God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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, What I am saying is “The necessary entity is the thing on which all contingent things are ultimately dependent on”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

It’s actually “Turdholes, not “Turtles” “Kicking the can” all the way “down the road”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

- there is no evidence that this god is related in any way to the gods of any particular religion
Because being the reason for all things is part of their beliefs.

- 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.

Except why it exists rather than doesn’t exist.

[jeremyp]

Except why it exists rather than doesn’t exist.

Well no, because of the first bullet point. But even if it does exist, we still can't answer the important questions. We don't know anything about it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sounds like you think that is the superior condition

What made you assume that? I don't even know how to judge what is the "superior condition" - what makes a condition superior? Is the "superior condition" what works for the individual or is it what works for society even if it doesn't work for the individual? Is there a superior condition?

I think the question is what is the definition of natural?

Do you mean as opposed to man-made or do you mean part of the natural as opposed to supernatural world? 

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

Do you mean if the "thing" or "things" that caused the universe to come into existence cannot be detected by science or any other method humans can conceive - can we describe those "things" as even existing in the natural world? Or do they only exist as a concept?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The bollocks loom is out again I see.
First of all he made a positive assertion and so has the burden.

Asking you for a coherent definition of what you mean by “God” isn’t a positive assertion.

Secondly, are there complete definitions for anything?

Arguably not, but there are certainly sufficient ones. That’s all you’re being asked for.
 

Things are described and defined and God has been so as many things, creator, prime mover, first cause, necessary being, the universe etc.

You’re writing your god’s CV, not telling us what you think this god is.

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”.

That’s as much as can be said given the current state of knowledge, yes. Your insertion of a god that's also “just is” just relocates the question, but you know this already given the multiple times it’s been explained to you. 

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

No, he’s saying that no sound arguments have been provided. Given your relentless reliance on logical fallacies this shouldn’t be a surprise to you. 

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

All three have been falsified countless times already, only for you to run away from the explanations when they’re given to you. What then would be the point of repeating the exercise?

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

No-one has said that they do. What has been explained to you though is that they’re shit arguments for god. This burden of proof thing really has got you confused still hasn’t it. 

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

For what – your straw man, or the falsifications that have been given to you so many times already? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 Do you mean as opposed to man-made or do you mean part of the natural as opposed to supernatural world?

The latter

Do you mean if the "thing" or "things" that caused the universe to come into existence cannot be detected by science or any other method humans can conceive - can we describe those "things" as even existing in the natural world? Or do they only exist as a concept?

As the philosopher Maxwell Bygraves would say “ I want to tell you a story”. When as a young shaver I disembarked on this forum, me cap set at a jaunty angle and me meagre possessions wrapped up in a spotted hanky, I thought “natural”came under a few philosophical competing cosmologies which were broadly equally reasonable, a creator, popped out of nothing, or always existed. So how did that develop? Popped out of nothing? Of course, how do you actually know they haven’t teleported from somewhere else? We never see it and now of course that when physicists describe a nothing they aren’t actually describing a nothing. So that option cannot be natural. It must be supernatural if it is at all. infinities are done to death, Methodological naturalism cannot, I move pin them down, so they also go into the realm of the supernatural. So now all cosmological solutions seem to be beyond the remit of the natural.

But what of creator arguments?
As usual many thought that they could get round this by proposing a natural creator that might also therefore be the necessary being, but from the off, that also doesn’t  sound very natural. How for example does methodological naturalism pin it down?
Finally, what if it is natural yet it cannot be observed since quantum physics dictates the observed is affected by the observer. An observed precursor then flies in the face of our current understanding of the natural world.
From all this we begin to see how the term natural becomes problematic and the most economic argument is not one that says the universe just is, or it’s an infinite chain of things but that the chain of contingency ends with something which hasn’t failed to exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As the philosopher Maxwell Bygraves would say “ I want to tell you a story”. When as a young shaver I disembarked on this forum, me cap set at a jaunty angle and me meagre possessions wrapped up in a spotted hanky, I thought “natural”came under a few philosophical competing cosmologies which were broadly equally reasonable, a creator, popped out of nothing, or always existed. So how did that develop? Popped out of nothing? Of course, how do you actually know they haven’t teleported from somewhere else? We never see it and now of course that when physicists describe a nothing they aren’t actually describing a nothing. So that option cannot be natural. It must be supernatural if it is at all. infinities are done to death, Methodological naturalism cannot, I move pin them down, so they also go into the realm of the supernatural. So now all cosmological solutions seem to be beyond the remit of the natural.

But what of creator arguments?
As usual many thought that they could get round this by proposing a natural creator that might also therefore be the necessary being, but from the off, that also doesn’t  sound very natural. How for example does methodological naturalism pin it down?
Finally, what if it is natural yet it cannot be observed since quantum physics dictates the observed is affected by the observer. An observed precursor then flies in the face of our current understanding of the natural world.
From all this we begin to see how the term natural becomes problematic and the most economic argument is not one that says the universe just is, or it’s an infinite chain of things but that the chain of contingency ends with something which hasn’t failed to exist.

Absolute dog's breakfast of reasoning there. If I had any reason to think you'd actually try at least to address honestly the falsifications if I gave them to you again I'd do it but, given your behaviour here, what would be the point?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Absolute dog's breakfast of reasoning there. If I had any reason to think you'd actually try at least to address honestly the falsifications if I gave them to you again I'd do it but, given your behaviour here, what would be the point?   

All you need Do is to cite them giving the reference Hillside.......Inability to explain nicely turdpolished though.

To be charitable to you maybe this is a bit like when there’s a crime and nobody has phoned the police because they think someone else has.

You think someone else has debunked these ideas so no one has.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

All you need Do is to cite them giving the reference Hillside.......Inability to explain nicely turdpolished though.

To be charitable to you maybe this is a bit like when there’s a crime and nobody has phoned the police because they think someone else has.

You think someone else has debunked these ideas so no one has.

Your attempts at reasoning are all false. They're all false for the reasons that have been explained to you over and over and over again, only for you to run away from the explanations, straw man them, distract from them etc. Tell you what: you pick whichever you think is the strongest argument you have and I'll dismantle it for you on condition you agree to address the falsification honestly when it's given to you.

Deal?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I thought “natural”came under a few philosophical competing cosmologies which were broadly equally reasonable, a creator, popped out of nothing, or always existed. So how did that develop? Popped out of nothing? Of course, how do you actually know they haven’t teleported from somewhere else? We never see it and now of course that when physicists describe a nothing they aren’t actually describing a nothing.

Are you referring to this? https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

So that option cannot be natural. It must be supernatural if it is at all.

What do you mean by "it cannot be natural"? From my link - "There are lots of things in science that are impossible to get any intuitive handle on, but that doesn't mean they don't exist," Krauss said.

How does anyone decide that a concept is supernatural and not natural? 

But what of creator arguments?
As usual many thought that they could get round this by proposing a natural creator that might also therefore be the necessary being, but from the off, that also doesn’t  sound very natural. How for example does methodological naturalism pin it down?
Finally, what if it is natural yet it cannot be observed since quantum physics dictates the observed is affected by the observer. An observed precursor then flies in the face of our current understanding of the natural world.
From all this we begin to see how the term natural becomes problematic and the most economic argument is not one that says the universe just is, or it’s an infinite chain of things but that the chain of contingency ends with something which hasn’t failed to exist.

You're suggesting a single uncaused cause per Occam’s razor?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you referring to this? https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.htmlWhat do you mean by "it cannot be natural"? From my link - "There are lots of things in science that are impossible to get any intuitive handle on, but that doesn't mean they don't exist," Krauss said.

How does anyone decide that a concept is supernatural and not natural? 
You're suggesting a single uncaused cause per Occam’s razor?

That's a good question, my own guideline is, is it amenable to methodological naturalism or is it outside it.

Yes I suppose I am suggesting a single final entity as per the razor.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's a good question, my own guideline is, is it amenable to methodological naturalism or is it outside it.

Yes I suppose I am suggesting a single final entity as per the razor.

Occam's razor gives you the opposite conclusion to "a single final entity". Try to work out for yourself why that's the case. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Occam's razor gives you the opposite conclusion to "a single final entity". Try to work out for yourself why that's the case.

The temptation to treat the universe as a single entity is certainly beguiling, and an obvious trap for you Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The temptation to treat the universe as a single entity is certainly beguiling, and an obvious trap for you Hillside.

No it isn't, and you're still screwing up Occam's razor.

Occam’s razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power (ie,“the universe is its own explanation” vs “the universe-creator is its own explanation”), one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions.

The hypothesis “universe creator” requires more assumptions (ie, the supposed creator itself) than the hypothesis that’s just “the universe”. QED 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn't, and you're still screwing up Occam's razor.

Occam’s razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses and both hypotheses have equal explanatory power (ie,“the universe is its own explanation” vs “the universe-creator is its own explanation”), one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions.

The hypothesis “universe creator” requires more assumptions (ie, the supposed creator itself) than the hypothesis that’s just “the universe”. QED

Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists....
It exists.

Have another go. First of all as I said you are treating the universe as an it, a single entity when it is a collection of entities some of which no longer exist and some which have yet to.

Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.

Finally the argument from contingency merely states that contingent things need to be accounted for, in other words to claim they don't introduces an unnecessary complication

[jeremyp]

Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists....
It exists.

But that's exactly your argument for why God exists.

Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.

Yes and the difference between "the Universe just exists" and "the Universe exists because God and God just exists" is that the latter adds one entity with no further explanatory power. Hence we should prefer the former.

[Outrider]

Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists.... It exists.

If reality is infinite, what would you be looking for as a 'reason' or cause?

First of all as I said you are treating the universe as an it, a single entity when it is a collection of entities some of which no longer exist and some which have yet to.

Is it? Or is the universe a thing, which manifests other things as a facet of its nature? Aren't you the one who's usually so vocally opposed to the 'absurdity of reductionism'?

Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.

So I have an infinite universe, why is a cosmic wizard necessary?

Finally the argument from contingency merely states that contingent things need to be accounted for, in other words to claim they don't introduces an unnecessary complication

The argument from contingency just asks you switch your implicit faith from the existence of a god to accepting that the nature of a god is to be non-contingent - it's still an argument from faith.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But that's exactly your argument for why God exists.
Yes and the difference between "the Universe just exists" and "the Universe exists because God and God just exists" is that the latter adds one entity with no further explanatory power. Hence we should prefer the former.

Again, you are making the same error of having the universe as a single entity. It is in fact several entities so, not the same argument since you have to explain how the many quite literally become one.
I suspect you are thinking maths where 2-1 somehow becomes 1 whereas in physical reality there would be still be three entities.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again, you are making the same error of having the universe as a single entity. It is in fact several entities so, not the same argument since you have to explain how the many quite literally become one.

But isn't your god also supposed to be formed of different parts too Vlad - so will also fall foul of your very own 'several entities' challenge.

Notwithstanding my fundamental disagreement that there must be some single 'necessary entity' (see my networks and non-unilinear time arguments on previous thread), your challenge fails to overcome Occam as addition another step that the universe is dependent on adds unnecessary complexity unless you can argue (which you have failed to do) that it is 'necessary'.

[jeremyp]

Again, you are making the same error of having the universe as a single entity.

Doesn't matter how many entities there are in the Universe, your hypothesis adds God to them without adding any further explanatory power.

It is in fact several entities so, not the same argument since you have to explain how the many quite literally become one.
I suspect you are thinking maths where 2-1 somehow becomes 1 whereas in physical reality there would be still be three entities.

As a person who wants us to believe 3 = 1, I think you are in a glass house, so you need to put down the stones.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But isn't your god also supposed to be formed of different parts too Vlad - so will also fall foul of your very own 'several entities' challenge.

Notwithstanding my fundamental disagreement that there must be some single 'necessary entity' (see my networks and non-unilinear time arguments on previous thread), your challenge fails to overcome Occam as addition another step that the universe is dependent on adds unnecessary complexity unless you can argue (which you have failed to do) that it is 'necessary'.

No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.
I don’t think the term parts has been part and parcel of theological language. In any case, that is no counter argument to a single final entity according to the razor.

Again, you are treating the universe as a single entity. It is a collection of entities which seem to be contingent unless of course you find a necessary component. Your networks and non linear time failed to rule out things being responsible for their own creation as far as I could tell which is almost but not quite a statement of necessity but doesn’t account for periods of non existence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dear me, another bollocks weaver.
"Here's my hypothesis for why the universe exists....
It exists.

Two balls ups there:

1. No-one proposes “just is” as a hypothesis for why (or how) the universe exists. It’s just the statement that that’s all that can be said about it given the current state of knowledge.
 
2. “Just is” is also your position about your (supposed) god remember?

Have another go.

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/dunning-kruger-effect

First of all as I said you are treating the universe as an it, a single entity when it is a collection of entities some of which no longer exist and some which have yet to.

No I’m not, and it’s irrelevant in any case. “The universe just is” requires only the universe. “God just is” requires “God” + the universe. That’s why Occam’s razor undoes you.   

Secondly the razor doesn't just say don't multiply entities but entities beyond necessity.

But you have no argument to indicate that your faith belief “God” isn’t beyond what’s necessary for the Universe’s existence remember?

Finally the argument from contingency merely states that contingent things need to be accounted for, in other words to claim they don't introduces an unnecessary complication

And the fallacy of composition tells you that you cannot just assume that the universe is contingent on something else.

Epic fail there Vlad, even by your dismal standards.

By the way, I offered to dismantle any argument for your god of your choosing on condition you agreed finally to respond honestly to the falsification I give you. I notice that you haven’t taken up the offer – presumably because the prospect of responding honestly to anything is too daunting for you?   

[Gordon]

No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.

What about the 'father, son and holy ghost' assertion? After all, according to the rumours, one of them was distinctly physical.

I don’t think the term parts has been part and parcel of theological language.

Perhaps you are taking 'theological language' a tad too seriously.

In any case, that is no counter argument to a single final entity according to the razor.

You clearly don't understand the 'razor', or fallacies in general.

Again, you are treating the universe as a single entity. It is a collection of entities which seem to be contingent unless of course you find a necessary component. Your networks and non linear time failed to rule out things being responsible for their own creation as far as I could tell which is almost but not quite a statement of necessity but doesn’t account for periods of non existence.

Until you can actually demonstrate, and explain, why and how this necessary creator/agent is it's own cause (as in 'it just is), then all you are doing is thrashing about 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'. Have you considered that the question of 'why' the universe exists is unknowable, as things stand, and that even presuming there is a 'why' may well be an invalid stance.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence.

Unevidenced assertion.

This is your problem Vlad - you state, as objective fact, things which are unevidenced assertions and therefore no more than your subjective opinion. And then try to shoe-horn your subjective opinion into a broader logic argument. That doesn't work - if you want to claim that 'God is not physical and therefore cannot have limbs, or members or mechanical parts of independent existence', then the onus is on you to provide the evidence for that claim or, surprise surprise, the rest of us will simply ignore it.