Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

as if[/i] there are no such things a leprechauns? Presumably you do because you have no sound reasons to think them to be real.

I would live my life as if they didn't exist even if they did and I'm sure there are indeed real small Irish people for whom I am,this very moment living my life agnostic of there existence.

[Stranger]

In crime it is perfectly clear what the status quo is. Not so that God does not exist. Once you have claimed or declared that as the status quo you  have claimed it. Because it is actually a positive assertion then it needs it's own justification.

No matter how many times you repeat this drivel, it will remain drivel. Nobody is making the claim "God does not exist", it's not even a meaningful statement because of the ambiguity of the term "God".

If I positively assert Gods existence. If I say God exists then I have a burden of proof.

Yes. Just as somebody who claims that ghosts exist, that aliens are abducting people and sticking probes up their backsides, or the Higgs boson exists, or that homoeopathy works. It's always those making the claim that need to provide the reasoning or evidence.

The default response is always to assume that none of these things are true until we have evidence or sound reasoning.

Some might say that even if I say I believe it or act it some would still say I have a burden of proof...

That depends if you want to justify your beliefs.

...and so it is with being an agnostic atheist.

No. For exactly the same reason I'm not going to accept any of the above as being true (except the Higgs because we have both reasoning and evidence), I'm not going to accept any of the thousands of god(s) that humans have dreamt up exists, because that is always the rational response to any proposal without supporting evidence or reasoning.

So do I have a burden because I believe there is a God?

Yes. Why should your favourite version of god be treated differently to any other claim anybody makes?

[Outrider]

You have made them necessary.....You still haven't grasped the full meaning of that.

It's your idea, if I've not grasped what you mean you need to explain it better.

Whatever decided to create the universe.

What makes you think there's a decision?  That's the bit that turns 'nature' into 'gods' - intent, consciousness, deliberation, a purpose.  There's no evidence for any of those, no reason to presume that they're involved.

Then allows THE laws of nature to rule over it the eternal laws of nature.

We have observable phenomena which are the laws of nature.  You want to invent something that decided to implement those, which then also chose to sit back at some point and leave them to do their work, leaving no trace...  It's almost like it's an idea DESIGNED to be shaved clean by Ockham's Razor.

What you've rediscovered is a pantheon to make and rule over the things of the universe.

No, there is more to the claim 'gods' than just 'creation' - arguably, for some of the religions of the world, that's not even part of the requirement.

You have or nearly have rediscovered the Gods.

Only if you set such a low bar for a defintion of god and a burden of a proof that the existence of anything is deemed to be evidence of a god, at which point I've also proven all the other gods, leprechauns, the invisible pink unicorn, sentient toffee and Gandalf.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's your idea, if I've not grasped what you mean you need to explain it better.

What makes you think there's a decision?  That's the bit that turns 'nature' into 'gods' - intent, consciousness, deliberation, a purpose.  There's no evidence for any of those, no reason to presume that they're involved.

We have observable phenomena which are the laws of nature.  You want to invent something that decided to implement those, which then also chose to sit back at some point and leave them to do their work, leaving no trace...  It's almost like it's an idea DESIGNED to be shaved clean by Ockham's Razor.

No, there is more to the claim 'gods' than just 'creation' - arguably, for some of the religions of the world, that's not even part of the requirement.

Only if you set such a low bar for a defintion of god and a burden of a proof that the existence of anything is deemed to be evidence of a god, at which point I've also proven all the other gods, leprechauns, the invisible pink unicorn, sentient toffee and Gandalf.

O.

Necessity is not my idea. It is the name given for anything that needs no explanation.

[Nearly Sane]

Necessity is not my idea. It is the name given for anything that needs no explanation.

But you haven't shown that there is either such a thing or that the concept makes any sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No matter how many times you repeat this drivel, it will remain drivel. Nobody is making the claim "God does not exist", it's not even a meaningful statement because of the ambiguity of the term "God".

Yes. Just as somebody who claims that ghosts exist, that aliens are abducting people and sticking probes up their backsides, or the Higgs boson exists, or that homoeopathy works. It's always those making the claim that need to provide the reasoning or evidence.

The default response is always to assume that none of these things are true until we have evidence or sound reasoning.

That depends if you want to justify your beliefs.

No. For exactly the same reason I'm not going to accept any of the above as being true (except the Higgs because we have both reasoning and evidence), I'm not going to accept any of the thousands of god(s) that humans have dreamt up exists, because that is always the rational response to any proposal without supporting evidence or reasoning.

Yes. Why should your favourite version of god be treated differently to any other claim anybody makes?

Again.......Why have you settled on God does not exist as the status quo. "Because theists haven't proved God is no answer" I'm afraid. The status quo is how things are and yours is that reality has no God. How then did you arrive at the status quo, God does not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you haven't shown that there is either such a thing or that the concept makes any sense.

If there were two boxes one for what was contingent and one that was for the necessary for what was in the contingent box. The if the necessary box was empty then tit would be illogical to suppose there would be anything in the contingent box.Doubting necessity is not making a full commitment to logic IMHO.

[Outrider]

Necessity is not my idea. It is the name given for anything that needs no explanation.

That's not a definition of it that I've ever heard - it's that which is deemed a requirement, that which had to exist for something else to occur.  If it happened to, but you can't show that the event couldn't occur other ways then it's not necessary.

O.

[Stranger]

Again.......Why have you settled on God does not exist as the status quo.

Yet again, for the seriously hard-of-thinking: I don't even think "God does not exist" is a meaningful statement.

"Because theists haven't proved God is no answer" I'm afraid.

This is the epitome of special pleading. You didn't answer my question. Why should your favourite version of "God" be treated differently to any other claim anybody makes?

[Nearly Sane]

If there were two boxes one for what was contingent and one that was for the necessary for what was in the contingent box. The if the necessary box was empty then tit would be illogical to suppose there would be anything in the contingent box.Doubting necessity is not making a full commitment to logic IMHO.

You're very confused here, for contingent things than you need the previous cause so you with this approach have all previous causes in the 'necessity' box. That's in contradiction of the idea you are putting forward that necessity is only a thing that needs no explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not a definition of it that I've ever heard - it's that which is deemed a requirement, that which had to exist for something else to occur.  If it happened to, but you can't show that the event couldn't occur other ways then it's not necessary.

O.

Yes I can see with your definition but it is not exclusive of mine which is otherwise expressed as not needing or having any external explanation. There are abstract necessities. These exist in say mathematical reality.In fact I believe that they might well demonstrate the importance of single necessity.

[Stranger]

If there were two boxes one for what was contingent and one that was for the necessary for what was in the contingent box. The if the necessary box was empty then tit would be illogical to suppose there would be anything in the contingent box.Doubting necessity is not making a full commitment to logic IMHO.

Then make an actual argument, rather than just asserting it. How can you be sure that anything is necessary and how is it logically possible to have something that would fall into that category? How would we identify something that was necessary? What characteristics would it have that made it necessary?

Until you can come up with credible answers, you just have a string of assertions about unknowns.

[Outrider]

Yes I can see with your definition but it is not exclusive of mine which is otherwise expressed as not needing or having any external explanation.

That, however, misuses the normal understanding, and doesn't add anything.  Let's say that the posited infinite reality in which the universe exists defies external explanation; so what?  That doesn't have any impact on anything subsequent.  If, however, that broader reality was necessary for the universe you'd have to have an explanation of the reality, or your chain of argument breaks down; as it so often does with the special pleading of 'but God is different' to not explain the existence of a god that's deemed necessary to justify the existence of a reality which can't 'just be'.

There are abstract necessities. These exist in say mathematical reality.

Can you give an example, or at least a context, so we can be sure we're talking about the same thing?

In fact I believe that they might well demonstrate the importance of single necessity.

They might, they might not. At the moment, they might demonstrate blancmange for all I can tell.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're very confused here, for contingent things than you need the previous cause so you with this approach have all previous causes in the 'necessity' box. That's in contradiction of the idea you are putting forward that necessity is only a thing that needs no explanation.

No, If it's existence is due to something else then it is contingent and goes in the contingency box. I think you can probably see that were the necessary box to end up empty. Then everything in the contingency box would vanish. In fact you could not even start filling it up. So whatever is responsible for there being contingent things has to be without contingency and therefore necessary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That, however, misuses the normal understanding,

It is the normal understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

It is the normal understanding.

Since in 2 posts you put up contradictory ideas of necessity, it's not even clear it's your understanding.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then make an actual argument, rather than just asserting it. How can you be sure that anything is necessary

Because as the Box sorting shows without a necessary we would not have anything in the contingency box.

[Nearly Sane]

No, If it's existence is due to something else then it is contingent and goes in the contingency box. I think you can probably see that were the necessary box to end up empty. Then everything in the contingency box would vanish. In fact you could not even start filling it up. So whatever is responsible for there being contingent things has to be without contingency and therefore necessary.

You really need to try and write more clearly, as that isn't the simple reading of your post. Your post which didn't amount to an argument but just a badly written reassertion. You need to demonstrate that there is such a necessity. 

However before you get there you have to show that it is logically possible for something to not have an explanation. You haven't even attempted that as far as I can see.

[Nearly Sane]

Because as the Box sorting shows without a necessary we would not have anything in the contingency box.

Repetition of assertion is not an argument. Repetition of an assertion based on a concept you haven't shown to be logically possible is just a waste of time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since in 2 posts you put up contradictory ideas of necessity, it's not even clear it's your understanding.

Look why should I put necessary things in the contingent box ?

A contingent thing can be necessary for another contingent. But it is not existent itself necessarily.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really need to try and write more clearly, as that isn't the simple reading of your post. Your post which didn't amount to an argument but just a badly written reassertion. You need to demonstrate that there is such a necessity. 

However before you get there you have to show that it is logically possible for something to not have an explanation. You haven't even attempted that as far as I can see.

I have done. If there were still things in the box then there would be no explanation for that and hence they would exist necessarily and we can relabel the box. What you need to remember is that the necessary is not dependent on the contingent. It is the necessary which is responsible for the contingent.

Do you know all this anyway and are trying a hand wave.

[Nearly Sane]

Look why should I put necessary things in the contingent box ?

A contingent thing can be necessary for another contingent. But it is not existent itself necessarily.

As already covered you need to try and write more clearly, and even better try and think a bit more clearly. If there is a box for necessary things some contingent things are necessary for other contingent things , then your already pointless box idea, pointless because it is not an argument and is based on a begging of the question then is just logically contradictory.

Sorry to piss upon your boxes.

[Nearly Sane]

I have done. If there were still things in the box then there would be no explanation for that and hence they would exist necessarily and we can relabel the box. What you need to remember is that the necessary is not dependent on the contingent. It is the necessary which is responsible for the contingent.

Do you know all this anyway and are trying a hand wave.

No, this is you just repeating your assertion again. You have not shown that it is logically possible for a thing to exist that has no explanation.

Indeed you haven't shown it to be logically coherent

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, this is you just repeating your assertion again. You have not shown that it is logically possible for a thing to exist that has no explanation.

Indeed you haven't shown it to be logically coherent

I've just demonstrated that if there is no such thing as something that cannot be explained by something external then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.

That's why it's called the argument from contingency.

[Outrider]

It is the normal understanding.

No, if A is necessary for B it means that if A isn't then B isn't, it has nothing to say about whether there's an explanation for A, you cannot presume that even if you can't explain A that it is somehow necessary for B, that's an entirely different sequence of logic.

There's already a word for something that can't be explained - inexplicable.  There's no need to try to coopt another word into the job.

O.