Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anything at all. Give me a definition of "God" (you're still ignoring that at least most of them must be false) and any objective reason at all to take its existence seriously.

Objective reason. What is your understanding of that?
And you still haven't given any justification of why empiricism and physicalism are the default position.

[Stranger]

Objective reason. What is your understanding of that?

In the normal English sense of the word; objective "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual." More technically perhaps, intersubjective; some reason that, in principle at least, doesn't depend on the beliefs or preconceptions of the individuals considering it.

And you still haven't given any justification of why empiricism and physicalism are the default position.

Why would I want to justify a claim I've never made? I know it suits your agenda to pretend that other people are taking philosophical stances that they aren't, because it gives you something to talk about apart from the total absence of any actual supporting argument for your own position, but it really is both tedious and an absolutely obvious tactic.

[Sebastian Toe]

I know it suits your agenda to pretend that other people are taking philosophical stances that they aren't, because it gives you something to talk about apart from the total absence of any actual supporting argument for your own position, but it really is both tedious and an absolutely obvious tactic.

It's Vlad's online version of running around with shit on the end of a stick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the normal English sense of the word; objective "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual." More technically perhaps, intersubjective; some reason that, in principle at least, doesn't depend on the beliefs or preconceptions of the individuals considering it.

Why would I want to justify a claim I've never made? I know it suits your agenda to pretend that other people are taking philosophical stances that they aren't, because it gives you something to talk about apart from the total absence of any actual supporting argument for your own position, but it really is both tedious and an absolutely obvious tactic.

You state yours is the default position. That is a claim. You need to justify that.
It seems you are arguing from empiricism and physicalism and scientism. Those are beliefs since they cannot be justified by empirical or physical means.

There is no pretending. That is what you strongly look like you are doing.
But then if you believe that belief is for mugs the temptation to deny you have the default one yourself must be strong.

You aren't the first to come unstuck in socratic exchange.

[Sebastian Toe]

You state yours is the default position.

Is there a default position?
If so, what is it?

[Outrider]

Oh no you are claiming it IS imaginary. It's not up to me to demonstrate it isn't.

No, I'm concluding that it's imaginary after you and several billion others over the past two thousand years haven't managed to muster anything even vaguely convincing to suggest that it has a basis in fact.  It goes in the same bin as unicorns, fairies and Atlantis, none of which are required to be 'proven' imaginary for the conclusion to be generally accepted.

You're making the claim, and failing to back it up.  In excess of two thousand years of failure to provide any evidence - more than that if you extend the conclusion to gods in general rather than the specifics of your particular cult's claims - and to conclude that it's imaginary is just good sense.

O.

[Stranger]

You state yours is the default position. That is a claim. You need to justify that.

I already did, as have others, multiple times. If anybody claims something exists, then it's obviously up to them provide the reasoning, and, in this case, one of the multiple (and mutually exclusive) definitions of the term they are using.

It seems you are arguing from empiricism and physicalism and scientism. Those are beliefs since they cannot be justified by empirical or physical means.

There is no pretending. That is what you strongly look like you are doing.

This has also been explained multiple times. Your task is to give some sort of objective (something that isn't obviously subjective would be a start) reason to think that one of the many, many versions of "God" has an objective existence.

The most obvious way would be empirical evidence or a logical argument of some kind. However, if you have some other method that can achieve the result of removing subjectivity, then please do bring it forward. I don't exclude the non-physical on philosophical grounds, I just don't see a way to investigate claims made about it, so they can be distinguished from guessing or mistakes. All you need to do is provide such a method.

You never will, of course, because parroting the same inaccurate nonsense about everybody else's philosophical position is much easier than actually addressing the problem that you clearly can't provide a definition of "God" and a reason to take it seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm concluding that it's imaginary after you and several billion others over the past two thousand years haven't managed to muster anything even vaguely convincing to suggest that it has a basis in fact.  It goes in the same bin as unicorns, fairies and Atlantis, none of which are required to be 'proven' imaginary for the conclusion to be generally accepted.

You're making the claim, and failing to back it up.  In excess of two thousand years of failure to provide any evidence - more than that if you extend the conclusion to gods in general rather than the specifics of your particular cult's claims - and to conclude that it's imaginary is just good sense.

O.

Yes I make a claim and am working on it but God stubbornly remains unfalsifiable.
You need to drop your notion though that Christianity has been a two thousand year exercise to find God scientifically or philosophically although the philosophical arguments. Are there.

But that is not the main thrust of my reply. You claimed God was and is an imaginary friend.
Justify your claim.....or is it that you are still working on it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I already did, as have others, multiple times. If anybody claims something exists, then it's obviously up to them provide the reasoning, and, in this case, one of the multiple (and mutually exclusive) definitions of the term they are using.

This has also been explained multiple times. Your task is to give some sort of objective (something that isn't obviously subjective would be a start) reason to think that one of the many, many versions of "God" has an objective existence.

The most obvious way would be empirical evidence or a logical argument of some kind. However, if you have some other method that can achieve the result of removing subjectivity, then please do bring it forward. I don't exclude the non-physical on philosophical grounds, I just don't see a way to investigate claims made about it, so they can be distinguished from guessing or mistakes. All you need to do is provide such a method.

You never will, of course, because parroting the same inaccurate nonsense about everybody else's philosophical position is much easier than actually addressing the problem that you clearly can't provide a definition of "God" and a reason to take it seriously.

Have you explored the moral argument? Have you thought more about what it is about the universe that is necessary.....rather than contingent. My impression was that atheists round here have trouble getting past a scientific or natural explanation for Er, contingency and nature.

[Gordon]

My impression was that atheists round here have trouble getting past a scientific or natural explanation for Er, contingency and nature.

Perhaps you need a different impression, Vlad: have a go at Tommy Cooper. or maybe Charlie Drake.

[Stranger]

Have you explored the moral argument? Have you thought more about what it is about the universe that is necessary.....rather than contingent. My impression was that atheists round here have trouble getting past a scientific or natural explanation for Er, contingency and nature.

Okay, so why not pick one, find a reasonable summary of it, or even (!) express it in your own words, and start a thread and we can discuss it. However, I'm not going to sit through another hour long video (as I did when you pointed me at Feser) or similar, only to find it's ultimately comical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay, so why not pick one, find a reasonable summary of it, or even (!) express it in your own words, and start a thread and we can discuss it. However, I'm not going to sit through another hour long video (as I did when you pointed me at Feser) or similar, only to find it's ultimately comical.

I didn’t find anything comical in it. What did you find comical?

Contingent things have there explanation in something else.
Necessary things are their own explanation
There can only be one necessary thing two or more things are contingent on each other and contingent because there would be an ultimate explanation for why there were two.
If the universe is necessary but filled with contingent things then there must be.An unobserved necessary aspect about the universe which gives rise to contingent things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you need a different impression,

Perhaps you need to give one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you need to give one.

How about Chick Murray, Gordon?

[Stranger]

I didn’t find anything comical in it. What did you find comical?

We've discussed this more than once, Vlad. He made a very long-winded argument that there must be a reason why stuff exists and then it descended into farce as soon as he tried to bash the square peg of his favourite god into the round hole he'd just about argued for.

Contingent things have there explanation in something else.
Necessary things are their own explanation

So how do things become their own explanation?

There can only be one necessary thing two or more things are contingent on each other and contingent because there would be an ultimate explanation for why there were two.

So why doesn't there need to be an explanation of why there's only one?

If the universe is necessary but filled with contingent things then there must be.An unobserved necessary aspect about the universe which gives rise to contingent things.

Maybe the whole universe is necessary, maybe nothing in necessary, or maybe everything that is self-consistent is necessary. How do we tell? Why would this have anything to do with a version of "God", and what version of "God"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We've discussed this more than once, Vlad. He made a very long-winded argument that there must be a reason why stuff exists and then it descended into farce as soon as he tried to bash the square peg of his favourite god into the round hole he'd just about argued for.

So how do things become their own explanation?

So why doesn't there need to be an explanation of why there's only one?

Maybe the whole universe is necessary, maybe nothing in necessary, or maybe everything that is self-consistent is necessary. How do we tell? Why would this have anything to do with a version of "God", and what version of "God"?

I dont detect a final dismissal of necessity here but maybe a dismissal of thinking about it.
Regarding the universe being necessary, that makes universe necessity an emergent property and as we know emergent properties are contingent.
If one considers necessity certain things that it logically can be and cannot be begin to surface.

As for Feser .The professor has acknowledged that other arguments are needed to support the christian conception of God but many of the properties implicit in necessity are classic theology of monotheism.

I maintain that there would need to be an explanation as to why there was more than one necessity. Since that could not be explained by either entity.

A thing doesn't become a necessity since if it wasits own explanation for becoming which it would have to be to be the necessary then it must already be.

[Gordon]

How about Chick Murray, Gordon?

One of my comedy heroes - and I met him once.

[Stranger]

I dont detect a final dismissal of necessity here but maybe a dismissal of thinking about it.

How about making it a coherent concept. How can something be its own explanation?

Regarding the universe being necessary, that makes universe necessity an emergent property...

Why?

If one considers necessity certain things that it logically can be and cannot be begin to surface.

Such as?

As for Feser .The professor has acknowledged that other arguments are needed to support the christian conception of God but many of the properties implicit in necessity are classic theology of monotheism.

In the video I watched he does indeed try to make the argument for a sort of god of monotheism but that's when it all falls apart. I think this is the one: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD. The original link that I had and referenced in >this< post doesn't seem to work any more but you might like to refresh your mind regarding our last discussion, so we don't do all the arguments all over again.

I maintain that there would need to be an explanation as to why there was more than one necessity. Since that could not be explained by either entity.

Until you've made it a coherent concept, it's difficult to say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How about making it a coherent concept. How can something be its own explanation?

Why?

Such as?

In the video I watched he does indeed try to make the argument for a sort of god of monotheism but that's when it all falls apart. I think this is the one: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God - Edward C. Feser, PhD. The original link that I had and referenced in >this< post doesn't seem to work any more but you might like to refresh your mind regarding our last discussion, so we don't do all the arguments all over again.

Until you've made it a coherent concept, it's difficult to say.

Necessity less coherent than there just being contingency?
Are you serious?

[Stranger]

Necessity less coherent than there just being contingency?

I'll ask yet again: how can something be its own explanation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll ask yet again: how can something be its own explanation?

How it is. I dont know but logic dictates it should be since if x existence is dependent on y and that chain of dependence was infinite nothing would exist.

[Stranger]

How it is. I dont know but logic dictates it should be since if x existence is dependent on y and that chain of dependence was infinite nothing would exist.

If you don't know how anything can be its own explanation, how are you going to recognise it, either in reality or as part of a logical argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you don't know how anything can be its own explanation, how are you going to recognise it, either in reality or as part of a logical argument?

Holding contingency without necessity is I would move a strange philosophical position and I am being charitable with that.
Many atheists see no problem with the necessity of er, a necessity and would say that the universe itself or as a whole is the necessary thing.

The problem of course is still with demonstrating the necessary since all the universe we see is contingent.

Secondly you've backed a bit of a loser here I'm afraid because if you insist on everything having an external explanation, what then is the explanation for the universe? Aren't you even a bit curious? There must be one. You've said as much.

If you insist on everything having an external explanation then you cannot propose seriously that the universe only has an internal explanation....which is to say, it's own explanation.

It looks like you have a bit of sorting out to do.

[Stranger]

Holding contingency without necessity is I would move a strange philosophical position and I am being charitable with that.
Many atheists see no problem with the necessity of er, a necessity and would say that the universe itself or as a whole is the necessary thing.

The problem of course is still with demonstrating the necessary since all the universe we see is contingent.

Secondly you've backed a bit of a loser here I'm afraid because if you insist on everything having an external explanation, what then is the explanation for the universe? Aren't you even a bit curious? There must be one. You've said as much.

If you insist on everything having an external explanation then you cannot propose seriously that the universe only has an internal explanation....which is to say, it's own explanation.

It looks like you have a bit of sorting out to do.

It's not me who's trying to argue about something that I cannot explain. You didn't even attempt to answer my question. If you have no idea how something can be its own explanation, how are you going to reason about it or recognise it?

I don't know if the universe has an explanation or not. It seems a reasonable starting assumption but physical laws themselves would seem to be the obvious answer. You can then ask for an explanation for those laws, but how do you know that they have one or that they aren't their own explanation, as you have no way of recognising if they are or not, and in any case we don't know exactly what they consist of?

Either there is something that literally has no explanation, there is an infinite regress of explanations, something has this strange, undefined property of being its own explanation, or the whole question of an explanation is somehow a misunderstanding when applied to reality as a whole.

I'm still not seeing a definition of a particular "God" and an argument for it amongst all this. It just looks like a glorified god-of-the-gaps argument: "here's something nobody knows the answer to, therefore (my favourite version of) god."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not me who's trying to argue about something that I cannot explain. You didn't even attempt to answer my question. If you have no idea how something can be its own explanation, how are you going to reason about it or recognise it?

I don't know if the universe has an explanation or not. It seems a reasonable starting assumption but physical laws themselves would seem to be the obvious answer. You can then ask for an explanation for those laws, but how do you know that they have one or that they aren't their own explanation, as you have no way of recognising if they are or not, and in any case we don't know exactly what they consist of?

Either there is something that literally has no explanation, there is an infinite regress of explanations, something has this strange, undefined property of being its own explanation, or the whole question of an explanation is somehow a misunderstanding when applied to reality as a whole.

I'm still not seeing a definition of a particular "God" and an argument for it amongst all this. It just looks like a glorified god-of-the-gaps argument: "here's something nobody knows the answer to, therefore (my favourite version of) god."

And yet you have gone some of the way to describe and explain the status of the universe by suggesting it has an external explanation.

I also see you are prepared to entertain the idea of something having it's own internal explanation. Of course it is worth considering whether the laws of physics are the necessary thing.

If as some here would have it they are mere patterns observed in the physical then we can take the materialist route and argue that the laws of physics are dependent on material and therefore are contingent on it.

Secondly, we might argue that physical laws might have been different or have changed overtime. That leaves room for another explanation which physical laws are dependent on and if that were the case that would render them contingent.

But suppose we can circumvent those objections there are questions which remain.
If not dependent for their existence on matter/energy how can the laws be said to exist. It must be in some novel way.

So I am not dismissing the laws of physics, but for them to be the necessary they cannot be contingent on there being any matter and they must, I suggest, have an independent existence.