background of atheists hunkereing down under the cover of merely lacking a belief in God and no more having to prove God or disproving God than any rock or pot plant which also acks said belief
Many have taken an argument J.M. Findlay (1948) to be pivotal. Findlay, like many others, argues that in order to be worthy of the label “God,” and in order to be worthy of a worshipful attitude of reverence, emulation, and abandoned admiration,
Again another atheist specification for being God.
-
On what planet?
On any planet with any sense of culpability, absent in the humanist belief that everyone's a good bloke deep down(Disneyfication)
Ignoring the logical incoherence of a god having to engineer his own execution in order to sidestep one of his own rules, how does the crucifixion have anything to do with justice?
Not logically incoherent, God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.
-
On any planet with any sense of culpability, absent in the humanist belief that everyone's a good bloke deep down(Disneyfication)
Massive non sequitur. There is absolutely no need or justification for the bizarre sadomasochistic act of the crucifixion. It must be about as far away from justice and mercy that it's possible to get. Whether everybody is a 'good bloke' or not, is irrelevant.
Not logically incoherent, God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.
I suggest looking up 'forgive' in a dictionary.
-
As far as I can recall we never found out from you how claiming that, in the case of this being a simulated universe, ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'', is reasonable but the theistic suggestion that ''the universe is dependent on it's existence for it's creation on whatever created it, which in turn is independent from it's creation'' is not exactly the same.
Seriously? Not again with this mindless nonsense. Unless you use that the definition of 'God' this is just irrelevant. As a definition, it's crap, because it misses out (polytheistic) gods that don't create the universe and also many attributes associated with monotheistic gods, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, immortality, an so on. In other words it satisfies neither the monotheistic god-concepts or the polytheistic ones.
I also don't think you ever got round to saying how much of a universe would have to be simulated in order for the simulators to be regarded as 'god(s)'. I can see no reason at all for simulating an entire universe, quite frankly (I never said it was reasonable), and it certainly wouldn't be the first thing that would be done, even if that was the goal. We'd expect far more limited simulations first. Are weather forecasters proto-gods because they simulate the weather?
-
On any planet with any sense of culpability, absent in the humanist belief that everyone's a good bloke deep down(Disneyfication)
Do you realise that the crucifixion was deliberately designed to subvert the idea of "culpability". It provides a way for Christians to avoid paying the price for sins.
Not logically incoherent, God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.
I don't have my son executed every time I forgive somebody.
-
Not logically incoherent,
Absolutely logically incoherent - what are we being forgiven for? If we've been forgiven, why are we still being judged?
God is just doing what everybody does when they forgive i.e. take it on themselves.
So you're saying that God's just like us, but a bit more drama-queen?
O.
-
So you're saying that God's just like us, but a bit more drama-queen?
But he is also saying that, to forgive somebody for a crime, you have to do the time instead of them. It's utterly bizarre.
-
But he is also saying that, to forgive somebody for a crime, you have to do the time instead of them. It's utterly bizarre.
Worse even than that, the punishment (being tortured to death) is not one that would be meted out to anybody for anything in any civilised society today and Jesus didn't even take the punishment properly because he didn't stay dead.
It's silly beyond belief.
-
Massive non sequitur. There is absolutely no need or justification for the bizarre sadomasochistic act of the crucifixion. It must be about as far away from justice and mercy that it's possible to get. Whether everybody is a 'good bloke' or not, is irrelevant.
I suggest looking up 'forgive' in a dictionary.
I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God. The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven'' seems magical thinking and not even true even if you discount God yet keep everyone else who has been offended against
-
I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God.
Where's the evidence of any 'corruption'? I get that it might be non-material, given the source claims, but even then that case isn't made, it's just an authoritarian 'you must follow the instructions'. The implication of the original isn't that you should obey because it's in your best interests, it's that you should obey because it's your place to obey.
As to whether it's an 'offence' against God, that's God's problem not ours.
The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven'' seems magical thinking
***Poing*** went another irony-meter....
O.
-
Do you realise that the crucifixion was deliberately designed to subvert the idea of "culpability". It provides a way for Christians to avoid paying the price for sins.
Or it's a way to show mercy and to restore God's image in us.
I don't have my son executed every time I forgive somebody.
With all due respect that's cherry picked theology isn't it....The son of God IS God. If you forgive someone you are taking what they have done fully and any consequences on yourself e.g. if someone crashes their car into you. You sort it all out without them being penalised in anyway. It's a whole new level of forgiveness.
-
I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God.
No, it doesn't. I literally can't think of any set of assumptions that would make the crucifixion in the least bit just or merciful. Come to think of it, I can't even think of any way that an omni-type creator god would not also be omni-responsible.
The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven''...
Sorry, did I miss somebody suggesting this?
...seems magical thinking...
(https://media.tenor.com/X0Gp-pqN2N4AAAAC/irony.gif)
...and not even true even if you discount God yet keep everyone else who has been offended against
Your point? People can forgive people, or not.
-
Absolutely logically incoherent - what are we being forgiven for? If we've been forgiven, why are we still being judged?
A charge of logical incoherence in the case of morality looks to me as though you are assuming there is a moral realism. That surprises me. What are we being forgiven for? spoiling what is known as the image of God in us, in other words offending against God and our true selves.
I think there is the question of accepting our forgiveness and facing our likeness to God and God himself. Judgment I suppose is facing the truth of what we have done.
So you're saying that God's just like us, but a bit more drama-queen?
O.
I think we live at a more trivial, flippant, level and shallower than God.
-
But he is also saying that, to forgive somebody for a crime, you have to do the time instead of them. It's utterly bizarre.
It's not bizarre at all. Forgiveness requires taking the consequences on yourself. By bringing in Crime you are shifting the goalposts a bit. If they do the time they are being punished and there is no forgiveness. I would have thought that was obvious.
-
Worse even than that, the punishment (being tortured to death) is not one that would be meted out to anybody for anything in any civilised society today and Jesus didn't even take the punishment properly because he didn't stay dead.
It's silly beyond belief.
And how many people has our civilised society put to death by murder in the past week in the UK? You mean civilised system of official penalties don't you not civilised society.......which is a vague and slightly useless term IMV.
And we don't stay dead either since all are resurrected by God to judgment.
-
And how many people has our civilised society put to death by murder in the past week in the UK? You mean civilised system of official penalties don't you not civilised society.......which is a vague and slightly useless term IMV.
And we don't stay dead either since all are resurrected by God to judgment.
So, according to you, your god is the equivalent of the murderer(s) of Sara Sharif.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/14/three-sought-over-woking-killing-were-known-to-10-year-old-victim-police-say
-
Continuing the review of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on atheism
b. The Santa Claus Argument Martin (1990) offers this general principle to describe the criteria that render the belief, “X does not exist” justified:
Oh, the belief that God does not exist….which presumably results in acting as though God does not exist.
A person is justified in believing that X does not exist if
(1) all the available evidence used to support the view that X exists is shown to be inadequate
Back to ‘’Evidence’’ and what that involves. Is Martin including argumentation and philosophy here since it is all to easy for evidence to strictly mean empirical evidence , a meaning symptomatic of philosophical empiricism etc.
(2) X is the sort of entity that, if X exists, then there is a presumption that would be evidence adequate to support the view that X exists; and
(3) this presumption has not been defeated although serious efforts have been made to do so; and
(4) the area where evidence would appear, if there were any, has been comprehensively examined; and
(5) there are no acceptable beneficial reasons to believe that X exists. (p. 283)
I don’t quite get this but if this is a condition of using a Santa Clause argument against God then it explains New Atheism’s desire to suggest that religion is the root of all evil.
Aside from it being a Horse’s laugh argument, let’s park that for a moment….
Santa Claus argument is BAD ANALOGY basically mistaking Contingent component non ultimate entities for the non contingent, ultimate entity.
-
I'm not sure how the idea of a crucifixion intending as an act of forgiveness works when the one ultimately responsible(I.E. God) shows no act of redemption towards him/her/itself. In my eyes that should be its first priority.
So, apart from the fact that I have no belief in this God, I'll carry on with my own sense of forgiveness thank you very much without staining it with what I see as the corrupting influence of Christianity.
-
A charge of logical incoherence in the case of morality looks to me as though you are assuming there is a moral realism.
No, it looks like you're attempting to make a case within moral realism, and as it's logically incoherent that's just another reason that it falls over.
What are we being forgiven for? spoiling what is known as the image of God in us, in other words offending against God and our true selves.
By being human? If he didn't want humans, he shouldn't have made humans. The angels rebelled before us, apparently, so it's not like there wasn't a precedent for this.
I think there is the question of accepting our forgiveness and facing our likeness to God and God himself.
I'm still not clear on what it is that I'm supposed to be forgiven for - I haven't followed through on my parents' dreams for me, either, but I don't owe them an apology for that, I don't seek forgiveness for being me, how is this different? That I'm not, apparently, what God wanted isn't my problem, am I in some way 'wrong'?
Judgment I suppose is facing the truth of what we have done.
Happy to do that - there are few things I should probably seek forgiveness for, but none of them from God. God is absent from my life, there is no relationship with God, God has never given any indication that he's there, from childhood through to now. How is that my fault?
I think we live at a more trivial, flippant, level and shallower than God.
Because we aren't gods, we're human. We should be judged based on what we are, and I'll stand up for my actions on that. I don't need to be 'forgiven', I've not done anything that requires it.
O.
-
I'm not sure how the idea of a crucifixion intending as an act of forgiveness works when the one ultimately responsible(I.E. God) shows no act of redemption towards him/her/itself. In my eyes that should be its first priority.
You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully. The crucixion of God the son is exactly that. I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.
I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy. Which makes any complaint from you of corrupting influences rather ironic.
-
I think this assumes that sinning has no corrupting affect on the person and isn't an offence against God. The idea that forgiveness just involves the statement ''your forgiven'' seems magical thinking and not even true even if you discount God yet keep everyone else who has been offended against
And you think God materialising as a human and getting himself crucified and that somehow absolves everybody of their sins is not magical thinking?
Physician heal thyself.
-
Or it's a way to show mercy and to restore God's image in us.
I can show mercy without killing anybody least of all my son/self.
With all due respect that's cherry picked theology isn't it
Correct. It's cherry picked from Christianity. Other religions have different ideas.
....The son of God IS God.
That's an absurdity right out of the gate. Even in the Ptolemaic line nobody was able to be their own son.
Anyway, leaving the logical impossibility of being my own son aside, I do not have to kill myself or my son to forgive people.
If you forgive someone you are taking what they have done fully and any consequences on yourself
Nonense.
e.g. if someone crashes their car into you. You sort it all out without them being penalised in anyway. It's a whole new level of forgiveness.
I can forgive somebody for denting my car and yet their insurance company still pays.
-
Continuing a review of the atheism article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Atheism c. Problem of Evil
The existence of widespread human and non-human animal suffering has been seen by many to be compelling evidence that a being with all power, all knowledge, and all goodness does not exist. Many of those arguments have been deductive: See the article on The Logical Problem of Evil. In the 21st century, several inductive arguments from evil for the non-existence of God have received a great deal of attention. See The Evidential Problem of Evil.
What looks like a strong hand here for atheism isn’t.
Firstly, there is the problem of all goodness. Whose goodness are we talking about here?
Secondly is goodness quantifiable in the way that power and knowledge are quantifiable?
Short answer No, Long answer Nooooooooooooooooooo.
Then of course we have the problem of evil without Good (shades of contingency without necessity here?) Not to mention the depth of evil.
I wonder if the refuge of eliminating Good and evil just leaves a massive gap in the defence of atheism.
-
You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender
No, absolutely not.
If I forgive the murderer of my wife, it doesn't mean I have to go to prison in his place.
And let's be honest, Jesus was only dead for a couple of days. How is that "shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender" if the offender happens to be a murderer?
-
Vlad,
You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully.
No. You can’t forgive someone who’s done nothing that requires forgiveness, and what the hell’s it got to do with Jesus in any case? If, say, I steal the apples from your tree and you forgive me that’s one thing, but if someone far away and long-dead claims by his blood sacrifice to have forgiven me in advance for it (in exchange for my self-respect and personal responsibility for my actions) that’s overreaching.
The crucixion of God the son is exactly that.
No it isn’t. It’s what a frankly unpleasant and immoral story says it’s what it’s about.
I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.
Gibberish, but in any case if a god made us “sinners’ and then demanded that we repent in exchange for unspecified delights or untold miseries depending our response, that would very much make “god” the offender.
I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy. Which makes any complaint from you of corrupting influences rather ironic.
Gibberish. Try to express that as a coherent thought.
-
You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully.
Notwithstanding you haven't established what it is that needs forgiving... no. It's not a debt, you don't owe someone and they're out of pocket.
The crucixion of God the son is exactly that.
Unrelated to any actual forgiveness? Yes, absolutely. In what civilised world is some sort of blood sacrifice required for forgiveness?
I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.
Who is? There's this idea that somehow humanity is offending by virtue of just being - how is fault inherited? If 'sin' is conveyed by blood then whomever implemented that system is the offendor.
I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy.
No, what I'm looking for is a coherent concept of justice. There is no moral abrogation, there is no sense of proportionality to the suggested punishment, there is no informed involvement in the process. There is nothing about this 'system' which even remotely begins to resemble 'justice'.
O.
-
You will agree that forgiveness actually means shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender yourself hopefully.
Forgiveness can only be given by the offended party towards the persons who have offended. Forgiveness can only be sought by the offender from those that have been offended. That, to me, is just and that is where my sense of morality lies.
The crucixion of God the son is exactly that.
It certainly isn't. In my case I do not accept that I have committed any offence related to Jesus(man or God). His crucifixion, if true, seemed to be a meaningless act which has no significance to me whatever. If the story of his resurrection was true, then the whole thing was a shoddy act by a God who should have known better.
I'm not sure what you mean by an act of redemption towards itself since God is not the offender.
If I took the idea of the Christian God seriously(which I don't) then I would certainly hope and expect that He would redeem himself since, by being ultimately responsible for everything that happens, He most certainly is the offender. That, again, is where my morality lies.
I'm afraid I'm reaching the unhappy conclusion that what you and indeed Outrider desire is suspension of justice negating in turn any mercy.
Reach any conclusion you like, but from my point of view, this is completely just. As to mercy, it would depend on how I might react to how sincerely was Jesus's plea for forgiveness(on behalf of Himself/God in this unlikely scenario).
Which makes any complaint from you of corrupting influences rather ironic.
I don't see why. There are plenty of examples of Christianity being a corrupting influence. indeed, I am watching a drama at the moment(The Woman in the Wall) which has as its background one such blot upon Christianity.
-
And you think God materialising as a human and getting himself crucified and that somehow absolves everybody of their sins is not magical thinking?
Physician heal thyself.
All sins in this scheme of things are against god. Therefore God’s forgiveness of the sinner automatically involves god carrying the consequences of the sin. It is actually magical thinking to think otherwise.
-
No, absolutely not.
If I forgive the murderer of my wife, it doesn't mean I have to go to prison in his place.
And let's be honest, Jesus was only dead for a couple of days. How is that "shouldering the burden and consequence that justice demands of the offender" if the offender happens to be a murderer?
Because of our society we have given legal redress over to police and the courts and the prison system. That is and has not always been the case and people are and have been ‘free’ and responsible for administering their own justice or mercy. Even in our own system the criminal has to pay compensation to the victim. In the light of this we can discount your objections here.
Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.
-
Vlad,
No. You can’t forgive someone who’s done nothing that requires forgiveness,
That is true but in my opinion you are deliberately conflating that truth with your belief that there is nothing to forgive.
-
Even in our own system the criminal has to pay compensation to the victim.
In the UK criminal justice system, at least, compensation does not come from the criminal, but from a social fund. (I appreciate that, in civil cases, this is not the case)
Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.
That it's modern doesn't make it wrong. That it's secular doesn't make it wrong. That it doesn't accept unfounded notions like 'spiritual' doesn't make it wrong.
Where in scripture does it suggest that this interpretation is wrong? Where does it say that Jesus stayed dead? Isn't there at least one explicit suggestion that he's up and about and talking to the two Marys a few days later?
That is true but in my opinion you are deliberately conflating that truth with your belief that there is nothing to forgive.
What contract, social or otherwise, do we have a spiritual dictator who holds us responsible for offences which are not demonstrably immoral, and which were imposed against the nature of people by their 'creator'? Isn't there a moral obligation to oppose the unwarranted impositions of a dictator?
O.
-
Continuing a review of the Internet encyclopaedia of philosophy article on Atheism Cosmology.
Questions about the origins of the universe and cosmology have been the focus for many inductive atheism arguments. We can distinguish four recent views about God and the cosmos:
Naturalism: On naturalistic view, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the Earth formed out of cosmic matter about 4.6 billion years ago, and life forms on Earth, unaided by any supernatural forces about 4 billion years ago. Various physical (non-God) hypotheses are currently being explored about the cause or explanation of the Big Bang such as the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition model, brane cosmology models, string theoretic models, ekpyrotic models, cyclic models, chaotic inflation, and so on.
Physical hypothesis and in particular the pursuit of them to explain the Big Bang do not have to be copywrit to atheists and theists could seek these as well. This is of course a different question to why physics...and not nothing.
Big Bang Theism: We can call the view that God caused about the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago Big Bang Theism.
Again, theism is perfectly capable of taking a physical reason for the Big Bang in it’s stride.
-
Internet encyclopaedia of philosophy. The atheist argument from non belief.
I won’t include the excerpt those who are interested can find it themselves.
First off, if there is an atheist argument from non belief why not a theist argument from belief?
Any way this seems to say If God we’re all loving he would want everybody to become a believer.
Is that an atheist argument? I’m not sure. It seem’s to revolve around what God considers belief
And why subsequently people are not considered to be believers.
Another strand is that God should be reachable by pure reason. Again, who is perfectly reasonable?
-
First off, if there is an atheist argument from non belief why not a theist argument from belief?
That people believe doesn't equate, with the depiction of god, to any sort of reliable conclusion that therefore a god is real.
Any way this seems to say If God we’re all loving he would want everybody to become a believer.
That's a part of it, yes. The presumption is (and, indeed, the explicit message from many religious believers is) that believing in a god, accepting the premises of the religion makes you a better person. Some version of an eternal reward is normally involved, which is depicted as to the benefit of the believer, which an all-loving god would be presumed to want on the believers behalf. Therefore, if an all-loving god is creating reality, why is it creating a reality in which people might not believe and might be denied this; it's a variant of the problem of evil idea, I guess, and is probably best countered by the idea of free will and that the reward is only worthwhile if it's somehow 'earned' or 'deserved'.
Is that an atheist argument?
I don't think it stands up well on its own, I've seen it used as a counterpoint to the idea of free will - the idea that god had already, in giving us free will, decided that some would be lost which doesn't jibe with the idea of omnibenevolence.
I’m not sure. It seem’s to revolve around what God considers belief
It hinges (as do so many things) in Christianity at least on what's required to achieve 'heaven' - if it's at God's whim then how we live is irrelevant, if it's 'earned' then why are the instructions so vague, contradictory and in places immoral (or, silent on immorality)... there are probably other mechanisms posited.
Another strand is that God should be reachable by pure reason.
That, I suspect, is a result of people who in theocratic times were forced to justify their non-belief coming up with arguments that then needed to be countered. In the overwhelming majority of cases it seems that believers do not come to their belief by reason; for those who come through childhood without being indoctrinated/inculcated into a religious tradition, the methodology needs to change for religions to claw those few errant souls back, which is where attempts at reasoned arguments come in.
Again, who is perfectly reasonable?
Should we then abandon the arguments from morality because who is perfectly moral? Should we abandon the arguments from contingency because free will means that none of us are perfectly contingent?
O.
-
Because of our society we have given legal redress over to police and the courts and the prison system. That is and has not always been the case and people are and have been ‘free’ and responsible for administering their own justice or mercy. Even in our own system the criminal has to pay compensation to the victim. In the light of this we can discount your objections here.
Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.
If the Home Secretary commutes a sentence or pardons a criminal, he doesn't have to do the time.
-
Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter
No it isn't. It's in the Bible. Jesus died on the day before the Sabbath and he was "documented" as not dead on the day after the Sabbath.
with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.
Do tell us what that is.
-
No it isn't. It's in the Bible. Jesus died on the day before the Sabbath and he was "documented" as not dead on the day after the Sabbath.
Do tell us what that is.
Jesus suffered death, but his body didn't 'see decay', fulfilling Psalm 16:10 (see Acts 13:34-37.
-
Jesus suffered death, but his body didn't 'see decay',
You're saying he didn't die.
fulfilling Psalm 16:10
Psalm 16:10 is not a prophecy. Read it in context.
(see Acts 13:34-37.
Yeah, the author of Acts seems to have made the same mistake as you.
-
That people believe doesn't equate, with the depiction of god, to any sort of reliable conclusion that therefore a god is real
whose depiction though? It can be seen that certain atheists have not only caricatured Christianity and other religions but have presented their ignorance of religion as a virtue. This is not condusive to forming an accurate depiction.
Any way this seems to say If God we’re all loving he would want everybody to become a believer.
That's a part of it, yes. The presumption is (and, indeed, the explicit message from many religious believers is) that believing in a god, accepting the premises of the religion makes you a better person. Some version of an eternal reward is normally involved, which is depicted as to the benefit of the believer, which an all-loving god would be presumed to want on the believers behalf. Therefore, if an all-loving god is creating reality, why is it creating a reality in which people might not believe and might be denied this; it's a variant of the problem of evil idea, I guess, and is probably best countered by the idea of free will and that the reward is only worthwhile if it's somehow 'earned' or 'deserved'.
But again the engagement to discuss what a religious person means by becoming a better person has been lacking leaving us with Caricature, partly evidenced by your cliché here of ‘’heavenly reward’’. What are you thinking here? I’m thinking of God as the reward but I’m not sure that’s how you understand it. Religious people as mercenaries is an avowedly atheist position IMV
Is that an atheist argument?
I don't think it stands up well on its own, I've seen it used as a counterpoint to the idea of free will - the idea that god had already, in giving us free will, decided that some would be lost which doesn't jibe with the idea of omnibenevolence.
That would be your idea of omnibenevolence or some official definition of omnibenevolence? The problem is of course whose idea of benevolence should we adopt? And that comes down to choice. Even on a human level the idea of a not very benevolent person mentoring a more benevolent person has obvious drawbacks and that is before we consider the non measureability of benevolence.
-
Just dead for two days is a modern secular conception of the matter
No it isn't. It's in the Bible. Jesus died on the day before the Sabbath and he was "documented" as not dead on the day after the Sabbath.
It’s the word ‘just’ that is the problem here designed as it is to (for unknown reasons)minimise the death of the second person of the trinity and a human person….why the disdain?
with the spiritual and scriptural context deliberately ignored.
Do tell us what that is.
This person who dies is God.
Also just dead for two days is often code for ‘’Not really dead’’
Yes he is humanly dead and humanly he experiences spiritually alienation from the father because of the weight of the consequences of sin.
Secular thinking though thinks of death as a ‘’switching off’’. Not in the New Testament.
-
If the Home Secretary commutes a sentence or pardons a criminal, he doesn't have to do the time.
The home secretary is merely the agent of the second victim in all crimes according to our law, namely the crown. He doesn't do the time but notionally His majesty loses his 'pleasure' in terms of time of incarceration not meted out.
Your analogy I feel only serves to remind us that more than just the immediate victim has been offended against legally it is society aka the state, the crown, the people etc whatever this second entity is called. Of course the crown is really just the representative of a higher entity referred to as God and cosmically God is always an entity offended against by sin.
-
whose depiction though?
Any of them. The existence of believers is not a reliable indicator of what they believe in.
It can be seen that certain atheists have not only caricatured Christianity and other religions but have presented their ignorance of religion as a virtue.
Sometimes, yes. The child who points out the naked emperor is to be lauded, not criticised.
This is not condusive to forming an accurate depiction.
On the contrary, pointing out the various self-contradictions, the equally meritless claims of various sects and creeds and cults, the obvious nonsense of some of the claims about reality and the stark differences between what we actually see and what we'd expect to see if any of it were true is the key to forming an accurate depiction.
But again the engagement to discuss what a religious person means by becoming a better person has been lacking leaving us with Caricature, partly evidenced by your cliché here of ‘’heavenly reward’’.
Are you of the opinion that the majority of religious believers do not think there is some sort of spiritual benefit to 'compliant' behaviour with the particular edicts of their creed? Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs do not see ascension through reincarnation to Nirvana? Christians and Muslims do not see some notion of heaven for the chosen? That's not a caricature, that's one of the cornerpins of the con-job that is religion - "you get a reward, but I can't show it to you just yet, you'll have to trust me on this".
What are you thinking here? I’m thinking of God as the reward but I’m not sure that’s how you understand it. Religious people as mercenaries is an avowedly atheist position IMV
'God as the reward'? What does that even mean? You've already got a god, how is that a reward? Or do you mean entering the presence of god - surely that's the afterlife? You might do good deeds purely for their own benefit, and not regard the potential for divine reward (or you might be a Calvinist and think that the two are unrelated) but you are not the only religious person, and the majority of the believers I've met are of the opinion that religion is, amongst other things, instruction on how to access that post-death reward scheme.
That would be your idea of omnibenevolence or some official definition of omnibenevolence?
All-loving, but some get a reward and some don't, because of a trait that wasn't asked for? Or, if you're a Calvinist, just because. Playing favourites, or setting the game up so that some lose is not all-loving, regardless of how you define it.
The problem is of course whose idea of benevolence should we adopt?
It's not a problem at all. Whether it's the Hindu/Buddhist 'oneness with the universe' or a Christian 'entering the presence of god' the point is that some are offered and some are denied for things that they have no direct control over - the game is rigged, and that's not the act of any sort of universal benevolence. If there were two rewards, suited to the person you are, that would be an alternative, but that's not what's being suggested.
And that comes down to choice.
Not really. According to the Christian mythos God had already tried that with the angels and saw how that went, but went back and tried it again - that's a problem with the 'all-knowing' bit.
Even on a human level the idea of a not very benevolent person mentoring a more benevolent person has obvious drawbacks and that is before we consider the non measureability of benevolence.
So you agree that the self-avowedly jealous, violent, misogynistic god who sets rules for crops and haircuts but accepts slavery and sexual servitude should probably not be put in charge of who gets the reward? Or am I misreading that?
O.
-
It’s the word ‘just’ that is the problem here designed as it is to (for unknown reasons)minimise the death of the second person of the trinity and a human person….why the disdain?
Because, if he was only dead for two days, he wasn't really dead and he didn't really pay the price.
If I owe you a tenner and I pay you but then, two days later I pick your pocket and take the tenner back, I haven't really paid you, have I?
The problem here is that it's all pretty straight forward, but you have imbued the story with mystical claptrap so you can avoid seeing the truth.
-
The home secretary is merely the agent of the second victim in all crimes according to our law, namely the crown. He doesn't do the time but notionally His majesty loses his 'pleasure' in terms of time of incarceration not meted out.
But His Majesty doesn't do the time either. He's just a bit irritated that the convict isn't going to bed his guest for a while.
-
You're saying he didn't die. Psalm 16:10 is not a prophecy. Read it in context.Yeah, the author of Acts seems to have made the same mistake as you.
It was fulfilled partially for David himself. But then he did die. Then it was fulfilled to a greater extent in Christ's resurrection. It will be fulfilled to it's greatest extent for David himself at Christ's second coming. See Keil & Delitzsch on Psalm 16:10.
-
It was fulfilled partially for David himself. But then he did die. Then it was fulfilled to a greater extent in Christ's resurrection. It will be fulfilled to it's greatest extent for David himself at Christ's second coming. See Keil & Delitzsch on Psalm 16:10.
What a load of tosh. It's not a prophecy. And if it were, you seem to be confused as to who it is about.
-
What a load of tosh. It's not a prophecy. And if it were, you seem to be confused as to who it is about.
Do you think Acts 2:30 might explain how David was speaking prophetically? It is to do with God's promise to establish David's kingdom for ever. That would require a miraculous intervention; Peter says David understood this, which is why his words couldn't be interpreted as about him only.
-
Do you think Acts 2:30 might explain how David was speaking prophetically?
No I think it is back projecting Christian interpretations onto writing that has nothing to do with Christianity.
-
No I think it is back projecting Christian interpretations onto writing that has nothing to do with Christianity.
It might look like that. But if it really did happen, that Jesus rose again, then would we be correct in saying the psalm had been fulfilled? Likewise, would his literal ascension into heaven fulfill psalm 110:1 (sit at my right hand) if it really happened?
-
It might look like that. But if it really did happen, that Jesus rose again
But that didn't happen. And even if it did, it doesn't mean that some verse from a book written several hundred years before is a prophecy of it.
And what does it actually say?
For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the Pit.
It's not a claim that Jesus will die and be raised. It's actually giving thanks that God will not let the narrator go to hell at all. That's all. There's nothing in the psalm to suggest that this is meant to be a prophecy. There's definitely no hint of anybody dying and being resurrected.
-
from: Walt Zingmatilder on September 19, 2023, 12:20:55 PM
Should we accept that theophobes are uniquely theists any more than we should accept that only Homosexuals are homophobic…….,I’m not so sure.
Yes, we should. We aren't afraid of things that don't exist, so if you're afraid of gods then you believe in gods. Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender, they don't propose that the opposite gender doesn't exist. In order to fear a god you have to accept the proposition of that god, and are therefore a theist.
Hmmmm There might be a hint of special pleading here since Homophobia as discussed on this forum frequently fits the description of a distaste of homosexuality yet here you are suggesting that theophobia is not a distaste for God. And that’s apart from your suggestion that God does not exist (positive assertion…please justify). The agnostic atheist does not know that God does not exist and so an actual ‘fear’ of God cannot be impossible for him and a distaste for Gods cannot be denied.
Taste is nothing to do with any intellectual process rationalising a proposition, neither is irrational fear. Goddodging is irrational fear, distaste ‘’behaviour’’. If it helps I have met atheist quite happy to believe there are universes where logic does not apply, Cases of unknown unknowns that operate in either/or situations, infinite regresses, circular heirarchies but cannot accept that contingency ultimately needs a necessity. In other words irrational straw clutching to avoid even entertaining the idea of God.
-
But His Majesty doesn't do the time either. He's just a bit irritated that the convict isn't going to bed his guest for a while.
So there is some cost. However, If it was your nearest and dearests murderer that the state acquitted you would incur, in some way, the cost of that IMO.
-
Because, if he was only dead for two days, he wasn't really dead and he didn't really pay the price.
If you are dead and cannot be revived by any natural or physical means then you are dead. You are right that your death or mine can save any from sin or as you put it pay the price.
If I owe you a tenner and I pay you but then, two days later I pick your pocket and take the tenner back, I haven't really paid you, have I?
The issue here is who owes who? As the offender we are owed nothing and owe whatever it is we have lost, taken, damaged or destroyed. If that isn't in our means to repay we need a guarantor. If we reject the guarantor...........
-
So there is some cost. However, If it was your nearest and dearests murderer that the state acquitted you would incur, in some way, the cost of that IMO.
Being a bit irritated is not the same as having to serve a life sentence.
-
If you are dead and cannot be revived by any natural or physical means then you are dead.
Jesus was revived (according to the Bible). He didn't stay dead and if the wages of sin are death, he didn't pay the price.
The issue here is who owes who? As the offender we are owed nothing and owe whatever it is we have lost, taken, damaged or destroyed. If that isn't in our means to repay we need a guarantor. If we reject the guarantor...........
Let's say I owe you £10 and my friend pays it for me, but then he steals it back off you two days later, have you been paid? No.
Just accept that this whole Christian thing about paying the price doesn't make any sense.
-
g. Atheistic Naturalism
The final family of inductive arguments we will consider involves drawing a positive atheistic conclusion from broad, naturalized grounds. See the article on Naturalism for background about the position and relevant arguments. Comments here will be confined to naturalism as it relates to atheism.
Methodological naturalism can be understood as the view that the best or the only way to acquire knowledge within science is by adopting the assumption that all physical phenomena have physical causes. This presumption by itself does not commit one to the view that only physical entities and causes exist, or that all knowledge must be acquired through scientific methods. Methodological naturalism, therefore, is typically not seen as being in direct conflict with theism or having any particular implications for the existence or non-existence of God.
Ontological naturalism, however, is usually seen as taking a stronger view about the existence of God. Ontological naturalism is the additional view that all and only physical entities and causes exist.
Taken From Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Justification for why Ontological Naturalism is ''correct''....to follow.
-
Jesus was revived (according to the Bible). He didn't stay dead and if the wages of sin are death, he didn't pay the price.
Let's say I owe you £10 and my friend pays it for me, but then he steals it back off you two days later, have you been paid? No.
Just accept that this whole Christian thing about paying the price doesn't make any sense.
You've just misunderstood what christianity is saying.
You owe God . God pays what you owe, How can he then steal from himself? He's taken the cost on himself. Since he's paid what you owe.
-
You've just misunderstood what christianity is saying.
You owe God . God pays what you owe, How can he then steal from himself? He's taken the cost on himself. Since he's paid what you owe.
It seems to be you who is struggling to understand. According to the insane injustice of your god, we are supposed to deserve death (just for being how god made us) but Jesus didn't properly die, because death is permanent and he didn't stay dead. Hence, he didn't take our punishment at all (even if that wasn't another insanely unjust idea).
The whole idea of Jesus taking our punishment is insane and unjust anyway, but even if it wasn't, and even if the story is true, he didn't take our punishment at all.
-
You've just misunderstood what christianity is saying.
You owe God . God pays what you owe, How can he then steal from himself? He's taken the cost on himself. Since he's paid what you owe.
But he didn't pay. Jesus didn't stay dead.
-
You've just misunderstood what christianity is saying.
Given the plethora of cults and sects of Christianity, so have the majority of the Christians.
You owe God.
For what? If you accept the concept of a god, I didn't exist before God decided to put me on Earth with a potentially eternal punishment for failing to comply with poorly-communicated and oftentimes apparently arbitrary rules which are so important they've been changed multiple times. I don't owe god anything more than basic human decency.
God pays what you owe.
By blood sacrifice? If God can pay it himself, why was he holding the 'debt' over me?
How can he then steal from himself?
The debt was presumed or made up, the payment was presumed or made up, why not add Schrodinger's Theft to the mix?
He's taken the cost on himself.
The cost that he arbitrarily decided had to be paid for his actions for which he was holding us responsible? If that's the case... that sounds fair.
Since he's paid what you owe.
Then the slate's clean, we can all walk away and not have to worry about this nonsense any more?
O.
-
But that didn't happen. And even if it did, it doesn't mean that some verse from a book written several hundred years before is a prophecy of it.
so it would just be a coincidence?
And what does it actually say?
It's not a claim that Jesus will die and be raised. It's actually giving thanks that God will not let the narrator go to hell at all. That's all. There's nothing in the psalm to suggest that this is meant to be a prophecy. There's definitely no hint of anybody dying and being resurrected.
it seems to encompass physical death too. The question is, did David somehow conclude that the fulfilment of the promise would necessitate one of his descendants being on the throne forever (rather than an uninterrupted line of male heirs faithful to the covenant, forever) so that Peter would be right in saying that David saw what was ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ?
Calvin thinks (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/acts/2.htm), "First, he [David] hath respect unto Christ; after that he turneth his eyes toward himself, and others the faithful"
-
so it would just be a coincidence?
No it's an example of back projection. It's like claiming Nostradamus predicted 9/11 because some verse he wrote sounds vaguely like it might fit.
-
No it's an example of back projection. It's like claiming Nostradamus predicted 9/11 because some verse he wrote sounds vaguely like it might fit.
It's the fact that it fits perfectly rather than vaguely that made me suggest it would be a coincidence. The only difference is that David is speaking figuratively (of being delivered from death). You said earlier,
There's nothing in the psalm to suggest that this is meant to be a prophecy. There's definitely no hint of anybody dying and being resurrected.
Psalm 30:3 uses the words 'soul', 'Sheol' and 'pit' together in the same way as in 16:10. In 30:3, David has figuratively died and been resurrected:
"O Lord, you have brought up my soul from Sheol;
you restored me to life from among those who go down to the pit."
So actually, it is about somebody dying and being resurrected. The only step needed to connect it with Jesus is that Jesus was God's Holy One in the literal sense (without sin), and so the rest of the verse, about death and resurrection, applies to him in the literal sense too.
-
It's the fact that it fits perfectly rather than vaguely
As we have already discussed, it doesn't fit perfectly by any means.
-
As we have already discussed, it doesn't fit perfectly by any means.
You weren't thorough enough though. You said, the author thanks God that he will not be left in hell. But you didn't say that he also thanks God that he will not see the grave.
There are two aspects of death described: the soul rests in Sheol once it becomes separated from the body. The body rests in the grave. The overall meaning of 16:10 is that David's soul and body will not be allowed to remain separated.
This hasn't been fulfilled by David, but it has by Jesus, who's soul was reunited with his body before it decayed.
-
You weren't thorough enough though. You said, the author thanks God that he will not be left in hell. But you didn't say that he also thanks God that he will not see the grave.
There are two aspects of death described: the soul rests in Sheol once it becomes separated from the body. The body rests in the grave. The overall meaning of 16:10 is that David's soul and body will not be allowed to remain separated.
This hasn't been fulfilled by David, but it has by Jesus, who's soul was reunited with his body before it decayed.
Where does it say the psalm is about the Messiah?
-
It seems to be you who is struggling to understand. According to the insane injustice of your god, we are supposed to deserve death (just for being how god made us)
God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault but Jesus didn't properly die, because death is permanent and he didn't stay dead.
A definition which is questionable even before we consider the biblical view of death. How permanent is permanent? for instance a trillion years, a billion years, two days? It’s your claim so feel free to include any qualifications you need to in your justification. But lets see what the Oxford dictionary tells us death is…….’’Definition of death noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
death noun
The fact of someone dying or being killed
a sudden/violent/peaceful, etc. death
the anniversary of his wife's death
an increase in deaths from cancer
He died a slow and painful death.
The end of life; the state of being dead
The victim bled to death before the ambulance arrived (= he died as a result of bleeding).
He's drinking himself to death (= so that it will kill him).
Death of something the permanent end or destruction of something
Death [ (literary) the power that destroys life, imagined as human in form
So these definitions, aside from the contentious ‘’permanence’’ angle are met in the Biblical accounts of Jesus death which being a crucifixion and sundry strains and exhaustions on the body would have involved bleedings out, bone breakages, haemorrhaging not to mention a spearing to make sure and then lying in a cave for two days rather than an ICU, certainly looks like a violent Killing, a death which had a T.O.D., an anniversary and something beyond the scope of man or nature to reverse.
Biblically of course Jesus experiences what we will all experience i.e. Death and resurrection. The atheist doesn’t have the luxury of a permanent end. The whole idea of Jesus taking our punishment is insane and unjust anyway, but even if it wasn't, and even if the story is true, he didn't take our punishment at all.
No what is unjust is the proposal that any wrong doing not detected by fallible human legal systems and moral enforcement Is simply wiped off the slate i.e. the moral principle of ‘’not getting caught’’ but worse than that the idea of victimless crime is insane and unjust. Wrongdoing damages, even if that damage is to the perpetrator themselves. Jesus does take away the consequences and opens the way to God.
-
God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault
As I keep on pointing our and you keep in totally ignoring: not according to your book of myths, which claims we are all sinners. That means that we have no choice. If there were a genuine choice, then at least some people would take it. Yet again: a test that everybody fails is obviously inappropriate.
Either your god should have done a better job of creating humans or it should have a more approbate test.
Of course, the 'original sin' nonsense would be just as unjust because we'd then be being punished for some people eating the wrong fruit (or whatever you think that represents) long before we were born.
A definition which is questionable even before we consider the biblical view of death. How permanent is permanent?
You seem to be struggling with the notion of 'permanent'. How about this: death is irreversible. Get it? There is no applicable time.
No what is unjust is the proposal that any wrong doing not detected by fallible human legal systems and moral enforcement Is simply wiped off the slate i.e. the moral principle of ‘’not getting caught’’ but worse than that the idea of victimless crime is insane and unjust. Wrongdoing damages, even if that damage is to the perpetrator themselves. Jesus does take away the consequences and opens the way to God.
No matter how you dress it up, it's still insane and unjust. The fact that you are desperately trying to justify it speaks volumes about how faith corrupts even normal human values of fairness, justice, and decency.
The punishment is way out of all proportion to most people's 'crimes' and the idea that somebody else can be brutally tortured to death to 'pay' for them is barbaric and absurd.
-
from: Walt Zingmatilder on September 25, 2023, 02:17:58 PM
You've just misunderstood what christianity is saying.
Given the plethora of cults and sects of Christianity, so have the majority of the Christians.
Sounds like a red herring or tu quoque or non sequitur to me
You owe God.
For what? If you accept the concept of a god, I didn't exist before God decided to put me on Earth with a potentially eternal punishment for failing to comply with poorly-communicated and oftentimes apparently arbitrary rules which are so important they've been changed multiple times. I don't owe god anything more than basic human decency.
You have offended the good for your own ego’s aggrandisement on several occasions or to put it another way God is the judge of human decency. People are still able to judge when they have offended against even that and others or even you will have pointed out to you where you indeed have.
A human(common) decency that only you and your chums fulfil is a bit of a put up job, don’t you think?
By blood sacrifice? If God can pay it himself, why was he holding the 'debt' over me? What kind of justice is it where someone else should rightly pay the penalty of the offender?…..and yet that is precisely what you are advocating here
The cost that he arbitrarily decided had to be paid for his actions for which he was holding us responsible? If that's the case... that sounds fair.
No he’s paying for the actions you are responsible for…..that’s what mercy is
Since he's paid what you owe.
Then the slate's clean, we can all walk away and not have to worry about this nonsense any more?
Being worried about all this runs contradictory to your argument about theophobia somewhat and that is that niggling concern that I advocate that people explore in themselves.
Having said that what it all means is the Lifeboat has arrived Outrider…….are you going to turn it away?
-
God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault ........
And such a view leads easily, it seems, to some (such as C S Lewis) to consider human beings in this fallen state to be little more than vermin and a horror to God, an attitude which no doubt reinforced such practices as the Magdalene Laundries.
-
The defence of ontological naturalism in the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy
Ontological naturalism should not be seen as a dogmatic commitment, its defenders have insisted,
When then should we be committed to it? Wednesdays, the summer? Not in a built up area after the hours of darkness? but rather as a defeasible hypothesis that is supported by centuries of inquiry into the supernatural.
Having previously distinguished between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism the article here reconflates the two
As scientific explanations have expanded to include more details about the workings of natural objects and laws, i.e. increased the knowledge derived from methodological naturalism there has been less and less room or need for invoking God as an explanation.
This is the religion as failed science fallacy It is not clear that expansion of scientific knowledge disproves the existence of God in any formal sense any more than it has disproven the existence of fairies, the atheistic naturalist argues.
Category error confusing falsifiable and non falsifiable claims and horses laugh fallacy here
-
Moderator Two posts, one of Vald's which was incorrectly posted here and a reply from Stranger have been moved to the Searching for God epic
-
Sounds like a red herring or tu quoque or non sequitur to me
I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you, I'll spell it out. You suggest that there is a definitively correct Christianity, but the plethora of mutually-contradictory sects and cults which accrete into the morass that is 'Christianity' would suggest that's not the case. How, therefore, can I be said to 'misunderstand' when it's not clear what the party line is, even before you try to establish that any of them has any validity.
You have offended the good for your own ego’s aggrandisement on several occasions
I've no doubt offended someone, at some point. Whether or not they're 'good' is for you to demonstrate, but being good doesn't entitle someone to be isolated from offence.
or to put it another way God is the judge of human decency.
God of the repeated human genocide? God of the 'I am a jealous god' fame? God of the 'rules for humanity' which don't preclude rape or slavery, but have special rules for genital mutilation, trendy haircuts and limiting farming practices? I reject your god's application and obviously inappropriate.
People are still able to judge when they have offended against even that and others or even you will have pointed out to you where you indeed have.
What's the punishment for abuse of the English language? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?
A human(common) decency that only you and your chums fulfil is a bit of a put up job, don’t you think?
The overwhelming majority of the Christians, Muslims, Jews and just people in general that I know typically practice a reasonable level of human decency, I wouldn't restrict it to one particular group. Only a rabid anti-theist would (or the straw-man of one) would even suggest such a thing, I think.
No he’s paying for the actions you are responsible for
Apart from the fact that the price is unjustifiable (I note that you didn't address the problematic 'blood sacrifice' element), and the fact that we've just established that I'm not cosmically responsible for fulfilling my inevitable destiny in a created universe, and that god isn't really paying (as he doesn't 'die' like real people do)... but apart from that, it still doesn't explain why it needs the spiritual drama-queenery to 'forgive' humanity for being the humans that he created them as.
that’s what mercy is
No, mercy is forgiving WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A PAYMENT.
Since he's paid what you owe.
Can I get an invoice for that, I'll declare it on my P11D as a gift in kind...
Being worried about all this runs contradictory to your argument about theophobia somewhat and that is that niggling concern that I advocate that people explore in themselves.
On the contrary, being worried about people treating this sort of nonsense as though it had any place in the modern world is exactly why it's entirely justifiable that we stand up and point out the ridiculous claims of religion - the world needs people to point out that the Emperor has not clothes.
Having said that what it all means is the Lifeboat has arrived Outrider…….are you going to turn it away?
Even if I was prepared to pay the price, despite the snake-oil assertion that it's already been paid, I can't find the pay machine, can't convert any of my cash into spiritual dollars and object to the fact that they charge (but claim they don't) for a seat on the lifeboat...
O.
-
When then should we be committed to it? Wednesdays, the summer? Not in a built up area after the hours of darkness?
Until someone comes up with something equally as reliable.
Having previously distinguished between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism the article here reconflates the two
I think the issue is that whilst naturalism has vanishingly few ontological adherents, it has allegations of innumerable onotological adherents. The article is pointing out that straw-man, you appear to have missed that.
This is the religion as failed science fallacy
I don't see it like that. It doesn't suggest that religion was an attempt to do what science now does, but it does identify that people took from religion an understanding of reality which has been supplanted by science.
Category error confusing falsifiable and non falsifiable claims and horses laugh fallacy here.
How can you have a category error between two undemonstrated phenomena? You know nothing definitive about what is claimed to be god, or about what is claimed to be fairies. You can compare the claims, and draw conclusions from investigation of those claims, but given that the investigations both come with 'not proven' you cannot say anything definitive about either. The categorical error, therefore is in your interpretation that there is a categorical difference between those two (and perhaps any) supernatural claims.
O.
-
And such a view leads easily, it seems, to some (such as C S Lewis) to consider human beings in this fallen state to be little more than vermin and a horror to God, an attitude which no doubt reinforced such practices as the Magdalene Laundries.
Slippery slope Enki? Happily We are not forced to react or agree with Mr Lewis's alleged permission or agree with the practices of the Magdalene nuns which seems to just underline the existence of sin.
I am not familiar with how CS Lewis's words reinforced the goings on at the magdalene laundries so perhaps you could oblige.
Sin alienates us from God. It certainly can make God a horror to us
-
God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault
Didn't God realise it was all going to go wrong? It seems remarkably short sighted of him.
A definition which is questionable
Only if you are trying to dodge the inescapable fact that Jesus dying for our sins but then coming alive again makes no sense.
No what is unjust is the proposal that any wrong doing not detected by fallible human legal systems and moral enforcement Is simply wiped off the slate i.e. the moral principle of ‘’not getting caught’’ but worse than that the idea of victimless crime is insane and unjust. Wrongdoing damages, even if that damage is to the perpetrator themselves.
Jesus does take away the consequences and opens the way to God.
So by taking away the consequences, Jesus wipes wrongdoing off the slate. You just said that is unjust.
Can you see why non Christians view your doctrine as incoherent?
-
Slippery slope Enki?
On the contrary. The idea of 'fallen' women has pervaded Christian thought over centuries, and that stems essentially from the story of Eve. Indeed the Magdalene laundries had no equivalent for men. As the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Thomas Gilmartin, said in 1925:
The future of the country is bound up with the dignity and purity of the women of Ireland”[/quote] Men, it seemed, were sinful as a direct result of the iniquities of the women, and, in particular, of the sexual kind.
Happily We are not forced to react or agree with Mr Lewis's alleged permission or agree with the practices of the Magdalene nuns which seems to just underline the existence of sin.
Of course we aren't. My own view is that Lewis showed himself to be a a very limited, small minded example of the times in which he lived. I don't use the word 'sin' but certainly the Magdalene laundries throughout a range of countries seemed to show extreme cruelty, both physical and mental, in many cases.
I am not familiar with how CS Lewis's words reinforced the goings on at the magdalene laundries so perhaps you could oblige.
His demeaning attitude towards women and his despicable descriptions of how humans are to be regarded reflects the appalling attitude of the nuns in some of these establishments. If you regard human beings as vermin, then you run the risk of treating them inhumanely.
According to that doctrine(the doctrine of the fall), man is now a horror to God and to himself and a creature ill-adapted to the universe not because God made him so but because he has made himself so by the abuse of his free will.
C S Lewis "The Problem Of Pain" p63 Collins Edition
Theoretically, I suppose we might say, 'Yes: we behave like vermin, but then that is because we are vermin. And that, at any rate, is not our fault.' But the fact that we are vermin, so far from being felt as an excuse, is a greater shame and grief to us than any of the particular acts which it leads us to commit.
C S Lewis "The Problem Of Pain" p81 Collins Edition
Sin alienates us from God. It certainly can make God a horror to us
As I have no belief in any god, the idea of alienation from God has no significance for me. I certainly regard the attitudes and machinations of some Christians and some Christian organizations with repugnance.
-
Where does it say the psalm is about the Messiah?
We have to read the psalms in the light of God's promise to David. Many of them contain details that help us identify the Messiah, and as you said, that process is back projection. The promise of an everlasting kingdom is partly fulfilled in the OT kings but we'd have to get clues as to how it is to be fulfilled completely from the details in the psalms. But you're right, it is a post-hoc identification process, for Peter based on the fact of the resurrection .
-
We have to read the psalms in the light of God's promise to David.
Ah, so it isn't about the Messiah. You are just making stuff up.
-
Ah, so it isn't about the Messiah. You are just making stuff up.
In light of the resurrection, yes it is.
-
In light of the resurrection, yes it is.
No, that's you back projecting again.
A prophecy is no good if you have to wait until after the thing it prophesies happens before you can identify it.
-
I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you, I'll spell it out. You suggest that there is a definitively correct Christianity, but the plethora of mutually-contradictory sects and cults which accrete into the morass that is 'Christianity' would suggest that's not the case. How, therefore, can I be said to 'misunderstand' when it's not clear what the party line is, even before you try to establish that any of them has any validity.
Well let me make it clear to you. I do not represent or have any interest in any 'christianity' that does not follow the creeds of the early church. I would have thought that it was a simple matter for you to find out what these are, given the inordinate amount of time you give over to criticism. What is it anyway, that distinguishes your opening complaint from an admission of ignorance of orthodox christianity and the main heresies?
God of the repeated human genocide?
or rather the God of the lesser evil God of the 'I am a jealous god' fame?
what do you think that results in? Would you agree that you are in no relationship with God? How then does God's jealousy affect you? Am I pleased that God will not let me be seduced into the damnable because of his jealousy. You betcha.
God of the 'rules for humanity' which don't preclude rape or slavery
I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that it is only thanks to the enlightenment that rape and slavery were abolished, The most abject Slavery being pagan and commercial but have special rules for genital mutilation, trendy haircuts and limiting farming practices? I reject your god's application and obviously inappropriate.
I'm afraid you are talking to a chappy of the wrong religion on this one.
The overwhelming majority of the Christians, Muslims, Jews and just people in general that I know typically practice a reasonable level of human decency, I wouldn't restrict it to one particular group.
Human decency is derived from religious conviction and enlightened self interest I would move...with self interest being the weak link in human decency.
Apart from the fact that the price is unjustifiable (I note that you didn't address the problematic 'blood sacrifice' element),
Blood sacrifice occurs in war or even the lady crossing the road who helps someone and gets ploughed into by a car and the fact that we've just established that I'm not cosmically responsible for fulfilling my inevitable destiny in a created universe, and that god isn't really paying (as he doesn't 'die' like real people do)
We haven't established that at all. God gives you free will in moral choices. That is all he is guilty of, any moral choices being yours. Again he is the only one who dies for those choices...
No, mercy is forgiving WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A PAYMENT.
That is just forgetting, not forgiving and therefore what you describe as mercy is just letting someone get away with it. Secondly and perhaps more importantly what is the effect of the mercy on the perpetrator? Is the perpetrator moved to repentance or is it business as usual?
On the contrary, being worried about people treating this sort of nonsense as though it had any place in the modern world
Fallacy of modernity
-
Until someone comes up with something equally as reliable.
I take it then you think we should have a dogmatic commitmentment to ontological naturalism
I don't see it like that. It doesn't suggest that religion was an attempt to do what science now does, but it does identify that people took from religion an understanding of reality which has been supplanted by science.
I have both religion and science, how then does science supplant religion? Doesn't that rather mean that people for whom science is now their cassus vivendi are neglecting an aspect of themselves?
-
Didn't God realise it was all going to go wrong? It seems remarkably short sighted of him.
How has the universe all gone wrong? If 'right' is a universe with entities with moral free will then what has gone 'wrong'?
Only if you are trying to dodge the inescapable fact that Jesus dying for our sins but then coming alive again makes no sense.
Again, Jesus dies in the demonstration of how all human deaths have, do and will occur. All die, all are resurrected and whoever has consented, resurrected in the glory and blessing of God
So by taking away the consequences, Jesus wipes wrongdoing off the slate. You just said that is unjust.
Wrong doing hasn't been wiped of the slate Jesus has taken on the consequences of sin in existential and cosmic terms namely the experience of separation from God and in human terms, the death of himself to himself. There is no casual just forgetting about it all going on here.
Can you see why non Christians view your doctrine as incoherent?
Not non christians who aren't caricaturing the doctrine, no.
-
I take it then you think we should have a dogmatic commitmentment to ontological naturalism
Another English comprehension fail. ::)
How has the universe all gone wrong? If 'right' is a universe with entities with moral free will then what has gone 'wrong'?
'Free will' is a fundamentally incoherent concept with respect to an omniscient, omnipotent creator. Such a being would effectively have full control over our nature, nurture, and life experience. Also, if you think the universe is a design, then it's shit. Look at all the unnecessary suffering, not all of which can be blamed on humans, even if the idea of 'free will' wasn't absurd (which it obviously is).
-
On the contrary. The idea of 'fallen' women has pervaded Christian thought over centuries, and that stems essentially from the story of Eve.
But the more pressing message from Adam and Eve is the fall of mankind. concentration on the fall of woman is not a requisite for getting the point of the story which if we follow it through we see the consequences of Adam's sin, murder, expressed in terms of two brothers Indeed the Magdalene laundries had no equivalent for men. As the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr Thomas Gilmartin, said in 1925:
The future of the country is bound up with the dignity and purity of the women of Ireland” Men, it seemed, were sinful as a direct result of the iniquities of the women, and, in particular, of the sexual kind.
And again it is an example of human evil of sin rather than your own gradation of sin where, if only catholics were removed the world would be a better place
My own view is that Lewis showed himself to be a a very limited, small minded example of the times in which he lived. I don't use the word 'sin' but certainly the Magdalene laundries throughout a range of countries seemed to show extreme cruelty, both physical and mental, in many cases.
No He was a very big minded example of the times he lived who unlike Russell never indentured his intellect to the high rolling life of an upper class shagger.
His demeaning attitude towards women
His marriage to a feisty female american former atheist jew for me tends not to bear that out, however I am prepared to accept how this would need repentance from a stuffy oxford academic misogyny......something Dawkins has yet to pull off? and his despicable descriptions of how humans are to be regarded reflects the appalling attitude of the nuns in some of these establishments. If you regard human beings as vermin, then you run the risk of treating them inhumanely.
I missed this, getting as I did the chief points of the book still, I suppose it depends what your motives are for reading it.
As for viewing humanity in moral terms as a lowly and unpleasant blighting species that is a term found in green philosophy. What is lost on you apparently is in christianity we have the biblical perspective that ''God so loved the world that he gave his only son''
Lewis is right to be scathing about the human record and any rose tinted presentation of it.
As I have no belief in any god, the idea of alienation from God has no significance for me. I certainly regard the attitudes and machinations of some Christians and some Christian organizations with repugnance.
I am the same with some secularists and some secular organisationsas well as some christian ones.
Sadly I also suspect publicly professed atheists of indifference not only to alienation from God but alienation from others and the issue of self alienation.
-
Another English comprehension fail. ::)
'Free will' is a fundamentally incoherent concept with respect to an omniscient, omnipotent creator. Such a being would effectively have full control over our nature, nurture, and life experience. Also, if you think the universe is a design, then it's shit. Look at all the unnecessary suffering, not all of which can be blamed on humans, even if the idea of 'free will' wasn't absurd (which it obviously is).
What you are saying is that an omnipotent creator is not able to create a being with freewill. Now that is ''shit'' as you say.
-
What you are saying is that an omnipotent creator is not able to create a being with freewill. Now that is ''shit'' as you say.
Do you think omnipotence extends to doing the self-contradictory?
If so, then fine, your god could reach down and literally draw a square circle on my desk and free will is possible but you have to abandon all claims to have used reasoning or evidence to reach that conclusion because they cannot be used to support self-contradiction.
If not, then my point stands. Even omnipotence cannot produce beings with free will with respect to an omnipotent and omniscient creator.
I also note that you didn't address the unnecessary suffering....
-
I take it then you think we should have a dogmatic commitmentment to ontological naturalism
Not as much as I do to spelling! I have a pragmatic commitment to science. To quote your favourite anti-theist 'It works, bitches!'.
I have both religion and science, how then does science supplant religion?
You have science where we have current answers. Science doesn't supplant religion, religion will always be there when you want to feel unjustifiably confident about something in the absence of sufficient information to make a reasoned accounting because you have some deep-rooted fear of saying 'I don't know'.
Doesn't that rather mean that people for whom science is now their cassus vivendi are neglecting an aspect of themselves?
(Isn't that 'casus'? And isn't it 'modus vivendi'? My Latin isn't great, I confess)
It might if you could demonstrate any sort of validity to the whole notion of religion/spirituality. Until then, it remains just a vague possibility. I'd be more concerned about my neglecting of classics, as you can see.
O.
-
Well let me make it clear to you. I do not represent or have any interest in any 'christianity' that does not follow the creeds of the early church.
Or, at least, what you think were the tenets of the early church, at least.
I would have thought that it was a simple matter for you to find out what these are, given the inordinate amount of time you give over to criticism.
You'd think it would, wouldn't you. You'd think if an infinitely wise, infinitely good deity had critical information to impart to humanity you'd think the instruction book would be unambiguous and obvious, but you can't even decide if there's one sequel, or two, or which two.
What is it anyway, that distinguishes your opening complaint from an admission of ignorance of orthodox christianity and the main heresies?
Critical thinking.
or rather the God of the lesser evil
That's rather lowering the bar from the triple-omni, don't you think. Omnipotent, sort of omnibenevolent, well, better than the alternative...
what do you think that results in?
A distasteful depiction of a cosmically powerful sadist - sort of a antediluvian Thanos, if you will. (Or Darkseid, depending on which church you hold to)
Would you agree that you are in no relationship with God?
I'm not aware I'm in a relationship with any gods - I write, but they don't get back to me, I follow them on 'X' but they don't acknowledge. Of course, that presupposes that 'X' account isn't just a bot...
How then does God's jealousy affect you?
Because people believe it. Because people at my kids' school teach them this nonsense uncritically. Because our monarchy is predicated on the notion that it's fundamentally true.
Am I pleased that God will not let me be seduced into the damnable because of his jealousy. You betcha.
If that's your god, your god is not something to be worshipped, it's something to be placated. It's a monster, not something to aspire to. You talk of a relationship with god, your god is the boyfriend that won't let you have any other friends... we recognise that as abuse these days, how come you don't?
I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that it is only thanks to the enlightenment that rape and slavery were abolished
No-one said that it was, but it certainly wasn't based on scripture which doesn't admonish either and tacitly (rape) or explicitly (slavery) condones both.
I'm afraid you are talking to a chappy of the wrong religion on this one.
Because you have the definitive take on which bits of which of the books are valid and which aren't, and everyone else is wrong, and you can prove it...
Human decency is derived from religious conviction and enlightened self interest I would move...with self interest being the weak link in human decency.
That would be the human decency of genital mutilation, honour killings, religious persecution, homophobia, misogyny, caste systems and child marriage that springs like the glorious fruits of spring from religious conviction, right? Human decency can be argued to be enlightened self-interest, yes, and I'd say that human decency leads some people to religious conviction because they don't look too deeply at the content of their religion and believe the hype that it's 'the moral way'. I don't see anything that particularly leads from religious devotion to human decency.
Blood sacrifice occurs in war or even the lady crossing the road who helps someone and gets ploughed into by a car
Politicians who send soldiers to war don't want the blood, but they accept that it's a necessary price for achieving their goals because they don't have something better. They are not, for want of a better word, omnipotent...
We haven't established that at all.
We have. You're still catching up, but give it time.
God gives you free will in moral choices.
Free will is not logically viable in itself, it's not viable in light of the nature of time as a dimension and it's not compatible with the notion of a divinely created reality.
That is all he is guilty of, any moral choices being yours.
Who said anything about morality? The rules in the books aren't about morality, they're about obedience, they're about compliance. What's the moral justification of cutting off the end of a child's penis? You can argue that this requirement has been superseded (others would argue against that) but that doesn't change the fact that it was a requirement - what's the moral justification for that? What's the moral problem with homosexuality? Acting on that might, if you accepted the notion, be a 'free will' thing, but why make gay people in the first instance if it's such a problem? Why make people curious if curiosity is a problem, why make women have opinions if the intent is for them to sit down and be quiet?
Again he is the only one who dies for those choices...
The whole point of the book is that (spoilers) HE'S NOT DEAD!!!! Wow, Sixth Sense seems so tame now... He didn't 'Die for our sins' he took the weekend off in a fit of pique.
That is just forgetting, not forgiving and therefore what you describe as mercy is just letting someone get away with it.
Who said anything about forgetting? You don't take revenge, but you don't let people do it again - mercy. Taking payment is punishment, whether it's a fine or a pound of flesh. Taking that payment from someone else, that's another massive short circuit in the 'morality' that you touted. If someone else makes the payment, how have I been punished, and I've been forgiven without being punished, how does someone else being punished change that?
If god somehow needs to feel that someone's been punished.. warning signs. Don't give that god a cat, that's all I'm saying.
Secondly and perhaps more importantly what is the effect of the mercy on the perpetrator? Is the perpetrator moved to repentance or is it business as usual?
Perpetrator of WHAT? Being human? Having the wrong haircut. Eating the wrong cuisine. Effective horticulture. Fashion faux-pas? Loving someone with unfortunately matching genitals? Not kowtowing at the correct building?
Fallacy of modernity.
You need to learn what that means. Suggesting that there is a modern world is not 'the fallacy of modernity'. Suggesting that we've rid ourselves of innumerable ideas of magic as unrealistic and could do with getting rid of the last few is not 'the fallacy of modernity'.
O.
-
How has the universe all gone wrong? If 'right' is a universe with entities with moral free will then what has gone 'wrong'?
Let me remind you that I was responding to this assertion by you
God made us in the image of God and we don’t earn death for that. Our offence is spoiling that image i.e. ourselves through omission or commission or our own deliberate fault
That suggests that you think it all went wrong, at least in respect of humans. Did God know that we were going to offend or didn't he?
Again, Jesus dies in the demonstration of how all human deaths have, do and will occur.
So Jesus is to salvation what Fanny Craddock was to cookery?
Try to be a bit more coherent. First he was paying a price, then he was demoing resurrection. What was he really doing?
Wrong doing hasn't been wiped of the slate Jesus has taken on the consequences of sin in existential and cosmic terms namely the experience of separation from God and in human terms, the death of himself to himself. There is no casual just forgetting about it all going on here. Not non christians who aren't caricaturing the doctrine, no.
If you don't have to face the consequences of your sin because of Jesus, then your wrong doing has been wiped off the slate.
-
Continuing the internet encyclopedia of philosophy on ATHEISM
5. Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism
In 20th century moral theory, a view about the nature of moral value claims arose that has an analogue in discussions of atheism. Moral non-cognitivists have denied that moral utterances should be treated as ordinary propositions that are either true or false and subject to evidential analysis. On their view, when someone makes a moral claim like, “Cheating is wrong,” what they are doing is more akin to saying something like, “I have negative feelings about cheating. I want you to share those negative feelings. Cheating. Bad.”
But should we stop there? Shouldn't we explore our feelings not least to find out if they are our feelings and not second hand feelings. Surely we can and should analyse our feelings and get to the root and gain from the experience after all that is what counselling and therapy are about
A non-cognitivist atheist denies that religious utterances are propositions. They are not the sort of speech act that have a truth value. They are more like emoting, singing, poetry, or cheering. They express personal desires, feelings of subjugation, admiration, humility, and love. As such, they cannot and should not be dealt with by denials or arguments any more than I can argue with you over whether or not a poem moves you.
Yes but again, is the non- cognitivist atheist going deep and far enough a) because they tend to leave it at this and b) they ignore their own feelings and attitudes....i.e. the problem is people having religious feelings.....we're OK they're not OK...Zero self reflection on whether it might just be us atheists.
Of course the challenge of self or type reflection can be avoided by reference to neuroscience not only a science but a way of explaining away feelings....because you feel you should do.
-
Continuing the internet encyclopedia of philosophy on ATHEISM But should we stop there? Shouldn't we explore our feelings not least to find out if they are our feelings and not second hand feelings. Surely we can and should analyse our feelings and get to the root and gain from the experience after all that is what counselling and therapy are aboutYes but again, is the non- cognitivist atheist going deep and far enough a) because they tend to leave it at this and b) they ignore their own feelings and attitudes....i.e. the problem is people having religious feelings.....we're OK they're not OK...Zero self reflection on whether it might just be us atheists.
Of course the challenge of self or type reflection can be avoided by reference neuroscience not only a science but a way of explaining away feelings....because you feel you should do.
I don't think you should be introducing new topics into this thread just yet. You still have a lot of questions about previous stuff that you haven't answered yet.
-
Not as much as I do to spelling! I have a pragmatic commitment to science. To quote your favourite anti-theist 'It works, bitches!'.
I could be mean here and call you to say how does ontological naturalism work after which you would probably embarrass yourself by confusing and conflating Ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism but..........,.....
OK, since you have asserted ontological naturalism works state how it works.
-
I could be mean here and call you to say how does ontological naturalism work after which you would probably embarrass yourself by confusing and conflating Ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism but..........,.....
You could be mean, you could be generous, but the very least you could do is actually read what was written. I have a PRAGMATIC commitment to science, not an ideological one. That's methodological naturalism, not ontological.
O.
-
No, that's you back projecting again.
A prophecy is no good if you have to wait until after the thing it prophesies happens before you can identify it.
I've already admitted to back projecting. It's talking about David, but you have to look at the bigger picture which is how is God going to fulfil his promise to David. The 'holy one' (ps 16:10) will be completely holy and so will not be left in the grave
It's the same kind of prophecy as in John 19, for example, where there are three fulfilments, none of which Jesus had any control over. I don't know if all the fulfilments cited by the NT are similar, but a lot are. You probably know that this is called 'prophetic typology'. Again, they identify who the Messiah is. That is the context of Peter's speech to the crowd in Acts 2, where he's arguing that Jesus is the Messiah.
If you think this type of prophecy is no good, I understand.
-
But the more pressing message from Adam and Eve is the fall of mankind. concentration on the fall of woman is not a requisite for getting the point of the story which if we follow it through we see the consequences of Adam's sin, murder, expressed in terms of two brothers
On the other hand try reading this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1989/03/26/genesis-from-eves-point-of-view/dc371184-1f4c-4142-ac2d-d5efee72a0da/
Indeed it is all about the fall of mankind, where, it seems, we were all sinful but some(especially women) are more sinful than others. :)
And again it is an example of human evil of sin rather than your own gradation of sin where, if only catholics were removed the world would be a better place
Actually, even though Catholic nuns were in charge of running the Magdalene laundries, the first ones were protestant run. Certainly, if attitudes had been different and those who ran and managed such harmful institutions had been more enlightened, more sympatheic and caring, the world for those unfortunate women might well have been a better place.
No He was a very big minded example of the times he lived who unlike Russell never indentured his intellect to the high rolling life of an upper class shagger.
He was certainly a man of his times, which included of course his idea that homosexual sex was a perversion, that the man should be head of the household, that the first step in education is 'to break the child's will' in order to encourage obedience to our 'Creator'. It seems his intellect remained unsullied by more enlightened views. ;D
His marriage to a feisty female american former atheist jew for me tends not to bear that out, however I am prepared to accept how this would need repentance from a stuffy oxford academic misogyny......something Dawkins has yet to pull off?
How he conducted his personal life was not as influential as his thoughts conveyed by the written and the spoken word. As for Dawkins, not sure why you bring him up? I have found his views and explanations on evolution(e.g. 'Climbing Mount Improbable' or 'The Extended Phenotype') to be particularly interesting and revealing. But apart from that, I have nothing to say about him.
I missed this, getting as I did the chief points of the book still, I suppose it depends what your motives are for reading it.
My motives are simple. I read any similar book with what I hope is an unswerving critical eye, hoping to learn and extend my knowledge of what and how other people think.
As for viewing humanity in moral terms as a lowly and unpleasant blighting species that is a term found in green philosophy. What is lost on you apparently is in christianity we have the biblical perspective that ''God so loved the world that he gave his only son''
which of course has no real significance to me, as it is based on the idea that this God exists, that Jesus is his son and that by dying for a short period of time, he somehow shows his love for the world.
Lewis is right to be scathing about the human record and any rose tinted presentation of it.
Except that he misses so much emphasising the 'sin' aspect rather than explore in more detail other aspects of humanity, some of which I would say are worthy of a degree of admiration.
I am the same with some secularists and some secular organisations as well as some christian ones.
Good, so am I.
Sadly I also suspect publicly professed atheists of indifference not only to alienation from God but alienation from others and the issue of self alienation.
Not even sure what you are trying to say here. You'll have to explain.
-
Let me remind you that I was responding to this assertion by you
That suggests that you think it all went wrong, at least in respect of humans. Did God know that we were going to offend or didn't he?
Sorry I was under the impression you think God had got it wrong. He didn’t. Any foreknowledge is not forordination. I think we’ve had this conversation already. He knows because he is there So Jesus is to salvation what Fanny Craddock was to cookery?
Strange analogy. Horses laugh fallacy?
Try to be a bit more coherent. First he was paying a price, then he was demoing resurrection. What was he really doing?
or he was paying a price and demoing resurrectionIf you don't have to face the consequences of your sin because of Jesus, then your wrong doing has been wiped off the slate.
The effect of any original sin has been wiped off the slate because Jesus has taken the consequences of it. The way to a relationship with God is now open.
-
On the other hand try reading this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1989/03/26/genesis-from-eves-point-of-view/dc371184-1f4c-4142-ac2d-d5efee72a0da/
Indeed it is all about the fall of mankind, where, it seems, we were all sinful but some(especially women) are more sinful than others. :)
All have fallen short
Actually, even though Catholic nuns were in charge of running the Magdalene laundries, the first ones were protestant run. Certainly, if attitudes had been different and those who ran and managed such harmful institutions had been more enlightened, more sympatheic and caring, the world for those unfortunate women might well have been a better place.
The thing is what is it about attitudes that makes them bad? Your focus is on religion my focus is on self centred ness and deeds done for the protection and aggrandisement of the ego.
My motives are simple. I read any similar book with what I hope is an unswerving critical eye, hoping to learn and extend my knowledge of what and how other people think.
I came to CS Lewis writings as an agnostic atheist thinking religion was for those who needed a crutch but came away with something quite different from you.
which of course has no real significance to me, as it is based on the idea that this God exists, that Jesus is his son and that by dying for a short period of time, he somehow shows his love for the world.
Except that he misses so much emphasising the 'sin' aspect rather than explore in more detail other aspects of humanity, some of which I would say are worthy of a degree of admiration.
The death involved Jesus experiencing a very human sense of alienation from God which comes from sin. That cannot be his own sin. Jesus really does die and is ressurected by God, as we all will be.
Not even sure what you are trying to say here. You'll have to explain.
It means that atheists who publicly announce their atheism and contrast are not heavy on encouraging an exploration of feelings which they consider the useless rind from the fruit of scientific analysis. Preferring Neuroscience to psychology.
-
You could be mean, you could be generous, but the very least you could do is actually read what was written. I have a PRAGMATIC commitment to science, not an ideological one. That's methodological naturalism, not ontological.
O.
Since most people have some kind of commitment to science....How then would you describe your commitment to ontological naturalism?
-
All have fallen short
Don't agree.
The thing is what is it about attitudes that makes them bad? Your focus is on religion my focus is on self centred ness and deeds done for the protection and aggrandisement of the ego.
As my original comment(reply 106) was in response to your ideas associated with the religious aspect of human offence against God, then I make no apology for that. I would also remind you that when you suggested that when you included 'some secularists and some secularist organizations' I agreed with you.
I came to CS Lewis writings as an agnostic atheist thinking religion was for those who needed a crutch but came away with something quite different from you.
Obviously
The death involved Jesus experiencing a very human sense of alienation from God which comes from sin. That cannot be his own sin. Jesus really does die and is ressurected by God, as we all will be.
I have no reason to think that Jesus was resurrected by God/Himself. Hence, all you are stating are your own beliefs. And therefore as I said, this is of little significance to me.
It means that atheists who publicly announce their atheism and contrast are not heavy on encouraging an exploration of feelings which they consider the useless rind from the fruit of scientific analysis. Preferring Neuroscience to psychology.
So, let me get this right. If you publically profess you are an atheist then you are more likely to dismiss feelings(of alienation?) from God, others and even oneself. That's the way I read it.
Well I am an atheist, I have plenty of feelings but I have no sense of alienation from a God whom I don't believe in, no particular alienation from my fellow human beings and certainly no alienation from myself as far as I know. Hence am I indifferent to this supposed alienation, as you suggested? Well certainly as it applies to God for obvious reasons(like saying water's wet), certainly not from my fellow human beings and as regards myself, I'm not sure how I(myself) would recognise/understand alienation from myself. Sounds rather confusing to me.
-
Sorry I was under the impression you think God had got it wrong. He didn’t.
So he went ahead and created us, knowing full well that we were going to screw up. That seems a bit stupid of him.
I think we’ve had this conversation already.
May times. You'd think by now that you could have thought up a credible argument.
He knows because he is there Strange analogy. Horses laugh fallacy?
You said he was demoing death and resurrection. Fanny Craddock was the first TV cook that came to mind who demoed cookery.
or he was paying a price
You still seem to think crime and punishment is like a financial transaction and yet you fail to follow the analogy through to its absurd conclusion.
The effect of any original sin has been wiped off the slate because Jesus has taken the consequences of it. The way to a relationship with God is now open.
So now you agree that you've had the consequences of your sinful actions wiped clean. But couldn't God just forgive you?
-
Since most people have some kind of commitment to science....How then would you describe your commitment to ontological naturalism?
On a par with your commitment to dealing with the pertinent issues at hand, tenuous at best. Way to deal with the main thrust of the post and just pick out the bit that you think you can build a straw-man out of, you are truly the scarecrow chieftain, and just in time for bonfire season.
::)
O.
-
Don't agree.
Who do you think, then, has not fallen short in moral terms?
I have no reason to think that Jesus was resurrected by God/Himself. Hence, all you are stating are your own beliefs.
Which is what most of us are doing here,isn't it And therefore as I said, this is of little significance to me.
You may believe that as an atheist but as an agnostic how can you know what the significance is to you of God resurrecting the dead?
So, let me get this right. If you publically profess you are an atheist then you are more likely to dismiss feelings(of alienation?) from God, others and even oneself. That's the way I read it.
Yes, that's about the size of it.Well I am an atheist, I have plenty of feelings but I have no sense of alienation from a God whom I don't believe in, no particular alienation from my fellow human beings and certainly no alienation from myself as far as I know. Hence am I indifferent to this supposed alienation, as you suggested?
But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...or put another way, how do you manage to avoid it?
-
So now you agree that you've had the consequences of your sinful actions wiped clean. But couldn't God just forgive you?
There are no consequenceless offences Jeremy, even if the only one who recieves them is the offender. Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.
-
Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.
No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you. Even if it were, that does not make the insane sadomasochistic nonsense of Jesus being tortured to death for our sins any more rational. Neither does it address the nonsensical standard of perfection your god imposes on its own imperfect creation.
-
There are no consequenceless offences Jeremy, even if the only one who recieves them is the offender. Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.
The point is that you will not have to bear the consequences of your sinful actions. Your slate is wiped clean.
-
.But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...
I'm familiar with the term, are you?
How would anyone know if they felt alienated?
Is it identical feeling for everyone or is it an individual case by case experience?
-
Forgiveness IS bearing the consequences.
No it isn't. The consequences of murder are a life sentence if you get caught. If the victim's relatives forgive you, they don't have to serve your time. In fact, you'll be sent down whether or not they forgive you.
-
The point is that you will not have to bear the consequences of your sinful actions. Your slate is wiped clean.
My hope then is that you realise this and gratefully embrace that a relationship with God is therefore now open to you.
-
My hope then is that you realise this and gratefully embrace that a relationship with God is therefore now open to you.
So where's the justice?
-
No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you.
''reasons which have been explained to you'' a phrase which frequently runs effortlessly and thoughtlessly from you'' Outrider says he has nothing to be forgiven. Jeremy thinks that offence imposes zero burden and forgiveness is just achieved with a word. As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero so no, the moral equations used to acquit mankind have not been adequately presented. As usual what is explained is just the usual warmed over vociferacely enforced agnosticism.
-
''reasons which have been explained to you'' a phrase which frequently runs effortlessly and thoughtlessly from you''
That will be because its true. Most recent example: #145 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=20113.msg871758#msg871758).
As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero so no, the moral equations used to acquit mankind have not been adequately presented.
What the hell is the justification for comparing this to mathematics?
The other point you keep on running away from is that if any of this shit is true, we would be being held responsible for being what god has made us. If anybody needs forgiveness it's your god, not humanity. Making us incapable of being 'sinless' and then blaming us for it is god's immoral fuck up, not ours.
-
Jeremy thinks that offence imposes zero burden and forgiveness is just achieved with a word.
Do you believe that the victim of a crime can only forgive the perpetrator if the somebody else "pays" for it in some way?
As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero
If we've got to achieve a zero sum, there's a massive problem: all of the sins of humanity have to be equated against the mere temporary death of one god-man.
-
Outrider says he has nothing to be forgiven.
Which you've not in any way given a reason to suggest is incorrect.
Jeremy thinks that ... forgiveness is just achieved with a word.
I think he's suggested that it CAN be achieved with just a word - and if it can be, then surely it's within the capability of an allegedly omni-benevolent being?
As a mathematician he should know what is involved in achieving sum zero so no, the moral equations used to acquit mankind have not been adequately presented.
Are we talking morality, or are we talking sin, because those are very different things. Sin can, allegedly, be inherited, but can moral responsibility be transferred?
As usual what is explained is just the usual warmed over vociferacely enforced agnosticism.
And, as usual, what's put up instead of any sort of an attempt at a rebuttal is word-salad, light-speed goalposts, selective avoidance and occasionally 'swivel-eyed' anti-atheismTM.
O.
[/quote]
-
Who do you think, then, has not fallen short in moral terms?
We were talking about the idea of sin, and of original sin specifically, so I made it crystal clear that I don't agree with your idea that, as regards sin, we have all fallen short. The reason? I don't accept the idea of Biblical sin at all. As to morality, I can think of many people who have not 'fallen short' by dint of their attitudes and actions according to my take on morality.
Which is what most of us are doing here,isn't it
Then you should make it clear that it is simply your opinion, rather than state things as if they are factual.
You may believe that as an atheist but as an agnostic how can you know what the significance is to you of God resurrecting the dead?
I don't 'know', but as I consider the whole idea as being highly improbable then it isn't something I consider to be of much importance and therefore pay little attention to it.
Yes, that's about the size of it.
Good.
But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...or put another way, how do you manage to avoid it?
I don't think in terms of avoidance because it doesn't make any sense to me to avoid something I don't feel.
-
But you are familiar with the term alienation and would know it if you felt it right...or put another way, how do you manage to avoid it?
One outgrows it.
-
No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you.
It is i'm afraid since even a life sentence for a murder cannot bring that person back or fill the hole that loved one's have to carry, or with the possible dehumanised ease of killing again which the perpetrator could attain Even if it were, that does not make the insane sadomasochistic nonsense of Jesus being tortured to death for our sins any more rational. Neither does it address the nonsensical standard of perfection your god imposes on its own imperfect creation.
Any imperfections at the start do not alienate Man from God since man is in fellowship with God. Alienation comes from man and is transmitted to man's posterity by man. That is the claim.
-
No it isn't. The consequences of murder are a life sentence if you get caught. If the victim's relatives forgive you, they don't have to serve your time. In fact, you'll be sent down whether or not they forgive you.
Or Jeremy, you get away with it...and defy the legal process. In which case the relatives have to bear non closure, non justice etc even being unable to forgive and even if you do go down they are still left with the consequences of your act. Their mercy still leaves them with that. Your view of justice and mercy is IMO a restricted one because you reduce the complete picture and eliminate quality as well as detail.
-
It is i'm afraid since even a life sentence for a murder cannot bring that person back or fill the hole that loved one's have to carry, or with the possible dehumanised ease of killing again which the perpetrator could attain
And.....?
If a murderer is forgiven, that doesn't mean somebody else needs to serve the sentence. Neither does somebody else serving the sentence address the issues you raised.
You're just emphasising the absurdity of the nonsensical crucifixion.
Any imperfections at the start do not alienate Man from God since man is in fellowship with God. Alienation comes from man and is transmitted to man's posterity by man. That is the claim.
Irrelevant. Whatever the reasons (which would all be under an omni-god's control anyway) judging people against a standard that nobody can achieve is unjust, not to mention stupid.
-
It is i'm afraid since even a life sentence for a murder cannot bring that person back or fill the hole that loved one's have to carry, or with the possible dehumanised ease of killing again which the perpetrator could attain
So Jesus dying for a couple of days is not enough consequences either.
You really are talking nonsense. If you stole my car, I might choose to forgive you even if you still go to prison and the insurance company bears the monetary consequences. Forgiveness absolutely does not require the forgiver to take on the consequences.
Any imperfections at the start
So God made us imperfect. Got it.
Alienation comes from man and is transmitted to man's posterity by man. That is the claim.
Yes but, if God had made us perfect we wouldn't have become alienated at all. Why didn't God make man perfect?
-
No it isn't, for reasons that have been explained to you. And yes you would have had me there if only Jeremy hadn't omitted some salient details which I have pointed out to him
Even if it were, that does not make the insane sadomasochistic nonsense of Jesus being tortured to death for our sins any more rational. Neither does it address the nonsensical standard of perfection your god imposes on its own imperfect creation.
The only thing that is insanely sexual is your take on it.
-
Or Jeremy, you get away with it...and defy the legal process.
In my example the murderer gets caught.
-
I'm familiar with the term, are you?
How would anyone know if they felt alienated?
Is it identical feeling for everyone or is it an individual case by case experience?
Alienation is an observed behaviour which one does not have to be conscious of in order to display it. Or maybe I'm imagining it and there is no alienation in the world........no....there is and to imagine there ain't is, perhaps a tad rose tinted humanistic claptrap....... IMO.
If you get round to recognising the feeling, that's probably progress.
-
In my example the murderer gets caught.
But it isn't a straight transaction given emotions and details such as irreplaceable loss or possible undersentencing.
I'll put my cards on the table Jeremy, your barebones formula comes in as underdetailed and under par. And that's about as far bas I can advise you.
-
So Jesus dying for a couple of days is not enough consequences either.
It's more than enough for an innocent man.
-
One outgrows it.
Given the amount of alienation in the world and the lack of actual influence of your average rebellious teen as opposed to comfortable old gents like ourselves. I do wonder iff you are correct.
-
It's more than enough for an innocent man.
Which means it is unjust
-
But it isn't a straight transaction given emotions and details such as irreplaceable loss or possible undersentencing.
I'll put my cards on the table Jeremy, your barebones formula comes in as underdetailed and under par. And that's about as far bas I can advise you.
It's not me with a bare bones formula or who thinks crimes and punishments can be modelled by numerical transactions. It's you. Your position is utterly incoherent.
If you want to argue that forgiveness is about taking the consequences, you have to acknowledge that Jesus did not take the consequences for the vast majority of crimes. He only died once, and then it wasn't permanent, so the best you can argue is he took the consequences for one murder, and that's iffy as he didn't stay dead.
You're all over the place Vlad. Find a religion that's more coherent.
-
Alienation is an observed behaviour which one does not have to be conscious of in order to display it.
Do tell how one would observe alienation in oneself.
-
It's not me with a bare bones formula or who thinks crimes and punishments can be modelled by numerical transactions. It's you. Your position is utterly incoherent.
On the contrary I have tried to be as comprehensive and wide ranging as possible, considering civil and criminal law, the notion of compensation, the scale of the consequences of sin, costs to victim including recourse to justice, the inadequacies in human law, the two victim nature of wrongdoing etc, etc It is you and your colleagues here who have omitted factors seemingly as and when it suits
If you want to argue that forgiveness is about taking the consequences, you have to acknowledge that Jesus did not take the consequences for the vast majority of crimes.
There are temporal consequences of course. We operate in both a material and human environment but sin has a further more serious consequences on the self and there is no improvement without repentance He only died once, and then it wasn't permanent, so the best you can argue is he took the consequences for one murder, and that's iffy as he didn't stay dead.
But that is getting death wrong. Given the universal resurrection of the new testament there is not the ''permanent death'' that you are suggesting. Also satisfaction of conditions by Jesus death is in God's judgment and not ours and thirdly I would move that Jesus is taking on an entity known as 'the sins of the world' and that your metaphor is thus inadequate.
-
Which means it is unjust
It could be argued that mercy is unjust since it foils the mechanics and realisation of the blind process of justice....and God's operation and Jesus' mission are ones of mercy. God soaks up the spiritual consequences for the self of sin.
Also, Jesus is aquitted...The grave is unable to hold him......which brings us round to the third point.....who sentences God to death in the hope that he stays dead? People do. I think it was Socrates who suggested that a perfect human being would inevitably be put to death.
-
Then you should make it clear that it is simply your opinion, rather than state things as if they are factual.
But as an agnostic atheist surely you can see that you don't know whether they are factual or not
-
Do tell how one would observe alienation in oneself.
I think you need to start spot it others since we do not initially want to think bad of ourselves and then check that we aren't demonstrating the same behaviour.
I often find my myself with an unjustifiable level of distaste for instance for your online input here. I seek to counter it by using and weaponising my sarcastic humour such as it is .....and i'm sure you are motivated similarly. But such behaviour and attitude is remiss and one should be resolved to refrain from it....
By the way, is it true that you felt ill once and someone told you to get on the forum quick, before it wore off?
-
It could be argued that mercy is unjust since it foils the mechanics and realisation of the blind process of justice....and God's operation and Jesus' mission are ones of mercy. God soaks up the spiritual consequences for the self of sin.
Also, Jesus is aquitted...The grave is unable to hold him......which brings us round to the third point.....who sentences God to death in the hope that he stays dead? People do. I think it was Socrates who suggested that a perfect human being would inevitably be put to death.
So he's overly punished after he's acquitted. And it all happens because he's the son of a merciful loving god.
You give incoherence a bad name.
-
But as an agnostic atheist surely you can see that you don't know whether they are factual or not
When you make categorical statements like:
The death involved Jesus experiencing a very human sense of alienation from God which comes from sin. That cannot be his own sin. Jesus really does die and is ressurected by God, as we all will be.
(as you did in post 135) then I suggest that you also don't know whether they are factual or not and therefore you have no justification to state them as so.
-
So he's overly punished after he's acquitted.
Your thesis, Your burden.
-
Your thesis, Your burden.
My thesis that you give incoherence a bad name?
'M'lud, we are here to decide whether the piss artist formerly known as Vlad is guilty of giving incoherence a bad name. As evidence, I cite his voluminous posting filled with a void of vacuity and vacancy.
To paraphrase Bon Jovi, a popular beat combo, M'lud
"I play my part and he plays his game
He gives incoherence a bad name"'
-
I think you need to start spot it others since we do not initially want to think bad of ourselves and then check that we aren't demonstrating the same behaviour.
...and how do you spot it in others?
Anything specific to look for?
Is there a checklist?
-
By the way, is it true that you felt ill once and someone told you to get on the forum quick, before it wore off?
No.
I can't think what gave you that idea but maybe you are projecting?
-
But as an agnostic atheist surely you can see that you don't know whether they are factual or not
As an agnostic, sometimes the point is not that an individual doesn't know, but that as formulated it's impossible for anyone to definitively know - hence the challenge to you to make clear what you think you know, and what you hold as an opinion.
O.
-
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The New Atheists
The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century book promoting atheism.
Anyone here promoting atheism or seeking converts to atheism? These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens.
Who was the leader or the brains in this group? The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books.
So now we all know A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views.
The only one of the four I saw demonstrate any question of confidence in his own point of view as opposed to others was Christopher Hitchens. I wonder if this was because Harris, Dawkins and Dennett were more used to affirmation. I can't think of contemporary academic theologians who put up such an air of confidence and rightness Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene.
To which the answer was a simplistic humanism perhaps? It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments,
I think he means ''identify anything really philosophical'' but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work.
Agree.
-
On the contrary I have tried to be as comprehensive and wide ranging as possible, considering civil and criminal law, the notion of compensation, the scale of the consequences of sin, costs to victim including recourse to justice, the inadequacies in human law, the two victim nature of wrongdoing etc, etc
No, you have been utterly incoherent. You claim crime and punishment is a numerical transaction and that one such transaction where Jesus died for bit, is enough to account for everybody's sins.
It is you and your colleagues here who have omitted factors seemingly as and when it suits There are temporal consequences of course.
No there aren't, not if you are a Christian.
And the definition of the word "consequence" is dependent on time. Without time it is meaningless.
We operate in both a material and human environment but sin has a further more serious consequences on the self and there is no improvement without repentance But that is getting death wrong. Given the universal resurrection of the new testament there is not the ''permanent death'' that you are suggesting. Also satisfaction of conditions by Jesus death is in God's judgment and not ours and thirdly I would move that Jesus is taking on an entity known as 'the sins of the world' and that your metaphor is thus inadequate.
"The sins of the World" isn't a single entity, it's a poetic way of saying "everybody's sins". You are still claiming that one man's temporary punishment is enough to account for everybody's sins, but since it is God who sets the rules, why does he need even one man's punishment?
-
As an agnostic, sometimes the point is not that an individual doesn't know, but that as formulated it's impossible for anyone to definitively know - hence the challenge to you to make clear what you think you know, and what you hold as an opinion.
Sounds like as an agnostic you want your cake and eat it here.
-
Do you believe that the victim of a crime can only forgive the perpetrator if the somebody else "pays" for it in some way?
Not really. I feel the victim may feel they have justice if there is a penalty and or compensation from any source. Forgiveness means taking all or some of the cost(in the widest sense) on oneself in terms of material, financial or emotional and psychological ''costs'' If we've got to achieve a zero sum, there's a massive problem:
Yes and on reflection I would agree. I think I told Nearly Sane that mercy can deprive a victim of Justice. Where there is a zero sum is that there is no charge for us. God's gift of eternal life and a right relationship with him is free i.e. unearned all of the sins of humanity have to be equated against the mere temporary death of one god-man.
So your claim that I am treating this as ''numerical'' and that you aren't is tosh.
Again though one wonders how you can possibly say all the sins of humanity are not cancelled by the death of one God man. (please show your working) That's aside from the challenge to your conception of Death that the New Testament makes.
-
Sounds like as an agnostic you want your cake and eat it here.
To quote one of the pre-eminent cultural artefacts of our generation 'The cake is a lie.' I don't think there is a cake, but if there were I certainly wouldn't want to eat it. Rather, you want everyone to cleave hard to easily disprovable positions rather than to deal with what people actually think and say, which is why you so regularly throw strawman arguments around.
O.
-
Not really. I feel the victim may feel they have justice if there is a penalty and or compensation from any source. Forgiveness means taking all or some of the cost(in the widest sense) on oneself in terms of material, financial or emotional and psychological ''costs'' Yes and on reflection I would agree. I think I told Nearly Sane that mercy can deprive a victim of Justice. Where there is a zero sum is that there is no charge for us. God's gift of eternal life and a right relationship with him is free i.e. unearnedSo your claim that I am treating this as ''numerical'' and that you aren't is tosh.
Again though one wonders how you can possibly say all the sins of humanity are not cancelled by the death of one God man. (please show your working) That's aside from the challenge to your conception of Death that the New Testament makes.
You are the one talking about a cost and the victim taking it on, whatever that means. It's bunk, by the way. The emotional cost is there for a victim whether they choose to forgive or not. In fact people have been known to say that forgiving relieves them of an emotional burden.
Also, how can Jesus forgive on behalf of the victims. What right does God have to say to anybody "your sins are forgiven" if the victim is still out there bearing the consequences of the wrong?
-
You are the one talking about a cost and the victim taking it on, whatever that means. It's bunk, by the way. The emotional cost is there for a victim whether they choose to forgive or not. In fact people have been known to say that forgiving relieves them of an emotional burden.
Also, how can Jesus forgive on behalf of the victims. What right does God have to say to anybody "your sins are forgiven" if the victim is still out there bearing the consequences of the wrong?
Because when a child is murdered, you have to understand that the real victim is Vlad's god who could have stopped it but didn't because it wanted to have its son killed for 36 hours or so. It all makes perfect sense and is done in the best possible taste.
-
You are the one talking about a cost and the victim taking it on, whatever that means. It's bunk, by the way. The emotional cost is there for a victim whether they choose to forgive or not.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here In fact people have been known to say that forgiving relieves them of an emotional burden.
Yes and the recipient of the forgiveness gets relieved of the cost of compensating the victim.
Also, how can Jesus forgive on behalf of the victims
God is also a victim having been transgressed in much the same sense that the law is transgressed as well as the victim, and often God is the exclusive victim. I find nowhere in the New Testament that Jesus forgives on behalf of the victim. Indeed Christians are told to forgive others their ''trespasses'' What right does God have to say to anybody "your sins are forgiven" if the victim is still out there bearing the consequences of the wrong?
See previous comment.
-
Because when a child is murdered, you have to understand that the real victim is Vlad's god
An incorrect assumption In a murder case there is a victim and the law is transgressed. The law being abstract is really a placeholder for the good or the peace which in turn are placeholders for God, who being personal is also a victim. So talk of 'real' victims and by extension 'unreal' victims is nonsense. Only God can offer the victim eternal life. The human perpetrator (who according to humanism ought to have been ''Good without God'') on the other hand has sought the victim's permanent destruction.
-
An incorrect assumption In a murder case there is a victim and the law is transgressed. The law being abstract is really a placeholder for the good or the peace which in turn are placeholders for God, who being personal is also a victim. So talk of 'real' victims and by extension 'unreal' victims is nonsense. Only God can offer the victim eternal life. The human perpetrator (who according to humanism ought to have been ''Good without God'') on the other hand has sought the victim's permanent destruction.
So you are happy that youe god could have stopped the murder and stood by watching it. Not so much a victim more an accomplice.
-
The law being abstract is really a placeholder for the good or the peace which in turn are placeholders for God, who being personal is also a victim.
Wow. It takes a special talent to compact so much wrong into so few words. The law is not a placeholder for the good, it's a pragmatic social contract to permit various ideas of good to be liveable in parallel with each other. It is in no way a 'placeholder' for any gods, as is evident in its commitment in at least some places not to favour god over non-god, or one god over another.
Even if that were not the case, God is no more a victim of a temporal crime than you are a victim of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Only God can offer the victim eternal life.
Or can threaten you with eternal torment, let's be even-handed about this.
O.
-
You seem to be contradicting yourself here
I'm not the one saying emotional cost is like money. That's you.
Yes and the recipient of the forgiveness gets relieved of the cost of compensating the victim.
Not necessarily. You can forgive somebody who assaults you but they may still go to prison.
You are conflating forgiving a wrong with forgiving a debt. These are related concepts but not the same. If somebody steals something off me, I could forgive the debt they owe without forgiving them. Conversely, I could forgive them for the crime because they compensated me.
God is also a victim having been transgressed in much the same sense that the law is transgressed as well as the victim
Nonsense. When a woman is raped, she is the victim, not God.
, and often God is the exclusive victim.
What crime could I commit in which God is the victim?
I find nowhere in the New Testament that Jesus forgives on behalf of the victim.
What right has Jesus got to forgive then?
-
Even if that were not the case, God is no more a victim of a temporal crime than you are a victim of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The offense is against God because he is the victim's creator.
-
Or can threaten you with eternal torment, let's be even-handed about this.
Eternal torment is a description of being forever cut off from God
-
The offense is against God because he is the victim's creator.
And the perpetrator,'s creator, and the deity who you worship stood round and watched the act. You worship a god who in your own view is responsible for every rape and murder of all time. You celebrate that god's actions therefore you celebrate raoe and murder.
-
The offense is against God because he is the victim's creator.
Then the offence is not only against Himself but ultimately by Himself as he created both victim and perpetrator.
-
Eternal torment is a description of being forever cut off from God
Strange, I, as with many others I suspect, don't feel at all in eternal torment. If there is really is this God, you speak of, then what is it that will give me this 'eternal torment' when I die? After all this God certainly holds no significance for me when I am alive!
-
The offense is against God because he is the victim's creator.
God also created the offender. Why do you not, therefore, lay the offence at his door too?
Edit: Ninja'd twice.
-
Eternal torment is a description of being forever cut off from God
I'm cut off from God. It's far from being tormenting.
-
Then the offence is not only against Himself but ultimately by Himself as he created both victim and perpetrator.
I suppose so, however that doesn't mean the perpetrator isn't responsible for his actions.
-
I suppose so, however that doesn't mean the perpetrator isn't responsible for his actions.
Why do you worship a deity that you have just admitted is an accomplice to murder?
-
Why do you worship a deity that you have just admitted is an accomplice to murder?
Because he loves me, gives me food and clothes, for a start
-
Because he loves me, gives me food and clothes, for a start
What about the babies it gives cancer to? You worship death, and pain, and rape.
-
Because he loves me, gives me food and clothes, for a start
God gives you food and clothes? I'd like to see that.
Do they appear by magic in your kitchen and wardrobe, or do you buy them in shops like everybody else?
-
....gives me food and clothes, for a start
I have to buy my clothes and food.
-
Because he loves me, gives me food and clothes, for a start
That's nice for you: mind you, I don't suppose that recently bereaved parents would find your 'God' quite so palatable.
-
The offense is against God because he is the victim's creator.
Which means that it's his choice how this comes out - the universe isn't something launched that you wait to finish, the universe is a four (at least)-dimensional artefact where what we perceive as the future and the past are integral parts that co-exist. If there's a creator, it created this start-to-finish.
Eternal torment is a description of being forever cut off from God
Firstly, that's your interpretation and there are others.
Secondly, eternal torment (of whatever flavour) still doesn't jibe with the 'omnibenevolent' bit, still doesn't jibe with the 'ultimate morality' determining suitable consequences for a temporal 'crime'. Even if you ignore that God is responsible for what happens in God's creation, even if you presume despite the evidence that free will is a thing and that despite the lack of any reliable information humanity is still supposed to pick one fairy tale out of hundreds and act according the apparently arbitrary constraints of (maybe one particular sect's interpretation of) that story. Even you accept all of that, there is still the fundamental problem that you can't assert a paragon morality to something that would apply an eternal punishment for a temporal act.
O.
-
...and how do you spot it in others?
Anything specific to look for?
Is there a checklist?
How do you spot alienation in others?Are you serious?
-
So you are happy that youe god could have stopped the murder and stood by watching it. Not so much a victim more an accomplice.
I’m thinking of the whole world consequences of constant divine intervention and manipulation rather than the one we have where miracles are rare. I’ll risk an analogy here even though my interlocutors are piss poor at them.
Imagine the murder taking place in a pedestrian shopping zone and a bus passes nearby.
The driver knows she is perfectly capable of mowing down the murderer with impunity with her bus but at what cost and consequence? AsI said those not gifted in analogy will have already stretched the metaphor too far and will have forgotten about other pedestrians and the passengers of the bus.
Is God an accomplice? Probably less so than the parents of the murderer or the society where such murders occur and probably falls outside legal definitions.
-
I'm cut off from God. It's far from being tormenting.
That might just be because you are not yet free from His grace.
-
What about the babies it gives cancer to? You worship death, and pain, and rape.
How can you tell the carcinogens we’re not man made or released. What would the consequences of a mutation free universe be? How does spud worship what you accuse him of worshipping? Your thesis......your burden.
-
How can you tell the carcinogens we’re not man made or released. What would the consequences of a mutation free universe be? How does spud worship what you accuse him of worshipping? Your thesis......your burden.
He defines what it does, and says he worships it.
Your god created cancer. You worship it. You dance about in the death and pain of others. It's all from the logic of your own statements. You condemn your god, and yourself by your words.
-
How do you spot alienation in others?Are you serious?
Yes.
I need to know how you, Vlad, spots it in others.
If it's so easy then describing it should be easy also, shouldn't it?
-
How do you spot alienation in others?Are you serious?
Different cultures have demonstrated varying interpretations of what's emblematic of a troubled mind vs what's an accepted part of the normal spectrum of humanity. Religious people, in particular, have a history of identifying natural human variation as some sort of illness, deficit or failure, so I think it's a reasonable request.
What is it that you think is evidence of 'alienation'?
O.
-
I’m thinking of the whole world consequences of constant divine intervention and manipulation rather than the one we have where miracles are rare. I’ll risk an analogy here even though my interlocutors are piss poor at them.
Imagine the murder taking place in a pedestrian shopping zone and a bus passes nearby.
The driver knows she is perfectly capable of mowing down the murderer with impunity with her bus but at what cost and consequence? AsI said those not gifted in analogy will have already stretched the metaphor too far and will have forgotten about other pedestrians and the passengers of the bus.
Is God an accomplice? Probably less so than the parents of the murderer or the society where such murders occur and probably falls outside legal definitions.
Christians claim God is omnipotent. Bus drivers are not. God could have stopped the murder quite easily without harming anybody but chose not to. I wouldn't go so far as to call him an accomplice but he did nothing when doing something would have cost him nothing. He's definitely guilty.
-
That might just be because you are not yet free from His grace.
When will I be free of his grace? When I'm dead? Bad news, a dead person cannot be tormented: they are dead. I won't feel anything.
-
That's nice for you: mind you, I don't suppose that recently bereaved parents would find your 'God' quite so palatable.
They can if they trust they will be reunited in heaven.
-
I have to buy my clothes and food.
God made the plants and animals we eat, and the raw materials for clothes.
-
They can if they trust they will be reunited in heaven.
With the murdering thug god that you worship? Your heaven is run by a deity that is a combination of Fred West, Josef Mengele, and Jimmy Savile.
-
God made the plants and animals we eat, and the raw materials for clothes.
'All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot
Each little snake that poisons
Each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom
He made their horrid wings
All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all
Each nasty little hornet
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the shocks? He did
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all
Amen'
You worship rape and murder, and call it love.
-
They can if they trust they will be reunited in heaven.
I suspect bereaved parents would tell you to stop the infantile and twee nonsense: the loss of one's child cannot be dismissed so tritely.
-
God made the plants and animals we eat, and the raw materials for clothes.
I have to buy my clothes and food .
-
Christians claim God is omnipotent. Bus drivers are not.
But I The analogy both have the power to stop the murder. Which means you are guilty of special pleading. It’s an analogy, both have the power but chose not to because to do so drastically changes the situation for others. In God’s case, cosmically. We would have a world where God is constantly yet specifically in time and space suspending this physical process or that. That then renders your next thesis.... God could have stopped the murder quite easily without harming anybody but chose not to.
.....Incorrect. To do so has potentially drastic consequences for the world wouldn't go so far as to call him an accomplice
Me neither. Since you have asserted that God’s intervention is easy and changes nothing of much consequence, please justify that thesis.
-
Different cultures have demonstrated varying interpretations of what's emblematic of a troubled mind vs what's an accepted part of the normal spectrum of humanity.
Most have forms of alienation that are acceptable and those that are not. Would I be right in saying that your own culture has the best steer on psychological issues?
-
God made the plants and animals we eat, and the raw materials for clothes.
The plants and animals that I eat were made by farmers. And I don’t just mean that they were grown by farmers. If you compare modern farmed animals and plants with their wild God provided counterparts, they are very different.
-
'All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot
Each little snake that poisons
Each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom
He made their horrid wings
All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all
Each nasty little hornet
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the shocks? He did
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all
Amen'
You worship rape and murder, and call it love.
John Cleese is now appearing on GB News
-
The plants and animals that I eat were made by farmers. And I don’t just mean that they were grown by farmers. If you compare modern farmed animals and plants with their wild God provided counterparts, they are very different.
what I like about this type of response is it is contrary to the claim that God is responsible for everything made by the same people. Good stuff from people bad stuff not people but God.
-
what I like about this type of response is it is contrary to the claim that God is responsible for everything made by the same people. Good stuff from people bad stuff not people but God.
No, it's not. It's saying that of you are claoming the gokd stuff because he created everything, then he created the bad stuff. It's called a hypothetical based on the ligiv of Spud and yourself. Even had this not been explained to you numerous times, you would have to be either very stupid, lying or both to misrepresent it in this way.
-
John Cleese is now appearing on GB News
Your point, caller?
-
But I The analogy both have the power to stop the murder.
But God could stop the murder by making the murderer trip over his shoe laces or some other trivial thing like that. The bus driver has no recourse but to run him down with the bus.
In God’s case, cosmically. We would have a world where God is constantly yet specifically in time and space suspending this physical process or that.
Many of your fellow Christians believe exactly that. Spud here is claiming that God provides him food and clothing. Your Bible tells stories about spectacular interventions by your God.
That then renders your next thesis.........Incorrect. To do so has potentially drastic consequences for the world
And yet Christians are constantly claiming God does intervene.
-
John Cleese is now appearing on GB News
Is he alienated from the rest of the MP team?
-
what I like about this type of response is it is contrary to the claim that God is responsible for everything made by the same people. Good stuff from people bad stuff not people but God.
I don't believe in God, remember. I'm not criticising God for not stopping the bad stuff, I'm criticising you for a fundamentally dishonest view of God.
-
No, it's not. It's saying that of you are claoming the gokd stuff because he created everything, then he created the bad stuff. It's called a hypothetical based on the ligiv of Spud and yourself. Even had this not been explained to you numerous times, you would have to be either very stupid, lying or both to misrepresent it in this way.
I am certainly not claiming God created sin. Sin is man’s creation as it were. That you haven’t picked up on that then I’m afraid you are following your own caricature of Christianity. Nor am I saying
that there is no such thing as natural suffering.
Are you proposing an evil creation out of which mankind has struggled to produce the good?
-
I am certainly not claiming God created sin. Sin is man’s creation as it were. That you haven’t picked up on that then I’m afraid you are following your own caricature of Christianity. Nor am I saying
that there is no such thing as natural suffering.
Are you proposing an evil creation out of which mankind has struggled to produce the good?
I'm not proposing any creation. The post you replied to was explicit about that. Given such an egregious misunderstanding/misrepresentation, I suggest you go back, read it again, possibly a number of times, and then draft a reply based on what it says.
-
I don't believe in God, remember. I'm not criticising God for not stopping the bad stuff, I'm criticising you for a fundamentally dishonest view of God.
But it’s not all about God it’s about how one handles analogy and metaphor and if you say that the world would not be changed radically if God suspended laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis then you should have more than a trite or flip sound bite to back up your thesis.
-
I'm not proposing any creation. The post you replied to was explicit about that. Given such an egregious misunderstanding/misrepresentation, I suggest you go back, read it again, possibly a number of times, and then draft a reply based on what it says.
You are though entering into a conversation about creation and God, proposing how God should have done it. May I suggest it may be better for you to not enter the conversation in the first place?
The last point I made on The IE oP entry on New Atheism is that New Atheists see religion as immoral....and that is the line you and Jeremy are taking.
-
You are though entering into a conversation about creation and God proposing how God should have done it. May I suggest it may be better for you to not enter the conversation in the first place?
The last point I made on The IE oP entry on New Atheism is that New Atheists see religion as immoral....and that is the line you and Jeremy are taking?
Ah your beliefs are so fragile that someone not accepting them shouldn't duscuss them.
As to the question in the second paragraph, I can't answer for jeremyp, but no, I don't think religion is evil, nor I have said, suggested that, or implied that here.
Indeed, I have posted many times on the board, that I think religion is just a symptom of what it means to be human, and is morally neutral.
Pointing out that the god you or Spud suggests is a moral thug, and that by your logic you worship the creation of cancer is about your representations of your views.
-
But it’s not all about God it’s about how one handles analogy and metaphor and if you say that the world would not be changed radically if God suspended laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis then you should have more than a trite or flip sound bite to back up your thesis.
So you think that Spud's posts are trite and flip sound backs, as that is what the position is based on. To be fair, if that's the case, I agree, Spud is posting trite and flip sound bites.
-
I suspect bereaved parents would tell you to stop the infantile and twee nonsense: the loss of one's child cannot be dismissed so tritely.
I was thinking of a specific example of a man in the Bible who experienced that type of loss. After his son had died he told those around him that no amount of mourning would bring him back, yet he would eventually go to him.
Plus, hatred and sorrow makes one ill. Better to count one's blessings, food and clothing etc.
-
Better to count one's blessings,
....such as not being religious, now that's a blessing some would say.
-
But it’s not all about God it’s about how one handles analogy and metaphor and if you say that the world would not be changed radically if God suspended laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis then you should have more than a trite or flip sound bite to back up your thesis.
But the Christian claim is that God suspends the laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis. God apparently saves individuals that survive air crashes, but does nothing to stop the air crash from happening at all. God gives Spud food and clothing but intervening in a rape or a murder would change the world too radically.
You need to step back a bit and try to read your posts as somebody who doesn't believe in your god would. Then you'll see that, to us, they are make no sense. It really does look like you are making apologies for a god that does not give a fuck about most people and pretending he loves us.
You are not as good a snake oil salesman as the person who convinced you.
-
I was thinking of a specific example of a man in the Bible who experienced that type of loss. After his son had died he told those around him that no amount of mourning would bring him back, yet he would eventually go to him.
Plus, hatred and sorrow makes one ill. Better to count one's blessings, food and clothing etc.
I'm still intrigued about the food and clothing thing. How does that mechanic work? Does a fully cooked meal appear on your door step like meals on wheels? Or does food magically materialise in your fridge? Have you considered the possibility that it might be your wife providing it, not God?
-
I was thinking of a specific example of a man in the Bible who experienced that type of loss. After his son had died he told those around him that no amount of mourning would bring him back, yet he would eventually go to him.
Plus, hatred and sorrow makes one ill. Better to count one's blessings, food and clothing etc.
So your advice to anyone whose child has died is don't feel sorrow? Did that make sense in your head?
-
Most have forms of alienation that are acceptable and those that are not. Would I be right in saying that your own culture has the best steer on psychological issues?
I'm not the one that needs to explain it, as I'm not the one that was asserting it. Crack on.
O.
-
So your advice to anyone whose child has died is don't feel sorrow? Did that make sense in your head?
Sorrow in the sense that you describe it - when it consumes you so much that you are unaware of the good things you still have.
-
I'm still intrigued about the food and clothing thing. How does that mechanic work? Does a fully cooked meal appear on your door step like meals on wheels? Or does food magically materialise in your fridge? Have you considered the possibility that it might be your wife providing it, not God?
I was brought up to say grace before meals, at school and home. God is the source of our food and clothes, even if we buy them.
Ps I'm interested in your and others' comment about offence against God, and the implications of him creating us knowing some people would hurt other people and by extension him. Am still chewing it over.
-
Sorrow in the sense that you describe it - when it consumes you so much that you are unaware of the good things you still have.
So your god chooses to allow a child to die of cancer, and then you worship it, and blame the parent if they are more upset than you think they should be.
-
I was brought up to say grace before meals, at school and home. God is the source of our food and clothes, even if we buy them.
Ps I'm interested in your and others' comment about offence against God, and the implications of him creating us knowing some people would hurt other people and by extension him. Am still chewing it over.
And god is the source of cancer. Do you think the parent of a child that dies of leakeamia should thank him for that?
-
And god is the source of cancer. Do you think the parent of a child that dies of leakeamia should thank him for that?
If God can give something, in this case a child, then he has the right to take it back.
-
If God can give something, in this case a child, then he has the right to take it back.
And to cause pain to the child while your god murders the child. You rejoice in pain and death. You worship a cosmic thug who makes a mafia boss look good.
-
And to cause pain to the child while your god murders the child. You rejoice in pain and death. You worship a cosmic thug who makes a mafia boss look good.
Everyone goes through pain and death - does he murder everyone? No, it's the result of human rejection of God. The good news is there will be a new creation without pain and death.
-
Everyone goes through pain and death - does he murder everyone?
Some more directly than others by your approach. After all, your psycho blood god supposedly drowned everyone but 8 people. It killed all the first born children in Egypt. You cheerlead for a mass murderer.
-
Everyone goes through pain and death - does he murder everyone? No, it's the result of human rejection of God. The good news is there will be a new creation without pain and death.
In what way did 'human rejection' of your sadist deity cause childhood leakeamia. It choose that. It delights im the pain of children. You urge it on.
-
Some more directly than others by your approach. After all, your psycho blood god supposedly drowned everyone but 8 people. It killed all the first born children in Egypt. You cheerlead for a mass murderer.
Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.
-
Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.
So if someone gives me a present, they can always just take it back in your view?
-
Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.
so, to follow your thinking, if a murderer is taking a life before 'God' wanted it back, why doesn't 'God' prevent the murder from happening?
-
I was brought up to say grace before meals, at school and home. God is the source of our food and clothes, even if we buy them.
But that just isn’t true. If you look at where your food and clothes come from, you’ll find evidence of lots of humans being involved in their production but no gods.
-
If God can give something, in this case a child, then he has the right to take it back.
A child, like any human, is not a piece of property to be bartered.
In any case, I question your assertion that giving something away gives you the right to take it back again. That would make it a loan, not a gift.
-
Murder is when a person takes the life of another person. God taking someone's life is not murder because he gave that person life, and has the right to take it back when he chooses.
My parents gave me life. They still aren’t allowed to murder me.
Neither is your god.
-
so, to follow your thinking, if a murderer is taking a life before 'God' wanted it back, why doesn't 'God' prevent the murder from happening?
According to what I can understand from the Bible, God does deal with murder, but tends to avenge rather than prevent it, holding off until wickedness has reached its full measure, to use the biblical phrase. He is described as punishing the third and fourth generation for the sin of fathers, for example. Maybe we could describe the loss of innocent life in the Flood or the Egyptian firstborn as necessary in God's dealings with wickedness, the purpose of which is to prevent wickedness recurring. David was punished for his adultery by the death of Bathsheba's son. As a modern example I sometimes think of the Tamil Tigers, which were terrorists and which have now been defeated for good, as far as I'm aware. But that involved considerable loss of civilian life. I don't like to think of it that way because it implies that Israel's bombing of civilians in order to defeat Hamas, or Russia's killing of civilians while fighting the Ukrainian army, might be justified if it results in lasting peace, as with the Sinhalese army's strategy in Sri Lanka.
-
According to what I can understand from the Bible, God does deal with murder, but tends to avenge rather than prevent it, holding off until wickedness has reached its full measure, to use the biblical phrase. He is described as punishing the third and fourth generation for the sin of fathers, for example. Maybe we could describe the loss of innocent life in the Flood or the Egyptian firstborn as necessary in God's dealings with wickedness, the purpose of which is to prevent wickedness recurring. David was punished for his adultery by the death of Bathsheba's son. As a modern example I sometimes think of the Tamil Tigers, which were terrorists and which have now been defeated for good, as far as I'm aware. But that involved considerable loss of civilian life. I don't like to think of it that way because it implies that Israel's bombing of civilians in order to defeat Hamas, or Russia's killing of civilians while fighting the Ukrainian army, might be justified if it results in lasting peace, as with the Sinhalese army's strategy in Sri Lanka.
So your god could stop a child being raped but stands by and watches and then punishes the children of the rapist who had fuck all to with it. You worship an unhinged rape enabler.
-
According to what I can understand from the Bible, God does deal with murder, but tends to avenge rather than prevent it, holding off until wickedness has reached its full measure, to use the biblical phrase.
Yeah, that seems pretty sick. I mean, if you came across some kids torturing a cat, you wouldn't wait until their "wickedness has reached its full measure" before intervening, would you.
He is described as punishing the third and fourth generation for the sin of fathers, for example.
You mean he punishes people who were not guilty just because their ancestors were.
Maybe we could describe the loss of innocent life in the Flood or the Egyptian firstborn as necessary in God's dealings with wickedness, the purpose of which is to prevent wickedness recurring.
I thought God was all powerful. Surely he could find a way to limit the punishment to the actually wicked people, whilst also making an example of them pour encourager les autres.
David was punished for his adultery by the death of Bathsheba's son.
By which you mean Bathsheba's son was punished for David's adultery.
-
But that just isn’t true. If you look at where your food and clothes come from, you’ll find evidence of lots of humans being involved in their production but no gods.
God created plants and animals which we use for food and clothes. Therefore he is their source, even if we have to work to make them useful to us.
-
In what way did 'human rejection' of your sadist deity cause childhood leakeamia. It choose that. It delights im the pain of children. You urge it on.
....sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin... Romans 5
-
God created plants and animals which we use for food and clothes.
He didn't create any of the ones commonly use for food and clothes. They are the results of thousands of years of selective breeding by humans. Thank humans for your food and clothes, not God.
-
....sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin... Romans 5
A man created to do that by your god, who then because some innocent ate an apple, decided to make child birth dangerous and painful. Have you ever watched the Saw films? The god you worship would be too sadistic to appear as the torturing killer in them.
-
He didn't create any of the ones commonly use for food and clothes. They are the results of thousands of years of selective breeding by humans. Thank humans for your food and clothes, not God.
That's what I meant when I said "even if we have to work to make them useful to us". Are you trying to avoid admitting that God is good?
-
Are you trying to avoid admitting that God is good?
As a non-believer, I don't have to avoid admitting anything. What is disturbing however, are the contortions you go through to justify murders sanctioned by, and committed by, your god.
-
As a non-believer, I don't have to avoid admitting anything.
We're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists.
-
We're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists.
No, we are treating your god as a hypothetical.
-
No, we are treating your god
That's 'God' - creator of everything
as a hypothetical.
Same thing, given that I've qualified 'assuming' with 'for the sake of argument'.
-
That's 'God' - creator of everythingSame thing, given that I've qualified 'assuming' with 'for the sake of argument'.
You worship an entity that you think created childhood leukeamia. It would need a fucking psychopath to that.
-
That's what I meant when I said "even if we have to work to make them useful to us".
But we do all the work. It's the same for anything where you might consider thanking God. It always turns out that it's actually humans doing the work.
It's the mirror of the situation where something bad has happened. You're quite happy to say that the bad things done by humans are all their own work. So why do you begrudge the same courtesy to humans that do good things.
Conversely, if you want to ascribe the good things we do to God, you must logically also ascribe the bad things to God. If God provides us with food and clothing, he also provides murderers with guns and knives.
Are you trying to avoid admitting that God is good?
No, I think you are trying to avoid admitting that your god is bad.
-
You worship an entity that you think created childhood leukeamia. It would need a fucking psychopath to that.
There was no disease when God finished his creation
-
But we do all the work. It's the same for anything where you might consider thanking God. It always turns out that it's actually humans doing the work.
It's the mirror of the situation where something bad has happened. You're quite happy to say that the bad things done by humans are all their own work. So why do you begrudge the same courtesy to humans that do good things.
Conversely, if you want to ascribe the good things we do to God, you must logically also ascribe the bad things to God. If God provides us with food and clothing, he also provides murderers with guns and knives.
No, I think you are trying to avoid admitting that your god is bad.
Remember that God made conditions just right for food to be cultivated, which includes the weather, earth-moon system, solar system and galaxy. I wonder if it includes all the other galaxies?
If God were fundamentally bad, no-one would have children because they wouldn't want them to grow up in such an inhospitable world.
-
There was no disease when God finished his creation
Diseases are caused by living organisms (or viruses) invading other living organisms and damaging them. If God didn't create the organisms that cause disease, who did?
Did tape worms exist when God finished his creation?
-
Remember that God made conditions just right for food to be cultivated, which includes the weather, earth-moon system, solar system and galaxy. I wonder if it includes all the other galaxies?
If God were fundamentally bad, no-one would have children because they wouldn't want them to grow up in such an inhospitable world.
I suspect that's what they tell themselves lies about the creator of the Universe (if such a creator exists).
In the whole Universe, there is only one tiny planet where humans are known to be able to exist. Even then, they could only exist in one tiny part of it until they (the humans) started inventing technology like clothing and weapons and taming natural forces like fire. This was all done by humans, not God. If we relied on God, we would still be confined to a small part of Africa, if we hadn't gone extinct.
-
We're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists.
As depicted in the Bible? The god that kills children for mocking a bald man, commits genocide over the entire planet save one small family? Or, if you aren't a literalist, the god that inspires books that vilify gay people, excuses slavery and advocates for the forced marriage of women capture in battle, whilst not finding any room in its many lessons to call out rape as a bad thing?
That is not a good god.
O.
-
Jeremy,
I'm basing my answer on what it says, Viz: all that God made was very good when he had finished his work of creating.
-
Jeremy,
I'm basing my answer on what it says, Viz: all that God made was very good when he had finished his work of creating.
If everything was good, what was the point of a tree of knowledge of good and evil?
O.
-
Jeremy,
I'm basing my answer on what it says, Viz: all that God made was very good when he had finished his work of creating.
So tell us about tapeworms.
-
Jeremy,
I'm basing my answer on what it says, Viz: all that God made was very good when he had finished his work of creating.
Never seen that in Viz: perhaps you are reading a different comic.
-
He defines what it does, and says he worships it.
Your god created cancer. You worship it. You dance about in the death and pain of others. It's all from the logic of your own statements. You condemn your god, and yourself by your words.
No he partially defines what it is and then there is the question of whether you get what he is trying to convey. To me you don’t.
God has created a rational and logical world and mutation is part of that. Would you rather an irrational and illogical one? Lastly what you mean by worship isn’t quite chiming with me. Perhaps you could explain yourself.
-
Different cultures have demonstrated varying interpretations of what's emblematic of a troubled mind vs what's an accepted part of the normal spectrum of humanity. Religious people, in particular, have a history of identifying natural human variation as some sort of illness, deficit or failure, so I think it's a reasonable request.
What is it that you think is evidence of 'alienation'?
O.
As may be as all this is it contains error. I am not trying to portray alienation as a classic disease or illness or in the category of having a troubled mind. Alienation means estrangement. Something which is universal to our species and whose definition is not affected culture by culture.
Alienation from God is not proposed as a human variation but as something held in common.
-
No he partially defines what it is and then there is the question of whether you get what he is trying to convey. To me you don’t.
God has created a rational and logical world and mutation is part of that. Would you rather an irrational and illogical one? Lastly what you mean by worship isn’t quite chiming with me. Perhaps you could explain yourself.
Will there be cancer in heaven?
-
No, it's not. It's saying that of you are claoming the gokd stuff because he created everything, then he created the bad stuff. It's called a hypothetical based on the ligiv of Spud and yourself. Even had this not been explained to you numerous times, you would have to be either very stupid, lying or both to misrepresent it in this way.
No I think what we are saying is that God did not create evil. Evil is not an arrangement of matter. I am not denying he created processes that cause what some would call natural ills or natural evil. My focus and i’m Sure Spuds is too is the alienation from God due to sin.
Even if one cannot hold that man literally brought death to the world it is clear that alienation from God puts death in a terrible light.
-
Your point, caller?
If the python’s were so smart why is Cleese on GB news?
-
Is he alienated from the rest of the MP team?
You could say that.
-
If the python’s were so smart why is Cleese on GB news?
Thank you for your illustration of the ad hominem fallacy, caller.
-
No I think what we are saying is that God did not create evil. Evil is not an arrangement of matter. I am not denying he created processes that cause what some would call natural ills or natural evil. My focus and i’m Sure Spuds is too is the alienation from God die to sin.
Even if one cannot hold that man literally brought death to the world it is clear that alienation from God puts death in a terrible light.
Can your 'god' prevent a child being raped? Can it stop a child from dying in pain from leukeamia?
-
But the Christian claim is that God suspends the laws of nature in specific times and places on a regular basis.
Not really, The bible itself frequently implicitly refers to miracles being special and rare and occurrences such as spiritual conversion, visions, prophecy etc aren’t covered by the laws of nature in any case. God apparently saves individuals that survive air crashes, but does nothing to stop the air crash from happening at all.
How do you know he hasn’t ever miraculously stopped an air crash?
You need to step back a bit and try to read your posts as somebody who doesn't believe in your god would. Then you'll see that, to us, they are make no sense. It really does look like you are making apologies for a god that does not give a fuck about most people and pretending he loves us.
It isn’t about you not believing in God...it’s about caricaturing my beliefs about God and how to get people who should know better to stop doing it.
-
Will there be cancer in heaven?
I would say no since we will be completely spiritual beings.
What would Cancer be though given unbroken communion with God?
-
I would say no since we will be completely spiritual beings.
What would Cancer be though given unbroken communion with God?
So why did your god create something where cancer could occur?
-
So why did your god create something where cancer could occur?
Cancer is due to mutation which is significant in evolution. I would ask whether a universe where the mutations that specifically caused cancer and the things that give rise to them were specially eradicated,was a reasonable and logical one.
-
Cancer is due to mutation which is significant in evolution. I would ask whether a universe where the mutations that specifically caused cancer and the things that give rise to them were specially eradicated be a reasonable and logical one.
What would be unreasonable and illogical about it? Are 'miracles' reasonable and logical?
-
What would be unreasonable and illogical about it? Are 'miracles' reasonable and logical?
cause effect and consequence would have to be eliminated although I grant a humean like yourself probably won’t respond to that...and rationality and logicality is compromised by bending physical laws to subjective wish and whim e.g. Why can’t bad people be the one’s who get cancer.
One can only imagine the gymnastics that would have to occur at the particle level. Science might even not be a thing.
Is it reasonable for God to intervene? Yes but only very occasionally. Do I think resurrection and localised gravimetric distortion to be impossible for technology in the future? Possibly not.
-
As may be as all this is it contains error. I am not trying to portray alienation as a classic disease or illness or in the category of having a troubled mind. Alienation means estrangement. Something which is universal to our species and whose definition is not affected culture by culture.
Alienation from God is not proposed as a human variation but as something held in common.
So your evidence of 'alienation from God' is the fact that we're human. How do you distinguish that from, say, no alienation because the god doesn't exist? If everyone is 'alienated' it's a meaningless concept, it's just 'being human'.
O.
-
cause effect and consequence would have to be eliminated although I grant a humean like yourself probably won’t respond to that...and rationality and logicality is compromised by bending physical laws to subjective wish and whim e.g. Why can’t bad people be the one’s who get cancer.
One can only imagine the gymnastics that would have to occur at the particle level. Science might even not be a thing.
Is it reasonable for God to intervene? Yes but only very occasionally. Do I think resurrection and localised gravimetric distortion to be impossible for technology in the future? Possibly not.
Why would cause and effect be eliminated.? You just choose an initial set of circumstances where it wouldn't happen. You have already accepted that is possible in your idea of heaven .
You then say it's ok for your god to break cause and effect 'occasionally'. That's like being a little pregnant.
And you seem to think that your god is a technologically restricted entity. Is that what you think?
-
No he partially defines what it is and then there is the question of whether you get what he is trying to convey. To me you don’t.
God has created a rational and logical world and mutation is part of that. Would you rather an irrational and illogical one?
I'd rather one without cancer. Is it your claim that God cannot create a rational and logical world that doesn't have cancer in it?
-
Not really, The bible itself frequently implicitly refers to miracles being special and rare and occurrences such as spiritual conversion, visions, prophecy etc
Are you denying that changing water into wine is in contravention of physical law? It would require, for example, the manufacture of carbon which is a process that physical law dictates requires the conditions present inside stars.
Or is God just a really good conjuror?
How do you know he hasn’t ever miraculously stopped an air crash?
I don't but that is not the scenario. The scenario is one where God miraculously saves a few people but leaves everybody else to die. He certainly doesn't miraculously stop all air crashes but the claim is that he will save a select few of the people in the ones he doesn't stop.
-
But we do all the work. It's the same for anything where you might consider thanking God. It always turns out that it's actually humans doing the work.
It's the mirror of the situation where something bad has happened. You're quite happy to say that the bad things done by humans are all their own work. So why do you begrudge the same courtesy to humans that do good things.
Conversely, if you want to ascribe the good things we do to God, you must logically also ascribe the bad things to God. If God provides us with food and clothing, he also provides murderers with guns and knives.
No, I think you are trying to avoid admitting that your god is bad.
If people want to use for evil the things God intended them to use for good, does that mean God is evil for providing them?
-
If people want to use for evil the things God intended them to use for good, does that mean God is evil for providing them?
If people want to use for good the things that God intended them to use for evil, does that mean God is good for providing them.
The thing is that good things happen and bad things happen. Also people do good things and people do bad things. You are quite happy to take the credit for the good on God's behalf, but very reluctant to take the blame for the bad on God's behalf , even though the evidence for his involvement is exactly the same on both sides of the equation. You are not being honest with yourself.
Any thoughts on why God gave us tapeworms, tsetse flies and the plasmodium parasite?
-
If people want to use for good the things that God intended them to use for evil, does that mean God is good for providing them.
The thing is that good things happen and bad things happen. Also people do good things and people do bad things. You are quite happy to take the credit for the good on God's behalf, but very reluctant to take the blame for the bad on God's behalf , even though the evidence for his involvement is exactly the same on both sides of the equation. You are not being honest with yourself.
Any thoughts on why God gave us tapeworms, tsetse flies and the plasmodium parasite?
The difference is that God didn't intend for anything he gave us to be used for evil, but he did intend it to be used for good. He said "I give you all the plants and their fruit for food" not "I give you all the tree branches to hit each other with" or something like that.
Re tapeworms etc, they had non-parasitic lifecycles until after the Fall
-
Re tapeworms etc, they had non-parasitic lifecycles until after the Fall
Do tell - all taperworm species are endoparasites that live and survive in the bodies of their various host species.
Putting the nonsense of 'the Fall' to one side, perhaps you can explain how something that is intrinsically parasitic can have a non-parasitic lifestyle from inside the digestive tracts of its hosts. How does it feed, presuming that before 'the Fall' it would need sustenance and that a shopping trip to its local Asda sounds unlikely?
Beats me how you can post
-
The difference is that God didn't intend for anything he gave us to be used for evil, but he did intend it to be used for good.
Got any evidence for that?
Re tapeworms etc, they had non-parasitic lifecycles until after the Fall
That is absurd on its face. Tapeworms are highly specialised for living in the guts of other animals. They can't survive outside for very long. Had they been different enough before the Fall to survive without parasitising other animals, they would not have been identifiably tape worms.
And, if they spontaneously did become parasites at the Fall, it's only God who could have made that happen.
-
God does not exist (positive assertion…please justify).
"God does not exist" is (pretty obviously, I'd've thought) a negative assertion, and as such is the default position. It is for theists to demonstrate the likelihood of God - Occam's razor.
-
"God does not exist" is (pretty obviously, I'd've thought) a negative assertion, and as such is the default position. It is for theists to demonstrate the likelihood of God - Occam's razor.
On this I would side with Vlad. Stating that something does not exist, despite the use of the word -not' is a type of positive claim that requires justification. The default position is not to be convinced of the existence of something without evidence, nor to deny that the thing exists. See black swans.
-
Do tell - all taperworm species are endoparasites that live and survive in the bodies of their various host species.
Putting the nonsense of 'the Fall' to one side, perhaps you can explain how something that is intrinsically parasitic can have a non-parasitic lifestyle from inside the digestive tracts of its hosts. How does it feed, presuming that before 'the Fall' it would need sustenance and that a shopping trip to its local Asda sounds unlikely?
Beats me how you can post
Some animals lost organs over time, and it appears that tapeworms have lost their digestive system that would have enabled them to survive without relying on a host's pre-digested nutrients.
-
Some animals lost organs over time, and it appears that tapeworms have lost their digestive system that would have enabled them to survive without relying on a host's pre-digested nutrients.
I suppose, to be fair, serpents became noticeably less chatty at the same time.
-
I chatted to one once.
Are you Harry, or He Who Cannot Be Named?
-
Some animals lost organs over time, and it appears that tapeworms have lost their digestive system that would have enabled them to survive without relying on a host's pre-digested nutrients.
So - evolution in action then?
Still though, if a tapeworm had at some point a different digestive system then, presumably, it did not reside and feed in the guts of its hosts, as us currently the case - so in what was was it a tapeworm in its previous guise?
I think you need to explain how you know this, else we might think you are talking bollocks.
-
So - evolution in action then?
Still though, if a tapeworm had at some point a different digestive system then, presumably, it did not reside and feed in the guts of its hosts, as us currently the case - so in what was was it a tapeworm in its previous guise?
I think you need to explain how you know this, else we might think you are talking bollocks.
Or indeed Parseltongue
-
I'm not proposing any creation.
But you are debating what a postulated creation would be like all the same The post you replied to was explicit about that. Given such an egregious misunderstanding/misrepresentation, I suggest you go back, read it again, possibly a number of times, and then draft a reply based on what it says.
-
Ah your beliefs are so fragile that someone not accepting them shouldn't duscuss them.
As to the question in the second paragraph, I can't answer for jeremyp, but no, I don't think religion is evil, nor I have said, suggested that, or implied that here.
Indeed, I have posted many times on the board, that I think religion is just a symptom of what it means to be human, and is morally neutral.
Pointing out that the god you or Spud suggests is a moral thug, and that by your logic you worship the creation of cancer is about your representations of your views.
The creation of Cancer? Can mutation be a thing without the possibility of cancer?
As it happens we do live in a universe where Cancer can be prevented without suspension of the laws of nature... in other words in terms of intervention. To effect this in all cases is probably in the pursue of mankind’s will.
So a universe which operates by mutation with the potential to eliminate the effects of mutation is actually what has been created rather than the bald, isolated and singular claim “ The creation of cancer” so when one accuses someone of worshipping cancer, that is a wrong isn’t it?
-
The creation of Cancer? Can mutation be a thing without the possibility of cancer?
As it happens we do live in a universe where Cancer can be prevented without suspension of the laws of nature... in other words in terms of intervention. To effect this in all cases is probably in the pursue of mankind’s will.
So a universe which operates by mutation with the potential to eliminate the effects of mutation is actually what has been created rather than the bald, isolated and singular claim “ The creation of cancer” so when one accuses someone of worshipping cancer, that is a wrong isn’t it?
If I could stop cancer I would. Your god wouldn't. You worship death and pain.
-
But you are debating what a postulated creation would be like all the same
And?
-
But God could stop the murder by making the murderer trip over his shoe laces or some other trivial thing like that. The bus driver has no recourse but to run him down with the bus.
Many of your fellow Christians believe exactly that. Spud here is claiming that God provides him food and clothing. Your Bible tells stories about spectacular interventions by your God.
And yet Christians are constantly claiming God does intervene.
God may well construe to physically tangle a murderers shoe lace but that will be the exception rather than the rule. So what would God’s laws of nature have to look like if murderers shoe laces were uniquely tangled for every murderer...Your proposal, your burden.
God is the root of all hierarchies so whether intervention is the right term in all things I’m not sure.
-
And?
Falling back on “well,I don’t agree with it anyway”is a sign you feel you are losing the argument.
-
Falling back on “well,I don’t agree with it anyway”is a sign you feel you are losing the argument.
If I did that, then yes, but since pointing out the internal inconsistencies about something 'postulated' by others isn't doing that....
-
I'm not the one that needs to explain it, as I'm not the one that was asserting it. Crack on.
O.
You’ve made assertions about what alienation is and how it’s definition changes per culture
Rather than being universal in all cultures and I’m saying the latter.
-
As it happens we do live in a universe where Cancer can be prevented without suspension of the laws of nature... in other words in terms of intervention.
That's a tad simplistic Vlad, even for you: they told me that by the time I had the first noticeable symptoms of cancer it had probably started a year or so before anyone knew, least of all me, so at the point of first intervention it was already too late for a 'cure'. The question then is, where was your 'God', since it presumably knew (having all the omni's) what my situation was at a point where treatment would have been more effective (in 'cure' terms).
-
What would be unreasonable and illogical about it? Are 'miracles' reasonable and logical?
Chemistry would have to be suspended specifically to disallow the formation of nucleic acid.
This would involve imputing intelligence into each potential nucleic acid producing agent. Intelligence in the physical world is an evolved characteristic.. since evolution requires mutation such intelligence would not arise. Such logical problems are exacerbated the more specific you get imho.
We don’t have a science of miracles since they are not governed by laws of nature and the bible assumes that “God can” what we do know is they are exceptional.
-
Chemistry would have to be suspended specifically to disallow the formation of nucleic acid.
This would involve imputing intelligence into each potential nucleic acid producing agent. Intelligence in the physical world is an evolved characteristic.. since evolution requires mutation such intelligence would not arise. Such logical problems are exacerbated the more specific you get imho.
We don’t have a science of miracles since they are not governed by laws of nature and the bible assumes that “God can” what we do know is they are exceptional.
So your god designed a random system that it didn't plan for that was, however, going to produce humans so it could punish them for something that it knew they would do, and then send its 'son' though what that means you seem unable to explain to have the 'son' killed so it could forgive the people who killed it not for killing it but because they killed it and then bring it back to life and occasionally do something like save someone from a horrible disease that only happens because your god created the environment but not generally and watch people die in the environment ot created because that was the plan or maybe not...
-
If I did that, then yes, but since pointing out the internal inconsistencies about something 'postulated' by others isn't doing that....
As i’ve Said before changing the laws of nature for specific categories of events gives rise to internal inconsistency and I have explained how. I am not totally clear how miracles can possibly come under any expectation of consistency.
-
You’ve made assertions about what alienation is and how it’s definition changes per culture
No, I haven't.
Rather than being universal in all cultures and I’m saying the latter.
But you've not given anything to identify what this 'alienation' is - you've just asserted that EVERYONE is alienated - there is, therefore, no comparison to see what that manifests as, how it could be identified, or what it would actually means. You've just asserted waffle - I could equally assert that everyone is alienated from Zeus, Beelzebub or heavenly cheese, and have equally no way of demonstrating that it's a valid claim (or of allowing anyone to falsify it). It's a meaningless statement.
O.
-
So your god designed a random system that it didn't plan for that was, however, going to produce humans so it could punish them for something that it knew they would do, and then send its 'son' though what that means you seem unable to explain to have the 'son' killed so it could forgive the people who killed it not for killing it but because they killed it and then bring it back to life and occasionally do something like save someone from a horrible disease that only happens because your god created the environment but not generally and watch people die in the environment ot created because that was the plan or maybe not...
Anyone?
-
No, I haven't.
But you've not given anything to identify what this 'alienation' is - you've just asserted that EVERYONE is alienated - there is, therefore, no comparison to see what that manifests as, how it could be identified, or what it would actually means. You've just asserted waffle - I could equally assert that everyone is alienated from Zeus, Beelzebub or heavenly cheese, and have equally no way of demonstrating that it's a valid claim (or of allowing anyone to falsify it). It's a meaningless statement.
O.
Alienation is estrangement Outrider.
Everyone’s alienation from Zeus derives I would say from their alienation from the true divinity...I love cheese.
-
As i’ve Said before changing the laws of nature for specific categories of events gives rise to internal inconsistency and I have explained how. I am not totally clear how miracles can possibly come under any expectation of consistency.
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that your position has no internal consistency.
-
Anyone?
Now you see the incoherence inherent in your system
-
I'm not saying they do. I'm saying that your position has no internal consistency.
My position is that God is sovereign but his modus is to let laws of physics
govern with his miraculous p⁸9hysical intervention only in exceptional circumstances
-
Now you see the incoherence inherent in your system
My system? I think you rather mean YOUR rhetoric.
-
My position is that God is sovereign but his modus is to let laws of physics
govern with his miraculous p⁸9hysical intervention only in exceptional circumstances
According to your Bible, God used to intervene all the time. What changed his mind?
-
Alienation is estrangement Outrider.
Synonyms do not constitute a demonstration.
Everyone’s alienation from Zeus derives I would say from their alienation from the true divinity...
But given that you don't have anyone you're asserting isn't alienated, you have nothing to demonstrate that it's a valid concept in the first place.
I love cheese.
You think that, but you don't appreciate the reality of 'proper' cheese, because you're alienated from it... just like the rest of us.
O.
-
Anyone?
The fact that human beings are capable of ameliorating and eradicating a range of diseases, then the idea that there is a God who hasn't done so, points to one of at least three possibilities. Feel free to add to them as you wish. :)
1) This God is indifferent to human suffering
2) This God deliberately designed things to include human suffering
3) This God is incapable of changing things, and therefore human beings are, at least in this respect, more powerful.
3a) And, as a corollary, one is left with the distinct impression that this God made one almighty cockup, whether well meaning or not, which He/She/It is incapable of correcting.
My responses are:
1) This isn't my idea of morality and therefore I would despise such a God
2) Ditto
3) Then He/She/It is such a blunderer that they are not worth worshipping
-
My system? I think you rather mean YOUR rhetoric.
Both. My rhetoric was inspired by your 'explanations' of your 'system', which is essentially 'Listen, strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no system for a basis of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
-
My position is that God is sovereign but his modus is to let laws of physics
govern with his miraculous p⁸9hysical intervention only in exceptional circumstances
That's what my rhetoric covered.
-
According to your Bible, God used to intervene all the time. What changed his mind?
You exaggerate. The Bible isn't a chronical of quotidian life in the holy land.
-
I emphatically do not believe in the fall as a historical event, and do believe in evolution by natural selection, but a biblical literalist could perhaps argue that parasites such as tapeworms were parasites before the fall, but did not harm their host - maybe even benefitted them in some way, in a symbiotic relationship.
-
I emphatically do not believe in the fall as a historical event, and do believe in evolution by natural selection, but a biblical literalist could perhaps argue that parasites such as tapeworms were parasites before the fall, but did not harm their host - maybe even benefitted them in some way, in a symbiotic relationship.
But would then have to concede that it was their god that choose to change which makes them worship pain.
-
The fact that human beings are capable of ameliorating and eradicating a range of diseases, then the idea that there is a God who hasn't done so, points to one of at least three possibilities. Feel free to add to them as you wish. :)
1) This God is indifferent to human suffering
2) This God deliberately designed things to include human suffering
3) This God is incapable of changing things, and therefore human beings are, at least in this respect, more powerful.
3a) And, as a corollary, one is left with the distinct impression that this God made one almighty cockup, whether well meaning or not, which He/She/It is incapable of correcting.
My responses are:
1) This isn't my idea of morality and therefore I would despise such a God
2) Ditto
3) Then He/She/It is such a blunderer that they are not worth worshipping
Again how do you eliminate the potential for human suffering without plunging the world into a quagmire of illogical absurdities?
-
But would then have to concede that it was their god that choose to change which makes them worship pain.
Eh?
-
Again how do you eliminate the potential for human suffering without plunging the world into a quagmire of illogical absurdities?
Again, humans have shown they are capable and have had many successes in combating human suffering without any' illogical absurdities' whatsoever.
-
Eh?
If before the 'Fall' posited by creationists, tapeworn were jolly little symbiotic critters turning cartwheels across the floor of their hosts' guts, then the change into them causing pain would be brought about deliberately by the god that they worship. Therefore they worship pain.
They also bathe in the danger and pain of childbirth, and give thanks to the thing they think caused it.
-
I emphatically do not believe in the fall as a historical event, and do believe in evolution by natural selection, but a biblical literalist could perhaps argue that parasites such as tapeworms were parasites before the fall, but did not harm their host - maybe even benefitted them in some way, in a symbiotic relationship.
I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.
-
Vlad,
I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.
You appear to have dropped a set of Scrabble tiles here. What on earth do you think you're even trying to say?
-
Again, humans have shown they are capable and have had many successes in combating human suffering without any' illogical absurdities' whatsoever.
Yes and I suppose there is nothing to stop God intervening in the same way either. Intervention is a question of will though in the case of man and God.
What you seem to be asking is for weird specific change in natural laws and perhaps logic itself. Potentially hellish imho.
-
Yes and I suppose there is nothing to stop God intervening in the same way either. Intervention is a question of will though in the case of man and God.
What you seem to be asking is for weird specific change in natural laws and perhaps logic itself. Potentially hellish imho.
So your god could stop rapes of children but chooses not to, and you worship it for not preventing rapes of children. You and your god are evil.
-
Vlad,
You appear to have dropped a set of Scrabble tiles here. What on earth do you think you're even trying to say?
I’m saying Humanists tend to blame poor behaviour on nurture and knowledge and so the blame lies with a persons contemporary or predecessor. Inevitably therefore we are looking for “perpetrator zero” somewhere in the dim and distant past. How is that then different from an idea of an Adam”.
-
I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.
Take an aspirin, and go and lie down in a darkened room for a few hours. You appear to have a verbal migraine.
-
Yes and I suppose there is nothing to stop God intervening in the same way either. Intervention is a question of will though in the case of man and God.
What you seem to be asking is for weird specific change in natural laws and perhaps logic itself. Potentially hellish imho.
Nope. Utter rubbish. There was nothing to stop your God from not creating smallpox, for instance. The fact we humans have eliminated it without any 'illogical absurdities' suggests strongly that my three alternatives in post 331 are completely sound.
-
Vlad,
I’m saying Humanists tend to blame poor behaviour on nurture and knowledge…
That’s nothing to do with humanism specifically, and in any case if not for “nurture and knowledge” what else would you blame for poor behaviour?
…and so the blame lies with a persons contemporary or predecessor.
Not really. The ”blame” lies with environment and culture and all sort of complex social phenomena.
Inevitably therefore we are looking for “perpetrator zero” somewhere in the dim and distant past. How is that then different from an idea of an Adam”.
Your “inevitably therefore” is a non sequitur. We’re “looking for” no such thing.
-
Nope. Utter rubbish. There was nothing to stop your God from not creating smallpox, for instance. The fact we humans have eliminated it without any 'illogical absurdities' suggests strongly that my three alternatives in post 331 are completely sound.
I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices. God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself? No, what about the potential for good things.
Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No.
Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics. A return to paradisal condition is a yet to be realised event during our physical existence.
-
Vlad,
That’s nothing to do with humanism specifically, and in any case if not for “nurture and knowledge” what else would you blame for poor behaviour?
Our own egos
Not really. The ”blame” lies with environment and culture and all sort of complex social phenomena.
Your “inevitably therefore” is a non sequitur. We’re “looking for” no such thing.
You aren’t adding anything to what I said except your conclusion is unjustified turdpolishing of you being merely contradictory.
Have you ever thought of doing something more useful like putting little ships into bottles
-
Vlad,
I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices.
No, they’re just pointing out the implications for those who assert a god of the "omnis".
God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself?
An omniscient god would have known that his creations would lead to diseases. That makes him a monster.
No, what about the potential for good things.
What about them?
Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No
If a god wasn’t indifferent to the suffering he caused why would create so much of it to begin with, and then choose to intervene to prevent it "miraculously" only occasionally?
Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics. A return to paradisal condition is a yet to be realised event during our physical existence.
Gibberish.
-
Eh?
If tapeworms were beneficial before the Fall and became parasitic after it, something must have enacted the change, either that or created the mechanism that ensured the change would happen.
The only candidate we have for either of these is God.
-
So your god designed a random system that it didn't plan for that was, however, going to produce humans so it could punish them for something that it knew they would do, and then send its 'son' though what that means you seem unable to explain to have the 'son' killed so it could forgive the people who killed it not for killing it but because they killed it and then bring it back to life and occasionally do something like save someone from a horrible disease that only happens because your god created the environment but not generally and watch people die in the environment ot created because that was the plan or maybe not...
The problem seems to be Satan who leads us astray. Jesus dealt with him though and he will be destroyed at the end of this world. Then God will make a new heaven and earth where there will be no Satan, so no sin death or disease.
-
Vlad,
No, they’re just pointing out the implications for those who assert a god of the "omnis".
And what of those who propose a God which doesn’t conform to your proposal of “God” or your definition of “Omni”?
An omniscient god would have known that his creations would lead to diseases. That makes him a monster.
I disagree. He would have been a monster if he hadn’t created life from which disease arises.
If a god wasn’t indifferent to the suffering he caused why would create so much of it to begin with, and then choose to intervene to prevent it "miraculously" only occasionally?
Suffering or pain is an alarm that warns that something is going or has gone wrong in a system.
As I mentioned before if you have an omniscient god He knows likely outcomes of human actions. Like the code breakers of Bletchley Park who held back on intervention in world war 2 for the greater good so it is with God. God is not going to intervene where the coherence of the universe is at stake. In other words If any of us had the power to intervene with divine power sooner or later we would end up asking the universe to do absurd things. Even though this forum is replete with people who think they would have done a better job.
-
If tapeworms were beneficial before the Fall and became parasitic after it, something must have enacted the change, either that or created the mechanism that ensured the change would happen.
The only candidate we have for either of these is God.
Or the loss of unbroken communion with God changed the relationship with man who no longer had protection previously afforded to him.
Or Man’s perception changed.
-
Or the loss of unbroken communion with God changed the relationship with man who no longer had protection previously afforded to him.
Or Man’s perception changed.
No. We are talking about what happened to tapeworms after the Fall. Apparently, tape worms were benign fun loving creatures before the Fall and then something happened to make them parasites. Tapeworms must have physically changed. How did that happen, if it wasn't God?
-
No. We are talking about what happened to tapeworms after the Fall. Apparently, tape worms were benign fun loving creatures before the Fall and then something happened to make them parasites. Tapeworms must have physically changed. How did that happen, if it wasn't God?
Since no one has provided a timeframe for this such a post fall transformation could I suppose occur by the process of mutation. Weren't tapeworms once used in dieting?
I don't recall anyone describing tapeworm as fum loving Jeremy.
I suppose you are going to tell us that prior to the fall athletes foot was a fun guy to be with.
-
I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices. God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself? No, what about the potential for good things.
1) No one, as far as I know, suggested that God creates disease as an end in itself.
2) Just because there are the potential for good things in this world is no excuse for creating diseases which lead to vast amounts of suffering.
3) Using emotive words like 'loaded', 'hysterical' and 'rhetorical' doesn't take away from the basic argument. Indeed, it seems to show your frustration at your inability in dealing with it.
Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No.
You mean, by producing a few healing miracles from your holy book, you think that compares with, for instance, the estimated 300 million people who died from smallpox in the 20th century alone?('The eradication of smallpox – An overview of the past, present, and future' Donald Henderson). Really! And, your excuse? That your God ain't going to overturn the laws of nature which we assume He/She/It created in the first place. Strange indeed then that humans have done just that by eradicating the disease. Sounds to me as if you're describing a particularly cruel God who operates on the basis of whims and fleeting impulses.
Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics. A return to paradisal condition is a yet to be realised event during our physical existence.
back to the idea of the fall, I see. It seems when all else fails, just suggest that humans are somehow responsible for all the ills that befall them. Doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. Apart from the ludicrous idea of a 'fall', inherent in it is a total lack of the sort of morality which I support.
-
Since no one has provided a timeframe for this such a post fall transformation could I suppose occur by the process of mutation.
Well, it's Spud's hypothesis. You should ask him what the time line is.
Weren't tapeworms once used in dieting?
I don't recall anyone describing tapeworm as fum loving Jeremy.
I suppose you are going to tell us that prior to the fall athletes foot was a fun guy to be with.
Well Spud is claiming:
There was no disease when God finished his creation
I don't know what form athletes foot is supposed to have taken before the Fall, or if it existed. But Spud says all the diseases and parasites became diseases and parasites because of the Fall - the Fall being an event in human history and so shorter than the normal period of time required to evolve whole genera of new species. It seems to me that, for Spud to be correct, God must have been responsible.
-
The problem seems to be Satan who leads us astray. Jesus dealt with him though and he will be destroyed at the end of this world. Then God will make a new heaven and earth where there will be no Satan, so no sin death or disease.
If you bring up Satan to explain sin and suffering, you create more logical problems than you solve - indeed, a whole chain of them: If the fallen angels were sinless and capable of remaining so, and enjoyed unmediated communion with God, how did they come to fall? Given that they did, why didn't God allow them to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them, rather than condemning them to an eternity of misery? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow them to tempt Adam and Eve? Given that God did allow Satan to do so, why didn't God allow Adam and Eve to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them and start again with another couple? Given that God didn't, why is their sin transmitted to all their descendants, whether they like it or not?
-
Vlad,
Our own egos
You aren’t adding anything to what I said except your conclusion is unjustified turdpolishing of you being merely contradictory.
Have you ever thought of doing something more useful like putting little ships into bottles
Try to remember to close the door behind you as you run away.
-
Vlad.
And what of those who propose a God which doesn’t conform to your proposal of “God” or your definition of “Omni”?
If you want to attempt definitions of “omnipotent”, “omniscient” etc other than the standard ones then you’ll need to tell us what they are – “omnipotent = all powerful, only not when that doesn’t suit me” or some such perhaps?
I disagree. He would have been a monster if he hadn’t created life from which disease arises.
When you posit a god who could have prevented disease but decided not to, that makes him a monster.
Suffering or pain is an alarm that warns that something is going or has gone wrong in a system.
So why create systems that go wrong?
As I mentioned before if you have an omniscient god He knows likely outcomes of human actions.
No, he'd know the actual “outcomes of human action” – not just the likely ones. That’s what omniscience requires.
Like the code breakers of Bletchley Park who held back on intervention in world war 2 for the greater good so it is with God.
And the “greater good” supposedly enabled by a baby dying of brain cancer would be what would you say?
God is not going to intervene where the coherence of the universe is at stake.
Yet the god you assert into existence and justify with only shit arguments does exactly that – every time he performs “miracles” according to you. In what way would a miracle not invalidate the “coherence” of the universe?
In other words If any of us had the power to intervene with divine power sooner or later we would end up asking the universe to do absurd things. Even though this forum is replete with people who think they would have done a better job.
And yet you assert there to be just such “absurd things” – ie, “miracles”.
You’ve tied yourself into another knot of contradiction here.
-
Vlad,
Try to remember to close the door behind you as you run away.
Whatever we do Hillside there is no law saying that it has to be that way. We know this because alternatives are carried out. If you are suggesting our actions are determined then it is by the examples set by our predecessors since what else could be the cause? Eventually then we must get back to the first people.If you think our moral behaviours as humans are totally found in our evolutionary forebears then you need to make the case.
I shan't be holding my breath.
-
Vlad,
Whatever we do Hillside there is no law saying that it has to be that way.
Actually there may well be, at least if you consider determinism to be a “law”
We know this because alternatives are carried out.
Another non sequitur. You have no idea whether an “alternative” is an alternative that that which must have been.
If you are suggesting our actions are determined then it is by the examples set by our predecessors since what else could be the cause?
Lots of things. Cultures emerge from collective experience – they don’t just slavishly copy and repeat the behaviour of one specific ancestor or another.
Eventually then we must get back to the first people.
Why?
If you think our moral behaviours as humans are totally found in our evolutionary forebears then you need to make the case.
I don’t.
I shan't be holding my breath.
For a reply to your straw man? Probably sensible not to.
-
. Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No
That's a very bold statement!
You know as an absolute truth that is correct?
If so that would put you into the category of knowing, for certain, what God thinks and what actions he will or will not take.
-
That's a very bold statement!
You know as an absolute truth that is correct?
If so that would put you into the category of knowing, for certain, what God thinks and what actions he will or will not take.
I am speaking within the premise that those in the debate have bought into namely "If there was a God then" secondly I am speaking from the premise that the universe is on the whole reasonable and logical.
My claim within the main premise is that If there is a God he does nothing to disrupt universal reasonableness and logically. Simples.
-
Vlad,
Why?
well you have me there since I cannot say that we can blame the first people for our moral conduct.
However we cannot say that we don't blame previous generations for poor conduct.
If the first or whatever generations are blameless in terms of moral legacy. We still have a "Perpetrator zero.
It also means that people could lead perfectly blameless lives in other words sin isn't part of our design but is a moral choice.
-
I am speaking within the premise that those in the debate have bought into namely "If there was a God then" secondly I am speaking from the premise that the universe is on the whole reasonable and logical.
My claim within the main premise is that If there is a God he does nothing to disrupt universal reasonableness and logically. Simples.
If you say so.
-
If you bring up Satan to explain sin and suffering, you create more logical problems than you solve - indeed, a whole chain of them: If the fallen angels were sinless and capable of remaining so, and enjoyed unmediated communion with God, how did they come to fall? Given that they did, why didn't God allow them to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them, rather than condemning them to an eternity of misery? Given that God didn't do that, why did God allow them to tempt Adam and Eve? Given that God did allow Satan to do so, why didn't God allow Adam and Eve to repent and be restored? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them and start again with another couple? Given that God didn't, why is their sin transmitted to all their descendants, whether they like it or not?
I wanted to say that even if Satan became evil having been created good, the creation described in genesis was still 'good'. But it looks like the serpent, which was also part of that creation, was not good, as he tempted A&E. But what if he became possessed by Satan?That this was the case is suggested by the fact that he was somehow able to talk. Perhaps a fair interpretation is that Satan used the serpent's craftiness to tempt A&E, and that the serpent would not have done so without being under Satan's influence?
In which case, we can still say that God's creation, as described, was not in any way evil. Your questions regarding Satan may be answered to an extent by the verse that says we wrestle against not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, etc?
-
I’m saying that phrases like “God creating smallpox” are largely bollocks loaded and hysterical anti-theistic rhetorical devices. God creates matter and laws of nature with the potential for disease yes. God creates disease as the end in itself? No...
Well there's a distinction without a difference. If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.
...what about the potential for good things.
What about it?
Is god indifferent to suffering? No, hence the healing miracles.
A few alleged and isolated 'healing miracles' hardly makes up for its initial cruelty in creating a universe that led to the suffering in the first place.
Is God going to overturn this laws of nature in a universal way for specific categories or eventualities? No.
More cruelty, then.
Before the fall and indeed God’s will for mankind is unbroken communion with him which overcomes any considerations of physics.
If this is all due to 'the fall', that adds vindictive collective punishment to your god's list of atrocities.
Are you worshipping some sort of supernatural version of Suella Braverman?
-
I can see a Humanist doctrine of the fall though. Wrong doing or bad (the good is assumed by humanism) is inculcated in a person from persons outside ultimately this must be predecessors and contemporary. Historically and inevitably, in this scheme there must have existed “Perpetrator zero”.
Congratulations, you've started building next year's Guy well in advance - top straw-manning, there. You might, as an exercise in navel-gazing, imagine a Humanist version of the notion of original sin and/or the introduction of evil into paradise, but given that no humanists appear to be putting that notion forward, why bother?
You don't need a humanist explanation for something that you can't demonstrate happens, you need an explanation for the religious claim that it did...
O.
-
Well there's a distinction without a difference. If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.
God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.
Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.
-
That's 'God' - creator of everything Same thing, given that I've qualified 'assuming' with 'for the sake of argument'.
God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.
Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.
Hmmm...
-
God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.
That doesn't address my point.
Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.
The whole idea of 'free will' with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator, who would have effectively chosen all of our nature, nurture, and experiences by the way it decided to do its creation, is laughably absurd.
-
God didn't create disease and death, these resulted from not being able to eat from the tree of life.
So disease and death arose spontaneously when God denied Adam and Eve access to the Tree of Life and God did nothing to stop it
Also we should ask whether a world in which we are programmed to do what God says would be good in any sense.
What's it like in Heaven?
-
But given that you don't have anyone you're asserting isn't alienated, you have nothing to demonstrate that it's a valid concept in the first place.
Alienation not a thing?
-
1) No one, as far as I know, suggested that God creates disease as an end in itself.
It seems to me it is the nub and the nexus of the argument...Yours included.
-
Vlad,
Alienation not a thing?
In this context, no. To show alienation from something you'd need to demonstrate first that that something exists at all - something no-one here has come close to doing.
Hence I am no more alienated from your claim of a god than you are alienated from my claim of leprechauns.
-
Vlad.
If you want to attempt definitions of “omnipotent”, “omniscient” etc other than the standard ones then you’ll need to tell us what they are – “omnipotent = all powerful, only not when that doesn’t suit me” or some such perhaps?
For any given words there are usually different definitions so let's start with Omni, derived from the latin. When proponents or opponents of the ''God of the Omnis'' for instance talk about omnipotence do they mean a God that can do literally everything including the absurd or impossible...or do they mean just the possible? Or does it mean all the power there can possibly be derives from God Similarly, since Benevolence is a felt thing or a subjective emotion there must be as many definitions of it as there are people
When you posit a god who could have prevented disease but decided not to, that makes him a monster.
Omnimonstrous and maybe just monstrous suffers from the same definitional problems as omnibenevolence in that it is immeasureable, and often felt and subjective. But for those who hold to moral realism or even people like yourself who do when it suits let us examine God. He creates potential and that which has potential. Is that in itself a monstrous thing? If not how far along the heirarchy does it become monstrous?
So why create systems that go wrong?
If we have ruled out physical design and specific creation at any level then we can't think of anything going wrong. I think you mean how did man go wrong? By making the wrong moral choice since we cannot say physics can go wrong.
So where are you getting your idea of something going wrong from?
And yet you assert there to be just such “absurd things” – ie, “miracles”.
Are miracles illogical though? Answer nowhere near as absurd as Square circles, black being the same as white, infinite regression, composite necessary beings, circular heirarchies, contingency without necessity etc
-
Vlad,
In this context, no. To show alienation from something you'd need to demonstrate first that that something exists at all - something no-one here has come close to doing.
Hence I am no more alienated from your claim of a god than you are alienated from my claim of leprechauns.
Non sequitur to Outrider's expressed question whether alienation is a valid concept.
You've called God monstrous so either you are right and people who don't are alienated from the truth or the other way round.
Are Leprechauns monstrous Hillside....or can't you say because that would admit to the possibility of another category fuck?
-
Well there's a distinction without a difference. If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.
I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone in the same sense that the parents of the murderer are responsible for that murder. i.e. not directly. Whose right? Foreknowledge is not foreordination.
-
I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone in the same sense that the parents of the murderer are responsible for that murder. i.e. not directly. Whose right? Foreknowledge is not foreordination.
If I knew that the son I was about to conceive was going to murder every first born son in Egypt, I'd wear a condom.
-
I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone...
That's another subject and another argument that involves the mythical idea of 'free will' but is irrelevant to the existence of disease which is right there in the basic 'design' of life itself.
Whose [sic] right? Foreknowledge is not foreordination.
Since the example has bugger all to do with the existence of disease, it doesn't matter in this context. You've simply ignored my point entirely. Perhaps you'd like another go? Here it is again:
If god exists and is omniscient, then it would have known that disease was the inevitable consequence of creating the universe that way, and if it is omnipotent, then it could have created a universe without that inevitability. It therefore directly and deliberately created disease.
-
Alienation not a thing?
You have no way to know, given that your assertion is that every possible example of humanity that you come across suffers from it, so how do you differentiate between people alienated from gods and, just, like, people in a reality where gods don't exist?
In order to show the quality, you'd need to be able to identify differences between people with and without it, and you can't do that.
So, alienation as a general concept (say, people alienated from their peer groups in schools, or alienated from their communities) exists, yes, but your contention of a universal alienation from gods... it's impossible to say.
O.
-
I disagree and most people think God is responsible for somebody who say murders someone in the same sense that the parents of the murderer are responsible for that murder. i.e. not directly.
But then most people accept the notion of free will...
Whose right?
Whose right to what?
Foreknowledge is not foreordination.
If you're the creator who is responsible for introducing that particular instance of reality instead of any of the other innumerable potential ones, then yes it is.
O.
-
When proponents or opponents of the ''God of the Omnis'' for instance talk about omnipotence do they mean a God that can do literally everything including the absurd or impossible...or do they mean just the possible?
I think it's fairly standard to assume that an omnipotent god could do literally anything that isn't self-contradictory. There are, of course, problems with that, but it really isn't up to people who don't believe to sort those out.
Basically, you need to define what you mean. If you have a definition that's actually relevant, then go ahead and post it.
Omnimonstrous...
Start with a massive straw man, eh?
...and maybe just monstrous suffers from the same definitional problems as omnibenevolence in that it is immeasureable, and often felt and subjective. But for those who hold to moral realism or even people like yourself who do when it suits let us examine God. He creates potential and that which has potential. Is that in itself a monstrous thing?
The point is that an omniscient and omnipotent god doesn't just create a potential, since it already knows how that 'potential' will play out.
As for subjectivity, well I'd really like to see you defend any human that had caused even a fraction of the suffering that the existence of disease has throughout history, or who could easily have prevented it but chose not to.
-
Vlad,
For any given words there are usually different definitions so let's start with Omni, derived from the latin. When proponents or opponents of the ''God of the Omnis'' for instance talk about omnipotence do they mean a God that can do literally everything including the absurd or impossible...or do they mean just the possible? Or does it mean all the power there can possibly be derives from God Similarly, since Benevolence is a felt thing or a subjective emotion there must be as many definitions of it as there are people
A “god of the omnis” is your claim, so it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. If though by “omniscient” you actually mean “knows lots of things, but not the consequences of his actions” or some such that’s a fundamental redefinition of the term, and it’s special pleading to boot.
Omnimonstrous and maybe just monstrous suffers from the same definitional problems as omnibenevolence in that it is immeasureable, and often felt and subjective. But for those who hold to moral realism or even people like yourself who do when it suits let us examine God. He creates potential and that which has potential. Is that in itself a monstrous thing? If not how far along the heirarchy does it become monstrous?
Gibberish. If someone plants a bomb in a crowded railway station and then walks way, he’s responsible for the carnage that ensues. That’s what your god story entails when he sets in train “creations” that lead eventually to babies having brain cancer.
If we have ruled out physical design and specific creation at any level then we can't think of anything going wrong.
Non sequitur. “…physical design and specific creation” is still your claim, and it goes wrong because babies get brain cancer as a result.
I think you mean how did man go wrong?
Then, as so often, you think wrongly. I meant how did the god of your story go wrong.
By making the wrong moral choice since we cannot say physics can go wrong.
So where are you getting your idea of something going wrong from?
So babies get brain cancer because other people make wrong moral choices?
Is that really what you want to claim?
Are miracles illogical though?
Yes.
Answer nowhere near as absurd as Square circles, black being the same as white, infinite regression, composite necessary beings, circular heirarchies, contingency without necessity etc
1. Category error. You’ve cheated by lumping together logical impossibilities (eg square circles) with logical possibilities (eg contingency without necessity).
2. What scale of illogicality are you applying here that makes you think someone being actually dead for a bit and then alive again for example is less absurd than any other absurd claim?
Once again, your inability to reason is letting you down here.
-
Vlad,
Non sequitur to Outrider's expressed question whether alienation is a valid concept.
No it isn’t. Try looking up the meaning of “non sequitur” to see where you’ve gone wrong.
Alienation is a valid concept in some contexts, and not a valid concept in other contexts.
You've called God monstrous so either you are right and people who don't are alienated from the truth or the other way round.
What are you even trying to say here? The god of your faith claim would be monstrous if the faith claim was true because of the consequences of his actions. It's simple enough.
Are Leprechauns monstrous Hillside....
No.
…or can't you say because that would admit to the possibility of another category fuck?
I can say because according to my faith claim leprechauns don’t cause monstrous consequences by their actions. According to your faith claim “god” though that god does cause monstrous consequences by his actions.
The difference shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.
-
Vlad,
A “god of the omnis” is your claim, so it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. If though by “omniscient” you actually mean “knows lots of things, but not the consequences of his actions” or some such that’s a fundamental redefinition of the term, and it’s special pleading to boot.
Gibberish. If someone plants a bomb in a crowded railway station and then walks way, he’s responsible for the carnage that ensues. That’s what your god story entails when he sets in train “creations” that lead eventually to babies having brain cancer.
Non sequitur. “…physical design and specific creation” is still your claim, and it goes wrong because babies get brain cancer as a result.
Then, as so often, you think wrongly. I meant how did the god of your story go wrong.
So babies get brain cancer because other people make wrong moral choices?
Is that really what you want to claim?
Yes.
1. Category error. You’ve cheated by lumping together logical impossibilities (eg square circles) with logical possibilities (eg contingency without necessity).
2. What scale of illogicality are you applying here that makes you think someone being actually dead for a bit and then alive again for example is less absurd than any other absurd claim?
Once again, your inability to reason is letting you down here.
I am not a proponent of the God of the philosophers AKA the God of the Omnis and have said so at length on this forum.
It is you who has been conflating and confusing something you find hard to believe if at all and logical impossibility.
You still suffer from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.
-
Vlad,
I am not a proponent of the God of the philosophers AKA the God of the Omnis and have said so at length on this forum.
No you haven’t but in any case which of the omnis are you now ditching – some of them or all of them? How are you deciding which to bin, and by how much – for omniscience for example, are you now opting for, say, “my god is smarter than Stephen Hawking but not smart enough to know the systems he created would lead to brain cancer in babies” or some such?
Do tell.
It is you who has been conflating and confusing something you find hard to believe if at all and logical impossibility.
Lying about that doesn’t get you off the hook here. I (and others) have told you many times where you go wrong with your “necessity/contingency” fallacy of composition for example, but you always just run away when it’s done. That though doesn’t mean that your mistake goes away.
You still suffer from projecting your own shortcomings onto others.
Do you have an argument to make, or just more groundless assertions like this one?
Your various other avoidances of the arguments that undid you are noted.
-
But then most people accept the notion of free will...
People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".
-
People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".
- An assertion, as you say.
- A rather obvious ad pop fallacy.
- Rejection of 'free will', to the extent people do, is on the grounds of basic logic - something that people very often get very wrong. Even those that should know better, let alone 'ordinary' people. It is a skill that one has to learn.
- Depends what they think 'free will' means. If they think they can do whatever they want, they are right.
- Philosophers such as Dennett argue strongly that 'free will' does exist in the "only way worth having".
- The rejection of 'free will' is in the self-contradictory sense of thinking that you could have done differently without such difference being random.
Think that about covers it....
-
It seems to me it is the nub and the nexus of the argument...Yours included.
In evolutionary terms the flourishing of any disease basically depends on its survival potential. The argument as to whether your God created diseases to be ends in themselves or not seems rather a futile one to me. It doesn't matter as to whether He/She/It created diseases as ends in themselves, the bottom line is that, according to your religion, your God still created them, and, therefore, the three alternatives I posited in post 331 still apply.
-
In evolutionary terms the flourishing of any disease basically depends on its survival potential. The argument as to whether your God created diseases to be ends in themselves or not seems rather a futile one to me. It doesn't matter as to whether He/She/It created diseases as ends in themselves, the bottom line is that, according to your religion, your God still created them, and, therefore, the three alternatives I posited in post 331 still apply.
Yes, in fact, if you think that god deliberately created humans, then it deliberately created diseases. This applies whether you think god created the universe in a way that it would then produce humans by natural means, think it tinkered with evolution, or are crazy enough to think it magicked it all into existence 6000 years ago. The end result—the interdependent system of life on Earth—is as god intended.
-
People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".
If that's the worst that someone can say about me, I'll take it ;D
O.
-
People who deny free will on philosophical grounds exemplify Orwell's assertion that “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool".
No they don't. That quote was a response to the idea that the American troops that came to Britain during WW2 did so to put down the inevitable revolution, not to invade German occupied France, which was clearly bonkers.
The arguments against free will are grounded in logic and scientific principles. I do not know what Orwell's views on free well were, but he would probably acknowledge that the arguments are not that bonkers.
-
That doesn't address my point.
The whole idea of 'free will' with respect to an omnipotent, omniscient creator, who would have effectively chosen all of our nature, nurture, and experiences by the way it decided to do its creation, is laughably absurd.
If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.
-
If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.
So a bloke eats an apple and your god decides to torture and kill people. You worship a psychopathic prick.
-
Spud,
If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.
Assuming for now that you actually think this bonkers juvenilia to be literally true, if your god didn’t want “Adam” to eat a “forbidden fruit” then why did this god put it there in the first place?
-
If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.
It’s God’s fault that eating the forbidden fruit triggered the creation of all the disease.
It was also God who denied humans access to the Tree of Life and that was because he didn’t want humans to become gods.
If I believed any of the nonsense in Genesis to be true, I absolutely would blame God.
-
If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist.
Not only does this have bugger all to do with what I said, it also wouldn't justify making all future generations suffer with disease and death, even if free will made the slightest bit of sense in this situation (which it doesn't).
Stop blaming God.
Why? If genesis is true (literally or figuratively) then god is obviously to blame. The god in the story is a vindictive monster.
-
If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.
Stranger makes a good point in that this has little to do with his comment that you alluded to.
However, as you seem to have brought up the story of the 'forbidden fruit' as being in any sense believable then consider a few other utterances from your OT.
God's love entails destroying all the first born in Egypt (psalm 136). A real family man your God is!
All witches should be killed(Ex 22:18). Really shows his expansive humanity that does!
God wants to destroy all Jews because they don't believe in Him. Luckily He is talked out of His vindictive attitude by Moses.(Num 14: 1-36) Phew!
A stubborn and rebellious son should be stoned to death.(Deut 21:18) Good old family values again!
God believes that if a person is gathering sticks on the Sabbath he should be stoned to death. Pernickity, isn't He, your God?
He didn't want imperfect people to be around Him, people such as the blind, the lame, dwarves, hunchbacks, those with mutilated faces etc.(Lev 21:17). Not exactly all encompassing, is He?
When God lived in a box(The Ark of the Covenant) He could get quite stroppy and irritable at times. When some people looked in His box, He reacted by killing 50,000 of them.(1 Sam 6:19). I'd call that a little over the top, wouldn't you?
So, let me make it clear. If these stories, including the preposterous Adam and Eve story, are in any sense literally true then all we have is a monster. I don't blame your God, because I have no belief in Him, but, if He did really exist then he is ultimately responsible for all that He has created, and that includes human beings and diseases.
-
If Adam hadn't have eaten the forbidden fruit, then disease and death would not exist. Stop blaming God.
That would be the fruit that was required to be eaten before you could understand right and wrong, yes? That would be the fruit that God made readily accessible despite the obvious hazard, rather than hiding away from the intellectual and moral children in his care?
O.
-
That would be the fruit that was required to be eaten before you could understand right and wrong, yes? That would be the fruit that God made readily accessible despite the obvious hazard, rather than hiding away from the intellectual and moral children in his care?
O.
Or is it the 'fruit' of experiencing doing wrong after choosing wrong over right?
-
Or is it the 'fruit' of experiencing doing wrong after choosing wrong over right?
Well, it's described as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (NIV), rather than "the tree of experiencing doing wrong", so it would appear not. Also, after god has his tantrum, he says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (NIV).
However, it's a fairytale that Spud seems to believe, and you seem to be supporting, so why ask the rest of us?
Why don't you tell us what you think it all means, and how it could possibly justify the vindictive tantrum that the god character had afterwards that ended up with all of humanity having to suffer disease and death afterwards (according to Spud)?
-
Or is it the 'fruit' of experiencing doing wrong after choosing wrong over right?
If you're not a literalist, the argument's moot. If your contention is, though, that Adam and Eve were literal people created ex nihilo and are responsible for 'the fall', it's a question that needs an answer.
O.
-
Well, it's described as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (NIV), rather than "the tree of experiencing doing wrong", so it would appear not. Also, after god has his tantrum, he says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (NIV).
However, it's a fairytale that Spud seems to believe, and you seem to be supporting, so why ask the rest of us?
Why don't you tell us what you think it all means, and how it could possibly justify the vindictive tantrum that the god character had afterwards that ended up with all of humanity having to suffer disease and death afterwards (according to Spud)?
Remember, that isn't how the story ends. Through the death of Christ, access to the tree of life is restored, in the new earth (Revelation 22).
-
Remember, that isn't how the story ends. Through the death of Christ, access to the tree of life is restored, in the new earth (Revelation 22).
And you think that makes it all okay, do you? Your god has a tantrum, goes on a binge of sadistic torture and murder but then makes things all 'nice' again? It really is incredible what bizarre moral gymnastics believers are prepared to go through to avoid facing up to the fact that the god described in the bible is morally repugnant as well as apparently suffering from dissociative identity disorder.
-
If you're not a literalist, the argument's moot. If your contention is, though, that Adam and Eve were literal people created ex nihilo and are responsible for 'the fall', it's a question that needs an answer.
O.
If I am right your contention is that they did not know what they were doing....which involves not knowing through communion with, who they were disobeying and that is unlikely. Also you can know of something even though you haven't experienced it.
It seems to me that modern translations and understandings of know have to give way to contemporary hebrew and theological understandings and usages of the verb to know and the word knowledge. IMO what God is saying to them is that they will have experiential rather than theoretical knowledge of Good and evil if they deviate from their present communion with God, and that is understandible withion or without a literal Adam and Eve account.
-
The arguments against free will are grounded in logic and scientific principles.I take it you mean from the philosophy of determinism and the particle theory. However as some have said repeatedly that science includes probability and on the face of it probablism is at odds with determinism. Even if it came down to the physical properties and position of particles, that would tell us nothing about moral choice imho.
-
Vlad, please try to stop messing up your quote boxes!
I take it you mean from the philosophy of determinism and the particle theory. However as some have said repeatedly that science includes probability and on the face of it probablism is at odds with determinism.
No. If there are probabilities involved that just means that the system is non-deterministic because it involves some element of randomness. Still no room for the self-contradictory version of 'free will' that requires a non-deterministic system that sill manages to be purposeful and non-random.
See: Deterministic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system).
"In mathematics, computer science and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."
Even if it came down to the physical properties and position of particles, that would tell us nothing about moral choice imho.
How so? Note the argument is not directly about physical particles. It would apply just as much to a mind regardless of how it worked. If you don't have determinism, then you have randomness. Neither is 'free will' in anyway that would make sense in this context.
-
Vlad,
I take it you mean from the philosophy of determinism and the particle theory.
No. He means that if you assert that thinking necessarily must be done by a stand-alone homunculus called a “soul” then that soul must itself do some thinking, which gives you a logically impossible infinite regress.
However as some have said repeatedly that science includes probability and on the face of it probablism is at odds with determinism.
No it isn’t. Probability is a statement about knowledge of reality, not about reality itself. Whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level is unknown.
Even if it came down to the physical properties and position of particles, that would tell us nothing about moral choice imho.
Why not?
-
If I am right your contention is that they did not know what they were doing....which involves not knowing through communion with, who they were disobeying and that is unlikely.
My contention is not about whether they knew that it was God they were talking to, but rather that the depiction is that they had no awareness of the consequences of good and evil/right and wrong - that's what is portrayed as being granted by eating the fruit, hence the sudden appreciation of the 'wrongness' of being naked. If they knew that disobeying was 'wrong', then what was it that the 'fruit of the tree of knowledge' was supposed to give them that they didn't have already?
Also you can know of something even though you haven't experienced it.
Perhaps. But that still doesn't explain what it was that the fruit would do. Why does eating the fruit suddenly make them aware of the alleged problem of nudity if they already had 'theoretical knowledge'?
It seems to me that modern translations and understandings of know have to give way to contemporary hebrew and theological understandings and usages of the verb to know and the word knowledge.
Perhaps, but I'm less concerned about what the people that made up the story though they meant, and more interested in what people who want to implement theocracies and deny rights to people here and now believe about it. I'm therefore concerned with the modern translations, and the modern interpretation of them.
IMO what God is saying to them is that they will have experiential rather than theoretical knowledge of Good and evil if they deviate from their present communion with God, and that is understandible withion or without a literal Adam and Eve account.
Which seems a) even less of a grounds for introducing death, pain and suffering; b) that it doesn't introduce anything to humanity that wasn't already there, so is meaningless; c) doesn't explain how anything acquired there is inherently 'passed on' to their descendants; and d) still relies on the notion of a literal Adam and Eve.
And it's not their 'communion with God', that was still there after the fruit, they were still talking to him. It could be argued that God's attitude to them changed, I suppose, but I suspect that's not an interpretation that you'd go for....
And none of that explains why God would have put the tree within reach in the first place. It place a cherubim to guard the gate to Eden, and a flaming sword to guard the tree of life after the fact, but didn't think to do that beforehand, despite the dire prospects for the untold billions of descendants due to inherit sin?
O.
-
I take it you mean from the philosophy of determinism and the particle theory.
No, I mean what I said: logic and scientific principles.
However as some have said repeatedly that science includes probability and on the face of it probablism is at odds with determinism.
If the Universe is deterministic, there is no room for free will but if it has a random element as in, for example, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, you are just saying that our behaviour is partly driven by random events. That's not "will" of any kind.
-
No, I mean what I said: logic and scientific principles.
If the Universe is deterministic, there is no room for free will but if it has a random element as in, for example, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, you are just saying that our behaviour is partly driven by random events. That's not "will" of any kind.
You need then explain the premises of your logic and the unbroken chain of logic and state which scientific principles you mean.
Quantum mechanics is probabalistic though. So events in the universe are Random, determined or probabalistic. I found this article quite interesting.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/
One would have to ask how moral decisions are taken and whether they are bound to physical determination.
-
Quantum mechanics is probabalistic though. So events in the universe are Random, determined or probabalistic.
Probabilistic isn't a third class of events, it's just a combination of randomness and determinism. You can see this because we can recreate any probability distribution (such as those given by quantum mechanics) using a random source and a (deterministic) algorithm.
I found this article quite interesting.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/determinism-classical-argument-against-free-will-failure/
I didn't. Never got to the point.
One would have to ask how moral decisions are taken and whether they are bound to physical determination.
Why? It doesn't matter. It's either deterministic or with a sprinkling of randomness. Neither of which results in anything remotely like a relevant concept of 'free will'.
-
Vlad, please try to stop messing up your quote boxes!
No. If there are probabilities involved that just means that the system is non-deterministic because it involves some element of randomness. Still no room for the self-contradictory version of 'free will' that requires a non-deterministic system that sill manages to be purposeful and non-random.
See: Deterministic system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system).
I have no beef with you over the science. My beef is with philosophical determinism. I believe science cannot support philosophical determinism in that it is not possible from the initial state of the universe to theoretically predict with 100% accuracy any further state, not because of a fillable shortfall in knowledge or perspective but because of the impossibility of the task and the nature of the universe.
Freewill could then be an emergent property i.e. not exhibited by contributing factors themselves or freewill operates in the non physical aspect of existence.
-
I have no beef with you over the science. My beef is with philosophical determinism. I believe science cannot support philosophical determinism in that it is not possible from the initial state of the universe to theoretically predict with 100% accuracy any further state, not because of a fillable shortfall in knowledge or perspective but because of the impossibility of the task and the nature of the universe.
What is it about the 'nature of the universe', in your understanding that makes future states inherently beyond prediction? The apparent nature of block time suggests that not only is it potentially predictable but the concept of a future being somehow a result of the present and not just a different location in a complete spacetime is questionable.
Freewill could then be an emergent property i.e. not exhibited by contributing factors themselves or freewill operates in the non physical aspect of existence.
You're jumping the gun a bit there; you'd have to explain how free will is a valid concept at all. Decision are either the result of previous activity (i.e. not free) or are random (i.e. are not will). Where does this seemingly nonsensical 'third way' come in?
O.
-
I have no beef with you over the science. My beef is with philosophical determinism. I believe science cannot support philosophical determinism in that it is not possible from the initial state of the universe to theoretically predict with 100% accuracy any further state,
The equations we use to predict future states of the Universe are completely deterministic. It's only with the Copenhagen interpretation that the non determinism sneaks in and the Copenhagen interpretation might be wrong. Even then, this does not help the case for free will. It would lead to some aspects of why you do things to be deterministic and some aspects to be completely random. Neither option really allows free will in.
not because of a fillable shortfall in knowledge or perspective but because of the impossibility of the task and the nature of the universe.
Freewill could then be an emergent property i.e. not exhibited by contributing factors themselves or freewill operates in the non physical aspect of existence.
I think it's an emergent illusion.
-
I have no beef with you over the science. My beef is with philosophical determinism. I believe science cannot support philosophical determinism in that it is not possible from the initial state of the universe to theoretically predict with 100% accuracy any further state, not because of a fillable shortfall in knowledge or perspective but because of the impossibility of the task and the nature of the universe.
Freewill could then be an emergent property i.e. not exhibited by contributing factors themselves or freewill operates in the non physical aspect of existence.
There are, of course, many reasons why it's impossible (for humans) to predict future states of all systems: practicality, chaos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) (mathematical sense), and possible actual randomness. But this cannot change the fundamentals. If the system is fully deterministic, then there still can only have been one possible outcome (even if it is chaotic). If it's not deterministic then the outcome will be influenced by randomness which isn't 'free will' (you can call it 'free' but it certainly can't be 'will').
You can have free will in the compatibilist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) sense but not in the magical sense needed for it to be relevant to an omniscient god.
Adding a 'non-physical aspect' doesn't help either because the restrictions are logical and not related to physical laws. As long as you have a system that changes over time (as minds must), you'll have the same problem.
-
Vlad,
I believe science cannot support philosophical determinism in that it is not possible from the initial state of the universe to theoretically predict with 100% accuracy any further state, not because of a fillable shortfall in knowledge or perspective but because of the impossibility of the task and the nature of the universe.
Just to note that all you've said here is that something is not possible because of its impossibility – you seem to have forgotten the argument part.
-
Vlad,
No. He means that if you assert that thinking necessarily must be done by a stand-alone homunculus called a “soul” then that soul must itself do some thinking, which gives you a logically impossible infinite regress.
No it isn’t. Probability is a statement about knowledge of reality, not about reality itself. Whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level is unknown.
Why not?
I’m glad you have come out for impossibility and for the illogic of infinite regress.
-
My contention is not about whether they knew that it was God they were talking to, but rather that the depiction is that they had no awareness of the consequences of good and evil/right and wrong - that's what is portrayed as being granted by eating the fruit, hence the sudden appreciation of the 'wrongness' of being naked. If they knew that disobeying was 'wrong', then what was it that the 'fruit of the tree of knowledge' was supposed to give them that they didn't have already?
well as I have said before there is theoretical knowledge and there is experiential knowledge. My contention is they had the theoretical knowledge. Since they were talking with God.
Perhaps. But that still doesn't explain what it was that the fruit would do. Why does eating the fruit suddenly make them aware of the alleged problem of nudity if they already had 'theoretical knowledge'?
Perhaps, but I'm less concerned about what the people that made up the story though they meant, and more interested in what people who want to implement theocracies and deny rights to people here and now believe about it. I'm therefore concerned with the modern translations, and the modern interpretation of them.
Which seems a) even less of a grounds for introducing death, pain and suffering; b) that it doesn't introduce anything to humanity that wasn't already there, so is meaningless; c) doesn't explain how anything acquired there is inherently 'passed on' to their descendants; and d) still relies on the notion of a literal Adam and Eve.
And it's not their 'communion with God', that was still there after the fruit, they were still talking to him. It could be argued that God's attitude to them changed, I suppose, but I suspect that's not an interpretation that you'd go for....
And none of that explains why God would have put the tree within reach in the first place. It place a cherubim to guard the gate to Eden, and a flaming sword to guard the tree of life after the fact, but didn't think to do that beforehand, despite the dire prospects for the untold billions of descendants due to inherit sin?
O.
I’m not an expert on nudity or why people decided they could not let it all hang out.
Communion and unbroken communion is I think more than just talking to someone. Deliberate flippant understatement on your part?
-
The equations we use to predict future states of the Universe are completely deterministic. It's only with the Copenhagen interpretation that the non determinism sneaks in and the Copenhagen interpretation might be wrong.
”sneaking in”? You make that sound like a bad thing. Do you want it to be wrong because it upsets your faith in science somehow? Even then, this does not help the case for free will.
True but it really damages the case for determinism.
-
Vlad,
I’m glad you have come out for impossibility and for the illogic of infinite regress.
What are you trying to say now? What I've "come out for" is that any explanation that would cause an infinite regress explains nothing. This is where you fall apart with your necessary/contingent god BS. If you insert a god to explain the universe you need a cause for that god, and so on forever. "But God is magic inne?" doesn't get you off that hook.
-
Vlad,
What are you trying to say now? What I've "come out for" is that any explanation that would cause an infinite regress explains nothing. This is where you fall apart with your necessary/contingent god BS. If you insert a god to explain the universe you need a cause for that god, and so on forever. "But God is magic inne?" doesn't get you off that hook.
Wrong, wrong, wrong you need a necessary to explain contingent things. Observable physical things are contingent because as quantum mechanics teaches us, physical observation has a physical effect and being affected means contingency. A wall of white bricks cannot be said to be black.
-
Wrong, wrong, wrong you need a necessary to explain contingent things.
Wrong. It doesn't work because a 'necessary entity' is logically incoherent and absurd. That is, unless you've finally come up an explanation that tells us exactly how something would cause a logical problem if it didn't exist or was different.
No? Thought not.
Observable physical things are contingent because as quantum mechanics teaches us, physical observation has a physical effect and being affected means contingency. A wall of white bricks cannot be said to be black.
Since you have no definition of a 'necessary entity' every claim you make about what it can or can't be is just making shit up. And you're wrong about quantum mechanics, as I'm sure I've explained before and really can't be arsed to do again.
-
Wrong. It doesn't work because a 'necessary entity' is logically incoherent and absurd. That is, unless you've finally come up an explanation that tells us exactly how something would cause a logical problem if it didn't exist or was different.
No? Thought not.
Since you have no definition of a 'necessary entity' every claim you make about what it can or can't be is just making shit up. And you're wrong about quantum mechanics, as I'm sure I've explained before and really can't be arsed to do again.
Contingency without necessity is what is absurd,Stranger.
-
Vlad,
Wrong, wrong, wrong you need a necessary to explain contingent things.
Wrong again. If you want to claim a “necessary entity” that’s its own explanation, you may as well stop at “the universe” for that purpose. Adding a magic deity to the story has no additional explanatory value.
Observable physical things are contingent because as quantum mechanics teaches us, physical observation has a physical effect and being affected means contingency.
And what about non-observable things? Or have you decided that that which is (currently) observable must also be all there is?
Why?
A wall of white bricks cannot be said to be black.
1. How you know that? Lots of observed things looks different when viewed from a different perspective.
2. Everyone standing up at a cricket match does not mean everyone gets a better view. This is the basic fallacy of composition your necessary god idiocy relies on. You have no idea whether the determinism seen in the universe means that the universe itself must also be caused by something other than itself.
-
Contingency without necessity is what is absurd,Stranger.
That's not an argument, it's a mantra. If a 'necessary entity' is incoherent (as it is until you can construct a logically self-consistent definition), then it is not an answer. You might as well just say "it's magic, innit?" It would have exactly the same logical significance and explanatory power.
-
That's not an argument, it's a mantra. If a 'necessary entity' is incoherent (as it is until you can construct a logically self-consistent definition), then it is not an answer. You might as well just say "it's magic, innit?" It would have exactly the same logical significance and explanatory power.
Look at the definition of contingency then apply logic instead of guff.
-
Look at the definition of contingency then apply logic instead of guff.
It doesn't matter how you define contingency, unless you can make a 'necessary entity' make logical sense, it is no better than "it's magic".
-
It doesn't matter how you define contingency, unless you can make a 'necessary entity' make logical sense, it is no better than "it's magic".
Contingency without a necessity means an infinite regression which is absurd...as has been acknowledged by someone who has used the illogicality of infinite regression to "destroy" Alan burns case.
-
Vlad,
Contingency without a necessity means an infinite regression which is absurd...as has been acknowledged by someone who has used the illogicality of infinite regression to "destroy" Alan burns case.
The infinite regression problem destroys your case too. Your attempt to get "god" off the same hook with "but he's magic inne?" is pathetic.
-
Vlad,
The infinite regression problem destroys your case too. Your attempt to get "god" off the same hook with "but he's magic inne?" is pathetic.
Incorrect. Contingency without Necessity must be an article of Faith in Scientism.
Perhaps you can explain how infinite regression affects whether there is a necessary entity? My Lord Richard says so is not satisfactory.
-
That would be the fruit that was required to be eaten before you could understand right and wrong, yes?
No, you could understand right and wrong by the warning of the consequences of doing wrong.
The tree of knowledge was there to make the point that God decides what is permissible, not us. Regardless of whether we have experienced the consequences of doing something prohibited, he expects us to obey. You understand that it is wrong to eat it by the fact that God said not to and warned of the consequences. You're defining understanding right and wrong in the sense of experiencing doing wrong. Adam tested God to see if the consequence warned of (death) would happen. Becoming ashamed of his nakedness was evidently a sign to him that he had indeed brought the consequence on himself, because he hid from God, who later confirmed he would return to the dust.
That would be the fruit that God made readily accessible despite the obvious hazard, rather than hiding away from the intellectual and moral children in his care?
O.
How could Adam know God is in charge if God had made the fruit inaccessible?
-
Vlad,
Incorrect. Contingency without Necessity must be an article of Faith in Scientism.
Actually it’s scientism itself that’s an article of faith but as no-one here subscribes to it it’s irrelevant in any case.
Perhaps you can explain how infinite regression affects whether there is a necessary entity? My Lord Richard says so is not satisfactory.
It doesn’t “affect(s) whether there is a necessary entity”. What it does affect – ie falsify – though is your justification for there being a necessary entity. You have no argument for the universe necessarily being created by something other than itself, and you have no argument to exempt a god (even if there was one) from the infinite regress problem.
As you refuse ever even to address the hopelessness of “but god’s magic inne?” as your get out of jai free cars you remain firmly marooned in not even wrong territory.
-
Contingency without a necessity magic means an infinite regression...
FIFY. And only if you lack the imagination to think of anything else and/or are religiously opposed to admitting we just don't know.
-
Contingency without Necessity....
A 'necessary entity' (or 'Necessity') is meaningless gibberish unless you can tell us how it's logically possible. It's exactly the same claim as "it's magic".
-
Vlad,
Actually it’s scientism itself that’s an article of faith but as no-one here subscribes to it it’s irrelevant in any case.
It doesn’t “affect(s) whether there is a necessary entity”. What it does affect – ie falsify – though is your justification for there being a necessary entity. You have no argument for the universe necessarily being created by something other than itself, and you have no argument to exempt a god (even if there was one) from the infinite regress problem.
As you refuse ever even to address the hopelessness of “but god’s magic inne?” as your get out of jai free cars you remain firmly marooned in not even wrong territory.
Unfortunately the fallacy of composition only applies to composites. That would seem to end the discussion here since all composites are contingent each part dependent on another.
-
Vlad,
Unfortunately the fallacy of composition only applies to composites.
The universe is a composite.
That would seem to end the discussion here since all composites are contingent each part dependent on another.
No it wouldn’t. The fallacy of composition in this case is the mistake of inferring that the universe must be contingent on something else because (some or all) of its parts are contingent on each other.
I suggest you educate yourself on its actual meaning before you’re tempted to embarrass yourself again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
-
No, you could understand right and wrong by the warning of the consequences of doing wrong.
The tree of knowledge was there to make the point that God decides what is permissible, not us. Regardless of whether we have experienced the consequences of doing something prohibited, he expects us to obey.
Really? He expects us to obey? He created humans and he's omniscient and he thinks that just telling us not to break the rules will be enough to stop us b reading the rules?
Your god is a moron.
You understand that it is wrong to eat it by the fact that God said not to and warned of the consequences. You're defining understanding right and wrong in the sense of experiencing doing wrong. Adam tested God to see if the consequence warned of (death) would happen.
And they didn't happen.
-
Vlad,
The universe is a composite.
No it wouldn’t. The fallacy of composition in this case is the mistake of inferring that the universe must be contingent on something else because (some or all) of its parts are contingent on each other.
I suggest you educate yourself on its actual meaning before you’re tempted to embarrass yourself again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
If the universe is composite then it's contingent...you and the posse really don't get this do you?
-
If the universe is composite then it's contingent...you and the posse really don't get this do you?
Because it's logic-free nonsense. Since you don't have any logic that says how something could exist necessarily, not only does it become an invocation of magic, it makes it impossible to make any deductions about what it would be like. You cannot know that it isn't composite.
What's more, of course, the real comedy in this 'argument for god' doesn't really get off the ground until you try to bash the square peg of the Christian God into the round hole of your made up 'necessary entity'. Quite clearly your God is just a composite as the universe.
-
Because it's logic-free nonsense. Since you don't have any logic that says how something could exist necessarily, not only does it become an invocation of magic, it makes it impossible to make any deductions about what it would be like. You cannot know that it isn't composite.
What's more, of course, the real comedy in this 'argument for god' doesn't really get off the ground until you try to bash the square peg of the Christian God into the round hole of your made up 'necessary entity'. Quite clearly your God is just a composite as the universe.
Logic free? What is logic free is you and Hillside saying that the universe is a collection or composite of things then ignoring that and treating it like a single entity.
Unfortunately logically it cannot be physically one entity and physically several entities at the same time...if we even need to invoke time at all.
-
Logic free? What is logic free is you and Hillside saying that the universe is a collection or composite of things then ignoring that and treating it like a single entity.
Unfortunately logically it cannot be physically one entity and physically several entities at the same time...if we even need to invoke time at all.
Where have either of us said that and why are you ignoring the actual points I raised?
-
If the universe is composite then it's contingent...you and the posse really don't get this do you?
If, as you seem to think, everything that is composite is contingent, then the Christian god must be contingent, made up , as it is, of three persons.
-
Vlad,
Logic free? What is logic free is you and Hillside saying that the universe is a collection or composite of things then ignoring that and treating it like a single entity.
Unfortunately logically it cannot be physically one entity and physically several entities at the same time...if we even need to invoke time at all.
Hard to know whether you’re deliberately trolling, or instead whether you just cannot grasp the basic argument of the fallacy of composition. Try very, very hard to understand this:
1. The universe is a “composite” inasmuch as it appears to consist of lots and lots of interrelated parts.
2. So far as we can tell those parts are deterministic in character inasmuch as each of them requires antecedent parts for its existence (though there is some uncertainty about that at the quantum field level).
3. The fallacy of composition occurs when you infer that something true of the parts of the universe (ie, determinism) must also therefore be true of the whole (ie, the universe).
So far as I recall you’ve never even tried to justify your jump from “the parts of the universe are contingent” to “therefore the universe itself is contingent” and, even if you could ever do that, you’d still be left with the problem of exempting a supposed god from the same problem without collapsing immediately into “because it’s magic innit?”.
I’m not sure I can put this any more plainly such that even you might finally grasp it.
-
Vlad,
Hard to know whether you’re deliberately trolling, or instead whether you just cannot grasp the basic argument of the fallacy of composition. Try very, very hard to understand this:
1. The universe is a “composite” inasmuch as it appears to consist of lots and lots of interrelated parts.
2. So far as we can tell those parts are deterministic in character inasmuch as each of them requires antecedent parts for its existence (though there is some uncertainty about that at the quantum field level).
3. The fallacy of composition occurs when you infer that something true of the parts of the universe (ie, determinism) must also therefore be true of the whole (ie, the universe).
So far as I recall you’ve never even tried to justify your jump from “the parts of the universe are contingent” to “therefore the universe itself is contingent” and, even if you could ever do that, you’d still be left with the problem of exempting a supposed god from the same problem without collapsing immediately into “because it’s magic innit?”.
I’m not sure I can put this any more plainly such that even you might finally grasp it.
Sorry you are still trying to claim two exclusive propositions simultaneously...that the universe exists because of it's parts and the parts exist because of the universe.
If the universe is composite it is contingent and cannot be necessary. Another way of looking at your argument is to say it is circular.
An analogy to the argument you are making would be
Vlad is saying that a football team made of the best football team would be the best football team.
I'm not. I'm arguing it would be a team dependent on it's composition of players.
And fundamentally the word composite entails contingency.
To be fair to you what you are trying to say I think is that there is something about the universe that doesn't change. That isn't dependent on it's existence on the things you say the universe is a composite of
-
If the universe is composite it is contingent and cannot be necessary.
Baseless, unargued assertion. You have no logically self-consistent description of how something can be 'necessary', so anything you claim about it is a baseless assumption.
There is no reason I can see why something that consists of multiple parts which are contingent on each other, and couldn't exist without the whole, needs to be contingent on anything outside of itself. In fact, there is nothing the whole universe (space-time) seems to be contingent on.
And you are still ignoring the fact that your God is just as composite as the universe.
-
Sorry you are still trying to claim two exclusive propositions simultaneously...that the universe exists because of it's parts and the parts exist because of the universe.
I don't see anybody claiming that.
If the universe is composite it is contingent and cannot be necessary. Another way of looking at your argument is to say it is circular.
If composite things cannot be "necessary", your god consisting of three persons cannot be "necessary".
-
No, you could understand right and wrong by the warning of the consequences of doing wrong.
If you have no knowledge of right and wrong, though, threats for breaches is like me saying that you will surely die if you thribble... good luck with that.
The tree of knowledge was there to make the point that God decides what is permissible, not us. Regardless of whether we have experienced the consequences of doing something prohibited, he expects us to obey. You understand that it is wrong to eat it by the fact that God said not to and warned of the consequences. You're defining understanding right and wrong in the sense of experiencing doing wrong.
Except that every parent in the world knows that children will explore boundaries, it's part of how they learn about the world. And, therefore, you don't leave the bleach where they can reach it, even though you've told them not to drink it. For a supposedly all-knowing deity to make this eminently foreseeable error and then to compound that error by not only punishing Adam and Eve for it, but all of subsequent humanity is less than omnibenevolent.
Adam tested God to see if the consequence warned of (death) would happen.
But God already knows. The future already exists, and God is omniscient.
Becoming ashamed of his nakedness was evidently a sign to him that he had indeed brought the consequence on himself, because he hid from God, who later confirmed he would return to the dust.
And, therefore, where is the evidence that this wouldn't have happened anyway? How do we know that god is not a confidence trickster who just told Adam he was in charge, and Adam was too stupid to realise the gaps in the story?
How could Adam know God is in charge if God had made the fruit inaccessible?
Why does god need other people to know that he's in charge? Is he that petty?
O.
-
Vlad,
Sorry you are still trying to claim two exclusive propositions simultaneously...that the universe exists because of it's parts and the parts exist because of the universe.
I haven’t claimed any such thing. Nor has anyone else here. What I have claimed though is that the universe consists of parts and so is a “composite” entity, and that those parts that are observed appear to be contingent (though not necessarily so). Straw manning that is dishonest – confine yourself to what’s actually being said.
If the universe is composite it is contingent and cannot be necessary. Another way of looking at your argument is to say it is circular.
No it isn’t, and just repeating the fallacy doesn’t make it less fallacious. Once again: WHY do you think an entity that consists of contingent parts must therefore itself also be contingent on something else?
An analogy to the argument you are making would be
Vlad is saying that a football team made of the best football team would be the best football team.
Not even close. What it would be though would be if, say, a star player didn’t touch the ball except when s/he tapped in an 89th minute goal then you’d have a star team team too if none of them touched the ball until the 89th minute as well.
I'm not. I'm arguing it would be a team dependent on it's composition of players.
It would consist of its players, but it wouldn’t necessarily share the characteristics of those players.
And fundamentally the word composite entails contingency.
No it doesn’t. Why do you think that?
To be fair to you what you are trying to say I think is that there is something about the universe that doesn't change. That isn't dependent on it's existence on the things you say the universe is a composite of
You of all people – the Imperator of Incoherence, the Sultan of Semi-literacy, the Nabob of Nonsense, the Mandarin of Misunderstanding, the Patriarch of Piffle, the Satrap of Straw Men, the etc... – trying to tell someone else what they’re trying to say has just exploded a whole shelf of irony meters, but in any case what I’m actually saying is that you cannot or will not make an argument to justify your claim that the fact of consisting of parts that are contingent means that the entity as a whole must also be contingent on something else.
Why won't you at least try to do that?
-
it's parts
it's composition of players.
it's existence
"its". "It's" is short for "it is" or "it has". "Its" (no apostrophe) means "belonging to it".
-
I don't see anybody claiming that.If composite things cannot be "necessary", your god consisting of three persons cannot be "necessary".
well we understand a physical composite cannot be necessary because of the interdependence of the parts.
Do the three hypostases of the trinity represent parts as such?
I don't think so. The revelation of the trinity I would move is more for our benefit rather than an inventory of "Parts".
-
If God exists, then God exists necessarily, but whether God exists is still an open question.
Think of it in terms of possible worlds. In this world, I exist, but there could be an alternative world in which I don't: maybe my parents never met. However, it doesn't make sense to think of possible worlds, in some of which God exists, and in some of which God does not exist. Either God exists in all possible worlds, or God doesn't exist in any.
-
If God exists, then God exists necessarily, but whether God exists is still an open question.
Think of it in terms of possible worlds. In this world, I exist, but there could be an alternative world in which I don't: maybe my parents never met. However, it doesn't make sense to think of possible worlds, in some of which God exists, and in some of which God does not exist. Either God exists in all possible worlds, or God doesn't exist in any.
My line here has been that all contingent things have an external explanation which is itself not dependent on contingent things.
This entity would thus not be contingent or anything like something that could be accommodated into atheism as presented on this forum explicitly or implicitly imo.
-
well we understand a physical composite cannot be necessary because of the interdependence of the parts.
No 'we' don't. This is a baseless, unargued assertion about something (necessity) that you haven't defined.
On the other hand, we have no reason to think that something composite would have to be contingent on anything outside of itself, so your claim breaks down just on the composite being contingent stage.
Do the three hypostases of the trinity represent parts as such?
I don't think so. The revelation of the trinity I would move is more for our benefit rather than an inventory of "Parts".
You're making shit up again. We can tell, you know.
-
My line here has been that all contingent things have an external explanation...
Something you cannot demonstrate for the universe. There doesn't (according to current theory) appear to be anything external required to explain it.
This entity would thus not be contingent or anything like something that could be accommodated into atheism as presented on this forum explicitly or implicitly imo.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Even if you could define a 'necessary entity' in a logically coherent way, which you show no sign of being able to do, you'd still have all your work cut out to connect it to anything remotely like a 'God'.
-
well we understand a physical composite cannot be necessary because of the interdependence of the parts.
Do the three hypostases of the trinity represent parts as such?
I don't think so. The revelation of the trinity I would move is more for our benefit rather than an inventory of "Parts".
Of course there are three parts to the Trinity: the father, the son and the holy spirit.
You're not allowed to change the meaning of the word "composite" just because it is inconvenient to you.
So now that your god is proven to be composite and therefore contingent*, we can ask who made God?
*not sure about the logic that says composite implies contingent, but you seem fairly sure of yourself, so we'll let it stand as it is fatal for your overall argument.
-
Vlad,
My line here has been that all contingent things have an external explanation which is itself not dependent on contingent things.
This entity would thus not be contingent or anything like something that could be accommodated into atheism as presented on this forum explicitly or implicitly imo.
Then your “line” remains only an unargued assertion. Again: WHY do you think an entity that's a composite must therefore also be contingent on something other than itself, without collapsing immediately into the fallacy of composition again?
-
Of course there are three parts to the Trinity: the father, the son and the holy spirit.
You're not allowed to change the meaning of the word "composite" just because it is inconvenient to you.
So now that your god is proven to be composite and therefore contingent*, we can ask who made God?
*not sure about the logic that says composite implies contingent, but you seem fairly sure of yourself, so we'll let it stand as it is fatal for your overall argument.
Composite as in made of multiple entities or substances. God is one substance to use the technical philosophical meaning. Christians do not present a tritheism as such but a trinity.
It is not fatal for my argument namely that all contingent things are dependent and that which they are dependent is not dependent on contingent things......and such an entity in no ways seems incorporable with atheism.
Atheists past have been quite comfortable with trinitarian views
In the past e.g. Freud with the I'd, ego and superego integrated in one mind.
-
It is not fatal for my argument namely that all contingent things are dependent and that which they are dependent is not dependent on contingent things......
Utter nonsense. Where is the actual argument that concludes that something composite has to be dependant on something else?
Atheists past have been quite comfortable with trinitarian views
A composite God is no more silly that just a God, but when you try to use not being composite as an argument, it becomes comical.
-
Vlad,
Composite as in made of multiple entities or substances.
You’re doing well so far – keep going…
God is one substance to use the technical philosophical meaning.
Assuming that you mean here your choice of the available god stories, ok…
Christians do not present a tritheism as such but a trinity.
Some do no doubt, but then they still have to find a way to get from a “trinity” to a “one substance” god.
It is not fatal for my argument namely that all contingent things are dependent and that which they are dependent is not dependent on contingent things......and such an entity in no ways seems incorporable with atheism.
Have you spilled your alphabet soup here?
Atheists past have been quite comfortable with trinitarian views
In the past e.g. Freud with the I'd, ego and superego integrated in one mind.
So have manufacturers of camera tripods, the Disney cartoonist who devised Huey, Dewey, and Louie and the members of Crosby, Stills & Nash. You can’t just pick an example of something with three components and claim it to be somehow “comfortable with trinitarian views”.
-
Utter nonsense. Where is the actual argument that concludes that something composite has to be dependant on something else?
A composite God is no more silly that just a God, but when you try to use not being composite as an argument, it becomes comical.
A composite is dependent on it's parts for it's existence.
If the universe is composite then it exists because of it's components then in what possible way can it be independent of its components? In other words the universe is contingent.
Another way of looking is is what is the reason for the things in the universe. If the universe only exists as a composite dependent on it's parts then how are the parts dependent on the universe.
The problem could be circumvented by saying the universe is a monism or one thing and individual different entities are just manifestations of the one thing....although if you go down this route you've no business criticising any doctrine of the trinity.
-
Vlad,
You’re doing well so far – keep going…
Assuming that you mean here your choice of the available god stories, ok…
Some do no doubt, but then they still have to find a way to get from a “trinity” to a “one substance” god.
Have you spilled your alphabet soup here?
So have manufacturers of camera tripods, the Disney cartoonist who devised Huey, Dewey, and Louie and the members of Crosby, Stills & Nash. You can’t just pick an example of something with three components and claim it to be somehow “comfortable with trinitarian views”.
Tripods, Huey Duey and Louis, Crosby stills Nash are divisible Hillside.Father, son and holy spirit are indivisible hence all the talk about "I am in the Father and the father is in me".
Just a point of why there can only be one ultimate entity.
If you had two....why two?.....why not three? also why this and not that? Something has to decide...there is a further reason which is not contingent but necessary.
-
A composite is dependent on it's parts for it's existence.
If the universe is composite then it exists because of it's components then in what possible way can it be independent of its components? In other words the universe is contingent.
None of which tells us that it's contingent on anything else. That is, there is no reason to think the universe needs something apart from itself to exist.
-
Tripods, Huey Duey and Louis, Crosby stills Nash are divisible Hillside.Father, son and holy spirit are indivisible...
Just like the universe, then. :)
Just a point of why there can only be one ultimate entity.
If you had two....why two?.....why not three? also why this and not that? Something has to decide...
And what is to stop us asking "Why just one?" or "Why this and not that?" for one thing?
...there is a further reason which is not contingent but necessary magic.
FIFY.
-
Just like the universe, then. :)
Some of the components of the universe weren't here some time ago and won't be here in the future Stranger. Can you name anything about the universe which has remain unchanged and will remain unchanged?
And what is to stop us asking "Why just one?" or "Why this and not that?" for one thing?
It's already been answered. But if you insist on twattery..............
-
Some of the components of the universe weren't here some time ago and won't be here in the future Stranger.
You seem to be back in a pre-20th century notion of time. Time is a direction through the universe, not something that the universe is subject to.
Can you name anything about the universe which has remain unchanged and will remain unchanged?
The universe; the entire space-time.
It's already been answered.
Where? I've never seen anything remotely resembling an answer that wan't the logical equivalent of "magic"......
-
You seem to be back in a pre-20th century notion of time. Time is a direction through the universe, not something that the universe is subject to.
The universe; the entire space-time.
Where? I've never seen anything remotely resembling an answer that wan't the logical equivalent of "magic"......
Universe unchanged? Isn't it expanding? Hasn't it changed from maximal order toward maximal disorder
Were you a feature of the early universe?
SpaceTime? Isn't that dependent on gravity?
-
Universe unchanged? Isn't it expanding? Hasn't it changed from maximal order toward maximal disorder
No. From the outside, all of those are just part of the universe. We don't think of a pyramid as shrinking as we move higher, it's just that it's thinner at that end. Similarly, from the outside, time is just another dimension of the universe, so it's parts are more spread out at one end (later) than the other (earlier).
Were you a feature of the early universe?
There is no 'earlier' or 'later' from the outside, there's just different points.
SpaceTime? Isn't that dependent on gravity?
On the inside, 'within time' as it were, they do appear to interact, yes.
O.
-
Universe unchanged? Isn't it expanding? Hasn't it changed from maximal order toward maximal disorder
Were you a feature of the early universe?
SpaceTime? Isn't that dependent on gravity?
(https://media.tenor.com/images/263713fe77bb126ad55dc8408e262cf2/tenor.gif)
Haven't I explained this to you (several times) before? The space-time is a four-dimensional manifold. Time is an observer dependant direction through it.
'The universe is expanding' means that as you track along time-like directions through it, you will find space-like distances becoming greater. This can be compared to tracking along lines of longitude from one of the poles on Earth and finding that distances along lines of latitude are bigger as we get nearer to the equator.
I am a feature of the universe within certain coordinates of space-time.
The exact geometry of space is gravity.
-
No. From the outside, all of those are just part of the universe. We don't think of a pyramid as shrinking as we move higher, it's just that it's thinner at that end. Similarly, from the outside, time is just another dimension of the universe, so it's parts are more spread out at one end (later) than the other (earlier).
There is no 'earlier' or 'later' from the outside, there's just different points.
On the inside, 'within time' as it were, they do appear to interact, yes.
O.
Outside the universe? Isn't that an extra entity?
Where's Hillside when you need him? He's anti outside the universe.
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/263713fe77bb126ad55dc8408e262cf2/tenor.gif)
Haven't I explained this to you (several times) before? The space-time is a four-dimensional manifold. Time is an observer dependant direction through it.
'The universe is expanding' means that as you track along time-like directions through it, you will find space-like distances becoming greater. This can be compared to tracking along lines of longitude from one of the poles on Earth and finding that distances along lines of latitude are bigger as we get nearer to the equator.
I am a feature of the universe within certain coordinates of space-time.
The exact geometry of space is gravity.
A lot of non sequitur here. Facts tossed shamanically at an issue....and missing.
-
A lot of non sequitur here. Facts tossed shamanically at an issue....and missing.
No idea what this word salad is supposed to mean. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
If you don't understand something, ask and I'll try to explain it better. Do you understand that time is a coordinate on a four-dimensional manifold?
-
Outside the universe? Isn't that an extra entity?
Maybe, maybe not. It's outside of time as we understand it, so exactly how physics or many of our notional philosophical constructs work there is, frankly, pretty much anyone's guess.
Where's Hillside when you need him? He's anti outside the universe.
Is he? Or is he anti saying anything definitive about outside of the universe? Is he anti talking about because we have no basic framework to even start to guess about outside the universe?
O.
-
No idea what this word salad is supposed to mean. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
If you don't understand something, ask and I'll try to explain it better. Do you understand that time is a coordinate on a four-dimensional manifold?
What has that got to do with contingency and necessity? Let me hazard....nothing but non sequitur diversionary twaddle.
Why is that manifold the way it is? Could it be different? If the answer is affirmative. Then it's a contingent.
Do other Lorentzian manifolds exist?
-
Maybe, maybe not. It's outside of time as we understand it, so exactly how physics or many of our notional philosophical constructs work there is, frankly, pretty much anyone's guess.
Is he? Or is he anti saying anything definitive about outside of the universe? Is he anti talking about because we have no basic framework to even start to guess about outside the universe?
O.
And yet you appear to be appealing to it. We can though consider the logical consequences of what you are saying.
So you are proposing a universe sitting in another context.
That makes two entities. Do you want to walk that back?
While you are about it your suggestion involves if the universe is
Observed.....by what?
-
Vlad,
As you’re back to full ducking and diving mode let’s try at least to see whether you can address the question you’re actually being asked:
WITHOUT COLLPASING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
-
And yet you appear to be appealing to it.
No, I'm pointing out that what happens within the universe is not necessarily a guide to what happens outside of it.
We can though consider the logical consequences of what you are saying.
How can we? How can we divorce our logic from, amongst other things, the concepts of space and time?
So you are proposing a universe sitting in another context.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the universe is just a part of that large context. Or perhaps there is no larger context, and any consideration is only hypothetical, and the edge of the universe represents some sort of hard boundary - we have so little information as to be practically unable to narrow it down at all.
That makes two entities. Do you want to walk that back?
It might, or it might be two aspects of one entity, or it might be one entity of which we're more aware of one element...
While you are about it your suggestion involves if the universe is Observed.....by what?
Us. Our imagination, supposing ourselves outside. Observation, as a notion, is dependent upon both time and space which may not exist, and almost certainly not as we understand them, outside of this universe.
O.
-
What has that got to do with contingency and necessity?
Oh, for fuck's sake, do keep up! I was addressing your comment that "Some of the components of the universe weren't here some time ago and won't be here in the future..." Which was about my comment about the universe not being divisible (which it isn't).
You seemed to think that was relevant to your composite God which you claimed could be magic, sorry 'necessary', because it isn't divisible (just like the universe).
Why is that manifold the way it is? Could it be different? If the answer is affirmative. Then it's a contingent.
Do other Lorentzian manifolds exist?
I don't know whether the universe could have been different. We can imagine a different universe but it's trivially easy to imagine endless different Gods too....
-
Composite as in made of multiple entities or substances.
No. You don't get to redefine words.
God is one substance to use the technical philosophical meaning.
If you can differentiate parts, like, for example, a father and a son and a holy spirit, then the thing is a composite.
Christians do not present a tritheism as such but a trinity.
Do you understand what the "try" in "trinity" means. Clue: it's a number and it is not one.
It is not fatal for my argument namely that all contingent things are dependent and that which they are dependent is not dependent on contingent things......and such an entity in no ways seems incorporable with atheism.
Yes it is. You argued that all composite things are contingent. I pointed out that your god is composed of three beings and therefore by your own arguments is contingent.
Your argument is dead. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-argument.
Atheists past have been quite comfortable with trinitarian views
In the past e.g. Freud with the I'd, ego and superego integrated in one mind.
So Freud thought the human mind was a composite. I'm fairly sure he didn't argue that the human mind is necessary.
-
Father, son and holy spirit are indivisible
Of course they are divisible. The fact that you can talk about them separately tells us that.
-
Of course they are divisible. The fact that you can talk about them separately tells us that.
Christianity never considers them separately vis Language like I am in the father and the father is in me.
Nobody has seen the father but the son has made him known etc, etc.
Therefore indivisible.
-
Vlad,
WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
-
No. You don't get to redefine words.
If you can differentiate parts, like, for example, a father and a son and a holy spirit, then the thing is a composite.
Do you understand what the "try" in "trinity" means. Clue: it's a number and it is not one.
Yes it is. You argued that all composite things are contingent. I pointed out that your god is composed of three beings and therefore by your own arguments is contingent.
Your argument is dead. It has ceased to be. It is an ex-argument.
So Freud thought the human mind was a composite. I'm fairly sure he didn't argue that the human mind is necessary.
A mind could be composite if physical. Id, ego and superego inseperable and indivisible.
-
Vlad,
WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
It's either multiple parts Hillside or it's a simple single entity. What could possibly make anybody think it could be both?
Another thing is it raises the question what made it. Or what ordered it. If it could exist in other configurations then it isn't a necessary simple single indivisible entity. That seems pretty straightforward.
-
Vlad,
It's either multiple parts Hillside or it's a simple single entity. What could possibly make anybody think it could be both?
A car is multiple parts and it's also a single thing, but that's irrelevant in any case. Here's the question again that you were actually asked and that you keep ducking:
WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
Another thing...
"Another thing"? You haven't managed an initial thing yet - just more avoidance.
...is it raises the question what made it. Or what ordered it. If it could exist in other configurations then it isn't a necessary simple single indivisible entity. That seems pretty straightforward.
No idea, but you're just trying the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof again here. You're the one asserting that the fact that the universe is a composite entity means it must be caused by something other than itself remember?. I've no idea why you think that and nor moreover have you even attempted so far to tell us even though you've been asked to several times. Here's the question yet again then:
WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
-
Another thing is it raises the question what made it. Or what ordered it. If it could exist in other configurations then it isn't a necessary simple single indivisible entity.
All of which apply to your God. What made it? What ordered it? It's trivially easy to imagine a differently 'configured' God, so, special pleading aside, what's so different from just the universe?
-
If you have no knowledge of right and wrong, though, threats for breaches is like me saying that you will surely die if you thribble... good luck with that.
Except that every parent in the world knows that children will explore boundaries, it's part of how they learn about the world. And, therefore, you don't leave the bleach where they can reach it, even though you've told them not to drink it. For a supposedly all-knowing deity to make this eminently foreseeable error and then to compound that error by not only punishing Adam and Eve for it, but all of subsequent humanity is less than omnibenevolent.
The difference is that God himself gave the command. Parents are humans, who themselves make mistakes such as you describe - one 'rebel' warnng another not to do something.
-
it's parts for it's existence.
NO APOSTROPHE! >:(
-
SteveH,
NO APOSTROPHE! >:(
Vlad has poor literacy skills, and in particular he scatters apostrophes more or less randomly in the hope that some at least will land in the correct places. I've generally refrained from criticising him for it though because it seems a bit of a gittish thing to do. Besides, the hopelessness of the arguments he occasionally attempts is easy enough to identify without needing to critique how he articulates them.
-
Vlad,
A car is multiple parts and it's also a single thing, but that's irrelevant in any case. Here's the question again that you were actually asked and that you keep ducking:
WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
"Another thing"? You haven't managed an initial thing yet - just more avoidance.
No idea, but you're just trying the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof again here. You're the one asserting that the fact that the universe is a composite entity means it must be caused by something other than itself remember?. I've no idea why you think that and nor moreover have you even attempted so far to tell us even though you've been asked to several times. Here's the question yet again then:
WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
once more with feeling.
The fallacy of composition only applies to composites.
Composites cannot be necessary entities. They are derived from their components. If they are not necessary they are contingent for their existence.
I think you realise this Hillside but since most of your flock don't you are rather like the parent maintaining the myth of Santa Claus.
-
once more with feeling.
The fallacy of composition only applies to composites.
Composites cannot be necessary entities. They are derived from their components. If they are not necessary they are contingent for their existence.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Wakey-wakey!
Firstly, 'necessary entity' is meaningless. Unless you can explain exactly how it's possible for something to exist and for it to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't or was different. You are essentially invoking magic.
Secondly, you have not shown why a composite (like your triune God or the universe) has to be contingent on anything else. Without this there is no reason at all to exclude it from being magic in the way you want ('necessary').
That's two MASSIVE logical holes in your excuse for an argument, even before we get to the baseless, nonsensical magic.
I think you realise this Hillside but since most of your flock don't you are rather like the parent maintaining the myth of Santa Claus.
Has Dicky D. got something to worry about?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Wakey-wakey!
Firstly, 'necessary entity' is meaningless. Unless you can explain exactly how it's possible for something to exist and for it to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't or was different. You are essentially invoking magic.
Secondly, you have not shown why a composite (like your triune God or the universe) has to be contingent on anything else. Without this there is no reason at all to exclude it from being magic in the way you want ('necessary').
That's two MASSIVE logical holes in your excuse for an argument, even before we get to the baseless, nonsensical magic.
Has Dicky D. got something to worry about?
Contingency without necessity is what is absurd.
-
Contingency without necessity magic is what is absurd.
[FIFY]
Meaningless mantra. ::)
-
The difference is that God himself gave the command.
If that actually made a difference, the fall wouldn't have happened.
Parents are humans, who themselves make mistakes such as you describe - one 'rebel' warnng another not to do something.
Like Adam and Eve, you mean. But unlike your purported god.
Knowing that children will push boundaries, knowing that the exploration of what's actually a hard and fast rule and what's a guideline and what's actually not important at all despite what people say isn't 'a mistake', it's an essential element of good parenting. If, as a parent, you are expecting unfailing blind obedience from your children things are going to go badly, and either you or your children or both are going to end up very disappointed.
O.
-
The fallacy of composition only applies to composites.
Like your god.
Composites
like your god cannot be necessary entities. They are derived from their components. If they are not necessary they are contingent for their existence.
Like your god.
I think you realise this Hillside but since most of your flock don't you are rather like the parent maintaining the myth of Santa Claus.
Whereas you are like a grown man still believing the myth of Santa.
-
Like your god.
like your god Like your god.Whereas you are like a grown man still believing the myth of Santa.
You are making no distinction between Composites in which the parts or different substances can exist independently in other contexts and single substances which are non composite but can exist in different states. I wonder why you overlooked the analogy.
-
You are making no distinction between Composites in which the parts or different substances can exist independently in other contexts and single substances which are non composite but can exist in different states. I wonder why you overlooked the analogy.
One could easily argue that the universe falls into the latter category, so you are still applying double standards.
And a 'necessary entity' is still meaningless gibbering until you can explain it logically. Likewise, you still haven't shown why composite needs to be contingent on anything else and therefore can't be just as magic as something that isn't composite.
There are still two massive, gaping holes in your 'argument'. ::)
-
One could easily argue that the universe falls into the latter category, so you are still applying double standards.
Be my Guest Bearing in mind there are a whole family of separate particles and a periodic table of elements.
And a 'necessary entity' is still meaningless gibbering until you can explain it logically. Likewise, you still haven't shown why composite needs to be contingent on anything else and therefore can't be just as magic as something that isn't composite.
There are still two massive, gaping holes in your 'argument'. ::)
-
One could easily argue that the universe falls into the latter category, so you are still applying double standards.
And a 'necessary entity' is still meaningless gibbering until you can explain it logically. Likewise, you still haven't shown why composite needs to be contingent on anything else and therefore can't be just as magic as something that isn't composite.
There are still two massive, gaping holes in your 'argument'. ::)
Again....with gusto.
We have physical existence and non existence. There is therefore a reason why there is something rather than nothing
-
We have physical existence and non existence. There is therefore a reason why there is something rather than nothing
Evasion noted. ::)
There may be a reason why there is something rather than nothing but you don't appear to have anything remotely logical to say about it. Making up a magic 'entity', is storytelling, not reasoning.
-
Evasion noted. ::)
There may be a reason why there is something rather than nothing but you don't appear to have anything remotely logical to say about it. Making up a magic 'entity', is storytelling, not reasoning.
I don't think a reason existing for physical existence is part of the non theist stock of assumptions.
-
I don't think...
You could have just stopped there. ::)
...a reason existing for physical existence is part of the non theist stock of assumptions.
How so?
-
You could have just stopped there. ::)
How so?
You've spent months arguing it's a stupid idea but let's see what you've bought into.
The reason for physical existence would not be subject for it's existence on physical existence.
There would be no reason for an infinite regression since the alternative to it is non existence.
The universe could not have created itself
All these things fall out of the reason for why there is something rather than mothing.
-
Vlad,
once more with feeling.
The fallacy of composition only applies to composites.
Composites cannot be necessary entities. They are derived from their components. If they are not necessary they are contingent for their existence.
I think you realise this Hillside but since most of your flock don't you are rather like the parent maintaining the myth of Santa Claus.
Once more with feeling: ”the universe” IS a composite entity. The question I keep asking you therefore and that you keep running away from remains:
WITHOUT COLLAPSING AGAIN INTO THE FALLACY OF COMPOSITION, WHY DO YOU THINK THAT A COMPOSITE ENTITY MADE OF CONTINGENT PARTS (IE, THE UNIVERSE ITSELF) MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
Do you intend never even to try to justify your claim about that?
-
You've spent months arguing it's a stupid idea but let's see what you've bought into.
No, I've spent a long time arguing with your baseless and logically absurd propositions about it.
The reason for physical existence would not be subject for it's existence on physical existence.
There would be no reason for an infinite regression since the alternative to it is non existence.
The universe could not have created itself
All these things fall out of the reason for why there is something rather than mothing.
All this meant something in your head before typing, did it? One thing stands out: "The universe could not have created itself"
Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself? (https://youtu.be/79LciHWV4Qs)
Before the Big Bang 11: Did the Universe Create itself ? The PTC model (https://youtu.be/cLSuM8rKMyk)
-
No, I've spent a long time arguing with your baseless and logically absurd propositions about it.
All this meant something in your head before typing, did it? One thing stands out: "The universe could not have created itself"
Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself? (https://youtu.be/79LciHWV4Qs)
Before the Big Bang 11: Did the Universe Create itself ? The PTC model (https://youtu.be/cLSuM8rKMyk)
I told you a reason for physical existence wasn't part of the atheist stock of what is acceptable.
I expect skydive Phil is proposing something physical as a reason for physical existence.
-
I told you a reason for physical existence wasn't part of the atheist stock of what is acceptable.
You did make that baseless assertion, yes.
I expect skydive Phil is proposing something physical as a reason for physical existence.
He's not proposing anything. It's the scientists who are being interviewed who are doing the proposing.
The whole series (Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.msg813757#msg813757)) includes people like Penrose and Hawking and are more proposals about how the universe can be self-sufficient and not be contingent on anything else.
-
You did make that baseless assertion, yes.
He's not proposing anything. It's the scientists who are being interviewed who are doing the proposing.
The whole series (Before the Big Bang (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17835.msg813757#msg813757)) includes people like Penrose and Hawking and are more proposals about how the universe can be self-sufficient and not be contingent on anything else.
What a smashing chap Doctor Gott is.
A few observations.
1) Doesn't answer the question why existence and not non existence.
2) Doesn't challenge any cosmological argument where time is immaterial. E.g contingency and necessity.
3)There seemed to be different types of universes branching of suggesting the endless loop is not actually closed.
4) Why does it start with a looped universe?In other words is it a construct in order to eliminate a universe with a beginning?
-
What a smashing chap Doctor Gott is.
Indeed. :)
1) Doesn't answer the question why existence and not non existence.
Neither does anything you've said.
2) Doesn't challenge any cosmological argument where time is immaterial. E.g contingency and necessity.
They're obviously bollocks for other reasons that have been explained to you. It does show (again), however, that the universe is not obviously contingent on anything else. And a 'necessary entity' is still gibberish.
3)There seemed to be different types of universes branching of suggesting the endless loop is not actually closed.
It's closed at the start. If you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop.
4) Why does it start with a looped universe?In other words is it a construct in order to eliminate a universe with a beginning?
It's a possibility. I really just posted it to point out there there are possibilities that mean the universe could be said to have created itself.
In fact, the mere concept of the space-time manifold removes any beginning for the whole thing. As Gott points out near the end, we are just talking about four-dimensional 'sculptures'.
-
Indeed. :)
Neither does anything you've said.
They're obviously bollocks for other reasons that have been explained to you. It does show (again), however, that the universe is not obviously contingent on anything else. And a 'necessary entity' is still gibberish.
It's closed at the start. If you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop.
It's a possibility. I really just posted it to point out there there are possibilities that mean the universe could be said to have created itself.
In fact, the mere concept of the space-time manifold removes any beginning for the whole thing. As Gott points out near the end, we are just talking about four-dimensional 'sculptures'.
Small point. How can a closed loop have a start.
You've been told there are Cosmological arguments that do not necessitate a beginning or end.
There is no point of creation in a loop. Therefore no creation out of nothing. No self creation or self origination and you still haven't answered the question Why existence rather than non existence.
-
And another thing. What Tegmark categories of multiverse are allowed in the Gott model?
-
Small point. How can a closed loop have a start.
As I said: if you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop. What are you struggling with?
You've been told there are Cosmological arguments that do not necessitate a beginning or end.
And......?
No self creation or self origination and you still haven't answered the question Why existence rather than non existence.
You can (loosely) call it self-creation, because it 'causes itself'. I didn't intend to answer the "existence rather than non existence" question because I've already told you that I don't know the answer and neither, quite clearly, do you.
You have still not rescued "necessary entity" from being meaningless gibberish.
-
As I said: if you track into the past along time-like curves, you end up in a loop. What are you struggling with?
And......?
You can (loosely) call it self-creation, because it 'causes itself'. I didn't intend to answer the "existence rather than non existence" question because I've already told you that I don't know the answer and neither, quite clearly, do you.
You have still not rescued "necessary entity" from being meaningless gibberish.
There is no causation since there is no point of causation. What you are describing here then is an uncaused cause. Something you've been arguing against. So this closed loop could be a necessary entity.
You are all over the shop my son.
-
here is no causation since there is no point of causation. What you are describing here then is an uncaused cause. Something you've been arguing against. So this closed loop could be a necessary entity.
If one looks at the causal structure within such a universe, then you end up in a causal loop at the 'start'. However, as I keep saying, causality cannot apply to the existence of space-time itself because it is not subject to time.
-
You are making no distinction between Composites in which the parts or different substances can exist independently in other contexts and single substances which are non composite but can exist in different states.
Neither did you until it was pointed out that your god is a composite entity and thus, by your own argument: contingent.
Hark to the sound of a man trying to move the goalposts.
Is it your contention that your god is analogous to (say) water, which can exist in a number of different states but not at the same time?
-
Neither did you until it was pointed out that your god is a composite entity and thus, by your own argument: contingent.
Hark to the sound of a man trying to move the goalposts.
Is it your contention that your god is analogous to (say) water, which can exist in a number of different states but not at the same time?
Me moving the goalposts? Or you just waking up?
A single substance cannot be composite.
-
If one looks at the causal structure within such a universe, then you end up in a causal loop at the 'start'. However, as I keep saying, causality cannot apply to the existence of space-time itself because it is not subject to time.
So you agree there is no self creation or self origination or are you sticking to your previous assertion that everything needs an external explanation or are you just using contradictory arguments to suit?
-
Me moving the goalposts?
Yes.
Or you just waking up?
To be honest, I'm finding this hugely entertaining because you have holed your own argument below the waterline and you have no idea how to stop the water from rushing in.
A single substance cannot be composite.
Well if God is a single substance he cannot be three persons. You wouldn't be able to see where one person ends and the next begins.
-
Well if God is a single substance he cannot be three persons. You wouldn't be able to see where one person ends and the next begins.
"Three persons in one substance" is the traditional definition of the Trinity, so greater intellects than you, Walt or I seem to have found it possible.
-
SteveH,
"Three persons in one substance" is the traditional definition of the Trinity, so greater intellects than you, Walt or I seem to have found it possible.
"An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of argument in which the mere fact that an influential figure holds a certain position is used as evidence that the position itself is correct.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
-
SteveH,
"An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument against shame), is a form of argument in which the mere fact that an influential figure holds a certain position is used as evidence that the position itself is correct.[1]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
It's not a fallacy if the opinion expressed is on the subject of the person's expertise. I would always humbly defer to the opinion of Richard Dawkins on something to do with zoology, but not on theology or politics.
-
It's not a fallacy if the opinion expressed is on the subject of the person's expertise. I would always humbly defer to the opinion of Richard Dawkins on something to do with zoology, but not on theology or politics.
We don't even have that. We have some unnamed people whose intelligence not expertise you cited.
-
SteveH,
It's not a fallacy if the opinion expressed is on the subject of the person's expertise.
That’s right, but you referred only to “greater minds” rather than to specific people with agreed authoritative knowledge – indeed I’m not sure there even could be such authorities could there as we’re talking about the guessology gussied up as knowledge world of theology?
-
"Three persons in one substance" is the traditional definition of the Trinity, so greater intellects than you, Walt or I seem to have found it possible.
Thank you for that diagram Steve. It clearly shows a composite entity and hence one that is contingent by Vlad’s logic.
-
Yes.
To be honest, I'm finding this hugely entertaining because you have holed your own argument below the waterline and you have no idea how to stop the water from rushing in.
Well if God is a single substance he cannot be three persons. You wouldn't be able to see where one person ends and the next begins.
Once more with gusto.
A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts.
The trinity as a composite is bad analogy.
A single substance in three states is a better analogy
The trinity in it's first formulated description is said to be one ousia in three hypostases.
God is never impersonal.
-
Thank you for that diagram Steve. It clearly shows a composite entity and hence one that is contingent by Vlad’s logic.
A theological diagram the same as a physical composite? What are you on?
The universe is a composite. We know this as Hillside has called a person out on the fallacy of composition over the universe.
-
So you agree there is no self creation or self origination...
Depends on how you look at it. I explained and frankly this is not an issue that matters to how absurd your own 'arguments' are. I am not arguing that this is actually how the universe is in order to counter your nonsense. That's child's play without any alternative explanation.
...or are you sticking to your previous assertion that everything needs an external explanation...
I've never once made that argument. Quite the opposite. I can't see how the universe needs an external explanation.
-
A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts.
Baseless, unargued, and nonsensical assertion.
'Necessary entity' ≡ Magic
Until and unless you explain how it is logically possible.
The trinity as a composite is bad analogy.
Making shit up.
A single substance in three states is a better analogy
Which would also be composite if they existed together. One could also argue the same for the universe.
-
Once more with gastro.
Have you got some sort of stomach complaint?
A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on its parts.
Yes, like your god.
The trinity as a composite is bad analogy.
It's not an analogy, the Trinity is a composite. Have you not looked at SteveH's diagram. There are clearly three parts to it - four, if you count the whole.
A single substance in three states is a better analogy
Having states implies changes between the states. If it's all one substance, the only way to have different states is by rearranging the components of the substance. i.e. it must be a composite.
The trinity in its first formulated description is said to be one ousia in three hypostases.
So God has fluids that are subject to gravity now. Well done.
Maybe you ought to look up the meanings of the big words before you use them.
-
Have you got some sort of stomach complaint?
Yes, like your god.
It's not an analogy, the Trinity is a composite. Have you not looked at SteveH's diagram. There are clearly three parts to it - four, if you count the whole.
Having states implies changes between the states. If it's all one substance, the only way to have different states is by rearranging the components of the substance. i.e. it must be a composite.
So God has fluids that are subject to gravity now. Well done.
Maybe you ought to look up the meanings of the big words before you use them.
OK Let's take a proper composite say a car. Each part is not a car. Steve's diagram states that The Father is God, The son is God, The Holy Spirit is God. The diagram of a composite is not homologous to this theological diagram. Where as a diagram for a single substance in 3 states would be.
Your very welcome.
-
OK Let's take a proper composite say a car. Each part is not a car. Steve's diagram states that The Father is God, The son is God, The Holy Spirit is God. The diagram of a composite is not homologous to this theological diagram. Where as a diagram for a single substance in 3 states would be.
You're still making shit up about what can and can't be 'necessary' even though you have no logic that makes a composite contingent on anything else and no rational explanation of a 'necessary entity'. Makes arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head seem positively sane and rational...
'Necessary entity' ≡ Magic
-
You're still making shit up about what can and can't be 'necessary' even though you have no logic that makes a composite contingent on anything else and no rational explanation of a 'necessary entity'. Makes arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head seem positively sane and rational...
'Necessary entity' ≡ Magic
Contingency without necessity = crap.
-
Contingency without necessity = crap.
Meaningless because necessity ≡ magic (unless and until you can make it make logical sense). Running away from the point, isn't a good look.
-
Vlad,
A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts.
That’s called a non sequitur – a fallacy in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(literary_device)
Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK A UNIVERSE MADE OF PARTS MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SUM OF THOSE PARTS – IE, ITSELF?
Tell you what – if you still refuse to tell us why you think that, how about telling us instead why you won’t tell us why you think that?
-
Vlad,
That’s called a non sequitur – a fallacy in which the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(literary_device)
Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK A UNIVERSE MADE OF PARTS MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE SUM OF THOSE PARTS – IE, ITSELF?
Tell you what – if you still refuse to tell us why you think that, how about telling us instead why you won’t tell us why you think that?
If all elements in the hierarchy are contingent then logically, the question remains " What is it they are contingent on". Y our solution evades the answer. Just like your previous solution, the infinite regress never answers the question.
Further to this a circular hierarchy means that each component is the reason for its own existence, a characteristic no atheist here is willing to acknowledge or attribute.
You are suggesting that a circular hierarchy is the status quo
That creates the absurdity of "contingency" only.
-
If all elements in the hierarchy are contingent then logically, the question remains " What is it they are contingent on".
The point, Vlad, is that you haven't shown a hierarchy in your argument here. You claim that anything that is composite must be contingent because it is contingent on its parts but that doesn't set up a hierarchy because you haven't shown that the whole composite depends on anything else.
This applies to the universe and your composite God. We know the universe exists. We have no reason to think your God exists.
Y our solution evades the answer. Just like your previous solution, the infinite regress never answers the question.
You still seem to think that people are proposing alternative answers. We don't have to to see the glaring logical gaps in yours.
And, absent a proper explanation, a 'necessary entity' is still logically meaningless gibberish.
-
The point, Vlad, is that you haven't shown a hierarchy in your argument here. You claim that anything that is composite must be contingent because it is contingent on its parts but that doesn't set up a hierarchy because you haven't shown that the whole composite depends on anything else.
This applies to the universe and your composite God. We know the universe exists. We have no reason to think your God exists.
You still seem to think that people are proposing alternative answers. We don't have to to see the glaring logical gaps in yours.
And, absent a proper explanation, a 'necessary entity' is still logically meaningless gibberish.
You are specially suspending, at a point in your argument the question " if this is a contingent, what is it contingent on". Now a better philosopher would seek to find a reason to suspend sufficient reason here.
So given the definitions of Necessary Entity and Contingency ...or even just contingency the question remains for anything contingent is "On what is it contingent?".
Circular hierarchies mean that each contingent is dependent on itself which would make it a necessary entity so your argument is self defeating.
-
You are specially suspending, at a point in your argument the question " if this is a contingent, what is it contingent on". Now a better philosopher would seek to find a reason to suspend sufficient reason here.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Yet again for the hard-of-thinking.
You answered your own question "What is it contingent on?" in #529 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=20113.msg875813#msg875813) "A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts." That is your only justification for calling the universe contingent. You have not shown a hierarchy or any further contingency.
I'm not suspending anything. I'm using what you said.
Circular hierarchies mean that each contingent is dependent on itself which would make it a necessary entity so your argument is self defeating.
If you want to weaken the definition so that 'necessary' no longer means that it would cause a contradiction or other logical problem if it did not exist or was different, to merely self-contingent, then the universe seems to fit the bill perfectly. :)
-
Vlad,
If all elements in the hierarchy are contingent then logically, the question remains " What is it they are contingent on".
The “elements in the hierarchy” are the component parts of the universe, and to some degree at least they appear to be contingent on each other.
Y our solution evades the answer.
What solution – I haven’t offered one? Nor do I need to. All I do need to do is to identify your mistake of relying on the fallacy of composition – ie, asserting that the parts of the universe being deterministic in character implies that the universe as a whole must also be deterministic in character. It doesn't.
Just like your previous solution,…
Again, I haven’t proposed a “previous solution”.
…the infinite regress never answers the question.
Infinite regress is a problem for you, not for me. I stop at “don’t know” because it’s the only honest response I can give. A “don’t know” doesn’t create an infinite regress. You on the other hand assert (albeit erroneously) a “necessary” god, which then relocates the same question of “whence the universe?” to “whence god?”.
Your only options in reply are another “don’t know” (which adds nothing of explanatory value to my “don’t know”) or “it’s magic innit?” which opens the infinite regress problem – you’ll need more gods all the way down.
Further to this a circular hierarchy means that each component is the reason for its own existence, a characteristic no atheist here is willing to acknowledge or attribute.
You are suggesting that a circular hierarchy is the status quo
That creates the absurdity of "contingency" only.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here. What are you trying to say?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Yet again for the hard-of-thinking.
You answered your own question "What is it contingent on?" in #529 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=20113.msg875813#msg875813) "A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts." That is your only justification for calling the universe contingent. You have not shown a hierarchy or any further contingency.
I'm not suspending anything. I'm using what you said.
If you want to weaken the definition so that 'necessary' no longer means that it would cause a contradiction or other logical problem if it did not exist or was different, to merely self-contingent, then the universe seems to fit the bill perfectly. :)
At the point of why a totally independent entity rather than nothing it is the nothing that creates any logical problems.
Thank you for your contribution to our discussion.
-
Vlad,
The “elements in the hierarchy” are the component parts of the universe, and to some degree at least they appear to be contingent on each other.
What solution – I haven’t offered one? Nor do I need to. All I do need to do is to identify your mistake of relying on the fallacy of composition – ie, asserting that the parts of the universe being deterministic in character implies that the universe as a whole must also be deterministic in character. It doesn't.
Again, I haven’t proposed a “previous solution”.
Infinite regress is a problem for you, not for me. I stop at “don’t know” because it’s the only honest response I can give. A “don’t know” doesn’t create an infinite regress. You on the other hand assert (albeit erroneously) a “necessary” god, which then relocates the same question of “whence the universe?” to “whence god?”.
Your only options in reply are another “don’t know” (which adds nothing of explanatory value to my “don’t know”) or “it’s magic innit?” which opens the infinite regress problem – you’ll need more gods all the way down.
You’ve collapsed into incoherence again here. What are you trying to say?
Please direct any further questions through Stranger. Thank you.
-
Vlad,
Please direct any further questions through Stranger. Thank you.
Why? You're the one attempting the fallacy of composition, not Stranger.
Yet again (and without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition): WHY DO YOU THINK AN ENTITY CONSISTING OF CONTINGENT PARTS MUST THEREFORE ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
This is your claim – why do you keep running way from justifying it with an argument?
-
At the point of why a totally independent entity rather than nothing it is the nothing that creates any logical problems.
Eh? Are you finally accepting that the universe is all that is needed or did this bizarre jumble of words mean something else?
-
Eh? Are you finally accepting that the universe is all that is needed or did this bizarre jumble of words mean something else?
If you need to ask I'm not sure if you've been following my argument or exercising a meta understanding.
If the universe is nothing more than a collection of ontingent things then it is contingent not because of the things in it but because it's existence is dependent on those things existing.
In terms of fallacy.
A wall of small red bricks is not necessarily small but it cannot be yellow..
and that is analogous to what Hillside is saying.
-
If you need to ask I'm not sure if you've been following my argument or exercising a meta understanding.
(https://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lol.gif)
If the universe is nothing more than a collection of ontingent things then it is contingent not because of the things in it but because it's existence is dependent on those things existing.
Now you're not asking yourself the question you accused me of not asking. What are the things that make up the universe contingent on? Answer: the universe. What is the universe contingent on? You've already told us: its parts.
There is nothing that indicates that there is anything else needed. No logic and no evidence. Nothing.
-
(https://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lol.gif)
Now you're not asking yourself the question you accused me of not asking. What are the things that make up the universe contingent on? Answer: the universe. What is the universe contingent on? You've already told us: its parts.
So if it is contingent and the universe is contingent what are they contingent on.
Your problem is that the collection of things is the same thing as the universe in other words you have a circular argument.
Not only that you have the Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers of Circular arguments.
I think you need to mull Strangee.
-
So if it is contingent and the universe is contingent what are they contingent on.
I think that was clear: each other.
-
So if it is contingent and the universe is contingent what are they contingent on.
Here's a novel idea: why don't you try reading a post before 'answering' it?
Your problem is that the collection of things is the same thing as the universe...
And..........?
...in other words you have a circular argument.
Nothing circular about it. Where have I assumed a conclusion?
What is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?
-
you have a circular argument.
You are conflating the argument with the thing it is arguing about.
If we have a "chain of contingency", as I see it there are three possibilities.
- It has a beginning
- It continues indefinitely
- It is a closed loop
So far, I have seen no argument from you that rules out the second two possibilities.
I have also seen no argument from you that the beginning of the chain in the first possibility is your god.
Note that, none of the three possibilities rules out your god. It could appear somewhere within the chain, not necessarily at the beginning with option 1. What rules out the possibility of your god is the incoherence of Christian doctrine.
-
All this guff reminds me of something Bertrand Russell once said, regarding, I think, the first cause argument: what is true of everything in the universe is not necessarily true of the universe itself. If I remember correctly, he concluded by saying "the universe just is, and that's all". i think it was in his famous radio debate with a Catholic priest whose name I forget.
-
I think that was clear: each other.
But you cannot say that because there is actually no substantive 'other'. You are arguing both an itself...one entity and absurdly two entities one and the other simultaneously.
While denying it in God.
Jeremy....you need to mull things over.
-
All this guff reminds me of something Bertrand Russell once said, regarding, I think, the first cause argument: what is true of everything in the universe is not necessarily true of the universe itself. If I remember correctly, he concluded by saying "the universe just is, and that's all". i think it was in his famous radio debate with a Catholic priest whose name I forget.
it's all right thinking the universe just is but that just invites the question why the universe just isn't.
A reason for the universe just doesn't seem commensurate with Modern Atheism as practiced.
-
But you cannot say that because there is actually no substantive 'other'. You are arguing both an itself...one entity and absurdly two entities one and the other simultaneously.
Gibberish. ::)
What are you even trying to say here? Do I need to remind you again that you started this when you said (#529 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=20113.msg875813#msg875813)): "A composite entity cannot be a necessary being because it is contingent on it's parts."
And you haven't answered my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?
-
it's all right thinking the universe just is but that just invites the question why the universe just isn't.
A reason for the universe just doesn't seem commensurate with Modern Atheism as practiced.
I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.
-
it's all right thinking the universe just is but that just invites the question why the universe just isn't.
A question one could just as easily ask about a God. But then we just get "but God is magic (necessary)".
A reason for the universe just doesn't seem commensurate with Modern Atheism as practiced.
Why not (even if there is a reason for it)? There are many scientific hypotheses that don't require a God. Many made up non-God fairy tales too.
-
I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.
Since a God doesn't answer this question, why atheists in particular? Why does anybody need to answer it?
-
A question one could just as easily ask about a God. But then we just get "but God is magic (necessary)".
Why not (even if there is a reason for it)? There are many scientific hypotheses that don't require a God. Many made up non-God fairy tales too.
God is proposed as the reason for something rather than nothing and the universe is the something...or collection of somethings.
One could also say God is the reason for physics.
-
Since a God doesn't answer this question, why atheists in particular? Why does anybody need to answer
Because the answer might not agree with Russell's assertion of brute fact which is a lame excuse for merely suspending the principle of sufficient reason when it suits.
-
God is proposed as the reason for something rather than nothing...
If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.
One could also say God is the reason for physics.
One could say the moon is made of cheese. ::)
Because the answer might not agree with Russell's assertion of brute fact...
Might not agree with theistic non-answers and doublethink either.
...which is a lame excuse for merely suspending the principle of sufficient reason when it suits.
The principle of sufficient reason doesn't appear to play nicely with quantum mechanics even.
-
You are conflating the argument with the thing it is arguing about.
If we have a "chain of contingency", as I see it there are three possibilities.
- It has a beginning
- It continues indefinitely
- It is a closed loop
So far, I have seen no argument from you that rules out the second two possibilities.
I have also seen no argument from you that the beginning of the chain in the first possibility is your god.
Note that, none of the three possibilities rules out your god. It could appear somewhere within the chain, not necessarily at the beginning with option 1. What rules out the possibility of your god is the incoherence of Christian doctrine.
What example closed loop would you say was analogous...because so far if the universe was a closed loop it would mean that Jeremy P only exists because Jeremy P exists and that is a tautology.
-
What example closed loop would you say was analogous...because so far if the universe was a closed loop it would mean that Jeremy P only exists because Jeremy P exists and that is a tautology.
Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...
O.
-
Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...
O.
If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.
One could say the moon is made of cheese. ::)
Might not agree with theistic non-answers and doublethink either.
The principle of sufficient reason doesn't appear to play nicely with quantum mechanics even.
I am not so much talking about Caroll's observation that creation is not fundamental but rather the to suit and arbitrary suspension of the principle in the pursuit of atheism.
-
Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...
O.
I'm not sure any philosopher put it like that. Dawkin's claimed it was Aquinas(falsely I understand) but he is no philosopher.
What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
You're welcome.
-
If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.
Not if the something is the complete ensemble of contingent things aka the universe
-
I am not so much talking about Caroll's observation that creation is not fundamental but rather the to suit and arbitrary suspension of the principle in the pursuit of atheism.
It's really rather hilarious to see your 'arguments' get crushed one by one only for you to set off in another direction while trying to ignore what you said before.
Since theism offers no answer to the problem of something rather than nothing, your reference to atheism is spurious.
I'm also still waiting for an answer to my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?
-
If a God exists, it's a something. So it's part of the 'problem', not an answer to it.
Not if the something is the complete ensemble of contingent things aka the universe
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense as an answer to what I said. ::)
-
Not if the something is the complete ensemble of contingent things aka the universe
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense as an answer to what I said. ::)
But it's highly vital in the question of asserting that the universe just is and that's the end to it.
-
It's really rather hilarious to see your 'arguments' get crushed one by one only for you to set off in another direction while trying to ignore what you said before.
Since theism offers no answer to the problem of something rather than nothing, your reference to atheism is spurious.
I'm also still waiting for an answer to my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?
That clinches it.......you ARE pulling my plonker.
-
What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Which was it's first error, of course.
O.
-
What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Kalam argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument) was "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Which doesn't apply to the whole space-time.
But it's highly vital in the question of asserting that the universe just is and that's the end to it.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question: what is it about the universe that you think is contingent on anything apart from the universe?
And I'm not asserting that it "just is" (that was Russell, apparently). Perhaps it is, perhaps not. The point is that it doesn't appear to be contingent on anything else and making up some God doesn't help with the something rather than nothing question.
That clinches it.......you ARE pulling my plonker.
Looks more like you're playing with yourself, quite frankly.
-
I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.
Could you explain how you have established that it is a valud question?
-
Which was it's first error, of course.
O.
I don't know what the state of play is on the Kalam Cosmological argument but Aquinas certainly never relied on it since infinite universes were being proposed even in his time I believe.
-
Could you explain how you have established that it is a valud question?
Existence exists, contingent things only exist due to an external reason or reasons.
-
Existence exists, contingent things only exist due to an external reason or reasons.
Non sequitur. And is just a set of assertions. Not sure 'existence exists' makes any coherent sense.
-
Non sequitur. And is just a set of assertions. Not sure 'existence exists' makes any coherent sense.
I see you are partizan in which tautology you criticised.
Of course for a human. Things popping out of nothing is de rigour.
-
Could you explain how you have established that it is a valud question?
Why should it be invalid?
-
Why should it be invalid?
Steve said that it is valid. Asking him to show that isn't saying it is invalid.
-
I don't know what the state of play is on the Kalam Cosmological argument but Aquinas certainly never relied on it since infinite universes were being proposed even in his time I believe.
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
-- The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3)
Not that it matters all that much since nobody is using this argument but let's have the record straight.
-
I see you are partizan in which tautology you criticised.
Of course for a human. Things popping out of nothing is de rigour.
What?
-
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
-- The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3)
Not that it matters all that much since nobody is using this argument but let's have the record straight.
What has this got to do with Aquinas relying on the Kalam Cosmological argument or Dawkin's misrepresentation of it?
-
What has this got to do with Aquinas relying on the Kalam Cosmological argument or Dawkin's misrepresentation of it?
This:
Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...
O.
I'm not sure any philosopher put it like that. Dawkin's claimed it was Aquinas(falsely I understand)...
-
This:I'm not sure any philosopher put it like that. Dawkin's claimed it was Aquinas(falsely I understand)...
Where do you think Aquinas has said "Everything has a cause"?
-
SteveH,
I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.
Why do you think atheists need to answer that?
-
Vlad,
God is proposed as the reason for something rather than nothing and the universe is the something...or collection of somethings.
One could also say God is the reason for physics.
“One” could, but if “one” did then “one” would open himself up to the question, “what is the reason for God then?”.
-
Vlad,
What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
You're welcome.
Has anyone demonstrated that the universe has a beginning?
You're welcome.
-
Vlad,
But it's highly vital in the question of asserting that the universe just is and that's the end to it.
Russell didn’t say “that’s the end to it”. What he said was that the end of what we can say about it, which is a different matter entirely. He was commented on the limits of knowledge. not proffering an explanation.
-
Vlad,
Existence exists, contingent things only exist due to an external reason or reasons.
As you're still ducking and diving about this I’ll try again: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE IS CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
-
Vlad,
In terms of fallacy.
A wall of small red bricks is not necessarily small but it cannot be yellow..
and that is analogous to what Hillside is saying.
Needless to say, that’s not equivalent to what Hillside is saying at all. What Hillside is saying though is that the fact of the universe’s component parts being contingent on each other does not imply that the universe as a whole must also be contingent on something other than itself.
I keep asking you why (without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition) you think otherwise but you keep running away from that question.
Why is that?
-
Vlad,
As you're still ducking and diving about this I’ll try again: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE IS CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.
So what you should have properly asked is
What makes you think the universe is contingent?
It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.
So it is contingent not because of the contingency of it's parts
But because it depends on the existence of it's parts.
Your welcome.
-
SteveH,
Why do you think atheists need to answer that?
Well, obviously it's not obligatory ::) , but it's a valid, non-stupid question.
-
it's existence on it's component parts.
it's parts
it's parts.
"its".
Your welcome.
"You're".
-
Well, obviously it's not obligatory ::) , but it's a valid, non-stupid question.
Again can you show why it's valid?
-
"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.
A tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice, in different words. This doesn't, and thus is not a tautology.
-
Again can you show why it's valid?
Surely the onus is on you to explain why it isn't.
-
Surely the onus is on you to explain why it isn't.
No, because I'm not saying that it isn't. I don't know that it is. You've made the positive claim that it is valid.
-
But you cannot say that because there is actually no substantive 'other'.
If there's no "other", why are you claiming the Universe is composite?
-
I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.
Yes, that is a tricky question. Let's see if I can make a stab at it.
Here we go....
... I don't know.
Seems it was pretty simple after all.
-
What example closed loop would you say was analogous
It's pretty simple. Normal people don't need an analogy to understand it. But if you insist, what about a bicycle chain or a bracelet.
...because so far if the universe was a closed loop it would mean that Jeremy P only exists because Jeremy P exists and that is a tautology.
And a link in a bicycle chain is ultimately connected to itself. Where's the tautology?
-
"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.
So what you should have properly asked is
What makes you think the universe is contingent?
It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.
So it is contingent not because of the contingency of it's parts
But because it depends on the existence of it's parts.
Seems to me that, if the Universe is dependent only on its component parts and its component parts are dependent only on the Universe, then the Universe is not contingent.
And that means we don't need to posit a god.
Your welcome.
His welcome? What about his welcome?
-
A tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice, in different words. This doesn't, and thus is not a tautology.
Yes it is actually. "contingent" means "dependent on something other than itself" Every word after "contingent" was an unnecessary redundancy. "Contingent on itself" is an oxymoron.
-
There's no reason that I can see that makes it invalid.
-
There's no reason that I can see that makes it invalid.
So what? You've made a positive claim that it is valid. Can you show what justifies that statement?
-
You're just being silly now.
-
You're just being silly now.
No. This is basic stuff. You've made a positive claim that it is a valid question. You need to justify that claim. You appear not to be able to and when challenged on it make a personal attack.
Let's say I had stated it was an invalid question, and someone had asked me to show that it was invalid. Following that I had then asked them to show why it was valid, and they replied that they hadn't said that it was they just wanted me to justify my claim that it was invalid. If I then said that I was unable to think of a reason that it was not invalid, and they said that wasn't a justification that it was actually invalid, would they just be being silly?
-
"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.
No it isn't. Not according to you anyway.
It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.
And no universe, no parts. So the parts are contingent on the whole and we need nothing else.
-
Vlad,
"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.
Then I’ll add “tautology” to the various words you don’t understand. A tautology is saying the same thing more than once with different words – “unfilled vacancies” for example. Here though what’s actually being said is that the fact of the universe being contingent on its parts (ie it exists only in the form it has because of the parts of which it consists) does not imply that the universe must also exist because something else caused to be.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.
So what you should have properly asked is
What makes you think the universe is contingent?
No, the “proper" question remains as I put it: what makes you think the universe is contingent on something other than itself (ie, “God”)? That after is your claim.
It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.
OK…
So it is contingent not because of the contingency of it's parts
But because it depends on the existence of it's parts.
Which still says nothing about why you think it’s contingent on something other than itself (ie the sum of its parts).
Your welcome.
For what? You’re still running away from answering the question.
-
I pointed out Walt's mistake about tautology yesterday, but the post seems to have disappeared. Has it been removed?
-
I pointed out Walt's mistake about tautology yesterday, but the post seems to have disappeared. Has it been removed?
Reply 597, still there
-
Vlad,
Then I’ll add “tautology” to the various words you don’t understand. A tautology is saying the same thing more than once with different words – “unfilled vacancies” for example. Here though what’s actually being said is that the fact of the universe being contingent on its parts (ie it exists only in the form it has because of the parts of which it consists) does not imply that the universe must also exist because something else caused to be.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.
No, the “proper" question remains as I put it: what makes you think the universe is contingent on something other than itself (ie, “God”)? That after is your claim.
OK…
Which still says nothing about why you think it’s contingent on something other than itself (ie the sum of its parts).
For what? You’re still running away from answering the question.
If you say something is contingent on x and x is contingent then given the definition of contingency we have to ask what it is it is contingent on. Deviation from that is the running away bit Hillside.
Stating that x gives existence to y which gives existence to x just conjure stuff but you know this having projected the magic onto me.
Regarding the fallacy of composition You proposed the universe was merely the sum of it's contingent parts.
You the said I said the universe was contingent because parts of it were. Not so Hillside
The universe you proposed then is contingent not because of the contingency of its parts but because, as you propose it is the sum of parts.
So much for the Hillside argument and context.
What I say is show me something that isn't contingent and is responsible for its own being.
The default position is everything ever observed is contingent. So I could play your game.
Stop trying then to shift the burden of proof, stop running away, exile yourself to the grounds of your estate and eat grass as a penance
-
SteveH,
There's no reason that I can see that makes it invalid.
It's invalid for several reasons.
First, "Why..." implies purpose whereas asking instead how it is that the universe exists removes that unwarranted a priori implication.
Second, built in to the question is the assumption that the universe’s existence is somehow less likely than its non-existence. You could equally ask why there isn’t nothing rather than something.
Third, the question is addressed to atheists specifically. The question has nothing to do with atheism though, which is just the absence of belief in god(s). Asking atheists this question implies that the theistic explanation “god” is somehow legitimate or plausible, which is isn’t for the reasons that have been explained exhaustively here. Equally a-fairyists don’t have to explain how teeth disappear at might from under pillows either – they just need to find the putative explanation “Tooth Fairy” to be implausible.
-
If you say something is contingent on x and x is contingent then given the definition of contingency we have to ask what it is it is contingent on. Deviation from that is the running away bit Hillside.
Stating that x gives existence to y which gives existence to x just conjure stuff but you know this having projected the magic onto me.
And we are still waiting for you to actually address the point that you said the universe was contingent on its parts but cannot point to anything its parts are contingent on except the whole universe.
Just making general, justification-free, assertions claims that we can't do that sort of thing is running away.
Come on Vlad, what is the universe contingent on outside of itself?
What I say is show me something that isn't contingent and is responsible for its own being.
The universe. Show me why that can't be the case.
Stop trying then to shift the burden of proof, stop running away...
You're the one running. ::)
I've lost count of how often I've raised the above points and all you do is run away!
-
SteveH,
It's invalid for several reasons.
First, "Why..." implies purpose whereas asking instead how it is that the universe exists removes that unwarranted a priori implication.
Second, built in to the question is the assumption that the universe’s existence is somehow less likely than its non-existence. You could equally ask why there isn’t nothing rather than something.
Third, the question is addressed to atheists specifically. The question has nothing to do with atheism though, which is just the absence of belief in god(s). Asking atheists this question implies that the theistic explanation “god” is somehow legitimate or plausible, which is isn’t for the reasons that have been explained exhaustively here. Equally a-fairyists don’t have to explain how teeth disappear at might from under pillows either – they just need to find the putative explanation “Tooth Fairy” to be implausible.
Why and how are colloquially and practically.interchangeble
If you don't like why I offer "what is the reason?"
Not sure about "How it is that" though Hillside but not sure if that's because it's you proposing it.
-
Vlad,
If you say something is contingent on x and x is contingent then given the definition of contingency we have to ask what it is it is contingent on. Deviation from that is the running away bit Hillside.
Incoherent. What are you even trying to say here? The NHS is “contingent” on having nurses – ie, it couldn’t function without them; nurses are “contingent” on the NHS (ie, they wouldn’t be hired if there was no NHS). That’s not a tautology though, which is the mistake you made.
Stating that x gives existence to y which gives existence to x just conjure stuff but you know this having projected the magic onto me.
It's not “gives existence” to as in “causes”, it’s just a statement that the fact of a universe made of its composite parts does not imply that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself – you know, the assertion you keep running away from justifying.
Regarding the fallacy of composition You proposed the universe was merely the sum of it's contingent parts.
So it appears, yes.
You the said I said the universe was contingent because parts of it were.
No I didn’t. I said that the universe is “contingent” inasmuch as it wouldn’t exist (either at all or in its current form) without the parts of which it consists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Not so Hillside
The universe you proposed then is contingent not because of the contingency of its parts but because, as you propose it is the sum of parts.
So much for the Hillside argument and context.
Did this gibberish mean something in your head when you typed it?
What I say is show me something that isn't contingent and is responsible for its own being.
Well, according to you, "God". I have no reason to think that "the universe" isn't such a something in any case, and certainly no non-fallacious reason that you've managed to offer.
The default position is everything ever observed is contingent. So I could play your game.
Not necessarily – we don’t know whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level – but for the sake of argument let’s say that everything we’ve observed in the universe is contingent on antecedent things.
So, how then do you jump from that to “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on its antecedent things" (ie, "God") without falling into the fallacy of composition again?
Stop trying then to shift the burden of proof, stop running away, exile yourself to the grounds of your estate and eat grass as a penance
Simply accusing others without grounds of your own behaviours if pathetic. And dishonest.
Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE AS AN ENTITY MUST BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
-
Vlad,
Why and how are colloquially and practically.interchangeble
So you think "why did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" and "how did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" are "colloquially and practically interchangeble" (sic)?
Really?
-
Again can you show why it's valid?
Your obsession with the validity of my question is beginning to look like evasion. In what does the validity of a question consist? If I knew, I'd be able to tell you why it's a valid question, but I don't. Common sense tells me that it's a reasonable question to ask.
-
Vlad,
Incoherent. What are you even trying to say here? The NHS is “contingent” on having nurses – ie, it couldn’t function without them; nurses are “contingent” on the NHS (ie, they wouldn’t be hired if there was no NHS). That’s not a tautology though, which is the mistake you made.
It's not “gives existence” to as in “causes”, it’s just a statement that the fact of a universe made of its composite parts does not imply that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself – you know, the assertion you keep running away from justifying.
So it appears, yes.
No I didn’t. I said that the universe is “contingent” inasmuch as it wouldn’t exist (either at all or in its current form) without the parts of which it consists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Did this gibberish mean something in your head when you typed it?
Well, according to you, "God". I have no reason to think that "the universe" isn't such a something in any case, and certainly no non-fallacious reason that you've managed to offer.
Not necessarily – we don’t know whether “true” randomness happens at the quantum level – but for the sake of argument let’s say that everything we’ve observed in the universe is contingent on antecedent things.
So, how then do you jump from that to “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on its antecedent things" (ie, "God") without falling into the fallacy of composition again?
Simply accusing others without grounds of your own behaviours if pathetic. And dishonest.
Yet again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE AS AN ENTITY MUST BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
once more with gusto.
You cannot be contingent on yourself Hillside. Find out the meaning of contingency and if you find more than one meaning
Don't cherrypick.
-
Reply 597, still there
So it is. My mistake.
-
Your obsession with the validity of my question is beginning to look like evasion. In what does the validity of a question consist? If I knew, I'd be able to tell you why it's a valid question, but I don't. Common sense tells me that it's a reasonable question to ask.
Trifle bizarre to say that asking a question is evasion but refusing to answer it is fine.
So you said it's a valid question but you don't think that 'validity' consists of anything? Common sense tells lots of people the earth is flat. It's not a justification.
Since you've made a claim but seem unable even to define it, ok let me help you out.
The question 'how long to green ideas sleep furiously for?' Is not a valid question as it makes no sense but is grammatically ok.
The question 'how do elephants fly?' is not a valid question because though the ideas make sense, they aren't true.
Why questions imply a causal reason. It may not be that that applies in all questions.
'Why is there something rather than nothing?'posits that nothing is a possible state. I'm not even sure it's a coherent one since it would end up with the concept that 'nothing is' which implies that nothing is something which makes no sense.
But hey, I'm not blessed with 'common sense'.
-
Vlad,
So you think "why did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" and "how did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" are "colloquially and practically interchangeble" (sic)?
Really?
This may help Vlad out.
https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/845/how-vs-why
-
Trifle bizarre to say that asking a question is evasion but refusing to answer it is fine.
So you said it's a valid question but you don't think that 'validity' consists of anything? Common sense tells lots of people the earth is flat. It's not a justification.
Since you've made a claim but seem unable even to define it, ok let me help you out.
The question 'how long to green ideas sleep furiously for?' Is not a valid question as it makes no sense but is grammatically ok.
The question 'how do elephants fly?' is not a valid question because though the ideas make sense, they aren't true.
Why questions imply a causal reason. It may not be that that applies in all questions.
'Why is there something rather than nothing?'posits that nothing is a possible state. I'm not even sure it's a coherent one since it would end up with the concept that 'nothing is' which implies that nothing is something which makes no sense.
But hey, I'm not blessed with 'common sense'.
Nearly Sane. We may have to be agnostic about nothing but we know that non existence is a thing.......unless you want to start arguing an afterlife
-
This may help Vlad out.
https://langeek.co/en/grammar/course/845/how-vs-why
It helps you out.
My dictionary tells me it means Purpose or reason.
-
Nearly Sane. We may have to be agnostic about nothing but we know that non existence is a thing.......unless you want to start arguing an afterlife
That there is no 23 bus in my siight currently is not tge equivalent of there being nothing in your question.
-
It helps you out.
My dictionary tells me it means Purpose or reason.
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
So what's your problem?
-
So what's your problem?
I don't have one with the meaning of why. You do with justufying the question.
-
That there is no 23 bus in my siight currently is not tge equivalent of there being nothing in your question.
Non existence is non existence nearly Sane. So if it is the lot of contingent things and the universe is but the sum of contingent things.................
-
I don't have one with the meaning of why. You do with justufying the question.
What's wrong with it?
-
Non existence is non existence nearly Sane. So if it is the lot of contingent things and the universe is but the sum of contingent things.................
So your position is that the absence of the number 23 bus being in my sight currently is the equivalent of there being absolute nothing. Then the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' can be rephrased as 'Why is there something rather than no number 23 bus in Nearly Sane's sight currently?'
-
What's wrong with it?
It assumes a purpose or reason. You haven't shown that is required.
-
It assumes a purpose or reason. You haven't shown that is required.
I think contingency and necessity have been presented here with atheists presenting us with the definition of the universe as the sum of contingent things and the question is in line with the principle of sufficient reason. If then you wish to explain why and where the Principle should be suspended.....do tell us.
-
Vlad,
You cannot be contingent on yourself Hillside.
In the case of the universe, why not?
-
I think contingency and necessity have been presented here with atheists presenting us with the definition of the universe as the sum of contingent things and the question is in line with the principle of sufficient reason. If then you wish to explain why and where the Principle should be suspended.....do tell us.
I think you're making a category error, and assuming that a day to day assumption of cause and effect can be applied without justification to absolutes.
-
Vlad,
In the case of the universe, why not? The definition of contingent, Hillside.
Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.
-
I think you're making a category error, and assuming that a day to day assumption of cause and effect can be applied without justification to absolutes.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
-
Vlad,
Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.
Shifting the burden of proof (again) isn't helping you here. It's your assertion that the universe must be contingent on something other than itself (ie, other than the sum of its parts). I'm merely asking you to justify your claim with a non-fallacious argument – ie, without relying on the fallacy of composition.
So far at least you haven't even tried to do that. Should I take it then that you have no such argument, or that you do have it but you want to keep it a secret?
-
Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.
You keep telling us the universe can't be magically necessary because the whole thing is contingent on its parts but you won't say where there is any contingency on anything else.
Grow the fuck up yourself and stop running away from the question.
-
Vlad,
Shifting the burden of proof (again) isn't helping you here. It's your assertion that the universe must be contingent on something other than itself (ie, other than the sum of its parts). I'm merely asking you to justify your claim with a non-fallacious argument – ie, without relying on the fallacy of composition.
So far at least you haven't even tried to do that. Should I take it then that you have no such argument, or that you do have it but you want to keep it a secret?
This isn't about shifting the burden Hillside
This is about you either not knowing or liking the meaning of the word contingent.
-
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
To take a well worn example on here, saying that we touch the keyboard when we type makes sense in day to day terms. That we don't only becomes of significance when we are talking on a different level. Similarly here, with cause and effect.
We've covered this multiple times before, rather like the history being methodologically naturalist stuff, which you appeared to have completely forgotten. Are you ok?
-
You keep telling us the universe can't be magically necessary because the whole thing is contingent on its parts but you won't say where there is any contingency on anything else.
Grow the fuck up yourself and stop running away from the question.
You can't be contingent on yourself because of the very definition of the word contingent, end of.
-
This isn't about shifting the burden Hillside
This is about you either not knowing or liking the meaning of the word contingent.
No, it's about you shamelessly running away from a simple question:
What is it about the universe that is contingent on anything that isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself?
-
Vlad,
This isn't about shifting the burden Hillside
Yes it is. You said “Maybe you try arguing that it is the necessary being instead of definition diddling....Grow up.”. I don’t have to argue anything though. All I have to do is to ask you why you think the universe must be contingent on something other than itself.
That you cannot or will not answer that tells us that you can't justify your claim with a non-fallacious argument. Why then should anyone take that unqualified assertion seriously?
This is about you either not knowing or liking the meaning of the word contingent.
No it isn’t. I know what it means, and I neither like nor dislike it. That’s why I’m inviting you finally to stop ducking and diving and instead to tell us why you think the universe must be contingent on something other than itself.
Why so coy?
-
Vlad,
You can't be contingent on yourself because of the very definition of the word contingent, end of.
Wrong again. Something can be "contingent on" its component parts. You though then overreach into a claim that that "something" must also be contingent on something else.
I don't know why you think that and you continue not to tell us.
-
You can't be contingent on yourself because of the very definition of the word contingent, end of.
More childish foot-stamping. ::)
The definition of a word is irrelevant. The universe does not appear to require anything else for its existence. You can call that whatever the hell you like.
You've applied the word 'contingent' to the universe, because you claim it's contingent on its parts, so what do you think they are 'contingent' on that has to be something apart from the universe?
Reconciling the language you've chosen to use, is not anybody's problem but yours.
-
More childish foot-stamping. ::)
The definition of a word is irrelevant. The universe does not appear to require anything else for its existence. You can call that whatever the hell you like.
Wrong. In terms of appearance, the only thing which is observed is contingency.If that changes let us know.
You've applied the word 'contingent' to the universe, because you claim it's contingent on its parts, so what do you think they are 'contingent' on that has to be something apart from the universe?
Reconciling the language you've chosen to use, is not anybody's problem but yours.
A car is dependent on parts. But the parts are not made by the car, that would be absurd. The parts were premanufactured as were the machines that premanufactured them. Natural processes made the materials and so we end up with matter so what made that?
If something is independent of everything else for it's existence then it is said to exist necessarily.
Substitute the word universe for car and I think you will see why the universe doesn't make it's parts.
-
A car is dependent on parts. But the parts are not made by the car, that would be absurd. The parts were premanufactured as were the machines that premanufactured them. Natural processes made the materials and so we end up with matter so what made that?
If something is independent of everything else for it's existence then it is said to exist necessarily.
Substitute the word universe for car and I think you will see why the universe doesn't make it's parts
Switching to an obviously false analogy is still running away from answering the question. The parts of the universe cannot possibly exist without the universe, so a car is quite clearly nothing like the universe in this respect.
What is it about the universe that is contingent on anything that isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself?
-
Vlad,
Wrong. In terms of appearance, the only thing which is observed is contingency.If that changes let us know.
No necessarily true as there are hints at least that some quantum phenomena may not be determinative. Nonetheless, let’s agree for now that everything observed so far within “the universe” has been contingent in character.
Now then – how do you propose to jump straight from “stuff in the universe is contingent on other stuff in the universe” to “therefore the universe is contingent on something other than itself” without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition?
And if you continue to refuse to tell us that, won’t you at least tell us why you won’t tell us that?
Again: why so coy?
A car is dependent on parts. But the parts are not made by the car, that would be absurd. The parts were premanufactured as were the machines that premanufactured them. Natural processes made the materials and so we end up with matter so what made that?
Been a while since someone attempted the Paley’s watch fallacy. Well done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
If something is independent of everything else for it's existence then it is said to exist necessarily.
And you think the universe itself cannot exist “necessarily” why exactly?
-
Switching to an obviously false analogy is still running away from answering the question. The parts of the universe cannot possibly exist without the universe, so a car is quite clearly nothing like the universe in this respect.
What is it about the universe that is contingent on anything that isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself?
special pleading....Don't be a silly pleader.
Everything depends on the universe and the universe depends on everything is just deepity and shows ignorance or dislike of the term contingency.
-
Vlad,
No necessarily true as there are hints at least that some quantum phenomena may not be determinative. Nonetheless, let’s agree for now that everything observed so far within “the universe” has been contingent in character.
Now then – how do you propose to jump straight from “stuff in the universe is contingent on other stuff in the universe” to “therefore the universe is contingent on something other than itself” without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition?
And if you continue to refuse to tell us that, won’t you at least tell us why you won’t tell us that?
Again: why so coy?
Been a while since someone attempted the Paley’s watch fallacy. Well done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
And you think the universe itself cannot exist “necessarily” why exactly?
I don't need to make the jump.
The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.
-
special pleading....Don't be a silly pleader.
How is it special pleading?
The universe is not like a car in the relevant way.
How about you actually answer the question?
Everything depends on the universe and the universe depends on everything is just deepity and shows ignorance or dislike of the term contingency.
I don't care about the term. I'm interested in the reality, not the words you like to play silly games with. You are making a claim that the universe must be dependant on something else. Where the is the first hint of reasoning or evidence to support that claim?
-
Vlad,
special pleading....Don't be a silly pleader.
What special pleading do you think you’ve identified? Stranger isn’t claiming that the universe is necessarily its own explanation – he’s just inviting you to justify your assertion that it isn't. So far you’ve danced all around that but have failed entirely to justify your claim. And we both know why that is don’t we – yes, at some dimly aware level you grasp that the fallacy of composition awaits you immediately you essay “observed stuff in the universe contingent, therefore universe contingent” don’t you even though that's all you have in the locker.
Everything depends on the universe and the universe depends on everything is just despite and shows ignorance or dislike of the term contingency.
Gibberish, but in any case we’ve found the actual special pleading here now haven’t we? Apparently your notion “god” precisely is allowed to be “necessary”, presumably by means of your “because he’s magic inne?” defence.
Hmmm…
-
Vlad,
What special pleading do you think you’ve identified? Stranger isn’t claiming that the universe is necessarily its own explanation – he’s just inviting you to justify your assertion that it isn't. So far you’ve danced all around that but have failed entirely to justify your claim. And we both know why that is don’t we – yes, at some dimly aware level you grasp that the fallacy of composition awaits you immediately you essay “observed stuff in the universe contingent, therefore universe contingent” don’t you even though that's all you have in the locker.
Gibberish, but in any case we’ve found the actual special pleading here now haven’t we? Apparently your notion “god” precisely is allowed to be “necessary”, presumably by means of your “because he’s magic inne?” defence.
Hmmm…
zero special pleading. Find out the meaning of contingency and stop the whataboutery.
-
The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.
The universe and its parts are inseparable because the parts cannot exist without the whole. Leaving aside your absurd obsession with the terminology, what is it about the universe that depends on anything else?
-
Vlad,
I don't need to make the jump.
Yes you do. It's your claim that the universe is contingent on something other than itself, so it's your job to justify your claim.
The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.
Which tell you nothing at all about whether it must also be contingent on something other than itself - which remains your unargued assertion remember?
-
zero special pleading. Find out the meaning of contingency and stop the whataboutery.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) You can't make an argument about reality based solely on the words you've chosen to apply to it.
-
Vlad,
zero special pleading. Find out the meaning of contingency and stop the whataboutery.
You can't just straw man your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself. Once again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE OBSERVATION OF CONTINGENT STUFF IN THE UNIVERSE IMPLIES THAT THE UNIVERSE MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
Are you determined to keep the answer a secret, or do you just not have one?
-
Vlad,
You can't just straw man your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself. Once again: WHY DO YOU THINK THE OBSERVATION OF CONTINGENT STUFF IN THE UNIVERSE IMPLIES THAT THE UNIVERSE MUST ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?
Are you determined to keep the answer a secret, or do you just not have one?
You cannot be contingent on yourself. Stop wishing it was even a thing.
You are treating this forum like a pissoir or spittoon.
Excuse me if I don't stick around as you defecate.
-
Vlad,
So you think "why did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" and "how did Jack the Ripper murder his victims?" are "colloquially and practically interchangeble" (sic)?
Really?
Context is everything. This why/how bullshit is just bullshit, so let's stop doing it.
If I ask "why does the Earth orbit the Sun?" I'm not presupposing some purpose by my use of the word "why"? I'm not looking for the Earth's motive to keep going round, unlike with the Jack the Ripper question
-
You cannot be contingent on yourself. Stop wishing it was even a thing.
Stop running away from the question! Forget your obsession with contingency, just provide an argument that the universe requires something else to exist.
Surely you've got something better than arbitrarily slapping the label 'contingent' on it and then claiming it can't be contingent on itself. I mean, that would be childish and ridiculous, wouldn't it?
Look, just fill in this:
Premises:
Deduction steps:
Conclusion: therefore the universe requires something else to exists.
-
The universe is contingent not because it's parts are but because it has parts.
Just like your god with its three parts.
-
You cannot be contingent on yourself. Stop wishing it was even a thing.
Stop avoiding the question. You're trying to escape on a technicality.
-
Stop running away from the question! Forget your obsession with contingency, just provide an argument that the universe requires something else to exist.
Surely you've got something better than arbitrarily slapping the label 'contingent' on it and then claiming it can't be contingent on itself. I mean, that would be childish and ridiculous, wouldn't it?
Look, just fill in this:
Premises:
Deduction steps:
Conclusion: therefore the universe requires something else to exists.
I've answered that question.
If the universe has parts it is contingent
Since we can ask why those parts and why that arrangement.
You cannot be contingent on yourself. That is just misuse and misunderstanding.
If you therefore exist independently you are a necessary entity.
Nothing observed so far is a Necessary entity......and there's the end to it.
-
Context is everything. This why/how bullshit is just bullshit, so let's stop doing it.
If I ask "why does the Earth orbit the Sun?" I'm not presupposing some purpose by my use of the word "why"? I'm not looking for the Earth's motive to keep going round, unlike with the Jack the Ripper question
Questions about purpose are teleological questions.
The argument from contingency is not a teleological argument.
Hillside has wrongly said I am making Paley's argument. I'm not. I'm not saying here is a complex structured thing it must have been made. I'm saying why is it here at all.
Why this rather than nothing.
Your options are just is....with it's attendant claim of necessity
or necessity which you would need to justify imo
-
I've answered that question.
No, you have not.
If the universe has parts it is contingent
Since we can ask why those parts and why that arrangement.
Just like we could ask that of your composite God. Leaving that aside for the moment, you appear to have made an arbitrary choice to label anything with parts 'contingent'.
You cannot be contingent on yourself. That is just misuse and misunderstanding.
Why not? I mean logically, not just resorting to a dictionary definition of 'contingent' that was just a word you've chosen to use. Something has parts, why does that automatically mean that it depends on anything else?
Where is the logic that goes from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'?
If you therefore exist independently you are a necessary entity.
I really couldn't care less about labels, but it would help if you could at least be consistent about them. Is a 'necessary entity' just something with no external dependency (brute fact) or does it need to cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different (logically incoherent)?
Nothing observed so far is a Necessary entity......and there's the end to it.
Why can't the universe 'exist independently'? Nothing you've said answers that question. And that's before we get to your shameless double standard with respect to your three-part God.
-
No, you have not.
Just like we could ask that of your composite God. Leaving that aside for the moment, you appear to have made an arbitrary choice to label anything with parts 'contingent'.
Why not? I mean logically, not just resorting to a dictionary definition of 'contingent' that was just a word you've chosen to use. Something has parts, why does that automatically mean that it depends on anything else?
Where is the logic that goes from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'?
I really couldn't care less about labels, but it would help if you could at least be consistent about them. Is a 'necessary entity' just something with no external dependency (brute fact) or does it need to cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different (logically incoherent)?
Why can't the universe 'exist independently'? Nothing you've said answers that question. And that's before we get to your shameless double standard with respect to your three-part God.
There is existing independently eg adult children living apart from there parents... but without parents they would not exist.
Your question is why can't the universe be a necessary entity.
Answer, it has parts.
-
No, you have not.
Just like we could ask that of your composite God. Leaving that aside for the moment, you appear to have made an arbitrary choice to label anything with parts 'contingent'.
Why not? I mean logically, not just resorting to a dictionary definition of 'contingent' that was just a word you've chosen to use. Something has parts, why does that automatically mean that it depends on anything else?
Where is the logic that goes from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'?
I really couldn't care less about labels, but it would help if you could at least be consistent about them. Is a 'necessary entity' just something with no external dependency (brute fact) or does it need to cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different (logically incoherent)?
Why can't the universe 'exist independently'? Nothing you've said answers that question. And that's before we get to your shameless double standard with respect to your three-part God.
You do need to care about labels and definitions though or at least articulate your ideas better.
You and Hillside I fear are frightened to be wrong or seen to be wrong.
-
You do need to care about labels and definitions though or at least articulate your ideas better.
(https://media.tenor.com/X0Gp-pqN2N4AAAAC/irony.gif)
So you cannot answer any of my questions and are admitting defeat....?
If you properly define your terms and use them consistently, that's fine. What you can't do, and what you seem to be shamelessly trying to do, is to apply a label in one sense: 'contingent' because it has parts, and then try to use another sense: 'contingent' because it depends of something else, to draw a conclusion.
What you're doing is akin to calling a fur rug a cat because it has fur and then claiming it walks on four legs because it's a cat.
That's not an argument. It's either dimwittery or a blatant attempt at hiding your inability to make a real logical case. ::)
-
Context is everything. This why/how bullshit is just bullshit, so let's stop doing it.
If I ask "why does the Earth orbit the Sun?" I'm not presupposing some purpose by my use of the word "why"? I'm not looking for the Earth's motive to keep going round, unlike with the Jack the Ripper question
In the main I agree, but it would seem incorrect to think that no one asks the question without attempting to use the deliberate purpose as an implication, specificLly because of the context.
Further, as in the, in some ways, similar 'what happened before the big bang?', it's either a deliberate, or ignorant, attempt to pull im explanatory processes that don't necessarily apply.
(For SteveH, if he reads this, the 'What happened before the Big Bang?' question may be an easier one to grasp the problem of validity. If the dimension of time is part of the big bang, before then becomes possibly inapplicable. Similarly the cause and effect that we assume in normal questions becomes possibly inapplicable when you have no concepts of dimensions to work with)
-
In the main I agree, but it would seem incorrect to think that no one asks the question without attempting to use the deliberate purpose as an implication, specificLly because of the context.
Further, as in the, in some ways, similar 'what happened before the big bang?', it's either a deliberate, or ignorant, attempt to pull im explanatory processes that don't necessarily apply.
(For SteveH, if he reads this, the 'What happened before the Big Bang?' question may be an easier one to grasp the problem of validity. If the dimension of time is part of the big bang, before then becomes possibly inapplicable. Similarly the cause and effect that we assume in normal questions becomes possibly inapplicable when you have no concepts of dimensions to work with)
Atheist: "Of course we cannot rely on cause and effect"
Theist:"There is then the uncaused cause"
Atheist" How fucking dare you?"
-
Atheist: "Of course we cannot rely on cause and effect"
Theist:"There is then the uncaused cause"
Atheist" How fucking dare you?"
Not my position.
-
Atheist: "Of course we cannot rely on cause and effect"
Theist:"There is then the uncaused cause"
Atheist" How fucking dare you?"
Yet another innocent straw man gets dragged out and executed... ::)
-
Vlad,
As I see you’re still ducking and diving let’s try once more shall we?
1. You tell us that the universe is made of its parts.
2. You tell us that these parts are contingent on other parts (possibly but not necessarily true), but now tell us too that your “argument” (ie, unqualified assertion) does not rely on the parts themselves being contingent on each other.
3. You tell us that the fact of the universe being made of (and therefore contingent on) its parts means that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself.
I have no idea how you managed to go from 2. To 3. without collapsing into the fallacy of composition again, and you seem determined not to tell us. I can only conclude therefore either:
1. You do have a justifying argument but you want to keep it a secret; or
2. You don’t have a justifying argument so resort instead to your usual playbook of straw men, ad homs, unqualified assertions etc.
My money’s on option 2., but you know what you have to do to prove me wrong (hey, you never know – there's a first time for everything).
-
There is existing independently eg adult children living apart from there parents... but without parents they would not exist.
Your question is why can't the universe be a necessary entity.
Answer, it has parts.
You haven't told why something that has parts cannot be necessary.
-
3. You tell us that the fact of the universe being made of (and therefore contingent on) its parts means that the universe must also be contingent on something other than itself.
I'm no expert, but isn't this the fallacy of composition, ie assuming that what is true of all the parts must be true of the whole? May not the universe be necessary, even though all its parts are contingent?
-
SteveH,
I'm no expert, but isn't this the fallacy of composition, ie assuming that what is true of all the parts must be true of the whole? May not the universe be necessary, even though all its parts are contingent?
Yes, it’s exactly the fallacy of composition. That’s all Vlad has, but he keeps twisting in the wind rather than admit as much.
-
Vlad,
Atheist: "Of course we cannot rely on cause and effect"
Theist:"There is then the uncaused cause"
Atheist" How fucking dare you?"
Bizarre.
So, to correct you yet again:
1. Atheist: I haven’t heard an argument for the claim “god(s)” that I can’t falsify, therefore I don’t believe in god(s).
2. There is no 2.
All the other positions to which you arbitrarily attach the label “atheist” are just manifestations of your need for straw men to attack.
-
SteveH,
Yes, it’s exactly the fallacy of composition. That’s all Vlad has, but he keeps twisting in the wind rather than admit as much.
No Hillside, it isn't.
The fallacy of composition would be to say the Universe is contingent because it's parts are contingent.
That isn't what's being argued.
What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.
Since you seem to want to deny correction I take pleasure in pointing it out for others.
-
What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.
So WHY is it contingent on anything else?
"The universe is contingent because it has parts, therefore it is contingent on something else" would be a massive non sequitur. So what the hell is you argument?
-
So WHY is it contingent on anything else?
"The universe is contingent because it has parts, therefore it is contingent on something else" would be a massive non sequitur. So what the hell is you argument?
I take it then you accept the Universe is contingent if it is the sum of parts?
-
I take it then you accept the Universe is contingent if it is the sum of parts?
I don't. I don't see why something that has parts must be contingent.
-
I don't. I don't see why something that has parts must be contingent.
Because it is being proposed as the SUM total of parts.
-
I take it then you accept the Universe is contingent if it is the sum of parts?
And still no answer to the question. ::)
It depends how you are using the word. Post the definition you're using and I'll tell you.
-
Because it is being proposed as the SUM total of parts.
So what?
-
You haven't told why something that has parts cannot be necessary.
Sorry.
-
What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.
It's not being argued. You claim it's being argued, but I haven't seen an argument from you - or anybody - that leads from "the Universe has parts" to "the Universe is contingent".
-
So what?
Anything that is the sum of parts is composed of parts and exists because it is those parts added together right?
The thing's existence is dependent on parts therefore.
Dependence means the thing is contingent on parts.
Even then if we said there was part of the universe that was necessary or all parts were necessary. The universe would be contingent because it has parts.
-
It's not being argued. You claim it's being argued, but I haven't seen an argument from you - or anybody - that leads from "the Universe has parts" to "the Universe is contingent".
You need to learn the definition of contingency Jeremy.
-
Anything that is the sum of parts is composed of parts and exists because it is those parts added together right?
So God is composed of the Holy Spirit Jesus and his Dad and exists because it is those parts added together. That makes (some) sense.
The thing's existence is dependent on parts therefore.
Dependence means the thing is contingent on parts.
God's existence is dependent on parts therefore.
Dependence means the thing is contingent on parts.
Wait. But you said that a thing is the sum of its parts. Therefore, if a thing is dependent on its parts, it is dependent on itself. If it is dependent on itself, it's not contingent because itself is not something else other than itself.
Therefore the dependence of a thing on its parts is not contingency.
-
You need to learn the definition of contingency Jeremy.
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
~~ Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being)
Tell me why something that is dependent on its parts (as everything is) and only on its own parts must be contingent.
-
https://www.philosophyofreligion.uk/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/is-the-universe-contingent/
contingent.
The Fallacy of Composition
This argument has been accused of committing the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every part of a whole has a property, that the whole has that property too.
In some cases this kind of inference looks better than in others. If every jewel in a crown is valuable, then the crown is going to be valuable too. If every player on the team is outstanding, then it’s likely, though not certain, that the team is outstanding too.
If every track on the CD is less than five minutes long, though, then it doesn‘t follow that the whole CD is less than five minutes long. Sometimes every part of a whole has a property that the whole itself does not have.
So does the contingency of every part of the universe imply that the universe as a whole is contingent? Apparently not. For in order for the universe to be necessarily existent, it need only be the case that there must exist something rather than nothing; it need not be the case that anything in particular must exist, just that at least one of the many things that might exist must exist, no matter which one it is.
A necessary universe might therefore be composed entirely of contingent parts. The contingency of the parts of the universe therefore does not imply that the universe as a whole is contingent. It might be that even though every part of the universe is contingent, the universe itself is not. It might be that even though it is not necessary that the universe exist in one particular form rather than in any other, the universe had to exist in some form; it could not have failed to exist altogether.
The argument from the contingency of the parts of the universe, then, may not establish that the universe itself is contingent. However, the idea that the universe is necessary rather than contingent does seem to suspect.
To say that the universe is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. Most impossibilities are easily recognised because they involve obvious logical contradiction. The existence of a square circle is impossible, because the idea of a square circle is self-contradictory.
Where, though, is the logical contradiction in the idea of the universe not existing? There seems to be none; the universe does appear to be contingent.
-
So God is composed of the Holy Spirit Jesus and his Dad and exists because it is those parts added together. That makes (some) sense.God's existence is dependent on parts therefore.Wait. But you said that a thing is the sum of its parts. Therefore, if a thing is dependent on its parts, it is dependent on itself. If it is dependent on itself, it's not contingent because itself is not something else other than itself.
Therefore the dependence of a thing on its parts is not contingency.
God presents Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit simultaneously and indivisible.
The universe presents itself to us as, er, parts.
God is a single substance there are no parts.
The problem is that the universe is contingent No matter how you cut it.
You are denying the meaning of contingency
-
You need to learn the definition of contingency Jeremy.
You need to be clear what you mean by it because you appear to be attempting a rather inept bait-and-switch like con with it. Sell us a 'contingent' universe on the basis it's contingent on its parts (i.e. itself) and then claim a contingent thing can't be contingent on itself.
If you have a logical reason why the universe needs something else to exist, you should be able to make it without using the word 'contingent'. Off you go...
-
God presents Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit simultaneously and indivisible.
The universe presents itself to us as, er, parts.
God is a single substance there are no parts.
The problem is that the universe is contingent No matter how you cut it.
You are denying the meaning of contingency
Comical special pleading.
-
God presents Himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit simultaneously and indivisible.
You say "indivisible". I do not think that word means what you think it means. Something that can be presented as three different things is not indivisible. Just by saying "father" and "son" you have divided the entity.
The universe presents itself to us as, er, parts.
As does God.
God is a single substance there are no parts.
It's because Christians say things like this whilst also claiming there is a father, son and holy spirit, that we think your religion is incoherent.
The problem is that the universe is contingent No matter how you cut it.
The problem is that you haven't shown that the Universe is contingent.
You are denying the meaning of contingency
You are denying the meaning of "indivisible".
-
You say "indivisible". I do not think that word means what you think it means. Something that can be presented as three different things is not indivisible. Just by saying "father" and "son" you have divided the entity.As does God.It's because Christians say things like this whilst also claiming there is a father, son and holy spirit, that we think your religion is incoherent.
The problem is that you haven't shown that the Universe is contingent.You are denying the meaning of "indivisible".
How we present and are perceived is different to what we substantially are.
If we go back to Steve’s diagram.
The Father is God, The son is God, The Holy Spirit is God
The handbreak is not the car, The engine is not the car, The boot is not the car.
Similarly Stars are not the universe, Planets are not the universe, atoms are not the universe.
-
Vlad,
No Hillside, it isn't.
Yes Vlad it is.
The fallacy of composition would be to say the Universe is contingent because it's parts are contingent.
Another would be that the universe must be part of something else because its constituent parts are part of something else (ie, the universe)
That isn't what's being argued.
Yes, you’ve abandoned “the universe is contingent on something else because its parts are contingent on each other” to “the universe is part of something else on because its parts are part of something else”.
It’s still fallacy of composition though: you take a property of the parts (ie, their “partness”) and just assume that partness must also therefore be a property of the universe.
I don’t now why, and you seem determined to not tell us.
What is argued is the Universe is contingent because it has parts.
No, what is asserted (not argued at all) is that the universe is contingent on something else because it’s also contingent on its parts. I have no idea why though as it’s a non sequitur.
Since you seem to want to deny correction I take pleasure in pointing it out for others.
Oh the irony!
-
Comical special pleading.
Comical special pleading would be more in the realm of “Yes, the universe is contingent...but on itself
“
-
Vlad,
Yes Vlad it is.
Another would be that the universe must be part of something else because its constituent parts are part of something else (ie, the universe)
Yes, you’ve abandoned “the universe is contingent on something else because its parts are contingent on each other” to “the universe is part of something else on because its parts are part of something else”.
It’s still fallacy of composition though: you take a property of the parts (ie, their “partness”) and just assume that partness must also therefore be a property of the universe.
I don’t now why, and you seem determined to not tell us.
No, what is asserted (not argued at all) is that the universe is contingent on something else because it’s also contingent on its parts. I have no idea why though as it’s a non sequitur.
Oh the irony!
Since there’s no defence against indestructible ignorance, i’ll Leave it here”
-
Vlad,
Since there’s no defence against indestructible ignorance, i’ll Leave it here”
Meaning, "Since I have no defence against the arguments I can't rebut I'll run away and hope no-one notices".
That's not surprising – after all, you have form for it. You need to remember though that if ever you're daft enough to essay the argument from contingency again the same land mine awaits you: you have no argument to support your assertion that the fact of an entity consisting of (ie, being contingent on) its parts means that the entity must also be part of (ie, be contingent on) something else.
Thanks for trying though.
-
Comical special pleading would be more in the realm of “Yes, the universe is contingent...but on itself
But we are all still waiting for you to make an argument that the universe is contingent on anything else. You keep insisting that it's contingent on its parts but that isn't an external contingency.
You are the only one here who is saying it's contingent on itself.
-
Vlad,
Meaning, "Since I have no defence against the arguments I can't rebut I'll run away and hope no-one notices".
That's not surprising – after all, you have form for it. You need to remember though that if ever you're daft enough to essay the argument from contingency again the same land mine awaits you: you have no argument to support your assertion that the fact of an entity consisting of (ie, being contingent on) its parts means that the entity must also be part of (ie, be contingent on) something else.
Thanks for trying though.
Two quick points further to your invincible ignorance. 1) At no point in this matter have I referred to the universe as part of something. I don't see that as relevant.
2) You and the posse seem to have no trouble with the idea of the universe being part of a multiverse or as one of the serial universes described by Penrose.
-
Vlad,
Two quick points further to your invincible ignorance.
You can't accuse someone of being ignorant of an argument you've shown no sign of having.
1) At no point in this matter have I referred to the universe as part of something. I don't see that as relevant.
So, according to you, the universe isn't part of your god's creation project then?
That's pretty radical for a supposed Christian, but OK. Thanks for clarifying.
2) You and the posse...
I don't have a "posse".
...seem to have no trouble with the idea of the universe being part of a multiverse or as one of the serial universes described by Penrose
No, but I do have a "difficulty" with your unargued assertion that the fact of being made of/contingent on its parts implies that the universe must also be part of/contingent on something else.
Perhaps if you bothered making an argument to that effect rather than implying the argument from composition that difficulty would go away?
What's stopping you? Surely it can't be that you don't actually have that argument can it?
-
Two quick points further to your invincible ignorance. 1) At no point in this matter have I referred to the universe as part of something. I don't see that as relevant.
2) You and the posse seem to have no trouble with the idea of the universe being part of a multiverse or as one of the serial universes described by Penrose.
Still running away from providing the first hint of an argument that the universe must depend on anything else. You can't blame your inability to produce any reasoning on other people's supposed ignorance.
And BTW nobody is saying that the multiverse ideas are necessarily true. They are hypothetical at best.
-
The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.
-
The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.
At last...someone with balls.
-
The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.
Pretty much on board with that - it does mean though that you are now effectively stating the question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is invalid.
Where I disagree is that I'm not convinced that the idea of 'necessary' or 'contingent' makes much sense in this context.
-
At last...someone with balls.
You should know. You are the king of bollocks.
-
You should know. You are the king of bollocks.
That would make you my subject.
-
Pretty much on board with that - it does mean though that you are now effectively stating the question of 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is invalid.
Yes, I know. Having thought about it more, I think that it is indeed invalid.
-
That would make you my subject.
To the guillotine!
-
Yes, I know. Having thought about it more, I think that it is indeed invalid.
Kudos!
-
The parts of the universe being contingent does not mean that the universe is contingent. In fact, I am going to argue that the universe's existence is necessary. One property of a necessarily-existing thing is that it's impossible to imagine it not existing without falling into a logical contradiction, and that, I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the case with the universe itself: how can absolutely nothing exist - bear in mind that that means not only physical objects, but time and space? It can't - ergo, the universe exists necessarily.
One minor caveat - A universe is necessary, but it doesn't have to be THIS universe.
-
Vlad,
So are we done here now? Your argument-free assertion remains: “The universe comprises the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than the sum of its parts”.
I have no idea why you think this and nor, despite numerous invitations to tell us, do you seem inclined to tell us why you think this.
Oh well. Feel free to come back to it though if ever you do find a logically sound justifying argument for that “therefore” that you’re prepared to share.
-
Vlad,
So are we done here now? Your argument-free assertion remains: “The universe comprises the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than the sum of its parts”.
I have no idea why you think this and nor, despite numerous invitations to tell us, do you seem inclined to tell us why you think this.
Oh well. Feel free to come back to it though if ever you do find a logically sound justifying argument for that “therefore” that you’re prepared to share.
Dear old Hillside, somebody abandons him because of his invincible ignorance and he thinks he's won.
-
How we present and are perceived is different to what we substantially are.
Another kind of division.
If we go back to Steve’s diagram.
The Father is God, The son is God, The Holy Spirit is God
But they are not each other (don't leave out the lines round the perimeter of Steve's diagram) - hence God is divisible
The handbreak is not the car
Certainly not. The hand break is best sent to A&E.
The engine is not the car, The boot is not the car.
And Jesus is not identical with God because there are two other persons involved as well.
-
One minor caveat - A universe is necessary, but it doesn't have to be THIS universe.
Go Steve!
-
Go Steve!
Still waiting for your argument, Vlad.
-
Go Steve!
So you agree with him that 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is an invalid question?
-
Yes, I know. Having thought about it more, I think that it is indeed invalid.
No it isn't. Your argument that the Universe is necessary is simply an answer to it. It's stating "the Universe couldn't not exist".
I don't like it because arguments about the real world that rely only on logical deduction set alarm bells ringing in my head. I suspect there is a flaw in it.
-
No it isn't. Your argument that the Universe is necessary is simply an answer to it. It's stating "the Universe couldn't not exist".
I don't like it because arguments about the real world that rely only on logical deduction set alarm bells ringing in my head. I suspect there is a flaw in it.
So do you think that the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' Is a valid one?
-
So you agree with him that 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' is an invalid question?
I'm not sure where we(you) are with this.
It is an invalid question, it might be an invalid question or it's a question that has been answered I.e. "there isn't nothing because there is a necessary being". Which is it?
-
Dear old Hillside, somebody abandons him because of his invincible ignorance and he thinks he's won.
Dear old Walt, patronising other people within an inch of their lives when he himself is hopelessly confused, and doesn't even know how to use apostrophes correctly.
-
I'm not sure where we(you) are with this.
It is an invalid question, it might be an invalid question or it's a question that has been answered I.e. "there isn't nothing because there is a necessary being". Which is it?
It's that I don't think it's been shown to be valid. That's covered in my replies to Steve on this.
-
Vlad,
Dear old Hillside, somebody abandons him because of his invincible ignorance and he thinks he's won.
If you want to accuse someone of ignorance, then you need to demonstrate that there’s something they’re ignorant of. The only contender for that here is a justifying argument for your assertion that the fact of the universe being made of parts means it must also be contingent on something other than the sum of those parts.
I’ve asked you multiple times for that argument (as have others) and you’ve failed to provide it. What then is it that you’re accusing me of being ignorant about?
-
It's that I don't think it's been shown to be valid. That's covered in my replies to Steve on this.
Is that might be invalid or invalid until shown to be valid or what?
-
Vlad,
I've also by the way asked you why you won't provide an argument to justify your unargued "therefore" assertion but, predictably, it seems you don't want to or can't tell us that either.
Oh well– 'twas ever thus with you I guess.
-
Is that might be invalid or invalid until shown to be valid or what?
If the claim is that it is a valid question, then you need to show that it is valid. Again, I've covered this in my replies to Steve on this in some detail and it would appear that you haven't read them, so please do, and get back if you are still unclear about my position.
-
Another kind of division.
But they are not each other (don't leave out the lines round the perimeter of Steve's diagram) - hence God is divisible
Certainly not. The hand break is best sent to A&E.
And Jesus is not identical with God because there are two other persons involved as well.
So you would say that molten Gold is not identical with gold because there is solid gold and gold vapour then.
Also if Jesus is not identical with God and the Father is not identical with God and the spirit is not identical with God then what is God?......of course christianity disagrees with you.
.
-
I'm not sure an answer then invalidates a question. Where one of the two or both alternatives is clearly wrong then it might be invalid question.
I did suggest why existence rather than non existence. Since we know both these alternatives to be a thing and even why physics rather than not physics. Given the existence of contingent things....and the contingent nature of that existence.
eh?
-
So you would say that molten Gold is not identical with gold because there is solid gold and gold vapour then.
Also if Jesus is not identical with God and the Father is not identical with God and the spirit is not identical with God then what is God?......of course christianity disagrees with you.
And the comedy continues. Having bravely run away from trying to defend your claim that the universe depends on anything else, we now go back to your special pleading about a composite, three-part God.
Remember this:
If the universe has parts it is contingent
Since we can ask why those parts and why that arrangement.
So why a father, son, and holy spook, rather than other things, just one, or two, or four, or ten thousand, for that matter....?
-
And the comedy continues. Having bravely run away from trying to defend your claim that the universe depends on anything else, we now go back to your special pleading about a composite, three-part God.
Remember this:
So why a father, son, and holy spook, rather than other things, just one, or two, or four, or ten thousand, for that matter....?
God transcendent, God incarnate and God immanent.
Doesn’t quite work with Car handbreak, Car hubcap, Car engine.
Of course transcendence etc not measurable and not specially specifically available at Halfords.
-
Vlad,
Of course transcendence etc not measurable and not specially specifically available at Halfords.
And nor is it distinguishable by any method you can propose from "it's magic innit?" bullshit.
So anyway... still no progress on you finally providing a justifying argument for your unqualified assertion "the universe is the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than its parts"?
Ooh, here's a thought - maybe your justification for that unargued "therefore" is "because magic" too!
Am I right?
-
God transcendent, God incarnate and God immanent.
Still running away. This doesn't stop me asking the questions that you said made something contingent. You cannot support the universe being contingent and you cannot defend your God against the very 'arguments' you use for the universe.
It's all a bit of a shitshow, isn't it?
Doesn’t quite work with Car handbreak, Car hubcap, Car engine.
Of course transcendence etc not measurable and not specially specifically available at Halfords.
And, of course, the comparison doesn't work for the universe and its parts either.
-
Vlad,
And nor is it distinguishable by any method you can propose from "it's magic innit?" bullshit.
So anyway... still no progress on you finally providing a justifying argument for your unqualified assertion "the universe is the sum of its parts, therefore the universe is contingent on something other than its parts"?
Ooh, here's a thought - maybe your justification for that unargued "therefore" is "because magic" too!
Am I right?
Magic, Hillside, is a contingent thing contingent on itself.
-
Still running away. This doesn't stop me asking the questions that you said made something contingent. You cannot support the universe being contingent and you cannot defend your God against the very 'arguments' you use for the universe.
It's all a bit of a shitshow, isn't it?
And, of course, the comparison doesn't work for the universe and its parts either.
If you say the universe is the sum of parts it is a contingent thing end of.
If you say it's necessity emerges from the sum of the things in it that is an absurdity and contradicts some of your arguments on consciousness IMV
-
Vlad,
Magic, Hillside, is a contingent thing contingent on itself.
No, “magic” is the meaningless place where you always end up once your various Poundland philosophies for “god” – argument from contingency, “objective” morality, “I have special discernment powers that you saps lack” etc – have run out of road and collapsed under the weight of their own stupidities.
By all means if you’re capable of it tell us finally how you’d justify the “therefore” of “the universe is contingent on its parts, therefore it’s also contingent on something other than its parts” but as it seems unlikely you ever will (or can), once again you’re dead in the water on this one.
Thanks for playing though.
-
Vlad,
If you say the universe is the sum of parts it is a contingent thing end of.
Yes, to the extent that it consists of its parts then it’s “contingent” on those parts. Now then, how do you propose to jump from that to “and also therefore it’s contingent on something other than its parts”?
It’s ok, we can wait…
If you say it's necessity emerges from the sum of the things in it that is an absurdity and contradicts some of your arguments on consciousness IMV
He doesn’t. What he does say is that you made an assertion that the universe cannot be necessary, but you won't or can't justify that claim with an argument. Try to remember this.
-
If you say the universe is the sum of parts it is a contingent thing end of.
Stamping your little foot and repeating yourself is not an argument. Make your case without hiding behind the word 'contingent'.
Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?
-
Vlad,
No, “magic” is the vacuous claim you always end with once your various Poundland philosophies for “god” – argument from contingency, “objective” morality, “I have special discernment powers that you saps lack” etc – have run out of road and collapsed under the weight of their own stupidities.
By all means of you’re capable of it tell us finally how you’d justify the “therefore” of “the universe is contingent on its parts, therefore it’s also contingent on something other than its parts” but as it seems unlikely you ever will (or can), once again you’re dead in the water on this one.
Thanks for playing though.
Have you actually defined what you mean by Universe.
Also absurd are circular hierarchies of looped causation which inevitably lead to the absurdity of self contingency.
-
Have you actually defined what you mean by Universe.
Also absurd are circular hierarchies of looped causation which inevitably lead to the absurdity of self contingency.
Run Vald, run!!!
When did you become confused about what the universe is? How do you know it's 'contingent' if you don't know what it is?
Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?
-
Vlad,
Have you actually defined what you mean by Universe.
Have you actually defined what you mean by "leprechauns"? If you want to make an unargued assertion about "the universe" (ie, that it cannot be "necessary") and you think the meaning of that term is unclear then it's your job to tell us what you mean by it, not mine. All I have to do it to point out that – so far at least – you've utterly failed to justify your claim about that universe with an argument.
Also absurd are circular hierarchies of looped causation which inevitably lead to the absurdity of self contingency.
Unless you special plead an "it's magic innit?" god conjecture right? You tell us that you think "the universe" cannot be necessary on the ludicrous ground "universe contingent on its parts = therefore universe contingent on something other than its parts". You can keep ducking and diving all you like but you still have a gaping hole where the justifying argument for your claim should be.
Try to remember this too.
-
Vlad,
Have you actually defined what you mean by "leprechauns"? If you want to make an unargued assertion about "the universe" (ie, that it cannot be "necessary") and you think the meaning of that term is unclear then it's your job to tell us what you mean by it, not mine. All I have to do it to point out that – so far at least – you've utterly failed to justify your claim about that universe with an argument.
Unless you special plead an "it's magic innit?" god conjecture right? You tell us that you think "the universe" cannot be necessary on the ludicrous ground "universe contingent on its parts = therefore universe contingent on something other than its parts". You can keep ducking and diving all you like but you still have a gaping hole where the justifying argument for your claim should be.
Try to remember this too.
I'm sorry Hillside but nothing which is contingent can be necessary..
JeremyP realises this since he wants to argue the contingency of God.
-
I'm sorry Hillside but nothing which is contingent can be necessary..
Isn't it time to stop running away yet? "It's contingent because it has parts and contingent things always depend on something external" is a blatant non sequitur.
Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?
JeremyP realises this since he wants to argue the contingency of God.
I think he's probably just having fun pointing out your inconsistency, and he's right. Your God is subject the exactly the same questions that you claimed made something contingent.
Your 'argument' is a logical clusterfuck.
-
Isn't it time to stop running away yet? "It's contingent because it has parts and contingent things always depend on something external" is a blatant non sequitur.
Where is the logic that goes from being a 'sum of parts' to 'depends on something else'?
I think he's probably just having fun pointing out your inconsistency, and he's right. Your God is subject the exactly the same questions that you claimed made something contingent.
Your 'argument' is a logical clusterfuck.
No running Stranger, if it's contingent it's not necessary.
The sum of something is a resultant ...and therefore a contingent. If it is contingent we have to ask "what on"? Them's the breaks.
Imo you are just introducing absurdities. If a group of contingent things could become necessary(absurd)...how large would it have to be? Then there is the question "If a huge collection of contingencies results in a necessary entity(absurd)
Why couldn't one contingent be necessary(absurd).
These aren't MY PROBLEMS since they arise from your objections.
-
No running Stranger, if it's contingent it's not necessary.
The sum of something is a resultant ...and therefore a contingent. If it is contingent we have to ask "what on"? Them's the breaks.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Still running away and playing with words. How did you get from having parts (like your God) to 'resultant'? Result of what? The universe is a four-dimensional object. It can't be a 'result'.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Still running away and playing with words. How did you get from having parts (like your God) to 'resultant'? Result of what? The universe is a four-dimensional object. It can't be a 'result'.
Block time? Why that block and not another? Time an illusion? What is it that could possibly illuded? Can something that is scanning through the block actually be part of it? As far as I can see a block universe is as immune from being contingent.as any other.
It's how theologians have thought God has perceived the Universe......for centuries.
-
Block time? Why that block and not another?
Why father, son and holy spook, rather than something different?
Still no reasoning from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'.
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry Hillside but nothing which is contingent can be necessary..
I’m sorry Vlad but just re-defining your claim to hide it isn’t helping you either. If you now want to confine yourself to “something made of parts is contingent on those parts”, so what? If though you want to cling to your actual claim, namely “being made of parts means the universe must be contingent on something other than those parts” then still you have all your work ahead of you to make an argument to justify it.
What should we make of your continued running way rather than making that argument?
JeremyP realises this since he wants to argue the contingency of God.
Anyone who owns a bike or makes a cake knows this. So what though?
-
Why father, son and holy spook, rather than something different?
Still no reasoning from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'.
Since God is the necessary being, he does what he likes and reveals himself however he likes.
-
Vlad,
I’m sorry Vlad but just re-defining your claim to hide it isn’t helping you either. If you now want to confine yourself to “something made of parts is contingent on those parts”, so what? If though you want to cling to your actual claim, namely “being made of parts means the universe must be contingent on something other than those parts” then still you have all your work ahead of you to make an argument to justify it.
What should we make of your continued running way rather than making that argument?
Anyone who owns a bike or makes a cake knows this. So what though?
Hillside, you know the rules, you have a collection of contingent things in front of you. Your time starts now.
-
Vlad,
Hillside, you know the rules, you have a collection of contingent things in front of you. Your time starts now.
I don't need time - my request for your justifying argument for your claim remains open. You on the other hand have had the clock ticking since you were asked to justify your assertion "a universe contingent on its parts must therefore also be contingent on something other than those parts".
How long should we give it before you're timed out would you say? Another hour? Another day perhaps?
The clock's ticking...
-
Since God is the necessary being, he does what he likes and reveals himself however he likes.
Now back to unargued assertion. ::)
Still no reasoning from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'.
-
Now back to unargued assertion. ::)
Still no reasoning from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'.
Really? What else could control a necessary being?
-
Really? What else could control a necessary being?
I have no idea how that is an answer to anything I said. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
What are you wittering about? Anything but address the point, I guess.
Still no reasoning from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'.
-
Vlad,
FYI it's now been an hour since I last asked you again for an argument to justify your assertion "universe contingent on its parts, therefore universe also contingent on something other than its parts".
Do you need a bit more time to get your ducks in a row on that - another hour perhaps? Maybe two?
-
Really? What else could control a necessary being?
Your claim, your burden of proof still. Even if you disprove other ideas it does nothing to support your own unsubstantiated claims.
O.
-
Your claim, your burden of proof still. Even if you disprove other ideas it does nothing to support your own unsubstantiated claims.
O.
At the moment, having stated that the universe is the resultant of all contingent things Stranger and Hillside are left with a load of contingent stuff they Don 't seem to know what to do with.
The answer to contingency is the necessary entity and that is independent of the things contingent on it.
Hillside doesn't want to take it from me? Fine. He's the one left with all that contingency.
-
At the moment, having stated that the universe is the resultant of all contingent things Stranger and Hillside are left with a load of contingent stuff they Don 't seem to know what to do with.
Nobody is stuck here except for you. You have declared that the universe has parts and must therefore depend on something else that isn't a part or the whole, but you cannot provide any argument to link the two.
So there you are stuck with nothing but your comforting little contingency/necessity mantras.
Where is the logic that goes from 'having parts' to 'depends on something else'?
-
Vlad,
At the moment, having stated that the universe is the resultant of all contingent things Stranger and Hillside are left with a load of contingent stuff they Don 't seem to know what to do with.
Gibberish. What are you even trying to say here?
The answer to contingency is the necessary entity and that is independent of the things contingent on it.
No it isn’t when the only contingency so far is the contingency of the universe on its component parts. You’ve yet to demonstrate that the universe is contingent on something other than its parts, despite being invited to do so many times now.
Hillside doesn't want to take it from me? Fine. He's the one left with all that contingency.
Hillside doesn’t take it from you your entirely unargued assertion that because the universe is contingent on its parts it must also therefore be contingent on something other than its parts.
There is no “all that contingency” left. Sorry, but them’s the actual breaks.
-
At the moment, having stated that the universe is the resultant of all contingent things Stranger and Hillside are left with a load of contingent stuff they Don 't seem to know what to do with.
Seems to me they've batted that whiffleball straight back into your court with their request that you explain why a universe of potentially contingent things necessarily means the universe is contingent upon something else that you're still avoiding addressing.
The answer to contingency is the necessary entity and that is independent of the things contingent on it.
An answer to contingency, not 'the' answer, unless you've got a hell of a lot more explanation than you're providing here. Last time we were here it was a thousand rounds of you failing to explain why an infinite regress wasn't viable. I guess we just need to find whatever the hell it is that your answers are contingent upon...
O.
-
Seems to me they've batted that whiffleball straight back into your court with their request that you explain why a universe of potentially contingent things necessarily means the universe is contingent upon something else that you're still avoiding addressing.
An answer to contingency, not 'the' answer, unless you've got a hell of a lot more explanation than you're providing here. Last time we were here it was a thousand rounds of you failing to explain why an infinite regress wasn't viable. I guess we just need to find whatever the hell it is that your answers are contingent upon...
O.
Can you show an infinite regress is viable? Surely that's a positive claim that you have to justify?
-
Can you show an infinite regress is viable? Surely that's a positive claim that you have to justify?
Viable, yes. Wherever you've got to in the chain of cause and effect, that has a predicate of some sort. I can't prove that it's the case, but the viability seems inherent to the notion. From memory I believe I was not so much making the claim as positing it as an objection to the need for an 'unmoved mover'.
O.
-
Viable, yes. Wherever you've got to in the chain of cause and effect, that has a predicate of some sort. I can't prove that it's the case, but the viability seems inherent to the notion. From memory I believe I was not so much making the claim as positing it as an objection to the need for an 'unmoved mover'.
O.
So you are just asserting it's viable
-
Seems to me they've batted that whiffleball straight back into your court with their request that you explain why a universe of potentially contingent things necessarily means the universe is contingent upon something else that you're still avoiding addressing.
I should explain why contingent things should be contingent on something? Are you being serious? That's all I'm asking since the reductionists here have the universe as merely the sum of contingent things. They don't have to take notice that anything, being contingent is contingent on something else?
An answer to contingency, not 'the' answer, unless you've got a hell of a lot more explanation than you're providing here. Last time we were here it was a thousand rounds of you failing to explain why an infinite regress wasn't viable. I guess we just need to find whatever the hell it is that your answers are contingent upon...
O.
And infinite regress does not actually provide an answer to what the universe is contingent on.It is the kicking of the can down the road and literally multiplies entities beyond necessity without answering anything. Causal loops do not fare much better.
The universe is contingent because it has parts whether those parts were all contingent beings or necessary beings.
However given the PSR supposing the universe was infinite the question why an infinite universe and not non existence would remain.
As a matter of interest what is it that you guys forbid a necessary entity?
-
So you are just asserting it's viable
No, I'm logically extrapolating from the existing series, in the absence of any strong reason to think that anything changes.
O.
-
No, I'm logically extrapolating from the existing series, in the absence of any strong reason to think that anything changes.
O.
So there's an absence of change in a series of contingent changes?
-
No, I'm logically extrapolating from the existing series, in the absence of any strong reason to think that anything changes.
O.
You are asserting that an inifinite regress is possible. Extrapolating that from a finite approach doesn't work as you haven't shown infinity is possible in this.
-
I should explain why contingent things should be contingent on something? Are you being serious? That's all I'm asking since the reductionists here have the universe as merely the sum of contingent things. They don't have to take notice that anything, being contingent is contingent on something else?
I had a little bet with myself earlier that you'd answer Outrider or NS rather than me or blue who asked you the direct question that you are still running away from. You have said that the universe is made of parts but we are still waiting for you to link that fact to the idea that it must depend on something else that isn't a part or the whole.
And waiting, and waiting, and waiting.....
Where is the logic that goes from 'having parts' to 'depends on something else'?
-
I should explain why contingent things should be contingent on something? Are you being serious?
No, I believe you should explain why a universe that contains contingent things is therefore necessarily contingent itself upon something else.
That's all I'm asking since the reductionists here have the universe as merely the sum of contingent things.
You keep with that sneering, dismissive, 'merely', as though your alternative is superior because it introduces something. Maybe those contingent things are contingent upon the universe, as seems plausible.
And infinite regress does not actually provide an answer to what the universe is contingent on.
It doesn't need to, it's just there to show that you can't necessarily conclude that there must be some ultimately incontingent thing.
It is the kicking of the can down the road and literally multiplies entities beyond necessity without answering anything.
Doesn't have to 'multiply entities' at all, there is just the energy of the cosmos with arranges and rearranges itself manifesting universe after universe after universe, infinitely.
Causal loops do not fare much better.
A little less logically intuitive, but for those of us with, say, a mechanical bent still a better explanation that inexplicably uncaused complex divine being magicked it.
The universe is contingent because it has parts whether those parts were all contingent beings or necessary beings.
That doesn't follow. That the things in the universe are contingent (on, amongst other things, the universe) does not make the universe necessarily contingent upon anything else.
As a matter of interest what is it that you guys forbids a necessary entity?
I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's 'well where did that come from?'
O.
-
So there's an absence of change in a series of contingent changes?
Not necessarily, but you'd need to show not just that a fundamental change from contingent causes to non-contingent ones was not just possible but necessary or it remains viable.
You are asserting that an inifinite regress is possible. Extrapolating that from a finite approach doesn't work as you haven't shown infinity is possible in this.
I don't need to show that, I just need to show that cause and effect chaining is viable - which we see that it is from everyday experience. I'm not trying to prove that it definitively is the case, just that it's a possibility - infinity isn't something I need to demonstrate, it's the conclusion of a chain in which each element appears to have a predicate.
O.
-
I had a little bet with myself earlier that you'd answer Outrider or NS rather than me or blue who asked you the direct question that you are still running away from. You have said that the universe is made of parts but we are still waiting for you to link that fact to the idea that it must depend on something else that isn't a part or the whole.
And waiting, and waiting, and waiting.....
Where is the logic that goes from 'having parts' to 'depends on something else'?
I haven't posted anything to Vlad on this today so why would he answer me?
-
Vlad,
I should explain why contingent things should be contingent on something? Are you being serious?
No, as you’re the one who asserts that a universe contingent on its parts must also therefore be contingent on something else, you should explain with an argument why you think that if you want to claim to be taken seriously.
So far though all you’ve done is to run away from providing that argument.
That's all I'm asking since the reductionists here have the universe as merely the sum of contingent things.
No the supposed “reductionists” don’t. The rationalists here on the other hand merely ask you to justify your claim that the universe must be contingent on something other than its parts. It would help if you stopped lying about that.
They don't have to take notice that anything, being contingent is contingent on something else?
All “they” have to do is to notice that you endlessly avoid justifying your claim with an argument.
And infinite regress does not actually provide an answer to what the universe is contingent on.
Begging the question fallacy. Yet again, why do you think the universe must be contingent on anything other than its parts?
It is the kicking of the can down the road and literally multiplies entities beyond necessity without answering anything. Causal loops do not fare much better.
It’s “God” that doesn’t answer anything – it just relocates the “why universe” question to “why god?”.
Try to remember this.
The universe is contingent because it has parts whether those parts were all contingent beings or necessary beings.
Which has nothing to do with your still unargued assertion that because the universe consists of parts it must therefore also be contingent on something other than its parts.
Try to remember this too.
However given the PSR supposing the universe was infinite the question why an infinite universe and not non existence would remain.
Perhaps. But a “don’t know” to that even if it is a valid question would tell you nothing at all about your conjecture “God”.
As a matter of interest what is it that you guys forbid a necessary entity?
As a matter of interest, why are you so keen on straw men? No-one here “forbids” it. What “we” do say though is that when you assert one into existence you should justify that claim with an argument rather than begin and end with just the assertion.
Doubtless I’m wasting my time again here, but do you ever intend to attempt a least an argument to support your assertion that a universe contingent on its parts means that universe must therefore also be contingent on something other than its parts?
Ever?
Ever ever?
-
So do you think that the question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' Is a valid one?
Yes.
-
Yes.
Please justify that claim.
-
Please justify that claim.
It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer.
In fact, it seems dubious to me that questions can separated into "valid" and "invalid".
-
It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer.
In fact, it seems dubious to me that questions can separated into "valid" and "invalid".
So can green ideas sleep furiously?
-
Jeremy,
It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer.
In fact, it seems dubious to me that questions can separated into "valid" and "invalid".
But it’s ambiguous too. Does the questioner mean “what phenomena caused X to exist?” (basically a valid “how” question) or, “for what reason did a purposive entity cause X?” (a “why” question that's invalid because it begs a question).
That’s why it’s useful to ask which version the questioner intends when they ask it.
-
So can green ideas sleep furiously?
I don't know. You tell me.
-
I don't know. You tell me.
I am not sure an answer makes sense.
-
Jeremy,
I don't know. You tell me.
You’re missing the point. Your criteria for validity were: “It's a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it. People can provide an answer...”.
To be valid though the question must also be coherent. “So can green ideas sleep furiously?” satisfies your “It’s a question. It's grammatically correct. The punctuation is correct. I can ask it” criteria, but no-one can answer it because it’s also incoherent. It has no meaning, which makes it invalid.
-
Jeremy,
But it’s ambiguous too. Does the questioner mean “what phenomena caused X to exist?” (basically a valid “how” question) or, “for what reason did a purposive entity cause X?” (a “why” question that's invalid because it begs a question).
That’s why it’s useful to ask which version the questioner intends when they ask it.
Does it make logically coherent sense to talk of nothing in this context?
-
Jeremy,
But it’s ambiguous too. Does the questioner mean “what phenomena caused X to exist?”
I think that's the most reasonable interpretation.
(basically a valid “how” question) or, “for what reason did a purposive entity cause X?” (a “why” question that's invalid because it begs a question).
That's not what "begs the question" means. Begging the question is where an argument assumes its conclusion.
The second interpretation assumes facts not in evidence, but that doesn't make the first interpretation invalid.
-
NS,
Does it make logically coherent sense to talk of nothing in this context?
Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean as in "why something rather than nothing?"? I was referring only to grammatical correctness not being a sufficient criterion for validity, but as to this larger question I don't know, though "nothing" has sufficient meaning colloquially at least I'd have thought to make conversation about it at least possible.
-
NS,
Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean as in "why something rather than nothing?"? I was referring only to grammatical correctness not being a sufficient criterion for validity, but as to this larger question I don't know, though "nothing" has sufficient meaning colloquially at least I'd have thought to make conversation about it at least possible.
Given the context is the question being discussed, I thought that was clear.
-
Jeremy,
I think that's the most reasonable interpretation.
You might but the questioner might not. Unless you clarify, suddenly a purposive entity (eg, “god”) is treated as if it was a valid premise. That’s the problem with the ambiguity in a "why" question.
That's not what "begs the question" means. Begging the question is where an argument assumes its conclusion.
Yes it is. The conclusion here is that there’s a purposive entity to determine the “why”, and it’s assumed in the question if the questioner intended it that way.
The second interpretation assumes facts not in evidence, but that doesn't make the first interpretation invalid.
Yes it does – if the premise is just assumed then the question is invalid. Is “why are leprechauns musical?” a valid question? Why not?
-
NS,
Given the context is the question being discussed, I thought that was clear.
Not to me because the context was the insufficiency of grammatical correctness alone for the validity of a question (which was your point I think), not the prior discussion about why something rather than nothing.
-
NS,
Not to me because the context was the insufficiency of grammatical correctness alone for the validity of a question (which was your point I think), not the prior discussion about why something rather than nothing.
I apologise that it was not clear but it's what I meant. So now that's cleared up....
-
Now back to unargued assertion. ::)
Still no reasoning from 'has parts' to 'depends on something else'.
Most of us understand the difference between contingence and necessity, but Walt Disnae.
-
Most of us understand the difference between contingence and necessity, but Walt Disnae.
I don't think that's true since some are having difficulty with necessity.
You have said the universe is the necessary entity but not necessarily this one......suggesting you are confused about it.
Outrider has on the face of it proposed a universe which is not just the sum of contingent things....if I have him right.
-
Vlad,
I don't think that's true since some are having difficulty with necessity.
You have said the universe is the necessary entity but not necessarily this one......suggesting you are confused about it.
Outrider has on the face of it proposed a universe which is not just the sum of contingent things....if I have him right.
Have you managed to come up with an argument yet to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
Something?
Anything?
-
Vlad,
Have you managed to come up with an argument yet to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
Something?
Anything?
Any composite is dependent on it's parts and is therefore contingent on those parts. If those parts are contingent then we have to ask what it is they are contingent on I.e where the necessity lies.
Necessity does not emerge.
The universe could be redefined to include a necessity as well as contingent things but as a composite it is still a contingent
You're very welcome.
-
No, I believe you should explain why a universe that contains contingent things is therefore necessarily contingent itself upon something else.
A universe that contains contingent things.....rather than a universe that is the sum of contingent things?
You keep with that sneering, dismissive, 'merely', as though your alternative is superior because it introduces something. Maybe those contingent things are contingent upon the universe, as seems plausible.
Do you not see the circularity here?
The things that make up the universe are dependent for their existence on the universe?
The universe is actually contingent on the contingent things in the universe which are contingent on........?
Now, if you say the necessary entity part I can live with that provided we share the same conception of what the necessary being is
It doesn't need to, it's just there to show that you can't necessarily conclude that there must be some ultimately incontingent thing.
Doesn't have to 'multiply entities' at all, there is just the energy of the cosmos with arranges and rearranges itself manifesting universe after universe after universe, infinitely.
A little less logically intuitive, but for those of us with, say, a mechanical bent still a better explanation that inexplicably uncaused complex divine being magicked it.
That doesn't follow. That the things in the universe are contingent (on, amongst other things, the universe) does not make the universe necessarily contingent upon anything else.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's 'well where did that come from?'
O.
First of all as Steve has pointed out, why this universe and not another. Why this universe and not non existence.
Of course extrapolating a set is valid in maths. Is it valid though in physics?
-
Vlad,
Any composite is dependent on it's parts and is therefore contingent on those parts.
Okaaaay…
If those parts are contingent then we have to ask what it is they are contingent on I.e where the necessity lies.
Not according to you we don’t. Just a few posts ago you told us that the contingent character of the parts wasn’t relevant to your assertion that the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else. It would help if you made your mind up about which horse you’re riding here.
In any case though, in a wholly a determinative model the parts are “contingent on” their antecedent parts.
Necessity does not emerge.
Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?
The universe could be redefined to include a necessity as well as contingent things but as a composite it is still a contingent
On its component parts, yes. That’s not your assertion though is it. Your assertion is that the fact of being composed of parts (whether or not those parts are contingent) means that the universe itself must also therefore be contingent on something other than the parts of which it’s composed.
You’ve been invited over and over again to justify this so far unargued assertion with an argument but all you’ve done in reply is duck and dive or just run away. So here we go again:
How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
You're very welcome.
For what – yet more of your evasiveness? Wouldn’t it be more honest just to say something like, “OK fine, I concede that I have no argument to justify my assertion and I therefore withdraw it”?
Surely it's better to be honestly wrong than dishonestly wrong isn't it?
Isn't it though?
-
Vlad,
Okaaaay…
Not according to you we don’t. Just a few posts ago you told us that the contingent character of the parts wasn’t relevant to your assertion that the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else. It would help if you made your mind up about which horse you’re riding here.
In any case though, in a wholly a determinative model the parts are “contingent on” their antecedent parts.
Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?
On its component parts, yes. That’s not your assertion though is it. Your assertion is that the fact of being composed of parts (whether or not those parts are contingent) means that the universe itself must also therefore be contingent on something other than the parts of which it’s composed.
You’ve been invited over and over again to justify this so far unargued assertion with an argument but all you’ve done in reply is duck and dive or just run away. So here we go again:
How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
For what – yet more of your evasiveness? Wouldn’t it be more honest just to say something like, “OK fine, I concede that I have no argument to justify my assertion and I therefore withdraw it”?
Surely it's better to be honestly wrong than dishonestly wrong isn't it?
Isn't it though?
Hillside
I've shown the universe is contingent. Mission accomplished.
If the universe is comprised of parts and you say they are contingent then we have to ask what they are contingent on.
To say the universe is contingent on it's parts and the parts are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.
Read the Wikipedia entry on the Cosmological argument.
The only one who really gets this I think is Jeremy P.
-
Vlad,
I've shown the universe is contingent. Mission accomplished.
Bullshit. All you’ve “shown” so far is that the universe is contingent on its parts, but that’s not your claim. Your claim is that, because the universe is contingent on its parts, it’s also therefore contingent on something other than its parts.
If the universe is comprised of parts and you say they are contingent then we have to ask what they are contingent on.
I told you that in my last Reply – in a determinative model the parts are contingent on their antecedent parts. It’s not difficult.
To say the universe is contingent on it's parts and the parts are contingent on the universe is a circular argument.
No it isn’t – it’s just an observation of the inter-relationship between the two.
Read the Wikipedia entry on the Cosmological argument.
Does that answer the question you keep running away from, namely:
How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
If it doesn’t, why don’t you answer it instead as that’s your claim?
The only one who really gets this I think is Jeremy P.
I’m not aware that Jeremy knows either how you’d propose to justify your claim that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be continent on something else, but no doubt he will tell is whether he’s managed to guess at the argument you either don’t have or are determined to keep a secret.
If you do have a justifying argument for your claim though, why would you insist on keeping it a secret?
Hmmm…
-
Vlad,
Bullshit. All you’ve “shown” so far is that the universe is contingent on its parts, but that’s not your claim. Your claim is that, because the universe is contingent on its parts, it’s also therefore contingent on something other than its parts.
I told you that in my last Reply – in a determinative model the parts are contingent on their antecedent parts. It’s not difficult.
No it isn’t – it’s just an observation of the inter-relationship between the two.
Does that answer the question you keep running away from, namely:
How would you propose to justify your assertion that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
If it doesn’t, why don’t you answer it instead as that’s your claim?
I’m not aware that Jeremy knows either how you’d propose to justify your claim that a universe being contingent on its parts means it must also therefore be continent on something else, but no doubt he will tell is whether he’s managed to guess at the argument you either don’t have or are determined to keep a secret.
If you do have a justifying argument for your claim though, why would you insist on keeping it a secret?
Hmmm…
Again. If the the Universe is contingent on it's parts, what are the parts contingent on? It can't be the universe. It can't be each other.....causal loops and that.
-
First of all as Steve has pointed out, why this universe and not another. Why this universe and not non existence.
I said "and not another". I didnot say "...and not non-existence". I was suggesting that the universe might be necessary, even though all its components are contingent (which isn't contradictory) by pointing out that strict non-existence - no time or space, let alone physical objects - might be logically contradictory. NB - "might be". It's a suggestion, not an assertion.
-
I said "and not another". I didnot say "...and not non-existence". I was suggesting that the universe might be necessary, even though all its components are contingent (which isn't contradictory) by pointing out that strict non-existence - no time or space, let alone physical objects - might be logically contradictory. NB - "might be". It's a suggestion, not an assertion.
OK I accept your point. You are suggesting though that the universe could have been different...which makes it contingent since there is a reason why this universe and not another.
I acknowledge that "or no universe" was my suggestion.
If you are suggesting something must exist....I'd agree.
-
OK I accept your point. You are suggesting though that the universe could have been different...which makes it contingent since there is a reason why this universe and not another.
I acknowledge that "or no universe" was my suggestion.
If you are suggesting something must exist....I'd agree.
OK, THIS universe is contingent, but A universe is necessary.
-
Again. If the the Universe is contingent on it's parts, what are the parts contingent on?
I dunno, this is your claim and your 'argument'.
It can't be the universe. It can't be each other.....causal loops and that.
Why not? Name something that clearly depends on something else but that something else isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself. I'm not going to indulge your use of the terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' because you seem to be making shit up about them and changing your definitions as you go along.
So, we need a dependency that is clearly on something that isn't the universe or a part thereof....
-
I dunno, this is your claim and your 'argument'.
Why not? Name something that clearly depends on something else but that something else isn't a part of the universe or the universe itself. I'm not going to indulge your use of the terms 'contingent' and 'necessary' because you seem to be making shit up about them and changing your definitions as you go along.
So, we need a dependency that is clearly on something that isn't the universe or a part thereof....
Causal loops give rise to somethings being contingent on themselves which is absurd and precisely the thing to avoid if you want to eliminate necessity.
You can't avoid contingency and infinite regress is what is known as vicious in that it never solves the contingency.
-
Causal loops give rise to somethings being contingent on themselves which is absurd and precisely the thing to avoid if you want to eliminate necessity.
You can't avoid contingency and infinite regress is what is known as vicious in that it never solves the contingency.
As I said, I'm not playing your games with the terminology and I'm not proposing anything myself.
Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?
If you can't answer that, you have no argument.
-
A universe that contains contingent things.....rather than a universe that is the sum of contingent things? Do you not see the circularity here?
Not really, no.
The things that make up the universe are dependent for their existence on the universe?
Plausibly, yes.
The universe is actually contingent on the contingent things in the universe which are contingent on........?
Not necessarily - the whole point is that you've yet to establish in this model why the universe must be contingent on anything.
First of all as Steve has pointed out, why this universe and not another.
Why presume alternates are possible? Why presume any plausible alternatives aren't also out there, somewhere?
Why this universe and not non existence.
Meaningless. Why 'god' rather than 'not god'. If you're positing something as the 'unmoved mover' it doesn't have a 'why'.
Of course extrapolating a set is valid in maths. Is it valid though in physics?
That's literally rocket science.
O.
-
Plausibly, yes.
Your contention, your burden
Not necessarily - the whole point is that you've yet to establish in this model why the universe must be contingent on anything.
What model? I've given two one which is the sum of contingent things and another which contains contingent things and non contingent things Why presume alternates are possible? Why presume any plausible alternatives aren't also out there, somewhere?
Not sure what you are trying to say here
Meaningless. Why 'god' rather than 'not god'.
God is proposed as the necessary being. You are proposing the universe as a candidate. I.e. Not contingent on anything. The problem though is accountancy, namely what is the contingency
In the universe contingent on? If you say the universe, you are saying that the contingent things are contingent on themselves, a causal loop and an absurdity. If you say there is a necessary component of the universe then I can live with that depending on what you understand by it
-
God is proposed as the necessary being.
By your own argument, your composite God is contingent.
The problem though is accountancy, namely what is the contingency
In the universe contingent on? If you say the universe, you are saying that the contingent things are contingent on themselves, a causal loop and an absurdity. If you say there is a necessary component of the universe then I can live with that depending on what you understand by it
Vacuous bullshit.
Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?
-
Vlad,
Just looking in to see whether you’ve made any progress yet with a justifying argument for your assertion that the universe consisting of parts means it must therefore be contingent on something other than its parts. I can see your usual playbook of straw men, shifting the burden of proof, language abuse, diversionary tactics etc but still no justifying argument.
Ah well. Can you think of any reason for me to not conclude that you don’t actually have that argument rather than that you do have it but you want to keep it very, very secret?
-
By your own argument, your composite God is contingent.
We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent
Vacuous bullshit.
Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?
-
Your contention, your burden.
I've shown it's plausible, I don't need to prove it, I'm suggesting it as a possibility.
What model? I've given two one which is the sum of contingent things and another which contains contingent things and non contingent things
The one where you've assumed that because a universe has contingent things in it it must therefore be a contingent thing itself. You know, the one everyone here keeps on at you to explain but you keep failing to do so.
Not sure what you are trying to say here
You've asked, in response to the proposal that the universe is not contingent upon anything else, why this universe rather than another, or why this universe instead of no universe at all - if the universe is non-contingent, then 'why' is meaningless, as by definition it has no cause. Similarly, if the universe is non-contingent, that does not presuppose that other universes (contingent or otherwise) cannot exist.
God is proposed as the necessary being. You are proposing the universe as a candidate. I.e. Not contingent on anything. The problem though is accountancy, namely what is the contingency in the universe contingent on? If you say the universe, you are saying that the contingent things are contingent on themselves, a causal loop and an absurdity.
You are presuming that the universe is the sum of its parts and not, rather, the source of them.
O.
-
We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) No, Vlad, we do not. I'm just pointing out that you're being totally inconsistent, as well as running away from justifying your claim.
Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?
-
Jeremy,
You might but the questioner might not. Unless you clarify, suddenly a purposive entity (eg, “god”) is treated as if it was a valid premise. That’s the problem with the ambiguity in a "why" question.
I think all this is bullshit. When we ask "why is there something rather than nothing?" we are asking for a reason for there being something - any reason. We are not assuming a creator and asking for its purpose in creating something.
I've never seen anybody ask that question in the sense of "why did the creator make the Universe?" - even Christians, although they would claim to have an answer.
-
Jeremy,
I think all this is bullshit. When we ask "why is there something rather than nothing?" we are asking for a reason for there being something - any reason. We are not assuming a creator and asking for its purpose in creating something.
I've never seen anybody ask that question in the sense of "why did the creator make the Universe?" - even Christians, although they would claim to have an answer.
And yet only three Replies before yours Vlad tried to sneak in “We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent” as if “God” was an agreed premise and he and Stranger were just having a doctrinal disagreement about that premise.
That’s the point here. It would be easy to ask “how did the universe come about?” and to have a sensible conversation about that, but change it to a “why” question instead and you leave open the door to legitimising a string of “because god decided X, Y or Z” in reply as if these were legitimate arguments.
“How did little Timmy die? He was run over by an ice cream truck.”
“Why did Little Timmy die? Because god wanted to welcome him to heaven double quick.”
Big difference.
-
Causal loops give rise to somethings being contingent on themselves which is absurd and precisely the thing to avoid if you want to eliminate necessity.
You can't avoid contingency and infinite regress is what is known as vicious in that it never solves the contingency.
"Contingent" means "dependent on something else for its existence". If the Universe is only dependent on its parts for its existence, then it is not contingent because saying something is "dependent only on its parts" is saying it is dependent only on itself. This apparent circularity is easily resolved by saying it came into existence spontaneously or is eternal or is the result of an infinite regress or exists outside of time.
There's another source of confusion caused by the various types of dependency. The Universe is dependent on its parts in the sense that it is made of its parts and perhaps shaped by its parts, but contingency has a narrower meaning. Contingency is more to do with cause. The Universe wasn't caused by its parts. They came into existence during the lifetime of the Universe.
-
Jeremy,
And yet only three Replies before yours Vlad tried to sneak in “We disagree on God being composite but it looks at last we agree on composites being contingent” as if “God” was an agreed premise and he and Stranger were just having a doctrinal disagreement about that premise.
That’s the point here. It would be easy to ask “how did the universe come about?” and to have a sensible conversation about that, but change it to a “why” question instead and you leave open the door to legitimising a string of “because god decided X, Y or Z” in reply as if these were legitimate arguments.
“How did little Timmy die? He was run over by an ice cream truck.”
“Why did Little Timmy die? Because god wanted to welcome him to heaven double quick.”
Big difference.
Nope.
Vlad's answer to "why is there something rather than nothing?" is "Because God created it". His answer begs the question in the correct sense i.e. God is part of the something.
And please stop constructing different questions with different contexts but with the word "why" on the front as if it proved anything. It doesn't.
-
Jeremy,
Nope.
Vlad's answer to "why is there something rather than nothing?" is "Because God created it". His answer begs the question in the correct sense i.e. God is part of the something.
And please stop constructing different questions with different contexts but with the word "why" on the front as if it proved anything. It doesn't.
There are only so many ways I can explain this. If you want to assume that when Vlad (or any other believer in a purposive entity) frames a question as a "why" rather than as a "how" he doesn't do it as a back door to the "because god...." etcs that follow that's up to you. The number of times he/they do though then introduce a reified god as if that premise had been agreed should at least give you pause about this though I'd have thought.
In any case, you are of course free to answer any such "why" question as if it had been framed as a "how" question, just as I'm free to ask for disambiguating clarification first.
-
I've shown it's plausible, I don't need to prove it, I'm suggesting it as a possibility.
Physical infinities and infinite regresses which don't actually answer the problem offered as an answer to the problem plausible? I'm afraid we will have to differ on that
The one where you've assumed that because a universe has contingent things in it it must therefore be a contingent thing itself. You know, the one everyone here keeps on at you to explain but you keep failing to do so.
But that isn't my argument Outrider. MY argument is it is contingent because it is a composite and would be whether it's parts were contingent or necessary
You've asked, in response to the proposal that the universe is not contingent upon anything else, why this universe rather than another, or why this universe instead of no universe at all - if the universe is non-contingent, then 'why' is meaningless, as by definition it has no cause. Similarly, if the universe is non-contingent, that does not presuppose that other universes (contingent or otherwise) cannot exist.
By definition the universe the universe is not contingent? If it is composed of stuff and not a single substance then it is definitionally a contingent
You are presuming that the universe is the sum of its parts and not, rather, the source of them.
What are you trying to say? The universe is not contingent things?
-
If it is composed of stuff and not a single substance then it is definitionally a contingent
And Vlad makes up definitions of words to suit again. If something like string theory is correct, it would be a single substance, of coures, not that it matters much because you're still just running away!
Where in the universe is there anything that depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?
-
Vlad,
...don't actually answer the problem...
Just to be clear here, you're telling someone else that some things they've said "don't actually answer the problem"?
Seriously?
Seriously seriously though?
So, someone who inserts an "it's magic innit?" god to answer the question "why the universe?" as if that actually answers anything at all rather than just special pleads its way to a relocation of the same question about that god has the sheer brass neck to accuse someone else of not answering the problem?
Ooh stop it now – my sides are splitting. I might even lose a kidney of you keep on with it... ;)
PS Any news by the way of your finally producing an argument to justify your assertion about the universe consisting of parts meaning it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
No?
Nothing at all?
Oh well.
-
Vlad,
Just to be clear here, you're telling someone else that some things they've said "don't actually answer the problem"?
Seriously?
Seriously seriously though?
So, someone who inserts an "it's magic innit?" god to answer the question "why the universe?" as if that actually answers anything at all rather than just special pleads its way to a relocation of the same question about that god has the sheer brass neck to accuse someone else of not answering the problem?
Ooh stop it now – my sides are splitting. I might even lose a kidney of you keep on with it... ;)
PS Any news by the way of your finally producing an argument to justify your assertion about the universe consisting of parts meaning it must also therefore be contingent on something else?
No?
Nothing at all?
Oh well.
Fascinating facts about actual infinities and infinite regress.
Infinite regress never answers contingency.
Actual infinities not observed. Weirdly though Feser thinks Lane Craig wrong to dismiss the infinite number of points in any line.
Even more weirdly. I disagree with Feser on this.
-
Vlad,
Fascinating facts about actual infinities and infinite regress.
Infinite regress never answers contingency.
Actual infinities not observed. Weirdly though Feser thinks Lane Craig wrong to dismiss the infinite number of points in any line.
Even more weirdly. I disagree with Feser on this.
Thanks for the diversionary irrelevancies. Now then, shall we get back to the same question you keep avoiding? Can you finally muster an argument to justify your assertion that a universe made of parts means that it must also therefore be contingent on something other than its parts?
Anything?
-
Fascinating facts about actual infinities and infinite regress.
Infinite regress never answers contingency.
Actual infinities not observed. Weirdly though Feser thinks Lane Craig wrong to dismiss the infinite number of points in any line.
Even more weirdly. I disagree with Feser on this.
Irrelevant. Stop running away.
What in the universe depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?
-
Irrelevant. Stop running away.
What in the universe depends on anything that isn't the universe or a part thereof?
Key to your question is that hierarchies of dependence trace to something in the universe that ultimately explains all the parts (contingent things) in the universe or you are suggesting a closed causal loop or set of closed causal loops.
None are observed and would in any case be logically absurd
Let's try a couple of hierarchies
Hierarchy of cosmological structures stars dependent on nebulae dependent on supernova dependent on early stars dependent on early universe dependent on big bang dependent on?
Hierarchy 2 Bodies dependent on tissues dependent on cells dependent on organelles dependent on molecules dependent on atoms dependent on subatomic particles dependent on?
The question should be...what is it that is observed and is not contingent on anything else?
-
Key to your question is that hierarchies of dependence trace to something in the universe that ultimately explains all the parts (contingent things) in the universe or you are suggesting a closed causal loop or set of closed causal loops.
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm trying to get you to back up your own claim. None of this hand-waving does that. If you cannot show that the universe has some external dependence on something else, your 'argument' becomes nothing but an assertion.
-
Let's try a couple of hierarchies
Hierarchy of cosmological structures stars dependent on nebulae dependent on supernova dependent on early stars dependent on early universe dependent on big bang dependent on?
Don't know it depends on anything. If time is finite in the past, it's finite in the past, that's just the shape of space-time.
Hierarchy 2 Bodies dependent on tissues dependent on cells dependent on organelles dependent on molecules dependent on atoms dependent on subatomic particles dependent on?
Quantum fields.
The question should be...what is it that is observed and is not contingent on anything else?
The whole universe does not appear to have any external dependencies.
-
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm trying to get you to back up your own claim. None of this hand-waving does that. If you cannot show that the universe has some external dependence on something else, your 'argument' becomes nothing but an assertion.
Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"
Infinite regression does not answer that, closed causal loops are absurd. A status quo of contingency only is absurd.
All we observe is contingent and we are entitled to ask on what is it contingent. Now all we know is that it is not contingent on anything we can observe or laws of nature.
It took ages for the penny to drop with you and Hillside that I wasn't suggesting that the universe was contingent because the parts were contingent...let's see how long this one takes.
-
Jeremy,
There are only so many ways I can explain this.
Just accept you are wrong.
-
Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"
How can you claim that something depends on something else unless you can identify the something else that it depends on? Currently space-time and quantum fields are are regarded as fundamental, that is, they don't appear to depend on anything else. If some future 'theory of everything' emerges then we may be able to identify something that explains both but then we'd have the same situation in that there would be no obvious further dependency.
What is your justification for assuming something that goes beyond the universe?
Infinite regression does not answer that, closed causal loops are absurd. A status quo of contingency only is absurd.
And a 'necessary entity' is also absurd because it makes zero sense that something would cause a contradiction if it did not exist or was different.
All we observe is contingent and we are entitled to ask on what is it contingent. Now all we know is that it is not contingent on anything we can observe or laws of nature.
See above.
It took ages for the penny to drop with you and Hillside that I wasn't suggesting that the universe was contingent because the parts were contingent...let's see how long this one takes.
What on earth are you wittering about now? You spent ages telling us the the universe was 'contingent' merely because it had parts. It's taken you ages to get round to realising that that didn't make the parts contingent on anything else.
-
Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"
Infinite regression does not answer that
Actually, it does.
, closed causal loops are absurd.
Are they? Why?
A status quo of contingency only is absurd.
Again, why?
-
Actually, it does.
Your contention, your burden
It never answers the question. The argument from contingency though is still good for an infinite universe since time is not invoked.
-
Vlad,
Of course we cannot physically demonstrate what is outside of physics.All we can say is all we observe is contingent which leaves the question "What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?"
No it doesn’t. What is does leave open though is the question, is “What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?” a valid question at all?
Infinite regression does not answer that, closed causal loops are absurd. A status quo of contingency only is absurd.
Just calling something “absurd” isn’t an argument.
All we observe is contingent and we are entitled to ask on what is it contingent. Now all we know is that it is not contingent on anything we can observe or laws of nature.
Tell you what, let’s play a game – let’s pretend the following:
1. Everything we’ve observed so far is contingent on something else – ie, let’s ignore the possibility of “true’ randomness as the quantum level; and
2. We’ve suddenly become omniscient so we know that everything we could observe would also be contingent on something else. That is, we now know that everything observable in the universe is contingent.
All good so far? Good. Now then – and without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition – how would you propose to use that knowledge to justify your unqualified next step of, “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something else"?
How though?
It took ages for the penny to drop with you and Hillside that I wasn't suggesting that the universe was contingent because the parts were contingent...let's see how long this one takes.
There was no “penny drop” – just trying to follow your “thinking” such as it is as you re-define what you think you mean more often than you change your socks.
-
The argument from contingency though is still good...
...for nothing. It involve the absurd claim that something exists that would cause a contradiction if it didn't or was different.
-
Vlad,
No it doesn’t. What is does leave open though is the question, is “What is it all we observe ultimately contingent on?” a valid question at all?
Just calling something “absurd” isn’t an argument.
Tell you what, let’s play a game – let’s pretend the following:
1. Everything we’ve observed so far is contingent on something else – ie, let’s ignore the possibility of “true’ randomness as the quantum level; and
2. We’ve suddenly become omniscient so we know that everything we could observe would also be contingent on something else. That is, we now know that everything observable in the universe is contingent.
All good so far? Good. Now then – and without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition – how would you propose to use that knowledge to justify your unqualified next step of, “therefore the universe itself must be contingent on something else"?
How though?
There was no “penny drop” – just trying to follow your “thinking” such as it is as you re-define what you think you mean more often than you change your socks.
There is humbuggery here. Firstly you accepted Outriders claim that you can deduce an infinity from a part of the set. Fallacy of Composition writ large.
Secondly even if I detected plural contingent parts that still doesn’t affect the sum of contingent parts being composite or that the mere possession of parts, contingent or otherwise spells composition.
The absurdity is in a causal loop things end up causing themselves. You can’t. All you can be by way of existence is necessary .i.e. you are the reason for your own existence. In other words you are employing the very method that gives you precisely what you don’t want....
Have a nice day
-
Vlad,
There is humbuggery here. Firstly you accepted Outriders claim that you can deduce an infinity from a part of the set. Fallacy of Composition writ large.
I haven’t accepted or not accepted anything – I’ve just asked you a question (yet again) that you’ve avoided answering (yet again).
Secondly even if I detected plural contingent parts that still doesn’t affect the sum of contingent parts being composite or that the mere possession of parts, contingent or otherwise spells composition.
Irrelevant gibberish.
The absurdity is in a causal loop things end up causing themselves. You can’t. All you can be by way of existence is necessary .i.e. you are the reason for your own existence. In other words you are employing the very method that gives you precisely what you don’t want....
Have a nice day
Yeah yeah, is that the time already? OK, now you’ve spat the dummy as a diversionary tactic let’s try again:
Without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition, how would you propose to justify your unqualified assertion, “the universe is made of parts, therefore the universe must be contingent on something else"?
Something?
Anything?
Just a clue maybe?
Still nothing?
Oh well.
-
Secondly even if I detected plural contingent parts that still doesn’t affect the sum of contingent parts being composite or that the mere possession of parts, contingent or otherwise spells composition.
Did this mean something to you before you typed it out?
The absurdity is in a causal loop things end up causing themselves. You can’t. All you can be by way of existence is necessary .i.e. you are the reason for your own existence. In other words you are employing the very method that gives you precisely what you don’t want....
Who the hell do you think is suggesting a causal loop? You seem obsessed with building straw men about other people instead of defending the absurdity of a 'necessary entity' and your lack of an argument that gets you there.
-
Did this mean something to you before you typed it out?
Who the hell do you think is suggesting a causal loop? You seem obsessed with building straw men about other people instead of defending the absurdity of a 'necessary entity' and your lack of an argument that gets you there.
Anyone saying the universe is the sum of it’s contingent parts and the source of the contingent parts is the universe has created a causal loop. If something is the reason for itself it is not contingent but necessary.You look as though you want your cake and eat it.
-
Anyone saying the universe is the sum of it’s contingent parts and the source of the contingent parts is the universe has created a causal loop.
Who's talking about a 'source'? Who's talking about causality, for that matter (apart from you, that is)?
If something is the reason for itself it is not contingent but necessary.
Is is?
You look as though you want your cake and eat it.
You really do need to get it into your head that my answer to why there is something rather than nothing is "don't know". All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious gaping holes in your argument.
-
Vlad,
Still no news on how you'd propose (without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition) to justify your unqualified assertion, “the universe is made of parts, therefore the universe must be contingent on something else"?
Endlessly quoting what you consider to be the implausibilities in ideas about the character of the universe that no-one is making in any case is just evasive. How would you propose to justify your assertion about the supposedly necessary causation of the universe?
You do realise that if you keep running for long enough you'll likely just end up where you started right? Wouldn't it be less exhausting instead just to:
1. Try at least to answer the question; or
2. Concede that you have no argument and abandon the hopeless first cause drivel entirely?
-
Your contention, your burden
It's self evident. If it's turtles all the way down, it definitely answers the question of what the elephants are standing on.
It never answers the question. The argument from contingency though is still good for an infinite universe since time is not invoked.
Time is implicit in the concept of cause and effect.
-
It's self evident. If it's turtles all the way down, it definitely answers the question of what the elephants are standing on.
Time is implicit in the concept of cause and effect.
Infinite regression self evident?
Infinite regression suffers from what is known as explanatory failure namely it doesn’t actually answer the question. It assumes that everything has a cause. Something that doesn’t sit well with the concept of brute fact or the suggestion the universe doesn’t have a cause.
-
Infinite regression self evident?
Good try, but check back through the conversation. It's not the infinite regression that is self evident but something else.
Infinite regression suffers from what is known as explanatory failure namely it doesn’t actually answer the question.
Yes it does. It's just as explanatory as the magical being that you postulate and it doesn't require special pleading.
It assumes that everything has a cause. Something that doesn’t sit well with the concept of brute fact
That's funny. It is you who was claiming that everything (except your specially pled magical being) does have a cause.
or the suggestion the universe doesn’t have a cause.
It's true that, if the Universe doesn't have a cause, there's no need for an infinite regress. But that's OK with me, because there's also no need for the specially pled magical being.
-
Good try, but check back through the conversation. It's not the infinite regression that is self evident but something else.
Yes it does. It's just as explanatory as the magical being that you postulate and it doesn't require special pleading.
That's funny. It is you who was claiming that everything (except your specially pled magical being) does have a cause.
That obviously then isn’t everything is it Jeremy?It's true that, if the Universe doesn't have a cause, there's no need for an infinite regress. But that's OK with me, because there's also no need for the specially pled magical being.
How are you defining universe here Jeremy? Contingent things? The sum of contingent things? Contingent things plus a special quality/ tu ne sais pas?
-
That obviously then isn’t everything is it Jeremy?
Can't you read?
How are you defining universe here Jeremy? Contingent things? The sum of contingent things? Contingent things plus a special quality/ tu ne sais pas?
I suggest you get a good dictionary if you don't know what the Universe is.
-
Physical infinities and infinite regresses which don't actually answer the problem offered as an answer to the problem plausible? I'm afraid we will have to differ on that
An assertion and declining to make an argumment; I'll accept that as a concession.
But that isn't my argument Outrider. MY argument is it is contingent because it is a composite and would be whether it's parts were contingent or necessary.
So by the same argument your Christian God, comprising of three components, is a composite and must be contingent as well, no?
By definition the universe the universe is not contingent? If it is composed of stuff and not a single substance then it is definitionally a contingent
Why? That something can be broken down does mean that it is contingent upon those things.
What are you trying to say? The universe is not contingent things?
The universe may well be full of contingent things, but the thing upon which they are contingent could be the universe itself. Your presumption is that the universe is made up of things upon which it is contingent, but the universe could be the source of those things, the relationship could operate the other way round.
O.
-
Why? That something can be broken down does mean that it is contingent upon those things.
But without those components could the thing actually exist? God cannot be broken down, and the necessary entity cannot be broken down.
The universe may well be full of contingent things, but the thing upon which they are contingent could be the universe itself.
If you are saying that contingent things are contingent on something else then we agree. Questions arise though why you call this thing the universe. Surely contingent things are part of the universe. Since nothing is contingent on itself i.e. it is contingent on something else or exists necessarily then in order not to fall into absurdity you would have to propose a non contingent entity from which all contingent things arose Your presumption is that the universe is made up of things upon which it is contingent, but the universe could be the source of those things, the relationship could operate the other way round.
Again to avoid absurdity we must avoid circular contingency. Here you seem to be suggesting that there is a separate entity from which contingent things arise and I have no beef with that
-
But without those components could the thing actually exist?
Without the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, could God exist?
God cannot be broken down
The Christian god can. You break it down into three parts all the time.
and the necessary entity cannot be broken down.
Why not?
If you are saying that contingent things are contingent on something else then we agree. Questions arise though why you call this thing the universe. Surely contingent things are part of the universe. Since nothing is contingent on itself i.e. it is contingent on something else or exists necessarily then in order not to fall into absurdity you would have to propose a non contingent entity from which all contingent things aroseAgain to avoid absurdity we must avoid circular contingency. Here you seem to be suggesting that there is a separate entity from which contingent things arise and I have no beef with that
Why do you describe a circular contingency as absurd?
-
Without the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, could God exist?
Without Ice, steam and water could H2O exist?
The Christian god can. You break it down into three parts all the time.
I break H2O down into 3 states all the time as I do with God
Why do you describe a circular contingency as absurd?
Because something existing before it exists is pretty absurd. And something that only exists because it exists isn’t contingency.
-
But without those components could the thing actually exist?
In the example of the universe - possibly. A universe empty of matter and energy could possibly exist.
God cannot be broken down, and the necessary entity cannot be broken down.
Jeremy beat me to it, but the paradoxical nature of the Trinity suggests that the Christian conventional view is that God can, and often is, broken down. You counter with the notion:
Without Ice, steam and water could H2O exist?
Notwithstanding the sophistry of things like other states of matter, the point is that water is broken down and some of it can be ice whilst some of it is steam and other bits are liquid. For a period, if you accept Christian dogma, part of 'god' was manifest on Earth as a physical human being ('The Son') - if that was the whole of God, was there no 'Holy Ghost' or 'Father' at that time, or can God be broken down?
Surely contingent things are part of the universe.
Maybe, maybe not. Contingency requires time, but time as we understand came into being with the universe, so the whole concept of the universe being contingent or otherwise may be nonsensical. Given how time appears to work, existence is a four-dimensional array, and whilst within the universe we can assess an idea of contingency as a description of the shape of the universe at a given point, the universe is the whole of space-time - time itself is one of those components of the universe, and therefore contingency of the universe itself is at best complicated, and at worst meaningless.
Since nothing is contingent on itself i.e. it is contingent on something else or exists necessarily then in order not to fall into absurdity you would have to propose a non contingent entity from which all contingent things arose
Again, no. I'm still awaiting any sort of rational explanation for why an infinite regress is problematic.
Again to avoid absurdity we must avoid circular contingency. Here you seem to be suggesting that there is a separate entity from which contingent things arise and I have no beef with that
To be clear, I don't see that an 'unmoved mover' is necessary, but given that you've posited one I'm highlighting possibilities that seem to call your assumptions into question.
O.
-
In the example of the universe - possibly. A universe empty of matter and energy could possibly exist.
Jeremy beat me to it, but the paradoxical nature of the Trinity suggests that the Christian conventional view is that God can, and often is, broken down. You counter with the notion:
Notwithstanding the sophistry of things like other states of matter, the point is that water is broken down and some of it can be ice whilst some of it is steam and other bits are liquid. For a period, if you accept Christian dogma, part of 'god' was manifest on Earth as a physical human being ('The Son') - if that was the whole of God, was there no 'Holy Ghost' or 'Father' at that time, or can God be broken down?
Maybe, maybe not. Contingency requires time, but time as we understand came into being with the universe, so the whole concept of the universe being contingent or otherwise may be nonsensical. Given how time appears to work, existence is a four-dimensional array, and whilst within the universe we can assess an idea of contingency as a description of the shape of the universe at a given point, the universe is the whole of space-time - time itself is one of those components of the universe, and therefore contingency of the universe itself is at best complicated, and at worst meaningless.
Again, no. I'm still awaiting any sort of rational explanation for why an infinite regress is problematic.
To be clear, I don't see that an 'unmoved mover' is necessary, but given that you've posited one I'm highlighting possibilities that seem to call your assumptions into question.
O.
I shall address your points in due course. In the meantime you might ponder why people are saying that Alan Burns creates an infinite regress with his ideas of soul and consciousness and why they think it’s logically fallacious because it causes an infinite regress.
-
Notwithstanding the sophistry of things like other states of matter, the point is that water is broken down and some of it can be ice whilst some of it is steam and other bits are liquid. For a period, if you accept Christian dogma, part of 'god' was manifest on Earth as a physical human being ('The Son') - if that was the whole of God, was there no 'Holy Ghost' or 'Father' at that time, or can God be broken down?
According to St Paul in Phillippians, he/it certainly can:
"Who, though being in very nature God, did not seek to grasp equality with God, but humbled himself....."
Bit of a pointless argument for Vlad to be making comparisons between the physically detectable and the hypothetical transcendent, the latter being only arrived at as a result of the deliberations of early Church fathers. Notwithstanding Arianism, the Orthodox still do not agree with the Catholics on God's "composition".
-
According to St Paul in Phillippians, he/it certainly can:
"Who, though being in very nature God, did not seek to grasp equality with God, but humbled himself....."
Bit of a pointless argument for Vlad to be making comparisons between the physically detectable and the hypothetical transcendent, the latter being only arrived at as a result of the deliberations of early Church fathers. Notwithstanding Arianism, the Orthodox still do not agree with the Catholics on God's "composition".
Being in very nature God, Dicky.
-
In the example of the universe - possibly. A universe empty of matter and energy could possibly exist.
It seems then you have no problems with non-physical existence then.
Jeremy beat me to it,
So he is just as crass as you but faster at it but the paradoxical nature of the Trinity
What is paradoxical about it? suggests that the Christian conventional view is that God can, and often is, broken down.
qualities and properties can be listed but God is not a physicomechanical entity with parts or severable bits.
Notwithstanding the sophistry of things like other states of matter,
I am using states as the better analogy of God than parts. Because Jeremy was looking at God with a narrow physicalists mindset he missed it...His oversight,I'm afraid the point is that water is broken down and some of it can be ice whilst some of it is steam and other bits are liquid. For a period, if you accept Christian dogma, part of 'god' was manifest on Earth as a physical human being ('The Son') - if that was the whole of God, was there no 'Holy Ghost' or 'Father' at that time, or can God be broken down?
It is possible to overstretch an analogy and you have done that here by obviously overtaxing the same physicalist mindset as Jeremy. There is also some theology I can't go along with. The son is eternal and not just for christmas or temporary as you say. He is God.
Maybe, maybe not. Contingency requires time, but time as we understand came into being with the universe, so the whole concept of the universe being contingent or otherwise may be nonsensical. Given how time appears to work, existence is a four-dimensional array, and whilst within the universe we can assess an idea of contingency as a description of the shape of the universe at a given point, the universe is the whole of space-time - time itself is one of those components of the universe, and therefore contingency of the universe itself is at best complicated, and at worst meaningless.
Well let's run with contingency requiring time and time coming into being. A non contingent entity does not require time for it's existence, since you've said contingency requires time. Time is required and indeed passes/is created in the actualisation of the very first contingent. In your own scheme then only a non contingent can actualise time and event one. Whether I agree with your initial conditions is another matter. The arguments from contingency and sufficient reason work just as well with an infinite universe since they are about existence rather than coming into existence.
Again, no. I'm still awaiting any sort of rational explanation for why an infinite regress is problematic.
Explanatory failure. It is what is known as a vicious argument which is why your colleagues reject Alan Burns arguments.. It fails to explain why anything exists rather than not existing. It assumes that everything has a cause and no that is not a Christian assumption.
To be clear, I don't see that an 'unmoved mover' is necessary,
One seems necessary if events and time coming in to being (your contention)is what you are saying happened.
-
I shall address your points in due course. In the meantime you might ponder why people are saying that Alan Burns creates an infinite regress with his ideas of soul and consciousness and why they think it’s logically fallacious because it causes an infinite regress.
The fact that it creates an infinite regress isn't itself problematic, it's problematic for AB in that instance because he is citing the 'soul' as some sort of ultimate source of freedom without apparently realising that it suffers the exact same problem he's citing it to rectify. It's a problem for him because he, like you, is trying to justify a claim of an 'unmoved mover'.
It seems then you have no problems with non-physical existence then.
I have no problem with the notion of one - obviously it's not what we have here in our universe, though.
So he is just as crass as you but faster at it
Ad hominem noted and treated with the weary disdain that it deserves.
What is paradoxical about it?
There are three gods, but there's really only one god, but they are the same, but they do different things...
qualities and properties can be listed but God is not a physicomechanical entity with parts or severable bits.
So Jesus was, what, a projection? A piece of mental fudgery that people thought they were interacting with, physically, but weren't really?
I am using states as the better analogy of God than parts. Because Jeremy was looking at God with a narrow physicalists mindset he missed it...His oversight,I'm afraidIt is possible to overstretch an analogy and you have done that here by obviously overtaxing the same physicalist mindset as Jeremy.
Fair enough, analogies can be overstretched. You are suggesting that God is a thing that has multiple 'states' - so it isn't really a 'trinity' at all, it's just one thing. Which still brings about the question, if god is 'indivisible' in this way, can Jesus really be seen to have been wholly human during his manifestation on Earth? Surely, if you can't separate out the 'godness' he must have been divine, with all that that is alleged to entail, all of the time?
There is also some theology I can't go along with. The son is eternal and not just for christmas or temporary as you say. He is God.
I confess to not being a world expert on Christian theology, but I'm given to understand that's not the typical view.
Well let's run with contingency requiring time and time coming into being.
Then the universe cannot be contingent upon anything, time not being a factor at the point the universe prior to a certain point.
A non contingent entity does not require time for it's existence, since you've said contingency requires time. Time is required and indeed passes/is created in the actualisation of the very first contingent. In your own scheme then only a non contingent can actualise time and event one.
No, you could have elements between the non-contingent and the commencement of time, or you could have multiple non-contingent elements, or you could have a system of contingency predicated on some dimension other than time.
Whether I agree with your initial conditions is another matter. The arguments from contingency and sufficient reason work just as well with an infinite universe since they are about existence rather than coming into existence.
In the abstract, but since you are attempting to demonstrate a justification for claiming a creator god, it would seem that they are very much, from your side, about things coming into existence.
Explanatory failure.
If I were citing it as an explanation for anything that might be relevant, but I'm not: I'm citing it as an objection to your notion that there must be an unmoved mover. I don't need to explain WHY there might be an infinite regress, just that as a notion it undermines your claim that there must be a first cause.
It is what is known as a vicious argument which is why your colleagues reject Alan Burns arguments.
As I pointed out above, that's not why it's being cited against Alan, it's being cited against Alan not because he doesn't realise he's creating an infinite regress in an attempt to establish an uncaused cause. As to the notion that it's a vicious argument, in what way does it presume it's own conclusion?
It fails to explain why anything exists rather than not existing.
You've yet to establish that there is a 'why'. You're attempting to imply that there's a 'why', implicit in your attempt to deduce the need for a creator who might have reasons.
It assumes that everything has a cause and no that is not a Christian assumption.
What assumes that everything has a cause? Certainly not the idea of an infinite 'cosmos'.
One seems necessary if events and time coming in to being (your contention)is what you are saying happened.
In no way does the existence of a demonstrable start to time necessitate a hard 'beginning' for reality, or the cosmos, or whatever term we'd like to refer to the broader physics beyond our universe. Let's go with cosmos - our universe exists within a broader cosmos, and within our universe time began. We already have notional candidates for the beginning of that time (the universe, other elements in the cosmos) which aren't dependent upon time and are therefore not necessarily subject to our 'conventional' understanding of notions like cause and effect. Who is to say, and on what basis, that an infinite regress is somehow prohibited in that?
Given that we can demonstrate the conservation of energy quite reasonably within the universe, it doesn't take a great deal to extrapolate from that the idea that the cosmos is an infinite chain of recycling and reordering of energy.
O.
-
Without Ice, steam and water could H2O exist?
I don't think you've thought your analogy through.
You seem to be suggesting that water is contingent on its phases. The analogous point with respect to God is that it is contingent on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
You are trying to show that God is not contingent, remember.
-
The son is eternal and not just for christmas or temporary as you say. He is God.
Pure sophistry. If he is God, then there is only one. If there are three, he cannot be identical with God, because that would mean there aren't three.