willful obfuscations of HRG

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
I put that crap away instantly Hans. you have not brought up anything I have heard before. Its' just a matter of you trying to fudge on the definition. It's silly to claim that the universe can be an arbitrary necessity.

And that's why no naturalist claims it.

the guy I was answering did so you are wrong!

HRG

Terms like "Necessity" are used by those who feel incomplete and insecure if they cannot feel to be part of a Great Plan. I'm perfectly rational about realizing that my existence is quite contingent.

Meta:

ahaha o please! that's ad hom you are trying to pschologize your opponent rather than answering the lgoic. I could just as easily say those who spout high sounding math terms and quote Wittgenstein are also insecure.

HRG

IOW, you should have read my post. I said "If an ICR is an 'arbitrary necessity', then the decision of your God to create the universe is one too".

that's clearly wrong and illogical. It's what I disproved. ICR is an arbitrary necessity because it's a series of contingencies. that's what makes an AN.

God is not contingent and is not a series. What God creates can't be an AN because God is not putting it in the necessary slot. don't you see. can't you just listen to the words and think about what they are saying?


(Meta: before)
The universe is not put in the place of necessity. The universe is contingent. no one says it's necessary. Science says it begins at a point with time.

HRG:Which universe are you talking about ? Our local universe patch or the total universe.

that's obfuscation. you are changing the issue to get out of the fact that I disproved your crap. It doesn't matter which none of them are.

HRG:And what happened during the time when no universe existed yet, IYO ?

prove there was such a time? there does not have to be such a time. Even so that's just a canned you are dragging in because you lost the argument. you are trying divert the reading from the point that I beat your point.

If the universe is created by God then by it's contingency, by definition! that means not placed in a position of necessity. So it's not an arbitrary necessity.

HRG:Fine. Then an ICR or an eternal universe is not an arbitrary necessity either. That's what I said.

again with not listening! stop obfuscating! you are just trying divert attention. I've disproved your argument now look carefully and think what I'm saying:

(1) AN = putting contingency in place of necessity

(2) God is not putting any contingencies in a place of necessity

(3) therefore, none of God's creations are AN's.

QED assertion disproved!

diverting attention with irrelevant banter like "if Gods' stuff is not AN then ICR isn't AN either" is just a dumb childish thing.

Look at the definitions!

ICR is AN becuase it's putting a contingency in the place of a necessity.

QED argument proved.


In fact it doesn't have to begin at a point in time to be contingent. It could be simultaneously eternal but continent as long as the necessity it is contingent upon (God) is eternal.

HRG:Why must it be contingent on a necessity ? Methinks you confuse contingency #1 and contingency #2.

you are just saying the same old disproved banter again. I've already shown they throe are the same. they linked. You can't answer it. besides what if I am talking about contingency 1 in the last sentence? It' still a form of contingency and its' still true. The last thing Is aid was that contingency doesn't have to start in time that doesn't become false just becuase there's another from of contingency because it doesn't violate either one.



you are not listening.


The major problem is it's treating God like a thing. God is a thin and he's going to create another thing. That's a mistake because the super-essential Godhead is in all being. anything that is is a priori, contingent upon God. since arbitrary necessity is impossible its only existent in the mind of the atheist.

HRG:You completely misunderstood my point. It is you who introduced the concept of "arbitrary necessity". The decision of your God to create the universe (according to your model) is arbitrary.

No it's not arbitrary. But here you are employing a misdirection by the use of equivocation. Just being arbitrary wouldn't make it an arbitrary necessity. Not necessarily.

It's not arbitrary either because God's creating has purpose.