Are we now agreed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Followed by your explanation as to what way the universe is necessary.

[jeremyp]

And I am looking forward to see you justify your assertion that the universe has no explanation.

Has no known explanation.

I can justify it because nobody has provided one and we can prolong this thread for years but in spite of the fact that you could win the argument just by producing evidence that the Un verse does have an explanation, we both know you won't do it. 

[jeremyp]

Followed by your explanation as to what way the universe is necessary.

Why would I bother to do that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would I bother to do that?

Why you would bother I know not....and frankly bothered not.

[jeremyp]

Why you would bother I know not....and frankly bothered not.

Why did you ask me to then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

However if you are saying the universe has no explanation for its origin and never will have which is what you have asserted then that would mean that the universe is necessarily the way it is.

That is your de facto position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And if you are asserting that the universe is necessarily the way it is then you would be undone immediately by the question " why this universe and not another or even why the universe and not a stone?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Has no known explanation.

I dont think any body is arguing much against that but then even that is unjustified since we would have to know about the whole universe to know it absolutely.

That does not detract from it either having an explanation or not and the universe as the necessary entity isnt a promising argument eg find anything that isnt contingent.

[BeRational]

However if you are saying the universe has no explanation for its origin and never will have which is what you have asserted then that would mean that the universe is necessarily the way it is.

That is your de facto position.

I think the position is that we do not know.
That does not mean you can make stuff up.
If you do, then you have the burden of proof.

[SteveH]

There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.

If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?

That it is essential to life on earth does not prove purpose. We're here arguing about it because all the conditions for life happened to exist here. There are probably billions of other planets in our galaxy which are lifeless because the conditions weren't right. There are seven other planets and one dwarf planet in our solar system that are lifeless.

[BeRational]

There's no water on the moon. Even so, the moon itself keeps the water on earth moving, which could be its purpose.

If I get lots of random beams and tiles together and arrange them to make a roof, I have made something with a purpose (keeping the rain off). But according to your view, a roof has a purpose but the water cycle, created through a specific arrangement of the sun, the earth and some water on the earth, has no purpose?

There is water ice I believe the moon. This means that it could be mined for drinking and rocket fuel.

There is lots of water in the solar system just not in liquid form. I think Mars also has water ice.

[SteveH]

water ice

Is thereanother kind? I'll have to ponder that over an apple cider.

[BeRational]

Is thereanother kind? I'll have to ponder that over an apple cider.

Well yes, methane ice, all gasses solidify when cold enough.

Hydrogen is a liquid metal in the centre of Jupiter

[SteveH]

Hmmm... spoze you're right.

[jeremyp]

Is thereanother kind? I'll have to ponder that over an apple cider.

Dry ice.

[SteveH]

Dry ice.

Yes. I was just making a feeble joke ("apple cider" is tautological, because there's no such thing as "pear cider".)

[jeremyp]

there's no such thing as "pear cider".)

A negative claim. The burden of proof isn on me...

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/beer-and-cider/cider/pear-cider

[SteveH]

A negative claim. The burden of proof isn on me...

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/beer-and-cider/cider/pear-cider

Very funny. The alcoholic drink made from pears is properly called perry, whatever Bulmers, Tesco, etc. think.

[Roses]

A negative claim. The burden of proof isn on me...

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/shop/drinks/beer-and-cider/cider/pear-cider

I hope Tesco is giving this forum a donation as its products are being advertised.

[jeremyp]

Very funny. The alcoholic drink made from pears is properly called perry, whatever Bulmers, Tesco, etc. think.

Yes, you'd think, but plenty of people disagree with you. There are even some who think there is a difference between pear cider and perry.

[jeremyp]

I hope Tesco is giving this forum a donation as its products are being advertised.

Of course not. I'm the one who posted it. The kick backs are all going to me.

Bwahahah

[Roses]

Of course not. I'm the one who posted it. The kick backs are all going to me.

Bwahahah

 

[wigginhall]

Very funny. The alcoholic drink made from pears is properly called perry, whatever Bulmers, Tesco, etc. think.

I enjoyed that "properly", but I wonder who decides what's proper?  You, I suppose.

[SteveH]

I enjoyed that "properly", but I wonder who decides what's proper?  You, I suppose.

No, of course not. Oxford Dictionaries, inter many alia. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perry

[Enki]

No, of course not. Oxford Dictionaries, inter many alia. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perry

I agree with you, but not if you lived in the US where you can talk about apple cider because cider there simply means any unfermented crushed fruit such as apple, pear, even blackcurrant cider.