The Instigator
fred70
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
elikakohen
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

If you're not God, does that make me God by default?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 334 times Debate No: 97837
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

fred70

Pro

If I do not exclude myself from the possibility of being God, but you exclude yourself, then the probability of me being God is higher than yours according to the mechanics of plausibility.
There's no method whereby to unequivocally determine the probability of God's existence.
There's no method whereby to unequivocally determine if God's existence is improbable.
The unpredictability of any method used to determine God's identity within the mechanics of reality, makes me God by default.
elikakohen

Con

Con.Round1.#1 - General Questions:

1. Equivocation? I am not certain if "plausible" and "probable" are being used interchangeably, (inductive vs. abductive argumentation).
2. Begging the Question? The question presupposes agreement that God exists, that 1 of the 2 parties must be God, that both cannot be God together, that no other possibility exists.

Con.R1.#2 - TL;DR; Short summary : If I understand correctly, It appears the Argument is:

1. Either Premise A, or Premise B Must be True.
2. Testimony is given that Premise B is NOT True.
3. It is impossible to determine the probability of truth in the two testimonies.
4. Therefore, because it is impossible to determine probability, that testimony must be accepted as true, to affirm the Truth of Premise A.

Objection: Formal Fallacy - It is not explained (does not follow) how the inability to determine probability lends credence to a given testimony - to deductively entail a conclusion.

Instead, I feel the probability observations lend more to abductive conclusions, asserting "Plausibility / Possibility" - and don't support the deductive conclusion - at all.

@Pro.R1.1 : "If I do not exclude myself from the possibility of being God ..."

Con.Round1.3 - A Proposed, Consistent Definition of "God":

Since a consistent definition of God is not presented, I will offer one here :

The definition of the "Transcendent Most High" - is that they are not constrained within our causal domain - the "cycle of cause and effect of our reality" does not apply to their existence. So, the "Most High" is an appropriate name.

For example : If the laws of physics demand cause/effect, and there is no possible first-cause, (within a given causal-domain), then it is plausible, (Abductive reasoning) - that the first cause originated from a transcendent causal domain.

Potential Evidences of a God transcendent of our Causal Domain would be numerous: 1.) Any "right-now" interactions by this divinity, from their own causal domain - would exhibit many, many causal anomalies; 2.) Prophetic fore-sight would certainly be a possibility, observing one causal domain from another; 3.) So - Interaction by the divinity with "us" might necessarily be unrecognizable, or hard-coded in to our conscious for us to recognize; 4.) The likelihood/plausibility of all of these evidences is very high - as we see this same exact phenomena in our own virtual simulations, etc.

Con.R1.4 - Question - So, what definition of "God" are you applying - that allows you to not exclude yourself? What basis is there to ignore the possibility of both identities not being God? What basis is there to ignore the possibility of both identities being God together, (even if they are wrongfully/unknowingly denying their own deity)?

@Pro.R1.2 - Premise 2 : " ... but you exclude yourself"

Con.R1.5 - Given the definition of "God" suggested above - and those qualities - yes, I would exclude myself on those grounds.

However, in nature, anything born of anything else, possesses the same nature as it's parent. Theologically speaking, Humanity also possesses the nature of God, if also born of the nature of God - spirit, (John 3, Psalms, etc).

@Pro.R1.3 - Premise 3 : "... then the probability of me being God is higher than yours according to the mechanics of plausibility."

Con.R1.6 - Someone denying that they are God - does not make it more improbable that they are God - anymore than claiming to be God, would increase the probability of being God. Such a claim seems irrelevant.

Con.R1.7. The debate is posted regarding deductive logic, "makes me God by Default" ... "Probability", in following arguments, indicates an appeal to Inductive logic ... but here, the argument appeals to plausibility/possibility - indicating abductive logic.

Going with Abductive logic, there are a few traditional possibilities, (A.) 1 of us is God; (B.) Or, Another identity is God, or source of Transcendent Causality; (C.) There is no God; (D.) Both of us are God, together;

Granted, eliminating us both as "God", or that there is no other "God", moves plausibility more firmly into the other options.

Con.R1.8 - In this case, There is no data - no basis - to derive or inject probability, based on past observations.

Plausibility is more a factor of potential - even if it has never occurred before.

Con.R1.9. - I am pretty sure there are no formally defined mechanics of probability that extend different causal domains.

@Pro.R1.4 - Premise 4-5 : "There's no method whereby to unequivocally determine the probability of God's existence. There's no method whereby to unequivocally determine if God's existence is improbable."

Con.R1.10 - In this context - I agree that determining the probability of the truth of one premise over the other - is impossible - especially without historical observations, especially without knowledge of /all/ variables ...

Perhaps an inverse probability function may be a method to begin this analysis : "If the likelihood of something occurring - without divine intent / transcendent causality is impossible, but we know it occurred - then the probability of the existence of a divine intent / transcendent causality may be 100%.

But - there are obvious issues with even this!

In this case there are only two meaningful "truth values" : (1.) What is Possible? (2.) Which case is actually true?

@Pro.R1.5 - Premise 6 : " ... The unpredictability of any method used to determine God's identity within the mechanics of reality, makes me God by default."

[That syllogism is in Deductive form^]

Con.R1.11 - Although I agree that inductive logic cannot be applied - It is not true that : When probability of truth - between testimonies cannot be determined; that an assertion by one of the parties, must necessarily indicate a truth value.

Certainly, unpredictability - in this case - does not rule out plausibility; even a .00001% probability proves plausibility.

But - plausibility does not exclude other possibilities, other plausible explanations.
Debate Round No. 1
fred70

Pro

1) I used them interchangeably.

2) The question only states that I did not (through affirmation or negation) exclude myself from the possibility of being God. Both parties can't equally be in the equation for the possibility of being God, since the second party excluded itself from the possibility of being God. Also ,the second party can't be in the equation based on the rhetorical premise of the title: If you're not God, which it accepts.

It's not "impossible' to determine the probability of the 2nd having no place in the equation. The second concedes it's not eligible for being in the equation.
I gave no testimony regarding my eligibility in the equation.

My definition of God: 1) An abstract desire for the reality of the Numnious (spirituality/a deity/supernatural) In which case my equation has no merit or application. A different method would be needed to determine where, why, and what that desire for numinous is. Perhaps
an evolutionary side effect of abstract thinking. I won't get into that here. (Unless you want it)

2) A being imagined to be responsible for reality.

I cannot exclude the possibility that someone may imagine me responsible for reality.
The 2nd party who excludes itself from the possibility of being God, would discourage itself from being sought as responsible for reality. It would provide negation.
If a 3rd, 4th, 5th, or gazillionth party affirmed that it is God, they would not have more plausibility than me, since there's no unequivocal method (within the mechanics of reality) to validate that a being responsible for reality would want to affirm itself.

Any method, which asserted itself to have plausibility in determining that God would want to affirm himself, cannot exclude the possibility that another method may have plausibility in determining that God would not want to affirm himself.
The mechanics of reality support that both possibilities are plausible.

A person who seeks a being responsible for reality cannot exclude the possibility that either method may eventually lead to me. (Whether I'm here or after I'm gone)
I'm God by default.
elikakohen

Con

R2.Con.1 - A Request for a Clearer Statement of Argument :

My apology that I was not clearer in my first response ...

I am simply asking for a clear-er restatement of your argument - hopefully resolving what appears to be "Form-al" fallacies, (begging the question, paradox, etc).

I would actually prefer the "Equivocation" issues to be addressed separately. (I think "probability" might not really fit into this discussion.)

R2.Con.2 : Formal Fallacy - Internal Contradiction, Begging the Question :

Indirect Proof: Assuming A to be God, then the Reliability of B is disproven, Contradicting the Underlying Presupposed Premise :

A is God, therefore A is Reliable as a "Transcendent Know-er";
Only : A exclusively, or B (is God)
B testifies not God
--> Reliability of B > entails A, not B (Inductive Logic is reduced to Binary - Deductive Logic).
A is silent, and credibility irrelevant;
--> But B not God, therefore unreliable (as imperfect witness).
Therefore, reliability of B insufficient to entail a deductive conclusion.

R2.Con.3 - In What Scenario Can B Deny their own Divinity - AND be Credible?

"B" truthfully believes they are not God - but are; (an unreliable witness)
"B" truly is God - but denies it; (An unreliable witness)
"B" is ignorant of why they are, or are not, God - and so denies it; (The argument then relies on ignorance of B)
"B" with Transcendent knowledge, as Transcendent - declares it is not God; (a contradiction for some divine purpose, unreliable)

@R2.Pro.1 - "The 2nd party who excludes itself from the possibility of being God, would discourage itself from being sought as responsible for reality. [This] would provide negation."

Not at all - what is the basis for this?

Humanity today - does not go out of its way to either affirm or deny, its own existence as God over the worlds we create. Nor - is there a compelling reason to do either, or none.

Any "Good Will" that we have - or don't - for our creations has zero effect on whether we are actually "God" over the worlds we create.

@R2.Pro.2 : Equivocated /Ambiguous Terms: Mechanics of Reality, Mechanics of Probability, Inductive vs. Deductive Logic, Plausibility vs. Probability, etc.

I would insist on consistent definitions ... But - I insist on clarification of the Form-al objections first ...

Again - it is absolutely necessary to know what form of logic we are appealing to :

1. Inductive seems not to apply as probability determinations are impossible without prior observations, (for reference, we could make observations of ourselves!)
2. Deductive / Binary Logic could apply - if the certainty of proposition "B" wasn't so unreliable.
3. Abductive Logic is likely meaningless - as any possibility cannot be excluded, as we are reaching for possible methodologies that may or may not exist in transcendent realities.
4. Observational (Quantum) Logic is impractical, because I am not certain of the possible states - nor how observations affect "Truth Values" or how they participate in causal chains - in transcendent realities.
5. etc ...

Again, not the heart of the issue - yet.

@Pro.R2.3 : "... Both parties can't equally be in the equation for the possibility of being God, since the second party excluded itself from the possibility of being God."

Yet - the equation cannot exist without the testimony of "B" - assuming "B" to have accurate, complete, transcendent knowledge.

@Pro.R2.4 : Formal Objection - "... A person who seeks a being responsible for reality cannot exclude the possibility that either method may eventually lead to me. (Whether I'm here or after I'm gone)"

1. And, a consistent definition of God, given by you, that excludes you, is sufficient - regardless if you exclude yourself or not. (Not that I am arguing that your definition excludes yourself - but mine certainly excludes both you and me.
2. Further, your actual definition includes me - regardless of what I say! (It does not claim that "God is True" .

@Pro.R2.5 : "... Any method, which asserted itself to have plausibility in determining that God would want to affirm himself, cannot exclude the possibility that another method may have plausibility in determining that God would not want to affirm himself."

I agree. "You cannot exclude other methods that God would want to affirm himself" - especially Transcendent methods.

But - the argument seems to insist on only one method: that God affirms his divinity througha probability function based on the self-exclusion of others.

This is inconsistent.

Isn't a determination of probability a mere measurement of our own perceptions, and their potential to reflect the Actual Truth - accurately?

Again - how can a "probability determination" - ever affect a pre-existing truth?

Does a person supernaturally "Become God" - if the odds are in their favor?

@Pro.R2.6 : God Defined: "An Abstract Desire for the Numinous" ...

By this definition of "God", then: God with the unfulfilled desire for the numinous would not actually BE God of that numinous - until that desire is fulfilled, (thereby, strengthening the plausibility that "B" is actually God, or once was God, and/or destined to be, again??? - which actually makes sense from within a trans-temporal reality).

So, in this method - God could reasonably affirm himself - in the denial. ... ??

But - if this definition applies to me: "desire for the numinous" - then under what grounds have I excluded myself? Did I tell a partial truth - making me an unreliable witness?

Again - my objections are to your argument / reasoning, (not necessarily your conclusions or definitions - yet).
Debate Round No. 2
fred70

Pro

"There's a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about the mind of man."----C.S. Lewis
"I'm a million different people from one day to the next. I can break my mold. No! No! No!"----Richard Ashcroft

The internal perception wars of an individual are relegated to various methods arising from other conflicting mindsets. Methods to find God\no god. The mechanics of reality (the particularities of day to day life) provide no unequivocal method to resolve the dilemma (God\no god).

My equation took for granted that people (seekers) would have two views. A God who would affirm himself, or one who would not. Theism, deism.
The mechanics of reality won't settle the matter, thus a resort to contemplative methodologies which appeal to the inner man's perception wars to goad him along.

My blither blathering equation represented the tangibility of the affirmations\negations\no contests of human beings contrasted with God who is only no contest. After all the names were thrown into the raffle (by affirmation\no contest) no method could unequivocally predict the possibility of my name not being drawn. I was God by default.

All the philosophical persuasions in the world are a raffle of sorts for the mind.
All the theological persuasions are in a raffle as well for the theist.
The internal perception wars of an individual are relegated to various methods arising from other conflicting mindsets.
It all just seems like one big mind-frizzle to me, but i am also their comrade in confusion.

Any way Elika, you were too clever for my cheap trick, formal fallacies.
Thanks for playing.
elikakohen

Con


R3.Pro.1 - "... All the philosophical persuasions in the world are a raffle of sorts for the mind. All the theological persuasions are in a raffle as well for the theist."

I am a theist, but it is not because of a gamble, (i.e., nothing to do with Pascal's Wager ...) ... Honestly, I cannot see how accepting a "cosmic gamble" is remotely compatible with the rationality demanded by theism, (long story).

Maybe this is why "Probabilities" in the context of "Theism" are short-circuiting my brain!

R3.Con.1 - Formal Fallacies ...

To be honest, I am not appealing to Formal Fallacies as a clever way to win a debate - but because I honestly do not understand.

By framing my confusion in terms of a fallacy, it sometimes helps me express why I do not understand. I am sorry that this did not come across.

R3.Con.2 - As a software engineer - I am all too familiar with "Default Values" ....

I am just unfamiliar considering "Default Values" being set by factors of probability - instead of being overridden by probabilities.

When I imagine probabilities influencing a deviation from "Default Value" (perhaps in Genetics, eye color, etc) - I can see the appropriateness of the thought process.

But a "Default Value" for "who is God" ... ? Is there a default value for "Who is wise" ? Can abstract truths like this be resolved through binary/exclusion logic? If there is an example, or a basis - it would help me understand, a lot.

R3.Con.3 - Thanks for your patience - and please offer another topic!

But please, if possible - maybe throw a hint or two my way in comments! I can only hope it will help me improve!

Thank you again!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
I inadvertently left a very important word out of the last part of round two.
Any person who seeks a being responsible for reality cannot exclude the possibility that either method may eventually lead SOMEONE to me. (Whether I'm here or after I'm gone)
I'm God by default.
Posted by boozeandbabble 1 year ago
boozeandbabble
Fred, tisk tisk.
No votes have been placed for this debate.