never mind have a good weekend

"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

But both can't be true. So your argument isn't sound. P3 and P4 render your argument necessarily unsound.

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?

Yeah, categorical error, or error of equivocation. Dunno. Just didn’t sound right.

‘Nuff said? — Mww

Yep.

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

No, there are other ways. I've argued that it can't possibly be true in combination with your other premise which contradicts it. It's also possible to reject the premise on the basis that it's unjustified, as opposed to on the basis that it's false. Be careful not to commit the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

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

Correct. Your burden is to justify your premise that it's not a fact that god is not. But that's not possible in light of the contradiction.

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

It makes no sense to me why you'd think theism is any different in that regard. (Keeping in mind that I use the term "the universe" to refer to everything.)

Well I believe theism is different in that regard, but that’s beside the point of my question, which is that if you acknowledge the magical element of atheism, why do you find theism so ludicrous? The universe either accounts for its own existence, or something beyond it does.

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.

Now you can go look for another semantic argument if you wish, because you have yet to make a meaningful one.

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.

I'm not a "scientism" adherent, by the way, a la treating current scientific claims like a religion. Science forwards a lot of nonsense.

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

Finally, a concession. It would've been nice if you'd have realised your error sooner, but hey ho. Late is better than never.

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

That’s pure question-begging, amounting to nothing more than, “You’re wrong, because I’m right.”

There can't be something "beyond" the universe. — Terrapin Station

:up:

Changes nothing of substance in the argument, I am a pragmatist. Has exactly the same meaning at the former P2 and P3 combined.

The begging the question fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument assumes the conclusion of the argument.

I don't even know what you'd be reading as my premise(s) and my conclusion.

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

Those are your premises and conclusions, combined.

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

An error's an error. A good argument should contain premises which can be clearly understood. Your meaning wasn't made clear until many pages later. You're responsible for that.

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.

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.

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.

At any rate, for some reason you're taking me to be forwarding arguments with premises and conclusions when I'm not.

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

An error's an error. A good argument should contain premises which can be clearly understood. Your meaning wasn't made clear until many pages later. You're responsible

Agree - mean culpa, do you now accept the new P2?

acknowledge the magical element of atheism, — AJJ

Hmmm......

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?

Don't remember your other specific objections. Happy to address them if you wish to restate and continue. — Rank Amateur

Ah yes, I remember how it is. You want me to do all the work. I've already provided the criticism.

Agree - mea culpa, do you now accept the new P2? — Rank Amateur

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? Oh wait, never mind, because it's supernatural, right?

Okay, then yes, I accept that premise. But I don't accept that there's a reasonable argument for believing in anything supernatural.

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

And your concept of the universe is question-begging: By defining it as “everything” you assume there is nothing beyond it, and therefore no God, which is precisely the issue under discussion.

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

The third option is creation by a transcendent God, which your dichotomy precludes because it assumes there isn’t one.

At any rate, for some reason you're taking me to be forwarding arguments with premises and conclusions when I'm not. — Terrapin Station

You are, your premises are your conclusions, and vice versa.

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

Because if it was a scientific fact, it would then defeat my conclusion, if it was scientific fact that God is not, my theism is unreasonable. But now your challenge to P2 is, it doesn't matter? Or that it is not true?

Can I get a direct answer to a direct question please, is the new P2 true? The existence or non existence of God is not a scientific fact.

Direct answers make this go much faster.

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

The universe either accounts for its own existence, or something beyond it does. The atheist doesn’t accord with the second option, since a creator beyond the universe is what we call God.

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

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.

By defining it as “everything” you assume there is nothing beyond it, and therefore no God, which is precisely the issue under discussion. — AJJ

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.

The third option is creation by a transcendent God, which your dichotomy precludes because it assumes there isn’t one. — AJJ

That's not a third option. Either the god always existed or it appeared from nothing.

The two things you're having an issue with here have absolutely nothing to do with an argument re whether a god exists or not.

I wasn't saying anything about the "nature" of anything. I simply said that logically, there are only two options no matter what. Either "always existed" or "appeared spontaneously."

I choose to speak for myself alone, so when I say it is a tautologically true statement that the Universe either accounts for its own existence or something beyond it does, I attend the statement to a rational thinking subject without any other qualifiers, insofar as no one should have logical ground to falsify that statement.

So why exactly.....or even how, for that matter.....does an atheist NOT accord with it? Well, actually, he doesn’t, because he can’t.

It isn’t the ends of that statement with which he finds exception; it’s the means. So in effect, you are insisting the magical thinking on atheistic display derives from the fact he doesn’t agree with a specific kind of creator beyond the Universe which theists think to be the cause of it, when he is actually only stipulating that it must be something possible, and that IFF the Universe doesn’t or can’t account for itself.

OK, fine. Wonderful, in fact. Now all a theist has to do is substantially demonstrate how the creator beyond the Universe must be any less magically thought than the atheist who substantially demonstrates the opposite.

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

Your definition requires that your conclusion - that there is nothing beyond the universe - is true. That makes your definition question-begging; no need to be concrete about it.

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

And I explained that God, according to classical monotheism, is not a creature within the universe, but rather an entity beyond it. A god that was part of the universe would not be God, because it would be subject to the magic that accounted for its existence.

Again, whether there is something beyond the universe is what is under discussion; to define it away begs the question.

That's not a third option. Either the god always existed or it appeared from nothing. — Terrapin Station

God, according to the arguments for theism, is eternal by virtue of being beyond the universe, and so beyond time. This is different to simply being an inexplicably necessary part of the universe.

Because God has the quality of eternality by virtue of being beyond time, not just because. The atheist, by contrast, must rest his belief about the universe on precisely that ”just because”.

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?

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

Because applying eternality to the universe is arbitrary and completely lacking in explanation. God, by virtue of being beyond time, is necessarily eternal.