Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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

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

Who said it wasn't natural?

How are you defining these terms?

I didn't insist any such thing. 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.

God is the necessary for the universe. The external explanation for nature. As such he is independent from nature and cannot be nature. He is the author of the physical laws and the ultimate moral law.

Now if you do not accept that the properties of God described here are also the necessary properties of the external explanation of nature then you are putting forward an internal explanation. In other words if God is natural then he is part of the nature and cannot possibly be an external explanation. Nature then is it's own explanation.

You seem to be hedging.

[Outrider]

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 accept that there's something necessary for there to be a universe resulting from it - that's the cause and effect of material existence, so far as we can tell.  What I can't see is why the question is phrased so as to imply that whatever that necessary thing is requires some consciousness to it.

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.

I've not 'missed' that, I've just not presumed that it's something external that we are 'realising' or 'discovering' and rather operated from the point of view that it's something that tends (perhaps is even inevitable) to emerge from human interactions, and maybe other species' interactions as well.

The evidence here is you don't consider morality 'real'......

It's not that it's not 'real', it's that it's a behaviour of living things, not something external to them.

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.

That's all any of us can do.

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

And we're back to gibberish....

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I accept that there's something necessary for there to be a universe resulting from it - that's the cause and effect of material existence, so far as we can tell.  What I can't see is why the question is phrased so as to imply that whatever that necessary thing is requires some consciousness to it.

Are all beings conscious? Is consciousness another word for being? Not so sure.
 But start with the ultimate necessary which by definition is it's own explanation. It is the only ultimate explanation. Therefore nothing compels it to do anything apart from itself. It is if you like, a will...... and that is a feature of consciousness.

The mystery for me is, why the insistence on unconsciousness? It seems to me that the motivation for the external explanation of the universe being unconscious is adherence to Naturalism.   

[Outrider]

Are all beings conscious? Is consciousness another word for being? Not so sure.

That's why I was querying it - whether it's your implication or my inference only you can know, it's how I read 'being' rather 'object' or 'phenomenon' which to me doesn't have the same implication of consciousness.

But start with the ultimate necessary which by definition is it's own explanation. It is the only ultimate explanation.   Therefore nothing compels it to do anything apart from itself. It is if you like, a will...... and that is a feature of consciousness.

If that made any sense as a concept - why is it the exception, why doesn't it need a cause like everything else? - then it brings us around to 'what makes you think there is some ultimate explanation, why does there have to be something which starts it all?  Why can't reality be infinite?

The mystery for me is, why the insistence on unconsciousness?

Because we only see consciousness late on in the story of the universe, we see it emerge from complex interactions which have become increasingly complex with time; why presume something conscious predates the complexity when the only times we've seen it has been deriving from complexity.  More than that, though, we have no evidence for anything conscious at that point, so why presume that it's there.

It seems to me that the motivation for the external explanation of the universe being unconscious is adherence to Naturalism.

I don't have an explanation for the universe, I have possible explanations, some of which require the acceptance of more unevidenced assertions than others; so I default to the one which requires the fewest, which is an infinite reality in which our universe is just a natural consequence of other events.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's why I was querying it - whether it's your implication or my inference only you can know, it's how I read 'being' rather 'object' or 'phenomenon' which to me doesn't have the same implication of consciousness.

If that made any sense as a concept - why is it the exception, why doesn't it need a cause like everything else? - then it brings us around to 'what makes you think there is some ultimate explanation, why does there have to be something which starts it all?  Why can't reality be infinite?

Because we only see consciousness late on in the story of the universe, we see it emerge from complex interactions which have become increasingly complex with time; why presume something conscious predates the complexity when the only times we've seen it has been deriving from complexity.  More than that, though, we have no evidence for anything conscious at that point, so why presume that it's there.

I don't have an explanation for the universe, I have possible explanations, some of which require the acceptance of more unevidenced assertions than others; so I default to the one which requires the fewest, which is an infinite reality in which our universe is just a natural consequence of other events.

O.

''Contingency only'' is illogical.
Infinities do not produce anything except more numbers. That is the only infinity type we observe.
Given both of the above, rather than illogical nonsense such as ''Contingency only'' an unobserved infinite regress of causes which would not provide the required stuff in any case and it is the stuff which we have to account for, not the infinity. I think the choice you made has far more inexplicable, not to say illogical steps(Your model of the universe is like a perpetual motion machine) than mine.

[Stranger]

God is the necessary for the universe. The external explanation for nature. As such he is independent from nature and cannot be nature. He is the author of the physical laws and the ultimate moral law.

Is that just a bunch of baseless assertions or an attempt at a definition? And you haven't provided any hint of an argument that there is such a thing as "the ultimate moral law".

Now if you do not accept that the properties of God described here are also the necessary properties of the external explanation of nature then you are putting forward an internal explanation.

I'm not putting forward any explanation because I don't know.

In other words if God is natural...

You haven't even begun to establish that "God" refers to anything at all yet.

Nature then is it's own explanation.

Maybe, maybe not; I don't know.

You seem to be hedging.

Admitting that I don't know something is not hedging. It is you who have claimed to have good reason to believe something called "God", although you seem to be struggling to even define it, so it's up to you to give the reasoning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that just a bunch of baseless assertions or an attempt at a definition? And you haven't provided any hint of an argument that there is such a thing as "the ultimate moral law".

I'm not putting forward any explanation because I don't know.

You haven't even begun to establish that "God" refers to anything at all yet.

Maybe, maybe not; I don't know.

Admitting that I don't know something is not hedging. It is you who have claimed to have good reason to believe something called "God", although you seem to be struggling to even define it, so it's up to you to give the reasoning.

If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation. QED.

However once you have allowed one thing to be it's own explanation, why stop at nature?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's why I was querying it - whether it's your implication or my inference only you can know, it's how I read 'being' rather 'object' or 'phenomenon' which to me doesn't have the same implication of consciousness.

If that made any sense as a concept - why is it the exception, why doesn't it need a cause like everything else? - then it brings us around to 'what makes you think there is some ultimate explanation, why does there have to be something which starts it all?  Why can't reality be infinite?

Because we only see consciousness late on in the story of the universe, we see it emerge from complex interactions which have become increasingly complex with time; why presume something conscious predates the complexity when the only times we've seen it has been deriving from complexity.  More than that, though, we have no evidence for anything conscious at that point, so why presume that it's there.

I don't have an explanation for the universe, I have possible explanations, some of which require the acceptance of more unevidenced assertions than others; so I default to the one which requires the fewest, which is an infinite reality in which our universe is just a natural consequence of other events.

O.

So the default is nature is it's own explanation. It is therefore the necessary, What then is necessary about anything we observe using science?

[Stranger]

''Contingency only'' is illogical.

Assertion.

Infinities do not produce anything except more numbers. That is the only infinity type we observe.

Gibberish.

Given both of the above, rather than illogical nonsense such as ''Contingency only'' an unobserved infinite regress of causes which would not provide the required stuff in any case...

Assertions.

...and it is the stuff which we have to account for, not the infinity.

'We' don't need to account for anything. We either have some reason to believe some account or we don't, and therefore don't know.

I think the choice you made has far more inexplicable, not to say illogical steps(Your model of the universe is like a perpetual motion machine) than mine.

But all you've done is lumped all the things together that you think are difficult to understand, arbitrarily called the answer "God" and then identified it with the being you wanted to believe in to being with, and then, suddenly, we aren't allowed to ask the same sort of questions about its existence as you started off asking about the universe, because.... well it's "necessary"..... because.... err..... (apparently) you don't actually know any more than we know the same things about the universe, but you really, really want it to be true.

[Outrider]

So the default is nature is it's own explanation.

It's not an explanation; however, there's no reason that I can see to presume some point at which nature wasn't and then came into being.  Why presume that there is an explanation, that it came from somewhere - perhaps it simply is.

It is therefore the necessary, What then is necessary about anything we observe using science?

Is it necessary? It is, we can observe it.  In what way does it have to have been?

O.

[Stranger]

If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation. QED.

Or there is no explanation.

However once you have allowed one thing to be it's own explanation, why stop at nature?

Why not? You're forgetting, or ignoring, the burden of proof again. You are the one who thinks there is a good reason to go beyond nature to something else called "God" that is "supernatural" but I've still seen no definitions and no argument.

[Outrider]

''Contingency only'' is illogical.

I don't understand what that's trying to convey.

Infinities do not produce anything except more numbers. That is the only infinity type we observe.

Infinities do not produce anything.  Things produce things, there may be infinite amounts of some of those things which may (or may not) produce infinite amounts of other things.

Given both of the above, rather than illogical nonsense such as ''Contingency only'' an unobserved infinite regress of causes which would not provide the required stuff in any case and it is the stuff which we have to account for, not the infinity.

We have a partial explanation for our universe, but there is a limit to the evidence available.  I still fail to see why any sort of infinite regress poses a problem, and nothing here changes that, nor do I see any sort of explanation of why you think an infinite reality could not produce the universe in which we find ourselves.

I think the choice you made has far more inexplicable, not to say illogical steps(Your model of the universe is like a perpetual motion machine) than mine.

From what we see within the universe there is conservation of energy; why presume that, or an equivalent, does not extend outside of the universe?  You have the ultimate inexplicable step of a self-creating, uncaused complex intelligence which chooses to incept a universe for no logical reason.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or there is no explanation.

Why not? You're forgetting, or ignoring, the burden of proof again. You are the one who thinks there is a good reason to go beyond nature to something else called "God" that is "supernatural" but I've still seen no definitions and no argument.

I am saying that if nature is it's own explanation something you seem to be in denial of implying. Then I ask what logical grounds are there to assume that only nature is it's own explanation.

If something was not natural it would logically be supernatural.

I dont know but I know it isn't God is a piece of illogical. Just saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand what that's trying to convey.

Infinities do not produce anything.  Things produce things, there may be infinite amounts of some of those things which may (or may not) produce infinite amounts of other things.

We have a partial explanation for our universe, but there is a limit to the evidence available.  I still fail to see why any sort of infinite regress poses a problem, and nothing here changes that, nor do I see any sort of explanation of why you think an infinite reality could not produce the universe in which we find ourselves.

From what we see within the universe there is conservation of energy; why presume that, or an equivalent, does not extend outside of the universe?  You have the ultimate inexplicable step of a self-creating, uncaused complex intelligence which chooses to incept a universe for no logical reason.

O.

Again you seem to be arguing a perpetual motion machine.
What in the universe is not contingent? What in the universe has no explanation?

What is your definition of a thing.

And another thing I observe from your responses that sometimes being unobserved is a problem eg for the necessary and sometimes it is no problem whatsoever. Eg productive infinities.Just thought I ought to tell you you've been found out on that one.
Infinities do though as you agree produce nothing and an infinity of things is er an infinity.

Sadly while you and Strangers are wallowing in your bath of logical contradiction. I have no intention of claiming in with you.

Good day and see you soon.

[Stranger]

I am saying that if nature is it's own explanation something you seem to be in denial of implying. Then I ask what logical grounds are there to assume that only nature is it's own explanation.

If something was not natural it would logically be supernatural.

For fuck's sake Vlad, how many times do you need the burden of proof explained and the simple English phrase "I don't know"? What's so hard?

I don't know if anything can be its own explanation (you haven't said how it's logically possible), if it's possible, I don't know if the universe might be such a thing, and, if it is, I don't know if it's the only thing that is.

I dont know but I know it isn't God is a piece of illogical. Just saying.

And how many more times do I need to say that I don't know that it isn't "God", especially as you haven't even defined the term.

If you want some idea of "God" to be taken seriously (as anything more than a guess), it's up to you to define it and provide the argument. I've seen bugger all sign of either a coherent definition or the fist hint of a suggestion of an argument.

All you seem to want to do is construct armies of straw men and ritually slaughter them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know if anything can be its own explanation (you haven't said how it's logically possible), if it's possible, I don't know if the universe might be such a thing, and, if it is, I don't know if it's the only thing that is.

This is an excellent example of providing you guys with an argument /evidence and you then saying you haven't been provided with it

Our exchange in reply 510

Quote from: Your friendly illusion of self. on Today at 04:21:21 PM
If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation. QED.

Your reply

Or there is no explanation.

.

What is so hard about this?

Once more.....If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation.

It's not rocket science.

Now that was just a bonus because I appreciate your time you but I also think I really ought to give you space for things to crystalise. See you soon.

[Stranger]

This is an excellent example of providing you guys with an argument /evidence and you then saying you haven't been provided with it

Where is your your definition of your god and your argument for it? All you're doing is arguing against claims I haven't made.

Our exchange in reply 510

Quote from: Your friendly illusion of self. on Today at 04:21:21 PM
If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation. QED.

Your reply

Or there is no explanation.

.

What is so hard about this?

Once more.....If the cause of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation.

Firstly, you're assuming 'cause' and 'explanation' are the same thing, and secondly, if we make that assumption, then we have "if the explanation of nature is nature then nature is it's own explanation", which is a pointless truism.

I've already said that I don't know if something can be its own explanation (which means I'm not dismissing it) and that, if that's possible (over to you to explain how), then I don't know if the universe might be it's own explanation (which means I'm not dismissing it), so I've already accepted your rather pointless truism.

I also don't know if you're using "nature" to mean the universe or if you have a broader idea in mind. This is the problem with never defining your terms.

None of which even hints at any definition of a god and an argument that supports it. Perhaps there's some connection lurking in the dark recesses of your mind but you really do need to set it out in some sort of logical sequence.

[Stranger]

And another thing I observe from your responses that sometimes being unobserved is a problem eg for the necessary and sometimes it is no problem whatsoever. Eg productive infinities.Just thought I ought to tell you you've been found out on that one.

Well spotted. Unfortunately the logical context seems to have escaped you. If you suggest something possible (not contradictory), say X, that is unobserved and logically unsupported, in the course of a logical argument, in order to reach your conclusion, then pointing out that Y, which is equally unobserved and logically unsupported, is another possibility (also not contradictory), breaks your line of reasoning.

You seem to get terribly confused by this and tend to treat Y as a counter-claim that needs defending in its own right, whereas it's actually just there to point out that X isn't the only possible option so your chain of reasoning is broken.

To make a logical case for a conclusion, every step has to be logically defensible. To show that an argument is invalid or unsound, all one needs to do is point out that just one step or one of the premises isn't necessarily the only option.

Infinities do though as you agree produce nothing and an infinity of things is er an infinity.

The number one doesn't produce anything but one Vlad produces a lot of nonsense.

Sadly while you and Strangers are wallowing in your bath of logical contradiction.

Name one.

[Outrider]

Again you seem to be arguing a perpetual motion machine.

Which, in a closed system, isn't an issue - is reality a closed system? Perhaps.

What in the universe is not contingent? What in the universe has no explanation?

So far as I'm aware, nothing; it's the precursors to the universe that we're questioning, and the suggestion of a first cause is introducing something that's not contingent, that has no explanation.

And another thing I observe from your responses that sometimes being unobserved is a problem eg for the necessary and sometimes it is no problem whatsoever. Eg productive infinities Just thought I ought to tell you you've been found out on that one.

Not found out at all - I'm positing the possibility of an infinite universe because you seem to think that it's an impossibility; I'm pointing out that there's insufficient evidence for a god because you wanted to know why I don't believe in one.  I don't believe in an infinite universe, either, I don't have a firm explanation for the extra-universal reality.

Infinities do though as you agree produce nothing and an infinity of things is er an infinity.

Sevens don't produce anything. Seven cows, on the other hand, produce more milk than six cows.  Infinities don't produce anything, they give an idea of the scale of things that do produce other things.

Sadly while you and Strangers are wallowing in your bath of logical contradiction. I have no intention of claiming in with you.

I appreciate that getting too close to logic probably feels odd, but you should try it sometime.

Laters.

O.

[jeremyp]

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.

You shouldn't have any trouble producing the evidence of your god then.

So where is it?

[jeremyp]

Are all beings conscious? Is consciousness another word for being? Not so sure.
 But start with the ultimate necessary which by definition is it's own explanation. It is the only ultimate explanation.

Let's assume it doesn't have to be conscious. If it doesn't, the ultimate necessary could be the universe.

Job done. We can all go home.

The mystery for me is, why the insistence on unconsciousness? It seems to me that the motivation for the external explanation of the universe being unconscious is adherence to Naturalism.

Nobody is insisting on unconsciousness. It's just a simpler explanation than the ultimate something being conscious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's assume it doesn't have to be conscious. If it doesn't, the ultimate necessary could be the universe.

Job done. We can all go home.
Nobody is insisting on unconsciousness. It's just a simpler explanation than the ultimate something being conscious.

First of all being necessary. It is not compelled to act except by itself. That is at least analogous I would have thought with free will.
Secondly for something unconscious it looks as though it has remarkable self control. Having apparently created once with one set of rules.

So as for unconsciousness being the simplest idea. I think it complicates things immensely.

[jeremyp]

First of all being necessary. It is not compelled to act except by itself. That is at least analogous I would have thought with free will.

No it isn't. It just means there is nothing outside of it that can make it do things. The Universe fits your definition.

Secondly for something unconscious it looks as though it has remarkable self control.

"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".

Having apparently created once with one set of rules.

Do you have evidence that this is true?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well spotted. Unfortunately the logical context seems to have escaped you. If you suggest something possible (not contradictory), say X, that is unobserved and logically unsupported, in the course of a logical argument, in order to reach your conclusion, then pointing out that Y, which is equally unobserved and logically unsupported, is another possibility (also not contradictory), breaks your line of reasoning.

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.

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.

[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?

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

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

That either the necessity is an external or that the universe is necessary leaves us with the same problem i.e. finding what is necessary .....because ''contingency  only'' is illogical.