Does antitheism exist?

[Stranger]

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.

And I'm still not seeing either a definition of a god or any sort of argument for its existence.

I know there are all sorts of possibilities but unknowns are not arguments for something particular. I can't, at first glance, see anything that's obviously impossible (but neither are many ideas of god) in anything you have suggested (although you still haven't cleared up how something can be its own explanation), except, as an aside, for the idea that the laws depend on "matter/energy" because neither are fundamental; matter isn't a well defined term and energy is a property that is conserved exactly because the laws don't change over time. In fact energy conservation itself becomes somewhat problematic in general relativity, and the value of energy is relative to the frame of reference even in special relativity.

[Outrider]

Yes I make a claim and am working on it but God stubbornly remains unfalsifiable.

Well, if it changes its mind and provides some evidence I'll update my conclusion, but until then...

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.

Why?  I'm not suggesting that's all that Christianity has been - that doesn't cover the political, economical and national vested interests that have also led to various schisms, Crusades and declarations, but it's been part of the exercise.

But that is not the main thrust of my reply. You claimed God was and is an imaginary friend.

Yep.

Justify your claim.....or is it that you are still working on it?

Already done it, repeatedly.  You claim god, you can't show god, I can therefore conclude reasonably that it's all in your head.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, if it changes its mind and provides some evidence I'll update my conclusion, but until then...

Why?  I'm not suggesting that's all that Christianity has been - that doesn't cover the political, economical and national vested interests that have also led to various schisms, Crusades and declarations, but it's been part of the exercise.

Yep.

Already done it, repeatedly.  You claim god, you can't show god, I can therefore conclude reasonably that it's all in your head.

O.

You needed to justify your positive assertion that God IS an imaginary friend.
You then attempted to shift the burden of proof and then said that because there is no evidence to the contrary God IS an imaginary friend. That seems to me classic NPF.

You cannot prove otherwise therefore God IS an imaginary friend.
Your only possible way out of this is to show that God not existing is the default but then so far you have been NPFing on that.

[Outrider]

You needed to justify your positive assertion that God IS an imaginary friend.

And I did.  It's a conclusion drawn from centuries of believers being unable to provide any reliable evidence to the contrary.  You assert God, you don't justify God, I can reasonably conclude with that many people over that period of time being unable to produce anything that it's because there's nothing to find.

You then attempted to shift the burden of proof and then said that because there is no evidence to the contrary God IS an imaginary friend.

I don't need to PROVE if I can reasonably DEDUCE.

That seems to me classic NPF.

You keep asserting that arguments you don't have a counter to are 'fallacies' - I think perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word.

You cannot prove otherwise therefore God IS an imaginary friend.  Your only possible way out of this is to show that God not existing is the default but then so far you have been NPFing on that.

Nothing existing is the default - skepticism is the default - that's not the case until and unless you give some sort of basis for accepting the claim is the default.  You claim 'God'... off you go and justify that, or I'm at liberty to presume that you're wrong.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I did.  It's a conclusion drawn from centuries of believers being unable to provide any reliable evidence to the contrary.  You assert God, you don't justify God, I can reasonably conclude with that many people over that period of time being unable to produce anything that it's because there's nothing to find.

I don't need to PROVE if I can reasonably DEDUCE.

You keep asserting that arguments you don't have a counter to are 'fallacies' - I think perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word.

Nothing existing is the default - skepticism is the default - that's not the case until and unless you give some sort of basis for accepting the claim is the default.  You claim 'God'... off you go and justify that, or I'm at liberty to presume that you're wrong.

O.

Demonstrate reasonable deduction.
Nothing existing is a positive assertion.

[Outrider]

Demonstrate reasonable deduction.

Give me a better explanation.

Nothing existing is a positive assertion.

It would be if it weren't explicitly explained as a presumption in the absence of better evidence.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Give me a better explanation.

It would be if it weren't explicitly explained as a presumption in the absence of better evidence.

O.

Look you asserted that God is an imaginary friend. You are now assuming and asserting that God does not exist.
If you say you needn't go any further and obey your own rules then you can add special pleading to your list.

Now please demonstrate without resorting to shifting the burden of proof and NPF your assertions.

Let me help you. On what criteriao you dismiss any and all argument or testimony  against your assertion?  And yes this will involve you making a statement on what constitutes evidence.

[jeremyp]

Look you asserted that God is an imaginary friend. You are now assuming and asserting that God does not exist.

The reason we do that is because we've asked theists to produce the evidence that God exists and they have failed to do so. The most reasonable explanation for why they can't demonstrate God's existence is that he/she/it doesn't.

[Outrider]

Look you asserted that God is an imaginary friend. You are now assuming and asserting that God does not exist.

I stated a conclusion I'd come to - I didn't specifically point out that it was a conclusion at the time, but I've clarified that since.  If you want me to revise that conclusion, you need to provide either a new perspective on the existing arguments, or some evidence.

If you say you needn't go any further and obey your own rules then you can add special pleading to your list.

I've explained my methodology - feel free to point out the flaw in skepticism if you'd like, but it still tends to work better than anything else as a system.

Now please demonstrate without resorting to shifting the burden of proof and NPF your assertions.

Still already done.  If you don't like the argument presented then by all means critique it, but I'm not going to change just because you don't like it.

Let me help you. On what criteriao you dismiss any and all argument or testimony  against your assertion?

On the lack of any logical argument in favour, and the absence of sufficient evidence.

And yes this will involve you making a statement on what constitutes evidence.

It doesn't, really.  You're making the claim 'god', I'm rejecting it.  If you want to enter something into evidence, I can look at what you've decided constitutes evidence, and whether what you've proffered is actually sufficient, but I don't have to predetermine what constitutes evidence in the slightest as I'm not making the claim, I'm rejecting the claim (and choosing to phrase that rejection in a slightly amusing fashion).

O

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The reason we do that is because we've asked theists to produce the evidence that God exists and they have failed to do so. The most reasonable explanation for why they can't demonstrate God's existence is that he/she/it doesn't.

Why is it the most reasonable explanation?
Positive assertion again.

Also you keep talking of failure. In what sense does the evidence fail? Why has the evidence and arguments been sufficient for others? Careful, an answer of ''it doesn't convince me'' is no reason on it's own why it ought to convince others.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I stated a conclusion I'd come to - I didn't specifically point out that it was a conclusion at the time, but I've clarified that since.  If you want me to revise that conclusion, you need to provide either a new perspective on the existing arguments, or some evidence.

I've explained my methodology - feel free to point out the flaw in skepticism if you'd like, but it still tends to work better than anything else as a system.

Still already done.  If you don't like the argument presented then by all means critique it, but I'm not going to change just because you don't like it.

On the lack of any logical argument in favour, and the absence of sufficient evidence.

It doesn't, really.  You're making the claim 'god', I'm rejecting it.  If you want to enter something into evidence, I can look at what you've decided constitutes evidence, and whether what you've proffered is actually sufficient, but I don't have to predetermine what constitutes evidence in the slightest as I'm not making the claim, I'm rejecting the claim (and choosing to phrase that rejection in a slightly amusing fashion).

O

I'm obviously not going to get you to justify yourself as to your positive assertion that God is an imaginary friend and that he does not exist.

Where do you think the arguments fall down? I think that only works if you adopt a framework for evidence that is merely a restatement of empiricism, scientism, materialism and/or naturalism.

But if you know differently....go ahead.
Where logically do you think the arguments for God fall down?

Is skepticism skeptical about itself? I'd love to hear the success criteria by which you judged it.

[Stranger]

And I'm still not seeing either a definition of a god or any sort of argument for its existence.

...
...

Where logically do you think the arguments for God fall down?

Still waiting for a definition and an argument from you......

[Outrider]

Why is it the most reasonable explanation?

Centuries of no evidence in multiple parallel endeavours around the world, despite extensive work to try to uncover some and an absolute freedom to define the goal as abstractly as wanted.  If you have a better explanation, by all means present it.

Positive assertion again.

Conclusion from the available (lack of) evidence)

Also you keep talking of failure. In what sense does the evidence fail?

It's presented to support the contention 'God' - in many cases it's not evidence at all, and when it is it doesn't adequately support the argument being made.

Why has the evidence and arguments been sufficient for others?

I've no idea.  Maybe they are making an emotional judgement, and then interpreting the arguments to suit their preconception, maybe they aren't viewing the evidence particularly critically, maybe they know the evidence doesn't support the argument, but they aren't basing their belief on a logical supposition.  It's difficult to be particularly precise, there are any number of  failed attempts to make an argument for god, and any number of different people either making or accepting those arguments despite their flaws.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...
...
Still waiting for a definition and an argument from you......

God is the necessary being.
The argument.....The illogicality of 'only contingency', The failure of infinities to logically produce anything except more numbers, the existence of morality, the non detection of necessity within or as part of or a property of the empirically or instrumentally observable universe. 

[Outrider]

I'm obviously not going to get you to justify yourself as to your positive assertion that God is an imaginary friend and that he does not exist.

I've already justified my stance; if you don't like the justification, by all means offer up an argument, but to just tell me that the ball is in my court to do more to falsify your claim which you've not offered sufficient evidence for isn't going to wash.

Where do you think the arguments fall down?

It really rather depends on the argument; different attempts fail at different stages.  The 'Irreducible Complexity' claims have different logical flaws to the Cosmological Argument(s), which again differ from the 'but millions of people believe' nonsense.

I think that only works if you adopt a framework for evidence that is merely a restatement of empiricism, scientism, materialism and/or naturalism.

If you've got a better framework, by all means put it forward.  Empricism isn't perfect, but it's currently reliable so long as you don't attempt to step outside its bounds.

Is skepticism skeptical about itself? I'd love to hear the success criteria by which you judged it.

It should be, if it's done well.  Empiricists need to remember that any conclusions drawn are always, at least technically, provisional.  Other forms of skepticism should be mindful that they are, similarly, only holding to positions until something calls them into question.

So, again, if you've got another framework than empiricism to derive an argument from natural phenomena, then by all means proffer it and I'll review in light of the new information; if you've got a new logical derivation bring it forward and I'll try to look at with an open mind.

O.

[jeremyp]

Why is it the most reasonable explanation?

If you can think of a better one, please let's hear it.

Also you keep talking of failure.

Yes. The failure of theists to make a case for God.

In what sense does the evidence fail?

I'll let you know when you come up with some - unless it doesn't fail, in which case I'll become a theist.

Why has the evidence and arguments been sufficient for others?

What evidence and arguments?

Careful, an answer of ''it doesn't convince me'' is no reason on it's own why it ought to convince others.

Agreed.

[Outrider]

God is the necessary being.

Why 'being' - why does the necessary thing have to be something with an aspect of consciousness?

The argument.....The illogicality of 'only contingency', The failure of infinities to logically produce anything except more numbers, the existence of morality, the non detection of necessity within or as part of or a property of the empirically or instrumentally observable universe.

Why is it illogical to only have contingent things?

That infinite things only produce more things isn't a problem when the only evidence we have is for things.

Morality - we have a multitude of moral stances and systems across a multitude of independent cultures and possibly ranging into other species: what about that suggests that the concept of morality requires some external source?

That last bit about 'non-detection of necessity' just doesn't mean anything to me as it's phrased.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's presented to support the contention 'God' - in many cases it's not evidence at all, and when it is it doesn't adequately support the argument being made.

And you see this is the problem. When asked to be corrected all the atheists do is to repeat that your wrong.

Imagine if education ran along those lines.

This maths is wrong

Where is it wrong Miss?

It's very wrong and shows no sign of being right.

But miss where is it wrong

It is wrong because I am very right and I am right because you are very wrong.

In fact it is so wrong you never did any maths at all. Take a detention for not handing in your homework...............(Is my amusing response.)

[Outrider]

And you see this is the problem. When asked to be corrected all the atheists do is to repeat that your wrong.

How is this a problem?  Here is evidence - that's not evidence in support of what you say it supports - how very dare you!

Imagine if education ran along those lines.

This maths is wrong

Where is it wrong Miss?

It's very wrong and shows no sign of being right.

But miss where is it wrong

It is wrong because I am very right and I am right because you are very wrong.

You're conflating general descriptions and specific cases:

The general here is that the teacher is pointing out the maths is wrong, and as a description that's fine.  A decent teacher, however, would then go on to show why, in the specific instance, that attempt at maths was wrong.

If you only give a general description of 'arguments for god', all I can offer is a general account that 'the arguments aren't sufficient'.  If you want specifics of how or why, I need to know which specific failed argument you want a critique of.

In fact it is so wrong you never did any maths at all. Take a detention for not handing in your homework...............(Is my amusing response.)

I think you need to look up 'amusing' while you've got the dictionary out.

O.

[Stranger]

God is the necessary being.

You haven't yet defined a way in which something could possibly be its own explanation. If you managed that, you'd still have to argue as to why that was the case, rather than no explanation, and then you'd have to establish that it was a being and conformed to some definition of "God" - which you still haven't provided.

You haven't even defined what exactly it is you're arguing for.

The argument.....The illogicality of 'only contingency'...

Why?

The failure of infinities to logically produce anything except more numbers...

Doesn't make any sense. Where is the actual argument here? Aren't many versions of "God" supposed to involve infinities?

...the existence of morality...

Where is that argument?

...the non detection of necessity within or as part of or a property of the empirically or instrumentally observable universe.

How do you know what's necessary if you can't say how anything can be its own explanation?

You're all over the place, why don't you start a thread (as I suggested before) about one particular argument that you're prepared to defend and set it out in full? Do you need this (that I posted for Alan Burns but he's totally ignored it): Critical Thinking (pdf) - it's a full book you can download? See chapters 8 & 9 for deductive arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why 'being' - why does the necessary thing have to be something with an aspect of consciousness?

Why is it illogical to only have contingent things?

That infinite things only produce more things isn't a problem when the only evidence we have is for things.

Morality - we have a multitude of moral stances and systems across a multitude of independent cultures and possibly ranging into other species: what about that suggests that the concept of morality requires some external source?

That last bit about 'non-detection of necessity' just doesn't mean anything to me as it's phrased.

O.

The fact that you went on to being and missed necessity was either deliberate(goddodging) or subconscious (subconscious Goddodging). Your supposed inability to handle a sentence with the word necessity rather reinforces my suspicions.

I think another pattern emerges here which reinforces the above.

But let's talk morality.

Yes there are many systems of morality but you seem to have missed that morality is a question of ought and right and wrong.

The evidence here is you don't consider morality 'real'...... Fine. Just apply your usual reasoning and judgment on how to deal with the unreal the next time you think you have the moral high ground.

So morality and necessity under the carpet.....be careful not to lift it my atheist padawan for the gateway to theism they are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't yet defined a way in which something could possibly be its own explanation. If you managed that, you'd still have to argue as to why that was the case, rather than no explanation, and then you'd have to establish that it was a being and conformed to some definition of "God" - which you still haven't provided.

You haven't even defined what exactly it is you're arguing for.

Why?

Doesn't make any sense. Where is the actual argument here? Aren't many versions of "God" supposed to involve infinities?

Where is that argument?

How do you know what's necessary if you can't say how anything can be its own explanation?

You're all over the place, why don't you start a thread (as I suggested before) about one particular argument that you're prepared to defend and set it out in full? Do you need this (that I posted for Alan Burns but he's totally ignored it): Critical Thinking (pdf) - it's a full book you can download? See chapters 8 & 9 for deductive arguments.

More importantly you haven't defined the logicality of ''contingency only.''
Secondly you say the universe has an external explanation. What is it? If it is not natural in what way can it be said to exist? If it is external to nature how can it avoid the definition of being supernatural? You see, by insisting that nothing just is without needing an external explanation you have committed your self to both an illogicality called ''contingency only''. And supernaturality and a non identifiable mode of existence.

[jeremyp]

And you see this is the problem. When asked to be corrected all the atheists do is to repeat that your wrong.

No they don't. They repeat their request that you supply some evidence.

Imagine if education ran along those lines.

...

It's more like thise lies:

"Where's your maths homework?"

"I gave it to you"

"Well where is it then?"

"Can you prove my homework doesn't exist? You are making a positive assertion when you say my maths homework doesn't exist".

"Show us some evidence you did your maths homework. After all, if it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to show it to me".

and so on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they don't. They repeat their request that you supply some evidence.

It's more like thise lies:

"Where's your maths homework?"

"I gave it to you"

"Well where is it then?"

"Can you prove my homework doesn't exist? You are making a positive assertion when you say my maths homework doesn't exist".

"Show us some evidence you did your maths homework. After all, if it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to show it to me".

and so on.

Doesn't work because you've already said all the arguments were wrong.

My version is on the money though.

You see Jeremy......Your wrong and i'm right...very very right.

[Stranger]

More importantly you haven't defined the logicality of ''contingency only.''

It's actually more important for you to make your case because you're the one trying to argue for something (burden of proof again). As I said before, I don't know how anything can be necessary in the way you define it and, apparently, neither do you. Until you can explain how something can possibly be its own explanation, I don't even know what we're talking about, let alone if it might exist or not.

Secondly you say the universe has an external explanation.

No, I didn't, I said it was a reasonable starting assumption.

What is it?

As I said before, I've no idea but maybe it's a consequence of physical laws themselves, but I don't know.

If it is not natural in what way can it be said to exist?

Who said it wasn't natural?

If it is external to nature how can it avoid the definition of being supernatural?

How are you defining these terms?

You see, by insisting that nothing just is without needing an external explanation...

I didn't insist any such thing (and that isn't the same as being its own explanation anyway). What is it about "I don't know" that's so hard for you to understand?

If you want to argue that a god exists, it's entirely up to you to provide both the definition of the god you're talking about and why we should take it seriously.