Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

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.

Who say that is the case?

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.
Why does an alternative have to be necessary when there is the Universe? That demands an explanation.

Why?

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

God has been around for ever.
God just is.

You seem to be owning nothing. Zero debating position.
I am not here to entertain you. If you have no position we have zero argument.

In terms of God it looks like forever to us here in the universe but the necessary, whatever it is is independent of time since it must be independent of that which is contingent on it.
But here's another thing about infinities Jeremy. How can an infinite universe be established or demonstrated? The universe would be committing the great crime of being unfalsifiably infinite.

I'll lay more of my cards on the table. I'm not a great one for the delineation of natural and supernatural and indeed neither are many around here who seem to be quite comfortable both investing the universe with supernatural powers.''Being self explaning. conjuring itself into existence, being infinite, deciding to be etc'' and demolishing/suspending logic with nonsense on stilts like ''contingency only.'' But hey why am I telling you this because you don't own any of it apparently? so whether necessity is ''in'' or ''out'' of the universe. It cannot be contingent.

Preempting your next statement as ''nobody owns anything opposing you'' fine, we have no argument then.

[jeremyp]

You seem to be owning nothing. Zero debating position.
I am not here to entertain you. If you have no position we have zero argument.

In terms of God it looks like forever to us here in the universe but the necessary, whatever it is is independent of time since it must be independent of that which is contingent on it.
But here's another thing about infinities Jeremy. How can an infinite universe be established or demonstrated? The universe would be committing the great crime of being unfalsifiably infinite.

I'll lay more of my cards on the table. I'm not a great one for the delineation of natural and supernatural and indeed neither are many around here who seem to be quite comfortable both investing the universe with supernatural powers.''Being self explaning. conjuring itself into existence, being infinite, deciding to be etc'' and demolishing/suspending logic with nonsense on stilts like ''contingency only.'' But hey why am I telling you this because you don't own any of it apparently? so whether necessity is ''in'' or ''out'' of the universe. It cannot be contingent.

Preempting your next statement as ''nobody owns anything opposing you'' fine, we have no argument then.

I do have a position. The position I have is that your arguments in favour of god are bollocks.

Every argument you make about God works just the same if you substitute the word Universe for “God” and every argument you make about the Universe works the same if you substitute “God” for “Universe”. Your arguments only work with special pleading for god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Er, I'm afraid, if, as you have done blindly ignored the explanation for why a universe and not nothing…

What explanation? You haven’t provided one.

…then you still come unavoidably up with a necessity.

Yes, if the conjecture “the universe is its own explanation” is correct then the universe is what you would call “necessary”. So?

Now, you are implying it is the universe.

No I’m not. I’m just suggesting it as one plausible explanation given the absence of a reason to discount it.

However what could you be talking about. Since nothing observable is necessary but contingent.

But why assume that what’s observable within the universe must also apply to the universe itself?

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 it is then it “has to be” as you put it. You can assert that “there are alternatives” if you like but it’s your job then to make an argent to validate the claim.

If you want…

I don’t “want” anything. Be nice if you stopped lying about that.

…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)

All of it is nonsense, but if you want to equate theology with “don’t know” then by all means carry on.

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

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

Depends what you mean by “explanations”, but they are plausible possibilities at least – which is all anyone says regardless of your misrepresentations.

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.

Did that means something in your head when you typed it? Arriving at a “don’t know” isn’t burying your head in the sand, especially when the supposed alternatives (“God” etc) are epistemically white noise.

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.

Suppose I said “God” and this god must have been caused by another god, and that god must have been caused by another god, and…. and so on to infinity. How does that help you, unless you want to inject special pleading into the equation to make on of these gods magic?
 
You’re all over the place here, and I suspect that at some dimly aware level you know it too.

[Stranger]

You seem to be owning nothing. Zero debating position.
...
Preempting your next statement as ''nobody owns anything opposing you'' fine, we have no argument then.

Do you really grasp so little about logic and the burden of proof?

The default position is to be sceptical about any and every explanation put forward for something (in this case the universe). Explanations don't get accepted just because one person has a view and the others don't know.

Until and unless you make a coherent case for your point of view, you're right in that there is literally no debate to be had because all you have (at best) is a baseless guess. Nobody needs to "own" an alternative position. Even if you had put forward an argument, all that would be needed is to show that it was no better than any other baseless guess. There is still no need for people to adopt alternative views, even then.

As it is, you haven't posted anything remotely resembling a reasoned argument for your view, you've just made vague assertions and slaughtered a whole host of straw men - and in the process put forward arguments about the universe not being 'necessary' that would apply just as much to any god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do have a position. The position I have is that your arguments in favour of god are bollocks.

Every argument you make about God works just the same if you substitute the word Universe for “God” and every argument you make about the Universe works the same if you substitute “God” for “Universe”. Your arguments only work with special pleading for god.

Except that there seems to be nothing in the universe that does not look contingent.
No special pleading in contingency and necessity. If you can demonstrate what in the universe is necessary.......since you seem to be suggesting that, then we’ve got there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What explanation? You haven’t provided one.

Yes, if the conjecture “the universe is its own explanation” is correct then the universe is what you would call “necessary”. So?

No I’m not. I’m just suggesting it as one plausible explanation given the absence of a reason to discount it.

But why assume that what’s observable within the universe must also apply to the universe itself?

If it is then it “has to be” as you put it. You can assert that “there are alternatives” if you like but it’s your job then to make an argent to validate the claim.

I don’t “want” anything. Be nice if you stopped lying about that.

All of it is nonsense, but if you want to equate theology with “don’t know” then by all means carry on.

Depends what you mean by “explanations”, but they are plausible possibilities at least – which is all anyone says regardless of your misrepresentations.

Did that means something in your head when you typed it? Arriving at a “don’t know” isn’t burying your head in the sand, especially when the supposed alternatives (“God” etc) are epistemically white noise.

Suppose I said “God” and this god must have been caused by another god, and that god must have been caused by another god, and…. and so on to infinity. How does that help you, unless you want to inject special pleading into the equation to make on of these gods magic?
 
You’re all over the place here, and I suspect that at some dimly aware level you know it too.

Beg pardon you are the one who seems to be stating that the universe is necessary and then being in denial of that. You seem to be keen to point out the unfalsifiability of God while turdpolishing the unfalsifiability of an infinite universe.

If the universe is the necessary demonstrate what is necessary about it,

[jeremyp]

Except that there seems to be nothing in the universe that does not look contingent.

The Universe is not a thing in the Universe.

No special pleading in contingency and necessity.

Your argument is nothing but special pleading. Your only attempt at refuting the point that all the arguments that can be applied to the Universe can also be applied to God is that "God is different" but you don't ever try to justify that: special pleading.

If you can demonstrate what in the universe is necessary

I haven't claimed that anything in the Universe is necessary. I claimed that it is possible that the Universe itself is necessary.

Honestly, if you can't understand the difference between a thing and the things it contains, you should leave off complex ideas like necessary and contingent and concentrate on the basics.

[jeremyp]

If the universe is the necessary demonstrate what is necessary about it,

If God is necessary, demonstrate what is necessary about it.

[Outrider]

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

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

No, but they are viable alternatives which show that attempts to suggest it MUST be due to a god do not need to be accepted.

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.

Your graciousness knows no bounds... it's, dare I say it, infinite...

Infinities also are unproductive.

But they don't need to produce, they simply need to maintain which they do perfectly adequately.

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?

Yes.  After an infinite amount of absolute time, and - depending on where you start and finish within the infinite - after a finite amount of subjective time.

....... No, something actually has to put something into the system. And the fiver.

If it's infinite, then no you don't, that's the point.  However, if you want to make that argument, nothing is non-productive; you have to put something in to your prime mover in order for it to be.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, but they are viable alternatives which show that attempts to suggest it MUST be due to a god do not need to be accepted.

Your graciousness knows no bounds... it's, dare I say it, infinite...

But they don't need to produce, they simply need to maintain which they do perfectly adequately.

Yes.  After an infinite amount of absolute time, and - depending on where you start and finish within the infinite - after a finite amount of subjective time.

If it's infinite, then no you don't, that's the point.  However, if you want to make that argument, nothing is non-productive; you have to put something in to your prime mover in order for it to be.

O.

Viable alternatives?
They are not answers to the question why something and not nothing.
Infinities are not productive. As demonstrated.
God on the other hand is not an infinity either of things or events.
God is therefore what gives rise to things...even an infinity of things or events WHICH COLLECTIVELY I SUPPOSE IS AN INFINITE SPACE TIME.
Maintainance is a good point. The universe is going certainly, but that gives us no clue as to whether that has been going on forever. Unfortunately the universe looks as though it is running down. How does that ride with an infinitely old universe? Not that an infinitely old chain of things or events is  an explanation for itself.

[jeremyp]

Viable alternatives?
They are not answers to the question why something and not nothing.

Neither is God.

Why is there a god rather than nothing?

Infinities are not productive. As demonstrated.
God on the other hand is not an infinity either of things or events.

Really? So God isn't eternal. Where did God come from then?

Unfortunately the universe looks as though it is running down. How does that ride with an infinitely old universe. Not that an infinitely old chain of things or events is  an explanation for itself.

The observable Universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. We don't know what was before that or even if it is a meaningful question to ask what was before that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes.  After an infinite amount of absolute time, and - depending on where you start and finish within the infinite - after a finite amount of subjective time.

So to get the Fiver you still need a start. As I said infinities don’t produce. Someone actually has to put something in.

[Stranger]

Viable alternatives?
They are not answers to the question why something and not nothing.

Neither is a god.

Infinities are not productive. As demonstrated.

You haven't demonstrated any such thing.

God on the other hand is not an infinity either of things or events.
God is therefore what gives rise to things...even an infinity of things or events WHICH COLLECTIVELY I SUPPOSE IS AN INFINITE SPACE TIME.

Assertions. Why should we take this guess seriously?

Maintainance is a good point. The universe is going certainly, but that gives us no clue as to whether that has been going on forever.

Indeed it doesn't. Maybe some larger context has been going forever, or nothing has been going forever and we just have the space-time manifold with a finite past direction, or maybe there are multiple independent time dimensions that branch off or cycle, or... anything else we might dream up.

Unfortunately the universe looks as though it is running down. How does that ride with an infinitely old universe?

This section of space-time does, but we have no idea about before the big bang (if that even makes sense) or any larger context.

Not that an infinitely old chain of things or events is  an explanation for itself.

Neither is a god. You still haven't actually explained how anything at all can be its own explanation, let alone your favourite variety of god.

You still seem to be having trouble with the burden of proof. Nobody else has to provide and defend an alternative answer in order to dismiss a baseless guess. You need to come up with an actual argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither is God.

Why is there a god rather than nothing?
Really? So God isn't eternal. Where did God come from then?
The observable Universe had a beginning in the Big Bang. We don't know what was before that or even if it is a meaningful question to ask what was before that.

Eternal is originally a theological concept meaning outside of time and not subject to it. In the argument from contingency infinite space time is contingent. There is nowhere and when for God like there is for the rest of us.

An infinite universe is unfalsifiable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither is a god.

You haven't demonstrated any such thing.

Assertions. Why should we take this guess seriously?

Indeed it doesn't. Maybe some larger context has been going forever, or nothing has been going forever and we just have the space-time manifold with a finite past direction, or maybe there are multiple independent time dimensions that branch off or cycle, or... anything else we might dream up.

This section of space-time does, but we have no idea about before the big bang (if that even makes sense) or any larger context.

Neither is a god. You still haven't actually explained how anything at all can be its own explanation, let alone your favourite variety of god.

You still seem to be having trouble with the burden of proof. Nobody else has to provide and defend an alternative answer in order to dismiss a baseless guess. You need to come up with an actual argument.

sorry Never things seemed to have flipped. It seems I now have the position of interrogator rather than you guys.

[Stranger]

In the argument from contingency infinite space time is contingent.

So where is this bleedin' argument then? What are the premisses, what logical steps are there? Is it deductive or inductive? What exactly is the conclusion and how does it relate to some concept of god?

An infinite universe is unfalsifiable.

Yes - but nobody is trying to convince everybody else that the universe is infinite - just saying it's a possibility.

[Stranger]

sorry Never things seemed to have flipped. It seems I now have the position of interrogator rather than you guys.

Only in your own mind. The fact that the burden of proof is still something you've failed to grasp, doesn't change the fact that you have put forward no argument, so your drivel can be summarily dismissed.

[jeremyp]

Eternal is originally a theological concept meaning outside of time and not subject to it. In the argument from contingency infinite space time is contingent. There is nowhere and when for God like there is for the rest of us.

An infinite universe is unfalsifiable.

You haven't explained why the Universe can't be eternal.

You're still confusing the Universe itself with the things in it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Beg pardon you are the one who seems to be stating that the universe is necessary…

I’ve clearly and specifically said no such thing. Not sure what you get from this kind of pathological misrepresentation, but it just makes you look dishonest when you do it.

Once again, I do not say that the universe is eternally old and therefore necessary at all. What I actually say is that you cannot dismiss the possibility that it is this way solely on the basis of what you observe within it. You’ve never grasped (or have always lied about) the burden of proof principle: if you think the possibility of nature beings its own explanation cannot be then (finally) explain why.     

…and then being in denial of that.

…he lied again.

You seem to be keen to point out the unfalsifiability of God…

And of any non-investigable claim of fact. Whether the claim is “god”, leprechauns or anything else unfalsifiable doesn’t matter much for this purpose. It’s the same problem.

…while turdpolishing the unfalsifiability of an infinite universe.

The only turd being polished here is your straw man. No-one asserted there to be an infinite universe; what was actually said was that you cannot dismiss the possibility of an infinite universe without good reason. That’s your problem remember if you want to open the door to a universe contingent on a creator. 

If the universe is the necessary demonstrate what is necessary about it,

Why? All I need to demonstrate is that you have no sound reason for excluding the possibility of it. And as you’ve never even tried to produce one, unless you have one but want to keep it a secret then it’s job done.

Rather than come back with yet another straw man version of what I’ve just said, why not surprise us all and try at least to engage with the difference between a possibility (that you cannot exclude) and a probability (that no-one argues for)?

Oh, and I notice that you just ignored the other rebuttals of your various mistakes you were given. You'll never change will you.   

[Outrider]

So to get the Fiver you still need a start. As I said infinities don’t produce. Someone actually has to put something in.

No.  Stuff that was always there, at a particular point in time, takes the form of a fiver which you can get from someone, and then later it becomes something else.  No absolute start required.

O.

[Outrider]

Viable alternatives?

Yep.

They are not answers to the question why something and not nothing.

Is that a question that needs answering?  Is that a phenomenon to which the question 'why' has any meaning?  Is that not, to paraphrase, begging the question?

Infinities are not productive. As demonstrated.

Well, as asserted, but regardless, that's not an issue so long as they ALREADY CONTAIN everything we need to establish.

God on the other hand is not an infinity either of things or events.[/.quote]

God, in pretty much every formulation I've seen, is an effect in need of an establishing cause.

God is therefore what gives rise to things...even an infinity of things or events WHICH COLLECTIVELY I SUPPOSE IS AN INFINITE SPACE TIME.

And what gives rise to this god? Sounds like Christiany's 'Prelude to Special Pleading' in E-flat to me.

Maintainance is a good point. The universe is going certainly, but that gives us no clue as to whether that has been going on forever.

The universe fairly strongly indicates it had a very definite beginning, and that it could conceivably age for an infinite amount of time into the future.  REALITY, in which the universe occurs, no indication on whether that has a beginning or not.

Unfortunately the universe looks as though it is running down.

I presume you are referring to the heat death of the universe, or some similar long-term static state in the distant future?

How does that ride with an infinitely old universe?

You are conflating 'reality' and 'the universe' - the universe is a specific structure, and the heat death of the universe as a concept doesn't invalidate either an infinite universe or an infinite reality, because it establish a scenario where the universe remains in existence forever.

Not that an infinitely old chain of things or events is  an explanation for itself.

Not that it needs to be, all it needs to be is a viable explanation to establish that some divine creator (or any other causative 'urge') is not necessarily involved.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep.

Is that a question that needs answering?  Is that a phenomenon to which the question 'why' has any meaning?  Is that not, to paraphrase, begging the question?

Well, as asserted, but regardless, that's not an issue so long as they ALREADY CONTAIN everything we need to establish.

And what gives rise to this god? Sounds like Christiany's 'Prelude to Special Pleading' in E-flat to me.

The universe fairly strongly indicates it had a very definite beginning, and that it could conceivably age for an infinite amount of time into the future.  REALITY, in which the universe occurs, no indication on whether that has a beginning or not.

I presume you are referring to the heat death of the universe, or some similar long-term static state in the distant future?

You are conflating 'reality' and 'the universe' - the universe is a specific structure, and the heat death of the universe as a concept doesn't invalidate either an infinite universe or an infinite reality, because it establish a scenario where the universe remains in existence forever.

Not that it needs to be, all it needs to be is a viable explanation to establish that some divine creator (or any other causative 'urge') is not necessarily involved.

O.

What is this stuff that has always but unfalsifiably always been there.

Where is this necessary material?

When you explained how an infinity can produce anything you talked about a start. Of course were not talking about a fiver which is contingent on a start but the universe.

So are you saying the universe had a start or that it has an external explanation ,or that there is necessary stuff in the universe?

[Stranger]

What is this stuff that has always but unfalsifiably always been there.

Where is this necessary material?

When you explained how an infinity can produce anything you talked about a start. Of course were not talking about a fiver which is contingent on a start but the universe.

So are you saying the universe had a start or that it has an external explanation ,or that there is necessary stuff in the universe?

It's still not up to anybody else to defend other possibilities, until you have shown that your own answer is any less of a blind guess - which you haven't.

You can't even say how anything at all can be necessary (its own explanation), so asking somebody else to say why some hypothetical alternative is necessary is the height illogical fuckwittery and hypocrisy.

[Gordon]

What is this stuff that has always but unfalsifiably always been there.

Where is this necessary material?

When you explained how an infinity can produce anything you talked about a start. Of course were not talking about a fiver which is contingent on a start but the universe.

So are you saying the universe had a start or that it has an external explanation ,or that there is necessary stuff in the universe?

Vlad

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then stop digging.

Now - nobody here is claiming what you accuse them of claiming, and your persistence here looks very much like you are kite-flying in order to avoid explaining your own position.

You seem not to have noticed that several of your recent regular interlocutors (not I, I hasten to add) have been running rings around you - so I'd say it is high time you stopped digging.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

…You seem not to have noticed that several of your recent regular interlocutors (not I, I hasten to add) have been running rings around you - so I'd say it is high time you stopped digging.

Technically I suppose given the depth of the hole he’s dug for himself people are running rings above him rather than around him…

(Pedant’s note: the word “circumstance” by the way comes from “encircled” so you can’t have “under the circumstances” – only “in the circumstances”. I know, I know – I’ll get me jacket…)