Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency starts with contingent things and ends with God.

So why have you never posted a sound argument that actually manages this?

And having reached that point ends there. God is the necessary entity whatever the necessary entity turns out to be.

Ah, so it relies on another comical labelling exercise, quite apart from the fact that the argument (in any form that can be remotely considered sound) doesn't seem to exist at all.

The special pleading objection comes from the insistence that everything must be contingent...

No, it doesn't.

On another matter You made the distinction between the atheism I.e.lack of belief of a stone and a person.
This rather suggested IMHO that in rejecting theist argument you were in fact reasoning your way than atheist argument which sounded to me like strong atheism

You really don't get logic at all, do you?

People reject theist arguments because they are crap (not valid and/or not clearly sound).

And, for about the 20,00th time: rejecting an argument for something is not the same thing as claiming the conclusion is false. This couldn't be a more basic logical concept. You appear to be operating at kindergarten level when it comes to logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK so your not sure how they did it but some mention of special pleading sold it for you.

Of course he’s sure – you claim necessary contingency, then insert an explanatory story that requires special pleading the god character to be not contingent on anything else. That’s your “it’s magic innit?” get out of jail free card remember?
   

The argument from contingency starts with contingent things…

And fails just there. What makes you think the universe must be contingent on something other than itself? Be nice if you could finally answer that without collapsing into the fallacy of composition.
 

…and ends with God.

Or anything else you care to dream up and to special plead to avoid its inherent contradictions.

And having reached that point ends there. God is the necessary entity whatever the necessary entity turns out to be.

Why can’t the universe be its own “necessary entity”?

The special pleading objection comes from the insistence that everything must be contingent.....which is a logical absurdity.

Not sure you want to wander into logic given your incompetence at it, but if you want to assert everything being contingent to be a “logical absurdity” why isn’t that claim about the universe itself also a logical absurdity? 

On another matter You made the distinction between the atheism I.e.lack of belief of a stone and a person.

This rather suggested IMHO that in rejecting theist argument you were in fact reasoning your way than atheist argument which sounded to me like strong atheism.

Oh dear. You’re an atheist if either:

A. You’ve never heard of the god(s) in which you could believe; or

B. You’ve considered the arguments theists make to persuade you that their belief(s) should be your belief too, and found them to be shit (see above for an example of one such).

Got it now? 

[Outrider]

OK so your not sure how they did it but some mention of special pleading sold it for you.

I don't recall exactly which version(s) you were pitching, but cosmological arguments for gods always end with special pleading, one way or another.

The argument from contingency starts with contingent things and ends with God. And having reached that point ends there. God is the necessary entity whatever the necessary entity turns out to be.

So special pleading, then. Firstly because you decide, arbitrarily, that something must be the non-contingent thing because an infinite reality is... um... you don't like that. Then you decide that the only requirement to be 'god' is to be the non-contingent thing, despite the fact that the general conception of god constitutes a hell of a lot more than just that, so you're redefining the term into meaningless.

The special pleading objection comes from the insistence that everything must be contingent.....which is a logical absurdity.

Only if you're determined that there must be a start point, which is itself the logical absurdity that so many theists decry of 'something from nothing'.

On another matter You made the distinction between the atheism I.e.lack of belief of a stone and a person. This rather suggested IMHO that in rejecting theist argument you were in fact reasoning your way than atheist argument which sounded to me like strong atheism.

Nuance is so hard for you that you can't see the distinction between rejecting an argument (i.e. agnostic atheism) and not being cognisant of an argument (i.e. rock)? If this is the level we have to work at this is going to take a long time.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It's you who seem to be afraid of evidence and reasoning.

Are you afraid to admit that material reactions may be all that life is?

There seems to be a presumption that I am afraid of facing up to the arguments which are put forward against my Christian faith.
Having discovered the firm foundation of a loving relationship with the source of all creation, why should I have such fear?

It is those who are stranded on their tiny islands of ego who should have cause to fear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There seems to be a presumption that I am afraid of facing up to the arguments which are put forward against my Christian faith.

Either afraid or unable to address those arguments yes. Why else would you always avoid engaging with the explanations of the multiple fallacies on which you rely?

Having discovered the firm foundation of a loving relationship with the source of all creation, why should I have such fear?

Because the arguments that you avoid suggest strongly that your reasons for thinking you’ve “discovered the firm foundation of a loving relationship with the source of all creation” at all are wrong.

It is those who are stranded on their tiny islands of ego who should have cause to fear.

Do you not think that someone who thinks a universe-creating god takes time out from giving brain cancer to babies long enough to help you find your car keys is the person who’s actually “stranded on their tiny island of ego”? 

[Outrider]

It is those who are stranded on their tiny islands of ego who should have cause to fear.

How is it egotistical to think that we are a cosmic accident of literally no absolute significance, versus believing that you are the explicit point of a supreme being choosing to create a physical reality? As ad hominems go, not only is it still fallacious, but it's not internally consistent either.

O.

[Stranger]

There seems to be a presumption that I am afraid of facing up to the arguments which are put forward against my Christian faith.

The problem is that it's rather difficult to explain your bizarre behaviour. The endless evasion, the mindless repetition instead or engaging with counterarguments, the weird gibberish phrases that you refuse to explain and use like they are magic spells or mantras of some kind, the refusal to accept that you use obvious logical fallacies, the vacuous claim to have "sound logic" that you never produce, the complete refusal to learn anything about sound logical reasoning, and so on.

Fear (or indoctrination) actually seems to be the most charitable explanation.

Having discovered the firm foundation of a loving relationship with the source of all creation, why should I have such fear?

Your behaviour suggests that you're not as confident as you claim or, perhaps, tell yourself.

It is those who are stranded on their tiny islands of ego who should have cause to fear.

Says the guy who thinks the cosmic mega-being and creator of everything will help him find his contact lens...   

[Enki]

From Vlad's post 47149:

The argument from contingency starts with contingent things and ends with God. And having reached that point ends there. God is the necessary entity whatever the necessary entity turns out to be.

So, according to you, the necessary entity could just as easily be the universe or quantum nothingness for instance, if it turned out that they were necessary rather than contingent. That's the logic of the above statement. Whatever it is, and whether it's a conscious being or not, it seems you are going to insist on calling it God. That's up to you but it does seem a long way from what people usually refer to as a God, certainly in the Abrahamic religions.

[Enki]

There seems to be a presumption that I am afraid of facing up to the arguments which are put forward against my Christian faith.

Well you rarely if ever seem to put up any sound counter arguments against the arguments that undo you, preferring on the whole fatuous assertions which are extremely weak substitutions.

Having discovered the firm foundation of a loving relationship with the source of all creation, why should I have such fear?

I have no doubt you believe this, but that is simply a personal statement and I'm sure it gives you a personal sense of comfort and belonging but it is no reason to think that your belief holds any truths. 

It is those who are stranded on their tiny islands of ego who should have cause to fear.

Says the person stranded on his big island of super ego, who thinks that his god has a special relationship with human beings there who worship him/her/it and is prepared to punish those who do not  with eternal fire.

[Gordon]

There seems to be a presumption that I am afraid of facing up to the arguments which are put forward against my Christian faith.

Which is a reasonable presumption to make considering that your defence of your faith is no more than mix of fallacious and illogical thinking......

Having discovered the firm foundation of a loving relationship with the source of all creation, why should I have such fear?

.......which you have just demonstrated yet again.

It is those who are stranded on their tiny islands of ego who should have cause to fear.

I'm not fearful, even though I'm approaching the terminus rather faster than I'd prefer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't recall exactly which version(s) you were pitching, but cosmological arguments for gods always end with special pleading, one way or another.

So special pleading, then. Firstly because you decide, arbitrarily, that something must be the non-contingent thing because an infinite reality is... um... you don't like that. Then you decide that the only requirement to be 'god' is to be the non-contingent thing, despite the fact that the general conception of god constitutes a hell of a lot more than just that, so you're redefining the term into meaningless.

Only if you're determined that there must be a start point, which is itself the logical absurdity that so many theists decry of 'something from nothing'.

Nuance is so hard for you that you can't see the distinction between rejecting an argument (i.e. agnostic atheism) and not being cognisant of an argument (i.e. rock)? If this is the level we have to work at this is going to take a long time.

O.

I think the infinite reality er' thing is what undoes your debunk Outrider.

[Outrider]

I think the infinite reality er' thing is what undoes your debunk Outrider.

You need to do more than just say that it does, you have to explain why your presumption that there is a definitive start point must exist, and in order to do that you have to show why reality can't be infinite.

You know, that whole burden of proof thing that you've totally got down.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course he’s sure – you claim necessary contingency, then insert an explanatory story that requires special pleading the god character to be not contingent on anything else. That’s your “it’s magic innit?” get out of jail free card remember?
   
And fails just there. What makes you think the universe must be contingent on something other than itself? Be nice if you could finally answer that without collapsing into the fallacy of composition.
 
Or anything else you care to dream up and to special plead to avoid its inherent contradictions.

Why can’t the universe be its own “necessary entity”?

Not sure you want to wander into logic given your incompetence at it, but if you want to assert everything being contingent to be a “logical absurdity” why isn’t that claim about the universe itself also a logical absurdity? 

Oh dear. You’re an atheist if either:

A. You’ve never heard of the god(s) in which you could believe; or

B. You’ve considered the arguments theists make to persuade you that their belief(s) should be your belief too, and found them to be shit (see above for an example of one such).

Got it now?

Now we have been through this a necessary entity is not composite so if you are talking about any fallacy of composition whatever else you are talking about it isn't the necessary entity. It seems You don't understand it and you are too proud to ask somebody about it i'm afraid.
Your handling of this would have a wall being made of black bricks being white.

You also don't understand Aquinus version which states that whatever the necessary entity is, we call it God. It doesn't describe the Christian God specifically it isn't designed to and to state I intend it to is Hillcrap.

[Stranger]

It seems You don't understand it and you are too proud to ask somebody about it i'm afraid.

How about you actually explain it yourself (for a change)?

Start by explaining exactly how something can be its own reason for existing (and how that differs from cyclic contingency) and exactly what contradiction it would cause if it didn't exist or was different. Then we might be able to deduce something about it. As it stands, and without the answers to those questions, anything you claim about it is a vacuous assertion.

You also don't understand Aquinus version which states that whatever the necessary entity is, we call it God.

Mindless idiocy.   

[Alan Burns]

How is it egotistical to think that we are a cosmic accident of literally no absolute significance, versus believing that you are the explicit point of a supreme being choosing to create a physical reality? As ad hominems go, not only is it still fallacious, but it's not internally consistent either.

The egotism comes from the belief that brain cells generated and driven by random unguided forces are capable of figuring out that there is no need for God.

[Outrider]

The egotism comes from the belief that brain cells generated and driven by random unguided forces are capable of figuring out that there is no need for God.

I fail to see how concluded we have no cosmic significance is arrogance, whereas concluding we are the purpose of the universe is not. Merely stating what we believe doesn't in any way explain how that constitutes arrogance. It's not as though we're claiming responsibilty, we are positing ourselves as the result, you are postulating yourself as the point of existence, yet we're arrogant?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Now we have been through this a necessary entity is not composite so if you are talking about any fallacy of composition whatever else you are talking about it isn't the necessary entity. It seems You don't understand it and you are too proud to ask somebody about it i'm afraid.

Very funny. Yet again:

A. You see contingency in the universe.

B. You assume that contingency must also therefore apply to the universe – ie, you apply a property within the universe to the universe with no logical path to get you there...

And that’s called the fallacy of composition.

If you still don’t get it, try asking a grown up.
 

Your handling of this would have a wall being made of black bricks being white.

Wrong again – it's your "handling" of this that would have it that one person standing at a cricket match and getting a better view must mean that everyone standing at a cricket match would also get a better view.

Try to remember this in future.

You also don't understand…

You can’t have an “also” when your prior effort has just fallen apart. Again.

Aquinus version which states that whatever the necessary entity is, we call it God.

Or Colin the leprechaun. Or Satan. Or anything. Even if the first cause argument wasn’t shit, all it would give you at best would be an “it’s magic innit” “something” wrapped around with special pleading. If you then decided to call that supposed something a god, at best that would give you deism but even then you’d be nowhere near theism.

Try to remember this in future too.

It doesn't describe the Christian God specifically it isn't designed to and to state I intend it to is Hillcrap.

It doesn’t describe anything. It’s just fuckwittery special pleading that’s given house room only by the credulous and the hard of understanding. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The egotism comes from the belief that brain cells generated and driven by random unguided forces are capable of figuring out that there is no need for God.

There’s nothing “egotistic” about following the reason and evidence to wherever it leads. The egotism actually on display here is that of the non-thinker who’s decided that Jesus wants him for a sunbeam, and in return a god concerned with the whole universe will take time out to help him find his car keys.

How massive must the ego be to believe that would you say?   

[Stranger]

The egotism comes from the belief that brain cells generated and driven by random unguided forces are capable of figuring out that there is no need for God.

Quite apart from the blatantly dishonest distortion of what has been said here, I'm still not seeing any egotism. How would that be egotism, while your own smug certainty about your relationship with the creator of everything, and affected superiority, despite a total inability to engage with reasoning, somehow isn't?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From the atheism article on the IEP site

'The atheist by default argues that it would be appropriate to not believe in such circumstances.  The epistemic policy here takes its inspiration from an influential piece by W.K. Clifford (1999) in which he argues that it is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything for which there is insufficient reason.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

From the atheism article on the IEP site

Quote
'The atheist by default argues that it would be appropriate to not believe in such circumstances.  The epistemic policy here takes its inspiration from an influential piece by W.K. Clifford (1999) in which he argues that it is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything for which there is insufficient reason.

Nothing there that implies the claim "there is no god" then.

So what point did you think you were making?

[Stranger]

From the atheism article on the IEP site

'The atheist by default argues that it would be appropriate to not believe in such circumstances.  The epistemic policy here takes its inspiration from an influential piece by W.K. Clifford (1999) in which he argues that it is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything for which there is insufficient reason.

Which was itself, presumably, a reworking of Bertrand Russell: "...it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." Sceptical Essays (1928).

This is, of course, what everybody has been saying and has nothing to do with any claim that there is no God.

[Alan Burns]

I fail to see how concluded we have no cosmic significance is arrogance, whereas concluding we are the purpose of the universe is not. Merely stating what we believe doesn't in any way explain how that constitutes arrogance. It's not as though we're claiming responsibilty, we are positing ourselves as the result, you are postulating yourself as the point of existence, yet we're arrogant?

O.

What is it within the reconstituted lump of star debris which concludes? ... which believes? ... which shows arrogance? ...which claims responsibility? ... which postulates?

The egotism in in the presumption that this can all be done without the need for anything other than physically controlled reactions in material entities.

Can you not have the humility to accept that our mental capabilities are evidence that we are the consequence and reflection of a superior intelligence beyond human understanding?

[Stranger]

What is it within the reconstituted lump of star debris which concludes? ... which believes? ... which shows arrogance? ...which claims responsibility? ... which postulates?

If you want some detail about which parts of the brain do what, there is quite a lot that is known and it isn't secret. Do you need help with an internet search?

The egotism in in the presumption that this can all be done without the need for anything other than physically controlled reactions in material entities.

How on earth is that egotism? You're talking nonsense again.

Can you not have the humility to accept that our mental capabilities are evidence that we are the consequence of a superior intelligence beyond human understanding?

Why would that be humble, especially when it is patently untrue? Even if you are right that "we are the consequence of a superior intelligence beyond human understanding", it would still be an argument from personal incredulity fallacy to point to our mental abilities as evidence of it.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that our abilities cannot be the result of the brain. Let alone any for your impossible, nonsensical view of 'free will', which it is logically impossible for there to be any evidence for (you can't have evidence for an impossible contradiction).

Claiming that something is evidence, when it quite clearly isn't, because you believe you know better than other people, even those who study these things for a living, seems to be where the egotism here is.

[ProfessorDavey]

The egotism in in the presumption that this can all be done without the need for anything other than physically controlled reactions in material entities.

Surely the egotism is the presumption that the only way this could happen is via a man-made god, that is effectively a superannuated human.