One can believe in some necessary thing without believing that this thing is God. Theism does not have exclusive ownership of necessity. — Michael

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 rejecting a non-contingent entity.
Aside from that, given that all non-contingent entities are necessarily omnipotent and eternal, to reject a necessary entity already rejects the majority of God concepts, since it rejects the concept of an eternal creator. All that's left to dispute over is omnibenevolence and omniscience.

I believe describing existence as a series of entities and events is inaccurate. That is based on my own observations and my understanding of physics. — T Clark

Alright, could you provide more detail?

That is an assumption - an unsupported supposition. — T Clark

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

You seem to be claiming, without stating explicitly or providing support, that existence in a series of events implies contingency, i.e. causation. — T Clark

Contingency. Contingency isn't the same as causation.

The point is that denial of a necessary entity entails a contradiction. — Hallucinogen

– IFF "a necessary entity" is not itself a contradiction in terms, which it is as I've pointed out. — 180 Proof

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 and non-being. That's what I want you to explain.

Even if one concedes a necessary entity (note it doesn't have to be an entity at all.) you still have said nothing about a contradiction in atheism. — DingoJones

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

You have to deal with this:

Lastly, atheism denotes rejection of theism (i.e. theistic conceptions) but not any nontheisms (e.g. animism ... pandeism, acosmism). — 180 Proof
Because it renders everything else in your argument powerless. — DingoJones

And you read my response to it, hopefully? To deny theism is to deny a necessary entity, which entails a contradiction. Rejecting theism but not nontheism doesn't mean not rejecting theism... it's still rejecting theism. Get it?

I haven't acknowledged any 'entities', necessary or otherwise — Vera Mont

You said

I don't know what the first entity was. I will never know. — Vera Mont

"Was" typically means you're acknowledging it existed.

And, AFIK, atheism is unbelief in deities, not entities. — Vera Mont

A deity fits the definition of an entity.

I'm not an atheist about any specific proposition of your choosing; I'm an atheist by virtue of disbelieving in all deities. — Vera Mont

The deities of monotheism and deism are all metaphysically necessary entities, so disbelief in all deities entails disbelief in those metaphysically necessary entities.

Possibly in some realms of the imagination; not in my reality. — Vera Mont

In objective reality, something that is non-contingent is eternal because it doesn't depend on outside conditions, and it is omnipotent because everything else is contingent on it.
"Your" reality just means your imagination, so it's irrelevant what's true in your reality.

It's uncommon to see an argument with multiple premises, all of which are false. — SophistiCat

Do you want to explain why you think this?

There is no first (or last) number on the real number line. — 180 Proof

They're all contingent on the value of unity, the set as a whole and the series formula. That would be the "first" term.

(i.e. both being and not-being simultaneously) — 180 Proof

Why is this entailed?

Lastly, atheism denotes rejection of theism (i.e. theistic conceptions) — 180 Proof

The point is that denial of a necessary entity entails a contradiction.

They, the words, have to be well-defined so that at least at first they seem to be applicable in both. So your first problem is your words. — tim wood

Where?

Your second is your presuppositions: each of your propositions contains at least one that is unclear or questionable. — tim wood

Could you explain each?

Just for example, everything that is in a sequence has a starting point. A circle is a sequence. A circle has no starting point.... — tim wood

What defines a circle is the formula for a circle. An observable circle is composed of finite points, but they are all observed simultaneously, they aren't in a sequence in the sense of one point depending on the previous point.

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 mutually inclusive with being eternal and omnipotent, so the acknowledgement concedes a lot of important ground to theism.

it's morally OK to abort a foetus because it isn't viable? — Hallucinogen


It is. — AmadeusD

OK, why do you think viability is what is morally relevant enough to make the difference between for it to be or not be permissible to abort/kill someone?

The common argument here is that bodily autonomy is a defensive right - you have the right to refuse interference with your body, but you don't have a right to a specific treatment. And in case of a pregnancy, the fetus/baby is "using" the body of the mother, hence her bodily autonomy takes precedence. — Echarmion

OK, so the highest priority is the right to refuse having your body interfered with, unless you're dependent on someone else's body?
It seems to me that this situation doesn't change after the fetus/baby is born. It takes quite a long time for babies and children to no longer be dependent on other people. So I think your criteria would make it permissible to abort children who have been born. If being being attached to the mother's body is a key aspect of "using" her body, then I don't see why this is morally relevant.
Does your criteria mean that, for example if a firefighter who is securely strapped onto something and who is preventing me from falling to my death by holding on to me, that it's morally permissible for him to let go, even though there's no danger to him?

Evidence seems to suggest humans become conscious, in the sense of being aware of themselves and their own awareness, only some time after birth — Echarmion

Which evidence are you referring to?

a new human being needs to acquire certain basic capabilities in order to become an individual, and being born and capable of surviving outside the womb is certainly a prerequisite. — Echarmion

But a baby won't survive on its own outside the womb. It's still dependent on society.

You apparently have no knowledge of what a fetus is in any sense that justifies the use of the term. As to differences, here are just two of many. inside/outside, viable/not-viable - and they're all substantive differences — tim wood

OK, so now that you're saying that inside/outside and viable/not-viable are the substantive differences between foetus and baby here, am I to understand then that you're saying it's OK to abort a foetus because it is inside the womb, or that it's morally OK to abort a foetus because it isn't viable?

If the answer is yes to either of those, then I'm going to ask you why you think that a foetus going from inside a womb to outside the womb makes the difference between it being morally permissible to kill it to killing it not being morally permissible. The same goes for the foetus going from not viable to viable.

Not cant, won't. It's there for you to find, and that not difficult at all. And for you to take take the won't as can't simply says you're only concerned with your beliefs — tim wood

Well there's something called the burden of proof. If you're claiming that something is true, you ought to be able to provide evidence that it is true on your own, especially if you're telling me it's easy. Otherwise, your refusal to cooperate is indistinguishable from you having no basis for what you claimed to be true.

This is a non-issue. A human foetus and a human baby are the same individuals being described in different ways. — Ludwig V

When you say it's a "non-issue", do you mean we're in agreement that a human foetus and a human baby are the same thing, despite the different terms used?

when what is at stake is the ethical attitudes embedded in the descriptions. — Ludwig V

A person's ethical attitudes ought to be based on reasoning, just as their descriptions ought to be. The descriptions don't justify their ethical attitudes, their reasoning does.

Are suggesting there is no difference? — tim wood

My claim is that people who insist on using the term foetus instead of baby can't point out what the substantive difference is, and that they use the term to suggest there is one. A human foetus and a human baby are both human individuals.

why don't you try a list of them and see just how long it is. I thought Roe v. Wade was good law. Three divisions of nine months: first, abortion ok, second, maybe ok, third, probably not ok. — tim wood

A given law in a given country existing at a given time doesn't determine what the substantive difference between a foetus and a baby might be. Roe v. Wade didn't dictate reality.

In ignoring difference — tim wood

I don't think it has been demonstrated.

Could you give an example or point to statistics? — Hallucinogen

No — tim wood

OK, so you can't give a single example of a mother dying unnecessarily as a result of lack of access to abortion, even though you claimed that is happening. When you make claims, you need to have a source ready. If it is easy to find on the news, you should be able to give an example.

There is a clear difference in this thread - and elsewhere - in the language used by folks. — tim wood

But what's the justification for this? At what point does a foetus become a baby, and what's the relationship responsible for making the difference?

and mothers are dying that shouldn't — tim wood

Could you give an example or point to statistics?

In this it doesn't matter when a fetus 'becomes human' what matters is the bodily autonomy of the mother — Tom Storm

Why is the bodily autonomy of the baby irrelevant? They're just as much a human individual as the mother is.

I would say to that, your conscious, the foetus isn’t. — Samlw

At which developmental stage does a foetus become conscious, and what reasoning have you used to arrived at that conclusion?

My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, — Samlw

You could use this claim to argue against the law prohibiting murder. Deciding on which laws to have and which choices to give people has to consist of more than just considering whether people believe differently. If believing differently is all it takes to avoid making a choice illegal, then just let people who want to murder kill whoever they like, they obviously disagree with whoever wants to pass the laws.

It seems you're claiming that you cannot have a valid argument without true premises. — AmadeusD

What I'm saying is the other way around: you cannot have a sound argument without true premises. You cannot have a sound argument without true premises and validity.

For example:

For an argument to be sound, it has to be valid already. A requirement for soundness is the truth of the premises, whereas validity is to do with how the rules of logic are applied. — Hallucinogen

What I am saying is that sound arguments are a subset of valid arguments. — Hallucinogen

This is why I said this :

A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound — AmadeusD

Because it isn't valid. — Hallucinogen

Sound premise + valid argument = sound conclusion. I can't see how a true premise could lead to a false conclusion without an invalid argument.

But you said this is false because:

Your premises can be entirely false — AmadeusD

And I got lost because your answer was no longer talking about a true premise.

If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound, but can be considered valid — AmadeusD

I agree with that. I didn't realize by "supported conclusion" in your other statement only meant following validly (from the false premise). I thought it meant a true conclusion.

P1: Hitler was German
P2: Hitler carried out his acts in service of Germany
C: Hitler was a German dictator.

This is false. He was an Austrian dictator of Germany.

But the above is a valid argument. In the world where Hitler was German, it holds. However, P1 is untrue, therefore it is not a Sound argument.

Another example:

P1: It is raining today where i am
P2: I am outside, unshaded
C: I am wet with rain. — AmadeusD

OK, but I misunderstood what you earlier said. I thought you were saying that a false premise with a valid argument could produce a true conclusion.

So in summary, my answer to why validity is related to truth is that it preserves the truth of a sound premise. In other words, validity is required for soundness, or a requirement for truth.

False.
Your premises can be entirely false — AmadeusD

Why are you bringing up false premises?
What you're responding to is my response to this comment:

A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound — AmadeusD

I'm going on the basis of this:

Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true. — colorado.edu

What I am saying is that sound arguments are a subset of valid arguments.

The addition of the premises being true creates soundness. — AmadeusD

I'm not disagreeing that true premises makes an argument sound. I don't see how you could have the type of argument you're using to illustrate your point, where one has false premises validly leading to a "supported" conclusion. Could you give an example?

What my first response to your statement

Validity doesn't have much of a relationship with truth. — AmadeusD

ought to have been was that validity is a requirement for soundness.

Consistency with reality is a form of evidence, so if one theory is more consistent than others, that serves as evidence for that theory.

Do not attempt to argue with Me, worm. Cower in fear of My wrath. — unenlightened

But since unenlightened is not God — unenlightened

Soundness is a relationship between true premises and a valid conclusion. — AmadeusD

I agree, but before we were talking about soundness and validity in terms of how they differ. You began by saying that validity doesn't have much to do with truth, but now you're pointing out what they have to do with each other in terms of soundness. For an argument to be sound, it has to be valid already. A requirement for soundness is the truth of the premises, whereas validity is to do with how the rules of logic are applied.

A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound — AmadeusD

Because it isn't valid.

That's soundness — AmadeusD

No, soundness is the truth of the premises, not the relationship it has to the conclusion.

Validity is mere formal agreement between premises and conclusion. — AmadeusD

No, an argument can be invalid with a false conclusion that still doesn't follow from a false premise.
Validity consists of the rules of logic being applied consistently to each line of the argument.

If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound — AmadeusD

Correct, so your first sentence was false. Soundness isn't a relationship between premise and conclusion.

Validity doesn't have much of a relationship with truth. — AmadeusD

Validity is the relationship a true premise has with a true conclusion, just like invalidity is the relationship a false premise has with true premises.

But since unenlightened is not God, there is a contradiction. — unenlightened

You didn't say unenlightened isn't God, before. As far as I could see, you only changed one word to another.

If everything is evidence that God did it, then everything is evidence that unenlightened did it. — unenlightened

This is now no longer the case, because now you've added the information that unenlightened isn't God.

Hence, if "God did it" explains O relative to other members of T that it is a member of E, that doesn't entail that changing "God did it" to "unenlightened" implies that "unenlightened" is a member of E, because they don't have the same intension or extension.

I have another theory: — "unenlightened did it". — unenlightened

Changing the semantics doesn't change the validity of the argument.

You have a whole lot of work to do on - at least - defining your terms and how they relate to each other. — tim wood

It seems to me like you bring up this red-herring as a way of avoiding the OP of this thread.

Well if "God did it" explains O relative to other members of T, it would seem "God did it" is evidenced relative to the others.

Why would that be false?

Scientific evidence depends entirely on repetition in controlled environments where particular experiences composed of beliefs, desires, motivations and various subjective phenomena are neutralized. — JuanZu

When science is used to study something other than those subjective phenomena, but not when it is studying the subjective phenomena themselves. And by “neutralized” I assume you mean “controlled”. Science cannot remove such confounding factors from the picture entirely.

Subjective experiences and scientific evidence are not the same thing. — JuanZu

Of course they aren't, but the two are intertwined.

In subjective experience that which validates a belief does not escape the particular subjective experience. — JuanZu

It does, validation is a part of logic and logic is the very system that provides any invariant relationship between subjective experience and an external referent.

In scientific evidence that which validates theory necessarily escapes particular subjective experience. — JuanZu

The method of validation does, but scientific evidence itself doesn't, because scientific evidence always consists of subjectively experienced data. All observations involve subjective experience.

When we compare both types of validation we realize how poor is the validation of beliefs on the religious plane — JuanZu

There's only one means of validation. The difference between validating religious and scientific claims is the rarity and predictability of the data types.

It is your job to say what you are talking about. — I like sushi

And the OP does this. I can't answer your question unless I know how broadly you're using the term phenomena -- are you using it the same way I did in some of my replies later in the thread? Those should answer your question.
What I claim to have presented is an argument for Christianity.

There is no argument. — I like sushi

The OP fits the definition of an argument.

When I look outside my house I experience seeing my car for "biological reasons," but this doesn't undermine my claim that my car is "really there." — Count Timothy von Icarus

The inference is meant to be about prayer specifically, it's not meant to hold under generalization. It's intended to clarify where prayer-induced experiences might come from. A critic of prayer-induced experiences isn't going to think I'm disputing that cars have a non-hallucinatory reality.

There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.
Are you saying anything else other than this? — I like sushi

I can't answer that question without knowing how broadly you mean "phenomenon".
The argument discerns between observations and hallucinations, and concludes there is evidence for Christianity consisting of the former.

You said address what bert1 was responding to (180proof's post), not bert1's reply to 180proof. — Lionino

Yes, your comment would have to support what 180proof was arguing, for it to be an effective reply to bert1. Like I said, agreeing with 180proof isn't enough for this. What I'm trying to draw your attention to is that the comments by 180proof and bert1 copied the pattern of argument I presented, while yours deviated from it. So it failed to either support what 180proof was saying or to address my side of the argument.

Anyhow, not only that but bert1 himself said he agreed, not just 180proof. — Lionino

This doesn't mean that what you said addresses the argument, even though theirs did. Simply agreeing with them doesn't add up to that.

And it is not like what I said has any room for disagreement, it is something obvious. — Lionino

You could point out a wide range of obvious things that don't address the argument.

The fact that you and 180proof are on the same side doesn't mean your reply to bert1 addresses bert1's reply to 180proof.

The Bible says the Sun sets on the West. We see the sun sets on the West. Is that evidence of Christianity? Of course not. — Lionino

This isn't a response to what bert1 was responding to, though.

Well, this is like saying

'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.' — 180 Proof

I don't see a problem with this. If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true.

Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical. — Sam26

This would be the fact that many people have them, along with a logical model (theology) that provides rational support for any given claim.