Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Stranger]

Poor Stranger. Trying to show that the universe which is the sum of many things is in fact, just the one. Wooooooooo

I am trying to do no such thing. Please stop telling blatant lies about me. Doesn't your book say something about liars and telling lies?

[Gordon]

There is failing to exist in the sense of not existing and then there is the ability to fail to exist. We will spend most of the life of the universe not existing and had things been different the universe would have gone on without us.

You tie yourself in knots: if failing to exist is an 'ability' then you are implying that something had the potential to exist but didn't make it as far as actually existing - how could you ever know this?

I think that is how philosophers use the term.

Whom, and how did the express the idea you attribute to them?

So we are looking for the thing that has not failed to exist.

That covers everything that once did exist and currently does exist!

It cannot be something that has changed because that constitutes failure to exist.

I've changed - I didn't always look like Santa, so have I failed to exist?

[Stranger]

There is failing to exist in the sense of not existing and then there is the ability to fail to exist. We will spend most of the life of the universe not existing and had things been different the universe would have gone on without us.
I think that is how philosophers use the term.

I think you're talking bollocks.

So we are looking for the thing that has not failed to exist.

No WE aren't. This is your baseless fantasy quest.

You seem to be living in the delusion that everybody else is signed up to the idiocy of looking for something that meets your baseless criteria for the nonsensical foolishness of a 'necessary entity'.

As far as I can tell nobody else accepts your insistence on a necessary entity, let alone your arbitrary criteria for it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you're talking bollocks.

No WE aren't. This is your baseless fantasy quest.

You seem to be living in the delusion that everybody else is signed up to the idiocy of looking for something that meets your baseless criteria for the nonsensical foolishness of a 'necessary entity'.

As far as I can tell nobody else accepts your insistence on a necessary entity, let alone your arbitrary criteria for it.

If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that  exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.

[Stranger]

If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that  exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.

Did you actually read and understand my point that NOBODY BUT YOU, CARES about your arbitrary criteria for a nonsensical 'necessary entity'?

Having said that, the space-time manifold has always existed by definition. That is true even if it is finite in past timelike directions, because there can never have been a time at which (space-)time didn't exist.

[Gordon]

If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that  exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.

Nobody, as far as I can see, is saying that about the universe. You seem unable to grasp what people actually say.

Perhaps you should take a dose of your own medicine and explain why you think 'God' fits your bill - as opposed to you just asserting it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody, as far as I can see, is saying that about the universe. You seem unable to grasp what people actually say.

Perhaps you should take a dose of your own medicine and explain why you think 'God' fits your bill - as opposed to you just asserting it.

You appear to be gaslighting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you actually read and understand my point that NOBODY BUT YOU, CARES about your arbitrary criteria for a nonsensical 'necessary entity'?

Having said that, the space-time manifold has always existed by definition. That is true even if it is finite in past timelike directions, because there can never have been a time at which (space-)time didn't exist.

You said the universe hadn't failed to exist. Given that what we observe apparently didn't, won't in future exist what then is it about the universe that hasn't failed to exist? It's quite straightforward. It's what you are implying.

[Stranger]

You appear to be gaslighting.

You appear to be delusional.

You need to understand that nobody is trying to make the universe meet your silly criteria for a nonsensical 'necessary entity'. You also need to apologise for telling blatant lies about what I was arguing.

When you've done those things, it's back to the drawing board to make your case for a God....

[Stranger]

You said the universe hadn't failed to exist. Given that what we observe apparently didn't, won't in future exist what then is it about the universe that hasn't failed to exist? It's quite straightforward. It's what you are implying.

You're talking gibberish. Nothing that exists, has existed, or will exist, regardless of its extent in space-time, has failed to exist. You need to stop using your idiotic definition of 'failing to exist'.

And yet again:

NOBODY IS TRYING TO MAKE THE UNIVERSE MEET YOUR SILLY CRITERIA FOR A NONSENSICAL 'NECESSARY ENTITY'.

[ProfessorDavey]

If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that  exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.

There you go again Vlad - 'alway existed' etc implies that time is constant and unilinear. It doesn't have to be and there is strong evidence that it isn't. In which case the very notion that you assertion (incorrectly) that we are claiming this, is logically non-sense. If time isn't unilinear and constant then there is no 'always existed', as that is a comment on the presence of something over a period of time.

[Gordon]

You said the universe hadn't failed to exist. Given that what we observe apparently didn't, won't in future exist what then is it about the universe that hasn't failed to exist? It's quite straightforward. It's what you are implying.

You seem to have lost the ability to write a coherent sentence as well as comprehend what others actually say - try again, but take your time about it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes a human body is divisible but Jesus’ humanity is not his divinity, which is indivisible.

You really are tying yourself up in knots.

So we have three possibilities:

1. Jesus was not made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc - in which case he wasn't human as humans are made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc.
2. Jesus was made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc - in which case he was divisible and therefore (by your definition) not god.
3. The human and the god are completely separate things and therefore both divisible and one is not the other - in which case god did not become human.

There are the logical conclusions from your assertions - none seem to support your (completely unevidenced) faith position.

And then let's return to the notion that you folk seems to consider god to be three elements - hmm divisible, so by your own argument the trinity cannot be god, although (by your argument) if one element is in itself indivisible, then this could be god.

Not, of course, that I buy into your concepts of 'indivisibility', 'divinity' or the need for a necessary entity/being. Just shooting your illogical fish in a barrel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're talking gibberish. Nothing that exists, has existed, or will exist, regardless of its extent in space-time, has failed to exist. You need to stop using your idiotic definition of 'failing to exist'.

And yet again:

NOBODY IS TRYING TO MAKE THE UNIVERSE MEET YOUR SILLY CRITERIA FOR A NONSENSICAL 'NECESSARY ENTITY'.

In 1901, You didn't exist, agreed?
In 3001, You won't exist, agreed?
And yet you say the universe is not subject to the same constraints as we are.
Given that apparently all that we observe are under the same constraints as us. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT IS NOT UNDER THOSE CONSTRAINTS?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You tie yourself in knots: if failing to exist is an 'ability' then you are implying that something had the potential to exist but didn't make it as far as actually existing - how could you ever know this?

Whom, and how did the express the idea you attribute to them?

That covers everything that once did exist and currently does exist!

I've changed - I didn't always look like Santa, so have I failed to exist?

It seems to me Gordon that something has the potential to exist or doesn't. What is the difference between potentially existing and not existing.a

[Stranger]

Good grief Vlad, what is the matter with you?

Did you not read the sentence in big red capital letters?

And yet you say the universe is not subject to the same constraints as we are.

Where did I say that? I'm not even sure what constraints you're talking about.

Given that apparently all that we observe are under the same constraints as us. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT IS NOT UNDER THOSE CONSTRAINTS?

I DON'T CARE.

I'll just note the point that I have made multiple times and that you've totally ignored: the space-time manifold has to exist at every point in time because it is every point in time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really are tying yourself up in knots.

So we have three possibilities:

1. Jesus was not made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc - in which case he wasn't human as humans are made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc.
2. Jesus was made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc - in which case he was divisible and therefore (by your definition) not god.
3. The human and the god are completely separate things and therefore both divisible and one is not the other - in which case god did not become human.

There are the logical conclusions from your assertions - none seem to support your (completely unevidenced) faith position.

And then let's return to the notion that you folk seems to consider god to be three elements - hmm divisible, so by your own argument the trinity cannot be god, although (by your argument) if one element is in itself indivisible, then this could be god.

Not, of course, that I buy into your concepts of 'indivisibility', 'divinity' or the need for a necessary entity/being. Just shooting your illogical fish in a barrel.

I think you are forgetting that there are composed entities.

[Stranger]

I think you are forgetting that there are composed entities.

I think you're not even bothering to read people's posts any more, before posting irrelevant nonsense. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are forgetting that there are composed entities.

Nope - as I am allowing your argument that god isn't a composed entity (not that I agree with it but allowing it for the sake of arguments). But humans are composed entities (i.e. made of cells, tissues, molecules etc etc). So if Jesus (on earth) isn't a composed entity then he wasn't human. And if human he would be a composed entity, which accordingly to your argument means he couldn't be god. The final possibility is that the human and the god are separate entities (one composed and the other not), in which case these entities are both divisible (there are two entities) so the whole cannot be god (by your argument), but also this would mean that god never became human, albeit seemed to hang out with some human bloke for 30 years or so.

Your logic is woefully inadequate and that is even allowing your starting point assertions, which are of course completely unevidenced.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - as I am allowing your argument that god isn't a composed entity (not that I agree with it but allowing it for the sake of arguments). But humans are composed entities (i.e. made of cells, tissues, molecules etc etc). So if Jesus (on earth) isn't a composed entity then he wasn't human. And if human he would be a composed entity, which accordingly to your argument means he couldn't be god. The final possibility is that the human and the god are separate entities (one composed and the other not), in which case these entities are both divisible (there are two entities) so the whole cannot be god (by your argument), but also this would mean that god never became human, albeit seemed to hang out with some human bloke for 30 years or so.

Your logic is woefully inadequate and that is even allowing your starting point assertions, which are of course completely unevidenced.

We're a scientist or merely anyone observing Jesus empirically. They would have seen a human being.
Particularly evidenced at his partial dissection at crucifixion. Science though does not do God. Those observing Jesus spiritually would have detected God. Both the divine and the human then are in the one person, Jesus of Nazareth. Full divinity and full humanity.
This might help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

[Gordon]

It seems to me Gordon that something has the potential to exist or doesn't. What is the difference between potentially existing and not existing.a

No idea - this is your shtick and not mine.

The notion you have about 'potential existence' is an odd one - how could you ever know? In what way can something with 'potential existence' that doesn't make it through to actual 'existence' even be a 'something'?

[ekim]

And I do think it would aid debate if we stopped thinking in modern meaning and delved into the history of words like belief and myth and prayer.

It might help in some circumstances to clarify the language of the discussion.  The language of mythos in religions tries to convey inner experiences of those who claim to have had them to those who haven't and can be quite vague, but perhaps quite enticing if it deals with the desires and fears of living. Unfortunately, in the hands of the wrong shepherd it can be used as a controlling factor over the sheep, just as language can in politics and business.

[Gordon]

We're a scientist or merely anyone observing Jesus empirically. They would have seen a human being.
Particularly evidenced at his partial dissection at crucifixion. Science though does not do God. Those observing Jesus spiritually would have detected God. Both the divine and the human then are in the one person, Jesus of Nazareth. Full divinity and full humanity.
This might help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

I got as far as 'begotten before time'  which is nonsensical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It might help in some circumstances to clarify the language of the discussion.  The language of mythos in religions tries to convey inner experiences of those who claim to have had them to those who haven't and can be quite vague, but perhaps quite enticing if it deals with the desires and fears of living. Unfortunately, in the hands of the wrong shepherd it can be used as a controlling factor over the sheep, just as language can in politics and business.

I don't think it's just opting for modern meaning it's that some here opt for any meaning that suits their
 argument at the time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I got as far as 'begotten before time'  which is nonsensical.

Before time though is hotly debated in science since apparently people are no longer satisfied that the universe had a start.

Begotten is an analogy telling us that God the Son is not a made thing.