Does antitheism exist?

[Stranger]

The objective is to get Vlad to understand the basic rules of logical argument...

But the main point that he hasn't got is that it isn't up to other people to identify possible 'necessities', doubly so as he can't say how it's even possible for something to be its own explanation and flits between that and it being something with no further explanation.

He's getting people to try to refute hand-waving, meaningless waffle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

He's getting people to try to refute hand-waving, meaningless waffle.

Yes - that’s all he ever does. And his MO is to do it by referencing writers he hasn’t read using words he doesn’t understand to support the fallacies on which he relies to distract from the vapidity of his assertions. He’ll never, ever, ever though answer any question that’s put to him. Just a few posts ago for example I asked him, “given the current level of understanding that physics gives us, why do you think the universe must be contingent on something else?” with, as always, no reply. 

Maybe we should just keep asking him until he finally tries at least to answer or just decides to ply his trollery elsewhere?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

Yes - that’s all he ever does. And his MO is to do it by referencing writers he hasn’t read using words he doesn’t understand to support the fallacies on which he relies to distract from the vapidity of his assertions. He’ll never, ever, ever though answer any question that’s put to him. Just a few posts ago for example I asked him, “given the current level of understanding that physics gives us, why do you think the universe must be contingent on something else?” with, as always, no reply. 

Maybe we should just keep asking him until he finally tries at least to answer or just decides to ply his trollery elsewhere?

Tell them about quantum borrowing Hillside and why you think it's a possible explanation for the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

Yes - that’s all he ever does. And his MO is to do it by referencing writers he hasn’t read using words he doesn’t understand to support the fallacies on which he relies to distract from the vapidity of his assertions. He’ll never, ever, ever though answer any question that’s put to him. Just a few posts ago for example I asked him, “given the current level of understanding that physics gives us, why do you think the universe must be contingent on something else?” with, as always, no reply. 

Maybe we should just keep asking him until he finally tries at least to answer or just decides to ply his trollery elsewhere?

I'll say it again Hillside. There is no evidence of necessity in the universe only contingency that is one of the reasons The other is because of its nature it might be in the universe but unlike contingent matter in which case we are going to have a lot of troubleusingsciece and it seems that the scientistical mind shorts information on necessity out.

Doing intellectual and logical limbo dancing is not going to get rid of the concept of necessity.

What about quantum  borrowing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'll say it again Hillside. There is no evidence of necessity in the universe only contingency that is one of the reasons/

Then it’s a very bad one. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, and in any case you’ve made no effort to justify the leap from what happens in the observable universe to a necessary explanation for the universe itself (let alone how you'd get a god off the same hook without resorting to magic). Short version: you're just trying the god of the gaps fallacy.   

The other is because of its nature it might be in the universe but unlike contingent matter in which case we are going to have a lot of troubleusingsciece and it seems that the scientistical mind shorts information on necessity out.

That’s not a reason – it’s alphabet soup. What are you even trying to say here?

Doing intellectual and logical limbo dancing is not going to get rid of the concept of necessity.

And the straw man to finish. No-one is doing “intellectual and logical limbo dancing”; rather people better informed, more rational and having no need of your casual unpleasantness (and I’m talking about other people here) are generously talking the time to explain the facts and reasoning that undo you. That you ignore them, misrepresent them or throw insults at them rather than engages with the content of their posts says everything about you and nothing about them.

Oh, and you asked about quantum borrowing: here are some links for you to ignore, misrepresent or use as a prompt for further insult:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

[Stranger]

There is no evidence of necessity in the universe...

How do you know unless you can tell us how it's even possible for something to be its own explanation and hence 'necessary'? Even if there isn't any such evidence, so what?

You seem to be pretending that if people can't point to something you'll accept as 'necessary' that means you have somehow made a point.

Where is your actually argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know unless you can tell us how it's even possible for something to be its own explanation and hence 'necessary'? Even if there isn't any such evidence, so what?

You seem to be pretending that if people can't point to something you'll accept as 'necessary' that means you have somehow made a point.

Where is your actually argument?

Ask Blue Hillside about Quantum Borrowing hypothesis. On March 30 on the Did the Universe pop out of nothing thread he offered it up to explain how the universe could itself be the Ultimate necessity.

[Stranger]

Ask Blue Hillside about Quantum Borrowing hypothesis. On March 30 on the Did the Universe pop out of nothing thread he offered it up to explain how the universe could itself be the Ultimate necessity.

So what? What point are you trying to make? Where is your argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what? What point are you trying to make? Where is your argument?

That I'm not the only one prepared to consider whether the universe is it's own explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know unless you can tell us how it's even possible for something to be its own explanation and hence 'necessary'? Even if there isn't any such evidence, so what?

See Hillside on quantum Borrowing Hypothesis about how the universe is it's own explanation. I have reposted it on the philosophy board.

You seem to be pretending that if people can't point to something you'll accept as 'necessary' that means you have somehow made a point.

Isn't that how atheists operate?

[Stranger]

That I'm not the only one prepared to consider whether the universe is it's own explanation.

Again, so what? You're still not producing an argument. You haven't explained how you think it's logically possible for something to be its own explanation, neither have you drawn any conclusion from whether we can identify such a thing or not.

As I said previously, I don't know if it's logically possible and, if it is, I don't know whether such a thing exists, and if it does, I don't know what it is. Now what? Where is your argument?

[Stranger]

See Hillside on quantum Borrowing Hypothesis about how the universe is it's own explanation. I have reposted it on the philosophy board.

Blue didn't use that phrase in the post you quoted, and anyway I'm not asking him because I'm trying to get you to actually come up with your argument.

I'm saying that I simply don't know, so where do you go from there?

Isn't that how atheists operate?

No.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, so what? You're still not producing an argument. You haven't explained how you think it's logically possible for something to be its own explanation, neither have you drawn any conclusion from whether we can identify such a thing or not.

As I said previously, I don't know if it's logically possible and, if it is, I don't know whether such a thing exists, and if it does, I don't know what it is. Now what? Where is your argument?

If the universe has always been here without being created once or being recreated moment by moment by an external entity. Then it has no external explanation.

So we say colloquially that it is it's own explanation in that it needs no external explanation. It is here because it created itself or that it is eternal, that it is not contingent (all these are internal explanations i.e.belonging to the thing itself) or it has an external explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blue didn't use that phrase in the post you quoted, and anyway I'm not asking him because I'm trying to get you to actually come up with your argument.

I'm saying that I simply don't know, so where do you go from there?

No.

Which phrase didn't he use?

If you want to give Hillside a free pass and not me, I wonder what that could mean.

[Stranger]

Which phrase didn't he use?

Its own explanation.

If you want to give Hillside a free pass and not me, I wonder what that could mean.

He listed it amongst some possibilities, unlike you, he doesn't appear to be making an argument for something.

If the universe has always been here without being created once or being recreated moment by moment by an external entity. Then it has no external explanation.

I don't see how that follows, but let's say I accept it for now.

So we say colloquially that it is it's own explanation in that it needs no external explanation.

But the two clearly aren't the same. If it is its own explanation (somehow), then it has an explanation and that explanation is itself, that's not the same as not having an explanation.

It is here because it created itself or that it is eternal, that it is not contingent (all these are internal explanations i.e.belonging to the thing itself) or it has an external explanation.

I still don't know, so where does your argument go from here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the two clearly aren't the same. If it is its own explanation (somehow), then it has an explanation and that explanation is itself, that's not the same as not having an explanation.

I don't know whether you've got it, or are getting it or not getting it.......and to tell the truth....i'm past giving a shit.

[Stranger]

I don't know whether you've got it, or are getting it or not getting it.......and to tell the truth....i'm past giving a shit.

You're the one who brought up this necessity shite as a supposed argument for some version of "God". Can I take it that you concede that no such argument actually exists, or if it does, you don't know how to / can't be arsed to present it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're the one who brought up this necessity shite as a supposed argument for some version of "God". Can I take it that you concede that no such argument actually exists, or if it does, you don't know how to / can't be arsed to present it?

Of course it exists. It has been presented to you, Even Hillside has at least tried to provide an example of how something is it's own explanation and doesn't need an external explanation. 

[Stranger]

Of course it exists. It has been presented to you...

Where?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course it exists. It has been presented to you, Even Hillside has at least tried to provide an example of how something is it's own explanation and doesn't need an external explanation.

Just to be clear, I haven't suggested anything: I merely linked to a speculation about one possible way a universe could have come about - ie from a quantum fluctuation. I have no idea how plausible or credible that is, just that it's one of various speculations and hypotheses.

And still none of this has anything to do with the question you can't or won't answer, namely how you would propose to justify your assertion that the the universe must have been caused by something else.
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to be clear, I haven't suggested anything: I merely linked to a speculation about one possible way a universe could have come about - ie from a quantum fluctuation. I have no idea how plausible or credible that is, just that it's one of various speculations and hypotheses.

And still none of this has anything to do with the question you can't or won't answer, namely how you would propose to justify your assertion that the the universe must have been caused by something else.
   

I suggest that it was Hillsides, I cannot prove it because it is unfalsifiable. Just read my e-lips. No evidence of necessity in the universe. Quantum field explanation but as was pointed out to Krauss, the quantum fields are not nothing and don't yet have an explanation.

If the quantum field are necessary then they showed remarkable self control just creating the universe once unless they have been creating it moment by moment.

Perhaps if you just give us your understanding of quantum borrowing it might help clarify the situation. 

[Stranger]

If the quantum field are necessary then they showed remarkable self control just creating the universe once unless they have been creating it moment by moment.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Anyway, where is this argument for some sort of "God", you told me had been presented? I've seen nothing from you that even looks like an argument...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is this supposed to be a joke?

If the quantum vacuum or whatever it's called has been around for ever then it has been churning out virtual particles for ever. If you have it creating real stuff once and then putting it's feet up that is hardly indicative of a ''natural'' process. One way round that is for real particles to be actually 'virtual' and the vacuum recreating them moment by moment. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I suggest that it was Hillsides, I cannot prove it because it is unfalsifiable. Just read my e-lips. No evidence of necessity in the universe. Quantum field explanation but as was pointed out to Krauss, the quantum fields are not nothing and don't yet have an explanation.

Still not getting it then. Your “argument” (ie some version of the cosmological/kalam cribbed from WLC) depends on the notion that the universe must have been caused/created by something else. I’m merely asking you to justify the positive claim “must”. Why is this so hard for you to do?

If you prefer resile from that though to a “perhaps” – ie, “perhaps the universe was caused by something other than the universe itself” no-one would disagree. Perhaps it was. Perhaps anything. So what though?

If the quantum field are necessary then they showed remarkable self control just creating the universe once unless they have been creating it moment by moment.

What makes you so sure there’s just one universe?

Perhaps if you just give us your understanding of quantum borrowing it might help clarify the situation.

No it wouldn’t because the only “situation” here is your inability to propose an argument to justify your claim that the universe must have been created by something else. The details such as they are of other possibilities are neither here nor there – it's your job to establish that there are no other possible explanations so your "must" is the only option left. So far at least, you’ve shown no inclination even to try to do that. Your claim = your burden of proof. Deal with it.       

[Stranger]

If the quantum vacuum or whatever it's called has been around for ever then it has been churning out virtual particles for ever. If you have it creating real stuff once and then putting it's feet up that is hardly indicative of a ''natural'' process. One way round that is for real particles to be actually 'virtual' and the vacuum recreating them moment by moment.

Jeez, you really will do anything but address the actual point. For the sake of argument, let's say that I don't believe this conjecture (it's much easier than trying to explain your misunderstandings).

Where is the argument for your version of "God"? You know, the one you told me had already been presented, just a few posts back...