Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I notice you have not given your sound reasoning for believing and guess you never will.

Wait a minute. That suggests I am on a timetable here. I did not know that was the case but since it is I have to tell you I won't be working to it.
That doesn't mean though that I am not going to reply to you.

[Roses]

Sound reasoning and Vlad are an oxymoron.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Personal encounter,…

1.Assertion not argument; ignores the other possible explanatory narratives; itself requires the person having the episode to reason his way to the explanation (“that must be god then”) – that reasoning is incoherent; everyone who has an “encounter with god” decides that it must be the same god with which they’re most familiar; no way for anyone else to distinguish the validity of the claim of one person to have “encountered god” from the claims of 99 others who claim to have encountered different gods entirely.   

the moral argument,….

2. Relies on the (bizarre) notion of assertion morality – no evidence for such a thing, no means of identifying it even if it did exist.

…the division into the necessary and the contingent,…

3. Sub-set of the cosmological argument – requires special pleading for the god of choice (“uncaused”); says nothing about a theistic god; god of the gaps.

… the explanatory failure of materialism, naturalism with regards to fundamental human questions,…

4. God of the gaps.

…the explanatory failure of same with regards to personal experience.

5. Largely untrue (religious experiences can be induced artificially, can be diagnosed post facto as physiological etc); see Point 1.

Hence in response to this suite of “arguments”, for a reasoning person atheism necessarily follows. A more able theist could though theoretically at least have more cogent or coherent arguments for his god that cannot easily be falsified, so atheism must be “there’s currently no good reason to think there are gods” and not Vlad’s misrepresentation of it as, “there are no gods” (“God free cosmos” etc).     

[BeRational]

Wait a minute. That suggests I am on a timetable here. I did not know that was the case but since it is I have to tell you I won't be working to it.
That doesn't mean though that I am not going to reply to you.

This is just you running away from questions. You know when you are undone and then say you will not respond.

This tactic of yours is quite transparent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

This is just you running away from questions. You know when you are undone and then say you will not respond.

This tactic of yours is quite transparent.

He always runs away from questions he doesn't like (while demanding that others answer his questions by the way). To take just one example, I chased him all over this mb once asking him how, when faced with 9 people who each claimed to have "personal encounters" of deities different to his own, I should distinguish his unqualified clam from the rest. Not only would he never answer that, he refused to to explain even why he wouldn't answer that.

Then, as night follows day, sure enough he turns up later on again claiming "personal encounter" as if it was an argument. 

'twas ever thus I guess.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

4. God of the gaps.
   

Not really, materialism and naturalism structurally rule out the divine. There can never be the discovery of the divine in any of these 'isms because that is excluded from them by the nature of these philosophies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   

2. Relies on the (bizarre) notion of assertion morality – no evidence for such a thing, no means of identifying it even if it did exist.
 

Assertion morality? Did you just make that up?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Not really, materialism and naturalism structurally rule out the divine. There can never be the discovery of the divine in any of these 'isms because that is excluded from them by the nature of these philosophies.

Yes really. The failure of materialism to "discover" the divine just assumes the conclusion that there is a divine to be discovered. It's for the person who hypothesises such a thing to propose a means to investigate the claim. "I'm going to assert a "divine" that's not investigable with the methods and tools of materialism, therefore that's a failure of materialism" is just very, very bad thinking.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Assertion morality? Did you just make that up?

Typo - should have been objective morality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

3. Sub-set of the cosmological argument – requires special pleading for the god of choice (“uncaused”); says nothing about a theistic god; god of the gaps.
   

No, it is based on observation of the contingent and that the logical impossibility of everything just being contingent. Something has to be necessary. Things cannot be both necessary and contingent (The ''little bit'' pregnant argument) Now that necessary thing has been claimed to be by people like outrider and yourself here to be ''The universe'' ''Matter'' and ''information''. Every claim that the universe ''just is'', is IMO a statement of the universe as a necessity.

The trouble is that the universe which is susceptible to science is contingent.

In other words the universe could have created itself (be necessary and non contingent) or something that caused the universe holds that position. That then DEFEATS your assertion of special pleading. But given the observed contingency of what we could possibly detect in the universe by science and natural means the implications of that are


1: There is a part of the universe which is necessary and therefore unobservable by natural means......in other words supernatural.


or 2: This cannot be said to be part of the universe yet still supernatural.


I think there is enough here for any theist.

[BeRational]

No, it is based on observation of the contingent and that the logical impossibility of everything just being contingent. Something has to be necessary. Things cannot be both necessary and contingent (The ''little bit'' pregnant argument) Now that necessary thing has been claimed to be by people like outrider and yourself here to be ''The universe'' ''Matter'' and ''information''. Every claim that the universe ''just is'', is IMO a statement of the universe as a necessity.

The trouble is that the universe which is susceptible to science is contingent.

In other words the universe could have created itself (be necessary and non contingent) or something that caused the universe holds that position. That then DEFEATS your assertion of special pleading. But given the observed contingency of what we could possibly detect in the universe by science and natural means the implications of that are


1: There is a part of the universe which is necessary and therefore unobservable by natural means......in other words supernatural.


or 2: This cannot be said to be part of the universe yet still supernatural.


I think there is enough here for any theist.

How do you know point 1 is true?
Can you demonstrate point 1?
There is never a therefore supernatural until you can demonstrate the supernatural.
Can you do that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes really. The failure of materialism to "discover" the divine just assumes the conclusion that there is a divine to be discovered. 

No it doesn't. It is based on how materialism and naturalism define themselves. The fact that materialism and naturalism are going to churn out a non divine output forever is down to them and needs no input from muggle theism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know point 1 is true?
Can you demonstrate point 1?
There is never a therefore supernatural until you can demonstrate the supernatural.
Can you do that?

The argument is based on necessity and contingency whereby there is the contingent, that which is dependent on other things and the necessary., that which is not.

Anything we can observe naturally or scientifically seems to be contingent.
Now if we argue that there may be something undiscovered that isn't then that thing is by definition necessary

Now take the case of the universe itself. There is nothing to suggest that the universe might be contingent is an unreasonable statement.


Similarly there is nothing unreasonable to suggest that the universe is necessary, However, no necessity thing in it has been observed and quantum mechanics teaches us that nothing observed is unaffected by the observation.


Given this it is not unreasonable to say that the universe could be contingent or the universe could be necessary but...….there are all kinds of provisos. Including ''if the universe is necessary where is the thing in it or about it which is observed to be necessary?''


The thing is, though it renders Hillside's accusations that the notion of necessity/contingency as special pleading invalid.

[BeRational]

The argument is based on necessity and contingency whereby there is the contingent, that which is dependent on other things and the necessary., that which is not.

Anything we can observe naturally or scientifically seems to be contingent.
Now if we argue that there may be something undiscovered that isn't then that thing is by definition necessary

Now take the case of the universe itself. There is nothing to suggest that the universe might be contingent is an unreasonable statement.


Similarly there is nothing unreasonable to suggest that the universe is necessary, However, no necessity thing in it has been observed and quantum mechanics teaches us that nothing observed is unaffected by the observation.


Given this it is not unreasonable to say that the universe could be contingent or the universe could be necessary but...….there are all kinds of provisos. Including ''if the universe is necessary where is the thing in it or about it which is observed to be necessary?''


The thing is, though it renders Hillside's accusations that the notion of necessity/contingency as special pleading invalid.

Can you demonstrate the supernatural exists?
Can you demonstrate a god exists or do you just have word salad deep sounding nonsense to try to hide the fact that you do not actually have a good reason for believing in a god.

[Maeght]

Belief or lack of belief in God is not, in my opinion, a matter of logic, reasoning, etc. Belief is more like an emotion, a feeling - hence the term personal encounter with God. The 'evidence' and arguments for the existence of God then makes sense to the believer whereas to the non believer, who hasn't had that sense of an encounter with God, they are illogical and irrational. Reasons to believe are really reasons to accept belief. Likewise jeremyP referred earlier to 'the tentative acceptance of atheism is the logical conclusion to come to ...'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you demonstrate the supernatural exists?
Can you demonstrate a god exists or do you just have word salad deep sounding nonsense to try to hide the fact that you do not actually have a good reason for believing in a god.

The supernatural i.e. that which is not dependent or contingent, the necessary has been reasonably argued for. That is as far as we can possibly go.....unless you can reasonably refute necessity and contingency.

I think we might be done here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sound reasoning and Vlad are an oxymoron.

You don't even have any ''oxy''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we might be done here.

You are. Just ignoring, misrepresenting, derailing and generally failing ever to engage honestly with the arguments that falsify you exits you from any kind of discussion.

I have no idea whether or not you actually believe the things to you claim to believe, but if you do the lying to yourself it requires is perhaps the most depressing aspect of your behaviour. 
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You are. Just ignoring, misrepresenting, derailing and generally failing ever to engage honestly with the arguments that falsify you exits you from any kind of discussion.

I have no idea whether or not you actually believe the things to you claim to believe, but if you do the lying to yourself it requires is perhaps the most depressing aspect of your behaviour. 
 

Just merely asserting that something is word salad is not engaging with arguments. That is a discussion Killer and this time it was Be Rational what done it.

Be Rational claimed he did not understand about necessity and contingency. These have been comprehensively explained to him. I see no refutation from him......or you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You are. Just ignoring, misrepresenting, derailing and generally failing ever to engage honestly with the arguments that falsify you exits you from any kind of discussion.

I have no idea whether or not you actually believe the things to you claim to believe, but if you do the lying to yourself it requires is perhaps the most depressing aspect of your behaviour. 
 

Please stick to the arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh dear.

The argument is based on necessity and contingency whereby there is the contingent, that which is dependent on other things and the necessary., that which is not.

Anything we can observe naturally or scientifically seems to be contingent.

Down to the quantum field level at least, yes. At that level though (and below it if there is a “below”) the jury is out pending further investigation and discovery. 

Now if we argue that there may be something undiscovered that isn't then that thing is by definition necessary

First it’s not an argument it’s just an assertion, and second that something that might be hasn’t been discovered means only that it’s a might be that hasn’t been discovered. That tells you nothing about whether, if it was discovered, it would be “necessary” or not.       

Now take the case of the universe itself. There is nothing to suggest that the universe might be contingent is an unreasonable statement.

“Might be” is a cheat – anything might be. Claiming therefore that a statement about a “might be” isn’t unreasonable is meaningless. The unreasonableness comes from the false arguments you attempt to take you from a might be to an is.     

Similarly there is nothing unreasonable to suggest that the universe is necessary, However, no necessity thing in it has been observed and quantum mechanics teaches us that nothing observed is unaffected by the observation.

Irrelevant Deepak.

Given this it is not unreasonable to say that the universe could be contingent or the universe could be necessary but...….there are all kinds of provisos. Including ''if the universe is necessary where is the thing in it or about it which is observed to be necessary?''

That’s not a proviso, it’s a major problem for someone who wants to get from possibility of a “might be” to a probability of an “is”.

The thing is, though it renders Hillside's accusations that the notion of necessity/contingency as special pleading invalid.

Except it doesn’t because if you want just to assert your “might be” to be an “is” then you need special pleading to get that “is” off the hook of itself being uncaused.

By all means though if you want to have a go at explaining why the universe “must” have been caused by something external to itself, and that that something not only wasn’t itself caused by an antecedent (and so on endlessly), and moreover that that something is also the theistic god in which you just happen to believe then – finally – knock yourself out.

Except you’ll never do that will you, so yet again your dishonesty exits you from the discussion.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear.

Down to the quantum field level at least, yes. At that level though (and below it if there is a “below”) the jury is out pending further investigation and discovery. 

First it’s not an argument it’s just an assertion, and second that something that might be hasn’t been discovered means only that it’s a might be that hasn’t been discovered. That tells you nothing about whether, if it was discovered, it would be “necessary” or not.       

“Might be” is a cheat – anything might be. Claiming therefore that a statement about a “might be” isn’t unreasonable is meaningless. The unreasonableness comes from the false arguments you attempt to take you from a might be to an is.     

Irrelevant Deepak.

That’s not a proviso, it’s a major problem for someone who wants to get from possibility of a “might be” to a probability of an “is”.

Except it doesn’t because if you want just to assert your “might be” to be an “is” then you need special pleading to get that “is” off the hook of itself being uncaused.

By all means though if you want to have a go at explaining why the universe “must” have been caused by something external to itself, and that that something not only wasn’t itself caused by an antecedent (and so on endlessly), and moreover that that something is also the theistic god in which you just happen to believe then – finally – knock yourself out.

Except you’ll never do that will you, so yet again your dishonesty exits you from the discussion.   

Down to the quantum field level? You think anything is immune from the necessity/contingent distinction?  There is only yes, no or might be here which rather torpedoes your complaint about others implying ''might be's''.

On the other hand is this invisible world where your refutation now lives observable now or ever?

What's that?

Might be?

You wrote ''By all means though if you want to have a go at explaining why the universe “must” have been caused by something external to itself.''

Largely straw man since all I'm saying is that it is not unreasonable and am inviting you to demonstrate that part of the universe which is necessary since either something is dependent on the existence of something else (contingent) or it isn't (necessary).

Also, who is talking about antecedents?
 You talked about  ''something not only wasn’t itself caused by an antecedent (and so on endlessly)''

Endless antecedents is possible but involves something being around endlessly and uncaused.......in otherwords a necessary. So that doesn't help you one bit.


In fact it gives you the headache of notonly having failed to dismiss necessity/contingency but having to explain why you think the universe is necessary.......whats that? It might be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear.

Down to the quantum field level at least, yes. At that level though (and below it if there is a “below”) the jury is out pending further investigation and discovery. 
 

Below the quantum field level? How far''below''? Is ''below'' a suitable metaphor? what if there isn't as you hint at a below? How are you going to know?
Doesn't your lord and master Lawrence Krauss argue for creation at this level ex nihilo by invisible yet mighty laws of nature thus introducing the spectre of a lawmaker?

And if creation is going on all the time are we wrong to talk about there only being linear causation and existential inertia?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear.

Down to the quantum field level at least, yes. At that level though (and below it if there is a “below”) the jury is out pending further investigation and discovery. 
 

Oh dear indeed......since you seem here to have invented your own version of your most hated notion ''outside or beyond the universe''

[Dicky Underpants]

Oh dear indeed......since you seem here to have invented your own version of your most hated notion ''outside or beyond the universe''

Certainly we are at the point where language breaks down in attempting to explain the phenomena in question. Nonetheless, the talk is still of the phenomenal universe. First, physics thought that the molecular was a level deeper than which we could not investigate. Then came the atomic level - another ne plus ultra. And then the sub-atomic, and then the level of 'charm' and other strange particles. But this is of this universe - not outside it.