Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No. If that was the case he could just say so. He doesn’t do that though. What he actually does is to try to persuade people that he’s right and that they should agree with him for reasons.

And those reasons are always wrong.

Yes there are no objective reasons, so the reasons he gave seem to be subjective or faith-based e.g. believing in miracles and a resurrection based on stories that have been passed down through the centuries; his personal experiences; his ability to think .....therefore God.

There are multiple possible explanations but he picks one explanation based on faith. And since his faith tells him to spread his faith - he is trying to convince others too.

Close. What I’m saying that is that his want/need/emotional conviction/whatever for his god is so strong that he’ll exchange crap reasons for sound ones to justify that belief. 

Why is personal / subjective experience a crap reason to justify your belief in something supernatural, since the supernatural has no methodology to objectively justify belief in it? Personal experiences are an important part of how we arrive at our beliefs about abstract concepts that we emotionally invest in. Personal experiences  create emotional reactions and inform our values and how we interact with others. 

If more robust reasoning than that you relied on for your previous belief comes to your attention, yes:

“When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”

(John Maynard Keynes)

How does this line of thinking apply to abstract concepts such as the supernatural that people have an emotional investment in?

Yes. It’s called cognitive dissonance.

Not surprising given the lack of objective evidence to support or rule out the supernatural, which is why the belief is faith-based.

It’s worse than that. AB uses reasoning (albeit incompetently) to persuade himself that his faith beliefs are true. He’s told us so several times only recently here. 

You’re not paying attention. Again: AB thinks his beliefs can be objectively verified. He tries to do it too – have a look at the list of (all fallacious) arguments he posted recently for this exact purpose. Objective reasoning is objective reasoning though – it cannot be sound when you use it to justify something to yourself but false when you use it to justify the same belief to someone else. The reasoning is either sound or not sound, regardless of who’s using it.             

Tell AB that. His problem with it I suspect though is that at some dim level he’ll also grasp that the same is true of leprechauns – ie, that my claim of objective truth about leprechauns thus becomes the epistemic equivalent of his claim about god (which it is by the way ) or yours about Allah – ie, they’re all white noise.
 
I know – but that’s precisely what he denies. He tells us over and over again that reasoning leads him to his belief “god”, when it’s plainly the other way around – only that a priori belief causes him to twist objective reasoning until it breaks.

Objective reasoning is not false - it's just not applicable when it comes to concepts about the supernatural. Any experiences are subjective and people can relate to others the experience they felt they had and interpret those experiences into a particular narrative but they can't replicate the experience for someone else.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Does there have to be one? Which forum rule is that?

None. Why would you avoid answering a simple question?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your advocacy of the cosmological argument relies on three crap arguments, none of which you will address.

Mmmmmm.......Lunch

Crap argument 1: everything I’ve observed in the universe appears to be contingent on something else, therefore…ooh look, a helicopter… everything else in the universe that I haven't observed must be also contingent on something else too. That's the called the fallacy of faulty generalisation:

If you are saying there could be something in the universe that is the necessary entity, I could agree but that of course depends on which definition of “Universe” you are using.
If it is the universe of all entities then yes, if it is the universe of physical entities then probably not.
That means I am not making the argument you are accusing me of.
I have frequently replied to Jeremy “What is it in or about the universe that is not contingent”

Crap argument 2: because everything in the universe is (supposedly) contingent, therefore … ooh look, another helicopter… so the universe itself must also be contingent on something else. That's called the fallacy of composition:

Since, depending on which definition of universe you are using, I am not making. Crap argument 1, how can I be making crap argument 2? But let’s park that for a moment...again it depends what you mean  by universe. Is the universe merely the name we give for a collection of contingent things or is it a singular functional entity?
 We can use the following analogy of the team.
Suppose we have 11 excellent football players...does that mean we have a great team? Not necessarily,that is a fallacy of composition.
However, and here is the part you miss out Hillside...can we actually assume a team?No these players may play for different teams etc.

Are there any conditions that trump an accusation of fallacy of composition.
Firstly there is the principle of mediocrity used by some cosmologists.....Paul Davies, for example, which says the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe, so we can expect not to observe a non contingent anywhere

Secondly, a necessary being cannot be composite. In the case of the universe being an actual entity, it is only a single entity because it is composed. It emerges from it’s components.
And an emergent is not independent but contingent.

Crap argument 3: because the universe is (also supposedly) caused by something else, for reasons I can’t explain right now that something is… ooh look, a third helicopter… also the god in which I just happen to believe, only this god is also uncaused because, you know, he’s magic. That's called the fallacy of special pleading:

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

God is the name given to the Necessary entity, but I guess you could call it Something else except perhaps, atheism.

Apart from all that though…
[/quote]

[Enki]

Vlad,
From  your post 50477:

God is the name given to the Necessary entity, but I guess you could call it Something else except perhaps, atheism.

My idea of any god is that it is some sort of conscious entity with superhuman powers.

My idea of atheism is that it is a lack of belief in any god.

Let's accept for the purposes of this response that there is such a thing as a necessary entity or entities.

Why should it have to be some sort of conscious entity? Why can't it simply be some sort of natural mechanism/structure/force(call it what you will) devoid of any consciousness whatsoever?

Obviously it can't be called 'atheism' because that is simply a category error. It would make no sense at all.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it isn’t because there could be no such ability without creating an infinite regress – whatever was necessary to do that “controlling” would then have to do some thinking of its own, so (according to your thinking) it in turn would need another controller of its own and so on forever.

You still do not seem to grasp that an entity with the power to exert control does not need another controller.
Without the power to control your thought processes how can you possibly give credence to whatever drops out from your uncontrollable sub conscious brain activity?

You know this already though because it’s been explained to you here countless times, but you always ignore the explanation.

No.
I offer a valid response which you choose to find reasons to reject.

You’ve got this arse-backwards. It’s our thoughts that enable us to discern truths, not the other way around. That’s why your thought that just ignoring the falsifications of your justifying reasoning is a good way to preserve your wrongheaded beliefs about what is true.   

I think you did not fully grasp what I said - "We cannot use our thoughts to change the truth"

Yes I know you’ve said it, but your behaviour here tells the opposite story.

I continue to witness to what I honestly believe to be true - not what I want to be true

No, I don’t just “refuse to accept it” – I falsify it. The problem though is that you then just ignore the falsifications you're given.

I do not ignore your falsifications - I disagree with them for valid reasons which I offer, but which you refuse to accept.

Falsified without rebuttal.

You cannot know for certain that your experience of conscious control and freedom to choose are illusions (or "just the way it seems")

Falsified without rebuttal.

You cannot know for certain that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were not based on historical facts

Falsified without rebuttal.

You cannot know for certain that all miracles claimed in Jesus name were false.

Falsified without rebuttal.

You cannot know for certain that the finely tuned parameters in this universe were not intended to bring about the formation of stars and planets

Falsified without rebuttal.

You cannot know for certain that all personal witness stories about miraculous conversions were false.

Gibberish.

You cannot deny that intelligent design does exist in this universe in the form of human creativity.

Falsified without rebuttal.

You cannot presume that all our human thoughts, words and actions can be derived entirely from unavoidable material reactions unless you know what comprises our conscious thoughts and how they work - in particular what drives them.

Why not?

See above.

[Outrider]

If it is the universe of all entities then yes, if it is the universe of physical entities then probably not.

Do you have anything to suggest that there is a distinction there? You're presuming the non-material in order to justify dismissing the argument that makes your claim of a non-material cause justifiable.

Secondly, a necessary being cannot be composite.

Isn't your preferred choice for this 'necessary' element the Trinity? One god that is also three? How is that not composite in the same way that, say, a closed loop of causality?

In the case of the universe being an actual entity, it is only a single entity because it is composed. It emerges from it’s components.

But that universe came into being, so far as we can tell, as a single thing - it's composed of a total amount of energy (and potentially 'anti-energy', some of which is condensed into matter, some of which is condensed into anti-matter. It changes appearance over time, but you can't remove or destroy any of this substructures, you can only change their manifestation. We perceive the universe as being made of 'stuff' from the inside, but from outside it's a just a four-dimensional time-space construction in which we, and everything else, are just substructures.

God is the name given to the Necessary entity, but I guess you could call it Something else except perhaps, atheism.

God, as a term, carries quite a lot of baggage that isn't adequately supported by the argument you're trying to make, even if you managed to pull it off.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
From  your post 50477:

My idea of any god is that it is some sort of conscious entity with superhuman powers.

My idea of atheism is that it is a lack of belief in any god.

Let's accept for the purposes of this response that there is such a thing as a necessary entity or entities.

Why should it have to be some sort of conscious entity? Why can't it simply be some sort of natural mechanism/structure/force(call it what you will) devoid of any consciousness whatsoever?

Obviously it can't be called 'atheism' because that is simply a category error. It would make no sense at all.

OK Am I right in saying the jist of the post is, "Why does the necessary entity on which everything depends for existence have to be a conscious supernatural entity?" Since arguments arriving at a necessary entity don't seem to get us to a conscious supernatural being.

I'm sure you would agree that it's really up to the believer or religion to outline what they believe about God rather than imposing your view of their God.

So, for centuries, Christians have described God as sovereign.
That means God is a unique, independent entity.God is creator of the universe, St Thomas Aquinas, conscious of not having material evidence of a beginning developed the argument from contingency, an argument which is based on how things exist rather than a beginning.

Even today we don't know scientifically whether there is a beginning.

Returning to sovereignty. The necessary entity is sovereign, there is nothing outside the necessary entity to dictate it's actions. There is no context for it to act randomly or unconsciously if you will. There is no context for it to 'sleep' in.

It's "conscious,deliberate agency is down to the impossibility for it to blunder about accidently.

I suppose this makes the necessary entity supernatural, because consciousness is not usually assigned to natural process.

Whatever, the properties which logically have to be assigned to the necessary entity do not from my point of view fit into traditional atheist thinking. So it is down to the free thinker who accepts the notion of a necessary entity to make what they will of it.

[jeremyp]

I have frequently replied to Jeremy “What is it in or about the universe that is not contingent”

That's not a reply: it's a deflection.

The only property the Universe needs to make it non-contingent is that it was not created by something else. That's basic. Why don't you understand it?

]

[jeremyp]

Secondly, a necessary being cannot be composite.

But your god is composite.

Why can't it be composite?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not a reply: it's a deflection.

The only property the Universe needs to make it non-contingent is that it was not created by something else. That's basic. Why don't you understand it?

]

Whose arguing against that?
Are you mistaking you're statement with another, namely "The universe wasn't created"?

What's your point?

[Enki]

OK Am I right in saying the jist of the post is, "Why does the necessary entity on which everything depends for existence have to be a conscious supernatural entity?" Since arguments arriving at a necessary entity don't seem to get us to a conscious supernatural being.

Yes, I would say that is the gist of my post.

I'm sure you would agree that it's really up to the believer or religion to outline what they believe about God rather than imposing your view of their God.

Of course. My view accords with the dictionary definition which could apply to all gods. If you are suggesting that the idea of a god could include the idea of it not being a conscious entity for instance then the idea of a necessary entity could mean anything which one could simply give the name 'god' to. One could easily call it something else, of course.

So, for centuries, Christians have described God as sovereign.
That means God is a unique, independent entity.God is creator of the universe, St Thomas Aquinas, conscious of not having material evidence of a beginning developed the argument from contingency, an argument which is based on how things exist rather than a beginning.

That's up to Christians. My point is that if there is such a thing as a necessary entity, it doesn't have to be some sort of conscious being, it could be totally inanimate. To call the God of Christianity the necessary entity is no more than an assertion.

Even today we don't know scientifically whether there is a beginning.

Whether there is or not is not my point. I am much more interested in how this necessary entity(if it exists} equates to a god.

Returning to sovereignty. The necessary entity is sovereign, there is nothing outside the necessary entity to dictate it's actions. There is no context for it to act randomly or unconsciously if you will. There is no context for it to 'sleep' in

It's "conscious,deliberate agency is down to the impossibility for it to blunder about accidently.

As you have no idea what this necessary entity is(if it exists) then you have no evidence that it doesn't include a random element or even if it still exists.

I suppose this makes the necessary entity supernatural, because consciousness is not usually assigned to natural process.

Unless this necessary entity can be discovered and found to be inanimate. Then it would simply be the most basic part of a natural process.

Whatever, the properties which logically have to be assigned to the necessary entity do not from my point of view fit into traditional atheist thinking. So it is down to the free thinker who accepts the notion of a necessary entity to make what they will of it.

That would depend on two things, accepting the idea of a necessary entity and assuming that it equates to a god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Yes there are no objective reasons, so the reasons he gave seem to be subjective or faith-based e.g. believing in miracles and a resurrection based on stories that have been passed down through the centuries; his personal experiences; his ability to think .....therefore God.

There are multiple possible explanations but he picks one explanation based on faith. And since his faith tells him to spread his faith - he is trying to convince others too.

Have you actually read anything AB posts? You might think there are no objective reasons for his god. I might think there are no objective reasons for his god. AB though thinks otherwise – he thinks there are objective reasons, and he lists them too – frequently in fact. The problem that they’re all hopeless is a secondary matter.

Why is personal / subjective experience a crap reason to justify your belief in something supernatural, since the supernatural has no methodology to objectively justify belief in it? Personal experiences are an important part of how we arrive at our beliefs about abstract concepts that we emotionally invest in. Personal experiences  create emotional reactions and inform our values and how we interact with others.

You’re struggling for comprehension again here. Waking up one day with a warm feeling in your tummy that Jesus wants you for a sunbeam isn’t the crap reason at issue here. The crap reasons are the list of arguments he tries (fine tuning etc) that are demonstrably, objectively false. That’s why there’s no reason to take his emotional truth seriously as an objective fact about the world that’s thereby true for anyone else too.

The point I was actually making by the way is that I suspect AB has at least some understanding of logical argument, which is why he’d presumably reject my offer of a bridge for sale if the sales patter involved arguments that are fallacious. What I find perplexing is that he nonetheless attempts exactly the fallacies he’d reject in that situation when he wants me to believe in his god.   

How does this line of thinking apply to abstract concepts such as the supernatural that people have an emotional investment in?

A: God is real because X

B: X is a fallacy (and here’s why) so cannot be relied on to justify your claim “God is real”

A: OK, I understand that now. I will therefore abandon X and either try something else instead, or accept that all I have is a personal faith claim so I’m giving you no reason to agree with me.

What AB does though is this:

A: God is real because X

B: X is a fallacy (and here’s why) so cannot be relied on to justify your claim “God is real”

A: God is real because X

(Now repeat endlessly)

Not surprising given the lack of objective evidence to support or rule out the supernatural, which is why the belief is faith-based.

Again, tell AB that. He’s the one proposing objective justifying reasons, not me

Objective reasoning is not false –

They can be. Objective reasons that are false are called fallacies. You can look them up too.

…just not applicable when it comes to concepts about the supernatural. Any experiences are subjective and people can relate to others the experience they felt they had and interpret those experiences into a particular narrative but they can't replicate the experience for someone else.

FFS. WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS??? Tell the person who thinks he has objective reasons to justify his claim “god”. I’m NOT that person.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You still do not seem to grasp that an entity with the power to exert control does not need another controller.

But you’re the one asserting the humans cannot make decisions unaided, so a magic man called a “soul” must be at the controls to pull the strings. Using your own assertion about that, why then would the magic soul not need a separate magic soul of his own to pull his strings, and so on forever?

Without the power to control your thought processes how can you possibly give credence to whatever drops out from your uncontrollable sub conscious brain activity?

Because that’s all that any logically cogent deduction of what’s actually happening permits. You’re also trying an argmentum ad consequentiam fallacy here by the way.

No.
I offer a valid response which you choose to find reasons to reject.

Again, no you don’t. “Reject” and “falsify” are not the same thing. What I do is the latter, which is when you always run away from the problem your false reasoning has given you.

I think you did not fully grasp what I said - "We cannot use our thoughts to change the truth"

I think i grasp it better you do, which is why I know it’s idiotic. It’s “our thoughts” that construct our models of what truths might be. Truths aren’t just lying around like pebbles to be picked up – they’re human constructions, our interpretations of the observable universe. That’s why what we might think to be true on a Monday might well be different on a Tuesday. 

I continue to witness to what I honestly believe to be true - not what I want to be true

That fallacy is called a non sequitur. What can’t they be both – why can’t you honestly believe to be true only what you want to be true?

I do not ignore your falsifications - I disagree with them for valid reasons which I offer, but which you refuse to accept.

Can you think of one example of you rebutting a falsification I’ve given you with an actual counter-argument of your own rather than with just a repetition of your initial mistake? Just one will do.

You cannot know for certain that your experience of conscious control and freedom to choose are illusions (or "just the way it seems")

You cannot know for certain that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus were not based on historical facts

You cannot know for certain that all miracles claimed in Jesus name were false.

You cannot know for certain that the finely tuned parameters in this universe were not intended to bring about the formation of stars and planets

You cannot know for certain that all personal witness stories about miraculous conversions were false.

You cannot know for certain that leprechauns don’t leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows either. What you’ve done here (five times) is attempted a basic fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. You’re the one making the positive claims about these matters, so it’s your job to justify those claims. Just telling me effectively "nothing's impossible" instead doesn't even come close to doing that.

Can you begin to see here finally the difference between a rejection (which is what you did with a logical fallacy) and a falsification (which is what I did by explaining to you where you went wrong again)? 

You cannot deny that intelligent design does exist in this universe in the form of human creativity.

Of course I can. What causal relationship do you think there is between those two things?

You cannot presume that all our human thoughts, words and actions can be derived entirely from unavoidable material reactions unless you know what comprises our conscious thoughts and how they work - in particular what drives them.

But you can deduce it on the basis of the available reason and evidence, and in any case that’s not my problem. You’re the one asserting it to be “totally impossible” – rather than rely on the fallacy of shifting the burden or proof again, why not then finally attempt a justifying argument to support your assertion? 

See above.

Seen and rebutted. Comprehensively. 

[ekim]

Ok - and we recognise from experience that we usually have to tolerate some pain to get pleasure. There are different degrees of pleasure and pain and different tolerance levels to pain so people subconsciously and consciously calculate how much pain for them is worth the pleasure they hope will follow?

Yes, this applies to  outward looking (ex-periencial) for a source of pleasure.  Addiction to such sources of pleasure can also lead to pain.  Many religions have a 'mystical' element within them.  The mystic tends to advocate an inward looking (in-periential) approach, beyond the activities of the mind.  It is often referred to as joy or bliss ,rather than pleasure, and enjoyment is seen as finding the joy within and expressing it.  The difficulty is in transcending the disturbances of the psyche, probably what your religion considers to be an inner jihad and a mystic Christian might see as an ascension to the Kingdom of Heaven within.

I think heaven would need a hell for the concept of heaven to work. Presumably therefore we have the option of being exposed to these concepts/ metaphors and influences without becoming indoctrinated?  I think we are constantly being subjected to attempts to influence us (not sure if that should be classes as attempts to indoctrinate us) by being part of a society - to me religion and religious slogans and rituals are just ways of counteracting non-religious slogans, rituals, attempts at indoctrination and influence from society on me and vice versa.

Yes, I would say that it is possible to become a detached observer of the processes.  The problem arises when an emotional attachment sets in and the individual becomes part of a collective ego.  It then can lead to conflict with alternative collective egos, which perhaps sums up the external world situation.

[Dicky Underpants]

But your god is composite.

Why can't it be composite?

Vlad's argument might have a somewhat better foundation if his faith were Muslim or Jewish. As it is, he's contradicting himself from the very start.

[Dicky Underpants]

God, as a term, carries quite a lot of baggage that isn't adequately supported by the argument you're trying to make, even if you managed to pull it off.

O.

Quite so. Even if you can make Vlad's argument stick, you really get the feeling that what it boils down to is the desire for the individuals making it to believe that the necessary entity cares about them. What if there is a 'necessary entity' (I'm not in the slightest convinced by any arguments given here and elsewhere, btw) and it doesn't care a damn? What if it's actively malignant (a kind of Gnostic view, explored by Anthony Burgess in his novel "Earthly Powers"). What, if it comes down to it, it's nothing more that Henry Miller's immortal words "Two lumps of shit on a plate"?

And, as Jeremy has often pointed out, Vlad's necessary entity "divisum est in partes tres"

[Dicky Underpants]

But is that how time works?Is the universe and time included in it not the result of entropy going from maximum order to disorder with heat death along the way?

I'd like a physicist to tell us something on the latest views on entropy. We have long known that the basic 'direction' of entropy is constantly being tricked and diverted by its behaviour in open systems (hence the evolution of life on earth). We also know that at the quantum level, entropy seems to be behaving in a very strange way. It has indeed been predicted that heat death is the end of the known universe, but trying to predict from our limited knowledge now to some future state billions of years in the future seems a little hubristic. Does the maths even balance out?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you are saying there could be something in the universe that is the necessary entity, I could agree but that of course depends on which definition of “Universe” you are using.
If it is the universe of all entities then yes, if it is the universe of physical entities then probably not.
That means I am not making the argument you are accusing me of.
I have frequently replied to Jeremy “What is it in or about the universe that is not contingent”

No, I’m saying that your conclusion that everything in the universe must be contingent on something else because the slither of it that you’ve observed is contingent on something else is called the fallacy of faulty generalisation. I have no idea whether there’s one “necessary entity” in the universe, lots of them or none of them. There’s not enough information to hand to know that. The point here though is that you have no idea either, but it’s your claim that there isn’t. That’s why your first argument is crap. 

Since, depending on which definition of universe you are using, I am not making. Crap argument 1,…

Yes you are.

…how can I be making crap argument 2? But let’s park that for a moment...again it depends what you mean  by universe. Is the universe merely the name we give for a collection of contingent things or is it a singular functional entity?
 We can use the following analogy of the team.
Suppose we have 11 excellent football players...does that mean we have a great team? Not necessarily,that is a fallacy of composition.
However, and here is the part you miss out Hillside...can we actually assume a team?No these players may play for different teams etc.

Gibberish.

Are there any conditions that trump an accusation of fallacy of composition.
Firstly there is the principle of mediocrity used by some cosmologists.....Paul Davies, for example, which says the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe, so we can expect not to observe a non contingent anywhere

No. If your assertion is that the material (though largely unobserved) universe must be contingent on something else because all of its component parts (supposedly) are, then you’re committing the fallacy of composition. Again. 

That's why your second argument is crap. It’s very simple.

Secondly, a necessary being cannot be composite. In the case of the universe being an actual entity, it is only a single entity because it is composed. It emerges from it’s components.
And an emergent is not independent but contingent.

Why not? If you want to abandon reason and evidence and take a jolly holiday instead into the world of magical thinking, why couldn’t a magic god have made itself in as many pieces as it wanted to? 97.5 for example?

God is the name given to the Necessary entity, but I guess you could call it Something else except perhaps, atheism.

It’s a name given by some people to a supposed “necessary entity”, but it’s still special pleading to assert that it gets off the hook of contingency because "it’s magic innit". That's why your third argument is crap.

Apart from all that though…

[Dicky Underpants]

Vlad,

No, I’m saying that your conclusion that everything in the universe must be contingent on something else because the slither of it that you’ve observed is contingent on something else is called the fallacy of faulty generalisation. I have no idea whether there’s one “necessary entity” in the universe, lots of them or none of them. There’s not enough information to hand to know that. The point here though is that you have no idea either, but it’s your claim that there isn’t. That’s why your first argument is crap. 

Yes you are.

Gibberish.

No. If your assertion is that the material (though largely unobserved) universe must be contingent on something else because all of its component parts (supposedly) are, then you’re committing the fallacy of composition. Again. 

That's why your second argument is crap. It’s very simple.

Why not? If you want to abandon reason and evidence and take a jolly holiday instead into the world of magical thinking, why couldn’t a magic god have made itself in as many pieces as it wanted to? 97.5 for example?

It’s a name given by some people to a supposed “necessary entity”, but it’s still special pleading to assert that it gets off the hook of contingency because "it’s magic innit". That's why your third argument is crap.

Apart from all that though…

Brilliant.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I do not ignore your falsifications - I disagree with them for valid reasons which I offer, but which you refuse to accept.

AB - you said that you think we can't choose our beliefs - am I quoting you correctly?

And you think that beliefs are formed by thinking about all the different possible explanations for something you observe and ruling out explanations that don't make sense to you in light of information and experiences stored in your brain - have I understood you correctly? 

So regarding your statement to BHS about the falsifications he has offered, I am not going to run through them all, but please could you respond on the following 2 points in relation to falsifications:

(1) It is possible that there are alternative explanations for conscious awareness that don't involve a God

(2) It is possible that miracle stories and all the various stories in religions could be inaccurate or exaggerated.

Are you saying you disagree with the above 2 possibilities?

Are you saying that you have provided valid reasons why the only possible explanation for conscious awareness is God and you have provided valid reasons why it is not possible for the miracle stories and religious stories in various religions to be inaccurate or exaggerated?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, I’m saying that your conclusion that everything in the universe must be contingent on something else

That’s not my conclusion for a universe defined as containing contingent things and the necessary entity. This was pointed out to you but you are just repeating the accusation.

No. If your assertion is that the material (though largely unobserved) universe must be contingent on something else because all of its component parts (supposedly) are, then you’re committing the fallacy of composition. Again. 

Any thing which is composite is contingent on a reason for it’s type of parts and number of parts. It can therefore not be the necessary entity. This is taking almost as long to realise this as it took you to suss out that the argument from contingency was not the same as the Kalam cosmological argument.

Is the universe anything more than a collection of entities though Hillside?
Not in your definition of emergence. And yet here you are suggesting something that ordinarily you would write off as magic.

Once again....a composite cannot be the necessary entity because there is a reason for the type of parts and number of parts which is independent of those parts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But your god is composite.

Why can't it be composite?

God composite? No, it’s the same god that we encounter in Christ as in the father.
The analogy is that they are of the same substance rather than three different substances.

A composite raises the question, what is the reason for the type of components and the number of the components. The answer or reason logically precedes the composite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite so. Even if you can make Vlad's argument stick, you really get the feeling that what it boils down to is the desire for the individuals making it to believe that the necessary entity cares about them. What if there is a 'necessary entity' (I'm not in the slightest convinced by any arguments given here and elsewhere, btw) and it doesn't care a damn? What if it's actively malignant (a kind of Gnostic view, explored by Anthony Burgess in his novel "Earthly Powers"). What, if it comes down to it, it's nothing more that Henry Miller's immortal words "Two lumps of shit on a plate"?

And, as Jeremy has often pointed out, Vlad's necessary entity "divisum est in partes tres"

I think though it could be shown you think the universe is the necessary entity. In which case your not being convinced by the notion is purely performative.

How does one know whether the necessary entity cares or doesn’t care about us?

[jeremyp]

Who's arguing against that?

You.

Are you mistaking your statement with another, namely "The universe wasn't created"?

What?

What's your point?

My point is that you are wrong and your arguments are confused and irrational.

[jeremyp]

God composite? No, it’s the same god that we encounter in Christ as in the father.

Your god is allegedly composed of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

No amount of you waffling can change the fact that your god is composed of three parts.