Does antitheism exist?

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Gordon,

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…)

To be pedantic, I think you are misusing 'can't' here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

To be pedantic, I think you are misusing 'can't' here.

Groan...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Hi Gordon
 You strike me as a guy that puts style over substance.

You made me recall that film where an unarmed man confronts his well tooled up adversary with a display of flamenco dancing.

I'm not sure your sure what they are saying but you sure like the floppy floppy sound they are making ha ha ha.

Please demonstrate an infinite universe.

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Gordon
 You strike me as a guy that puts style over substance.

You made me recall that film where an unarmed man confronts his well tooled up adversary with a display of flamenco dancing.

I'm not sure your sure what they are saying but you sure like the floppy floppy sound they are making ha ha ha.

Please demonstrate an infinite universe.

Put the bong down

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Put the bong down

.. . and slowly step away backwards, climb on to your pet unicorn Eunice and float gently away while she leave a rainbow trail of glitter behind her. You'll feel better in the morning I'm sure.   

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon
 You strike me as a guy that puts style over substance.

I suspect my style credentials are somewhat lacking - so I suppose I'm a substance kind of guy.

You made me recall that film where an unarmed man confronts his well tooled up adversary with a display of flamenco dancing.

I'm not sure your sure what they are saying but you sure like the floppy floppy sound they are making ha ha ha.

Sadly, I've not seen 'Carry on Vlad'.

Please demonstrate an infinite universe.

Why should I attempt to do that?

[Stranger]

Please demonstrate an infinite universe.

Once more for the hard of thinking...

Nobody is making that claim, Vlad, it's only been mentioned as a possibility, so nobody needs to demonstrate it. It is you who claimed that there was an argument for your god from this notion of necessity. So far, it's been conspicuous only by its total absence. What are the premisses? What are the logical steps? What exactly does it conclude? Is it inductive or deductive? What definition of god does its conclusion lead us to?

Are you seriously unable to distinguish between people mentioning alternative possibilities to point out how flimsy your chain of 'reasoning' is, from them making their own claims, or is it that you can't grasp the logical significance?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Put the bong down

I'm not the one af ma hied on Irn Bru.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

.. . and slowly step away backwards, climb on to your pet unicorn Eunice and float gently away while she leave a rainbow trail of glitter behind her. You'll feel better in the morning I'm sure.

Stop Gaslighting.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not the one af ma hied on Irn Bru.

'Hied'? Are you channeling James Doohan?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Stop Gaslighting.

I'll add "gaslighting" to the ever-growing list of words you either don't understand or pretend not to understand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once more for the hard of thinking...

Nobody is making that claim, Vlad, it's only been mentioned as a possibility,

And i've questioned it.
And you guys don't like it.

If nobody is going actually to own any claim then I take my leave unopposed.

If I am opposed then you are a bit hypocritical to get upset by being opposed.

Again if you suggest the universe doesn't need an explanation then you have made the universe the necessary. You haven't got rid of the necessary but you have a huge problem identifying where the necessity lies.

If you decide it was stuff that exists forever you have to ask why it exists rather than nothing existing while remembering that the necessary is not under any obligation to exist except it's own.

The necessary is also not dependent on what it is responsible for.

If you cannot see how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot see the universe as necessary in which case it must have an external explanation for it.

That's it, for now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I'll add "gaslighting" to the ever-growing list of words you either don't understand or pretend not to understand.

I would feel as pissed as you if my turdpolishing had failed yet again.

[Nearly Sane]

And i've questioned it.
And you guys don't like it.

If nobody is going actually to own any claim then I take my leave unopposed.

If I am opposed then you are a bit hypocritical to get upset by being opposed.

Again if you suggest the universe doesn't need an explanation then you have made the universe the necessary. You haven't got rid of the necessary but you have a huge problem identifying where the necessity lies.

If you decide it was stuff that exists forever you have to ask why it exists rather than nothing existing while remembering that the necessary is not under any obligation to exist except it's own.

The necessary is also not dependent on what it is responsible for.

If you cannot see how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot see the universe as necessary in which case it must have an external explanation for it.

That's it, for now.

Deeply dishonest drivel

[Nearly Sane]

I would feel as pissed as you if my turdpolishing had failed yet again.

Unfortunately, you have just pished and shat yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And i've questioned it.

No you haven’t – you’ve lied about it, which is a very different thing.

And you guys don't like it.

Your lying? Can you blame us?

If nobody is going actually to own any claim then I take my leave unopposed.

People will “own” claims they actually make but not ones you dishonestly pretend they have made. Seems fair enough to me.

If I am opposed then you are a bit hypocritical to get upset by being opposed.

You’re not “opposed” – rather your lying is exposed.

Again if you suggest the universe doesn't need an explanation then you have made the universe the necessary. You haven't got rid of the necessary but you have a huge problem identifying where the necessity lies.

Again, the only suggestion concerns a possibility and not a probability. Will you ever stop lying about this?

If you decide it was stuff that exists forever you have to ask why it exists rather than nothing existing while remembering that the necessary is not under any obligation to exist except it's own.

No-one has decided any such thing, despite your lying about that. The only “decision” is a don’t know, followed by various possibilities. If you think one or more of the possibilities is actually an impossibility, then it’s your job to explain why rather than just assert it to be so.

Then again, you knew this already didn’t you what with it being explained to you so many times only for you to ignore or to lie about that explanation.   

The necessary is also not dependent on what it is responsible for.

Gibberish.

If you cannot see how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot see the universe as necessary in which case it must have an external explanation for it.

People can “see” that as only one possibility, namely because you cannot assume that the determinism seen within the universe necessarily applies to the universe. 

That's it, for now.

Is the flux mendacity capacitor out of charge? 

[Stranger]

And i've questioned it.
And you guys don't like it.

It's not that we don't like it, it's that you're being exasperatingly dimwitted and hypocritical.

If nobody is going actually to own any claim then I take my leave unopposed.

That isn't how logic works. A number of possibilities have been suggested, of which an infinite universe is only one. Unless you can provide some reason to exclude it as a possibility, it remains one of the (many) possibilities.

Does your argument even require that the universe is not infinite? Who knows because you haven't posted anything remotely like a coherent argument, so it's anybody's guess.

If I am opposed then you are a bit hypocritical to get upset by being opposed.

Yet again, for the very, very hard of thinking...

It's you who said you had an actual argument for your god. You haven't posted one but you do keep wittering about necessity, and people have been questioning about other possibilities and what you're actually talking about.

Nobody else has said they have an argument for something specific, such as an infinite universe.

You are yet again showing a total lack of understanding of the burden of proof.

Again if you suggest the universe doesn't need an explanation then you have made the universe the necessary.

Why? Where is your reasoning? Why can't it have no explanation at all?

And for about the hundredth time: how is it possible for anything at all to be its own explanation? Until you can answer that question, the concept is meaningless.

If you decide it was stuff that exists forever you have to ask why it exists rather than nothing existing...

A question that a god doesn't answer. Why this god and not nothing or another god?

If you cannot see how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot see the universe as necessary in which case it must have an external explanation for it.

If you cannot explain how anything can be it's own explanation then it follows that you cannot explain why your version of god is necessary, so you obviously don't have a valid (let alone sound) argument from necessity for you're god - and what's more, by what passes for 'logic' in your mind (above), said god must therefore have an external explanation for it.

You first need to show that something being its own explanation actually makes coherent sense, then you have to show why it can only apply to your version of god and not to the universe (infinite or otherwise) or some other larger context (infinite or otherwise) that isn't your version of god.

[Outrider]

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?

The universe appears to have had a start.  We know nothing reliable about what might or might not be outside of the universe; it could very well be an infinite reality, it could be a god.

It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that there is anything 'necessary', it's also not possible to entirely rule it out.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


People can “see” that as only one possibility, namely because you cannot assume that the determinism seen within the universe necessarily applies to the universe. 

This is the (only) thing of interest in your post. You seem to be making a division in the universe.

You have a “within the universe” where one thing applies and “the universe” where something else might apply. The two are therefore clearly different.

What is the distinction?

Also, the term “within the universe” suggests a “without the universe” rather than “The universe” which could be taken as the same as “within the universe”......what’s the difference as you see it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The universe appears to have had a start.  We know nothing reliable about what might or might not be outside of the universe; it could very well be an infinite reality, it could be a god.

It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that there is anything 'necessary', it's also not possible to entirely rule it out.

O.

Contingency only is not a logical option imho and is really a misinterpretation of the meaning of the observations of science I MV.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This is the (only) thing of interest in your post.

Your string of lies and mistakes is explained to you, and you reply with “This is the (only) thing of interest in your post”?

Seriously though? Do you not think it might be better actually to address your string of lies and mistakes problem before trying your latest evasion?

You seem to be making a division in the universe.

You have a “within the universe” where one thing applies and “the universe” where something else might apply. The two are therefore clearly different.

What is the distinction?

The “distinction” is that your assumption that they must necessarily be the same has no basis. You can assert it if you like, but as your entire schtick of “therefore an external creator” rests on it you need to find some means to justify the claim.   

Also,the term “within the universe” suggests a “without the universe” rather than “The universe” which could be taken as the same as “within the universe”......what’s the difference as you see it?

The difference is that we observe a deterministic universe. You cannot though just assume that there must therefore also have been a deterministic cause of the universe itself as a whole. That’s why people posit the possibility of an eternal universe that's it’s own explanation, albeit that you then misrepresent that as a positive claim of the probable (and then complain that people won’t “own” the position you give them but that no-one actually makes). 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The difference is that we observe a deterministic universe. You cannot though just assume that there must therefore also have been a deterministic cause of the universe itself as a whole.

Really Hillside, I’m having to do a lot of sifting through the “playing the man” dross to get to the interesting stuff. Unfortunately it remains a rehash of your unjustified assertion.

What is the difference between a deterministic universe and the universe itself as a whole?
You made the distinction, not I please, justify.

[Outrider]

Contingency only is not a logical option imho and is really a misinterpretation of the meaning of the observations of science I MV.

It's not from the observations of science.  Science suggests there is a start to the universe; in the absence of any observable phenomena from outside of the universe, any conjecture is just that, conjecture.

As to whether it's logical or not, it's absolutely logical, it just doesn't fit with our cognitive understand which has evolved and developed inside of a universe with apparently finite phenomena.  It's exactly as 'logical' as the concept of a self-actualising immensely power complex consciousness deliberately instigating an overwhelmingly empty universe in order to create a time-space framework in which other consciousnesses can linearly experience their existence whilst outside of the framework the consciousness judges based on absolute knowledge and punishes based on the inevitable outcome of the system it decided to instigate.

Which is to say, whether it's logical or not depends on what assumptions (if any) you make about that extra-universal existence.

O.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Really Hillside, I’m having to do a lot of sifting through the “playing the man” dross to get to the interesting stuff.

No you’re not. Identifying your lying isn’t “playing the man” at all. You had explained to you repeatedly that people were positing only one of various possibilities (it was even said in bold, italics and large font size) and you kept telling those same people that instead they’d made an unjustifiable claim of fact (that they wouldn't then "own").

That’s called lying, and you should stop it.

Unfortunately it remains a rehash of your unjustified assertion.

Still lying then. There is no unjustified assertion.

What is the difference between a deterministic universe and the universe itself as a whole?

One concerns how the universe functions, the other what the universe is.

You made the distinction, not I please justify.

I just did.

Your “argument” from contingency asserts that the way the universe itself functions must also to be necessary for it to exist at all. Please justify. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not from the observations of science.  Science suggests there is a start to the universe; in the absence of any observable phenomena from outside of the universe, any conjecture is just that, conjecture.

As to whether it's logical or not, it's absolutely logical, it just doesn't fit with our cognitive understand which has evolved and developed inside of a universe with apparently finite phenomena.  It's exactly as 'logical' as the concept of a self-actualising immensely power complex consciousness deliberately instigating an overwhelmingly empty universe in order to create a time-space framework in which other consciousnesses can linearly experience their existence whilst outside of the framework the consciousness judges based on absolute knowledge and punishes based on the inevitable outcome of the system it decided to instigate.

Which is to say, whether it's logical or not depends on what assumptions (if any) you make about that extra-universal existence.

O.

O.

Not really, I think I’ve said repeatedly that if the universe is itself necessary, what is it about the universe that is necessary? for all we see is contingency. Necessity cannot logically be avoided. It has nothing to do with any views on extra universal existence.

The subsequent question beyond the existence of the necessity is what is it like not I would have thought whether it is extra or internally universal.