Does antitheism exist?

[jeremyp]

No line of reasoning is broken until it is demonstrated to be illogical or wrong.
Saying that it could be something else breaks no reasoning whatsoever.

Actually it does.

"Look at that swan over there"

"It's not a swan"

"How do you know?"

"All swans are white. That bird is grey, therefore it is not a swan".

"Not all swans are white"

But I'm afraid your logical error is that you want the universe to be it's own explanation and want an external explanation as well. That is a cake and eat it argument.

Please tell us how you are defining "explanation". I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. It just means there is nothing outside of it that can make it do things. The Universe fits your definition.
"Self control" doesn't really apply to unconscious things, does it. You don't say "this rock has remarkable self control: it hasn't moved from that spot for thousands of years".
Do you have evidence that this is true?

Do you have any evidence that the universe created itself more than once with different rules? If it did where is it's ability to do that located since everything seems to conform to the laws of nature which are invariable. If it is an unconscious ability why isn't it happening all the time? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually it does.

"Look at that swan over there"

"It's not a swan"

"How do you know?"

"All swans are white. That bird is grey, therefore it is not a swan".

"Not all swans are white"
Please tell us how you are defining "explanation". I do not think that word means what you think it means.

No, Go on, I'll let you .....''correct'' me.

[jeremyp]

There is also nothing inside the universe that looks remotely necessary so it, er, doesn't fit the definition.

The Universe is not the things in it.

You are comparing something that cannot do anything to something responsible for everything.

Why does the ultimate cause of everything in the  Universe have to be "responsible"? It seems to me you are conflating two meanings of responsible. This table is responsible for stopping my computer from hitting the ground but it does not have any consciousness or awareness as far as I know.

Your example is more likely to support the idea that unconscious things don't tend to do anything.
Also no matter how hard it tries the stone cannot fail to be contingent.

Nobody said the stone isn't contingent. We were critiquing your nonsense idea that "not being compelled to act, except by itself" is the same as being conscious.

That either the necessity is an external or that the universe is necessary leaves us with the same problem

Well done. You are correct, if we say the Universe is necessary, we still have the problem of explaining its existence. If I think the Universe is necessary and you think God is necessary, we both have the problem of explaining a necessary entity, but you have the additional problem of showing that your entity even exists.

[Stranger]

No line of reasoning is broken until it is demonstrated to be illogical or wrong.
Saying that it could be something else breaks no reasoning whatsoever.

*facepalm* You really have no clue at all, do you?

If all you want to do is argue that your version of god is a possibility, then you're wasting your time, because as long as it's unfalsifiable, it must also be possible, which applies to endless concepts of god(s). I'm not aware of anybody here who has argued that all versions of god(s) are impossible.

If, on the other hand, you want to construct a logical argument for your god, you either need a deductive argument or an inductive (probabilistic) one.

If you're trying to do a deduction, then it must be impossible for your premises to be true and the conclusion to be false (validity) and also your premises must be accepted as true (soundness). Hence, if there are other possibilities in any of your steps, it becomes invalid.

Even if you're trying to an inductive argument and you're into the territory of blind guesses, as everybody is with regard to the basis of existence, then one is as good as the other, so the existence of other guesses also undermine your position.

But I'm afraid your logical error is that you want the universe to be it's own explanation and want an external explanation as well.

No, I don't. For fuck's sake, close down the straw man factory you seem to have running night and day, and pay some attention to what I've actually said.

As I keep on saying, you need to define your notion of "God", then present your premises, then a deductive or inductive argument.

[jeremyp]

Do you have any evidence that the universe created itself more than once with different rules?

No. You are the one who has an argument that rests on the uniqueness of our Universe, you show it's true.

If it did where is it's ability to do that located since everything seems to conform to the laws of nature which are invariable. If it is an unconscious ability why isn't it happening all the time?

Why are you anthropomorphising the laws of nature?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

*facepalm* You really have no clue at all, do you?

If all you want to do is argue that your version of god is a possibility, then you're wasting your time, because as long as it's unfalsifiable, it must also be possible, which applies to endless concepts of god(s). I'm not aware of anybody here who has argued that all versions of god(s) are impossible.

If, on the other hand, you want to construct a logical argument for your god, you either need a deductive argument or an inductive (probabilistic) one.

If you're trying to do a deduction, then it must be impossible for your premises to be true and the conclusion to be false (validity) and also your premises must be accepted as true (soundness). Hence, if there are other possibilities in any of your steps, it becomes invalid.

Even if you're trying to an inductive argument and you're into the territory of blind guesses, as everybody is with regard to the basis of existence, then one is as good as the other, to the existence of other guesses also undermine your position.

No, I don't. For fuck's sake, close down the straw man factory you seem to have running night and day, and pay some attention to what I've actually said.

As I keep on saying, you need to define your notion of "God", then present your premises, then a deductive or inductive argument.

I don't think here I am arguing my God I am just exploring necessity....and being treated to atheists apparently shitting themselves over it.

insisting that the universe has an external explanation and also suggesting that it is it's own explanation or cause is llogical or special pleading at the very best?

I suggest the reason for the panic atheists are demonstrating is that they've entertained Necessity and are frightened of it's implications.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You are the one who has an argument that rests on the uniqueness of our Universe, you show it's true.
Why are you anthropomorphising the laws of nature?

Then you are flip flopping between the universe having an external explanation and being it's own explanation.

In terms of anthropomorphising the LON?.........What do you mean?

[jeremyp]

I don't think here I am arguing my God I am just exploring necessity....and being treated to atheists apparently shitting themselves over it.

Please provide some evidence that atheists are shitting themselves. I suppose it is possible that they are shitting themselves laughing (if that's a thing) at the ineptness of your arguments.

insisting that the universe has an external explanation

You're insisting that the Universe has an external explanation, not us. You are the one advocating God remember.

and also suggesting that it is it's own explanation

Don't be silly, the Universe is not an explanation, it is a Universe.

[Stranger]

I don't think here I am arguing my God I am just exploring necessity....and being treated to atheists apparently shitting themselves over it.

If you don't have an argument, then what's the point? I see nobody "shitting themselves" - they're just pointing out how silly you're being.

insisting that the universe has an external explanation and also suggesting that it is it's own explanation or cause is llogical or special pleading at the very best?

Don't you ever run short of straw? What is it about I DON'T KNOW that is so hard for you? Suggesting multiple possibilities is not illogical - and you still haven't explained how anything can be its own explanation.

I suggest the reason for the panic atheists are demonstrating is that they've entertained Necessity and are frightened of it's implications.

In your own little fantasy world, perhaps. You haven't even managed to explain how something could possibly be its own explanation yet, so it's almost as meaningless as the word "God" without a particular definition.

Anyway, if you don't think there is an argument for your god based on necessity, what are you going on about it for and why are you fantasising that atheists are frightened? Rather than atheists being frightened, it seems, as always, you'd rather do anything than try to present a coherent case for what you actually believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please provide some evidence that atheists are shitting themselves. I suppose it is possible that they are shitting themselves laughing (if that's a thing) at the ineptness of your arguments.
You're insisting that the Universe has an external explanation, not us. You are the one advocating God remember.
 Don't be silly, the Universe is not an explanation, it is a Universe.

But what does that mean?
Is it a thing? Or a collection of things?
Necessity cannot emerge out of contingency. It is the other way round.

Sadly it seems that round here. Thinking about contingency and necessity is taboo......and there is an almost 'superstiscious attitude towards it.

[Outrider]

But what does that mean?
Is it a thing? Or a collection of things?
Necessity cannot emerge out of contingency. It is the other way round.

Sadly it seems that round here. Thinking about contingency and necessity is taboo......and there is an almost 'superstiscious attitude towards it.

It's not that thinking about it - or indeed, anything - is taboo, it's that claiming that some concept of necessity has been logically established has been rehashed so many times and shown to be not the case - Kalam, Intelligent Design etc.

So when you start suggesting such and such is a 'necessary' element in an area where we have absolutely no knowledge - i.e. extra-universal 'physics' - then it all just dissolves into unsupportable claims and the counter-argument that we just can't, currently, know.

Coupled with your style of throwing out one or two hangers upon which an implied but not expressed argument is purported to rest, and then when no-one engages with the argument you've not actually made you claim that people are avoiding your points just makes for an experience that, frankly, isn't that rewarding compared to conversing with some other people here.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not that thinking about it - or indeed, anything - is taboo, it's that claiming that some concept of necessity has been logically established has been rehashed so many times and shown to be not the case - Kalam, Intelligent Design etc.

So when you start suggesting such and such is a 'necessary' element in an area where we have absolutely no knowledge - i.e. extra-universal 'physics' - then it all just dissolves into unsupportable claims and the counter-argument that we just can't, currently, know.

Coupled with your style of throwing out one or two hangers upon which an implied but not expressed argument is purported to rest, and then when no-one engages with the argument you've not actually made you claim that people are avoiding your points just makes for an experience that, frankly, isn't that rewarding compared to conversing with some other people here.

O.

Kalam and intelligent design are not really arguments from contingency.

Intelligent design is a teleological argument.

Kalam depends on the universe having a beginning  rather than necessity.

And as for etc. That sounds like flannel.

[Outrider]

Kalam and intelligent design are not really arguments from contingency.

No, they are arguments from necessity - they attempt to show that a God is a necessary element of our existence - and they fail.

Intelligent design is a teleological argument.

Which also attempts to show that there must be a creative God in order for us to be here, and which also fails.

Kalam depends on the universe having a beginning  rather than necessity.

It depends on the universe having a beginning, but it attempts from that to claim that therefore there MUST BE a god.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they are arguments from necessity - they attempt to show that a God is a necessary element of our existence - and they fail.

Which also attempts to show that there must be a creative God in order for us to be here, and which also fails.

It depends on the universe having a beginning, but it attempts from that to claim that therefore there MUST BE a god.

O.

The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for
Simulated universe theory courtesy of Neil de grasse Tyson. Who also appealed to the teleological argument.

Nowhere is the conclusion.,therefore the creator is The ultimate necessity made except maybe necessary for this universe. The Kalam depend on the universe having a beginning. A beginning is unnecessary for the argument from contingency which is as good for an infinite chain of events as a beginning  of events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for
Simulated universe theory courtesy of Neil de grasse Tyson. Who also appealed to the teleological argument.

Neither statement is true but even if either or both had been claimed by NdGT, so what? He’d have just been wrong, as is your use of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Nowhere is the conclusion.,therefore the creator is The ultimate necessity made except maybe necessary for this universe.

Isn’t it a fairly common tenet of Christianity that “God” is “the ultimate necessity”?

The Kalam depend on the universe having a beginning.

Something which is unknowable, and probably meaningless anyway as it would require a “before” before time itself.

A beginning is unnecessary for the argument from contingency which is as good for an infinite chain of events as a beginning  of events.

It’s not “good” for anything as it just adds an unwarranted assumption to the already unknowable.

[Outrider]

The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for simulated universe theory courtesy of Neil de grasse Tyson. Who also appealed to the teleological argument.

Did he? Where? Not that it matters much, because if he did then in that instance he's also wrong.

Nowhere is the conclusion.,therefore the creator is The ultimate necessity made except maybe necessary for this universe.

If that's not the conclusion then a) what the hell is William Lane Craig's point and b) why is it proposed as an argument for God?

The Kalam depend on the universe having a beginning.

What the assumptions within the argument are is not an explanation of what the argument is attempting to demonstrate, except in the most egregious examples of circular reasoning.

A beginning is unnecessary for the argument from contingency which is as good for an infinite chain of events as a beginning  of events.

The argument from contingency typically assumes that not everything can be contingent, and that therefore there is something that is a beginning - it could be argued that it could be something that is uncaused within a larger, extant reality, but I've never seen it deployed as such.  The argument from contingency is just another attempt to claim that there is some 'necessary' (i.e. uncaused) start point to reality; it is explicitly not consistent with an infinite chain of events, which presumes the exact opposite that everything is contingent with no exceptions.

O.

[Stranger]

The Kalam argument has been used quite serviceably for
Simulated universe theory courtesy of Neil de grasse Tyson. Who also appealed to the teleological argument.

Unmitigated drivel for reasons that have been explained to you endless times.

Nowhere is the conclusion.,therefore the creator is The ultimate necessity made...

All you've done here is changed the subject because you have no answer the the basic question of a credible argument for your notion of "God". You started wittering about necessity, then gave up and said it you weren't actually making an argument (#531), now you're back to the mindless nonsense about NdGT.

Do you think any sort of credible argument for your notion of "God" exists or not?

If so, why won't you actually present your definition of "God" and the actual argument, if not, why don't you just admit it and be done with it?

[jeremyp]

But what does that mean?
Is it a thing? Or a collection of things?
Necessity cannot emerge out of contingency. It is the other way round.

Sadly it seems that round here. Thinking about contingency and necessity is taboo......and there is an almost 'superstiscious attitude towards it.

What does what mean? Which bit are you having trouble comprehending?

I think you might do better thinking about how things actually are rather than finding big words and trying to make things fit their definitions.

Stop obsessing about words like necessary and contingent. They are just labels and hold no explanatory power in themselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Neither statement is true but even if either or both had been claimed by NdGT, so what? He’d have just been wrong, as is your use of the appeal to authority fallacy.

As those around him when he put forward the argumentrightly commented, it could not be tested and therefore was unfalsifiable. If you know differently that that has somehow changed, has any body told Dr Tyson that the Religionethics guys, the Corinthian Casuals of physics and philosophy, had falsified the argument he made?

Isn’t it a fairly common tenet of Christianity that “God” is “the ultimate necessity”?

Yes, but their are ancilliary arguments to get there from the basic Kalam...which Lane Craig uses. As I have pointed out the Kalam is about a universal beginning. Not largely about necessity.

Something which is unknowable, and probably meaningless anyway as it would require a “before” before time itself.

Not sure what your meaning is here, since something other than time is being proposed.

It’s not “good” for anything as it just adds an unwarranted assumption to the already unknowable.

Contingency and necessity 'unwarranted'? Do tell.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did he? Where? Not that it matters much, because if he did then in that instance he's also wrong.

Yes there are several threads covering the occasion. He made it at a conference and those around him commented that it was unfalsifiable. So how you've come up with 'wrong' I don't know

If that's not the conclusion then a) what the hell is William Lane Craig's point and b) why is it proposed as an argument for God?

The Kalam presents a creator of a finite universe or at least a universe with a beginning Craig makes ancilliary arguments to the basic Kalam.

The argument from contingency typically assumes that not everything can be contingent

Not unreasonably

and that therefore there is something that is a beginning

It is not about beginning to exist it is merely about existence, beginnings or infinity is irrelevent, the nub of the argument being, I suppose, why something and not nothing. Necessities are unavoidable though once we reach that which is it's own explanation......and that is why beginnings, endings, infinities are not relevent to it

   - it could be argued that it could be something that is uncaused within a larger, extant reality, but I've never seen it deployed as such.  The argument from contingency is just another attempt to claim that there is some 'necessary' (i.e. uncaused) start point to reality

By that do you mean a universe that has a beginning?

; it is explicitly not consistent with an infinite chain of events

Outrider we have talked and apparently agreed that infinities produce nothing

, which presumes the exact opposite that everything is contingent with no exceptions.

And would be most illogical to do so since necessities are unavoidable. In other words is the infinite chain events necessary in that it is it's own explanation? or is it contingent,(.....There could have been an infinity of nothing....or it could have had a beginning and go on infinitely....or it could be finite?), and there is an even further explanation for why the chain is infinite.

V.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As those around him when he put forward the argumentrightly commented it could not be tested and therefore was unfalsifiable. If you know differently that that has somehow changed, Has any body told Dr Tyson that the Religionethics guys, the Corinthian Casuals of physics and philosophy had falsified the argument he made?

Again so what? Neither NdGT nor PZ Myers think the cosmological or the teleological arguments for “God” to be sound. They concur that they’re false because of the logical flaws on which they rely. A localised spat between two academics about whether or not one of them had unwittingly implied these arguments doesn’t change that.     

Yes, but their are ancilliary arguments to get there from the basic Kalam...which Lane Craig uses. As I have pointed out the Kalam is about a universal beginning. Not largely about necessity.

You can’t “get there from basic Kalam” without relying on false logic, and in any case you’re trying to have it both ways: either an ultimate cause where, presumably, the buck stops or an infinite past. Which is it?   

Not sure what your meaning is here, since something other than time is being proposed.

“Before” is a temporal-related term. You can’t have a something that’s “before” time. If you want to try something like “outside time” instead that’s just word salad – what would it even mean? You might as well call it “magic” for all the explanatory use it has. 
 

Contingency and necessity 'unwarranted'? Do tell.

Nature observably exists. Whether it had a beginning, how it began etc are currently unknown. These questions are though in principle at least investigable. Just magicking “God” as your answer though is non-investigable and therefore non-falsifiable. It’s just white noise as it explains nothing. It’s unwarranted, which is presumably why you never even attempt to make an argument of your own for such a thing.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Again so what? Neither NdGT nor PZ Myers think the cosmological or the teleological arguments for “God” to be sound. They concur that they’re false because of the logical flaws on which they rely. A localised spat between two academics about whether or not one of them had unwittingly implied these arguments doesn’t change that.     

You can’t “get there from basic Kalam” without relying on false logic, and in any case you’re trying to have it both ways: either an ultimate cause where, presumably, the buck stops or an infinite past. Which is it?   

“Before” is a temporal-related term. You can’t have a something that’s “before” time. If you want to try something like “outside time” instead that’s just word salad – what would it even mean? You might as well call it “magic” for all the explanatory use it has. 
 
Nature observably exists. Whether it had a beginning, how it began etc are currently unknown. These questions are though in principle at least investigable. Just magicking “God” as your answer though is non-investigable and therefore non-falsifiable. It’s just white noise as it explains nothing. It’s unwarranted, which is presumably why you never even attempt to make an argument of your own for such a thing.   

I never used the words ''before time'' I'm talking about time and other than time.

God?, God? We are still schooling ourselves about contingency and necessity aren't we?
It certainly feels like first day in a new school on this thread.

[Stranger]

God?, God?

This nonsense about necessity started out with an argument for "God" (#488), then you backtracked (#531).

We are still schooling ourselves about contingency and necessity aren't we?
It certainly feels like first day in a new school on this thread.

Certainly does but I think you've got the relationship backwards. You have talked about necessity as something which is its own explanation but you have totally failed to define how that can possibly be the case for anything. You started off talking about it as an argument for this "God", which you still haven't defined, then it wasn't an argument for "God", now you seem to be backing off from any connection to "God".

You're all over the place. Why don't you stop, do some thinking, and come back (possibly with a new thread), when you've got something coherent to say that you think you might be able to stick to, rather than changing the subject every time things get tricky for you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I never used the words ''before time'' I'm talking about time and other than time.

If you don’t mean something like “God created the universe before the universe could be” then what on earth do you mean by “other than time”?

God?, God? We are still schooling ourselves about contingency and necessity aren't we?

Continually getting horribly confused about what these terms mean and imply despite having them explained to you isn’t “schooling” anything. 

It certainly feels like first day in a new school on this thread.

For you, no doubt. So how about finally listening to what your teachers are telling you, and not ignoring or misrepresenting it when they do?