Original sin.

[Stranger]

Do you want some more?

Of what? I'm still waiting for any hint of an argument for your gods......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of what? I'm still waiting for any hint of an argument for your gods......

Sorry, I'm talking about the grounds of belief, You are involved in an argument and yet you don't register the fact.....do you have learning difficulties?

Your ''call that an argument schtick'' just adds to the impression of stupidity on your part.

[Stranger]

Sorry, I'm talking about the grounds of belief, You are involved in an argument and yet you don't register the fact..

No, Vlad, I originally challenged your statement:-

The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.
The only economically logical solution is therefore the creator and creation model.

You have still not come up with even the hint of a justification for it.

Instead of trying to back it up, you have engaged in your usual practice of manufacturing straw men; inventing arguments you'd prefer I'd made instead of trying to back up your own.

...do you have learning difficulties?

Your ''call that an argument schtick'' just adds to the impression of stupidity on your part.

Vlad calling me stupid - how will I ever recover!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, Vlad, I originally challenged your statement:-

You have still not come up with even the hint of a justification for it.

Instead of trying to back it up, you have engaged in your usual practice of manufacturing straw men; inventing arguments you'd prefer I'd made instead of trying to back up your own.

Vlad calling me stupid - how will I ever recover!

You really have swallowed the line haven't you.

The hints to God:
Cause and effect....The effect being the universe.
Governance....The laws of the universe not dependent on situation but universality.

NOW ABOUT YOUR ''CALL THAT AN ARGUMENT'' SCHTICK.......

[Stranger]

The hints to God:
Cause and effect....The effect being the universe.
Governance....The laws of the universe not dependent on situation but universality.

You missed out the steps that lead to god.

Cause an effect operate within the universe. Remember saying this:-

Your problem is of course trying to justify and describe the providence of a thing from what is inside it....and worse, from an arbitrary point of view of what can be found inside it.

...?

Just calling regularity "governance" doesn't magic up a conscious lawgiver. All the available evidence is that consciousness and intelligence need regularity, not the other way around.

You also said that god was "the only economically logical solution", not that there were hints.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You missed out the steps that lead to god.

You first with the steps from 'Vlad has no argument' to 'Vlad has an argument' but he has missed steps out.

I'm afraid causation of and Governance of, and Lawgiving to amount partly to what we are saying God is.....To say there is no argument is incorrect therefore.

[Stranger]

You first with the steps from 'Vlad has no argument' to 'Vlad has an argument' but he has missed steps out.

What you appeared to have, in your last post, are some premises and a conclusion. The argument bit is missing.

I'm afraid causation of and Governance of, and Lawgiving to amount partly to what we are saying God is....

Not quite sure what to make of this abuse of the English language. Are you saying that your gods (there was an infinite regress not many posts back) are the "laws" of the universe? Why call them gods?

...To say there is no argument is incorrect therefore.

I'm still waiting for one...

[jeremyp]

You first with the steps from 'Vlad has no argument' to 'Vlad has an argument' but he has missed steps out.

Missing steps out of an argument is the same thing as not having an argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Missing steps out of an argument is the same thing as not having an argument.

He says I missed steps,,,,,that is his argument. I didn't miss any steps which amount to an argument for God.

[Stranger]

He says I missed steps,,,,,that is his argument. I didn't miss any steps which amount to an argument for God.

Sorry, so now you are claiming that this:-

The hints to God:
Cause and effect....The effect being the universe.
Governance....The laws of the universe not dependent on situation but universality.

is a complete argument for god...?

Hilarious.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, so now you are claiming that this:-is a complete argument for god...?

Hilarious.   

Something that causes and provides it with laws to follow........
......of course that's the God argument.

[Stranger]

Something that causes and provides it with laws to follow........
......of course that's the God argument.

So, you'd call anything that does that "god", would you? Not necessarily a being, not necessarily good or omni- anything. Nothing to do with the bible or any other religion....?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, you'd call anything that does that "god", would you? Not necessarily a being, not necessarily good or omni- anything. Nothing to do with the bible or any other religion....?

To be brutally reductionist about it yes........ since the atheist argument is that the universe and the laws which govern it have just pouffed themselves into existence.

[Stranger]

To be brutally reductionist about it yes........ since the atheist argument is that the universe and the laws which govern it have just pouffed themselves into existence.

Whereas the theist argument is that god just pouffed itself into existence.

The point is that you've just bundled up some unknowns and called them "god". You have established absolutely nothing about said unknowns. You have made no argument that this "god" is even one thing let alone a conscious being or that it has any purpose or any connection whatsoever with any religion.

So, to be clear: when you claim that "there is a god", you just mean that we don't know how the universe was caused (if it was) and we don't know why it has physical laws?

You just prefer to call your ignorance "god" and worship it.

[Shaker]

To be brutally reductionist about it yes........ since the atheist argument is that the universe and the laws which govern it have just pouffed themselves into existence.

And there was me thinking that any argument about the universe begins with the basic fact that we know nothing about how the universe came into being including if it even did so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas the theist argument is that god just pouffed itself into existence.

Yes.
But that doesn't help you in establishing I have not put forth an argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And there was me thinking that any argument about the universe begins with the basic fact that we know nothing about how the universe came into being including if it even did so.

But stranger and I were not talking about universe arguments but God arguments. I don't think anyone would argue about the universe being........

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whereas the theist argument is that god just pouffed itself into existence.

The point is that you've just bundled up some unknowns and called them "god". You have established absolutely nothing about said unknowns. You have made no argument that this "god" is even one thing let alone a conscious being or that it has any purpose or any connection whatsoever with any religion.

So, to be clear: when you claim that "there is a god", you just mean that we don't know how the universe was caused (if it was) and we don't know why it has physical laws?

You just prefer to call your ignorance "god" and worship it.

You are confusing an argument for with a claim for.
God as creator and governor can be argued for and as we know claimed for but a claim and an argument are not the same things.

Antitheists are a group of people roused by the ambitions of famous well heeled earning authors. What their motivations were I don't know , but skill in philosophical argument seems not as vitally important for them as those like your like yourself who are roused to follow the standard. Given the cack handedness in your handling of this thread I suggest you bone up a little more.

[Stranger]

Yes.
But that doesn't help you in establishing I have not put forth an argument.

No, that's what the rest of my post did. Rebadging ignorance as god, hardly counts as an argument for anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that's what the rest of my post did. Rebadging ignorance as god, hardly counts as an argument for anything.

No, the rest of your post reveals your car crash confusion between arguments for and claims of.

[jeremyp]

He says I missed steps,,,,,that is his argument. I didn't miss any steps which amount to an argument for God.

Actually you did miss a step. You failed to demonstrate that the cause of the Universe is God.

\One of your premises was wrong too. There's no evidence that the Universe even had a cause.

[Stranger]

You are confusing an argument for with a claim for.

You are confusing an argument with a daft renaming exercise.

God as creator and governor can be argued for and as we know claimed for but a claim and an argument are not the same things.

Go ahead and argue that anything remotely like any god of any religion is the creator and governor then, the floor is yours...

Antitheists are a group of people roused by the ambitions of famous well heeled earning authors. What their motivations were I don't know , but skill in philosophical argument seems not as vitally important for them as those like your like yourself who are roused to follow the standard. Given the cack handedness in your handling of this thread I suggest you bone up a little more.

I laughed out loud at that - coming from someone who doesn't understand the jargon he uses and whose response to having an obvious logical blunder pointed out was toilet "humour".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually you did miss a step. You failed to demonstrate that the cause of the Universe is God.

\One of your premises was wrong too. There's no evidence that the Universe even had a cause.

And there is no evidence that it did not since records only go back etc.....

However, arguments can be made on both sides for one or another.

If the universe is not the ultimate effect then what is it? would be an interesting starting place.

If it is a universe of cause and effect then what warrant do you draw from to say it is uncaused?.........that is interesting too.

[Shaker]

And there is no evidence that it did not ...

Hope, is that you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Go ahead and argue that anything remotely like any god of any religion is the creator and governor then, the floor is yours...

Ok

The two names of God

Can God be ''reduced'' to being seen as Creator and Governor.
IMHO yes. Since the universe is the Ultimate creation whatever created it must be the ultimate creator.

But there is the option of the creation of chaotic stuff....the option most likely to be caused by unconscious causation. Unconscious causation being the definition of any pre-existent unconscious nature.

However we have laws and laws that are not completely unified to any piece of material. We know for example all protons are positively charged.

Laws govern material and are not subject to it and in turn the laws and materials are subject to mathematics which itself is not subject to unconscious materials in the same way.

We have therefore governance of a universe that goes with creation. If you like a provided universe, in turn provided with governance.

At the level of consciousness there is then the question and discipline of the 'ought'.......this is an extension of Governance provided with creation ahead of the appearance of consciousness.

There we have it therefore. Creation of the ultimate and Governance of the ultimate

And that is definitionally God..............

And now.............. has anybody in the audience got a mobile phone for my next trick..........