"I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. "
if both possibilities exist - that is exactly the same thing as saying
it is not a fact that god is or it is not a fact that god is
which are my propositions — Rank Amateur
you contest P3 - " it is not a fact that god is not" -
there is only one way and one way only to contest that point - make a case that it IS A FACT that God is not. — Rank Amateur
Please note there is no burden on me on this proposition to prove that it is a fact that God is, that is not the proposition. — Rank Amateur
Are you aware that on atheism you’re forced to believe the universe just is, and there’s no explanation why? That some part of it accounts for its own existence, by what you can very fairly characterise as magic? — AJJ
ok, omit P2 and P3, and add a new P2: the existence of God, (as defined in P1) is not a matter of scientific fact. — Rank Amateur
There can't be something "beyond" the universe. If there were a god, the god would be part of the universe. Again, I use "universe" to refer to everything.
No matter what, we're only left with either things appearing "out of nowhere" or with things always existing, and both are counterintuitive. There's no way around that. So although counterintuitive, there are simply no other options. — Terrapin Station
There can't be something "beyond" the universe. — Terrapin Station
If there were a god, the god would be part of the universe. — Terrapin Station
No matter what, we're only left with either things appearing "out of nowhere" or with things always existing... There's no way around that. So although counterintuitive, there are simply no other options. — Terrapin Station
Changes nothing of substance in the argument, I am a pragmatist. Has exactly the same meaning at the former P2 and P3 combined. — Rank Amateur
And I stand by my criticism as a whole. That was just a part. Resolving one part doesn't get you out of the water. — S
Don't remember your other specific objections. Happy to address them if you wish to restate and continue. — Rank Amateur
Agree - mea culpa, do you now accept the new P2? — Rank Amateur
Re "beyond the universe" I'm telling you how I use the term "universe." That's not an argument, it's a statement about a concept per my usage. — Terrapin Station
Re the paragraph starting with "No matter what," that's again not an argument. It's simply a statement reporting what I believe to be a logical dichotomy. If you know of a third option, I'd be glad to hear it. — Terrapin Station
At any rate, for some reason you're taking me to be forwarding arguments with premises and conclusions when I'm not. — Terrapin Station
I don't accept it as true, no. Why wouldn't whether or not some form of supernatural being or entity be a factual matter whereby the scientific method is relevant and applicable? — S
How can an atheist be accused of magical thinking if he happens to accord with a theist’s belief, re: the Universe either accounts for its own existence or something else does”? — Mww
Ah yes, I remember how it is. You want me to do all the work. I've already provided the criticism.[/
Ok I will do some work, let's do this one at a time. Please answer directly, do you agree or not, and if not why.
— S
P1. There exist such things as Theists – defined as human beings who believe in some form of supernatural being or entity - for this argument we will label as “God” — Rank Amateur
And your concept of the universe is question-begging: — AJJ
By defining it as “everything” you assume there is nothing beyond it, and therefore no God, which is precisely the issue under discussion. — AJJ
The third option is creation by a transcendent God, which your dichotomy precludes because it assumes there isn’t one. — AJJ
But it's not an argument, lol. Only arguments can have argumentative fallacies. It doesn't make any sense to apply argumentative fallacies to things that aren't arguments. — Terrapin Station
Not at all. In fact, I explicitly wrote above that if there were a god, that god would be a part of the universe per how I use the term "universe." Didn't you read that when I wrote it above?
There can't be anything beyond the universe per my usage of universe, because whatever there is, whatever its nature would be--including gods--it would be part of the universe. All I'm doing there is telling you how I use a term. — Terrapin Station
That's not a third option. Either the god always existed or it appeared from nothing. — Terrapin Station
As Carl Sagan would say, why not just say that the universe always existed, instead of saying that some God that always existed created the universe? — leo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.