Disproofs of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think he lost the plot a long time ago.

At least I had it.

[Nearly Sane]

I think ‘ There is a necessary entity’ might be an assertion but whether it is vacuous......you need to demonstrate it.

There is a necessary entity derived from hierarchies of dependencies make it more than just an assertion.

No, added on some extra magic words 'hierarchies of dependencies' makes no difference to it being an assertion. And I don't have to demonstrate anything since as ever you are trying to reverse the burden of proof. ' Vacuous' is a statement of opinion but, given you have done nothing other than assert something with no demonstration, one that has for me validity

[Roses]

At least I had it.

Which health problem was that, dear? 

[ProfessorDavey]

No I thought it was most apt.

Explain please

All I saw was an orchestra playing the music from Desert Island Disks. I'm struggling to see what relevance that could possible have, nor the comedy value if that was what you were aiming at.

[SteveH]

Maybe you can address my point in reply 192 and 202.

I don't think I am being snide, but I do agree that the issue is entirely definitional and circular - in effect you make an implicit assumption about the nature of god (omnipotent, creator, omnipresent and singular) and then use that the universe must require that god if god exists.

But that is a 'no shit Sherlock' kind of argument but built on the flimsiest of foundations, namely that unless you can prove that god (as you assume he/she/it to be) actually exists then the rest is mere handwaving. And indeed the argument doesn't progress the discussion of whether god actually exists further one iota.

This is complete nonsense. I was dealing solely with the hypothetical necessity of God, and suggesting that even if it is a quality of God, it doesn't demonstrate that God exists, only that IF God exists, God exists necessarily. I was trying to demolish the necessity argument for God's existence, not defend it, so you might try reading what I've actually written.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which health problem was that, dear? 

The clap since you ask and yes I did inform Richard, Sam, Daniel and Chris by letter so not as to embarrass them as public figures.

[Nearly Sane]

This is complete nonsense. I was dealing solely with the hypothetical necessity of God, and suggesting that even if it is a quality of God, it doesn't demonstrate that God exists, only that IF God exists, God exists necessarily. I was trying to demolish the necessity argument for God's existence, not defend it, so you might try reading what I've actually written.

It doesn't even mange that. As already pointed out, it only works in the sense you wrote, and I did point out what you meant to Prof D, because you are using the definition circularly. There is no demonstration in any of your posts on this that If God exists, God exists necessarily.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, added on some extra magic words 'hierarchies of dependencies' makes no difference to it being an assertion.

Shouldn’t you be asking what I mean by “hierarchies of dependency” rather than going  ugh, magic words......you used magic words.......he used magiiiic woooords he used Maaaagic wooooooooords. Mim mim mim mim mim mim?

[Nearly Sane]

Shouldn’t you be asking what I mean by “hierarchies of dependency” rather than going  ugh, magic words......you used magic words.......he used magiiiic woooords he used Maaaagic wooooooooords. Mim mim mim mim mim mim?

  Further irrelevant waffling from you that does nothing to advance your claim

[ProfessorDavey]

... only that IF God exists, God exists necessarily.

Only if you define god in a manner that necessarily requires god to be a creator for example. However if you define god in a different manner - for example (a dictionary definition) as:

a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

Then god could exist, but not exist necessarily - in other words their existence would not be required for the universe to exist etc.

Only if you presume that god has the attributes of the judeo-christian god would you conclude that IF God exists, God exists necessarily and of course other kinds of deity with other attributes are (purportedly) available.

[SteveH]

Only if you define god in a manner that necessarily requires god to be a creator for example. However if you define god in a different manner - for example (a dictionary definition) as:

a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

Then god could exist, but not exist necessarily - in other words their existence would not be required for the universe to exist etc.

Only if you presume that god has the attributes of the judeo-christian god would you conclude that IF God exists, God exists necessarily and of course other kinds of deity with other attributes are (purportedly) available.

Quite, but I'm talking about the Judaeo-Christian God, who is creator of al (though I don't think God is omnipotent or omniscent, only omnibenevolent. The Bible specifically says that God is love, but nowhere tells us that God is all-powerful or all-knowing, I don't think, and given the suffering in the world, I think you have to jettison either the power or the love if you want to believe in God. I'm buggered if I'm worshipping an all-powerful but unloving God. In fact, as a non-realist Christian, I don't think that God exists objectively anyway.

[jeremyp]

Now, I have conceded that the necessary could be in the universe as well as the contingent universe.

That doesn't make sense. Everything in the Universe is clearly contingent on the Universe itself.

Can you please stop with the pretence that the Universe is something in the Universe.

[ProfessorDavey]

Quite, but I'm talking about the Judaeo-Christian God, who is creator of al ...

Even if you accept the bible as correct, where does it was that god created everything - certainly Genesis only talks about heaven and earth - nowhere does it talk about creating everything else in the universe, let alone multi-universes. Then it talks about light vs dark, but as this is considered to be night and day this must only refer to the sun. Everything from there-on-in is completely earth-centric. So this could be easily read as a god who is the creator of our solar system at most.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't make sense. Everything in the Universe is clearly contingent on the Universe itself.

Can you please stop with the pretence that the Universe is something in the Universe.

No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.

Your use of the word universe is what is essentially meaningless.

No one has any conception of what the implications of your use of the word universe is.

The nearest I can get to the mystery is that you are accusing me of the fallacy of composition.

So in this scheme I am saying that because all the things in the universe are contingent the whole universe or as you put it ....the universe is contingent. I'm not saying that at all.

I on the other hand could accuse you of the fallacy of division whereby even if the universe as you put it was necessary none of the things in it need be.

The first question that needs to be answered is HOW THE FUCK THEN if everything in the universe is contingent does the universe end up necessary. Within your strange mysticism you have a necessary universe and a universe made up of contingent things. same universe....or different universe?

[Nearly Sane]

No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.
...

He asserted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He asserted.

I'm taking necessity as a fundamental here alternatives being something for nothing and existing for infinite time.  So if you reject necessity you know what your choices are.

Secondly the necessary is that which is at the base of all the hierarchies of dependency.

Thirdly, any sign of the thing which pops out of nothing which you seem to have bet the house on?

[ProfessorDavey]

No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.

No - these are theoretical concepts that need to be tested - and nowhere is it claimed that there must only be a single necessary entity, merely that a necessary entity would be something that were it not to exist the universe could not exist. There might be zero necessary entities, there could be one, there could the thousands or millions of necessary entities.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm taking necessity as a fundamental here alternatives being something for nothing and existing for infinite time.  So if you reject necessity you know what your choices are.

Secondly the necessary is that which is at the base of all the hierarchies of dependency.

Thirdly, any sign of the thing which pops out of nothing which you seem to have bet the house on?

More assertion, no demonstration, followed by a misrepresentation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So just to be clear then:

1. You assert there to be something you call “God” but you have no coherent, cogent or consistent explanation of what you mean by that term.

2. You assert this god to have certain characteristics and behaviours, but all this happens supposedly “outside time and space” or some such (and it seems outside logic too), so any pretence of reasoned underpinning for this god is replaced effectively with “it’s magic innit”. 

3. In the absence of reason or logic to justify your belief “God” you throw as much dust in the air as you can by misrepresenting or just insulting the arguments that falsify your unqualified claims and assertions, and then indulge in an endless series of meaningless questions so as to misrepresent or insult again the legitimate answers you’re given.   

As you’re evidently here merely to pollute this mb with your trolling rather than to contribute to it, why do you expect anyone to feed you?       

[ProfessorDavey]

Everything in the Universe is clearly contingent on the Universe itself.

In a theoretical sense I'm not sure that is true - there could be something in the universe that could still exist outside of the universe - that would not be contingent on the universe. However once we move from the theoretical to the real world it is challenging to find any evidence of something in the universe which could equally as well exist even if the universe did not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So just to be clear then:

1. You assert there to be something you call “God” but you have no coherent, cogent or consistent explanation of what you mean by that term.

2. You assert this god to have certain characteristics and behaviours, but all this happens supposedly “outside time and space” or some such (and it seems outside logic too), so any pretence of reasoned underpinning for this god is replaced effectively with “it’s magic innit”. 

3. In the absence of reason or logic to justify your belief “God” you throw as much dust in the air as you can by misrepresenting or just insulting the arguments that falsify your unqualified claims and assertions, and then indulge in an endless series of meaningless questions so as to misrepresent or insult again the legitimate answers you’re given.   

As you’re evidently here merely to pollute this mb with your trolling rather than to contribute to it, why do you expect anyone to feed you?       

Total bollocks..........Produce of Essex.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In a theoretical sense I'm not sure that is true - there could be something in the universe that could still exist outside of the universe - that would not be contingent on the universe. However once we move from the theoretical to the real world it is challenging to find any evidence of something in the universe which could equally as well exist even if the universe did not exist.

Actually Prof I can completely agree with this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Total bollocks..........Produce of Essex.

"Feed the troll, tuppence a bag

Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag..."

No thanks.

[jeremyp]

No jeremy the universe has two types of entity a necessary entity and contingent entities.

OK. What is the necessary entity that is in the Universe?

I on the other hand could accuse you of the fallacy of division whereby even if the universe as you put it was necessary none of the things in it need be.

No you have that wrong. The fallacy of division would be asserting that because the Universe is necessary, the things in it are necessary.

The first question that needs to be answered is HOW THE FUCK THEN if everything in the universe is contingent does the universe end up necessary.

Because the Universe is not the things in it.

[Stranger]

Your use of the word universe is what is essentially meaningless.

No one has any conception of what the implications of your use of the word universe is.

Unadulterated drivel. We have a very good and well tested theory that describes the universe as a whole, it's called "general relativity" and the space-time manifold (as I keep on explaining to you and you keep on ignoring) is not something that is obviously contingent on anything else. It contains time so did not, as a whole, start to exist, and there was never a time at which it didn't exist (regardless of whether the past timelike direction within it is finite or infinite).

And I'm still waiting for the first hint of an argument from you as to how things can be necessary, why a necessary thing might be anything like a thinking being, or any attempt to address the apparent contradictions between what little you've said about necessity and such a being.