Very quick question.

[Brian37]

I hate the word "Philosophy" it is a loaded and abused word outside of science is nothing more than excuse to be dogmatic. Religions and political parties are "philosophies" and they have been fucking up humans since their invention.

I don't give a shit about "philosophy". I care what you can prove in a lab and what can be independently verified.

I too don't like philosophy, I used to avoid it. But I'm feeling forced to attack some "philosophical" theistic arguments for reasons I don't think it's good for me to reveal

Well if you are not going to "reveal" what you claim then we have no intellectual obligation to blindly buy it.

[Tryed]

I hate the word "Philosophy" it is a loaded and abused word outside of science is nothing more than excuse to be dogmatic. Religions and political parties are "philosophies" and they have been fucking up humans since their invention.

I don't give a shit about "philosophy". I care what you can prove in a lab and what can be independently verified.

I too don't like philosophy, I used to avoid it. But I'm feeling forced to attack some "philosophical" theistic arguments for reasons I don't think it's good for me to reveal

Well if you are not going to "reveal" what you claim then we have no intellectual obligation to blindly buy it.

Of course not. I just asked a question and got the answer. Reformulated the question and got the answer. It was that simple.

[Brian37]

No don't just "drop" the argument. That is a dodge because we challenged you. The intellectual and right thing to do is when your argument gets defeated, treat it as a learning experience and discard it. That is how one learns and grows.

Isn't dropping it the same as discarding it? Should I abandon the argument or try to fix it?

I am a bit confused. If you are arguing with a theist, don't let them trap you with "GOTCHA" crap. I have been at this for 12 years. I have been occasionally "stumped". But that does not make them right. Ultimately the thing they cannot do and refuse to do is have their "god theory" empirically proven. And humans are known for making up fictitious gods and falsely believing them to be real.

So if you are "stumped" all that really means is that they are using elaborate smoke and mirrors to hide their hollow man.

[Tryed]

No don't just "drop" the argument. That is a dodge because we challenged you. The intellectual and right thing to do is when your argument gets defeated, treat it as a learning experience and discard it. That is how one learns and grows.

Isn't dropping it the same as discarding it? Should I abandon the argument or try to fix it?

I am a bit confused. If you are arguing with a theist, don't let them trap you with "GOTCHA" crap. I have been at this for 12 years. I have been occasionally "stumped". But that does not make them right. Ultimately the thing they cannot do and refuse to do is have their "god theory" empirically proven. And humans are known for making up fictitious gods and falsely believing them to be real.

So if you are "stumped" all that really means is that they are using elaborate smoke and mirrors to hide their hollow man.

No... I'm not debating with a theist, I was trying to create an argument against the existance of god. And the  statement "the existance of contingent beings is necessary in itself" being true was key to fill a hole I found in my own argument. Since that statement is false, I guess I have to abandon my own argument. Unfortunately.

[Plu]

Why are you making arguments against the existance of god?


You're supposed to make arguments for the existance of god, because he's not been proven to exist yet. You'll quickly find that there are no arguments for the existance of god that hold up under scientific scrutiny.

[Tryed]

Why are you making arguments against the existance of god?


You're supposed to make arguments for the existance of god, because he's not been proven to exist yet. You'll quickly find that there are no arguments for the existance of god that hold up under scientific scrutiny.

Sorry, a better phrasing would be "creating an objection against a theistic argument"

[Seabear]

Why is it that I never orgasm from mental masturbation?

[Plu]

But why? You can simply discard them without discussion if you feel like it. None of them have been proven to be viable, so no counter-argument is needed beyond "that hasn't been proven".

I mean; enjoying the tearing into them is one thing, but you're under no obligation to find objections to their arguments.

[Tryed]

But why? You can simply discard them without discussion if you feel like it. None of them have been proven to be viable, so no counter-argument is needed beyond "that hasn't been proven".

I mean; enjoying the tearing into them is one thing, but you're under no obligation to find objections to their arguments.

That may be true, but there is a reason, I get extremely anxious when I don't get the answer that I want to a specific question at least vaguely related about this stuff.
I wish I could just shrug it off like you guys do.

[Plu]

You should try answering the questions with "It's never been proven", it should be the proper answer to these questions ;)

[Brian37]

No... I'm not debating with a theist, I was trying to create an argument against the existance of god. And the  statement "the existance of contingent beings is necessary in itself" being true was key to fill a hole I found in my own argument. Since that statement is false, I guess I have to abandon my own argument. Unfortunately.

Dont hurt yourself because it really is not that complicated.

Ocham's razor solves this quite nicely.

"Out of multiple postulations to solve a problem the one with the least baggage is the most likely"

So.

1. A god does exist.
Or
2. People make up gods.

Which to you seems more likely and which to you seems to explain reality more simply?

Now on a scientific level, there is NO evidence of cognition existing outside biological evolution.

The theist may try to get you with "thoughts are not things". I explain "thoughts" as much like the speed of a car in motion. Our "self" is merely our brain in motion. But life that has cognition needs a biological structure(car) to have the ability to speed(thoughts, personality, self).

I'd suggest rather than make up your own arguments, learn from the pros already here.

[Brian37]

Why is it that I never orgasm from mental masturbation?

To do that you need an egg beater, condoms and K-Y jelly and a neurologist.

[La Dolce Vita]

No... I'm not debating with a theist, I was trying to create an argument against the existance of god. And the  statement "the existance of contingent beings is necessary in itself" being true was key to fill a hole I found in my own argument. Since that statement is false, I guess I have to abandon my own argument. Unfortunately.

The key problem is that the terms you use are so off, undefined and weird. You have yet to even explain what you meant by contignent being? Does it mean neccesary being? If so, by definition, the answer would be that it's neccesary, BUT only if such a thing existed, and no such thing has been proven to do so. Furthermore this neccesary being kinda sounds like a god ... so in order to make an argument against the existence of god(s) you must have the premise that a god exist???

You really need to clarify here, dude. You haven't really defined what you mean by possible worlds either, or you referring to potential/possible universes/planes of existence? And if so, why? Possiblities of unknown or any likelyhood, i.e. arguments (almost, partly or entirely) depending on "everything is possible" are utterly useless to determine anything.

[AxisMundi]

What's a contingent being?

An argument developed by Aquinas for "Universal Causation", IE Gawd-done-it.

[AxisMundi]

Heya, here goes

Is a world with NO contingent beings (not even one) possible?

Or perhaps for better wording:

Is a world without the existence of any contingent beings possible?

Please help me with this one

Yes, a world, and a universe, without contingent beings is indeed possible, and demands the possibility as well.

It is more rational to argue that the universe has always existed, going through cyclic "Big Bangs", and will always exist as the evidence suggests this. There is no evidence supporting the idea of some creator deity. Indeed, the only evidence offered is easily dismissed.