The Instigator
RLBaty
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The major premise can be shown to be true.

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 29489
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

RLBaty

Con

"Bold" atheists do more than simply assert their lack of belief that there be any God.

"Bold" atheists have been know to affirm that:

- Man did originate the idea/concept
- of God through the power of imagination.

Words have meanings and implications.

One very simple, uncontroversial implication from the above affirmative claim, preliminary to being able to reach that conclusion, is that man had the ability to make such use of any powers of imagination that he might have had.

That implied premise would look like this:

- Man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

The "Bold" atheist has also been known to deny that the origin/idea of God is the result of man's use of his powers of reason (i.e., that there is a logically valid argument based on real world evidence that would lead someone devoid of the idea/concept of God to conclude that there was a God) and to also deny that the idea/concept of God resulted from a God revealing himself to man.

From the "Bold" atheist affirmed conclusion and implied premise, the following very simple, logically valid argument (i.e., so constructed that if its premises are true its conclusion will follow as true therefrom) may be properly constructed (i.e., inferred):

Major Premise:

- IF (A) man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination,

- THEN (B) man did originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

Minor Premise:

- (A) Man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

Conclusion:

- (B) Man did originate the idea/concept
- of God through the power of imagination.

I recognize that there are many "not-so-bold" atheists who may, when pressed, simply admit they do not believe that there is any God, further admitting or implying that the origin of the idea/concept of God may have resulted from man's powers of imagination, man's power of reason, or even from God having revealed himself to man.

The argument in this exercise is not designed to address the "not-so-bold" atheist position.

It is designed to address the "bold" atheist position and illustrate the point that there are implications leading to premises which "bold" atheists believe to be true, implicitly or explicitly, but which premises cannot be shown to be true.

The exercise has a number of utilitarian purposes and other points may be made depending upon how those daring to engage the exercise might deal with the various steps that make up the exercise.

This discussion is only about one of the steps of the exercise.

This discussion is the direct result of recent comments from an anonymous poster using the ID of "bladerunner060" who, along with others, demonstrated various unresolved problems with the exercise; establishing one or more of the points to be made in the presentation of the exercise.

The development and presentation of the exercise has been very successful in very simply dealing with an important public issues which is quite commonly discussed in the public square.

Personally, I don't think there is any legitimate rebuttal to my position that the following statement is believed, implicitly or explicitly, to be true by the "bold" atheist and that it has not been shown to be true:

- IF (A) man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination,
-
- THEN (B) man did originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

This discussion is not about whether anyone agrees with me regarding my inferences from the "bold" atheist affirmation. Such issues are for another time and place.

This discussion is only about whether anyone will admit to implicitly or explicitly affirming the truth of the major premise as set forth above.

If there be any legitimate contender who wants to set forth their basis as to why we should accept that premise as true, or why they believe it to be true, one round should be enough to simply set forth their position; just the simple, straightforward basis explaining why the premise should be accepted as true or why you believe it to be true.

As for me, I think the major premise is false because there are other alternatives which the "bold" atheist, in making the affirmative claim that "man created God", does not allow for.
Anti-atheist

Pro

IF (A) man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of atoms through the power
- of imagination,

- THEN (B) man did originate the
- idea/concept of atoms through the power
- of imagination.

Argument fails. Its debunked by the ontological argument.

1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being"that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Debate Round No. 1
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Funny thing about that!

Not even a scratch on me!
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
I understand. May you have better days and see the light when you're done licking your wounds. ;)
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
likespeace,

I see you continue to struggle with your problems.

I have just wrapped up my latest round of bantering with Mangani, and that should allow me to complete my retirement from this venue which is hardly what it is promoted as being; at least from my limited experience.

I would have preferred it were otherwise, but it is what it is and my adversaries have contributed substantially to providing more than enough material for another chapter in the book; if it gets written.

If you wish me to give serious, personal consideration to your continuing problems on these simple matters, feel free to come around my place in a show of good faith and make your appearance.

Here's the address to the public archives:

http://groups.yahoo.com...

You don't have to be a member to post your notes; simply address an email to the following address and replace the (at) with @:

Maury_and_Baty(at)yahoogroups.com

See you there, or not.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> My syllogism is sound. Allow me restate it more clearly--

I mean to say valid.

What I consider disengenuous is that you've claimed "bold atheists" must believe your major premise--your assertion is false. I have proved that by creating an argument for "man created God" that is logically valid and does not require agreeing with your major premise. And you have provided no evidence that a bold atheist must agree with your major premise.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> I do not think either argument is sound (i.e., valid with both premises true),

My syllogism is sound. Allow me restate it more clearly--

-IF (P1) All imaginary ideas/concepts are created by man, and
-IF (P2) God is an imaginary idea/concept
-
>THEN (C) God was created by man

We again define God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent and Imaginary as an idea/concept that does not wholly correspond to reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> Minor Premise (modus tollens):
>
> - (NOT C); the human idea/concept of God was NOT created by man.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> - (NOT P1); God exists.

Your argument is faulty because you misapplied modus tollens.

If the argument is:
A AND B => C

"NOT C" only implies either (NOT P1) OR (NOT P2). In other words, NOT C implies either P1 is false, or P2 is false, or or both P1 and P2 are false. It is illogical to say NOT C => NOT P1.

> (P2 is not really necessary to be stated in either argument.)

It certainly it is. If you remove one of the premises, the syllogism is no longer necessarily by form true. You would miss out on possibilities such as, our concept of God was given to us by aliens who helped build the pyramids or an omnipotent, omniscient being that is not benevolent. You may not believe these possibilities, but they are possibilities to be accounted for.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
Let's see if I can show where it is not possible to turn my argument back on me like I was able to do with that argument "likespeace" presented for consideration.

Could be fun!

Here's my argument, the implicit "bold" atheist argument that puts the atheist in the box of believing beyond his evidence; in modus ponens form:

Major Premise:

- IF (A); man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination,

- THEN (B); man did originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

Minor Premise:

- (A); Man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

Conclusion:

- (B); Man did originate the idea/concept
- of God through the power of imagination.

Here's what it looks in modus tollens form:

Major Premise:

- IF (A); man was able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination,

- THEN (B); man did originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

Minor Premise:

- (NOT B); man did not originate the
- idea/concept of God through the
- power of imagination.

Conclusion:

- (NOT A); man was NOT able to originate the
- idea/concept of God through the power
- of imagination.

I win again, and the advantage is mine for showing how simply the fundamental claim from the "bold" atheist claim that "man created God" may be logically dealt with and its shortcomings be easily identified.

I do not think either argument is sound (i.e., valid with both premises true), but that's what atheist are locked into, by implication, when they affirm that "man created God", right?

I think so!
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
likespeace,

While it may be possible to formulate more than one argument that attempts to simplify the fundamental issue that results from the claim that "man created God", I think mine works best for getting to the point regarding the implied, if not explicit, belief on the part of atheists regarding their position.

Your formulation appears a little awkward to me. I would recommend that you put it into what you consider a "logically valid" and complete form for clarity.

For instance, I could turn your statement back on you in support of my argument:

Your major premise which is all you give:

- IF (P1); God does not exist, and
- IF (P2); human ideas/concepts that are imaginary are created by man,
-
> THEN (C); the Human idea/concept of God was created by man.

Minor Premise (modus tollens):

- (NOT C); the human idea/concept of God was NOT created by man.

Conclusion:

- (NOT P1); God exists.

(Note: P2 is not really necessary to be stated in either argument.)

I think I "gotcha" on that! LOL! I'll take it!

In any case, I think I see what you are getting at and, if so, your preference for that approach does nothing to impeach my argument or the claims I make for my argument.

I think your argument, when properly stated and understood, actually does tend to support the claims I make for my argument.

I think mine is simpler and more direct as to the fundamental affirmation that "man created God".

That you might think "bold" atheists would embrace your argument while trying to run from mine just goes to make mine the more valuable in getting down to the fundamental issue and the state of atheism and atheistic "beliefs".

- "Reasonable people disagree."

I like that observation which, I think, tends to acknowledge that your "evil" and "nonbelief" arguments fall short of establishing P1.

Atheists don't believe there is a God.
Theists do.

Thanks for coming up with that contribution to the discussion; it does adds some su
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> The argument is, in fact, implied by the "bold" claim that "man created God", as opposed to the weaker atheist claim that "I think man just might have created God".

Catholics define a weak atheist as one who doesn't claim "God exists", and a strong atheist as one who claims "God does not exist." This "bold atheist" of yours goes a bit further, claiming "Man created God." The major premise you give "bold atheists" is farcial and in no way implied.

Here is an alternative argument for the "bold atheist" position--

If (P1) God does not exist
And (P2) Human ideas/concepts that are imaginary are created by man.
(C): The Human idea/concept of God was created by man.

P1 is supported by the Argument from Evil and Argument from Nonbelief. The last debate on the problem of evil went almost 50/50. Reasonable people disagree.

P2 would mostly follow from first principles such as the universe exists, knowledge exists, and all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model.

God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Imaginary is defined as an idea/concept that does not wholly correspond to reality.
Posted by RLBaty 4 years ago
RLBaty
likespeace,

You have headed off into the weeds.

Of course, as I have repeatedly stated, you are going to have a hard time finding any wannabe "bold" atheist, and there are many that can be found claiming that "man created God", who actually attempts to use the argument I have presented.

That's one of the points to be made in the exercise.

The argument is, in fact, implied by the "bold" claim that "man created God", as opposed to the weaker atheist claim that "I think man just might have created God".

Even atheists, when coming face to face with the argument implied by the "bold" claim are forced to admit their position has premises they at least implicitly believe to be true but which they cannot establish based on their typical and much touted preference for "evidence".

It's not about the arguments you might want to set up and fuss about the theist position. That's a whole other matter.

This exercise has to do with the state of atheism and what atheists "believe" or "think", implicitly or explicitly, is true and which "believing" and "thinking" reaches beyond the evidence.

So, if anyone wants to "boldly" affirm that "man created God", then they have my argument to deal with and implicitly or explicitly admit they can only "believe" or "think" the premises are true because their standard of "evidence" falls short of demonstrating the truth of the premises.

Atheists don't believe there is a God.
Theists do.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
RLBatyAnti-atheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Deadklykris that this resolution is esoteric. First, I have met many atheists, but have never personally met anyone who argues his major premise. Second, I have shown in a mini-debate in the comments that the bold atheist position does not require agreeing with this major premise. Thus, what RLBaty accomplished, was only finding yet another who think RLBaty's own premise is flawed. UPDATE - I have decided to abstain. I have no obligation to vote, and RLBaty has engaged in ethically dubiious behavior such as copying content from this website to his own, and only the half of the content that supports his perspective.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
RLBatyAnti-atheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is so esoteric as to be pointless.