Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Nearly Sane]

No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..

No, and they argued against that assertion, and challenged your view. Lying is your base programming

[Walt Zingmatilder]

FFS grow up!

Not only did he not actually use that phrase, it wouldn't mean a non-composite anyway. You never managed to come up with a coherent and logical explanation of a 'necessary entity' or why it couldn't be composite or any of the other things you made up about it.

As I said, the whole argument is bollocks.

Anyone can see from bluehillsides quote, that, er, he talks about the universe as an "Itself" in other words a unitary entity.

Also he says I am making the fallacy of composition. I. E I am saying that because the parts of the universe are contingent, the universe is contingent.

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is the universe is a composite...and that on it's own is why it is contingent.In other words even a universe made of necessary entities would be a composite and contingent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, and they argued against that assertion, and challenged your view. Lying is your base programming

When they are next here I shall put it to them if they think the universe is a unitary entity or not.

[Nearly Sane]

When they are next here I shall put it to them if they think the universe is a unitary entity or not.

what is a unitary entity?

[Stranger]

Anyone can see from bluehillsides quote, that, er, he talks about the universe as an "Itself" in other words a unitary entity.

Moronic idiocy. I could refer to the "UK itself", that wouldn't mean that I think it doesn't have parts.

Also he says I am making the fallacy of composition. I. E I am saying that because the parts of the universe are contingent, the universe is contingent.

Which directly contradicts your idiocy above. You can't have the fallacy of composition for something that doesn't have parts.

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is the universe is a composite...and that on it's own is why it is contingent.In other words even a universe made of necessary entities would be a composite and contingent.

Yes, we know that's what you're saying, the problem is that is just your own made up fantasy with no justification for any of it.

Please try to get this into your head: I don't accept that there can be such a thing as a necessary entity because you have totally failed to make a case for it. Hence, anything you claim about such an entity is irrelevant.

[Outrider]

There is alas for your argument, things which don't apply to me.

Because? You've apparently got some sort of insider knowledge as to which pieces you think apply and which don't - are they just your own moral judgements, in which case my moral judgement to ignore the whole thing as a bad fairy tale is equally valid - or you think there's some sort of authority to refer to on which bits are true and which bits aren't.

There is an instance of God showing who laws apply to and who they don't in the vision of St Peter.

Which is also in the book that you've not explained how I should select from to identify truth and nonsense.

You sound then if you need reminding about the division of the Bible into the Law, the prophets, poetry and proverb and that's the Old testament, and then there is the new testament.

You sound like you need reminding that I don't accept any of it, you're the one that's trying to justify using parts of it, but only parts of it. You can lay claim to bits that are law and bits that are poetry, but given that those decisions seem to be based on whether you like a particular piece of content or not I find that questionable.

Collectively the OT and New Testament is information needed for Salvation since the laws themselves do not save.

That sounds like an extortion racket - do this or you'll need saving...

So I am not compelled to hate those who hate me, I am not compelled to settle for slavery or misogyny or to hate those who hate me, in fact the opposite. I think I have said before the least we need,imho to remain of the Bible is the part that says we need salvation and Jesus provides it and at the end of the day it's that, that really offends people.

Do the slavers need salvation if the only bad things they did were the sanctioned slavery? How can I trust this to be work of moral value when it endorses slavery? When it advocates homophobia? When it calls openly for misogyny? Even if those bits are 'poetry', even if those bits are 'law' and not the requirements of salvation, how is that emblematic of lessons from some perfect morality that deserves to be listened to?

O.

[Aruntraveller]

what is a unitary entity?

Nottingham City Council.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nottingham City Council.

Argument from unitary authority.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

what is a unitary entity?

A single, indivisible, non composite entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because? You've apparently got some sort of insider knowledge as to which pieces you think apply and which don't - are they just your own moral judgements, in which case my moral judgement to ignore the whole thing as a bad fairy tale is equally valid - or you think there's some sort of authority to refer to on which bits are true and which bits aren't.

Which is also in the book that you've not explained how I should select from to identify truth and nonsense.

You sound like you need reminding that I don't accept any of it, you're the one that's trying to justify using parts of it, but only parts of it. You can lay claim to bits that are law and bits that are poetry, but given that those decisions seem to be based on whether you like a particular piece of content or not I find that questionable.

That sounds like an extortion racket - do this or you'll need saving...

Do the slavers need salvation if the only bad things they did were the sanctioned slavery? How can I trust this to be work of moral value when it endorses slavery? When it advocates homophobia? When it calls openly for misogyny? Even if those bits are 'poetry', even if those bits are 'law' and not the requirements of salvation, how is that emblematic of lessons from some perfect morality that deserves to be listened to?

O.

It seems to me I’m being lectured to about cherry picking from the bible from someone who has deduced from a few proof texts that Slavery and misogyny are his central planks of Christianit’s and that we need, on the strength of that to “burn down the whole library”.
The bible isn’t telling me to own slaves or to hate women or homosexuals but to love my neighbour.
Unfortunately for the antitheist, the suspicion that they are keener on weaponising these issues for the sake of antitheism is always going to be there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Moronic idiocy. I could refer to the "UK itself", that wouldn't mean that I think it doesn't have parts.

Which directly contradicts your idiocy above. You can't have the fallacy of composition for something that doesn't have parts.

Yes, we know that's what you're saying, the problem is that is just your own made up fantasy with no justification for any of it.

Please try to get this into your head: I don't accept that there can be such a thing as a necessary entity because you have totally failed to make a case for it. Hence, anything you claim about such an entity is irrelevant.

A composite is dependent on it’s parts. We are entitled logically to ask “Why those parts?”and “Why that number of parts? and “What is it then that decided that?”

[Stranger]

It seems to me I’m being lectured to about cherry picking from the bible from someone who has deduced from a few proof texts that Slavery and misogyny are his central planks of Christianit’s...

More lies. Nobody has claimed that slavery and misogyny are central to Christianity. They are, however, present in the bible that you are trying to tell us we should take seriously in other respects.

The bible isn’t telling me to own slaves or to hate women or homosexuals but to love my neighbour.

Really? On homosexuality:

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." -- Leviticus 18:22

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." -- Leviticus 20:13

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done." -- Romans 1:26-28

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." -- 1 Timothy 1:8-11

All quotes from NIV.

[Stranger]

A composite is dependent on it’s parts. We are entitled logically to ask “Why those parts?”and “Why that number of parts? and “What is it then that decided that?”

And.....?

Have you still not got it into your head that I don't accept that a "necessary entity" makes any logical sense at all, so it's utterly pointless trying to argue that the universe can't be one?

And there are always questions we can ask about anything you claim to be necessary. Why is your God the way it is? Why a trinity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And.....?

Have you still not got it into your head that I don't accept that a "necessary entity" makes any logical sense at all, so it's utterly pointless trying to argue that the universe can't be one?

And there are always questions we can ask about anything you claim to be necessary. Why is your God the way it is? Why a trinity?

God is a single, indivisible, non composite, spiritual entity.
The universe is the name given to a composite multiple entities which are independent and can and have failed to exist. So given we have existence what is it that hasn’t failed to exist?

[Nearly Sane]

A single, indivisible, non composite entity.

You need to define entity here as well.

[Nearly Sane]

Argument from unitary authority.

Applaud. But the problem you have is you used a personal definition for the term unitary entity which when slept out exactly shows you were lying about what bhs and jetemyp said.

[Stranger]

Good grief, why does this seem like trying to teach an earthworm calculus?

God is a single, indivisible, non composite, spiritual entity.

With three 'persons' and with endless characteristics we can ask 'why' questions about.   

The universe is the name given to a composite multiple entities which are independent and can and have failed to exist.

How do you know they could have failed to exist? Are you claiming omniscience?

So given we have existence what is it that hasn’t failed to exist?

Clearly the universe didn't fail to exist.

And you still don't seem to have got it into your head that I don't accept the concept of 'necessary entity'. You have totally failed to explain it in any way that makes logical sense.

[ProfessorDavey]

God is a single, indivisible, non composite, spiritual entity.

Really - I thought you folks considered god to be three separate elements, one of which was human and therefore (presumably) also composed of the same molecules, atoms etc as other humans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

More lies. Nobody has claimed that slavery and misogyny are central to Christianity. They are, however, present in the bible that you are trying to tell us we should take seriously in other respects.

Really? On homosexuality:

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." -- Leviticus 18:22

That is an opinion, certainly, not exclusively religious though is it?
Addressed by Jesus at the Well with the woman they were going to stone to death for adultery

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." -- Leviticus 20:13

"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Lust and shameful acts.Certainly sexual depravity, castrations etc for sexual pleasure in Rome as well as sexual exploitation.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,

This is the nub and the nexus of it

so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.[/i]" -- Romans 1:26-28

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

That seems to be pretty much everybody

"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." -- 1 Timothy 1:8-11

Hang on......did he say Slave traders?
So much for God approving of slavery.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You need to define entity here as well.

Look it up.

[Nearly Sane]

Look it up.

It has different meanings as did unitary. Your choice of meaning is important in making yourself clear.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - I thought you folks considered god to be three separate elements, one of which was human and therefore (presumably) also composed of the same molecules, atoms etc as other humans.

Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.

[Nearly Sane]

Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.

Oh no he isn't

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It has different meanings as did unitary. Your choice of meaning is important in making yourself clear.

I often argue with Hillside in the matter of the necessary being over Occam’s razor over which one of us is multiplying entities beyond necessity. He says I am because his final necessary entity is the universe  and so it isn’t necessary to add God. I say his final entity is actually many entities.

A composite can therefore be a type of entity or thing or reason but it cannot be a singular indivisible necessity.

[Nearly Sane]

I often argue with Hillside in the matter of the necessary being over Occam’s razor over which one of us is multiplying entities beyond necessity. He says I am because his final necessary entity is the universe  and so it isn’t necessary to add God. I say his final entity is actually many entities.

A composite can therefore be a type of entity or thing or reason but it cannot be a singular indivisible necessity.

None of that makes clear what the definition of entity is that you are using, and contains a lot of begging the question and assertions.