Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did this guy logically disprove God?

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 10:36:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:33:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It certainly seems like he presented a very convincing case.

I don't have sound, can someone summarize the argument?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 10:37:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Logical contradiction, something accepted by almost all contemporary philosophers arguing for the proof of God, since the times of kierkegaard.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 10:42:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting, but very obviously a failure to disprove god. Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input, which is bizarre. His argument is essentially fallacious anthropomorphizing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 10:48:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input"

God would need sensory input, maybe not the same primitive senses as us (seeing, smelling, hearing ect.), but if he has not way to sense things or else he is hardly worth being called a God.

I hope someone actually presents a logical case showing where he was wrong, because I believe it's a pretty flawless argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 10:50:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:42:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Interesting, but very obviously a failure to disprove god. Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input, which is bizarre. His argument is essentially fallacious anthropomorphizing.

God would need sensory input, maybe not the same primitive senses as us (seeing, smelling, hearing ect.), but if he has no way to sense anything then what can he base his intelligent ideas off of? I mean you can't have the idea to build a stick house if you can't sense the sticks existence in some way...

I hope someone actually presents a logical case showing where he was wrong, because I believe it's a pretty flawless argument.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:01:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:50:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:42:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Interesting, but very obviously a failure to disprove god. Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input, which is bizarre. His argument is essentially fallacious anthropomorphizing.

God would need sensory input, maybe not the same primitive senses as us (seeing, smelling, hearing ect.), but if he has no way to sense anything then what can he base his intelligent ideas off of? I mean you can't have the idea to build a stick house if you can't sense the sticks existence in some way...

Why? We are talking about a totally different form of cognitive ability here. There is no reason to suggest that this (supposedly vastly/infinitely/whateverly superior) form of cognizance needs sensory input.

I hope someone actually presents a logical case showing where he was wrong, because I believe it's a pretty flawless argument.

He makes odd assumptions which are not necessarily true. After the sixth minute his argument falls apart.

Despite what my profile says, I'm not really a christian in anything other than culture and belief that it is more likely a god exists than not (but I don't make any claim as to what this god is like), but I recognize a fallacious argument when I see one.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:02:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:50:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:42:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Interesting, but very obviously a failure to disprove god. Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input, which is bizarre. His argument is essentially fallacious anthropomorphizing.

God would need sensory input, maybe not the same primitive senses as us (seeing, smelling, hearing ect.), but if he has no way to sense anything then what can he base his intelligent ideas off of? I mean you can't have the idea to build a stick house if you can't sense the sticks existence in some way...
Is that the only way god could "sense anything" around him?

I hope someone actually presents a logical case showing where he was wrong, because I believe it's a pretty flawless argument.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:15:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:36:41 AM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:33:19 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

It certainly seems like he presented a very convincing case.

I don't have sound, can someone summarize the argument?

It goes something like this..

P1: Not being able to sense anything but having everything still exist around you (no starting point for intelligent thought), is equal to having infinite sensory ability but having nothing around you (no starting point for intelligent thought).

P2: All intelligent ideas based on things being around you

P3: "Now there are going to be those people who say God didn't need senses, he already knew everything. We are talking about the God of The Bible, he is omniscient and eternal, God knows everything and always has known everything. Well all you are doing in that situation is basically saying that everything has always existed at least conceptually in the mind of God. You rob a being like that of any type of creative ability, any type of ability to design anything. If God already knew what Bill Gates was like, he couldn't have made him any differently because there would never have been a time where he would know that he made him differently. It's a catch 22, if a being exists and knows everything and always has then he can never have a new idea, he can't never change his mind he can never create anything, he's trapped, hands are tied. That's not an intelligent being that's information stored, of course what's the point of storing information if there is nobody to hear it, see it, touch it...It's completely nonsensical"

P4: It is not logical to believe intelligence can exist before matter, because all intelligent thought is completely dependent on matter's existence.

P5: If God is defined as an intelligence that existed before matter then we have clear contradictory concepts at play, and we can safely say that God doesn't exist like we can say a square circle doesn't exist due to it's contradictory terms.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:19:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:01:59 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:50:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:42:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Interesting, but very obviously a failure to disprove god. Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input, which is bizarre. His argument is essentially fallacious anthropomorphizing.

God would need sensory input, maybe not the same primitive senses as us (seeing, smelling, hearing ect.), but if he has no way to sense anything then what can he base his intelligent ideas off of? I mean you can't have the idea to build a stick house if you can't sense the sticks existence in some way...

Why? We are talking about a totally different form of cognitive ability here. There is no reason to suggest that this (supposedly vastly/infinitely/whateverly superior) form of cognizance needs sensory input.

I hope someone actually presents a logical case showing where he was wrong, because I believe it's a pretty flawless argument.

He makes odd assumptions which are not necessarily true. After the sixth minute his argument falls apart.

Despite what my profile says, I'm not really a christian in anything other than culture and belief that it is more likely a god exists than not (but I don't make any claim as to what this god is like), but I recognize a fallacious argument when I see one.

"He makes odd assumptions which are not necessarily true. After the sixth minute his argument falls apart."

Explain how? All you have done is claimed his argument is a fallacy without any logical reasoning. Anyway, All he was doing is taking the known properties of intelligence and matter, and applying them to a concept which claims to be an intelligence that existed before matter. It was contradictory like a square circle, therefore it doesn't exist. Seem's pretty logical, he even refuted the "God didn't need senses he is all knowing" claim he knew was coming.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:24:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, this doesn't disprove God, as the entire thesis is built around preconceived notions of God should be like, none of which is provable.

At most you can debunk specific claims about God taken from the bible or the qur'an, but who says either of those religions holds the patent on what God is?

It is not possible to disprove a negative. If something does not exist, you could not unequivocally prove its non-existence.

Furthermore, there's no need to disprove God. The onus of proof is on the individual claiming the existence. At most, one can demonstrate a lack of plausibility, but that's a far cry from proving something does not exist.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:26:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:19:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 11:01:59 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:50:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:42:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Interesting, but very obviously a failure to disprove god. Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input, which is bizarre. His argument is essentially fallacious anthropomorphizing.

God would need sensory input, maybe not the same primitive senses as us (seeing, smelling, hearing ect.), but if he has no way to sense anything then what can he base his intelligent ideas off of? I mean you can't have the idea to build a stick house if you can't sense the sticks existence in some way...

Why? We are talking about a totally different form of cognitive ability here. There is no reason to suggest that this (supposedly vastly/infinitely/whateverly superior) form of cognizance needs sensory input.

I hope someone actually presents a logical case showing where he was wrong, because I believe it's a pretty flawless argument.

He makes odd assumptions which are not necessarily true. After the sixth minute his argument falls apart.

Despite what my profile says, I'm not really a christian in anything other than culture and belief that it is more likely a god exists than not (but I don't make any claim as to what this god is like), but I recognize a fallacious argument when I see one.

"He makes odd assumptions which are not necessarily true. After the sixth minute his argument falls apart."

Explain how? All you have done is claimed his argument is a fallacy without any logical reasoning.

Firstly - reread what I have said - there is clearly logical reasoning. Don't be rude. So, for the third time; his assumptions only apply to cognizance as we know it. There is no reason to believe they apply to a God.
Anyway, All he was doing is taking the known properties of intelligence and matter, and applying them to a concept which claims to be an intelligence that existed before matter.

His claim that intelligence relies on matter may not be true for a god. Furthermore, god would have his own existence as a starting point. From being aware of his own existence, an infinite mind could extrapolate everything. In addition; lets take the alternative - the argument that god has had all existence and all variants of existence in his brain from the beginning of time; the dudes counter argument is that wouldn't make him creative. Very weak. It firstly doesn't preclude god's existence and secondly, god would still be creative in what it chooses to put into existence.

It was contradictory like a square circle, therefore it doesn't exist. Seem's pretty logical, he even refuted the "God didn't need senses he is all knowing" claim he knew was coming.

Yeah - terribly.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:28:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:24:52 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
No, this doesn't disprove God, as the entire thesis is built around preconceived notions of God should be like, none of which is provable.

At most you can debunk specific claims about God taken from the bible or the qur'an, but who says either of those religions holds the patent on what God is?

It is not possible to disprove a negative. If something does not exist, you could not unequivocally prove its non-existence.

I agree with what you've said above, but you can prove a negative. In fact we do so all the time; the whole argument form Modus tollens is proving a negative.

Furthermore, there's no need to disprove God. The onus of proof is on the individual claiming the existence. At most, one can demonstrate a lack of plausibility, but that's a far cry from proving something does not exist.

Yarp.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:30:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:24:52 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
No, this doesn't disprove God, as the entire thesis is built around preconceived notions of God should be like, none of which is provable.

At most you can debunk specific claims about God taken from the bible or the qur'an, but who says either of those religions holds the patent on what God is?

It is not possible to disprove a negative. If something does not exist, you could not unequivocally prove its non-existence.

Furthermore, there's no need to disprove God. The onus of proof is on the individual claiming the existence. At most, one can demonstrate a lack of plausibility, but that's a far cry from proving something does not exist.

"No, this doesn't disprove God, as the entire thesis is built around preconceived notions of God should be like"

Umm They are based around the notions the theists present (Intelligent, all knowing ect.) not based on any preconceived notion the one trying to disprove God has.

"It is not possible to disprove a negative."

Disprove a negative? Well a negative claim would be "God doesn't exist", so if I were to disprove that then I would have to be claiming that God did exist. Unless you meant "prove a negative", in that case of course you can. We can prove that married bachelors, square circles, and carbon life that thrives on the sun doesn't exist due to the properties they contain and whether they contradict each other or not.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:31:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
More specifically, he tries to give proof by contradiction (which is not always the case, because it's based on a priori assumptions) and it's an appeal to ridicule... of which are logical fallacies.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:37:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with what you've said above, but you can prove a negative. In fact we do so all the time; the whole argument form Modus tollens is proving a negative.:

If this is true then the "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence," which is not always true.

Case in point: NASA studies attempted to find water on the moon after extensive searches. They conclude that the moon therefore has no water -- a reasonable assumption.

As it turns out, later excursions prove that there is in fact water on the moon. Therefore the absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence in an absolute form, it simply means that they have to go by what they currently know.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:39:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:26:34 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/26/2012 11:19:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 11:01:59 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:50:30 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:42:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Interesting, but very obviously a failure to disprove god. Makes the assumption that God needs sensory input, which is bizarre. His argument is essentially fallacious anthropomorphizing.

God would need sensory input, maybe not the same primitive senses as us (seeing, smelling, hearing ect.), but if he has no way to sense anything then what can he base his intelligent ideas off of? I mean you can't have the idea to build a stick house if you can't sense the sticks existence in some way...

Why? We are talking about a totally different form of cognitive ability here. There is no reason to suggest that this (supposedly vastly/infinitely/whateverly superior) form of cognizance needs sensory input.

I hope someone actually presents a logical case showing where he was wrong, because I believe it's a pretty flawless argument.

He makes odd assumptions which are not necessarily true. After the sixth minute his argument falls apart.

Despite what my profile says, I'm not really a christian in anything other than culture and belief that it is more likely a god exists than not (but I don't make any claim as to what this god is like), but I recognize a fallacious argument when I see one.

"He makes odd assumptions which are not necessarily true. After the sixth minute his argument falls apart."

Explain how? All you have done is claimed his argument is a fallacy without any logical reasoning.

Firstly - reread what I have said - there is clearly logical reasoning. Don't be rude. So, for the third time; his assumptions only apply to cognizance as we know it. There is no reason to believe they apply to a God.
Anyway, All he was doing is taking the known properties of intelligence and matter, and applying them to a concept which claims to be an intelligence that existed before matter.

His claim that intelligence relies on matter may not be true for a god. Furthermore, god would have his own existence as a starting point. From being aware of his own existence, an infinite mind could extrapolate everything. In addition; lets take the alternative - the argument that god has had all existence and all variants of existence in his brain from the beginning of time; the dudes counter argument is that wouldn't make him creative. Very weak. It firstly doesn't preclude god's existence and secondly, god would still be creative in what it chooses to put into existence.

It was contradictory like a square circle, therefore it doesn't exist. Seem's pretty logical, he even refuted the "God didn't need senses he is all knowing" claim he knew was coming.

Yeah - terribly.

"his assumptions only apply to cognizance as we know it. There is no reason to believe they apply to a God."

Yes there are, the theists are the one claiming that he can create, design, and has intelligent thought it's not the one disproving God giving him these qualities. If somebody claims that something is water but it has properties that contradict H20, then we can safely say it's not water. So on that same note, if someone says that something has intelligence, can create and design but those properties contradict the concept of God (intelligence that exists before matter) then we can safely say there was no intelligent thoughts or ideas before matter existed.

"the argument that god has had all existence and all variants of existence in his brain from the beginning of time; the dudes counter argument is that wouldn't make him creative. Very weak. It firstly doesn't preclude god's existence and secondly, god would still be creative in what it chooses to put into existence."

Actually it was very strong, God would have no creative thought. If he knew the universe was going to be exactly a certain way then he couldn't have created it any differently without him being wrong about the way he was going to create it. This means he can't have any new ideas and creation and design as based off new ideas. This is simple logic man, the only one creating fallacies and irrational arguments is you.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:40:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:31:40 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
More specifically, he tries to give proof by contradiction (which is not always the case, because it's based on a priori assumptions) and it's an appeal to ridicule... of which are logical fallacies.

The only logical fallacy is thinking these assumptions come from the one disproving God, all we know about God are the properties believers give him, not the other way around.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:42:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"No, this doesn't disprove God, as the entire thesis is built around preconceived notions of God should be like"

Umm They are based around the notions the theists present (Intelligent, all knowing ect.) not based on any preconceived notion the one trying to disprove God has.:

Yeah, that THEISTS present. There's been over a thousand different religions on the planets that we can identify, and some of them hold mutually exclusive propositions to one another.

So, like I said earlier, all you can do is debunk SPECIFIC claims about God. That doesn't mean that a God could have completely different properties than the one's these fallible humans are claiming about God. Therefore, it doesn't debunk God, it debunks preconceived notions about God.

"It is not possible to disprove a negative."

Disprove a negative? Well a negative claim would be "God doesn't exist", so if I were to disprove that then I would have to be claiming that God did exist. Unless you meant "prove a negative", in that case of course you can. We can prove that married bachelors, square circles, and carbon life that thrives on the sun doesn't exist due to the properties they contain and whether they contradict each other or not.:

Yes, I misspoke. I meant prove a negative.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:43:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:37:31 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I agree with what you've said above, but you can prove a negative. In fact we do so all the time; the whole argument form Modus tollens is proving a negative.:

If this is true then the "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence," which is not always true.

Case in point: NASA studies attempted to find water on the moon after extensive searches. They conclude that the moon therefore has no water -- a reasonable assumption.

As it turns out, later excursions prove that there is in fact water on the moon. Therefore the absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence in an absolute form, it simply means that they have to go by what they currently know.

All I am saying is that all these assumptions (God being intelligent, existing before matter, all knowing, creator, designer) came from the theist, so don't be dishonest and try to say that certain arguments are flawed when the assumptions they are based on come from the theists themselves, not the one doing the disproving. If the properties are not correct then there is no reason to believe God exists because the reason for his existence is based on those specific properties.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:47:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:42:17 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"No, this doesn't disprove God, as the entire thesis is built around preconceived notions of God should be like"

Umm They are based around the notions the theists present (Intelligent, all knowing ect.) not based on any preconceived notion the one trying to disprove God has.:

Yeah, that THEISTS present. There's been over a thousand different religions on the planets that we can identify, and some of them hold mutually exclusive propositions to one another.

So, like I said earlier, all you can do is debunk SPECIFIC claims about God. That doesn't mean that a God could have completely different properties than the one's these fallible humans are claiming about God. Therefore, it doesn't debunk God, it debunks preconceived notions about God.

"It is not possible to disprove a negative."

Disprove a negative? Well a negative claim would be "God doesn't exist", so if I were to disprove that then I would have to be claiming that God did exist. Unless you meant "prove a negative", in that case of course you can. We can prove that married bachelors, square circles, and carbon life that thrives on the sun doesn't exist due to the properties they contain and whether they contradict each other or not.:

Yes, I misspoke. I meant prove a negative.

If you said, "I believe in theses properties (1,2, and 3 we'll call them) exist as one entity called X, therefore X must exist".....I could disprove that 1,2, and 3 cannot logically exist as one entity, so it's a logical fallacy to say "Well X can still have different properties even if you disproved 1,2 and 3 existing as one entity", because the whole reason for believing in X was because you believed 1,2 and 3 existed as one entity in the first place. It's called circular logic.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:48:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only logical fallacy is thinking these assumptions come from the one disproving God, all we know about God are the properties believers give him, not the other way around.:

Not all beliefs in God are the same. A deists conception of God is markedly different than a Christians, which is markedly different from a Hindu's, which is markedly different from a Muslim, and so on.

Like I said, one could logically disprove specific arguments about God, but that wouldn't necessarily disprove God.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:49:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:47:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/26/2012 11:42:17 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
"No, this doesn't disprove God, as the entire thesis is built around preconceived notions of God should be like"

Umm They are based around the notions the theists present (Intelligent, all knowing ect.) not based on any preconceived notion the one trying to disprove God has.:

Yeah, that THEISTS present. There's been over a thousand different religions on the planets that we can identify, and some of them hold mutually exclusive propositions to one another.

So, like I said earlier, all you can do is debunk SPECIFIC claims about God. That doesn't mean that a God could have completely different properties than the one's these fallible humans are claiming about God. Therefore, it doesn't debunk God, it debunks preconceived notions about God.

"It is not possible to disprove a negative."

Disprove a negative? Well a negative claim would be "God doesn't exist", so if I were to disprove that then I would have to be claiming that God did exist. Unless you meant "prove a negative", in that case of course you can. We can prove that married bachelors, square circles, and carbon life that thrives on the sun doesn't exist due to the properties they contain and whether they contradict each other or not.:

Yes, I misspoke. I meant prove a negative.

If you said, "I believe in theses properties (1,2, and 3 we'll call them) exist as one entity called X, therefore X must exist".....I could disprove that 1,2, and 3 cannot logically exist as one entity, so it's a logical fallacy to say "Well X can still have different properties even if you disproved 1,2 and 3 existing as one entity", because the whole reason for believing in X was because you believed 1,2 and 3 existed as one entity in the first place. It's called circular logic.

* I could prove that 1, 2, and 3 cannot logically exist as one entity

I made the same negative/ negative mistake you did lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:51:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:48:49 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The only logical fallacy is thinking these assumptions come from the one disproving God, all we know about God are the properties believers give him, not the other way around.:

Not all beliefs in God are the same. A deists conception of God is markedly different than a Christians, which is markedly different from a Hindu's, which is markedly different from a Muslim, and so on.

Like I said, one could logically disprove specific arguments about God, but that wouldn't necessarily disprove God.

"Not all beliefs in God are the same. A deists conception of God is markedly different than a Christians"

But they all believe he is an intelligent creator that existed before matter, am I correct?I mean, do you know of any conceptions of God that say he isn't an intelligent creator that existed before matter?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:54:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
All I am saying is that all these assumptions (God being intelligent, existing before matter, all knowing, creator, designer) came from the theist, so don't be dishonest and try to say that certain arguments are flawed when the assumptions they are based on come from the theists themselves, not the one doing the disproving. If the properties are not correct then there is no reason to believe God exists because the reason for his existence is based on those specific properties.:

If God does exist, do theists get to claim property rights on his descriptors? No, they don't.

You do understand that "proof" requires the very thing that the argument is lacking, which is actual evidence.

A lack of evidence is not always evidence itself. I'm not so much arguing the point that God or does not exist, I'm challenging this guy's understanding a basic philosophical principles.

But if you really want to understand this lesson in futility, prove to me that "alwdhfiaqwherflkashdflkaherlg" does not exist.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:56:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:37:31 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I agree with what you've said above, but you can prove a negative. In fact we do so all the time; the whole argument form Modus tollens is proving a negative.:

If this is true then the "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence," which is not always true.

Case in point: NASA studies attempted to find water on the moon after extensive searches. They conclude that the moon therefore has no water -- a reasonable assumption.

As it turns out, later excursions prove that there is in fact water on the moon. Therefore the absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence in an absolute form, it simply means that they have to go by what they currently know.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. For example the claim "there is no water on the moon" can be proven or disproven by checking the whole moon. It can be proven true or false. It is impossible to prove a negative for which the amount information that would need to be checked is infinitely large, but within finite observable data groups it is trivial to prove a negative.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:57:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:56:41 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/26/2012 11:37:31 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I agree with what you've said above, but you can prove a negative. In fact we do so all the time; the whole argument form Modus tollens is proving a negative.:

If this is true then the "absence of evidence, is evidence of absence," which is not always true.

Case in point: NASA studies attempted to find water on the moon after extensive searches. They conclude that the moon therefore has no water -- a reasonable assumption.

As it turns out, later excursions prove that there is in fact water on the moon. Therefore the absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence in an absolute form, it simply means that they have to go by what they currently know.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. For example the claim "there is no water on the moon" can be proven or disproven by checking the whole moon. It can be proven true or false. It is impossible to prove a negative for which the amount information that would need to be checked is infinitely large, but within finite observable data groups it is trivial to prove a negative.

It can't, because that claim would hold an assumption of now, and there's always the chance that someone's wrong, someone "misnoticed" what water was, or lexical ambiguity.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 11:58:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 11:54:04 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
All I am saying is that all these assumptions (God being intelligent, existing before matter, all knowing, creator, designer) came from the theist, so don't be dishonest and try to say that certain arguments are flawed when the assumptions they are based on come from the theists themselves, not the one doing the disproving. If the properties are not correct then there is no reason to believe God exists because the reason for his existence is based on those specific properties.:

If God does exist, do theists get to claim property rights on his descriptors? No, they don't.

You do understand that "proof" requires the very thing that the argument is lacking, which is actual evidence.

A lack of evidence is not always evidence itself. I'm not so much arguing the point that God or does not exist, I'm challenging this guy's understanding a basic philosophical principles.

But if you really want to understand this lesson in futility, prove to me that "alwdhfiaqwherflkashdflkaherlg" does not exist.

Actually his argument was not just philosophically sound but logically sound too, I still haven't seen any argument from anyone which adequately refute it. Also you are right that you cannot always prove a negative, that doesn't mean it's logical to believe in something just because it hasn't been disproven.

I mean you cannot prove that there isn't magical orb floating around in space eating entire solar systems and travelling through worm holes...Does that mean it's logical to believe in said thing? Of course not, you should not believe anything without good reason and the reasons come from the properties the believers present in the first place.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 12:06:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The video argues that "intelligent" means the ability to process and relate symbols." Saying that human intelligence works by processing and relating symbols is, I think, not so much an observation of humans, but a definition of intelligence. The argument proceeds to claim that symbols only exist in relation to the universe, so that without a universe to think about, there can be no intelligence. Hence a god cannot precede the universe.

I think the escape for theists lies in equivocating on "universe." I've heard it many times. The claim is that God is not part of "our universe" but rather lives in a separate universe, say "Godland." Godland is inaccessible to humans in any way. Presumably it is equipped with Omnipedia and celestial chew toys -- what ever it takes to support intelligence.

This concept appears in first cause argument:

Believer: Everything needs a first cause, so there must be a God to cause the universe.

Skeptic: If everything needs a first cause, the God needs a first cause.

B: No, God is exempt from needing a cause.

S: If one exemption is allowed, then I'll use it for the universe. That's simpler.

B: No, the God exemption is only available in Godland, not in our universe.

Similarly:

S: Intelligence requires something to think about. Without a universe there is nothing to think about, so there cannot be an intelligence.

B: No, in our universe that may be true, but God lives in Godland not in our universe.

I think the Godland argument works to resolve the contradiction in one sense. There is possibility of some parallel or higher dimensions beyond "our universe." However, what is lost is that God ia then just a guy who lives in a high rent apartment you can't get into. It's like the matrix hypothesis that our universe is just an artifact of computer simulation done in a higher universe. It could be, but who would worship a computer programmer? Or a guy who happens to live in a better house?

[Notice how hard I worked to get a BS dialogue. I expect full credit for that.]
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 12:21:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 12:06:13 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The video argues that "intelligent" means the ability to process and relate symbols." Saying that human intelligence works by processing and relating symbols is, I think, not so much an observation of humans, but a definition of intelligence. The argument proceeds to claim that symbols only exist in relation to the universe, so that without a universe to think about, there can be no intelligence. Hence a god cannot precede the universe.

I think the escape for theists lies in equivocating on "universe." I've heard it many times. The claim is that God is not part of "our universe" but rather lives in a separate universe, say "Godland." Godland is inaccessible to humans in any way. Presumably it is equipped with Omnipedia and celestial chew toys -- what ever it takes to support intelligence.

This concept appears in first cause argument:

Believer: Everything needs a first cause, so there must be a God to cause the universe.

Skeptic: If everything needs a first cause, the God needs a first cause.

B: No, God is exempt from needing a cause.

S: If one exemption is allowed, then I'll use it for the universe. That's simpler.

B: No, the God exemption is only available in Godland, not in our universe.

Similarly:

S: Intelligence requires something to think about. Without a universe there is nothing to think about, so there cannot be an intelligence.

B: No, in our universe that may be true, but God lives in Godland not in our universe.

I think the Godland argument works to resolve the contradiction in one sense. There is possibility of some parallel or higher dimensions beyond "our universe." However, what is lost is that God ia then just a guy who lives in a high rent apartment you can't get into. It's like the matrix hypothesis that our universe is just an artifact of computer simulation done in a higher universe. It could be, but who would worship a computer programmer? Or a guy who happens to live in a better house?

[Notice how hard I worked to get a BS dialogue. I expect full credit for that.]

"I think the Godland argument works to resolve the contradiction in one sense."

I believe it's them not playing fair.

The Theists only base there contentions indicating that God exists (everything that begins to exist has a cause, something cannot come from nothing) on what the they experience in this universe (not Godland). So if they can use what they believe is logical in this universe to try to prove a God inGodland, then why can't I use logic from this universe to logically refute their contentions about Godland?

Once more, the Godland argument is an unfair one at best.