Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry Hillside but you cannot have anything which pops out of nothing or always there and then claim that God cannot have those properties or that God does not exist because he has those properties. That is just the special pleading at the heart of your argument.

Oh dear. That’s not what I said at all. Do you use the straw man deliberately, or do simple sentences and ideas genuinely not impinge on your consciousness so you just have to make up what you would like people to have said?

What I actually said was that to just throw “God” into the explanatory gap left by the don’t knows that scientific enquiry has reached:

1. Is bad thinking; and

2. Just moves the same questions back one stage to your god conjecture.

Science cannot elucidate the ''nothing'' out of which the universe would have popped anyway. So any proposal you or I make cannot appeal to science.

Oh dear again. See above.

I'm afraid that leaves a simple act of devolving supernatural powers to nature justified only by the assumed need to eliminate God.

And for those of us working in English?

There is of course no appeal to Ockham's razor in which I would have to be multiplying entities beyond necessity. Demonstrate that if you think you are hard enough.

Of course you fall at Occam’s razor – “God” has no explanatory power because “it’s magic innit” does not get you off the hook of asking the same questions about "God" that you ask about the material universe. It’s just an extra assumption that adds nothing and shifts the same problems back a stage.

Neither is ''we don't know....therefore no God'' good enough.

One of your favourite straw men that one. No-one says that, so why bother lying about it?

The game I'm afraid was up for you 10 minutes after we started our correspondence on this forum all those years ago.

Pity you don’t do irony – that’s a lovely example, but you’ll just have to take my word for it. Your litany of responses of bad thinking and lies do not falsify the arguments that undo you. 

[Stranger]

I'm sorry Hillside but you cannot have anything which pops out of nothing or always there and then claim that God cannot have those properties or that God does not exist because he has those properties. That is just the special pleading at the heart of your argument.

You're missing the point. The existence of stuff is unexplained. Adding a god just adds to the stuff that exists and isn't explained. A god (or gods) is a baseless guess that explains nothing.

[ad_orientem]

and there was me thinking you were a Trinitarian 

Aye, but as to substance one. Trinitarianism 101.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Aye, but as to substance one. Trinitarianism 101.

If you catch a wee green fella he’ll grant you three wishes in exchange for his freedom. Leprechaunology 101.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're missing the point. The existence of stuff is unexplained. Adding a god just adds to the stuff that exists and isn't explained. A god (or gods) is a baseless guess that explains nothing.

No. What is going on is that you are arguing that there is just one ''stuff''. The evidence is your first point ''The existence of stuff is unexplained''.
That there is one stuff and not two is a philosophical position which does not establish necessity.....which is what Ockhams razor is based on.

I think you'll find that the argument for God is that there are two ''stuffs''. If you cannot handle this this is because you are stuck in the box marked monism.

You are explaining nothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No. What is going on is that you are arguing that there is just one ''stuff''. The evidence is your first point ''The existence of stuff is unexplained''.

No he isn’t. He’s arguing that there’s no good reason to think that there is more than one “stuff” – a very different point.

That there is one stuff and not two is a philosophical position which does not establish necessity.....which is what Ockhams razor is based on.

See above, and stop lying.

I think you'll find that the argument for God is that there are two ''stuffs''. If you cannot handle this this is because you are stuck in the box marked monism.

No, he (and I) are “stuck in the box” of “no-one has ever managed to make a cogent argument for there being more than one “stuff””.

You are explaining nothing.

Nope. He’s explaining – correctly – that your attempt at an argument is both wrong in its content and dishonest in its execution.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. That’s not what I said at all. Do you use the straw man deliberately, or do simple sentences and ideas genuinely not impinge on your consciousness so you just have to make up what you would like people to have said?

What I actually said was that to just throw “God” into the explanatory gap left by the don’t knows that scientific enquiry has reached:

1. Is bad thinking; and

2. Just moves the same questions back one stage to your god conjecture.

Oh dear again. See above.

And for those of us working in English?

Of course you fall at Occam’s razor – “God” has no explanatory power because “it’s magic innit” does not get you off the hook of asking the same questions about "God" that you ask about the material universe. It’s just an extra assumption that adds nothing and shifts the same problems back a stage.

One of your favourite straw men that one. No-one says that, so why bother lying about it?

Pity you don’t do irony – that’s a lovely example, but you’ll just have to take my word for it. Your litany of responses of bad thinking and lies do not falsify the arguments that undo you.

Hillside you cannot keep on with the ''We don't know....therefore no God''.
Your argument is Just Is ism and dogmatic agnosticism with playing field shifting to science as diversionary bluster.

You cannot and have not turdpolished your way out of the situation that if there is no God then the universe becomes supernatural in the sense that it has either always been or came from nothing. Science cannot help you out here so stop using the word as though it is a magic spell.

Now if the universe just appeared it would be doing something it has lost the knack of doing, since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

In terms of the eternal universe, where or what would be your evidence?

In an eternal universe why would order or entropy come into being?

Whatever happened ''always been'' or ''out of nothing'' you are committed to something impervious to science and in fact not natural in the sense that you would like.

But of course Christians don't believe God is just creator or sustainer but redeemer
so it does not offer a god of the gaps and your accusations of this coming, from an  old dogmatic agnostic given to shuffling onto science when on the spot, are highly hypocritical.

Now your schtick on who created God.....

That God cannot be because this question is difficult is ridiculous considering your enforced commitment to the universe being uncreated.

Secondly, it would be perfectly fair under your own schema to answer ''We don't know who created God'' so your exclusive claim to ''not knowing'' evidenced by wheedling antitheist claims like ''at least we have the courage to say we don't know''........is rubbish.

But another way of looking at it is reasonable to ask for a reason for the whole thing and that reason is what we call God.

Your naturalism therefore increasingly looks as though it is justified by it's own premise and more antigod than anything else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No he isn’t. He’s arguing that there’s no good reason to think that there is more than one “stuff” –

That's pure scientism!!!!

.....and yes I am saying that as though it were a bad thing!

[Stranger]

No. What is going on is that you are arguing that there is just one ''stuff''. The evidence is your first point ''The existence of stuff is unexplained''.
That there is one stuff and not two is a philosophical position which does not establish necessity.....which is what Ockhams razor is based on.

I think you'll find that the argument for God is that there are two ''stuffs''. If you cannot handle this this is because you are stuck in the box marked monism.

Insisting on two stuffs makes absolutely no difference to my point.

You are explaining nothing.

The only thing I'm trying to explain is that god doesn't explain anything - it just moves the problems.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside you cannot keep on with the ''We don't know....therefore no God''.

No-one does say that. Stop lying.

Your argument is Just Is ism and dogmatic agnosticism with playing field shifting to science as diversionary bluster.

No, my argument is that your argument for “God” is a very bad one. No more, no less.

You cannot and have not turdpolished your way out of the situation that if there is no God then the universe becomes supernatural in the sense that it has either always been or came from nothing. Science cannot help you out here so stop using the word as though it is a magic spell.

No-one is doing that. Whether or not there is a god isn’t contingent on whether we can explain the origin of the universe, or even whether it needed to originate at all. Stop lying.

Now if the universe just appeared it would be doing something it has lost the knack of doing, since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

In terms of the eternal universe, where or what would be your evidence?

In an eternal universe why would order or entropy come into being?

Whatever happened ''always been'' or ''out of nothing'' you are committed to something impervious to science and in fact not natural in the sense that you would like.

Interesting questions all, but the ability or inability to answer any of them tells you not one jot of one iota of one smidgin about the likelihood or otherwise of something you call “God”.

But of course Christians don't believe God is just creator or sustainer but redeemer
so it does not offer a god of the gaps and your accusations of this coming,…

Yes it does, because that was the argument you attempted. That you want to put lipstick on the pig by adding a bunch of other characteristics you find meaningful doesn’t change the flaw in the argument you attempted in the first place.

… from an  old dogmatic agnostic given to shuffling onto science when on the spot, are highly hypocritical.

No it isn’t. There’s nothing hypocritical about pointing out where you’re wrong or lying.

Now your schtick on who created God.....

That God cannot be because this question is difficult is ridiculous considering your enforced commitment to the universe being uncreated.

I suppose it would be if anyone ever argued that. Why are you lying again?

Secondly…

“Secondly”? Shouldn’t you perhaps concern yourself with managing a “firstly” that isn’t hopeless first?

…it would be perfectly fair under your own schema to answer ''We don't know who created God'' so your exclusive claim to ''not knowing'' evidenced by wheedling antitheist claims like ''at least we have the courage to say we don't know''........is rubbish.

And again you’ve missed it. If the answer to questions about the material universe is “don’t know”, what does it add to the story to throw in a god that provides the same answers to the same questions? Why not throw in god’s dad, or god’s granddad while you’re at it? 

But another way of looking at it…

You’re going to need another way as the ways you’ve tried so far are all broken, but OK…

…is reasonable to ask for a reason for the whole thing and that reason is what we call God.

That’s nice for you. And the reason for “God” would be?

Your naturalism therefore increasingly looks as though it is justified by it's own premise and more antigod than anything else.

My “naturalism” is just my working assumption in the absence of a cogent argument to suggest that there’s anything else. Just out of interest, why do you think lying so much helps your case?

That's pure scientism!!!!

.....and yes I am saying that as though it were a bad thing!

No it isn’t because that’s not what “scientism” means. I know you’re keen to re-define words to suit your purpose, but it’s still dishonest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Insisting on two stuffs makes absolutely no difference to my point.

The only thing I'm trying to explain is that god doesn't explain anything - it just moves the problems.

Ok let's take a look at the universe as we know it. Something which commences with maximum order and ends in maximum disorder.

Wouldn't you say that was unusual?

And wouldn't you say that if it is unusual then it is evidence of something unusual?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only thing I'm trying to explain is that god doesn't explain anything - it just moves the problems.

But if God isn't then the universe would have to always have been or come out of nothing......would that be a problem or not?

What I am asking you is.....isn't it God that's the problem?
And if not, what is?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ok let's take a look at the universe as we know it…

OK, let’s not. Let’s instead look at the problem of you continually ignoring the issue that the same questions about the universe can be asked of “God”, and with the same answer – “don’t know”.

Unless you seriously want to go with, “it’s magic innit” why do you think introducing a new assumption with the same knowledge deficit explains anything?

[Stranger]

Ok let's take a look at the universe as we know it. Something which commences with maximum order and ends in maximum disorder.

Wouldn't you say that was unusual?

How can we know what's usual for a universe?

And wouldn't you say that if it is unusual then it is evidence of something unusual?

If it's 'unusual' then it's certainly evidence of something unusual: itself.

But if God isn't then the universe would have to always have been or come out of nothing......would that be a problem or not?

Quaintly Newtonian concept of time aside - you'd have the same problem with anything else you postulated.

What I am asking you is.....isn't it God that's the problem?
And if not, what is?

I don't know what problem you're referring to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But if God isn't then the universe would have to always have been or come out of nothing......would that be a problem or not?

What I am asking you is.....isn't it God that's the problem?
And if not, what is?

“God” just throws another assumption into the mix with the same unanswered questions that “the universe” has.

Why is this so difficult for you, and does it really not trouble you that your “argument” has precisely the construction of:

“What’s that noise in the sky?"

"Dunno."

"Must be Thor then.”?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can we know what's usual for a universe?

If it's 'unusual' then it's certainly evidence of something unusual: itself.

Quaintly Newtonian concept of time aside - you'd have the same problem with anything else you postulated.

I don't know what problem you're referring to.

The problems you mention in this sentence of yours:

''The only thing I'm trying to explain is that god doesn't explain anything - it just moves the problems.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“God” just throws another assumption into the mix with the same unanswered questions that “the universe” has.

Why is this so difficult for you, and does it really not trouble you that your “argument” has precisely the construction of:

“What’s that noise in the sky?"

"Dunno."

"Must be Thor then.”?

You are confusing the universe with things in the universe.
What is the matter with you?

[Stranger]

The problems you mention in this sentence of yours:

''The only thing I'm trying to explain is that god doesn't explain anything - it just moves the problems.''

Then no, the problem isn't god, the problem is that we don't know how come stuff^* exists. It's just that postulating a god or gods doesn't solve it.

^* Where 'stuff' refers to however many different types of stuffs you think there might be...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

OK, let’s not. Let’s instead look at the problem of you continually ignoring the issue that the same questions about the universe can be asked of “God”, and with the same answer – “don’t know”.

I've addressed that............. keep up.

[Stranger]

I've addressed that............. keep up.

Where?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn’t because that’s not what “scientism” means. I know you’re keen to re-define words to suit your purpose, but it’s still dishonest.

Those who would prefer the Tosh Hillsidian definition........Look away now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are confusing the universe with things in the universe.

What is the matter with you?

No, you’re confusing the logic of an analogy with its content. Whether thunder or the universe makes no difference - you’re still trying a god of the gaps.

Your argument is that, as we don’t have the answers to some questions, then we can pop in “God” as the explanation. It’s wrong in logic, and it’s wrong in practice because the same don’t knows then attach to the new assumption you’ve added to the mix.

What’s “wrong” with me is processing your obtuseness and dishonesty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've addressed that............. keep up.

No you haven't. Stop lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where?

Reply #16283

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, you’re confusing the logic of an analogy with its content. Whether thunder or the universe makes no difference - you’re still trying a god of the gaps.

No it isn't because things in the universe are explicable by other things and you are claiming that the universe isn't thus undoing your own claims that things in the universe are in the same category as the universe itself.

............To be honest i'm beginning to feel i'm taking advantage of the intellectually challenged by coming on this forum.