20 questions

[The Pixie]

you can't explain am eternal contingency, that leaves God by fefault

Explain God.

[Metacrock]

you can't explain am eternal contingency, that leaves God by fefault

Explain God.

You should be asking me to explaimn necessity and contingency, in this case they causal, in modern philosophy necessity - that which cannot ceaseor fail to eist, continvnt means thatwhich can.

but in god argument becauseof their Thomistic connection it;s more about causes,contingent things need then necessary things don't,

[The Pixie]

You should be asking me to explain necessity and contingency, in this case they are causal; in modern philosophy necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist, contingent means that which can.

But in the God argument, because of their Thomistic connection it is more about causes, contingent things need them, necessary things don't.

No, I should be asking you to explain God.

You said "you can't explain am eternal contingency, that leaves God by fefault". That only leaves God if you can explain God. If you cannot explain God then that explanation is no better than mine.

We have here two candidate explanations (broadly), naturalistic and God. You reject the former on the grounds that it cannot explain an eternal contingency, and yet it would seem that that is also true of the latter.

What this comes down to is that theists happily - and arbitrarily - give God a pass. Well, I can do that too. The universe was caused by something that was uncaused, an eternal contingency. Done. Whatever get-out clause you invoke for God, I can pull the equivalent for my explanation. We are both just making unsupported assertions, so we can make up whatever we like.

At least from what I have seen of your argument so far.

[Metacrock]

You should be asking me to explain necessity and contingency, in this case they are causal; in modern philosophy necessity is that which cannot cease or fail to exist, contingent means that which can.

But in the God argument, because of their Thomistic connection it is more about causes, contingent things need them, necessary things don't.

No, I should be asking you to explain God.

Necessity and contingency are primary concepts you can''t get the concrete of God without them,

You said "you can't explain am eternal contingency, that leaves God by default". That only leaves God if you can explain God. If you cannot explain God then that explanation is no better than mine.

what I said

We have here two candidate explanations (broadly), naturalistic and God. You reject the former on the grounds that it cannot explain an eternal contingency, and yet it would seem that that is also true of the latter.

What you are not getting is eternal contingency is contradiction in terms,
It's like saying up down, contingent things are those things that can cease or fail to exist, eternal cannot cease or fail to exist,or they would not be eternal thus contingent things cannot be eternal. Naturalism demands eternal contingency to explain existence thus it must b false.

at this comes down to is that theists happily - and arbitrarily - give God a pass. Well, I can do that too. The universe was caused by something that was uncased, an eternal contingency.

It's not contingent if it's eternal that is a contradiction in terms. So the origin has to be necessary (eternal) that means it fits the concept of God. That is what God is, the eternal necessary aspect of being.

Done. Whatever get-out clause you invoke for God, I can pull the equivalent for my explanation. We are both just making unsupported assertions, so we can make up whatever we like.

It doesn't work, The only reason you say it is because you would not let me explain the concept of C/N. You can't get the notion of God without that.

At least from what I have seen of your argument so far.

so far that;s based upon you not listening, God = eternal necessary aspect of beimg Watt ever fits that is god. Now is that eternal necessary aspect also conscious? another question. My answer is yes but in some sense that handstands our understanding of that term.

you are going to try and stick this view iwth being pre comedienne to avoid any problems, but false because it;s grounded in empirical results from experiences people around the world really have, It's not made up to answer arguments.

[The Pixie]

So basically you are re-defining "god" to be so broad that it covers the first cause, whatever the nature of the first cause actually is.

Okay, I can play that game. I agree, there is some first cause. Personally I see no reason to suppose god is conscious or sentient or cares one jot about humanity or indeed bears any relationship to the concept of "god" presented in the Bible.