Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
You don't know what I mean; you've demonstrated that ad nauseam.
I'm upset that you have continuously strawmanned me, posted nasty innuendo, and finally topped it off with just a straight up fake quote. I would like an apology, but clearly that isn't in the cards. If you had told me you are sorry and that you don't know how to use quotes, I might have believed you. But of course that isn't what you've done. Instead you have doubled down and even called me a liar!
ok i'm apologizing to you, can we get back to what we have been discussing?
btw i don't remember calling you a liar but an arrogant. and that's necessarily true. so it would be impossible for you not be an arrogant, your essence necessitates you arrogance... just kidding.
'that's what you're' was referring to being an arrogant. i thought it was right to put it before ....... you know what, it doesn't matter it's an English thing and i have apologized. so let's stop at this comment.
You used those concepts in a proof. I shouldn't have to go read a bunch of books to get the (undoubtedly) word salad definition. If you need the definition in your proof, you need to include it. How many times do I have to say this? Why can't you get that through your head?
before i referred to the books i had defined what do they mean and had shown that it would be impossible to say that the necessary can be contingent. besides i had already defined those terms to you over and over in other threads, so it's not your first time to come across them.
No. You piddled out postulates as you needed them; which is also rather dishonest, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt back then. But since you've now been caught lying, you won't get that luxury again. Oh and then you spent how many posts claiming you had provided a postulate in the proof; only to later realize you didn't? yeah... I also asked you to repost the proof with the definitions included in the beginning to help make it clear; but you didn't do that. So all I have left is just you pulling postulates out of your ass, totally by fiat. Which makes sense now that we know you are a liar.
to cut this out, what do you have to say about what you seemed to be ignoring of that comment? do you understand the definitions? do you have any objections?
How many times do I have to say it? I want you to post all the definitions and postulates you need for necessary and contingent objects in a single list (presumably at the top of an updated copy of your proof) so we can have a centralized and unchanging list. Instead of you DISHONESTLY distributing them ex post facto. Again, this is how proofs are done; if you want to be taken seriously; which you have pretty much pissed away at this point.
edit: Its been almost 3 weeks. I'm still waiting.
i do not have any definitions other than what i have already shared with you.
btw, most of my claims/assertions that you say i distribute ex post facto, are either directly inferred from these definitions i.e. corollary to them OR it means the same thing but put in different words. anyway i'm gonna write all what relates to these concepts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A necessary: a thing that the supposition of whose nonexistence entails an impossibility.
An Impossible: a thing that the supposition of whose existence entails an impossibility.
A contingent: the negation of necessity i.e. a thing that the supposition of whose existence or non-existence does not entail an impossibility.
A necessary being: a thing that its nature necessitate/guarantees its existence it exists through itself, not through another. the supposition of its non-existence entails an impossibility. it is neither caused by something nor is dependent on/lacking/needing something. it does not change, its essence is not susceptible to nothingness, therefore it has always been existent, so it did not begin to exist.
An Impossible being: its nature necessitates its non-existence i.e its nature precludes its existence. the supposition of whose existence would entail an impossibility, its non existence is necessary, can not exist. not a thing it's pure nothingness.
a Contingent being: its nature neither necessitate its existence nor its nonexistence. i.e it's not necessary being nor an impossible. it's possible to exist or not exist, its essence are susceptible to be caused/changed/affected. it does not exist through itself but through another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so is that enough or you'd need some clarifications?
Peripatetic
Are humans necessary beings? Is god a necessary being? If god is a necessary being, then how do we prove which god it is that humans worship?
Oh and we are back to being allowed more than one necessary being since he left that out of the postulates.
we use these concepts to infer that there can not be two and i have written two proofs before in another thread about it. it appears to me that anything you can not understand why it's true or why it's said, you would consider it a postulate.
That's nice. Why don't you centralize this stuff; because I'm having trouble finding them. Are you use you only used the postulates listed here for the derativation? Because if you used anything extra; you have more work to do.
----------------------------------------
That is exactly right! If you don't provide the argument, it is a postulate or it is just bullshit. By calling them postulates I'm indicating that I'm taking your argument seriously. Would you prefer for me to call them bullshit?
Ok but that's another topic, maybe in another thread. but as for now, From these concepts, Can you see the impossibility in saying that a necessary being can be contingent?
Well sure, you arranged them that way.
then saying that god can't do what humans do would be just as saying god can't make 2 contradictories coexist. and if you sustain that the second case does not imply that god is impotent, then the first case must have the same judgment. do you accept that?
can you unfuck that statement?
can i what? sorry, i don't understand.
What you have written is gibberish. If you want a response to it, you need to fix it.
first of all, i did not arrange anything to give a certain conclusion. it's enough for you to know that contingency is the negation of necessity without knowing any other details to come to realize that they cannot be predicated upon one subject at the same time.
and since it's logically impossible, then asking 'can god do what humans do?' is no different than asking ' can god make 2 contradictories coexist?' since the first entails god turning to contingent being which is impossible.
so this can not discredit god being powerful.
@xenoview
No they are not. There is a necessary being that has some attributes and caused the universe to exist. you want to call it god or xenoview, that's a linguistic dispute not a rational one, so you can call it whatever you like.
what do you mean by which god? a god which humans worship is not a different god from the one i prove? you can say he did not send any prophets so he does not want us to worship him but that does not imply he doesn't exist. How many times do i have to say that to you?
You have not proven any god or necessary being. You have not given any testable evidence that can be peer reviewed. If you can prove a god or necessary being, then which god is it that humans worship? Humans worship lots of gods, the gods of hinduism, paganism, wicca, native american, or any of the gods worshipped by more primitive tribal people.
i would worship you if you were a bit smarter but that's an impossible case for you
Your funny. My guess is you don't have any testable evidence your necessary being/god exist. You haven't proven a necessary being/god either. Just curious, what necessary being do you worship?
Oops that seems to contradict your 2nd postulate: "[a necessary being] does not change,...". A object that does not change can't begin to do anything, or stop doing anything it is already doing; which seems problematic.
Please prove that there is a "necessary being that has some attributes and caused the universe to exist."
Demonstrable and testible evidence and not anecdotal speculation from your specific holy book of choice.
Prove that there must be testable evidence that God exists if that is what you demand of theists, because I don't see why that is the only reliable way of knowing there is a God.
A wonderful logical fallacy there known as 'shifting the burden of proof!'
Furthermore...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
are you even capable of making an objection without using this statement 'shifting the burden if proof'? do you think it applies anywhere anytime? who the fuck said anything about shifting the burden of proof?
he is saying that empirical evidence is not the only way to gain knowledge, Otherwise you'd have to prove that. that's epistemology, do you know what might that be?
Pages