Vlad,
I've already discussed the ways in which I use the word universe.
That’s not what happened though is it. What happened is that you pitched up full of misplaced confidence to assert that “the universe” is “necessarily” contingent on something else, and moreover that that something else is something you call “god” that, without explanation, somehow does not have to be contingent of something else.
When pressed as to
why you thought “the universe” was necessarily contingent on something else you made various references to how much contingent stuff there is in the observable universe. When as a rebuttal the fallacy of composition on which you were unwittingly relying was, after several attempts, explained to you you then decided that perhaps “the universe” could be its own explanation after all.
You then followed with more U-turns than a Swiss railway as you alternated between a “necessary” cause and a “could be” cause and, when that fell apart too, only then did you decide that by “the universe” you didn’t really mean “the universe” after all.
Fuck knows what you do now mean by “the universe” (and whatever it is doubtless that will fall apart too under examination) but, whatever it is, it seems to give no support at all to your opening assertion about a “necessary” god.
Whether we know what you mean by it is another matter.
Oh, and along the way you threw in various other fallacies such as black swan deduction, some egregious straw men and, as here, the shifting of the burden of proof. What I mean by “the universe” it is neither here nor there – I’m content just to work with whatever
you meant by it when
you made
your opening assertion about “the universe” necessarily being contingent on something else. Whatever
you meant by “the universe” when
you said it is what I mean by it for the purpose of dismantling your “argument”.
I'm not here as a substitute for the people you used to question for a living Hillside so please don't expect my gracious response to all your posts
You seem to me to be quite profoundly incapable of doing anything graciously, but in any case you have a long history here not of not replying to
all my posts but of not replying to
any of them – especially when you run out of road as here.
It’s ok though. Really it is. We know full well that you have no argument at all to justify your notion that “the universe” (whatever you mean by that) is necessarily contingent on something else, so that apologia for “god” can safely join the others you’ve tried and failed with over the years (“objective” morality, cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument etc).
Not sure whether you’re ready to give up the effort now but by all means, if you can think of an argument for “god” that you think won’t fall apart under scrutiny, give it a whirl here.
