Disproofs of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

Wasn't it Pigeon month incorporating Sparrow Times that reviewed Rationalwiki.couldn't.org.pissupinabrewery  as more loaded than a shitty nappy with more bias than a drunk leaning tower of Pisa.

[Nearly Sane]

Wasn't it Pigeon month incorporating Sparrow Times that reviewed Rationalwiki.couldn't.org.pissupinabrewery  as more loaded than a shitty nappy with more bias than a drunk leaning tower of Pisa.

Thank you for proving the point.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

To his credit, at least Vlad has Grand Master status.

think you missed the letters -batory out there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

think you missed the letters -batory out there.

 

[jeremyp]

Yes Jeremy, but if I remember correctly didn't you also say ''the universe just is'' ?

Nope.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So there we have it
Infinite regression as an atheist knock down argument BLOWN
Atheist accusations of magic and supernaturalism BLOWN by suggestion of atheists that things can pop out of nothing.

[ippy]

I've given up on Vlad of the irrational name changes.

What's wrong with Vlad?

It doesn't matter what anyone's response is addressed to any one of Vlad's posts are there'll never be a rational answer given in return, in fact when in the past I've weakened against my better judgement and tried to have an exchange with Vlad, I have always made sure I'm sitting down before I read his response just in case the response Vlad returns is a sensible one that actually is an answer or a good counter to the original question asked.

Regards to all, including you Vlad.
 

[jeremyp]

So there we have it
Infinite regression as an atheist knock down argument BLOWN
Atheist accusations of magic and supernaturalism BLOWN by suggestion of atheists that things can pop out of nothing.

It wasn't atheists that came up with the idea of stuff popping out of nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It wasn't atheists that came up with the idea of stuff popping out of nothing.

I知 sorry but i知 Sure i知 Being invited to not only keep it in mind but to rank it痴 probability as higher than anything actually being necessary. This of course is a misunderstanding of the word necessary which would then apply to the phenomenon of a universe popping out of nothing.

If the universe is the necessary being then it would have been necessary to have shown what it is that  popped out of nothing.

Of course there are huge problems with popping out of nothing since it would look exactly like creatio ex nihilo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've given up on Vlad of the irrational name changes.

What's wrong with Vlad?

It doesn't matter what anyone's response is addressed to any one of Vlad's posts are there'll never be a rational answer given in return, in fact when in the past I've weakened against my better judgement and tried to have an exchange with Vlad, I have always made sure I'm sitting down before I read his response just in case the response Vlad returns is a sensible one that actually is an answer or a good counter to the original question asked.

Regards to all, including you Vlad.
 

Ippy I only recall exchanges between us on the NSS campaigns to limit religious broadcasting and schooling. I recall those as good debate. If you are now calling disagreement with you as irrational then definitionally you can now only have rational argument with those who agree with you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

[I知 sorry but i知 Sure i知 Being invited to not only keep it in mind but to rank it痴 probability as higher than anything actually being necessary. This of course is a misunderstanding of the word necessary which would then apply to the phenomenon of a universe popping out of nothing.

You've had your "popping out of nothing" straw man corrected several times now. Why then are you repeating it?

If the universe is the necessary being then it would have been necessary to have shown what it is that  popped out of nothing.

Gibberish. All that would be "necessary" would be to propose various hypotheses that are plausible. 

Of course there are huge problems with popping out of nothing...

The first of which is that it's just another of your army of straw men.

...since it would look exactly like creatio ex nihilo.

If anyone proposed it it might "look" like that notwithstanding any underlying physics that could explain it, just as it would look like creation ex nihilo if you tried the same claim for "God".

In other words, trying to answer a "don't know" about the universe with an assertion that answers none of the same questions about itself is a dead end, no matter how much you pray in aid special pleading magic to get you off the same hook.

But then again you know all this already don't you what with it having been explained so often.     

[jeremyp]

I知 sorry but i知 Sure i知 Being invited to not only keep it in mind but to rank it痴 probability as higher than anything actually being necessary.

Your god allegedly popped out of nothing. The stuff he used to make the universe allegedly popped out of nothing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Your god allegedly popped out of nothing. The stuff he used to make the universe allegedly popped out of nothing.

No silly - haven't you been paying attention? Vlad's god is magic you see, so none of that reason and logic stuff applies. We should think ourselves blessed really to have such a great theologian among us to explain this stuff - he starts with "God is magic", and then - er - well, that's all of it really. So, there's no need to ask any questions at all about this God now he's played his ace. "Magic" is the beginning, middle and end of it. Job done. 

What shall we talk about now then?     

[jeremyp]

What shall we talk about now then?   

Where did the magic come from?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Where did the magic come from?

You don't seem to grasp the intellectual heft of Vlad's theological insight - Puff the Magic God just is of course. So there you go - all questions answered by the brilliant device of answering absolutely no questions at all. Genius!

Was there anything else?

[Roses]

jeremy,

You don't seem to grasp the intellectual heft of Vlad's theological insight - Puff the Magic God just is of course. So there you go - all questions answered by the brilliant device of answering absolutely no questions at all. Genius!

Was there anything else?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

You've had your "popping out of nothing" straw man corrected several times now. Why then are you repeating it?

Gibberish. All that would be "necessary" would be to propose various hypotheses that are plausible. 

The first of which is that it's just another of your army of straw men.

If anyone proposed it it might "look" like that notwithstanding any underlying physics that could explain it, just as it would look like creation ex nihilo if you tried the same claim for "God".

In other words, trying to answer a "don't know" about the universe with an assertion that answers none of the same questions about itself is a dead end, no matter how much you pray in aid special pleading magic to get you off the same hook.

But then again you know all this already don't you what with it having been explained so often.   

How can physics have anything to say about something coming from nothing? But were not talking about physics here are we Hillside? no....we are talking about your darling Lawrence Krauss and his bowl of pedigree chum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

You don't seem to grasp the intellectual heft of Vlad's theological insight - Puff the Magic God just is of course. So there you go - all questions answered by the brilliant device of answering absolutely no questions at all. Genius!

Was there anything else?

The necessary entity does not need or have any external explanation. Please provide then what it is in or about the universe which fulfils that criteria. Lane Craig at least has a magician in his scheme.

As for plausible alternatives stop offering contingent entities which are contingent on themselves or anything in nature. Stop turdpolishing the shiteings of Krauss. Stop supporting the ''there may not be a  necessary entity'' bollocks of Nearly Sane.

[Nearly Sane]

The necessary entity does not need or have any external explanation. Please provide then what it is in or about the universe which fulfils that criteria. Lane Craig at least has a magician in his scheme.

As for plausible alternatives stop offering contingent entities which are contingent on themselves or anything in nature. Stop turdpolishing the shiteings of Krauss. Stop supporting the there may not be a  necessary entity bollocks of Nearly Sane.

You mean the challenge to the begging the question fallacy that you haven't dealt with.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your god allegedly popped out of nothing. The stuff he used to make the universe allegedly popped out of nothing.

No, my God is proposed as an eternal entity, Popping out of nothing is a wee Hume-ian dodge.

[Nearly Sane]

No, my God is proposed as an eternal entity, Popping out of nothing is a wee Hume-ian dodge.

which creates an infinite regress and special pleading and logical incoherence. Lot of fail

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean the challenge to the begging the question fallacy that you haven't dealt with.

I hope you mean begging the question about there being a necessary entity. The necessary entity is just the thing which has no external explanation. Be it God, something in the universe or whatever.

Most atheists have no trouble with the idea they don't mind as long as it's unconscious and contingent.

I take it you are prepared to tolerate the popping out of nothing because Hume did.

In terms of an infinite regress delivering anything try it yourself with the infinitely owed ｣5 test.

[Nearly Sane]

I hope you mean begging the question about there being a necessary entity. The necessary entity is just the thing which has no external explanation. Be it God, something in the universe or whatever.

Most atheists have no trouble with the idea they don't mind as long as it's unconscious and contingent.

I take it you are prepared to tolerate the popping out of nothing because Hume did.

In terms of an infinite regress delivering anything try it yourself with the infinitely owed ｣5 test.

You need to demonstrate your claim. You haven't yet again. Failed again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

which creates an infinite regress and special pleading and logical incoherence. Lot of fail

No nobody created God or whatever the necessary being is. Then buck and logical incoherence stops there i'm afraid.
If you state that infinite regress is logically incoherent I would agree. If you say that contingency without necessity isn't i'd have to disagree.

I've noticed a lot of assertion without actual explanation from you.

Which cosmological model do you not find illogical, coherent and not specially plead?

[Nearly Sane]

No nobody created God or whatever the necessary being is. Then buck and logical incoherence stops there i'm afraid.
If you state that infinite regress is logically incoherent I would agree. If you say that contingency without necessity isn't i'd have to disagree.

I've noticed a lot of assertion without actual explanation from you.

Which cosmological model do you not find illogical, coherent and not specially plead?

Nice to see you assert necessity/necessary (terms you use interchangeably which show as ever you don't define terms), as being meaningful. But yet again no demonstration.