Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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?

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

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.     

I'm not into the Kalam argument at the moment. It requires the universe to have a beginning. And since things don't create themselves then the Kalam comes into it's own. That's why even DeGrasse Tyson doesn't turn his nose up at making a virtually identical argument.

No the argument I am giving at the moment is the contingency argument where things can be created in an infinity.

So maybe a quantum vacuum can suspiciously create the stuff once and for all for a universe with a beginning or create particles for ever. Necessity and contingency ad infinitum.

I cannot prove there is a God since God is unfalsifiable, just like an infinite universe although for some reason scientists hate infinities.

What is constant though is there IS a necessary entity which acts under it's own volition since nothing that springs from it is anything but contingent. And nothing in it or about it that is anything but contingent is a pretty good description of the universe.

But then of course there are questions about ''why the quantum vacuum which isn't really a vacuum............ and not something else'' and other issues regarding the vacuum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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?

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

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.     

Don't be shy Hillside, remind us of what you mean by quantum borrowing and why it's a possible explanation for the universe........or is this a case of  ''ve ask ze qvestions''.

[Gordon]

Don't be shy Hillside, remind us of what you mean by quantum borrowing and why it's a possible explanation for the universe........or is this a case of  ''ve ask ze qvestions''.

Vlad

As I recall it was you who brought up quantum borrowing in a reply last evening: so I'm surprised to find that you aren't an authority on it yourself.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not into the Kalam argument at the moment. It requires the universe to have a beginning. And since things don't create themselves…

Not something you can demonstrate to be true, but ok…

…then the Kalam comes into it's own. That's why even DeGrasse Tyson doesn't turn his nose up at making a virtually identical argument.

Again, he doesn’t – but even if he did so what?

No the argument I am giving at the moment is the contingency argument where things can be created in an infinity.

The word “argument” is defined. It requires various components to be other than an unqualified assertion. So far at least, you’ve made an assertion but not an argument.

So maybe a quantum vacuum can suspiciously create the stuff once and for all for a universe with a beginning or create particles for ever. Necessity and contingency ad infinitum.

Maybe it can, maybe it can’t. You have no means to eliminate the former though. That's your problem.

I cannot prove there is a God since God is unfalsifiable, just like an infinite universe although for some reason scientists hate infinities.

No “scientists” don’t, but I thought you claimed to have proof(s) for “God”. Are you now resiling from that? Is your god now just a “perhaps”?

What is constant though is there IS a necessary entity which acts under it's own volition since nothing that springs from it is anything but contingent. And nothing in it or about it that is anything but contingent is a pretty good description of the universe.

Utter bollocks. Why on earth do you assert there to be a “necessary entity” given that you have no means to eliminate the other possible explanations for the universe?   

But then of course there are questions about ''why the quantum vacuum which isn't really a vacuum............ and not something else'' and other issues regarding the vacuum.

It’s in the nature of speculations and conjectures and hypotheses that there are questions. That’s why they're called speculations and conjectures and hypotheses and not facts. So what though? The fact of unanswered questions does not give you licence to dismiss them as possibilities, and to jump therefore to your “IS”.   

Again, the “must” is your claim – you justify it.

[Stranger]

I'm not into the Kalam argument at the moment. It requires the universe to have a beginning. And since things don't create themselves then the Kalam comes into it's own. That's why even DeGrasse Tyson doesn't turn his nose up at making a virtually identical argument.

This is a seriously stupid statement.

No the argument I am giving at the moment is the contingency argument...

The problem is that you don't seem able to grasp what an argument involves.

...where things can be created in an infinity.

What?

I cannot prove there is a God since God is unfalsifiable...

So do you have an argument or not?

What is constant though is there IS a necessary entity which acts under it's own volition...

You missed out the actual argument. Why should I accept that anything is necessary, how is necessity logically possible? Why would a necessary thing have volition?

But then of course there are questions about ''why the quantum vacuum which isn't really a vacuum............ and not something else''...

Just like we could ask "why this god and not something else". What is it that connects 'necessity' to anything remotely like a god?

Where is your actual reasoning?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Don't be shy Hillside, remind us of what you mean by quantum borrowing and why it's a possible explanation for the universe........or is this a case of  ''ve ask ze qvestions''.

Not when it' "ve" who is making the positive claim you don't. What is it about the concept of the burden of proof that confuses you so? It's your claim ("must"), you justify it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

As I recall it was you who brought up quantum borrowing in a reply last evening: so I'm surprised to find that you aren't an authority on it yourself.

Last evening is not march 30 when Hillside proposed it. I'm surprised to find that seemingly Hillside feels he isn't either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter bollocks. Why on earth do you assert there to be a “necessary entity” given that you have no means to eliminate the other possible explanations for the universe?   

You mean all the other possible necessary entities.

[Stranger]

You mean all the other possible necessary entities.

But you haven't actually made an argument for a necessary entity, let alone connected it to anything like a god concept.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not when it' "ve" who is making the positive claim you don't. What is it about the concept of the burden of proof that confuses you so? It's your claim ("must"), you justify it.

Unless this is some BDSM site i've blundered into then I see no reason why you shouldn't answer some of the questions and not be so reticent............ on the other hand you do give the impression of strutting about referring to yourselves as ''My interlocutors''.

So let me give you one more chance before I thrash your trash within an inch of it's life, again. Tell us about quantum borrowing because there are some if not all of us who aren't sure what you meant.

Now do you want to discuss how good a candidate the quantum vacuum is as the necessary entity or not.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you haven't actually made an argument for a necessary entity, let alone connected it to anything like a god concept.

Are you trying to get me to be rude to you so I get kicked off and the board can go back to being ''an atheist  hang''?

[Stranger]

Are you trying to get me to be rude to you so I get kicked off and the board can go back to being ''an atheist  hang''?

I'm trying to get you to actually produce an argument, if you have one. What's so hard? Either you have some reasoning that takes us from premisses on which people can agree, to a (singular) 'necessity' (defined in a self-consistent way), and from there to it being anything like a god, or you don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm trying to get you to actually produce an argument, if you have one. What's so hard? Either you have some reasoning that takes us from premisses on which people can agree, to a (singular) 'necessity' (defined in a self-consistent way), and from there to it being anything like a god, or you don't.

You had your chance and muffed it somewhat.

[Stranger]

You had your chance and muffed it somewhat.

Chance to do what? I'm not the one claiming that there is an argument that I'm unable to actually articulate.

Do you have an argument or not?

[Nearly Sane]

You had your chance and muffed it somewhat.

Lying non sequitur drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chance to do what? I'm not the one claiming that there is an argument that I'm unable to actually articulate.

Do you have an argument or not?

For no argument you certainly seem to have a mighty reply. The necessary entity is the last entity as described in Occam's razor in the full explanation of anything empirically or instrumentally observable before you go beyond necessity.

 That was your last chance. I don't think anyone else around here will help you because zay ask ze qvestions.

[Nearly Sane]

For no argument you certainly seem to have a mighty reply. The necessary entity is the last entity as described in Occam's razor in the full explanation of anything empirically or instrumentally observable before you go beyond necessity.

 That was your last chance. I don't think anyone else around here will help you because zay ask ze qvestions.

Gibberish with added Godwin's

[Stranger]

For no argument you certainly seem to have a mighty reply.

My only reply is to ask you to actually produce the argument you claim to have.

The necessary entity is the last entity as described in Occam's razor in the full explanation of anything empirically or instrumentally observable before you go beyond necessity.

Is that supposed to make some sense? The universe (this bit of expanding space-time) is the only thing we know exists, you have yet to make the case for anything else.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lying non sequitur drivel.

Before you wrote this Sane, tell me, did you look at the screen, screw your eyes up and whisper ''I'm going to hurt you''?

[Nearly Sane]

Before you wrote this Sane, tell me, did you look at the screen, screw your eyes up and whisper ''I'm going to hurt you''?

No. I just rolled my eyes and thought why is the lying liar drivelling nonsense again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My only reply is to ask you to actually produce the argument you claim to have.

Is that supposed to make some sense? The universe (this bit of expanding space-time) is the only thing we know exists, you have yet to make the case for anything else.

I have put the case
There is nothing observed that is not contingent in many ways and definitions of the word contingent. If you can't be asked to find out the possible definitions of necessity that isn't my fault.

We know that the universe exists but it is legally permissable to make suggestions as to whether it exists for external reasons or internal reasons. I have and have given multiple reasons why I think it so.

That others have done so and have not been assailed by you to explain, i'm afraid flags up a bias about you. So for that reason I have learned that communcation with you is a worthless exercise.

If you wish we could put this into a debate format to see if we fare better,

They tried a debating format on here but imho Atheists didn't go a bundle on it......first a side thread was set up. Where they could bear pit the debate and posse those in it...and then it was removed.

[Nearly Sane]

I have put the case
There is nothing observed that is not contingent in many ways and definitions of the word contingent. If you can't be asked to find out the possible definitions of necessity that isn't my fault.

We know that the universe exists but it is legally permissable to make suggestions as to whether it exists for external reasons or internal reasons. I have and have given multiple reasons why I think it so.

That others have done so and have not been assailed by you to explain, i'm afraid flags up a bias about you. So for that reason I have learned that communcation with you is a worthless exercise.

If you wish we could put this into a debate format to see if we fare better,

They tried a debating format on here but imho Atheists didn't go a bundle on it......first a side thread was set up. Where they could bear pit the debate and posse those in it...and then it was removed.

pish

[Walt Zingmatilder]

pishs

There, corrected it for you.
Humeonanist......and again.

[Nearly Sane]

There, corrected it for you.
Humeonanist......and again.

Been wanking yourself silly over Hume again. Dawkins must be so jealous that he's been replaced in wanktheon.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Been wankHume-ing yourself silly over HumeAutoeroticist again. Dawkins must be so jealous that he's been replaced in wankHumetheon.

It's a good job i'm on hand to correct you.......and talking of being on hand did you hear about Hume............?