God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because there isn't a logically coherent definition of what to start looking for

Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,

[Gordon]

Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,

Stop being silly: you really are quite dense it seems, if after all this time you still can't grasp that when it comes to a definition of 'God' the burden of proof falls on you 'God' enthusiast guys. To point out that there is no logically coherent definition of 'God' is not a positive assertion: it is a critique of the failure of you guys to provide a definition that stands scrutiny.

You know what you must do now - which is produce a logically coherent definition of 'God', and then the rest of us can check if it out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop being silly: you really are quite dense it seems, if after all this time you still can't grasp that when it comes to a definition of 'God' the burden of proof falls on you 'God' enthusiast guys. To point out that there is no logically coherent definition of 'God' is not a positive assertion: it is a critique of the failure of you guys to provide a definition that stands scrutiny.
A
You know what you must do now - which is produce a logically coherent definition of 'God', and then the rest of us can check if it out.

The bollocks loom is out again I see.
First of all he made a positive assertion and so has the burden.
Secondly, are there complete definitions for anything?
Things are described and defined and God has been so as many things, creator, prime mover, first cause, necessary being, the universe etc.

The trouble is when scrutinised on your so called scrutiny, it seems that it was a past, uncitable event.
I believe the most recent effort was  “The universe just is”.

You seem to be arguing that no argument has been provided and that this argument is incoherent.

So to help you I will put some arguments in front of you and it should be easy for you to show where the fallacy lies.

Moral argument
Kalamaz Cosmological Argument
Argument from contingency

I would also invite you to state why the following definitively rule God out
Fallacy of composition
Ontological argument
Teleological argument

As I say going on what you say. You should easily be able to demonstrate this or make citations.

[Gordon]

Do your own homework, Vlad: there is a wealth of material on fallacies and rebuttals of certain arguments you can study, including any number of posts made in this wee message board.

It isn't my job to correct your naivety, especially since you have already been the recipient of so much corrective advice for so long.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do your own homework, Vlad: there is a wealth of material on fallacies and rebuttals of certain arguments you can study, including any number of posts made in this wee message board.

It isn't my job to correct your naivety, especially since you have already been the recipient of so much corrective advice for so long.

So no immediate progress on backing your claim of showing incoherence.

[Outrider]

Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,

Ask for a coherent definition. I've done that, I'm still waiting. Crack on, though, crack on.

O.

[Gordon]

So no immediate progress on backing your claim of showing incoherence.

I refer the honourable gentleman to content of his own posts.

'God' is your claim: not mine, and therefore the coherence, or lack of it, of a definition of 'God' is a matter for you and not me. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...the honourable gentleman

That’s progress of sorts I suppose.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Secondly, are there complete definitions for anything?
Things are described and defined and God has been so as many things, creator, prime mover, first cause, necessary being, the universe etc.

How do you search for a prime mover or first cause...what methods do you use that will identify that something is the first mover and prime cause? As opposed to you thinking about the concept and putting ideas about what you need onto it as wishful thinking? 

If there is no method to identify the first mover and prime cause, why would other people bother trying to search for it when they don't feel a need to look for or find a first mover or prime cause?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you search for a prime mover or first cause...what methods do you use that will identify that something is the first mover and prime cause? As opposed to you thinking about the concept and putting ideas about what you need onto it as wishful thinking? 

If there is no method to identify the first mover and prime cause, why would other people bother trying to search for it when they don't feel a need to look for or find a first mover or prime cause?

You can have theism without first mover and first cause, if somehow you remove the idea of a first anything, there remains the idea of the fundemental. The argument from contingency need not mention time then.

I believe it was Nearly Sane who said the religious do not in general place their faith chiefly in intellectual arguments and I agree.

But look at it this way, what are the implications for God if there were a prime mover or first Cause and it wasn’t God?

Does abandoning argument and conceding ground which others merely assume they command equate to “better faith” though? No, I don’t believe it does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ask for a coherent definition. I've done that, I'm still waiting. Crack on, though, crack on.

O.

The thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on.

[Steve H]

a

Because there isn't a logically coherent definition of what to start looking for

Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,

It's a negative assertion! You obviously understand the burden of proof about as well as you d the difference between "its" and "it's", something else you've been corrected over many times but keep getting wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Positive assertion. You know what you have to do,
It's a negative assertion! You obviously understand the burden of proof about as well as you d the difference between "its" and "it's", something else you've been corrected over many times but keep getting wrong.

Keep up, the assertion is that all definitions for God are incoherent.

[Steve H]

Keep up, the assertion is that all definitions for God are incoherent.

So the burden of prof is on you to provide a logically coherent definition.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You can have theism without first mover and first cause, if somehow you remove the idea of a first anything, there remains the idea of the fundemental. The argument from contingency need not mention time then.

I believe it was Nearly Sane who said the religious do not in general place their faith chiefly in intellectual arguments and I agree.

I would agree with you - my faith isn't based on intellectual arguments. I also don't worry about it as humans are a mix of intellect and emotion and in many of my closest relationships I have made far better decisions that worked out well for me and the other person when I let my emotion lead over my intellect.

I think many people have no emotional or intellectual need for exploring a "fundamental".

But look at it this way, what are the implications for God if there were a prime mover or first Cause and it wasn’t God?

Depends on your definitions of "God" and "prime mover" and "first cause". On this thread about the supernatural, how would we even identify a non-natural "prime mover" or "first cause". I think I know what you mean by the concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" or "fundamental" of a natural world. With the supernatural anything is possible. We are part of the natural world, made up of emotion and intellect, and we do not have a way of investigating supernatural concepts - other than thinking about them. I don't have a need to go any further than thinking about it.

Does abandoning argument and conceding ground which others merely assume they command equate to “better faith” though? No, I don’t believe it does.

I agree with you that there is a point to discussion - I enjoy coming on here - the more we discuss and explore the concepts intellectually - the combination of thinking about this stuff and also connecting emotionally to the concepts by practising my faith, the happier and grounded I feel.

In terms of arguments, you seem to be arguing that there is a possibility and others have agreed that anything is possible. Without a method to investigate the possibility, not sure intellectual arguments can progress any further?

[Gordon]

The thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on.

Doesn't work, Vlad: the 'thing' you mention here in this premise is just code for 'God', reads as the same as your implied conclusion of 'therefore God'.

So you're begging the question here (a fallacy).

[Steve H]

If Walt had a dramatic epiphany, and realised he was wrong about something with a sharp intake of breath, would he become Vlad the Inhaler?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Doesn't work, Vlad: the 'thing' you mention here in this premise is just code for 'God', reads as the same as your implied conclusion of 'therefore God'.

So you're begging the question here (a fallacy).

”Therefore God” isn’t actually in the formulation. In the argument from contingency, just a necessary entity is arrived at. Aquinas then says “and this we call God” not “therefore God”.

If you finally agree that a necessary entity is not logically incoherent then that’s progress.

All you now have to do is say how it is compatible with atheism and incompatible with theism.

[Gordon]

”Therefore God” isn’t actually in the formulation. In the argument from contingency, just a necessary entity is arrived at. Aquinas then says “and this we call God” not “therefore God”.

It's implied - what I think you're, in effect, saying is "'God' is the thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on - therefore 'God'", which is circular.

If you finally agree that a necessary entity is not logically incoherent then that’s progress.

But I don't agree with that.

All you now have to do is say how it is compatible with atheism and incompatible with theism.

No I don't: the 'necessary entity' thing is your schtick: not mine.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you finally agree that a necessary entity is not logically incoherent then that’s progress.

Not sure what you mean by logically coherent? Do you mean it's a possibility?

There is also the possibility that there is not a singular thing - because there is the possibility of  multiple uncaused things appearing at the same time.

All you now have to do is say how it is compatible with atheism and incompatible with theism.

Do you agree that theism is compatible with multiple uncaused things?

[Outrider]

The thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on.

You've still failed to demonstrate there is such a thing.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think many people have no emotional or intellectual need for exploring a "fundamental".

Sounds like you think that is the superior condition

Depends on your definitions of "God" and "prime mover" and "first cause". On this thread about the supernatural, how would we even identify a non-natural "prime mover" or "first cause". I think I know what you mean by the concept of a "prime mover" or "first cause" or "fundamental" of a natural world. With the supernatural anything is possible. We are part of the natural world, made up of emotion and intellect, and we do not have a way of investigating supernatural concepts - other than thinking about them. I don't have a need to go any further than thinking about it.

I think the question is what is the definition of natural? Can then, something which is the prime mover or first cause, fit in with the definition of natural since they are, by definition unique.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've still failed to demonstrate there is such a thing.

O.

Depends what you mean by demonstrate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure what you mean by logically coherent?

The term logical incoherence was introduced earlier on and not by me so I’m unsure why an explanation is encumbant on me. Logical coherence is a chain in which there are no false statements and/ or explanatory gaps and/ or irrelevant

So an infinite chain of events is coherent but doesn’t arguably answer the question why something and not nothing for example.

That contingency is satisfied by having a necessary entity which is not itself contingent satisfies the issue of contingency in a way that leaving it unsatisfied does not.

[jeremyp]

It's implied - what I think you're, in effect, saying is "'God' is the thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on - therefore 'God'", which is circular.

No, it isn't circular, it is merely providing a definition for "God", so perhaps a tautology.

Unfortunately, this definition has a number of problems amongst which are:

- how do we know there is a necessary thing on which all contingent things are dependent? It could be turtles all the way down.

- there is no evidence that this god is related in any way to the gods of any particular religion

- it tells us nothing about the nature of God, which means it doesn't really answer any of the questions we have about the origin of the Universe.