God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You might think grovelling self-abasement and the abandonment of personal responsibility to an imaginary sky fairy reflects well on you, but I don’t.

My, it looks as though you are itching to get something off your chest.
You don’t strike me as a grovelling self abaser. Do you feel you have to do that to get right with God?Some react like that at repentance and some don’t. Do you feel compelled toward doing that? No one would spot that in the comfort of your own home.

You do ask IME for apology quite a bit when your rather performative atheism is pushed back on.
Why do you insist on that? Don’t you think that’s some kind of need on your part?

Abandonment of personal responsibility? No one can do that. You might make a kind of atheists wager that if nobody finds out the only one who knows of your personal responsibility is you.

A Christian, of course doesn’t believe that and is aware of his personal responsibility in a very real way, not just intellectually.

How does your sense of personal responsibility chime with your views on argument from consequences? You don’t want to avoid personal responsibility, just the consequences?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My, it looks as though you are itching to get something off your chest.
You don’t strike me as a grovelling self abaser. Do you feel you have to do that to get right with God?Some react like that at repentance and some don’t. Do you feel compelled toward doing that? No one would spot that in the comfort of your own home.

You do ask IME for apology quite a bit when your rather performative atheism is pushed back on.
Why do you insist on that? Don’t you think that’s some kind of need on your part?

Abandonment of personal responsibility? No one can do that. You might make a kind of atheists wager that if nobody finds out the only one who knows of your personal responsibility is you.

A Christian, of course doesn’t believe that and is aware of his personal responsibility in a very real way, not just intellectually.

How does your sense of personal responsibility chime with your views on argument from consequences? You don’t want to avoid personal responsibility, just the consequences?

Presumably this half-witted gibberish means something to you? In any case, you were the one who said “As I have said before the Bible could be stripped of everything apart from the idea that we are all sinners in need of a saviour”, presumably approvingly.

No, we’re not “all sinners”, and some of us have enough self-respect not to feel the craven need for “a saviour” so we can offload onto someone else responsibility for our own behaviour. You on the other hand...       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



You’ve yet to explain why a universe that consists of components

There, there's your issue. You want something to be several different things and a single thing at the same time.
That cannot be, physically, at least possible. At best it's mystical thinking since several objects cannot simultaneously be one object. The whole is really the sum. At worst it's woo or dodgy accounting.

Further to this you know that further questions remain over a composite.  Here's one of several unvisited questions, at what number does a collection of contingent things become one single necessary thing?

You know all along that there are questions raised by a composite universe and yet you are happy that they are arbitrarily cut of by the statement "The universe just is, an there's an end to it."

These are the multitudinous questions YOU run away from.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There, there's your issue. You want something to be several different things and a single thing at the same time.

I don’t "want" it to be - it is.

That cannot be, physically, at least possible. At best it's mystical thinking since several objects cannot simultaneously be one object. The whole is really the sum. At worst it's woo or dodgy accounting.

Utter bollocks. A cricket match is a “thing” - that thing is called "a cricket match". It’s also something else - ie, lots of spectators and some players participating or watching the sport of cricket. 

If one spectator stands up moreover, he gets a better view. If all the spectators stand up on the other hand, no-one gets a better view. Thus you cannot assume that a property or characteristic of part of a larger entity must also be a property or characteristic of the larger entity itself.     

This is your fallacy of composition mistake – you just assume that the fact of contingent parts of the universe means that the universe itself must also be contingent on something else.

No matter how many times you’re asked to justify this assertion though, instead you just prevaricate, distract or run away. 

Why?

Further to this you know that further questions remain over a composite.  Here's one of several unvisited questions, at what number does a collection of contingent things become one single necessary thing?

Irrelevant. You’re the one claiming that the universe must be contingent on something ele remember. So it’s your job to justify your claim.   

You know all along that there are questions raised by a composite universe and yet you are happy that they are arbitrarily cut of by the statement "The universe just is, an there's an end to it."

Oh dear. Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions about the universe – of course there are. Unfortunately though our current state of knowledge means we cannot answer them, so “the universe just is” merely tells us where the limit of our knowledge lies. It’s not intended to be a hypotheses - just an accurate description of the current state of play.     

These are the multitudinous questions YOU run away from.

Lying isn’t helping you here. Can YOU justify YOUR claim “the universe consists of contingent part, therefore the universe is also contingent” without falling into the fallacy of composition or can’t you? 

I think we all know the answer to that now don’t we…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I don’t "want" it to be - it is.

Utter bollocks. A cricket match is a “thing” - that thing is called "a cricket match". It’s also something else - ie, lots of spectators and some players participating or watching the sport of cricket. 

If one spectator stands up moreover, he gets a better view. If all the spectators stand up on the other hand, no-one gets a better view. Thus you cannot assume that a property or characteristic of part of a larger entity must also be a property or characteristic of the larger entity itself.     

This is your fallacy of composition mistake – you just assume that the fact of contingent parts of the universe means that the universe itself must also be contingent on something else.

No matter how many times you’re asked to justify this assertion though, instead you just prevaricate, distract or run away. 

Why?

Irrelevant. You’re the one claiming that the universe must be contingent on something ele remember. So it’s your job to justify your claim.   

Oh dear. Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions about the universe – of course there are. Unfortunately though our current state of knowledge means we cannot answer them, so “the universe just is” merely tells us where the limit of our knowledge lies. It’s not intended to be a hypotheses - just an accurate description of the current state of play.     

Lying isn’t helping you here. Can YOU justify YOUR claim “the universe consists of contingent part, therefore the universe is also contingent” without falling into the fallacy of composition or can’t you? 

I think we all know the answer to that now don’t we…

Same issue a game of cricket is contingent not because it’s components are contingent but because it is contingent on it’s components.

Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.

By your logic a game of cricket could be the necessary entity.

[Nearly Sane]

Same issue a game of cricket is contingent not because it’s components are contingent but because it is contingent on it’s components.

Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.

By your logic a game of cricket could be the necessary entity.

It's its

[Steve H]

It's its

He's been told that dozens of times, but always gets it wrong.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's its

You're right, and it's your right to say so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Same issue a game of cricket is contingent not because it’s components are contingent but because it is contingent on it’s components.

It’s not “contingent on its components” at all. It happens to have the components it has, and would look different if it had different components. That does not though imply that the universe as a whole must therefore be contingent of something other than itself, which is your fallacy of composition mistake.   

Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.

It would help if you stopped lying about this. Lots of things can be defined as their whole, as their sub-structures, as their sub-sub-structures etc. A car for example can be described as “a car”. It can also be described as “an assembly of engine, gearbox, clutch, brakes” etc. It can also be described as “an assembly of springs, nuts, bolts, wiring” etc. You might think this to be “magical thinking”, bit you’d struggle to find a car mechanic who agrees with you. Or indeed to find anyone capable of basic reasoning who agrees with you.       

By your logic a game of cricket could be the necessary entity.

Wrong again. I can reason that a game of cricket is contingent on other causes, but my reasoning does NOT depend on the observation that a spectator gets a better view if he stands up.   

This is your repeated fallacy of composition screw up. You draw an inference from the universe being made of contingent parts to the universe itself necessarily being contingent on something other than itself. In response you endlessly deflect with “but the universe is contingent on its parts” as if that in some way had anything at all to say to your reasoning that the universe must also therefore be contingent on something other than itself.

So, and yet again: do you have any argument at all to justify your assertion that the universe must be contingent on something other than itself that isn’t the fallacy of composition?

Something?

Anything?

No?...

…thought not. Ah well. Game over then. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It's its

Vlad has poor literacy skills, but I tend to think it's a bit gittish to correct him provided I can discern what I think he's trying to say. The problem comes though when his thoughts are so jumbled that he collapses into alphabet soup, so there's no telling what thoughts he even thinks he's expressing. I have suggested he try reviewing his efforts before hitting "post", but to little or no avail.         

[jeremyp]

Again you want, either by magical thinking want several things to be one single thing at the same time, or by sleight of hand.

Bugger. My irony meter just overloaded again.

You need to get some self awareness Mr Threeisone.

[Outrider]

There, there's your issue. You want something to be several different things and a single thing at the same time.
That cannot be, physically, at least possible. At best it's mystical thinking since several objects cannot simultaneously be one object. The whole is really the sum. At worst it's woo or dodgy accounting.

Further to this you know that further questions remain over a composite.  Here's one of several unvisited questions, at what number does a collection of contingent things become one single necessary thing?

You know all along that there are questions raised by a composite universe and yet you are happy that they are arbitrarily cut of by the statement "The universe just is, an there's an end to it."

These are the multitudinous questions YOU run away from.

Speaking of 'unvisited questions'....

Which 'we' is this, Batman? Christian doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it - sometimes there are three entities, sometimes there's one, and when the contradiction gets called out it gets hand-waved away to avoid the realisation that you have a polytheistic religion before we ever get anywhere near Satan (who's not a deity, he's an angel, which is a divine supernatural being like God, but different because obvs.) and the angels (likewise because reasons), and saints (who are totally not demigods, honest).

So despite the claims, then, Jesus was entirely God when he was on Earth, knew exactly what was going on, knew he wasn't really properly dying (just taking a rest weekend) and was having a schizophrenic discourse with himself trying to decide what the hell he'd been thinking when he was hanging around (pun intended) on the cross?

Ah. So God doesn't actually exist, so you can claim anything you like?

If you can make Set A a subset of Set B and also make Set B a subset of Set A let me know, I'll come and watch you collect your Fields Medal.

I see, so 'parts' of this indivisible (because it's 'necessary' and therefore not a composite) thing are within another part of the indivisible single thing that has no components? You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify an obvious contradiction. It makes no sense, no matter how you try to parse it, it's riddled with mutually exclusive claims which only persist because there's nothing there to actually test or examine to see if one or the other is correct.

O.

[Sassy]

If you mean Christianity, then I agree: Christianity makes no sense whatsoever.

So why has the bible lasted all this time. Why have men through history clung to the faith in God it promotes?
Sorry Gordon, I honestly cannot see any truth in your point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

So why has the bible lasted all this time. Why have men through history clung to the faith in God it promotes?
Sorry Gordon, I honestly cannot see any truth in your point.

This is why:

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

[Sassy]

Sassy,

This is why:

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

Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?

A plane does as it is created to do, But it needs someone to fly it.  That person has to have the skills which God has given them the ability to learn.

Was it a red herring to catch me out some way?  Having answers is about taking into account what we know about God and the world. The answers are in the bible could be a true saying for alot of things.

Imagine judgement day when all your answers fail and all that is left is God and the truth. We have to know and test all things/

[Maeght]

Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?

No, that isn't what is being done there.

[jeremyp]

Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?

A plane does as it is created to do, But it needs someone to fly it.  That person has to have the skills which God has given them the ability to learn.

Was it a red herring to catch me out some way?  Having answers is about taking into account what we know about God and the world. The answers are in the bible could be a true saying for alot of things.

Imagine judgement day when all your answers fail and all that is left is God and the truth. We have to know and test all things/

No, I think the point is that there been many holy books of many religions. Christianity and the Bible is just one of the few to still be with us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

Are you really comparing and inanimate object to a animate person?

You’re missing the point – lots of things survive when others have fallen by the wayside. It’s a mistake in reasoning though to think that because the Bible is one of them so it must be divinely written or inspired. There are many possible reasons for the survival of the Bible (as there are for other “holy” texts that have also survived) that have nothing to do with a supposedly divine involvement.     

A plane does as it is created to do, But it needs someone to fly it.  That person has to have the skills which God has given them the ability to learn.

Irrelevant, and a blind faith assertion to boot.

Was it a red herring to catch me out some way?

No, it was just an explanation of your reasoning error. It still is.

Having answers is about taking into account what we know about God and the world. The answers are in the bible could be a true saying for alot of things.

No it isn’t. If you want to argue for that, then you need to demonstrate God’s existence first. I may as well say, “Having answers is about taking into account what we know about leprechauns and the world. The answers are in the Book of Leprechaunology could be a true saying for a lot of things”. You don't know anything about "God" because you can't demonstrate this supposed god's existence to begin with.     

Imagine judgement day when all your answers fail and all that is left is God and the truth. We have to know and test all things/

Another blind faith claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s not “contingent on its components” at all. It happens to have the components it has, and would look different if it had different components. That does not though imply that the universe as a whole must therefore be contingent of something other than itself, which is your fallacy of composition mistake.

Without it’s components, there is no universe....unless you are suggesting the universe is MORE than the sum of its components.
Also, unless you are specially pleading, in your logic, any ensemble might be the necessary entity

It would help if you stopped lying about this. Lots of things can be defined as their whole, as their sub-structures, as their sub-sub-structures etc. A car for example can be described as “a car”. It can also be described as “an assembly of engine, gearbox, clutch, brakes” etc. It can also be described as “an assembly of springs, nuts, bolts, wiring” etc. You might think this to be “magical thinking”, bit you’d struggle to find a car mechanic who agrees with you. Or indeed to find anyone capable of basic reasoning who agrees with you.

A car is contingent on it’s parts so I don’t understand why you are flying it again. Is it stubbornness, or some kind of incapacity or gaslighting I wonder?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bugger. My irony meter just overloaded again.

You need to get some self awareness Mr Threeisone.

Let’s start with the universe and see whether that several quadrillionisone is a better prospect than God being three in one.

First of all the entities in the universe can exist separately from another since precursor entities, may not exist anymore.

In the case of the trinity, none of ‘members’ have independent existence.

There are lots of analogies...God being actually three totally independently existing Father, Son and Holy Spirit being the poorest to the point of error.

Again although I dispute the necessity of the universe, I can ask and do ask you once again Jeremy, what is it about the totality of existence which is necessary and not contingent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sassy,

This is why:

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

Survivorship bias is studying survivors rather than failures. You haven’t as far as I can see discussed any reason why other religions have failed.

[Steve H]

... the sum of its components...

By George, he's got it!

...it’s parts...

Damn.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By George, he's got it!Damn.

Ha ha, that one was for you Steve.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Without it’s components, there is no universe....unless you are suggesting the universe is MORE than the sum of its components.
Also, unless you are specially pleading, in your logic, any ensemble might be the necessary entity

A car is contingent on it’s parts so I don’t understand why you are flying it again. Is it stubbornness, or some kind of incapacity or gaslighting I wonder?

I dealt with this idiocy back in Reply 433, so I don’t know why you’ve just repeated it.

Yet again: you rely on the universe consisting of contingent parts (which may or may not be true by the way) to justify your assertion that the universe itself must therefore be contingent on something other than itself. And that’s called the fallacy of composition.

Do you or do you not have an argument other than the fallacy of composition to justify your assertion that the universe necessarily is contingent on something other than itself?

Put up or shut up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Survivorship bias is studying survivors rather than failures. You haven’t as far as I can see discussed any reason why other religions have failed.

Why should I? Sassy asserted that her faith’s success meant the Bible must be divinely written or inspired. That’s called the survivorship fallacy. QED

If it helps you, no faiths have failed (and therefore someone else of limited reasoning ability could also conclude that their various gods are real) right up until the moment that they do fail, get replaced etc. Can you see the problem now?