Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered

''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''

What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free? 

[Gordon]

When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered

''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''

What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?

You have the ability to pack a lot of wrong into so few words: I suppose that is a skill of sorts.

Reasoning for life in the universe: you, me, hamsters, whales and camels (and many many more).

Reasoning for "everything being gods free": no idea, since as far as I can see that isn't a claim anyone is actually making. Since the weather is getting warmer, Vlad, please take care with matches given all that straw you seemingly surround yourself with.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have the ability to pack a lot of wrong into so few words: I suppose that is a skill of sorts.

Reasoning for life in the universe: you, me, hamsters, whales and camels (and many many more).

Reasoning for "everything being gods free": no idea, since as far as I can see that isn't a claim anyone is actually making. Since the weather is getting warmer, Vlad, please take care with matches given all that straw you seemingly surround yourself with.

Yawn

[Stranger]

When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered

''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''

What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?

The claim is that there is a lack of evidence or reasoning for god(s), not necessarily a lack of god(s). You can falsify the claim by providing sound reasoning or objective evidence for one or other of the thousands of god claims.

[jeremyp]

When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered

''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''

What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?

We’ve been posting on these boards and the BBC predecessors for decades and never once has a religionists presented any good evidence for their version - or any version - of a deity. The most parsimonious explanation of this is the hypothesis that these deities do not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We’ve been posting on these boards and the BBC predecessors for decades and never once has a religionists presented any good evidence for their version - or any version - of a deity. The most parsimonious explanation of this is the hypothesis that these deities do not exist.

Nobody has put good reasons for any philosophical position on this board and never wants to be seen to be saddled with one. For the same length of time. This is just a tiny wee niche where the atheists hang and not a patch on the BBC predecessor.

[jeremyp]

Nobody has put good reasons for any philosophical position on this board

I just gave you a good reason not to believe in gods (well, not to believe in the particular gods that Christians and others claim exist).

[SteveH]

When asked why people believe in god(s)free rather than God a laddie answered

''Evidence or reasoning for god(s)-free''

What then is the evidence and sound reasoning for life the universe and everything being gods free?

The onus is on believers to give evidence or arguments for the existance of a God or gods. In the absence of any, atheism wins by default. Occam's Razor, and all that.

[Roses]

The onus is on believers to give evidence or arguments for the existance of a God or gods. In the absence of any, atheism wins by default. Occam's Razor, and all that.

I agree. BTW it is existEnce, NOT existAnce!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The onus is on believers to give evidence or arguments for the existance of a God or gods. In the absence of any, atheism wins by default. Occam's Razor, and all that.

Occam's razor? How does that work? Occam's razor would have to state that the necessary in an observable universe of contingency is in the universe. Where is it? What is it?

[Stranger]

Occam's razor? How does that work? Occam's razor would have to state that the necessary in an observable universe of contingency is in the universe. Where is it? What is it?

You keep on mumbling about necessity and contingency, where is the actual argument? What are its premises and what are the logical steps involved?

[SteveH]

I agree. BTW it is existEnce, NOT existAnce!

Oops.

[Nearly Sane]

Occam's razor? How does that work? Occam's razor would have to state that the necessary in an observable universe of contingency is in the universe. Where is it? What is it?

Philosophically illiterate gibberish

[jeremyp]

Occam's razor? How does that work?

Stop sealioning.

[ippy]

I believe in 'Interninglesionians', anyone want to join my new belief?

May the forth be with you, ippy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You keep on mumbling about necessity and contingency, where is the actual argument? What are its premises and what are the logical steps involved?

Any evidence for naturalism yet.
Necessity and contingency is just a matter of effect and explanation of an effect.
So either something is contingent or something is necessary. In a self explaining universe where all we observe is contingency, there has to have a necessary component somewhere.

It's fairly straight forward. If it's explanation is outside the thing itself then it is a contingent thing.

 

[Stranger]

Any evidence for naturalism yet.

I'm not proposing it - ask somebody who is.

Necessity and contingency is just a matter of effect and explanation of an effect.
So either something is contingent or something is necessary. In a self explaining universe where all we observe is contingency, there has to have a necessary component somewhere.

It's fairly straight forward. If it's explanation is outside the thing itself then it is a contingent thing.

This is still incoherent. Once again: is there an actual argument somewhere?

[jeremyp]

Any evidence for naturalism yet.

All of science would like to have a word with you.

Necessity and contingency is just a matter of effect and explanation of an effect.

Got an explanation for God yet?

So either something is contingent or something is necessary. In a self explaining universe where all we observe is contingency, there has to have a necessary component somewhere.

What is the component of God that is necessary?

It's fairly straight forward. If it's explanation is outside the thing itself then it is a contingent thing.

Yes it is straight forward: all the arguments and objections you are making about the Universe can be applied to God also. So let's make  the problem simpler by not postulating God at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All of science would like to have a word with you.Got an explanation for God yet?
What is the component of God that is necessary?
Yes it is straight forward: all the arguments and objections you are making about the Universe can be applied to God also. So let's make  the problem simpler by not postulating God at all.

All of science is not a fraction of philosophical naturalism.
God is ALL necessary for the universe is what the proposal is.

This guff you keep spouting about things in the universe being contingent but the universe being necessary looks and probably is complete logical bollocks.

[Nearly Sane]

All of science is not a fraction of philosophical naturalism.
God is ALL necessary for the universe is what the proposal is.

This guff you keep spouting about things in the universe being contingent but the universe being necessary looks and probably is complete logical bollocks.

Gibberish, and a misrepresentation of what jeremyp has written.

[Stranger]

God is ALL necessary for the universe is what the proposal is.

Why should we take this proposal at all seriously? Where is the actual argument for it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should we take this proposal at all seriously? Where is the actual argument for it?

Since we are on the sound reasoning for god (s) free thread I am not obliged to give one here.

Please provide your sound reasoning.

[Stranger]

Since we are on the sound reasoning for god (s) free thread I am not obliged to give one here.

Please provide your sound reasoning.

You started this thread because you misunderstood what I said. I am not arguing for god(s)-free, I'm proposing that the world is [evidence and reasoning for god(s)]-free.

You can falsify my proposal by providing reasoning or evidence for god(s).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You started this thread because you misunderstood what I said. I am not arguing for god(s)-free, I'm proposing that the world is [evidence and reasoning for god(s)]-free.

You can falsify my proposal by providing reasoning or evidence for god(s).

Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''

How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy. Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.

[Stranger]

Stranger when asked for reasons for God(s)free......''I give you...….The world!!!''

How we all laughed. You have to do better than that chummy.

No - I haven't a clue what the hell you're on about. Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Besides, you've just betrayed your naturalism.....in my humble opinion.

How so? All I'm asking for is some reason to take any of the god stories seriously. Clearly you can't provide anything.