Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s OK old son, you can say it. Really you can. Look, I’ll even say it for you if that helps:

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

There you go. All done now. Doesn’t that feel so much better though? Once you’ve got your breath back there’s tea and biscuits waiting outside (I've ordered garibaldis especially). Remember though, if ever the temptation to slip back into fallacy, casuistry, diversionary tactics etc come back just keep  saying it to yourself over and over again until it goes away:

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

“I Vlad...”

You can cut and paste stuff, I hope you know.

You’re most welcome, and welcome too to rationality. Doesn’t the world seem a better place already?
[/quote]
And what fallacy are we talking about here?

[Stranger]

I do agree with it. You don't agree with my definition and it's place in science. Popper points out that it is a better approach than verification and that means science progresses faster through people finding out that something is incorrect rather than repeated attempts to verify. It is a demarcation If you can possibly falsify it then t is science ifnot it's something else. So it is up to others to point out where a testable is wrong.

I have no idea what you think I disagree with and the fact remains that you can't falsify something that doesn't make testable predictions. What on earth you think falsification has go to do with the burden of proof and your own inability to come up with anything remotely like an argument, is a mystery.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea what you think I disagree with and the fact remains that you can't falsify something that doesn't make testable predictions. What on earth you think falsification has go to do with the burden of proof and your own inability to come up with anything remotely like an argument, is a mystery.

Burden of proof is a legal term. In which the Burden has to be discussed and established. There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion, and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist. We live in a God free universe. That is why society in general atheists and believers makes a distincton between the mainstream religion and stuff like leprechauns, because out there Stranger, the so called default position is merely an opinion. Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.

Now if you want an in depth iteration of the argument from contingency which is comprehensive in it's summary of the forms of the argument and objections I would recommend the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I was looking at the Wikipedia entry for the Aquinus version and more particularly the objections. I will now proceed to examine those of objections, What I will give are observations.

Counter arguments
2.1   Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything
2.2   Assumption that an infinite regress cannot happen
2.3   Natural processes are not ruled out
2.4   No specific God is supported by the argument
2.5   Proof by logic
2.6   Objects may spontaneously come into existence
3   Variant: The universe is contingent
3.1   We don't know if the universe is contingent
3.2   Infinitely old things are not contingent
3.3

Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything.

I would agree. contingency is not dependent on beginnings and actually I don't think even Aquinus would have said that a universal beginning was necessary.

Assumption that an infinite regress cannot happen

This itself falls foul of the proof by logic objection. i.e infinite regresses may not occur in reality. It also falls foul of the first objection. Since contingency can occur infinitly so to can necessity.

Infinite regress itself does not rule out that that this universe has an external creator.

Natural processes are not ruled out

Natural processes as observed are contingent but assuming non contingent matter, we have to ask.1) Why does it keep changing forever. 2) why is it not observed ordinarily 3) If it is not dependent on anything else for change and cannot be changed why does it change? In short if we are dependent on natural forces some things that traditionally were very unnatural and traditionally supernatural things have to start happening. At the very least it would have to be the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Because it does everything without external dependence
non contingent matter clearly has something resembling a will because for an unconscious process it demonstrates superb self control.

No specific God is supported by the argument
1) How does that help atheism?
2)There are other arguments for specific Gods and theologies.

Proof by logic
I think this is the argument that not everything proved by logic is found in reality. This rather concedes that the logic has or might eventually be found to be sound.

This has consequences for the objections since it undermines all objections based on infinity and poppings out of nowhere. But less for a God or personal necessary since because logically they would be able to speak for themselves where as an infinite nature remains infinitely silent.

Objects may spontaneously come into existence
Hume thought so again, skewered by the proof by logic objection as well as how it is distinguishable from teleportation, replication or miracle?

We don't know if the universe is contingent

But the things in it are and the whole universe, the ensemble cannot be necessary without emergence. but then I'm prepared to accept that there may be something necessary about the universe. But what is it. It cannot be affected by contingent things since that would make it contingent itself so it cannot be ordinary matter or quantum situations which are observer dependent. Also it must act on its own without recourse to any other influence. Something akin to a will if you will. It must also be self controlled otherwise chaos would be more likely.

Infinitely old things are not contingent

Again skewered by both the proof by logic argument and Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything. The point is though there is no suggestion here that subsequently they are not necessary either.

Existence not necessarily due to God.

Again no suggestion of there being no necessity. And in my review I have touched on what the necessary must be to distinguish it from the contingent. Out of this we learn that it is not contingent, therefore not dependent on the contingent or affected by it, it acts on it's own and it is self controlled in fact it could be described as analogous to a conscious being rather than an unconscious one.

So there it is Fans My objections to, well, your objections. One final word about Stephen Laws who holds that contingency and necessity are spatio temporal terms completely misses the point and tries to turn a philosophical into a scientific question. He just doesn't seem to understand the philosophy and if the quantum realm has been around for ever then it has been creating virtual particles forever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Burden of proof is a legal term. In which the Burden has to be discussed and established.

It’s also a term in logic and rhetoric.

There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion,…

“If you accept one truth claim without justification there is no basis for rejecting any other truth claim without justification” isn’t a “positive assertion” – it’s a testable principle.

…and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist.

Yet another straw man – “God does not exist” is not a claim that atheism requires. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

We live in a God free universe.

In the absence of good reason to conclude otherwise, that’s a sensible basis on which to proceed yes.

That is why society in general atheists and believers makes a distincton between the mainstream religion and stuff like leprechauns,…

What distinction? If an argument leads with equal facility to your god and to leprechauns, that’s a useful indicator that it’s probably a bad argument. Again, why is this so hard for you grasp?

…because out there Stranger, the so called default position is merely an opinion.

No it isn’t – it's a testable principle. See above.

Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.

Wrong again – it’s a point in logic. Dear god but you struggle with this don’t you.

So now your premises have all failed, do you really want to proceed with the rest? 

Really?

[Outrider]

Burden of proof is a legal term.

It's also a philosophical term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

In which the Burden has to be discussed and established.

In philosophy the burden lies upon whomever is making the claim - which you already know, it's why you go to such great lengths to try to depict any rejection of religion as 'a positive claim'.

There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion, and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist.

That rather depends - it could be fast-track phrasing of the conclusion 'gods are a figment of the imagination' based upon the absolute lack of any evidence from centuries of looking.  You need to remember that this is not an academic debate, here, this is a public discussion forum.

We live in a God free universe. That is why society in general atheists and believers makes a distincton between the mainstream religion and stuff like leprechauns, because out there Stranger, the so called default position is merely an opinion. Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.

It isn't a positive assertion, even if it's a standalone point and not a refutation of the claim of 'god' (which it very obviously is, even if only implicitly).  At that point you're attempting to get someone to prove the negative; there can be no evidence, by definition, there can only be a logical deduction or a rephrase of the position to realign the burden of proof back to the positive claim.

Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything.

I would agree. contingency is not dependent on beginnings and actually I don't think even Aquinus would have said that a universal beginning was necessary.

Contingency is intrinsically dependent upon beginnings - if something doesn't begin, how can something else be said to 'cause' it?  If A doesn't predate B (which requires B, at least, to have a beginning) then how can B be depended upon it?

Assumption that an infinite regress cannot happen

This itself falls foul of the proof by logic objection. i.e infinite regresses may not occur in reality. It also falls foul of the first objection. Since contingency can occur infinitly so to can necessity.

Your failure to understand infinity is not an argument.

Infinite regress itself does not rule out that that this universe has an external creator.

It does - if there was no 'before' there was no 'creation' and therefore no 'creator'.

Natural processes are not ruled out

Natural processes as observed are contingent but assuming non contingent matter, we have to ask.1) Why does it keep changing forever. 2) why is it not observed ordinarily 3) If it is not dependent on anything else for change and cannot be changed why does it change? In short if we are dependent on natural forces some things that traditionally were very unnatural and traditionally supernatural things have to start happening. At the very least it would have to be the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Because it does everything without external dependence
non contingent matter clearly has something resembling a will because for an unconscious process it demonstrates superb self control.

I can't make head nor tail of most of this, but in response to the 'perpetual motion machine' reference, that's not a problem in a closed system.  Perpetual motion machines in open systems don't work because entropy leaches energy out of the system and the total energy of the system reduces.  If reality were a closed system (and if it's infinite it's implicitly so) then reality can be a perpetual motion machine of recycled conserved energy, momentum and any number of other facets.

No specific God is supported by the argument
1) How does that help atheism?

In the absolute it doesn't; in the pragmatic, because most (but not all) of the people arguing for 'god' aren't arguing in the general, they're on their way to trying to justify special exemptions for their specific.

2)There are other arguments for specific Gods and theologies.

Agreed.

Proof by logic I think this is the argument that not everything proved by logic is found in reality. This rather concedes that the logic has or might eventually be found to be sound.

I don't think a) that's what 'Proof by Logic' is intended to refer to, nor b) that you can rely on a possible future logical proof to claim current justification.  You either have the proof, or you don't, you can't have a 'just give me a minute, but in the meantime presume that I'll be right later'.

This has consequences for the objections since it undermines all objections based on infinity and poppings out of nowhere. But less for a God or personal necessary since because logically they would be able to speak for themselves where as an infinite nature remains infinitely silent.

You doubly can't rely on a future logical proof coming from the entity your alleging to have proof for as proof for the entity you can't currently prove.

Objects may spontaneously come into existence Hume thought so again, skewered by the proof by logic objection as well as how it is distinguishable from teleportation, replication or miracle?

Hume's methodology was wrong, and the phenomena Hume was observing had other explanations.  We have demonstrable experiments showing the apparent spontaneous emergence of quanta, and their antiparticle counterparts; you're more than welcome to critique the papers.

We don't know if the universe is contingent

But the things in it are and the whole universe, the ensemble cannot be necessary without emergence. but then I'm prepared to accept that there may be something necessary about the universe. But what is it. It cannot be affected by contingent things since that would make it contingent itself so it cannot be ordinary matter or quantum situations which are observer dependent. Also it must act on its own without recourse to any other influence. Something akin to a will if you will. It must also be self controlled otherwise chaos would be more likely.

We also don't have to limit our conjecture to the universe; it's entirely plausible that there is a fully functioning extra-universal reality out there, and who knows how that operates.

Infinitely old things are not contingent

Again skewered by both the proof by logic argument and Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything. The point is though there is no suggestion here that subsequently they are not necessary either.

No, not skewered at all.  You've failed to explain how concepts of necessity or contingency can apply to something infinite (or, equally, to something outside of time or an equivalent).

Existence not necessarily due to God.

Again no suggestion of there being no necessity. And in my review I have touched on what the necessary must be to distinguish it from the contingent. Out of this we learn that it is not contingent, therefore not dependent on the contingent or affected by it, it acts on it's own and it is self controlled in fact it could be described as analogous to a conscious being rather than an unconscious one.

We've learned no such thing, you've made a vague handwave and given your argument a name in lieu of any detail or substance.

So there it is Fans My objections to, well, your objections.

You missed the arguments in your arguments.

One final word about Stephen Laws who holds that contingency and necessity are spatio temporal terms completely misses the point and tries to turn a philosophical into a scientific question. He just doesn't seem to understand the philosophy and if the quantum realm has been around for ever then it has been creating virtual particles forever.

I'm not aware of Stephen Laws and an admittedly cursory internet search only throws up a former senior Civil Servant.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not aware of Stephen Laws and an admittedly cursory internet search only throws up a former senior Civil Servant.

O.

I suspect he means Stephen Law

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I suspect he means Stephen Law

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

But probably not James "Clerk" Maxwell. Is it ungenerous of me to suggest that that frequency with which he mis-spells the names of people he references is perhaps a clue that he hasn't read their work?

[Stranger]

Burden of proof is a legal term.

And a philosophical one.

In which the Burden has to be discussed and established.

That isn't even true legally (at least in the UK). The burden of proof is with the prosecution.

There is a huge, huge problem with the default position in this case in that it is also a positive assertion, and hence a claim of something that is merely a point of view Namely God does not exist.

YET AGAIN: "God does not exist" is not even a meaningful statement (because of the ambiguity of the term "God"), let alone a claim that is being made by anybody here.

Since it's positive assertion, It demands evidence.

Just repeating that people are saying something they keep telling you they aren't, is both dishonest and stupid.

Now if you want an in depth iteration of the argument from contingency which is comprehensive in it's summary of the forms of the argument and objections I would recommend the Online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I was looking at the Wikipedia entry for the Aquinus version and more particularly the objections. I will now proceed to examine those of objections, What I will give are observations.

Why are you so allergic to putting up a summary or even a link to any argument you're prepared to get behind? I'm not going to spend a long time reading or watching something (I still recall the hour of my life wasted listening to Feser's version, which was, in the end, comical) but if it's a deductive or inductive argument it should be fairly simple to summarize the steps.

I eventually tracked down the page (here) on religions wiki (not wikipedia). It is stated as

• Natural objects tend to have been generated and have a tendency/possibility to be corrupted.
• From (1) These objects may exist or may not exist, i.e. they are contingent.
• If an object can be non-existent and tends to be corrupted, each object sometimes does not exist.
• From (3), contingent objects cannot always exist i.e. they are transient.
• If everything is contingent and tends to be corrupted or have been generated, then at some point nothing existed at all.
• Contingent objects require something that exists to bring it into existence.
• If nothing existed in the past, nothing contingent would exist now.
• Contingent things exist.
• Therefore not everything is contingent.
• Some objects are not contingent. These are necessary objects.

Having established that there must be necessary objects, the argument moves to consider causes of necessary objects.

• Necessary objects are cause by another necessary object, or not.
• There is no infinite regress of necessary objects causing other necessary objects.
• Therefore the chain of causes terminates in a necessary object that itself its own necessity, i.e. God.

For starters the "i.e. God" at the end is laughable. Even if we accepted all the rest, this isn't an argument for a god of any sort.

Then, the space-time manifold, as a whole and as described by General Relativity, would appear be an exception to (1). Step (5) simply doesn't follow, so the rest of is pretty irrelevant.

The whole thing is also an argument from ignorance. We simply don't know the whether anything is necessary, and if some things are, whether there is only one and, if there is, what it might be.

Assumption that an infinite regress cannot happen

This itself falls foul of the proof by logic objection. i.e infinite regresses may not occur in reality.

Once again, you've misunderstood the process of making an argument. If somebody is trying to argue for something using deduction, then a logical alternative breaks the argument.

Natural processes are not ruled out

Natural processes as observed are contingent but assuming non contingent matter...

Who said anything about matter? There may be aspects of the natural world, perhaps some natural larger context than the universe, we are totally unaware of. The argument simply doesn't rule out the natural - nor could it without claiming omniscience about nature.

Proof by logic
...
This has consequences for the objections since it undermines all objections based on infinity and poppings out of nowhere.

See above. Nobody is making a case for the infinite - just the logical possibility undermines the logic of the original argument (which was trying to make a case).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's also a philosophical term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

In philosophy the burden lies upon whomever is making the claim - which you already know, it's why you go to such great lengths to try to depict any rejection of religion as 'a positive claim'.

No, As I've said before I admit in some sense I have a burden of proof and no I cannot meet it evidentially but perhaps introduce an element of doubt in equally unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs at the root of some ones atheism.

It isn't a positive assertion,

Of course it is saying the status quo is that God does not exist is the same as saying that God does not exist

even if it's a standalone point and not a refutation of the claim of 'god' (which it very obviously is, even if only implicitly). At that point you're attempting to get someone to prove the negative;

or I am asking someone to justify the grounds of the default and the Burden namely that the status quo is a God free universe i.e. naturalism...In which I am not asking them to prove the negative. There is no God is a positive assertion and carries a burden anyway by dint of that.

Contingency is intrinsically dependent upon beginnings - if something doesn't begin, how can something else be said to 'cause' it?  If A doesn't predate B (which requires B, at least, to have a beginning) then how can B be depended upon it?

I agree contingency does but I rather think the statement
''Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything''
means that contingency and transiency could stretch back to infinity, In which case so does necessity

Your failure to understand infinity is not an argument.

Not sure what you are getting at here

It does - if there was no 'before' there was no 'creation' and therefore no 'creator'.

That has something coming from nothing. 

I can't make head nor tail of most of this, but in response to the 'perpetual motion machine' reference, that's not a problem in a closed system.

  Surely a system where things can come from nothing must be the most open system possible. There is also the question of why a closed system and not an open one.

Perpetual motion machines in open systems don't work because entropy leaches energy out of the system and the total energy of the system reduces.

But the question is, do machines work without entropy?

  If reality were a closed system (and if it's infinite it's implicitly so)

It would also be divided into the necessary and contingent

then reality can be a perpetual motion machine of recycled conserved energy, momentum and any number of other facets.

You can decide whether its' the necessary or the contingent part that does the recycling.

In the absolute it doesn't; in the pragmatic, because most (but not all) of the people arguing for 'god' aren't arguing in the general, they're on their way to trying to justify special exemptions for their specific.

Or atheists have deluded themselves into thinking that it being a good argument for God, God is somehow undone because it lacks specificity.

I don't think a) that's what 'Proof by Logic' is intended to refer to, nor b) that you can rely on a possible future logical proof to claim current justification.  You either have the proof, or you don't, you can't have a 'just give me a minute, but in the meantime presume that I'll be right later'.

That only applies where disproof has occured.
Proof by logic is used a lot by your side. Hence the demand to show people the necessary being and physical evidence even while arguments are being debated and are unsettled. Not everything which is logical is physically evidenced. I don't think even you would disagree with that. Not everything that is logical is falsifiable.

You doubly can't rely on a future logical proof coming from the entity your alleging to have proof for as proof for the entity you can't currently prove.

I'm not talking about logical proof, I'm talking not even talking about future. I'm talking about self revelation.

Hume's methodology was wrong, and the phenomena Hume was observing had other explanations.  We have demonstrable experiments showing the apparent spontaneous emergence of quanta, and their antiparticle counterparts; you're more than welcome to critique the papers.

But aren't they fluctuations in the quantum field....or am I thinking of the third album by the Hexagons of Light?

We also don't have to limit our conjecture to the universe; it's entirely plausible that there is a fully functioning extra-universal reality out there, and who knows how that operates.

You mean something like Heaven or God or at least the necessary for this universe?.

No, not skewered at all.  You've failed to explain how concepts of necessity or contingency can apply to something infinite

Don't you think you've already made a case for exactly that in your ''extra universal reality''

(or, equally, to something outside of time or an equivalent).

I've said that if the quantum field or something else is the ultimate necessity or anything behind it, it has been creating particles infinitely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said anything about matter? There may be aspects of the natural world, perhaps some natural larger context than the universe, we are totally unaware of. The argument simply doesn't rule out the natural - nor could it without claiming omniscience about nature.

if these objects are outside the universe, in what sense are they natural?

See above. Nobody is making a case for the infinite - just the logical possibility undermines the logic of the original argument (which was trying to make a case).

Isn't establishing the logical possibility making a case though otherwise how, according to you could it be logical?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, As I've said before I admit in some sense I have a burden of proof…

In every sense – your claim = your burden of proof. Telling other people to that it’s their job to falsify your beliefs is fallacious thinking.

…and no I cannot meet it evidentially…

Or logically, or any other way that you’ve chosen to share. Do you remember that I chased you all over this mb a while back asking you how anyone should distinguish your faith claims any other faith claims and you just ran away? That doesn’t mean that the question has gone away too.
 

…but perhaps introduce an element of doubt in equally unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs at the root of some ones atheism.

What "unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs" are “ …at the root of some ones atheism”? (sic)

Do you mean the “root” of actual atheism (ie the falsification of arguments theists attempt to justify their belief(s) in god(s)), or of your straw man version of it (ie, the claim that there are no gods)?

If the former, you’ve never identified any “unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs”; if the latter, as it’s just something you’ve made up you can attach any unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs to it that take your fancy I guess: it’s your windmill, so tilt away if you get something from it.

[Outrider]

No, As I've said before I admit in some sense I have a burden of proof and no I cannot meet it evidentially but perhaps introduce an element of doubt in equally unfalsifiable and wrong beliefs at the root of some ones atheism.

If something's definitively wrong then by all means show it.  However, there is no 'unfalsifiability' about the rejection of insufficiently supported assertion such as 'gods'.  If you don't have sufficient evidence to support the contention, the rejection of the claim is not debatable as 'unfalsifiable', it's the null hypothesis which isn't there to be validated.

Of course it is saying the status quo is that God does not exist is the same as saying that God does not exist  or I am asking someone to justify the grounds of the default and the Burden namely that the status quo is a God free universe i.e. naturalism...

You're attempting a false dichotomy there.  It's not incumbent upon someone rejecting your hypothesis of 'god' to come up with a better explanation; either you validate your case or its rejected and we revert to 'we don't know'.  If someone posits unproven but logically plausible possibilities in response to your claim in order to show that your stance isn't the only possibility that is not a positive claim, it's the argument put forward to refute yours.

In which I am not asking them to prove the negative. There is no God is a positive assertion and carries a burden anyway by dint of that.

No, the null hypothesis is that there is nothing verified, and we don't know.  If you posit god, the arguments are taken in light of that concept.  There is no god is the conclusion arrived at if you don't make your case, because we revert to 'there is nothing'.

''Contingency and transiency does not imply the past non-existence of everything'' means that contingency and transiency could stretch back to infinity, In which case so does necessity

Within the infinity, things can be contingent or necessary, but the infinite itself is beyond contentions that require time.

That has something coming from nothing.    Surely a system where things can come from nothing must be the most open system possible.

Possibly - we don't know for sure if the universe is a closed system or not, and the only way to be sure would be to be outside of it and observe energy loss to the wider reality.  As to that wider reality, if it's infinite then by definition it must be a closed system, there is no 'outside' for energy to leak to.

There is also the question of why a closed system and not an open one.

Which returns to begging the question, what makes you think 'why' has any meaning?  If reality is infinite how does 'why' make any sense - it simply is.

But the question is, do machines work without entropy?

Machines, no.  Universes, maybe. Reality, maybe.  Conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, these suggest that it's plausible certainly.

It would also be divided into the necessary and contingent You can decide whether its' the necessary or the contingent part that does the recycling.

You're still attempting to shoehorn those concepts in where they have no meaning.  What could an infinite reality be contingent upon?

Or atheists have deluded themselves into thinking that it being a good argument for God, God is somehow undone because it lacks specificity.

The lack of specificity is another nail in the coffin, but you can rest assured that lid is already held on pretty tightly.

That only applies where disproof has occured.

There is no 'disproof' - there is proof, or there is rejection of the claim.

Proof by logic is used a lot by your side. Hence the demand to show people the necessary being and physical evidence even while arguments are being debated and are unsettled. Not everything which is logical is physically evidenced.

No it isn't, but if you're making claims about measurable things then asking for evidence of that measurable thing is a reasonable step, and the absence of that evidence counts against the claim.

I'm not talking about logical proof, I'm talking not even talking about future. I'm talking about self revelation.

I think the scientific term for that is 'confirmation bias'.

But aren't they fluctuations in the quantum field....

That's my understanding, yes.

You mean something like Heaven or God or at least the necessary for this universe?

Is a god or heaven outside of the universe plausible... depends on which god.  As a general concept, yes, it's plausible.  Is there a 'necessary' component for the universe, I'd suggest that's more than plausible and verging on the likely.  Outside of reality on the other hand... I don't think so, no.

Don't you think you've already made a case for exactly that in your ''extra universal reality''

No.  The idea of something being 'necessary' for reality makes no sense, when reality is defined as everything that there is.  There is nothing outside for it be dependent upon.  And the idea that the universe is necessary because we (or, indeed, anything else) are in it only has validity if you can show that we or that something else was the point. Otherwise there is no necessity, only proximate contingency.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s also a term in logic and rhetoric.

“If you accept one truth claim without justification there is no basis for rejecting any other truth claim without justification” isn’t a “positive assertion” – it’s a testable principle.

It may be but saying that the status quo is that God does not exist is a positive assertion

Yet another straw man – “God does not exist” is not a claim that atheism requires. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

it may not be but it is the claimed status quo in any demand for a theist to provide proof

In the absence of good reason to conclude otherwise, that’s a sensible basis on which to proceed yes.

But then it isn't Good reason for God in the case of establishing good reason for naturalism or God-free, Does God free have good reason? Now it's your turn to make a case in logic.

No it isn’t – it's a testable principle.

How is the claim that the status quo is that God does not exist a testable principle?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It may be but saying that the status quo is that God does not exist is a positive assertion

Saying “gods do not exist” is a positive statement yes, but it’s not one that atheism requires and nor that anyone I know of makes. It’s just another of your straw men.

it may not be but it is the claimed status quo in any demand for a theist to provide proof

No, the “status quo” as you wrongly put it is simply that beliefs that are truth claims should be justified with sound arguments if their proponents want them to be taken seriously. If not, why should anyone accept one non-justified belief but reject any other non-justified belief?

That’s your problem with your belief “god” remember? 

But then it isn't Good reason for God in the case of establishing good reason for naturalism or God-free, Does God free have good reason? Now it's your turn to make a case in logic.

As you won’t tell us what you mean by “god free” I have no idea what you’re asking. If though in a rare moment of honesty/clarity you mean “proceed on the basis of no gods without reference to claims that there actually are no gods” – ie, atheism – the “case in logic” is already made with the falsifications of the arguments theists have attempted to justify their beliefs in gods.   

How is the claim that the status quo is that God does not exist a testable principle?

No idea – it’s your straw man, you tell me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If something's definitively wrong then by all means show it.  However, there is no 'unfalsifiability' about the rejection of insufficiently supported assertion such as 'gods'.  If you don't have sufficient evidence to support the contention, the rejection of the claim is not debatable as 'unfalsifiable', it's the null hypothesis which isn't there to be validated.

But we still come down to the assumption of God free or naturalism.

You're attempting a false dichotomy there.  It's not incumbent upon someone rejecting your hypothesis of 'god' to come up with a better explanation

But you've already offered a 'better' explanation.....God Free or Naturalism;

either you validate your case or its rejected and we revert to 'we don't know'.

If you don't know then you should also be laying the burden of proof on your God free alter egos.

  If someone posits unproven but logically plausible possibilities in response to your claim in order to show that your stance isn't the only possibility that is not a positive claim, it's the argument put forward to refute yours

. I'm fine with that

.

Within the infinity, things can be contingent or necessary, but the infinite itself is beyond contentions that require time.

So are you saying the infinite has an existence independent of the contingent? In which case it is unavoidably necessary but is it real or abstract since abstract necessities produce nothing ?

Possibly - we don't know for sure if the universe is a closed system or not, and the only way to be sure would be to be outside of it and observe energy loss to the wider reality.  As to that wider reality, if it's infinite then by definition it must be a closed system, there is no 'outside' for energy to leak to.

and an infinite run down leading to heat death. If the universe is infinite surely then it should have met heat death an infinitely long time ago.

Which returns to begging the question, what makes you think 'why' has any meaning?  If reality is infinite how does 'why' make any sense - it simply is. Infinite in what sense

Why is it infinite?

Is a god or heaven outside of the universe plausible... depends on which god.  As a general concept, yes, it's plausible.  Is there a 'necessary' component for the universe, I'd suggest that's more than plausible and verging on the likely.  Outside of reality on the other hand... I don't think so, no.

Then by definition it is necessary

No.  The idea of something being 'necessary' for reality makes no sense, when reality is defined as everything that there is.

But it is nonsense to say that when contingency exists within reality and far more sensible to say reality is divided into the necessary and the contingent. The necessity is that which has to be not that which comes and goes and therefore does not have to exist.

There is nothing outside for it be dependent upon.  And the idea that the universe is necessary because we (or, indeed, anything else) are in it only has validity if you can show that we or that something else was the point.

The necessary is not dependent on the contingent. Necessity does not need contingency, A real rather than abstract necessity decides on contingency, It makes it's own decisions as to what it creates since there are no constraints and the only degrees of freedom it has are those it allows itself to have.....That is why some call it God

Otherwise there is no necessity, only proximate contingency.

There cannot be contingency without necessity, ''only ANY contingency'' really does make no sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad - you need to sort out your quote marks

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Saying “gods do not exist” is a positive statement yes, but it’s not one that atheism requires and nor that anyone I know of makes. It’s just another of your straw men.

No, the “status quo” as you wrongly put it is simply that beliefs that are truth claims should be justified with sound arguments if their proponents want them to be taken seriously. If not, why should anyone accept one non-justified belief but reject any other non-justified belief?

That’s your problem with your belief “god” remember? 

As you won’t tell us what you mean by “god free” I have no idea what you’re asking. If though in a rare moment of honesty/clarity you mean “proceed on the basis of no gods without reference to claims that there actually are no gods” – ie, atheism – the “case in logic” is already made with the falsifications of the arguments theists have attempted to justify their beliefs in gods.   

No idea – it’s your straw man, you tell me.

Truth claims about God. Yes I accept that but God free or naturalism as the status quo which does not need justification is the non justified belief here.

Are you really ignorant of the term God free universe and naturalism?

[Outrider]

But we still come down to the assumption of God free or naturalism.

No, we don't.  There may be any number of other explanations.

But you've already offered a 'better' explanation.....God Free or Naturalism

I think it's 'better', inasmuch as it makes more sense to me and requires fewer unsubstantiated elements, but I can't justify the claim.

If you don't know then you should also be laying the burden of proof on your God free alter egos.

Except that, as I've explained, I'm claiming them as truth, I'm positing them as viable alternatives to your claim of 'god'.

So are you saying the infinite has an existence independent of the contingent?

I'm saying that concepts such as 'contingent' are meaningless in considering an infinite thing.

In which case it is unavoidably necessary but is it real or abstract since abstract necessities produce nothing?

It doesn't need to produce anything; everything's already there.

...and an infinite run down leading to heat death.

In the heat death model there is nothing that requires any of the energy to be lost, it's just spread out to the maximum extent possible.

If the universe is infinite surely then it should have met heat death an infinitely long time ago. Why is it infinite?

The universe, in this model, isn't - the broader reality is.  We don't know if it should meet a head death (we don't even know that the universe definitively will).  Who knows what event in the future might agitate the background and cause another coruscation of activity?

Then by definition it is necessary

What is, reality?  That's a meaningless statement - that's saying that anything which is real requires a reality in which to be real - it's functionally tautological.  That's why trying to pin concepts like 'necessary' or 'contingent' upon infinite things doesn't work.

But it is nonsense to say that when contingency exists within reality and far more sensible to say reality is divided into the necessary and the contingent. The necessity is that which has to be not that which comes and goes and therefore does not have to exist.

Unless you have some sort of evidence to suggest that there's a plan, there's no reason to think that any of it is 'necessary'.

The necessary is not dependent on the contingent. Necessity does not need contingency, A real rather than abstract necessity decides on contingency, It makes it's own decisions as to what it creates since there are no constraints and the only degrees of freedom it has are those it allows itself to have.....That is why some call it God

So if you have an unguided, natural, infinite reality in which things happen but where there is no intention then there are no 'decisions' there is nothing to exert 'freedom'... there is no 'necessity'.

There cannot be contingency without necessity, ''only ANY contingency'' really does make no sense.

That's why I qualified it with 'proximate' - you can look at a particular situation and determine an arbitrary start point and determine a chain of contingency from one to the next, but there is no absolute 'contingency' chain because there's no 'necessary'.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Truth claims about God. Yes I accept that but God free or naturalism as the status quo which does not need justification is the non justified belief here.

Can you genuinely not see the fundamental epistemic difference between these two statements:

“X does not exist”; and

“I have no good reason to believe that X exists”?

Or do you keep conflating them just for trolling purposes?

Are you really ignorant of the term God free universe…

Everyone is "ignorant" of it because it’s your term and you won’t tell us which of the two options above you mean by it, presumably so you can hide behind the ambiguity. If it’s the former, that’s just your straw man version of atheism; if it’s the latter, there is no “non-justified belief”.

I’ve just explained all this to you (and countless times before) – why have you just ignored it and tried the same straw man?   

...and naturalism?

I’m perfectly aware of what “naturalism” means, though suspect it’s not what you would pretend or misunderstand it to mean.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you won’t tell us what you mean by “god free” I have no idea what you’re asking. If though in a rare moment of honesty/clarity you mean “proceed on the basis of no gods without reference to claims that there actually are no gods” – ie, atheism – the “case in logic” is already made with the falsifications of the arguments theists have attempted to justify their beliefs in gods.   

Can you justify that the ''case in Logic'' is won? How was naturalism justified finally?
Can you give evidence of these falsifications dates and references for example, Can you say how they amount to the case in logic already made?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, we don't.  There may be any number of other explanations.

I think it's 'better', inasmuch as it makes more sense to me and requires fewer unsubstantiated elements, but I can't justify the claim..

It makes no sense to me unless one realises that one has to endow it with God like powers and abilities. Something you seem to have been doing quite happily for hours. To me it has the unsubstantiated elements of either ''contingency only'' or an invisible necessary element to it. An infinity. and ''just is'', popped out of nowhere

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Can you justify that the ''case in Logic'' is won?

Yes. The logic that falsifies the arguments attempted by theists stands. 

How was naturalism justified finally?

Depends on whether you mean philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism. The former isn’t “justified” as a claim of certainty so I don’t subscribe to it. The latter is justified as the naturalistic model is all we have that’s investigable and verifiable - which is all that methodological naturalism claims to do.   

Can you give evidence of these falsifications dates and references for example, Can you say how they amount to the case in logic already made?

Yes – yesterday you tried shifting the burden of proof and today you’ve posted various straw men. Both are fallacious.

So now I’ve answered yours, you answer mine:

Can you genuinely not see the fundamental epistemic difference between these two statements:

“X does not exist”; and

“I have no good reason to believe that X exists”?

[Outrider]

It makes no sense to me unless one realises that one has to endow it with God like powers and abilities.

Which 'god-like' powers and abilities?  The point of gods is that the bypass the laws of nature to suspend the natural order, and as a consequence demand or afforded veneration to placate/pacify them; later rewrites try to salvage the concept by imparting benificence on them, but can't overcome the fundamentally hostile possibilities of the nature they were created to explain in the first place to make that tenable.

So if you want to define the ability to create universes as 'god like' then any mechanism that results in a universe will be, to you 'god like' powers.  I don't see it leading to blood sacrifice, plagues of locusts, pillars of salt, death of the firstborn of a particular nation or measurable increments of 'sin' ^TM for the eating of shellfish or unpopular penile insertion preferences.

To me it has the unsubstantiated elements of either ''contingency only'' or an invisible necessary element to it. An infinity. and ''just is'', popped out of nowhere

It's infinite, it didn't 'pop out' of anywhere, there is nowhere and nowhen that it isn't.  That's not something that's subject to concepts like 'contingent' or 'necessary' which only have meaning within its bounds.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“X does not exist”; and

“I have no good reason to believe that X exists”?


Or do you keep conflating them just for trolling purposes?

I genuinely believe that the former is the basic assumption or status quo of the latter.
Secondly the latter is not the status quo of my burden of proof since your opinion that you have no good reason is your opinion. So I couldn't really give a shit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes. The logic that falsifies the arguments attempted by theists stands.

And that logic is?

Depends on whether you mean philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism. The former isn’t “justified” as a claim of certainty so I don’t subscribe to it. The latter is justified as the naturalistic model is all we have that’s investigable and verifiable - which is all that methodological naturalism claims to do.

   
Since we are talking about the default position being naturalism it should be obvious that I am talking about philosophical naturalism which is assumed as the status quo if the burden of proof is on the theist. It is a positive assertion and the implicit position.