Disproofs of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that you haven't established that there is a necessary entity, or what any necessary properties of one would be.

All of which calls into question what you consider 'god-like' properties to be - even if there is a necessary entity for the universe I don't see any reason why consciousness would necessarily be a trait which would seem to be a requirement for a 'god'.

I have argued that where there is contingency there is necessity. The necessary for the universe is that which explains the existence of the contingent universe and which is not explained by the contingent universe.

That from the get go gives it the divine property of creatorhood. Because it is autonous it is sovereign. Property two. Because it is the sole arbiter of how the universe is it’s activities are not accidental or due to chance and that in my view makes it personal.

[Outrider]

That from the get go gives it the divine property of creatorhood.

Not necessarily - something not being contingent does not make it a creator, it makes it a source.  'Creator' implies design and intent which isn't necessarily the case, and which leads to the 'god-like' interpretation but overreaches what you think you've demonstrated.

Because it is autonous it is sovereign.

Autonomy, again, is a step beyond what's been established - independence and autonomy are not the same.

Because it is the sole arbiter of how the universe is it’s activities are not accidental or due to chance and that in my view makes it personal.

No, 'arbiter' implies, again, deliberate decision making which isn't established in merely determining that something is not contingent.  Any decision, any act of will, any deliberation, as has been amply demonstrated in the ongoing discussions with Alan Burns on free will, is based upon predicates; will is not 'necessary by virtue of not being contingent' because if it's not contingent then it isn't will, it's random.

O.

[SteveH]

get go

Horrible Americanism. Please avoid it.

it’s

"Its" - no apostrophe if you mean "belonging to it". "It's" means "it is".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not necessarily - something not being contingent does not make it a creator, it makes it a source.  'Creator' implies design and intent which isn't necessarily the case, and which leads to the 'god-like' interpretation but overreaches what you think you've demonstrated.

A creator can be a source yes. I say creator because it does not do things by accident nor by any natural law. It is acting only in accordance with itself. There is nothing natural which approaches this level of freedom to act so to liken it to any natural source is inadequate and a god like interpretation far more adequate.

No, 'arbiter' implies, again, deliberate decision making which isn't established in merely determining that something is not contingent.  Any decision, any act of will, any deliberation, as has been amply demonstrated in the ongoing discussions with Alan Burns on free will, is based upon predicates; will is not 'necessary by virtue of not being contingent' because if it's not contingent then it isn't will, it's random.

O.

Unfortunately if you are depending on what you have argued with Alan all you have done is argued that there is nothing in nature that has the level of freedom to act as the necessary being has.
A random source would imply a random universe and not one at all penetrable to reason.

For example things would be more likely to pop out of nothing if we’re we talking about a random source only. All arguments based on the conservation of energy are then predicated on a non random source.

[Roses]

Blimey I think Steve has a new job, teaching English grammar!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Horrible Americanism. Please avoid it.

The hell I will.

[Stranger]

A creator can be a source yes. I say creator because it does not do things by accident nor by any natural law. It is acting only in accordance with itself. There is nothing natural which approaches this level of freedom to act so to liken it to any natural source is inadequate and a god like interpretation far more adequate.

This totally contradicts what you've previously claimed abut things that are necessary. If it has a choice, then it could have chosen differently, in which case, it would have been different, and something that could have been different (according to what you've said before) can't be necessary.

Unfortunately if you are depending on what you have argued with Alan all you have done is argued that there is nothing in nature that has the level of freedom to act as the necessary being has.

No. A choice also requires a time dimension, so anything that makes a choice must be contingent on time.

A random source would imply a random universe and not one at all penetrable to reason.

As I already pointed out, given enough randomness, you'd get any degree of order just by chance. Specifically, given an infinite amount you would necessarily have arbitrarily large amounts of order.

For example things would be more likely to pop out of nothing if we’re we talking about a random source only.

Like entire orderly universes, given enough randomness.

All arguments based on the conservation of energy are then predicated on a non random source.

Somewhat irrelevant but I don't know why people obsess about energy conservation. To the extent it's applicable (and it's not at all straightforward in general relativity - it applies locally but it's not at all clear how to apply it generally), it's due to a symmetry in the laws of physics, just like conservation of momentum.

Also, as I pointed out some time ago, when we were talking about Feser's 'base of hierarchy', Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures might necessarily exist, fits the the notion far, far better than something with thoughts and the ability to choose (all examples of which that we know of actually require order to exist). That's where Feser's argument became comical as he tried to bash the square peg of his notion of god into the round hole he'd just argued for.

[jeremyp]

I have argued that where there is contingency there is necessity. The necessary for the universe is that which explains the existence of the contingent universe and which is not explained by the contingent universe.

You haven't demonstrated that the Universe is contingent.

[Outrider]

A creator can be a source yes.

It can be, yes, but a source isn't necessarily a creator.

I say creator because it does not do things by accident nor by any natural law.

If it is not 'by accident' then it's by design... which requires inputs, which makes your 'designer' dependent upon something prior to spur the design.

There is nothing natural which approaches this level of freedom to act so to liken it to any natural source is inadequate and a god like interpretation far more adequate.

That's just the argument from ignorance writ poetic; we can't explain it, therefore gods....

Unfortunately if you are depending on what you have argued with Alan all you have done is argued that there is nothing in nature that has the level of freedom to act as the necessary being has.

On the contrary, if you actually engage with the content of the argument you'll see that it's pertinent; you are suggesting a conscious decision by your 'source' - acts of will require prior events to shape the will, or you simply have randomness.  So if the creation is an act of will, or the manifestation of an act of will, then your creator is no longer 'necessary by dint of not being contingent' because it's contingent upon the prior events that inform the act of will.

A random source would imply a random universe and not one at all penetrable to reason.

Perhaps; certain elements of quantum mechanics appear to be random at the individual level, but over time and enough iterations settle into reliable patterns enough that accurate rates can be determined.  If the fine detail of an event is less important than the general effects then you could have random effects leading to stability.

For example things would be more likely to pop out of nothing if we’re we talking about a random source only. All arguments based on the conservation of energy are then predicated on a non random source.

Except that 'something from nothing' is not the model that's put forward (the 'nothingness' of a vacuum is a equilibrium point between matter and anti-matter, particles and anti-particles, and can spontaneously break down and remerge), whilst the conservation of energy is a trait that may have emerged as part of that ongoing stability (or, indeed, may be an older facet of a stable or cyclic infinitely old reality).

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

A creator can be a source yes.

Creators are a sub-set of sources.

Therefore all creators are sources, but not all sources are creators. Therefore until or unless you can demonstrate that the universe specifically has a creator rather than a source that isn't a creator then the rest of your argument is redundant.

And seeing as your argument attempts, as its conclusion, to demonstrate god then your argument is inherently circular - in other words using the presumption of a creator rather than just a source to justify the requirement of, err, a creator.

D- at best.

[Owlswing]

D- at best.

And more likely a Z- and a note to listen to what he is told in and take on board contents of the lessons in future!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Creators are a sub-set of sources.

Therefore all creators are sources, but not all sources are creators. Therefore until or unless you can demonstrate that the universe specifically has a creator rather than a source that isn't a creator then the rest of your argument is redundant.

And seeing as your argument attempts, as its conclusion, to demonstrate god then your argument is inherently circular - in other words using the presumption of a creator rather than just a source to justify the requirement of, err, a creator.

I’m afraid this looks very much like a “He can’t be a boy because he’s called Sue” argument.. You need to look at the implications of what it is to be the necessary entity rather than a contingent one. Those implications are independent on whether we are talking about a source or creator. The source of the universe has those implications. So no redundancy of argument there i’m Afraid.

And to remind you of the argument.
I was answering the query as to why I was arguing that the necessary entity is God. My answer is that aspects of it’s nature fit those of God rather than yet another,natural and contingent thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And more likely a Z- and a note to listen to what he is told in and take on board contents of the lessons in future!

Oh yes you had to say Z because you have greater sense of outrage at Christians than he has.
I’m afraid there doesn’t seem to be anyone here qualified to talk about how the Universe just isn’t because they have grown up thinking that the universe just is.

[Stranger]

And to remind you of the argument.
I was answering the query as to why I was arguing that the necessary entity is God. My answer is that aspects of it’s nature fit those of God rather than yet another,natural and contingent thing.

Except something with thoughts and the ability to make choices is virtually the exact opposite of all the claims you've made about what would be necessary - not that you've done much of a job of defining it, but that which you have said pretty much rules out any sort of thinking being. See above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

don’t dismiss infinite regress. It exists in mathematical reality. What I tend to dismiss is the ability of an infinite regress to deliver anything physically hence my counter argument involving the hierarchy of dependence each of its members owed a fiver from its predecessor or immediately lower level.

You’ve missed the point. If you want to assert “X can’t exist by itself, therefor Y created it” you have to explain why Y could exist by itself (ie required no antecedent of its own). And when you can’t do that – essentially all you have is “it’s magic innit” – you’d added nothing of explanatory value. You may have well have made X exist by itself to begin with.   

As far as Dawkins is concerned, He is the public face of “who created God?” In fact I believe he presents it as a knock down argument. The trouble is it is not an atheist argument.

Nothing is an “atheist argument”. Rather there are falsifications of the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs, leaving atheism as the default alternative.

Possible replies are 1) We don’t know who created God. No doubt those who announce that it is an honest answer in an atheist will present it as a failure in a believer…

No, it just puts the theist in the same position as the non-theist who says “we don’t know how the universe came to be”. Thus the theist’s "don’t know" adds nothing to the "don’t know" we have already. 

2) a reply could be who cares who created God.

Presumably someone who thinks there’s a god and justifies the belief by caring about how universe came to be should. If not, the non-theist could equally say, “who cares about what created the universe?”

So you see infinite regress even if it were true is not an atheist argument and it’s use against God is a busted flush.

So you see, no it isn’t. If you think a "don’t know" about the origin of the universe justifies the belief “god”, then a "don’t know" about the origin of that god justifies whatever antecedent belief claim I care to put in place…and so on forever. If on the other hand you want to assert “the buck stops here” for your god, you have no basis to deny “the buck stops here” for the universe itself. Anything else is just special pleading.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except something with thoughts and the ability to make choices is virtually the exact opposite of all the claims you've made about what would be necessary - not that you've done much of a job of defining it, but that which you have said pretty much rules out any sort of thinking being. See above.

Sounds very much a You haven't described God and your description of God is appalling argument.

You'll have to spell out what you mean by thinking. It certainly wouldn't be an emerged brain, it wouldn't be thought stimulated by a need to be environmentally aware although having CREATED the universe it could contemplate that. It could okf course eternally contemplate itself.

Since your tribe has appealed to things for which there is no known actual real example namely actual infinity and something popping spontaneously out of nothing. You cannot credibly appeal to a "We know nothing of anything actual that thinks like a brain" and the AI that has resulted from it."

Serious theology has always looked upon stuff like right hand of God and the mind as God as metaphor for something far better.

Cue Prof......"They can't do that grrrrrrrrrrrrr"

[Outrider]

You'll have to spell out what you mean by thinking. It certainly wouldn't be an emerged brain, it wouldn't be thought stimulated by a need to be environmentally aware although having CREATED the universe it could contemplate that. It could okf course eternally contemplate itself.

Why wouldn't it be an emerged brain - or, rather, in what other way could something capable of thought come into being?

Serious theology has always looked upon stuff like right hand of God and the mind as God as metaphor for something far better.

You mean 'serious theology' has always had to rely on hand-waving and 'ineffability' to cover for a lack of any concrete basis for anything?

Cue Prof......"They can't do that grrrrrrrrrrrrr"

Of course they can - in fact, what option do they have - but we can reasonably dismiss it as high-falutin' navel-gazing and move on to potentially worthwhile contributions.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’ve missed the point. If you want to assert “X can’t exist by itself, therefor Y created it” you have to explain why Y could exist by itself (ie required no antecedent of its own). And when you can’t do that – essentially all you have is “it’s magic innit” – you’d added nothing of explanatory value. You may have well have made X exist by itself to begin with.   

Nothing is an “atheist argument”. Rather there are falsifications of the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs, leaving atheism as the default alternative.

No, it just puts the theist in the same position as the non-theist who says “we don’t know how the universe came to be”. Thus the theist’s "don’t know" adds nothing to the "don’t know" we have already. 

Presumably someone who thinks there’s a god and justifies the belief by caring about how universe came to be should. If not, the non-theist could equally say, “who cares about what created the universe?”

So you see, no it isn’t. If you think a "don’t know" about the origin of the universe justifies the belief “god”, then a "don’t know" about the origin of that god justifies whatever antecedent belief claim I care to put in place…and so on forever. If on the other hand you want to assert “the buck stops here” for your god, you have no basis to deny “the buck stops here” for the universe itself. Anything else is just special pleading.   

Hillside, if your presence here was anything beyond collecting a portfolio for your art of the turdpolish. You would know that I concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe. For the same reasons as you are here, you continue to promote the nonsensical line that everything could be contingent.....end of.

[Stranger]

Sounds very much a You haven't described God and your description of God is appalling argument.

You'll have to spell out what you mean by thinking. It certainly wouldn't be an emerged brain, it wouldn't be thought stimulated by a need to be environmentally aware although having CREATED the universe it could contemplate that. It could okf course eternally contemplate itself.

It's not actually up to me to do anything, since I'm not arguing for a solution, I'm merely pointing out that there is a prima facie contradiction in what you have proposed. Contemplation is something that requires time, as does any sort of thinking or making choices. Hence the idea of a conscious being, in any normal sense, is necessarily contingent.

If you want to make the argument, it's up to you to define your god in such a way as it could possibly be necessary, but you've yet to even explain how anything can possibly be necessary, so so far, you've achieved bugger all as far as arguing for a god from necessity.

Since your tribe has appealed to things for which there is no known actual real example namely actual infinity and something popping spontaneously out of nothing. You cannot credibly appeal to a "We know nothing of anything actual that thinks like a brain" and the AI that has resulted from it."

I'm still not aware of anybody suggesting that something popped out of nothing, that appears to just be one of your many straw men, and again, suggesting other possibilities simply shows the flaws in your argument - nobody needs to make a positive argument for them. It's you who is trying to argue for a particular conclusion.

The burden of proof is still a total mystery to you, isn't it?

Serious theology has always looked upon stuff like right hand of God and the mind as God as metaphor for something far better.

Well make the case then.

I've suggested over and over again, that you start a thread with a definition of a god and complete argument for it that you're prepared to get behind and defend. It seems you lack the intellectual courage to do so, preferring to piss about making vague statements and then trying to switch the burden of proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why wouldn't it be an emerged brain - or, rather, in what other way could something capable of thought come into being?

You mean 'serious theology' has always had to rely on hand-waving and 'ineffability' to cover for a lack of any concrete basis for anything?

Of course they can - in fact, what option do they have - but we can reasonably dismiss it as high-falutin' navel-gazing and move on to potentially worthwhile contributions.

O.

Does a thought need to come into being after all you've spent two months arguing that a whole fucking universe need not come into being.

[Stranger]

Does a thought need to come into being after all you've spent two months arguing that a whole fucking universe need not come into being.

Thinking is a process, it requires time,  the "whole fucking universe" - the space-time manifold - cannot come into being because it includes time, there can never have been a time at which it did not exist.

[Outrider]

Does a thought need to come into being after all you've spent two months arguing that a whole fucking universe need not come into being.

To be precise, I've argued that there may be a broader reality beyond our universe which is infinite in time; I personally hold to the understanding that our universe has only existed for about 14 billion years, and therefore is finite back in time (although it may have an infinite future ahead of it).

We discussed, although I don't propose the idea, a universe looped in space-time which has no beginning.

Having clarified that - does a thought need to come into being?  If it doesn't, in what way is it a thought - a thought is a process, it has a start and an end, it is a response to stimuli and a stimulus to other things (including other thoughts).  If a thought doesn't start, it's not a thought, it's... I don't know, a concept?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't demonstrated that the Universe is contingent.

When I use the words the contingent universe I am using it in the same sense as some astronomers refer to stuff like the gamma ray universe or the infrared universe without mentioning other aspects of the universe. Now, I have conceded that the necessary could be in the universe as well as the contingent universe.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean we can treat it like another contingent thing which is what you guys seem to be unable to resist doing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, if your presence here was anything beyond collecting a portfolio for your art of the turdpolish. You would know that I concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe. For the same reasons as you are here, you continue to promote the nonsensical line that everything could be contingent.....end of.

Tantrum over? Fine. Now then - if you "concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe" what need is there for assertions about a "necessary" god, let alone one that requires many more assumptions than that universe would? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Tantrum over? Fine. Now then - if you "concede that the explanation for the universe could exist within the universe" what need is there for assertions about a "necessary" god, let alone one that requires many more assumptions than that universe would?

Because dear boy, only a Moderator: content removed would treat a necessary entity like a mere contingent entity.
 Oh........you done exactly that again.