Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Sswdm And Iredia Debate On Whether God Is Nec

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:46:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A topic to debate this as you requested.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:49:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The aim is to discuss this as throroughly as we can and that may require us to branch into other aspects in so far as the topic is kept in mind. Where an impasse still remains, or if debate draws out we end it as amicably as we can.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:17:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 10:49:31 AM, Iredia wrote:
The aim is to discuss this as throroughly as we can and that may require us to branch into other aspects in so far as the topic is kept in mind. Where an impasse still remains, or if debate draws out we end it as amicably as we can.

Please define your god, and it's attributes. And explain why this particular one is required for knowledge.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:44:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 10:16:48 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

I already gave an example where knowledge and creator aren't attributes of a god (Einstein's & Laws of Logic). By baggage I mean extra unnecessary attributes to a being used to explain a certain phenomenon.

For example, lets say someone is murdered. I would say the murderer might be a person, and another would say the murderer also must be a women, with blonde hair. Without giving any justification for those additional attributes of the same being. Same applies here to a diety.

A full blown presuppositionalist will make essentially every single bible claim to be necessarily true attribute of their god which they only attempt to justify via the claim to knowledge (the topic of this thread). I'm fine with labeling the axiomatic statements, as 'God', but the extra baggage that comes with it is unjustified and unnecessary. Hopefully you understand my point here.

You make a lot of unjustified (and non-sequitir) jumps here. But by all means make a new topic to defend this.

My initial claim is simple enough. God makes consciousness possible and there can't possibly be knowledge without consciousness.

Why do I believe God makes consciousness ? It follows from my belief that God is a non-contingent, conscious being who created the universe.

What grounds do I have for this claim ?

1) ID in life. Clearly, we don't see Nature making coded systems; even certain patterns (eg letter on clouds, faces on rocks etc) rarely occur naturally and if so, hardly or never do so repeatably. If in life we see the necessity of designers then there is a case for God becomes much stronger. Antony Flew, is well-known to have switched from atheism to deism because of ID. Minds tend to arbitrate for coded systems and while it is clear they MUST work within the constraints of nature; it doesn't follow natural processes make them. As far as we know, minds are what determine what physical symbols mediate for the meaning they pass on; attimes towards doing an action eg printing a poem on love.

2) The hard problem of consciousness. This is the tricky part. Materialists tend to answer this by the post hoc ergo prompter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy. But the fact is that subjective consciousness humans experience individually is immaterial and different from the brains that mediate for them. My argument here is that consciousness is the gap the material world can't cross. The God factor is vital here; like theists before me, I propose that God created the material world as we know it and imbued it with consciousness. Note that, I don't cross this gap. But I make a more reasonable case because as life stands it takes consciousness to KNOW itself (consciousness) and unconsciousness. My defining principle here will be that matter can never bridge the consciousness gap.

3) That something (Nature) exists not nothing: Clearly, as far as we are alive we are witnesses to Nature; no living, thinking man denies Nature. But which dead, dull corpse can acknowledge it. And while there is no conclusive evidence for ghosts or God; we know that evidence is what the mind interprets objects to mean. In the end my poistion is that:

There is no 'nothing' as such, for if there was truly 'nothing' it could not be thought of, if 'nothing' can be thought of it is something. Put simply, there was always something. It is from this something from which all things in the material world springs. This something is God. QED.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 12:18:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:17:47 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


Please define your god, and it's attributes. And explain why this particular one is required for knowledge.

I have stated why God is required for knowledge in my previous post. I have also defined God as a non-contingent, conscious creator of the universe. Truth be told God has infinite attributes. But there are key ones I'll state as I see it.

Non-contigent: It depends on nothing to exists. OTOH all things depend on it to exist.

Conscious: That it is aware, it knows etc If not you are an atheist. Because for a long time it has ben taken for granted that God is a conscious being.

Spatial: It is space which all matter exists in.

Infinite: It is without limits in what it can do or cannot do. I think this covers attributes like omniscience given to God.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 1:18:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
#1 I will not respond to, because I don't see how Iredia has tied this to the topic "Is God Necessary for Knowledge". If you want to claim this as an attribute then fair enough but I will address this only when the relivence is established. Even if I were to accept that your god made anything, let alone everything - you need more to show that it is requires for knowledge.

#2 Perhaps I cannot read, but this point did not come across co-herantly. Are you claiming that conciousness is some sort of substance that has to be imbued by your god. I will address this when I get more information. If we take the zmikecuber's zombie world thought experiment:

If there was a world was somehow created where everything was the exactly same as our existing one (atom for atom), would any of the carbon copies of ourselves be concious? (Assuming your god has no involvement in this)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I stand to reason that they would indeed have conciousness from a materialistic perspective. What is yours? Also I you have asserted that materialistically, matter cannot know itself. I would like you to provide your reason for why this is the case.

#3 Could other posters please tell me if my brain is just lapsing, as I am having a lot of difficulty grasping what your main points are. Something along the lines of "There is something, not nothing, so there must have always been something which always existed that brought everything into being". Please let me know if I am straw-manning with this summary.

I can address this, however I still don't see how it relates to the topic at hand. If you wanted to argue for the existence of your god instead of your god being necessary for knowledge then I can, let me know. If were just attempting to justify your god's attributes, then fair enough as well. But do let me know.

So far you have mostly argued for the attributes of God. If your argument could be summarized as 'If God does not exist, then the universe does not exist, therefore no concious beings would exist which could ever know anything' then that wasn't really the debate I wanted to get into. Is that your stance or not?

Please clarify your position
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 2:35:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
*sigh*

I this in every thread about God......DEFINE THE F*CKER! lol

People just throw the word out there just begging to equivocations. What do you mean by God?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 3:19:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 2:35:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
*sigh*

I this in every thread about God......DEFINE THE F*CKER! lol

People just throw the word out there just begging to equivocations. What do you mean by God?

The same applies to reason. Care to define it ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 3:51:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@ Sswdm: You tend to shy away from points instead of addressing them. And you jumbles up a reply to two posts I made in a singke one. What is clear is you want to me to 'clarify' my statements. I'll try to KISS (Keep It Short and Simple) then.

1) Intelligent Design: I don't see why this can't be relevant to the topic. At some point we'll have to discuss how God made cteature with knowledge and what evidence is for this and ID is valuable as a means to argue for God. My proposal in this point is that coded systems in Nature require intelligence to and from that there is a basis to assume an ID.

2) The hard problem of consciousness: It was quite concise and clear. My argument there is simple, consciousness is immaterial and the brain doesn't fully explain it. And yes, I argue it is a substance imbued by God.

My answer to your question on the philosopher's zombie is that they aren't conscious. Relatively speaking, we have philosopher's zombies in humanoid robots and babies who have little or no awareness of what they do. I say matter cannot know itself because I take it for granted that matter isn't conscious. If you are going to claim chemical compounds and elements as seen in Nature have awareness, well, it would be a curious precedent.

3) Your understanding of my argument is correct. Some finer distinctions are that: by nothing, I mean a total lack of existence (physical or mental); by something, I mean a disembodied mind (aka God).

As to your claim to lack of relevance of my points, it's clearly your mistake. In #3 you asked me to define God's attributes and I did so. You asked me to state why 'my God' is required for knowledge and I stated it plainly in #4.

"My initial claim is simple enough. God makes consciousness possible
and there can't possibly be knowledge without consciousness.
Why do I believe God makes consciousness ? It follows from my
belief that God is a non-contingent, conscious being who created the
universe."

So my argument rests on consciousness because without it knowledge isn't possible; books contain knowledge but they don't know it; and neither do dead people.

Then I further make my arguments on why I think consciousness requires God which I am repeating again.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.