Hallucinogen

But that's not empirical observation, which is what my point is. Falsifiability requires empirical observaiton by definition. This doesn't make sense....

Evidence just means "reasons to believe a proposition is true". Presumably, statements like 2+2=4 are based on reasons. If you're expanding the scope ...

This is what you said, look. The "up to now" is in contrast with the statement you're making. So it doesn't save it from being logically fallacious.

Sure. It's common sense that seeing a black swan doesn't negate that all swans are white.

No, because including tests that have to violate logic to return a false answer simply gets rid of all meaningful-but-unfalsifiable statements. All yo...

What do you think I was trying to say? I'm starting to get the impression that you're joking.

Any scientific statement, for example: "All swans are white".

The question isn't what un/falsifiabiliy is, the question is why would someone think that if X is unfalsifiable, then there's no way to determine if i...

I didn't say tautology is flawed. A statement is falsifiable if we can specify a condition under which empirical observation can contradict it.

You have to make it clear that the "situation" is empirical. Imagining that a contradiction appear in front of you doesn't work because a contradictio...

Good comment. In my experience, atheist philosophers don't provide any justification either for the possibility of brute contingencies, nor for the as...

Numbers denote the relationship a part has to the whole. As representations, they depend on human minds, but as existing relaitonships, they don't. Th...

I would say that, it's clear from near-death experiences in which people have seen their own body from outside it, that you are not your body.

I didn't describe anything "without having being caused", I've been describing an entity which is non-contingent. Causation isn't contingency. And yes...

The argument at the beginning of the thread doesn't claim that's how it's entailed. You've decided to base your critique on removing premises from the...

No, because to claim that reality can't furnish a proof of God is a knowledge claim. No, to knowing that God is unknowable. That's a knowledge claim. ...

No, I'm not. You're trying to equivocate between a series of presidents and the series of existence as a whole. Take another look at the argument in t...

Something exists forever if it isn't dependent on conditions. Something can do anything if everything is dependent on it. If everything contingent dep...

I don't understand how it shows that the argument in my OP is non-ampliative because it doesn't appear to address it. But why is departing from modal ...

The sources I found agree with the way I defined deism. Wikipedia says a deist God is not necessarily impersonal. Almost every source I've looked at g...

The argument I presented uses first-order logic, in which "contingent" and "necessary" are predicates. I don't see why claims that are confined to mod...

We haven't even gotten into "how it works".

Do you think you can be an atheist and believe in an omnipotent and eternal non-contingent entity? Because those properties are mutually inclusive wit...

Justification doesn't solely consist of empirical evidence, why do you think that? It can consist solely of a priori axioms and rules of inference, or...

Something's eternal if it isn't dependent on conditions. Contingency means to have a condtional dependency, so a non-contingent entity is eternal. Som...

I didn't actually say "justified". I said it's not an assumption, it's a description made possible by those distinctions and observations. If I were t...

OK, then I stand by what I said earlier: That's based on dictionary definitions of "God" and "theism", along with the consideration that these discuss...

Why is it? That's not implied by my premises. Also no. My argument addresses an infinite regress, not infinite sets in general. An infinite series has...

The OP presupposes that it's unnecessary to explain to people that metaphysical necessity is a property required of God. Acknowledging a necessary ent...

The ontology of causation and contingency don't depend on our epistemology about them, or keeping track of them.

OK, the particles = the objects denoted by the terms. "Starting from zero" = beginning of the sequence. "Moving outward and bouncing off each other" =...

Metaphysically necessary means that everything is contingent on it, which makes it omnipotent. A metaphysically necessary entity is non-contingent, wh...

OK, so you don't think existence consists of a sequence of events or transformations. It's difficult to respond to this because it seems observably se...

Not really, for 2 reasons. Firstly "entity" doesn't imply "solid" or even "object". The standard definition is something with an identifiable existenc...

The perceptual aggregate, all observables across space and time. The objects within the universe are the terms and the functions/natural laws of the u...

When you say if space and time are in a circular loop, you mean that the events are in a loop, right? I'm just asking because space might loop in on i...

It's restricted to denial of a necessary entity, because that's where the contradiction is. I don't see how you could have deism without the concept o...

Yeah I don't understand that inference. Is this about metaphysical necessity only, or also logical necessity? I could point out that eternal mathemati...

Define theism and define God, please.

If not-A entails (B and (not-B)), then A is entailed. Is that what you're saying isn't the case? Is B here the proposition that the universe has an nt...

Which is why the thread is titled "Atheism about a necessary being". And in the heading of the argument itself I'm making it clear that it's about rej...

Alright, could you provide more detail?

No, it's not an assumption. It's a description made possible by distinguishing events and observing entities appear and disappear as conditions change...

Did you read the earlier part of my response to you? I asked why a necessary being is a contradiction in terms. I'm denying that it entails both being...

Atheism involves disbelief in, and/or denial of, a necessary being, because metaphysical necessity is a defining feature of an omnipotent, eternal cre...

You said "Was" typically means you're acknowledging it existed. A deity fits the definition of an entity. The deities of monotheism and deism are all ...

Do you want to explain why you think this?

They're all contingent on the value of unity, the set as a whole and the series formula. That would be the "first" term. Why is this entailed? The poi...

Where? Could you explain each? What defines a circle is the formula for a circle. An observable circle is composed of finite points, but they are all ...

If you're acknowledging that there's a non-contingent first entity then you're not an atheist about a necessary entity. Metaphysical necessity is mutu...