Does antitheism exist?

[Nearly Sane]

I've just demonstrated that if there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.

What that amounts to as a statement, when you break down your overwrought prose, is 'If X, then X'. This is obviously redundant  and also obviously not a demonstration that the idea of a thing existing without an explanation is logically possible or coherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

No. inexplicable can and is often used for something that cannot be explained now but maybe in the future. Necessary is a specific philosophical concept which means something that has no external explanation.

[Nearly Sane]

No. inexplicable can and is often used for something that cannot be explained now but maybe in the future. Necessary is a specific philosophical concept which means something that has no external explanation.

Err no

3. (Logic) logic
a. (of a statement, formula, etc) true under all interpretations or in all possible circumstances
b. (of a proposition) determined to be true by its meaning, so that its denial would be self-contradictory
c. (of a property) essential, so that without it its subject would not be the entity it is
d. (of an inference) always yielding a true conclusion when its premises are true; valid
e. (of a condition) entailed by the truth of some statement or the obtaining of some state of affairs. Compare sufficient2
4. (Philosophy) philosophy (in a nonlogical sense) expressing a law of nature, so that if it is in this sense necessary that all As are B, even although it is not contradictory to conceive of an A which is not B, we are licensed to infer that if something were an A it would have to be B

[Outrider]

No. inexplicable can and is often used for something that cannot be explained now but maybe in the future. Necessary is a specific philosophical concept which means something that has no external explanation.

Even given the time constraints of the use of inexplicable - and that could be qualified as 'intrinsically inexplicable', you're trying to conclude an argument you've not made.  If you want to suggest that something that can't be explained must be necessary, you're going to have to make the case, it's not part of the definition of the word.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What that amounts to as a statement, when you break down your overwrought prose, is 'If X, then X'. This is obviously redundant  and also obviously not a demonstration that the idea of a thing existing without an explanation is logically possible or coherent.

What is not a demonstration? My statement that i've demonstrated or the box model demonstration or the box model demonstration.

I'm afraid you are going to have to elucidate what YOU mean.

[Nearly Sane]

What is not a demonstration? My statement that i've demonstrated or the box model demonstration or the box model demonstration.

I'm afraid you are going to have to elucidate what YOU mean.

None of it is a demonstration. I note you have just ignored me translating your prose into a logical statement showing that it is redundant.

So please start again and show that your concept of necessity is logically possible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

None of it is a demonstration. I note you have just ignored me translating your prose into a logical statement showing that it is redundant.

So please start again and show that your concept of necessity is logically possible.

That all I am saying is If X then X is your contention. So please demonstrate that is what I am in fact doing.

Secondly you seem to be suggesting that the model does not demonstrate what I say I have claimed for it.

Do you for instance accept that there are contingent things? Things that exist because of something else lets call them X now if there are only X then that IS a case of If X, then X. 

So unless there is one thing that has no external explanation then there can be no contingent things. If there is no necessity then there is no contingency. If Things with external explanation have no explanation then they have no external explanation then they are necessary which is impossible and illogical. It does not matter if all eggs end up in one basket then there is no explanation for them to since that makes them necessary. In all though there is x then y.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even given the time constraints of the use of inexplicable - and that could be qualified as 'intrinsically inexplicable', you're trying to conclude an argument you've not made.  If you want to suggest that something that can't be explained must be necessary, you're going to have to make the case, it's not part of the definition of the word.

O.

If it is intrinsically inexplicable then there is no external reason for it therefore it is necessary.

[Outrider]

If it is intrinsically inexplicable then there is no external reason for it therefore it is necessary.

No, your premise does not lead to your conclusion.  Just because you don't have an explanation (or, because there may not be an explanation) you can't presume that it's therefore necessary.  The universe we actually have may or may not exist within an infinite reality - if it turns out that it does, that doesn't change the fact that it could have happened another way.  That broader reality, therefore, cannot be considered 'necessary', whether or not you can explain it, unless you can show there was no other way for the universe to exist.

At the moment, given that your conjecture is that 'God did it', by definition you can't also try to claim that the broader reality is necessary.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That all I am saying is If X then X is your contention. So please demonstrate that is what I am in fact doing.

Secondly you seem to be suggesting that the model does not demonstrate what I say I have claimed for it.

Do you for instance accept that there are contingent things? Things that exist because of something else lets call them X now if there are only X then that IS a case of If X, then X. 

So unless there is one thing that has no external explanation then there can be no contingent things. If there is no necessity then there is no contingency. If Things with external explanation have no explanation then they have no external explanation then they are necessary which is impossible and illogical. It does not matter if all eggs end up in one basket then there is no explanation for them to since that makes them necessary. In all though there is x then y.

Your just asserting your concept of necessity again. No attempt at showing logical possibility.

As for if X, then X - this was in reply to your post

'I've just demonstrated that if there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.'

Which leaving aside the empty and wrong assertion of demonstration,  breaks down into:

'If there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external' - X


 'then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.' - also X since it's the same statement.


Unless you manage to reach a semi coherent approach, I honestly don't see any point in engaging with you. Your are either so bereft of a basic understanding of philosophy and logic, combined with an unwillingness to learn, that your posts are mere retreads of juvenile mistakes, or you are indulging in some witless wummery.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, your premise does not lead to your conclusion.  Just because you don't have an explanation (or, because there may not be an explanation) you can't presume that it's therefore necessary. ifnithas no external explanation the it is definitionally Necessary  The universe we actually have may or may not exist within an infinite reality - if it turns out that it does, that doesn't change the fact that it could have happened another way.  That broader reality, therefore, cannot be considered 'necessary', whether or not you can explain it, unless you can show there was no other way for the universe to exist.

At the moment, given that your conjecture is that 'God did it', by definition you can't also try to claim that the broader reality is necessary.

. Your argument seems largely an empirical one. Empiricism is not logic. In fact it is based on a rather circular argument and cannot be demonstrated by empirical means. If there is another way for the universe to exist then that makes it contingent. If your broader reality could be different from the way it is then it is either contingent or it is the way it is because that is how it, itself decides to be. If the latter is thecase it is still the necessary because there is no external explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your just asserting your concept of necessity again. No attempt at showing logical possibility.

As for if X, then X - this was in reply to your post

'I've just demonstrated that if there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.'

Which leaving aside the empty and wrong assertion of demonstration,  breaks down into:

'If there is no such thing as something that can be explained by something external' - X


 'then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.' - also X since it's the same statement.


Unless you manage to reach a semi coherent approach, I honestly don't see any point in engaging with you. Your are either so bereft of a basic understanding of philosophy and logic, combined with an unwillingness to learn, that your posts are mere retreads of juvenile mistakes, or you are indulging in some witless wummery.

Try this then:

'If there is no such thing as something that cannot be explained by something external' - X


 'then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.' - Y not X, sorry for the previous typo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Same problem. Those are logically the same statement. F

No they aren't. the same thing.

The statement actually is If there is no necessity there is no contingent.....and the box model is the demonstration.

[Nearly Sane]

Try this then:

'If there is no such thing as something that cannot be explained by something external' - X


 'then there is nothing that can be explained by something external.' - Y not X, sorry for the previous typo.

Dear dog, trying to parse what you write is problematic. You need to write clearer. You pack double negatives into statements that don't require them. Why would you write 'If there is no such thing as something' - all that is amounts to 'if there is nothing'

So the first statement becomes 'If there is nothing that cannot be explained by something external' (as an aside you haven't defined 'external', or then shown it is logically coherent, and possible, so the statement is essentially meaningless at this point)

So the second statement 'there is nothing that can be explained by something external' not only doesn't derive from the If X, but now means 'is not X'


So you now have If X, then not X

[Nearly Sane]

No they aren't. the same thing.

The statement actually is If there is no necessity there is no contingent.....and the box model is the demonstration.

See my update, and as you have put it here we are back at your empty assertions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear dog, trying to parse what you write is problematic. You need to write clearer. You pack double negatives into statements that don't require them. Why would you write 'If there is no such thing as something' - all that is amounts to 'if there is nothing'

So the first statement becomes 'If there is nothing that cannot be explained by something external' (as an aside you haven't defined 'external', or then shown it is logically coherent, and possible, so the statement is essentially meaningless at this point)

So the second statement 'there is nothing that can be explained by something external' not only doesn't derive from the If X, but now means 'is not X'


So you now have If X, then not X

Something which cannot be externally explained X is not the same as something that can be externally explained Y

So now we have If not X then not Y which is basically the formula for contingency

So X is differentiated from Y and the dependence of Y on X is established.

[Nearly Sane]

Something which cannot be externally explained X is not the same as something that can be externally explained Y

So now we have If not X then not Y which is basically the formula for contingency

So X is differentiated from Y and the dependence of Y on X is established.

FFS! You put up two contradictory statements which amounted to If X, then not X.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

FFS! You put up two contradictory statements which amounted to If X, then not X.

What is the way then of expressing for your sake that Y is dependent on X for it's existence ?

[Nearly Sane]

What is the way then of expressing for your sake that Y is dependent on X for it's existence ?

you have to show it, not express it.  As pointed out repeatedly, you have not shown your concept of necessity to be logically coherent or possible. You are on the 12th floor of a a building that  doesn't have the bottom eleven floor built.

[Outrider]

Your argument seems largely an empirical one. Empiricism is not logic.

It's not empirical; it cites a possible example to show a situation that meets your premise but doesn't support your conclusion, showing that your logic is flawed.

If there is another way for the universe to exist then that makes it contingent.

I'm not aware that  I suggested it wasn't?

If your broader reality could be different from the way it is then it is either contingent or it is the way it is because that is how it, itself decides to be.

We have no way to know if the broader reality could be any other way - perhaps, at some point, it was?

If the latter is the case it is still the necessary because there is no external explanation.

Again, that's not what necessary means.  If you can't find an explanation you can't just arbitrarily declare something 'necessary'; in particular, you can't declare something 'necessary' in isolation from what it's supposed to be necessary for.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you have to show it, not express it.  As pointed out repeatedly, you have not shown your concept of necessity to be logically coherent or possible. You are on the 12th floor of a a building that  doesn't have the bottom eleven floor built.

So nothing is necessary for anything? I think you've gotten mixed up into something there nearly sane.

[Nearly Sane]

So nothing is necessary for anything? I think you've gotten mixed up into something there nearly sane.

Nope. Haven't said that. And you are using necessary in two ways here as you did in your hopelessly confused box 'demonstation'.

We are back at you being either so bereft of an understanding of philosophy and logic, or si fundamentally dishonest  as to make this a waste of time. So I will leave you to whatever it is you are getting out of this because you are tedious at this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear dog, trying to parse what you write is problematic. You need to write clearer. You pack double negatives into statements that don't require them. Why would you write 'If there is no such thing as something' - all that is amounts to 'if there is nothing'

So the first statement becomes 'If there is nothing that cannot be explained by something external'

This is not the same as saying there is nothing.

So the second statement 'there is nothing that can be explained by something external' not only doesn't derive from the If X, but now means 'is not X'

That is not the second statement which is (then there is nothing that can be explained by something external. Which is clearly impossible.

So you now have If X, then X
[/quote]
No, you have If not X then Not Y.

Mind you, if nothing then nothing......what's wrong with that?
 

Nope. Haven't said that. And you are using necessary in two ways here as you did in your hopelessly confused box 'demonstation'.

We are back at you being either so bereft of an understanding of philosophy and logic, or si fundamentally dishonest  as to make this a waste of time. So I will leave you to whatever it is you are getting out of this because you are tedious at this.

You'll need to note my corrections. If you are not going to follow through with my arguments then I accept your surrender even if you are leaving without saying why the demonstration is wrong. If you are saying I'm not putting the necessary logic across then flouncing off after just asserting it is ten times as bad.

Since you know there are two senses of the word necessary you must have chosen the one which allowed you the subsequent mischief. We know that things which are contingent cannot be necessary in there existence and go in the box marked contingent. I think you know what it is that ends up in the necessary box hence the feigned confusion, ad hominems, red herrings and final flouncing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not empirical; it cites a possible example to show a situation that meets your premise but doesn't support your conclusion, showing that your logic is flawed.

I'm not aware that  I suggested it wasn't?

We have no way to know if the broader reality could be any other way - perhaps, at some point, it was?

Again, that's not what necessary means.

It is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

I wondered whether you’d go down your usual route of utter irrelevance so as to avoid the argument, and sure enough you didn’t disappoint. The characteristics of leprechauns or of “God” have absolutely nothing to do with the point of the argument, which I set out for you only recently (Reply 976). Try reading it for comprehension this time – it’s perfectly clear:

“X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
 
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it. It stands independently of whether or not X exists.

Atheism requires the latter, but not the former…

Thus in the absence of non-fallacious arguments for “God”, proceeding as if there are no gods while simultaneously accepting gods as an unfalsifiable possibility (among countless other unfalsifiable possibilities) is not only logically consistent but unavoidable. 

What’s not to “coco” about that?