Does antitheism exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Well there is the penchant for writing gibberish, his random use of terms he appears not to understand or want to define, and his fellation of phallasies as well.

Weren’t The Fellation of Phallasies a failed prog rock band? Came from the somewhere in the West Midlands as I recall…

...or am I thinking of The Hexagons of Lightning again?

[Nearly Sane]

Then there was The Pumps of Iniquity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With you? How would such a thing be possible unless you abandoned your unremitting mendacity?

In a debate all have to abide by the rules Hillside, that would include me.....and you, of course. There would be moderation of course......if someone is prepared to act in the role.

Should no one come forward........No debate and Religionethics can carry on as an occasional atheist hangout.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

often on the same bill with The Hexagons of Lightning

Great minds...

Sorry, I amended mine as you were posting yours. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In a debate all have to abide by the rules Hillside, that would include me.....and you, of course. There would be moderation of course......if someone is prepared to act in the role.

Should no one come forward........No debate and Religionethics can carry on as an occasional atheist hang.

Are you suggesting that your lying isn't pathological after all? That you can turn it off at will? Why have you waited all these years to reveal this nugget? 

[Nearly Sane]

In a debate all have to abide by the rules Hillside, that would include me.....and you, of course. There would be moderation of course......if someone is prepared to act in the role.

Should no one come forward........No debate and Religionethics can carry on as an occasional atheist hangout.

You appear to be admitting to lying

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Are you suggesting that your lying isn't pathological after all? That you can turn it off at will? Why have you waited all these years to reveal this nugget?

If there are any lies in a proper debate it can......I would sit down for this be pointed out.....rather than some clown shouting ''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel'',''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''.........There would be drawbacks though and you might end up having to tell us about
QUANTUM BORROWING

[Nearly Sane]

If there are any lies in a proper debate it can......I would sit down for this be pointed out.....rather than some clown shouting ''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel'',''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''.........There would be drawbacks though and you might end up having to tell us about
QUANTUM BORROWING

Then don't write lying drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You appear to be admitting to lying

I'm afraid I will only discuss things in proper debate.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid I will only discuss things in proper debate.

I see no indication that you know what that might be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If there are any lies in a proper debate it can......I would sit down for this be pointed out.....rather than some clown shouting ''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel'',''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''''lying'' ''drivel'' ''lying''''Drivel''.........

But that’s not what happens is it? What actually happens is that when you tell lies the lies are identified and explained. To put it another way, you’ve just tried another lie.

There would be drawbacks though and you might end up having to tell us about
QUANTUM BORROWING

And now another one. I’ve told you already about quantum borrowing as a possibility, I’ve given you links to articles about it, and I’ve explained the context that the only work the possibility needs to do is to show a “could be”. I’ve also explained that you on the other hand have asserted a claim of certainty – ie, that the universe must have been caused by something else – so the (much, much higher) burden of proof is all with you to justify that claim. Endlessly running away from that while trying to redirect to irrelevancies is just more lying.

It appears that you can’t turn it off after all then.

[Owlswing]

Vlad

In response to the actual title of this thread "Does antitheism exist?" - after several hundred posts on the subject, the answer would seem to be that if all theists are in the same mould as Spud,

Alan Burns, Sassy and yourself, a resounding "Yes and with justification!"

 

[Stranger]

I have put the case

No, you haven't - you said there was an argument for a god and you haven't even got as far as an argument for some (singular) necessity.

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.

Your argument, so it's up to you to say what definitions you're using.

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.

Or for no reason at all. Yes, of course we can ask the question, and make speculative suggestions about what the answer is, but suggestions and speculation do not constitute arguments in support of one of those things, rather than the others.

That others have done so and have not been assailed by you to explain, i'm afraid flags up a bias about you.

It's only you who have said you have an argument for something (as opposed to just making speculative suggestions).

As I've said before, if all you're saying is that it's possible that there is some necessary thing, then what's the point? Of course it's possible. Many, many versions of god(s) are also possible, so you might just as well go straight to one of them and be done with it.

A logical argument is supposed to turn a possibility into a certainty, or at least something that is probably right.

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

Currently you seem to be struggling with the whole concept of what a logical argument actually is and what it's supposed to accomplish. I don't see how a debate about an argument for god would work until you at least grasped the difference between an argument and a series of speculative suggestions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But that’s not what happens is it? What actually happens is that when you tell lies the lies are identified and explained. To put it another way, you’ve just tried another lie.

And now another one. I’ve told you already about quantum borrowing as a possibility, I’ve given you links to articles about it, and I’ve explained the context that the only work the possibility needs to do is to show a “could be”. I’ve also explained that you on the other hand have asserted a claim of certainty – ie, that the universe must have been caused by something else – so the (much, much higher) burden of proof is all with you to justify that claim. Endlessly running away from that while trying to redirect to irrelevancies is just more lying.

It appears that you can’t turn it off after all then.

When I used the search facility on quantum borrowing because I could not find the citations. I'm afraid I could not find them.
Outrider sent me a reply initially asking what I meant so I believe he was at least a little in the dark.

You put it as an alternative possible to the solution to the universe and I  criticised it as such. Just because you never said it must be so doesn't make the idea free from criticism.

I bring it up again because if it were possible for an infinite universe then quantum borrowing would have been creating virtual particles for ever thus putting necessity as time dependent in doubt. Since in an infinity that which creates and the created exist infinitely.

I believe that necessity being time related was a piece of nonsense by Stephen Laws to whom we can say "stop woah yeh wait a minute mr postman"

So if you put an alternative prepare to have it criticised and do man up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you haven't - you said there was an argument for a god and you haven't even got as far as an argument for some (singular) necessity.

Your argument, so it's up to you to say what definitions you're using.

Or for no reason at all. Yes, of course we can ask the question, and make speculative suggestions about what the answer is, but suggestions and speculation do not constitute arguments in support of one of those things, rather than the others.

It's only you who have said you have an argument for something (as opposed to just making speculative suggestions).

As I've said before, if all you're saying is that it's possible that there is some necessary thing, then what's the point? Of course it's possible. Many, many versions of god(s) are also possible, so you might just as well go straight to one of them and be done with it.

A logical argument is supposed to turn a possibility into a certainty, or at least something that is probably right.

Currently you seem to be struggling with the whole concept of what a logical argument actually is and what it's supposed to accomplish. I don't see how a debate about an argument for god would work until you at least grasped the difference between an argument and a series of speculative suggestions.

Since apparently nobody on your side has to make a case for anything there is no example from your side of a case made.

Instead of an argument then Your side have merely been criticising piecemeal.

If then you have no arguments thenwe have no real beef.

You need to then stop criticising my side for making piecemeal arguments.

The nearest we have got to an atheist argument is because of so called deficiencies in the theological argument.

Aside from the theological argument why do you believe the universe and the field of existence to be God free. What is the positive argument for God free.

I have no idea but it can't be God is not sufficient particularly when most of you flip flop between hard arsed atheism and a bit of a mealy mouthed " well we dont really know" As I said I will gladly debate any issue with you in the formal way.

[Gordon]

Since apparently nobody on your side has to make a case for anything there is no example from your side of a case made.

Instead of an argument then Your side have merely been criticising piecemeal.

If then you have no arguments thenwe have no real beef.

You need to then stop criticising my side for making piecemeal arguments.

The nearest we have got to an atheist argument is because of so called deficiencies in the theological argument.

Aside from the theological argument why do you believe the universe and the field of existence to be God free. What is the positive argument for God free.

I have no idea but it can't be God is not sufficient particularly when most of you flip flop between hard arsed atheism and a bit of a mealy mouthed " well we dont really know" As I said I will gladly debate any issue with you in the formal way.

You seem not to understand that the burden of proof here is yours, Vlad.

Critiquing arguments offered by others, such as finding that the various arguments for 'God' are flawed, does not then require that a counter-argument must be offered.

[Stranger]

Since apparently nobody on your side has to make a case for anything there is no example from your side of a case made.

Is it finally sinking in? Nobody else (apart from you) is trying to make a case for anything, as far as I've seen.

The nearest we have got to an atheist argument is because of so called deficiencies in the theological argument.

Exactly. The inability of theists to make a case, is exactly why there is no reason to take them seriously. In addition to the fact that they believe in different, mutually exclusive, versions of god(s), so at least most of them must be wrong, of course.

Aside from the theological argument why do you believe the universe and the field of existence to be God free. What is the positive argument for God free.

Yet again: I have never made that claim.

It's also all but meaningless, given the wide variety of definitions of "God". There are some versions of "God" that there are good arguments against, because they are logically inconsistent or inconsistent with the evidence.

Look, if I dreamt up an entirely naturalistic a "theory of everything" but I couldn't give any arguments for it, apart from it not being impossible, I'd be in the same position as theists. It wouldn't be up to other people to come up with some argument as to why I was wrong, the mere fact that I can't give a good reason for people to accept it, is perfectly sufficient grounds to dismiss it until and unless I can provide some evidence or reasoning.

People could also point out that mine was just one blind guess amongst thousands of others (you can usually find multiple pet "theories of everything" on any science message board) and that most of them must be wrong.

This is the burden of proof again - and it works just as much for naturalistic 'answers' as it does for theistic or 'supernatural' ones.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem not to understand that the burden of proof here is yours, Vlad.

Critiquing arguments offered by others, such as finding that the various arguments for 'God' are flawed, does not then require that a counter-argument must be offered.

Just an admission of being wrong would be nice then.
Also why do you think that you making a counter argument which turns out to be wrong makes me wrong?
I think we can agree that a burden of proof lies with those with a positive assertion So that includes God and God Free.

We need to distinguish between what we know, what we can prove and what we believe.

I do not believe God exists because of argument although I find them pretty sound and obviously sound enough for you guys not to be absolutely sure .I believe in God because of .my experience of God which leads me to say about the experience "This  God is existence par excellence.

So finally the burden of proof in this case Gordon seems to be decided by your perception. That the universe is God free.
I will repeat that. The burden of proof you think I have  above and beyond yours of justifying God Free is based on your perception.

I then personally cannot take that seriously because of what I have already described.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it finally sinking in? Nobody else (apart from you) is trying to make a case for anything, as far as I've seen.

You make that sound like a good thing rather than arrogant presumption of your belief in God free.

You may not have made the case for God free explicitly but it is implied by presumption that it is the status quo.
And so your decision on who has the burden of proof is based on your perception and presumption.

Secondly God is unfalsifiable so I am not building my case to a view to certaintyor faith because Gods existence  is not established solely in that way

[Stranger]

You make that sound like a good thing rather than arrogant presumption of your belief in God free.

No matter how many times you repeat it, nobody is trying to make the case "God free". As I already said, it's all but meaningless anyway.

You may not have made the case for God free explicitly but it is implied by presumption that it is the status quo.
And so your decision on who has the burden of proof is based on your perception and presumption.

The burden of proof always works the same (as I explained again in my last post and you ignored). You claim the existence of something, or a particular answer to an unknown, it's your burden of proof. Always.

Secondly God is unfalsifiable...

So it's not therefore testable, so if you have no logical argument, it can only be a matter of personal faith.

[Stranger]

I do not believe God exists because of argument although I find them pretty sound and obviously sound enough for you guys not to be absolutely sure .

*facepalm*

No, I've found the 'arguments' to be universally hopeless. It's exactly the fact that many versions of god are unfalsifiable, that means nobody can be sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

*facepalm*

No, I've found the 'arguments' to be universally hopeless. It's exactly the fact that many versions of god are unfalsifiable, that means nobody can be sure.

No it just means they cannot prove it scientifically.

[Gordon]

Just an admission of being wrong would be nice then.
Also why do you think that you making a counter argument which turns out to be wrong makes me wrong?
I think we can agree that a burden of proof lies with those with a positive assertion So that includes God and God Free.

We need to distinguish between what we know, what we can prove and what we believe.

I do not believe God exists because of argument although I find them pretty sound and obviously sound enough for you guys not to be absolutely sure .I believe in God because of .my experience of God which leads me to say about the experience "This  God is existence par excellence.

So finally the burden of proof in this case Gordon seems to be decided by your perception. That the universe is God free.
I will repeat that. The burden of proof you think I have  above and beyond yours of justifying God Free is based on your perception.

I then personally cannot take that seriously because of what I have already described.

You're still not getting it, Vlad

1. Rejecting certain arguments for 'God' does not imply 'the conclusion 'God free', does not require a counter-argument is offered and involves no burden of proof: it merely indicates the view that there are no good current reasons to conclude 'God' because the arguments offered in support of 'God' can be shown to fail.

2. Who here is arguing specifically that there is no 'God' or that, to use your phrase, the universe is 'God free'? If people aren't specifically arguing that, and they aren't, then they have no burden of proof.

3. You need to ensure that you understand when people are offering an argument themselves or are critiquing arguments offered by others - it is an important difference that seems to escape you.

4. That you find some of these 'God' arguments sound is something you would need to defend, but the burden of proof in the soundness of these arguments remains yours and not your challengers.

5. Your feeling that you had a personal experience of 'God' is, of course, subjective: and in one sense can't be challenged, since it can't be shared. However, if you accept 'God' on basis of your feelings of personal experience alone then you must extend the same weight to the personal experiences of others who also feel they have had similar encounters with divine, including different conceptions of the divine.

6. As regards to personal feelings of encountering 'God' the burden of proof is still yours though, since you'd need to provide some inter-subjective basis to justify your conclusion that the divine is real - after all, if all you have to offer are feelings of having encountered something divine you could simply be wrong, so there needs to be a basis of some sort to exclude the risks of error.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

*facepalm*

No, I've found the 'arguments' to be universally hopeless. It's exactly the fact that many versions of god are unfalsifiable, that means nobody can be sure.

YOU could find them universally hopeless for a number of reasons. However if you are still unsure then either or collectively they introduce some doubt into your atheism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're still not getting it, Vlad

1. Rejecting certain arguments for 'God' does not imply 'the conclusion 'God free', does not require a counter-argument is offered and involves no burden of proof: it merely indicates the view that there are no good current reasons to conclude 'God' because the arguments offered in support of 'God' can be shown to fail.

2. Who here is arguing specifically that there is no 'God' or that, to use your phrase, the universe is 'God free'? If people aren't specifically arguing that, and they aren't, then they have no burden of proof.

3. You need to ensure that you understand when people are offering an argument themselves or are critiquing arguments offered by others - it is an important difference that seems to escape you.

4. That you find some of these 'God' arguments sound is something you would need to defend, but the burden of proof in the soundness of these arguments remains yours and not your challengers.

5. Your feeling that you had a personal experience of 'God' is, of course, subjective: and in one sense can't be challenged, since it can't be shared. However, if you accept 'God' on basis of your feelings of personal experience alone then you must extend the same weight to the personal experiences of others who also feel they have had similar encounters with divine, including different conceptions of the divine.

6. As regards to personal feelings of encountering 'God' the burden of proof is still yours though, since you'd need to provide some inter-subjective basis to justify your conclusion that the divine is real - after all, if all you have to offer are feelings of having encountered something divine you could simply be wrong, so there needs to be a basis of some sort to exclude the risks of error.   

I dont need to provide anything. However were we to agree to you paying me a salary that would obviously change.

If you are saying nobody has the cojones around here to make a positive case for God Free or rather own up to trying a piecemeal
stealthy case then I'm forced to agree with you.