What 'evidence' and 'reasons' exactly are atheists after.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just as well that I don't then - can you name anyone here who does?

Not a cop out at all, and since you've just cited as follows "God or no god is an unknown unknown" then you seem to be indulging in what you yourself call a "cop out": you seem very confused.

They're supernatural, of course.   

I was responding to your inept attempts at talking about why the universe exists. Philosophical naturalism seems to be something you're obsessed with for some reason of your own. I'm perfectly happy to accept the possibility of something "supernatural" but we would need some way of investigating claims about it - a methodology. Otherwise it's just guessing and my claims about all the little Erics who cause gravity are just as valid as anything anybody else claims about supernatural stuff.

Oh I see argumentum ad ridiculum. Makes a change from Leprechauns though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just as well that I don't then - can you name anyone here who does?

Not a cop out at all, and since you've just cited as follows "God or no god is an unknown unknown" then you seem to be indulging in what you yourself call a "cop out": you seem very confused.

Sorry, there are of course no unknown unknowns here both your example and god or no god are known unknowns.

[Gordon]

The example you give isn’t an unknown unknown but another known unknown.

So, do you have a list of all the known potential candidates for 'creator' even if you don't know which of these are the most likely candidates? Is so, how certain are you that there could be other candidate that you can't currently conceive of?

[Gordon]

Sorry, there are of course no unknown unknowns here both your example and god or no god are known unknowns.

Let me simplify it for you: do you recognise that there may be 'unknown unknowns' is a risk you can't exclude?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, do you have a list of all the known potential candidates for 'creator' even if you don't know which of these are the most likely candidates? Is so, how certain are you that there could be other candidate that you can't currently conceive of?

They are either personal or impersonal but they would have had to be a creator.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let me simplify it for you: do you recognise that there may be 'unknown unknowns' is a risk you can't exclude?

There may be but not in the question God or no god.

[Gordon]

There may be but not in the question God or no god.

How so?

[Gordon]

They are either personal or impersonal but they would have had to be a creator.

What has personal or impersonal got to do with whether or not there is a 'creator'?

[Stranger]

Oh I see argumentum ad ridiculum. Makes a change from Leprechauns though.

Evasion again. Actually a reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument in which one takes a proposition (or its negation, depending on what you're trying to prove) and demonstrate that it leads to an absurd conclusion (you can even use it, in a formal way, in mathematics).

If there is no methodology for the supernatural, then all claims about it carry equal weight, so my Erics, and, for that matter, supernatural leprechauns, are just as (in)valid as any god(s) claims. That is absurd, so there needs to be a methodology if we are to take claims about it seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How so?

Because we know it’s either god or not but we don’t know which.
A known unknown.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What has personal or impersonal got to do with whether or not there is a 'creator'?

It’s either conscious computational has volition and acts with purpose or it’s unconscious uncalculating without volition or purpose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evasion again. Actually a reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument in which one takes a proposition (or its negation, depending on what you're trying to prove) and demonstrate that it leads to an absurd conclusion (you can even use it, in a formal way, in mathematics).

If there is no methodology for the supernatural, then all claims about it carry equal weight, so my Erics, and, for that matter, supernatural leprechauns, are just as (in)valid as any god(s) claims. That is absurd, so there needs to be a methodology if we are to take claims about it seriously.

No, argument from ridicule is a fallacy.

Supernatural Leprechauns ? Why call the creator of the universe a pixie unless you wish to make argumentum ad ridiculum.

[Nearly Sane]

Because we know it’s either god or not but we don’t know which.
A known unknown.

Without a logically coherent definition of god, it's just a meaningless statement.

[jeremyp]

There are no unknowns here it is a known unknown …...either God is or he isn't.

Or something unknown is there, and if it is God we don't know whether God is the end of the trail.After all, God has to come from somewhere.

[jeremyp]

The personal creator of this universe I suppose could be contingent or it could be the necessary creator and thus the explanation is found in itself.

If the universe is necessary, then its explanation can be found in itself.

[jeremyp]

How would they do it?

How would God do it?

[jeremyp]

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me

No, it's a tautology. Either x or not(x) is logically always true.

since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god'

Assuming the creator has agency, it would automatically fall under the definition of "god" wouldn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the universe is necessary, then its explanation can be found in itself.

Yes we should then be looking for the necessary in the universe. Something therefore that is not contingent.

[ippy]

I do not need to prove my case on an old message board Ippy.
I just have to take part in discussion.

Unless you come up with some evidence you've, literally, nothing to discuss, you do, it seems to me, to be going around in pointless circles arguing as yet about nothing!

ippy   

[ippy]

Something just for you ippy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYOQ5XMsbIk&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2BrHOrjJX9ZZNMCZlVD2LZrsY6uJipZBp2IwGoVk9PaXAZfKmlnRiySwk

Thanks for that Robbie, I did wonder what Vlad's actual name was and it was also interesting to hear his actual voice too.

The talk reminded me of that well known old army saying, 'Bullshit Baffles Brains', if the bloke talking to Sam wasn't Vlad? Well who else could it have possibly have been there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, aaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

[Stranger]

No, argument from ridicule is a fallacy.

Supernatural Leprechauns ? Why call the creator of the universe a pixie unless you wish to make argumentum ad ridiculum.

Are you just not paying attention? Like it or not a reductio ad absurdum can be perfectly valid (even in mathematics) and I never called the creator of the universe a pixie. I'm pointing out that claims of the supernatural lead to absurdities in the absence of a methodology.

[Gordon]

No, it's a tautology. Either x or not(x) is logically always true.

Vlad's options are 'no god' or 'god', so those are two different options - so a dichotomy - whereas a tautology is essentially saying the same thing twice.

Assuming the creator has agency, it would automatically fall under the definition of "god" wouldn't it?

I don't think we have a sound definition of 'god' anyway, but if we say it is essentially supernatural rather than natural, then Vlad's approach excludes a natural alternative, however unlikely it seems, that we currently couldn't recognise, but if we ever did it would be via a naturalistic method - so not a supernatural 'god' but a third option alongside Vlad's 'no god' and 'god': a prospect that is at present an 'unknown unknown' 

[jeremyp]

Yes we should then be looking for the necessary in the universe. Something therefore that is not contingent.

No. You should be looking for the necessary in the god you claim exists.

Oh, what, you can’t find that god? Well that’s your problem.

[jeremyp]

Vlad's options are 'no god' or 'god', so those are two different options - so a dichotomy - whereas a tautology is essentially saying the same thing twice.

In logic, a tautology is a technical term that applies to a statement that must be true, no matter what. “Either this Apple is red or this Apple is not red” is a tautology in logic because it’s provably true just using the rules of formal logic.

“Either there is a god or there is not a god” Is not a false dichotomy and it is a tautology because X or not(X) Is provably true no matter what X is.

I don't think we have a sound definition of 'god' anyway,

It doesn’t matter though. The only problem is if you change the definition half way through evaluating the statement.

but if we say it is essentially supernatural rather than natural, then Vlad's approach excludes a natural alternative, however unlikely it seems, that we currently couldn't recognise, but if we ever did it would be via a naturalistic method - so not a supernatural 'god' but a third option alongside Vlad's 'no god' and 'god': a prospect that is at present an 'unknown unknown'

I find the whole natural / supernatural dichotomy problematic. As soon as you have enough evidence that something supernatural exists, you relabel it as natural.

[Gordon]

In logic, a tautology is a technical term that applies to a statement that must be true, no matter what. “Either this Apple is red or this Apple is not red” is a tautology in logic because it’s provably true just using the rules of formal logic.

“Either there is a god or there is not a god” Is not a false dichotomy and it is a tautology because X or not(X) Is provably true no matter what X is.

OK - I see that now. I was thinking of tautology in the rhetorical sense - as in 'we reconvened again'. Surely though 'god' and 'no god' is a dichotomy?