Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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”?

Befores are to do with time, Hillside. ''Other than time'' cannot have any befores can it?

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

Confused by these terms? I'm not the person who saw the phrase ''other than time'' and translates it as God doing something ''before time''......you are. 

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?

You call yourself a teacher while sitting in the equivalent of An argos novelty plastic schoolmaster outfit? As I said to Outrider, the argument from contingency and necessity is about existence, beginnings or infinities are irrelevent to it.

[Stranger]

As I said to Outrider, the argument from contingency and necessity is about existence, beginnings or infinities are irrelevent to it.

So now we're back to "the argument from contingency", presumably for some god, are we? So will you now, at last, define your version of god and present the argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

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?

No. You are all over the place with everything must have an external explanation.
What then is the external explanation of the universe? You want the universe to have an external explanation because that satisfies one ingrained way of thinking but You also want the universe to be it's own final explanation. Finding yourself thus disappearing up your own fundament you are unleashing your Gatling gun on the messenger.

And that goes for Bluehillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

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?

I notice though that even talking about contingency and necessity brings forth quasi mystical talk.....''The universe just is'', the universe must both be it's own explanation...and yet not'' ''Nothing is necessary'' ''No one I think is in my tree''.....I made the last one up but it almost seems consistent with the direction of travel.

[Stranger]

No. You are all over the place with everything must have an external explanation.
What then is the external explanation of the universe? You want the universe to have an external explanation because that satisfies one ingrained way of thinking but You also want the universe to be it's own final explanation.

This is a total misrepresentation of what I've been saying which either means you've been paying no attention or you're lying.

Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat myself?

I DON'T KNOW!

Maybe the universe has an external explanation, maybe not. Maybe it has no explanation. If you can make the idea of something being it's own explanation make any logical sense, then maybe the universe falls into that category,

And I'm still waiting for your definition of "God" and some argument for it.

[Stranger]

...the universe must both be it's own explanation...and yet not'' ''Nothing is necessary''...

I've never made these claims, but anything rather than actually come up with something coherent of your own, eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Befores are to do with time, Hillside. ''Other than time'' cannot have any befores can it?

Ah, the old Vlad sidestep makes its ever-welcome return then. What you were actually asked was, if you don’t think a created universe would have had to have been created prior to its existence what do you mean by “other than time”? It was a question (I know I know, asking Vlad a question right? What on earth was I thinking…?).

Anyway, if you want to throw in a phrase like “other than time” to get you off that hook then the job is all yours still to tell us what you mean by it.

Confused by these terms? I'm not the person who saw the phrase ''other than time'' and translates it as God doing something ''before time''......you are.

Such a pity you have no grasp of irony given your latest crash and burn. Ah well.
 

You call yourself a teacher while sitting in the equivalent of An argos novelty plastic schoolmaster outfit? As I said to Outrider, the argument from contingency and necessity is about existence, beginnings or infinities are irrelevent to it.

And as Outy corrected you, they’re not irrelevant at all. Why not deal with the corrections rather than repeat your mistakes?

No. You are all over the place with everything must have an external explanation.

Who says that, or is it yet another of your straw men? If it's you who says it though, what’s the external explanation for “God”?

What then is the external explanation of the universe?

No-one says there must be one, but even if someone did what’s wrong with “don’t know” as the answer given the current state of knowledge?

You want the universe to have an external explanation…

Who’s “you”? No-one has said they “want” that at all. Be nice if you stopped so relentlessly misrepresenting what people here actually say.

…because that satisfies one ingrained way of thinking…

As no-one says it, no such “way of thinking” applies.

… but You also want the universe to be it's own final explanation.

Jeez the lying is strong with this one. No-one has expressed any views at all about what they “want” and, even if they had, what people want tells you nothing about what is (wishful thinking being largely the domain of the religious by the way).

Finding yourself thus disappearing up your own fundament you are unleashing your Gatling gun on the messenger.

You attempting yet another straw man doesn’t make your interlocutor “disappear” anywhere.

And that goes for Bluehillside.

Stop lying.

I notice though that even talking about contingency and necessity brings forth quasi mystical talk.....''The universe just is'', the universe must both be it's own explanation...and yet not'' ''Nothing is necessary''

Didn’t I just tell you to stop lying? These are all posited as possibilities given the current position of “don’t know”. Stranger hasn’t claimed any of these things to be true, let alone expressed a view about which, if any, he’d like to be true. Maybe the universe is its own explanation. Maybe something else created it. Maybe anything. The point though is that if you want to throw up your hands at finding a rationally investigable answer and just say “God” instead then you have no excuse for just ducking exactly the same questions about that god.   

''No one I think is in my tree''.....I made the last one up but it almost seems consistent with the direction of travel.

No, you just made all of them up. That’s you problem – utter incomprehension or utter mendacity. Take you pick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ah, the old Vlad sidestep makes its ever-welcome return then. What you were actually asked was, if you don’t think a created universe would have had to have been created prior to its existence what do you mean by “other than time”? It was a question (I know I know, asking Vlad a question right? What on earth was I thinking…?).

As I told you before. I am not wedded to the universe having a start or not.
I have also said that the argument from contingency and dependency does not depend on there being a beginning.
''Other than time'' could mean not subject to entropy like the rest of us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As I told you before. I am not wedded to the universe having a start or not.

Fine, then you are no longer wedded to the cosmological argument. After all, a universe with no beginning would have had no need of being created. Well, that’s progress of a sort I suppose.

I have also said that the argument from contingency and dependency does not depend on there being a beginning.

Wrongly so – if there was “no beginning”, ie the universe is endlessly old, then what on earth do you think the point of a god capable of unvere creation would be?

''Other than time'' could mean not subject to entropy like the rest of us.

It it “could mean” all the clocks running backwards on half-day Wednesdays too. It “could mean” anything that pops into your head in other words. That’s the problem with trying white noise as an  explanation instead of cogent thinking.

Oh, any news on your string of egregious misrepresentations of Stranger’s comments by the way? An apology perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 
And as Outy corrected you, they’re not irrelevant at all. Why not deal with the corrections rather than repeat your mistakes?

Nobody has corrected me. All that is going on with you guys is the abandonment of logic, the adoption of scientism, wanting cake, eating cake and a hefty dose of posse-ing and gaslighting.



 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nobody has corrected me.

Another lie – Outy did exactly that. Try reading his posts.

All that is going on with you guys is the abandonment of logic, the adoption of scientism, wanting cake, eating cake and a hefty dose of posse-ing and gaslighting.

Another string of lies. Why bother?

[Stranger]

I have also said that the argument from contingency and dependency does not depend on there being a beginning.

So when, if ever, are you finally going to define "God" and bring forth this amazing argument?

The suspense is killing me...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fine, then you are no longer wedded to the cosmological argument.

Wrongggggggggg!
Also there is more than one cosmological argument.
It's simple Hillside. Did the universe have a beginning or not.
What has contingency and necessity got to do with time? You haven't even defined what you mean by time.

All you are doing is taking a view of the universe from Essex and saying ''this is what there is stretching forwards and backwards forever and ever.'' The stench of scientism in your posts renders your approach as Mystical bollocks.

[Owlswing]

Wrongggggggggg!

Also, there is more than one cosmological argument.

It's simple, Hillside. Did the universe have a beginning or not.

What has contingency and necessity got to do with time? You haven't even defined what you mean by time.

All you are doing is taking a view of the universe from Essex and saying ''this is what there is stretching forwards and backwards forever and ever.'' The stench of scientism in your posts renders your approach as Mystical bollocks.

The last word of your post quoted above describes perfectly just about every single post that you have ever made on this forum!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Wrongly so – if there was “no beginning”, ie the universe is endlessly old, then what on earth do you think the point of a god capable of unvere creation would be?

Well let's see.
The universe would then be the necessary thing. In other words it would be it's own explanation.
But then there is the question of course of why a universe, rather than no universe.
There also remains the question of whether the universe could be any other way?
What is the explanation for the constants being the way they are? What keeps it going if it is a perpetual motion machine? Why is it infinite?

In other words there doesn't seem to be anything about the universe that is necessary.
Then there is the problem of infinity of events. Does an infinity account for stuff. As we know infinities are unproductive. Why is there not an infinity of nothing happening?
Which is more likely. What is the explanation of matter?

Obviously contingency cannot be an explanation. So somewhere lurking in the universe must be the necessary......according to you guys. Or the explanation of the universe is external to it.

Finally the cosmological argument of contingency is about existence. The universe could be there for ever therefore but why is there something rather than nothing?

That there has always been a something is when you think about it is no answer Hillside.

[Stranger]

Well let's see.
The universe would then be the necessary thing. In other words it would be it's own explanation.

Why? You still haven't established how anything at all can be its own explanation.

But then there is the question of course of why a universe, rather than no universe.
There also remains the question of whether the universe could be any other way?
What is the explanation for the constants being the way they are? What keeps it going if it is a perpetual motion machine? Why is it infinite?

In other words there doesn't seem to be anything about the universe that is necessary.
Then there is the problem of infinity of events. Does an infinity account for stuff. As we know infinities are unproductive. Why is there not an infinity of nothing happening?
Which is more likely. What is the explanation of matter?

Obviously contingency cannot be an explanation. So somewhere lurking in the universe must be the necessary......according to you guys. Or the explanation of the universe is external to it.

Finally the cosmological argument of contingency is about existence. The universe could be there for ever therefore but why is there something rather than nothing?

That there has always been a something is when you think about it is no answer Hillside.

So, lots of questions, pretty much all of them just as applicable to any god you might want to make up, more misrepresentation - I don't recall anybody saying that there must be a necessity "lurking in the universe" - but still no actual definition of a god or anything remotely resembling an argument.

Nobody else here is trying to argue for particular answers to these questions (unless I missed it). Nobody else has put forward the notion of necessity.

If you think you have answers, it's up to you to justify them, it's not up to anybody else to come up with alternatives. Just how often do you need the basics of the burden of proof explained?

[Stranger]

What has contingency and necessity got to do with time?

How can we tell, if you won't post the actual argument that you keep on hinting at? And, BTW, it's not up to anybody else to go searching for it, especially as you don't seem to understand Kalam (for example), there is no guarantee that, even if we did, we'd be thinking about the same thing.

You haven't even defined what you mean by time.

Wow - are you going for some sort of hypocrisy gold medal or something?

You haven't defined what you mean by "God" (and it looks like it changes from post to post sometimes) you keep wittering about necessity but you haven't explained how it's possible for anything at all to be necessary, and you won't even set out this beedin' argument you keep on hinting at.

And time is an (observer dependent) direction through the space-time manifold.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can we tell, if you won't post the actual argument that you keep on hinting at? And, BTW, it's not up to anybody else to go searching for it, especially as you don't seem to understand Kalam (for example), there is no guarantee that, even if we did, we'd be thinking about the same thing.

Wow - are you going for some sort of hypocrisy gold medal or something?

You haven't defined what you mean by "God" (and it looks like it changes from post to post sometimes) you keep wittering about necessity but you haven't explained how it's possible for anything at all to be necessary, and you won't even set out this beedin' argument you keep on hinting at.

And time is an (observer dependent) direction through the space-time manifold.

I defined what I mean by God to Outrider.
God is the necessary, the ultimate, the perfect, creator, sustainer, the fundemental, the foundation, the ground of being,
 
Now I know you are thinking all these could be traits of something impersonal. Personal, so how is God personal. Lane Craig's ancillary argument to his Kalam is a good resource here. To me the necessity produces the contingency independently of anything else. The necessity is not coerced, there is no external rule to force the necessity to be compliant, there is no natural law which dictates it should be done in a certain way hence contingency, there is no external opportunity to be provided, there is no gap. All this then is at least, highly analogous to volition, God does not need the universe. It must be here through a decision.

But God is also holy, perfect morally. God is loving. The universe is here for it's benefit not God's. And this is Gods revelation of himself because the moral reality, like the mathematical reality, is not to be found in the basic physical properties of matter and energy except in expression by certain complex arrangements. Morality does not change with physics.

And that is how I am defining God. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well let's see.
The universe would then be the necessary thing. In other words it would be it's own explanation.

Yes, in that case it would be.

But then there is the question of course of why a universe, rather than no universe.

No there isn’t. There's a “how” question – ie, by what process(es) does the universe happen to be – but a “why” question begs the question of a “something” to know or care about the why to begin with.

There also remains the question of whether the universe could be any other way?
What is the explanation for the constants being the way they are? What keeps it going if it is a perpetual motion machine? Why is it infinite?

Some of which we have robust answers for, for some we have various working but plausible hypotheses, and for some there are still “don’t knows”. So?

In other words there doesn't seem to be anything about the universe that is necessary.

That’s a non sequitur. You just jumped straight from some open questions to an unargued conclusion.

Then there is the problem of infinity of events. Does an infinity account for stuff. As we know infinities are unproductive. Why is there not an infinity of nothing happening?
Which is more likely. What is the explanation of matter?

You were the one who said he wasn’t wedded either way to an infinite/non-infinite universe, but either way you’re just repeating your how/why conflation.

Obviously contingency cannot be an explanation. So somewhere lurking in the universe must be the necessary......according to you guys. Or the explanation of the universe is external to it.

Did this mean something in your head when you wrote it?

Finally the cosmological argument of contingency is about existence. The universe could be there for ever therefore but why is there something rather than nothing?

No it isn’t. The cosmological argument requires that at some point in time the universe was caused, and that the chain of causes can only end by a supernatural event – ie, the act of a supernatural god.

You can have an infinitely old universe or you can have the cosmological argument, but you can’t have both. You choose.

That there has always been a something is when you think about it is no answer Hillside.

What, like “God” you mean?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I defined what I mean by God to Outrider.
God is the necessary, the ultimate, the perfect, creator, sustainer, the fundemental, the foundation, the ground of being,
 
Now I know you are thinking all these could be traits of something impersonal. Personal, so how is God personal. Lane Craig's ancillary argument to his Kalam is a good resource here. To me the necessity produces the contingency independently of anything else. The necessity is not coerced, there is no external rule to force the necessity to be compliant, there is no natural law which dictates it should be done in a certain way hence contingency, there is no external opportunity to be provided, there is no gap. All this then is at least, highly analogous to volition, God does not need the universe. It must be here through a decision.

But God is also holy, perfect morally. God is loving. The universe is here for it's benefit not God's. And this is Gods revelation of himself because the moral reality, like the mathematical reality, is not to be found in the basic physical properties of matter and energy except in expression by certain complex arrangements. Morality does not change with physics.

And that is how I am defining God.

That’s not a definition of something, it’s a CV of what it (supposedly) does.

Try again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Wrongggggggggg!
Also there is more than one cosmological argument.
It's simple Hillside. Did the universe have a beginning or not.
What has contingency and necessity got to do with time? You haven't even defined what you mean by time.

All you are doing is taking a view of the universe from Essex and saying ''this is what there is stretching forwards and backwards forever and ever.'' The stench of scientism in your posts renders your approach as Mystical bollocks.

Wrong again. Either you think the universe is infinitely old (in which case no cause to kick it off would be necessary and so the cosmological argument is irrelevant) or you think it began at some point in time in which case the question “how?” has various plausible hypotheses as tentative answers, but nothing more. If you want to introduce an implausible answer though (ie, “God”), then you can’t just duck the same questions about that god with the special pleading of magic.     

[Stranger]

...
And that is how I am defining God.

You seem to have mixed up your definition with parts of some sort of argument. You really do need to separate the definition, then set out some premises and then the argument.

Anyway...

God is the necessary, the ultimate, the perfect, creator, sustainer, the fundemental, the foundation, the ground of being,

You've said that the necessary is something being its own definition but you haven't explained how that's possible for anything. The rest is a bit vague and "prefect" looks like a value judgement.

Now I know you are thinking all these could be traits of something impersonal.

Now you seem to be jumping to an argument. I'm actually thinking that what you've said above is way too vague to be making deductions about it and is anyway supposed to have been a definition, not something anybody has accepted actually exists at all. If you want to add personal to the definition, then go right ahead, it's your definition, but you haven't established nearly enough to start making arguments about whether it's personal or not.

Personal, so how is God personal. Lane Craig's ancillary argument to his Kalam is a good resource here. To me the necessity produces the contingency independently of anything else. The necessity is not coerced, there is no external rule to force the necessity to be compliant, there is no natural law which dictates it should be done in a certain way hence contingency, there is no external opportunity to be provided, there is no gap. All this then is at least, highly analogous to volition, God does not need the universe. It must be here through a decision.

Until you can establish how something can be its own explanation, you can't really make deductions about it. Also, if it has a mind and makes choices, then those choices could have been different, implying a different mind and suddenly we have something that could have been different and then (by your previous arguments about the universe) can't be necessary.

But God is also holy, perfect morally. God is loving. The universe is here for it's benefit not God's. And this is Gods revelation of himself because the moral reality, like the mathematical reality, is not to be found in the basic physical properties of matter and energy except in expression by certain complex arrangements. Morality does not change with physics.

Is this more of a definition or are you trying to make an argument? If the latter, how do you know morality is anything more than something that complex minds have invented?

You still need to sort yourself out a bit, something like

Definition of God
----


Premisses
----


Argument
----

Alternatively, you could leave the definition and just start with premisses and then say that what you've deduced is the definition, but you really do need to take things step by step.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. Either you think the universe is infinitely old (in which case no cause to kick it off would be necessary and so the cosmological argument is irrelevant) or you think it began at some point in time in which case the question “how?” has various plausible hypotheses as tentative answers, but nothing more. If you want to introduce an implausible answer though (ie, “God”), then you can’t just duck the same questions about that god with the special pleading of magic.   

Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity. Now, you are implying it is the universe. However what could you be talking about. Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent. So there must be something about the universe which is necessary. But a necessary thing has to be. Does the universe have to be when there are alternatives. That it is demands an explanation.

If you want the universe to be the necessary thing then you have to start to imbue it with properties more common to theology and magic.e.g infinity and contingency only(sorry that last one was nonsense)

The following are not explanations of the existence of the universe.

The universe has been around for ever.
The universe just is.

If you want to bury your head in the sand by stopping at the universe either had a beginning or it has been round infinitely, Hillside, you and your wee wizards are entirely free to do so.

Infinities also are unproductive. Suppose I owed you a fiver and I said I could only pay you back when outrider gave me the fiver he owed and outrider said he could only pay me back when Never Talk to Strangers gave him the fiver he owed and so on to infinity, would you ever get your fiver?....... No, something actually has to put something into the system. And the fiver.

[jeremyp]

Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity. Now, you are implying it is the universe.

Well yes, the Universe could be the necessary thing. You have done nothing to show that it couldn't.

However what could you be talking about.

The Universe. That's pretty clear. If somebody is saying "the Universe could be necessary", they are clearly saying that the necessary thing is the Universe.

Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent.

Who say that is the case?

So there must be something about the universe which is necessary.

Yes: the Universe.

[qute]But a necessary thing has to be. Does the universe have to be when there are alternatives. That it is demands an explanation. [/quote]
Why does an alternative have to be necessary when there is the Universe? That demands an explanation.

If you want the universe to be the necessary thing then you have to start to imbue it with properties more common to theology and magic.e.g infinity and contingency only(sorry that last one was nonsense)

Why?

The following are not explanations of the existence of the universe.

The universe has been around for ever.
The universe just is.

The following are not explanations of the existence of the God.

God has been around for ever.
God just is.

[Stranger]

Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity.

Why? You still haven established how anything at all can be its own explanation and therefore necessary. Why would any god be and not nothing?

Now, you are implying it is the universe. However what could you be talking about. Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent. So there must be something about the universe which is necessary. But a necessary thing has to be. Does the universe have to be when there are alternatives.

And whatever god you dream up, I can think of alternatives, so how can any god be necessary when there are alternatives?

You are talking as if you'd come up with a credible argument, defined how something can be necessary, and then identified it with some concept of god, none of which you've actually done.

You haven't established that a necessary thing (something that is its own explanation) is even a coherent concept, let alone something that must exist. You haven't provided a definition of god that would mean it was necessary (just defining as necessary is circular) nor can you unless you first explain how anything can be necessary, and the arguments you keep coming up with about the universe would seem to be just as applicable to any god.

In short, you seem to think that attempting (rather ineptly) to knock down other positions (real or imagined) will somehow distract from the fact you haven't even begun to make an argument or offer a credible alternative.