It is a counter if you understand how logic and reason works
Lets see.
Claim was "things can pop into existence".
My response was "God can pop into existence too".
Your response: "we know universe is here".
How does your response make my response incorrect? Go ahead, take your time and think.
Jews do not eat pork because the Torah (Jewish bible) prohibits it as a ritually unclean animal, specifically stating that animals are only kosher if they have both cloven hooves and chew their cud. Pigs have split hooves but do not chew cud, so they are not considered kosher. This prohibition extends to pork products and is a fundamental aspect of kosher dietary laws.
Claim was "things can pop into existence".
My response was "God can pop into existence too".
Your response: "we know universe is here".
How does your response make my response incorrect?
It doesn't make it "incorrect", it makes it less reasonable. The fundamental question at hand is how did all this get here? Theists often invoke God as the explanation, arguing the universe couldn't have just popped into existence. So in other words, the existence of the universe demands an explanation, but the existence of a God doesn't.
Not only is this special pleading, but the issue I am raising here is that saying "God could have popped into existence" in response to the suggestion that the universe did the same is not equal because the universe, already being here, requires no further assumptions. If things can pop into existence then we don't have to go any further than the universe itself, which negates the necessity of a God.
The Torah is an inert books and so cannot forbade.
Nope, it's just rules made up by people who like making rules up.
Designed to facilitate the needs, of both theistic tyrants and theistic toadies.
A
Typically Theistic Tyrant Toady Torah Trip..
What a shame that your name isn't Tilly Thompson.
It doesn't make it "incorrect", it makes it less reasonable
So no counter argument.
The fundamental question at hand is how did all this get here?
I already answered that many times. Existence can either be conditional or unconditional.
Theists often invoke God as the explanation, arguing the universe couldn't have just popped into existence. So in other words, the existence of the universe demands an explanation, but the existence of a God doesn't.
It wasnt my argument, so you are arguing with imaginary people.
issue I am raising here is that saying "God could have popped into existence" in response to the suggestion that the universe did the same is not equal because the universe, already being here, requires no further assumptions
And God, already being here, requires no further assumptions either. What you clearly fail to understand is that when you bring a theory about how things pop into existence, you cannot then contradict and say God didnt just pop in existence.
. If things can pop into existence then we don't have to go any further than the universe itself
If things pop into existence, then everything pops into existence, including God.
The Torah explains which animals are kosher and which are not. Kosher animals are ruminants, in other words they chew cud, and they have split hooves, such as sheep or cows. Pigs are not ruminants, so they are not kosher. Animals that live in water can only be eaten if they have fins and scales.
So no counter argument.
"A counterargument involves acknowledging standpoints that go against your argument and then re-affirming your argument. This is typically done by stating the opposing side’s argument, and then ultimately presenting your argument as the most logical solution."
https://www.unr.edu/writing-speaking-center/writing-speaking-resources/counterarguments#:~:text=A%20counterargument%20involves%20acknowledging%20standpoints,as%20the%20most%20logical%20solution.
It is a counter argument by definition.
I already answered that many times. Existence can either be conditional or unconditional.
Question: How did everything get here?
Answer: Everything is either conditional or unconditional.
That isn't an answer.
It wasnt my argument, so you are arguing with imaginary people.
Hence why I began with "theists often invoke...". Maybe you should slow down and read.
And God, already being here, requires no further assumptions either.
That is the assumption genius.
What you clearly fail to understand is that when you bring a theory about how things pop into existence, you cannot then contradict and say God didnt just pop in existence.
No one is claiming God couldn't have popped into existence. Here, let's try this again. Slowly.
Either something can just pop into existence, or nothing can just pop into existence.
If nothing can just pop into existence, then God's existence is just as inexplicable as the universe's existence.
If something can just pop into existence, then we have no reason why this rule can be applied to God but not the universe.
So either way, God and the universe remain on equal footing with regards to whether their existence can be explained. And given that, God becomes unnecessary because invoking him does not solve any problem, it just pushes it back a further step.
The addition of assumptions that are not necessary are inherently illogical.
In other words, when you do that, you're just making shit up.
It is a counter argument by definition.
No, because its irrelevant to claim.
Question: How did everything get here?
Answer: Everything is either conditional or unconditional.
That isn't an answer.
It is. Unconditional existence means things can exist without conditions. So that answers "how".
Hence why I began with "theists often invoke...".
So you concede to arguing with people who arent here. Okay.
That is the assumption genius.
No, if you hold position that things pop into existence, then God pops into existence. No assumption necessary.
No one is claiming God couldn't have popped into existence.
No, you are claiming he didn't pop into existence. So go ahead and prove that.
If something can just pop into existence, then we have no reason why this rule can be applied to God but not the universe.
So you concede that God popped into existence and thus exists. Concession accepted.
I'm sure that it does.
Doesn't make it any less daft though.
-->That isn't an answer.
It is. Unconditional existence means things can exist without conditions. So that answers "how".
"How does X occur" is a question regarding the inner workings of the mechanism by which something comes to be. Responding with "X can occur", does not address any of that.
Seriously dude, this is basic English.
-->Hence why I began with "theists often invoke...".
So you concede to arguing with people who arent here. Okay.
No genius, I began with "theists often invoke..." to lay out the context of this topic as a set up to how I got to my end point, which was about unnecessary assumptions.
You claim that this doesn't address your point, but that's just disingenuous BS. You're trying now to pretend your point was only that "if things can pop into existence then God can pop into existence", but this isn't an argument at all, it's a tautology. So long as God qualifies as a something, it's definitionally true.
That's why I started off as I did, to point out there's context to this debate, to pretend like you weren't arguing within that context is just dishonest. Your argument now to avoid admitting that is to claim you weren't really making an argument at all, which we both know is nonsense.
No, if you hold position that things pop into existence, then God pops into existence.
No one said "things pop into existence", the claim which originated in this thread from a Steven Hawking quote was that the universe "could simply have popped into existence".
Do you understand the difference between "X happens" vs "X could have happened"?
But even setting that aside, yet again, you have yet to prove that there exists a God in the first place. So even if one asserts that "things pop into existence", that still does not lead to "Gods pop into existence" cause you would have to demonstrate that one is actually here first.
-->No one is claiming God couldn't have popped into existence.
No, you are claiming he didn't pop into existence. So go ahead and prove that.
You can't be this stupid.
So you concede that God popped into existence and thus exists. Concession accepted.
You really can't be this stupid.
Your concession is accepted.
If anything and everything can pop into existence, then a GOD is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Necessity is only relevant in the head of a necessitator.
If anything and everything can pop into existence, then a GOD is irrelevant and unnecessary.
If everything pops into existence, then God does too, so God exists.
I already accepted Double_R concession where he said:
""if things can pop into existence then God can pop into existence", but this isn't an argument at all, it's a tautology. So long as God qualifies as a something, it's definitionally true."
Exactly.
"It" being the appropriate pronoun.
What did Jesus say about eating pork?
Jesus declared that all foods are "clean," effectively nullifying the Old Testament dietary laws, including the prohibition against pork, for Christians. He stated that what defiles a person is not what goes into their stomach but what comes out of their heart, which aligns with the understanding in the New Testament that the ceremonial food laws of the Old Testament are no longer required for followers of Christ.
Bacon sandwiches all round then.
What sort of sauce do you prefer?
We have something known generically as brown sauce, which is my preferred bacon sandwich accompaniment.
Though I actually prefer sausage sandwiches, perhaps with an egg and tomato ketchup.
Horses for courses.
Sauces for sandwiches.
Jesus obviously liked his.
No, Jesus did not like sandwiches, because sandwiches were invented centuries after his lifetime by John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich. While Jesus ate a Mediterranean diet consisting of whole grain bread, fish, olive oil, figs, and grapes, these were not formed into the modern concept of a sandwich.
If everything pops into existence, then God does too, so God exists.
I already accepted Double_R concession where he said:
""if things can pop into existence then God can pop into existence", but this isn't an argument at all, it's a tautology. So long as God qualifies as a something, it's definitionally true."
It wasn't a concession genius. A tautology cannot be used to prove anything, that's the whole point of coming up with a word for it.
I recall explaining this to someone on this site before, of only I could remember who.
It wasn't a concession genius
I dont know what mental illness do you suffer from, but its funny.
"C'Mon Man!".
If you are interested in God, the Bible is your best source.
Yes, Mr Sandwich is certainly credited with the sandwich.
Though I doubt that no one ever realised the potential of bread and accompaniments previously.
The concept isn't rocket science and the wheel had been around for millennia.
Asquare wheel wouldn't have been a lot of good, especially for chariot racing.
And I would imagine that Jesus also enjoyed the odd goat, fatted calf and Greek yoghurt.
Odd goats have three horns.
No, most goats have two horns, but some can have more, known as polyceraty, due to a genetic mutation in the HOXD1 gene that causes horn bud primordia to split during embryonic development. This phenomenon of having more than two horns is a rare genetic occurrence in goats and is not typical for the species.
He said odd goats, not most goats.
Those are rare goats not odd goats.
Odd and rare are both words used to describe things that are unusual or uncommon. However, there is a subtle difference between the two. Odd typically refers to something that is strange or peculiar, while rare suggests that something is not only uncommon but also valuable or highly sought after. In this way, odd may have a more negative connotation, while rare is often seen as a positive attribute. Both words can be used to describe objects, events, or characteristics that stand out from the norm, but rare implies a level of scarcity or uniqueness that sets it apart even further.
Goats with three horns are a genetic anomaly that is considered rare, though not unique, and is often referred to as polyceraty. While most goats naturally have two horns, spontaneous genetic mutations, such as defective HOXD1 gene function, can lead to the development of additional horns, with some instances recorded of goats having even more than three.
