Is that what an atheist rests his belief on? The Universe exists just because the Universe exists? If that’s true, I’m sure as hell not sending him any get-well-soon cards, that’s for sure.

Can you....do you have the capacity.....to explain the concept “beyond time”, such that anyone considering the phrase as the result of magical thinking, would have to change his mind?

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

But then one could say it is no more arbitrary than invoking an additional eternal entity.

Is that what an atheist rests his belief on? The Universe exists just because the Universe exists? If that’s true, I’m sure as hell not sending him any get-well-soon cards, that’s for sure.

Can you....do you have the capacity.....to explain the concept “beyond time”, such that anyone considering the phrase as the result of magical thinking, would have to change his mind? — Mww

Yes, unless I’m missing something the atheist is forced to believe that.

Beyond time, not subject to time, does not begin, does not end, does not change.

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. — AJJ

It's just what the word means. I use the word the same way as him, as do lots of other people.

But then one could say it is no more arbitrary than invoking an additional eternal entity. — leo

It’s invoked as an explanation in the absence of one, arrived at through various logical steps, and not simply created to suit an already settled outlook.

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. — Rank Amateur

Sorry, ignore that, I answered too quickly, and then edited my comment, but obviously not in time. Please see the edit.

It's just what the word means. I use the word the same way as him, as do lots of other people. — S

Using it that way in the context of an argument about the existence of God makes it question-begging; it assumes that there is nothing beyond the universe, the issue under discussion.

Then I am missing something as well, because I don’t agree that an atheist is forced to think the Universe exists just because. Only the rationally deficient thinks a thing without a reason for it.

Do you see that upon any examination by anybody on anything whatsoever, such examination automatically and necessarily subsumes its object under the concept of time?

“...intuitions without concepts are empty; concepts without intuitions are blind...”

Your definition requires that your conclusion - that there is nothing beyond the universe - is true. — AJJ

It's not a conclusion. It's a stipulation about how I'm using a term.

Let's try to get one thing sorted out at a time so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.

Do you understand the difference between a conclusion and a stipulation about how I'm using a term?

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. — AJJ

"Beyond the universe" is what we call a contradiction in terms.

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. — Rank Amateur

I would prefer it if you addressed what I've already said about your argument. Regarding your first premise, yes, obviously there are theists, and obviously there are theists who fit your description. It would be much more productive if you addressed the parts of your argument which I've made it known that I object to, and have provided reasons for these objections, setting aside what we've resolved.

I could go back over it, but that would take some effort, and I don't really feel like doing that right now. I'll await your reply.

thank you assume now P1 and p 2 are agreed

p3. There are arguments – based on reason – that God does not exist

Agree?

Do you understand the difference between a conclusion and a stipulation about how I'm using a term? — Terrapin Station

The arguments for theism demonstrate the existence of an entity beyond the universe; that is what you’re up against when you argue in opposition to theism. If you define the universe as “everything”, you define away precisely what is under discussion; that’s called begging the question, because your conclusion is there within your argument.

"Beyond the universe" is what we call a contradiction in terms. — S

Only if you’re using your question-begging definition of the universe.

The arguments for theism demonstrate the existence of an entity beyond the universe; that is what you’re up against when you argue in opposition to theism. — AJJ

In my comment about how I use the word "universe," I'm not arguing anything, for or against. Do you understand this?

p3. There are arguments – based on reason – that God does not exist

Agree? — Rank Amateur

I agree, but that doesn't mean that they're reasonable (by the definition I go by). As I've said, even fallacious arguments are based on reason, yet fallacious arguments are unreasonable. It's possible that none of the arguments for theism are reasonable.

In my comment about how I use the word "universe," I'm not arguing anything, for or against. Do you understand this? — Terrapin Station

You are, implicitly. Do you understand this?

It just can't be this difficult to communicate something so simple.

You are, implicitly. Do you understand this? — AJJ

I don't agree with that, no. How am I implicitly arguing something?

I don't agree with that, no. How am I implicitly arguing something? — Terrapin Station

Your definition of the universe precludes that there can be anything beyond it, the issue under discussion. Your implict argument runs: “The universe is everything, so there can be nothing beyond the universe, because the universe is everything.”

Using that way in the context of an argument about the existence of God makes it question-begging; it assumes that there is nothing beyond the universe, the issue under discussion. — AJJ

This is your problem, not mine. If you want to avoid the contradiction, then use a different word instead of the word "universe", because the word "universe" means everything that exists.

That's not understanding the difference between (a) an argument for or against anything, and (b) a stipulation about how I'm using a term.

I'm not saying anything at all (in these comments about how I use the term "universe") about what does or doesn't exist, what can or can't exist. I'm simply making a declaration that whatever exists, I'm going to call it "part of the universe."

It would be no different than if I were to say that I'm going to say that everything is part of "shplabeeblewaffle." I'm simply announcing that I apply a sound to anything that exists, whatever it is, including gods, including timeless things--whatever imaginable it might be.

It just can't be this difficult to communicate something so simple. — Terrapin Station

I know, right?

I'm not saying anything at all (in these comments about how I use the term "universe") about what does or doesn't exist, what can or can't exist. I'm simply making a declaration that whatever exists, I'm going to call it "part of the universe." — Terrapin Station

But God is God precisely because he is not a part of anything. If he was, he would he subject to a higher encompassing reality, and so vulnerable to the same criticisms you can make against necessity in atheism.

This is your problem, not mine. Use a different word instead of the word "universe", because the word "universe" means everything that exists. — S

No, it’s yours. Because your definition is question-begging and mine is not.

No, it’s yours. Because your definition is question-begging and mine is not. — AJJ

Incorrect. I'm telling you how I use the word. I use the word in the way that is commonly understood. And I'm pointing out that, going by this meaning, your statement is a contradiction in terms.

If you go by a different meaning, then so be it. If so, then I think you should use a different term to distinguish your meaning from the commonly understood meaning.

Incorrect. I'm telling you how I use the word. I use the word in the way that it's commonly understood. And I'm pointing out that, going by this meaning, your statement is a contradiction in terms. — S

Then the way you’re using it is question-begging, and the way it is commonly understood is also question-begging, in the context of this argument.

Then the way you’re using it is question-begging, and the way it is commonly understood is also question-begging, in the context of this argument. — AJJ

Incorrect.

Incorrect. — S

Oh right, sorry, didn’t realise.

Oh right, sorry, didn’t realise. — AJJ

And you probably still don't. Apology accepted.