Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

How convinced are you of your beliefs?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 11:55:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whether religious or not, how convinced are you of what you believe to be the cause of existence?

What evidence contrary to your beliefs would cause you to be more unsure?

I am ~95% sure of deism

If scientific breakthroughs prove that the Big Bang is the result of identifiable phenomena that doesn't transcend the universe, if objective morality has a logical reason for existing, if intelligence shows to result from non-intelligence, if the source of the beginning information required for the first strand of DNA is identified, if the overwhelming odds against our existence and continued odds allowing sustainability of existence is explained via other life given a larger sample size, if love is discovered to be exclusive to some physical cause, why and how independent forces of nature came to be, and the question of why anything really exists at all is answered, I will have no reason to believe God exists.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 11:57:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:55:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whether religious or not, how convinced are you of what you believe to be the cause of existence?

What evidence contrary to your beliefs would cause you to be more unsure?

I am ~95% sure of deism

If scientific breakthroughs prove that the Big Bang is the result of identifiable phenomena that doesn't transcend the universe, if objective morality has a logical reason for existing, if intelligence shows to result from non-intelligence, if the source of the beginning information required for the first strand of DNA is identified, if the overwhelming odds against our existence and continued odds allowing sustainability of existence is explained via other life given a larger sample size, if love is discovered to be exclusive to some physical cause, why and how independent forces of nature came to be, and the question of why anything really exists at all is answered, I will have no reason to believe God exists.

That's called God of the Gaps reasoning....

Once those holes are comprehensively filled, just move onto the next one...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:00:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:58:23 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
It's not God of the gaps, which one is?

"I can't think of why X, therefore God"

The same reasoning why God of lightning, earthquakes etc existed, there was a gap in understanding.

Personally I argue even the gaps you are claiming aren't actually gaps, but that's besides the point. The point is reasoning from a perceived gap is unsound philosophy.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:16:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive logic requires previous experience. Are there some god actions you can point to in order for us to make an inductive argument related to god?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:19:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:16:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive logic requires previous experience. Are there some god actions you can point to in order for us to make an inductive argument related to god?

Yes. The specified-complexity (intelligence) of a cell behaves in a way that mirrors our own intelligence. The odds of a cell performing normal functions without specified-complexity is like saying this paragraph I've just written is from me arbitrarily whacking my hand on the keyboard.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:23:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:19:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:16:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive logic requires previous experience. Are there some god actions you can point to in order for us to make an inductive argument related to god?

Yes. The specified-complexity (intelligence) of a cell behaves in a way that mirrors our own intelligence. The odds of a cell performing normal functions without specified-complexity is like saying this paragraph I've just written is from me arbitrarily whacking my hand on the keyboard.

That says nothing about God. (It's also simply not a true argument, and Dembski is a hack, but that's neither here nor there).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:23:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:19:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:16:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive logic requires previous experience. Are there some god actions you can point to in order for us to make an inductive argument related to god?

Yes. The specified-complexity (intelligence) of a cell behaves in a way that mirrors our own intelligence. The odds of a cell performing normal functions without specified-complexity is like saying this paragraph I've just written is from me arbitrarily whacking my hand on the keyboard.

That says nothing about God. (It's also simply not a true argument, and Dembski is a hack, but that's neither here nor there).

God is premised as a being or a mind. Intelligence is the result of mind. If nature exhibits the result of a mind, it is inductive logic to say that nature was created by mind.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:30:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:55:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whether religious or not, how convinced are you of what you believe to be the cause of existence?

What evidence contrary to your beliefs would cause you to be more unsure?

I am ~95% sure of deism

If scientific breakthroughs prove that the Big Bang is the result of identifiable phenomena that doesn't transcend the universe, if objective morality has a logical reason for existing, if intelligence shows to result from non-intelligence, if the source of the beginning information required for the first strand of DNA is identified, if the overwhelming odds against our existence and continued odds allowing sustainability of existence is explained via other life given a larger sample size, if love is discovered to be exclusive to some physical cause, why and how independent forces of nature came to be, and the question of why anything really exists at all is answered, I will have no reason to believe God exists.

There's nothing to worry about. I AM WHOM I AM and will be forever.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.

Okay, so you are going for an inductive style argument in bad evidence:

P1) Our universe occurred either naturally or via causal agent
P2) Probably not naturally
C) via. Causal agent

The problem is:

1. What would have happened if things were different?
2. Does naturally = randomly
3. Is the probability for it occurring naturally LOW or ZERO (this is important)
4. What is the intrinsic probability of it occurring via. A causal agent?

You need the answers to all of these in order to have a good argument here. Deal a deck of cards out, one hand is going to be drastically different from another, but no particular hand is special, each will have their own laws and circumstances, and it's own history.

I.e. We cannot privilage our current circumstances if we do not know what all the other circumstances are.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:43:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:36:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.

Okay, so you are going for an inductive style argument in bad evidence:

P1) Our universe occurred either naturally or via causal agent
P2) Probably not naturally
C) via. Causal agent

The problem is:

1. What would have happened if things were different?
2. Does naturally = randomly
3. Is the probability for it occurring naturally LOW or ZERO (this is important)
4. What is the intrinsic probability of it occurring via. A causal agent?

You need the answers to all of these in order to have a good argument here. Deal a deck of cards out, one hand is going to be drastically different from another, but no particular hand is special, each will have their own laws and circumstances, and it's own history.

I.e. We cannot privilage our current circumstances if we do not know what all the other circumstances are.

All you need is the Truth to know who we really are as invisible vibrations in the mind of our Creator.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:45:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:36:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.

Okay, so you are going for an inductive style argument in bad evidence:

P1) Our universe occurred either naturally or via causal agent
P2) Probably not naturally
C) via. Causal agent

The problem is:

1. What would have happened if things were different?

We've calculated the odds of life-permitting possibilities. I can't tell if you mean to ask "what if the possibilities were actually less drastic than we think they were" or "would you still believe this is evidence for God if the possibilities were less drastic"

2. Does naturally = randomly

If nature has no causal purpose, no intent can exist. How could it not be random?

3. Is the probability for it occurring naturally LOW or ZERO (this is important)

Near zero if natural active forces were jumbling possibilities.

4. What is the intrinsic probability of it occurring via. A causal agent?

Much more likely given what we know about our own causal abilities.

You need the answers to all of these in order to have a good argument here. Deal a deck of cards out, one hand is going to be drastically different from another, but no particular hand is special, each will have their own laws and circumstances, and it's own history.

The problem is picking out from (x) number of decks for card (y) to achieve (z). If no forces existed, nobody would even be picking cards in the first place.

I.e. We cannot privilage our current circumstances if we do not know what all the other circumstances are.

We've calculated the possibilities against life-permitting conditions for a multitude of independent occurrences that needed to happen simultaneously.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:55:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:45:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:36:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.

Okay, so you are going for an inductive style argument in bad evidence:

P1) Our universe occurred either naturally or via causal agent
P2) Probably not naturally
C) via. Causal agent

The problem is:

1. What would have happened if things were different?

We've calculated the odds of life-permitting possibilities. I can't tell if you mean to ask "what if the possibilities were actually less drastic than we think they were" or "would you still believe this is evidence for God if the possibilities were less drastic"

Oh really? Because that's something I have yet to see in physics papers. There are an immeasurable number if ways how live could have come about, especially if we are just talking about information processing entities.

2. Does naturally = randomly

If nature has no causal purpose, no intent can exist. How could it not be random?

Thermodynamics, large scale processes etc are generally not random and are driven to finite possibilities.

3. Is the probability for it occurring naturally LOW or ZERO (this is important)

Near zero if natural active forces were jumbling possibilities.

So it's just low, at worst. In which case the argument is invalid.

4. What is the intrinsic probability of it occurring via. A causal agent?

Much more likely given what we know about our own causal abilities.

That's not an argument. In intrinsic probability of a causal agent is independent of the natural probabilities etc. This is a big red flag.

You need the answers to all of these in order to have a good argument here. Deal a deck of cards out, one hand is going to be drastically different from another, but no particular hand is special, each will have their own laws and circumstances, and it's own history.

The problem is picking out from (x) number of decks for card (y) to achieve (z). If no forces existed, nobody would even be picking cards in the first place.

No reason to believe that force is intelligent, even if it did exist.

I.e. We cannot privilage our current circumstances if we do not know what all the other circumstances are.

We've calculated the possibilities against life-permitting conditions for a multitude of independent occurrences that needed to happen simultaneously.

1. We don't know what life permitting conditions are
2. We don't know what the tolerance of the conditions are
3. We don't know the range of selection is, if there is one

Therefore I have no idea how you can make that statement. At best you can say life as it exists on Earth is impossible, but life in Earth =/= life at all.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:59:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:55:01 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:45:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:36:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.

Okay, so you are going for an inductive style argument in bad evidence:

P1) Our universe occurred either naturally or via causal agent
P2) Probably not naturally
C) via. Causal agent

The problem is:

1. What would have happened if things were different?

We've calculated the odds of life-permitting possibilities. I can't tell if you mean to ask "what if the possibilities were actually less drastic than we think they were" or "would you still believe this is evidence for God if the possibilities were less drastic"

Oh really? Because that's something I have yet to see in physics papers. There are an immeasurable number if ways how live could have come about, especially if we are just talking about information processing entities.

2. Does naturally = randomly

If nature has no causal purpose, no intent can exist. How could it not be random?

Thermodynamics, large scale processes etc are generally not random and are driven to finite possibilities.

3. Is the probability for it occurring naturally LOW or ZERO (this is important)

Near zero if natural active forces were jumbling possibilities.

So it's just low, at worst. In which case the argument is invalid.

4. What is the intrinsic probability of it occurring via. A causal agent?

Much more likely given what we know about our own causal abilities.

That's not an argument. In intrinsic probability of a causal agent is independent of the natural probabilities etc. This is a big red flag.

You need the answers to all of these in order to have a good argument here. Deal a deck of cards out, one hand is going to be drastically different from another, but no particular hand is special, each will have their own laws and circumstances, and it's own history.

The problem is picking out from (x) number of decks for card (y) to achieve (z). If no forces existed, nobody would even be picking cards in the first place.

No reason to believe that force is intelligent, even if it did exist.

I.e. We cannot privilage our current circumstances if we do not know what all the other circumstances are.

We've calculated the possibilities against life-permitting conditions for a multitude of independent occurrences that needed to happen simultaneously.

1. We don't know what life permitting conditions are
2. We don't know what the tolerance of the conditions are
3. We don't know the range of selection is, if there is one

Therefore I have no idea how you can make that statement. At best you can say life as it exists on Earth is impossible, but life in Earth =/= life at all.

Not one physicist knows how life began. Only us saints know how God created us and made us believe that what we observe is real.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:09:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:29:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:23:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:19:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:16:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive logic requires previous experience. Are there some god actions you can point to in order for us to make an inductive argument related to god?

Yes. The specified-complexity (intelligence) of a cell behaves in a way that mirrors our own intelligence. The odds of a cell performing normal functions without specified-complexity is like saying this paragraph I've just written is from me arbitrarily whacking my hand on the keyboard.

That says nothing about God. (It's also simply not a true argument, and Dembski is a hack, but that's neither here nor there).

God is premised as a being or a mind.

There's more to "God" than JUST a mind, though.

Intelligence is the result of mind. If nature exhibits the result of a mind, it is inductive logic to say that nature was created by mind.

It might be (though, again, I don't think the argument is valid in the slightest). But that doesn't support an omnipotent, omniscient being, which is what "God" usually points to. Could be an alien. Could be lots of things--there's no inductive grounds to assert "therefore god".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:13:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:09:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:29:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:23:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:19:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:16:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive logic requires previous experience. Are there some god actions you can point to in order for us to make an inductive argument related to god?

Yes. The specified-complexity (intelligence) of a cell behaves in a way that mirrors our own intelligence. The odds of a cell performing normal functions without specified-complexity is like saying this paragraph I've just written is from me arbitrarily whacking my hand on the keyboard.

That says nothing about God. (It's also simply not a true argument, and Dembski is a hack, but that's neither here nor there).

God is premised as a being or a mind.

There's more to "God" than JUST a mind, though.

Intelligence is the result of mind. If nature exhibits the result of a mind, it is inductive logic to say that nature was created by mind.

It might be (though, again, I don't think the argument is valid in the slightest). But that doesn't support an omnipotent, omniscient being, which is what "God" usually points to. Could be an alien. Could be lots of things--there's no inductive grounds to assert "therefore god".

God is truly an "alien" to His people but only during this first age. We shall all know Him in the next age;

Jeremiah 31
31: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32: not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD.
33: But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34: And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:35:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:55:01 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:45:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:36:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.

Okay, so you are going for an inductive style argument in bad evidence:

P1) Our universe occurred either naturally or via causal agent
P2) Probably not naturally
C) via. Causal agent

The problem is:

1. What would have happened if things were different?

We've calculated the odds of life-permitting possibilities. I can't tell if you mean to ask "what if the possibilities were actually less drastic than we think they were" or "would you still believe this is evidence for God if the possibilities were less drastic"

Oh really? Because that's something I have yet to see in physics papers. There are an immeasurable number if ways how live could have come about, especially if we are just talking about information processing entities.

You're telling me you haven't seen any calculations of life-permitting conditions by (secular) scientists?

2. Does naturally = randomly

If nature has no causal purpose, no intent can exist. How could it not be random?

Thermodynamics, large scale processes etc are generally not random and are driven to finite possibilities.

Then what does that say about the nature of nature itself?

3. Is the probability for it occurring naturally LOW or ZERO (this is important)

Near zero if natural active forces were jumbling possibilities.

So it's just low, at worst. In which case the argument is invalid.

I could possibly roll a quarter to china due to an unlikely series of events but this doesn't make the theory that it could happen by chance make it any more probable.

4. What is the intrinsic probability of it occurring via. A causal agent?

Much more likely given what we know about our own causal abilities.

That's not an argument. In intrinsic probability of a causal agent is independent of the natural probabilities etc. This is a big red flag.

I'm not understanding what you mean here. It's like saying what are the possibilities that I grab a cup of coffee if I just grabbed a cup of coffee.

You need the answers to all of these in order to have a good argument here. Deal a deck of cards out, one hand is going to be drastically different from another, but no particular hand is special, each will have their own laws and circumstances, and it's own history.

The problem is picking out from (x) number of decks for card (y) to achieve (z). If no forces existed, nobody would even be picking cards in the first place.

No reason to believe that force is intelligent, even if it did exist.

Well what is intelligence? How does intelligence affect outcomes? Impossibly unlikely outcomes become a certainty if one chooses to pursue that action.

I.e. We cannot privilage our current circumstances if we do not know what all the other circumstances are.

We've calculated the possibilities against life-permitting conditions for a multitude of independent occurrences that needed to happen simultaneously.

1. We don't know what life permitting conditions are
2. We don't know what the tolerance of the conditions are
3. We don't know the range of selection is, if there is one

We know what they can't be. What's left leaves the impossibly low life-permitting conditions. I'd be really surprised if you haven't seen the calculations done on life-permitting conditions.

Therefore I have no idea how you can make that statement. At best you can say life as it exists on Earth is impossible, but life in Earth =/= life at all.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:36:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:09:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:29:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:23:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:19:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:16:18 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive logic requires previous experience. Are there some god actions you can point to in order for us to make an inductive argument related to god?

Yes. The specified-complexity (intelligence) of a cell behaves in a way that mirrors our own intelligence. The odds of a cell performing normal functions without specified-complexity is like saying this paragraph I've just written is from me arbitrarily whacking my hand on the keyboard.

That says nothing about God. (It's also simply not a true argument, and Dembski is a hack, but that's neither here nor there).

God is premised as a being or a mind.

There's more to "God" than JUST a mind, though.

Intelligence is the result of mind. If nature exhibits the result of a mind, it is inductive logic to say that nature was created by mind.

It might be (though, again, I don't think the argument is valid in the slightest). But that doesn't support an omnipotent, omniscient being, which is what "God" usually points to. Could be an alien. Could be lots of things--there's no inductive grounds to assert "therefore god".

I argued I was 95% sure of deism, not the christian God.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 2:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:36:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

It might be (though, again, I don't think the argument is valid in the slightest). But that doesn't support an omnipotent, omniscient being, which is what "God" usually points to. Could be an alien. Could be lots of things--there's no inductive grounds to assert "therefore god".

I argued I was 95% sure of deism, not the christian God.

I didn't say Christian God, so I'm not clear where this objection comes from. The label of "God" has connotative baggage, even with deism. You're arguing induction for the creation of things that we have no inductive experience of, based on the similarity that you argue for in regards to it stemming from intelligence--intelligence, alone, is not sufficient to call a thing "god", nor does that argument, at face value, support the notion of a supernatural entity through induction. The things to which you correlate it to are non-super-natural, so I don't see how you can use them to support the super-natural explanation proferred by deism.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 2:16:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:35:31 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:55:01 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:45:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:36:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:27:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:18:18 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:09:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Every event that can't be proven is a "gap" in our knowledge.

A "hello" written in the sand isn't proven to be from a human writing it. It's inductive logic.

Inductive logic favors God in every instance I've listed.

Inductive reasoning is only valid if you have experience of the entity you are proposing, and the likelihood of an event being attributed to it.

For example, we can us inductive reasoning to deduce a computer was built by a human, since every single one of the millions of computers on earth in modern days are done so.

The same cannot be applied to god. Inductive reasoning just doesn't work.

Alternatively you can propose a 'God hypothesis' as a model for explaining the world, but I have yet to see any 'God model' with a shred of explanatory power, which is what's required for a good model and proposed entity.

Black holes are a good example of a model to fit the data which predicts an entity (a black hole). And gives good explanatory power of the observations around it.

A God does not come close to it this....

Human beings perform functions in sequence that are astronomically improbable if they happen by chance. Specifically, if I had the intent of making this sentence by randomly hitting my keyboard, the odds are astronomical.

The universe came into existence by a sequence of astronomically improbable events if they were happening by chance. Even that previous sentence is a massive understatement. If the universe came into being from a causal agent, like we are causal agents, the improbabilities make sense.

Okay, so you are going for an inductive style argument in bad evidence:

P1) Our universe occurred either naturally or via causal agent
P2) Probably not naturally
C) via. Causal agent

The problem is:

1. What would have happened if things were different?

We've calculated the odds of life-permitting possibilities. I can't tell if you mean to ask "what if the possibilities were actually less drastic than we think they were" or "would you still believe this is evidence for God if the possibilities were less drastic"

Oh really? Because that's something I have yet to see in physics papers. There are an immeasurable number if ways how live could have come about, especially if we are just talking about information processing entities.

You're telling me you haven't seen any calculations of life-permitting conditions by (secular) scientists?

I have, and I know their assumptions and what the studies actually say.

2. Does naturally = randomly

If nature has no causal purpose, no intent can exist. How could it not be random?

Thermodynamics, large scale processes etc are generally not random and are driven to finite possibilities.

Then what does that say about the nature of nature itself?

That nature has order.

3. Is the probability for it occurring naturally LOW or ZERO (this is important)

Near zero if natural active forces were jumbling possibilities.

So it's just low, at worst. In which case the argument is invalid.

I could possibly roll a quarter to china due to an unlikely series of events but this doesn't make the theory that it could happen by chance make it any more probable.

The problem here is you are assuming the result to be significant. I see no reason to accept this for one. Moreover we have no idea how many rolls of the dice we have.

If there is no significance to our current universe, and that alternate ones would yield the same questions, then all this talk of odds completely misses it's mark.

4. What is the intrinsic probability of it occurring via. A causal agent?

Much more likely given what we know about our own causal abilities.

That's not an argument. In intrinsic probability of a causal agent is independent of the natural probabilities etc. This is a big red flag.

I'm not understanding what you mean here. It's like saying what are the possibilities that I grab a cup of coffee if I just grabbed a cup of coffee.

If the intrinsic probability of agent causality is zero (which is what I give it), then it follows it cannot possibly be an explanation no matter how unlikely natural explanations are.

I assign agent causality an epistimic possibility (it might be true for all I know...), but not a physical/metaphysical possibility (there exists a chance/a world where a causal agent exists).


You need the answers to all of these in order to have a good argument here. Deal a deck of cards out, one hand is going to be drastically different from another, but no particular hand is special, each will have their own laws and circumstances, and it's own history.

The problem is picking out from (x) number of decks for card (y) to achieve (z). If no forces existed, nobody would even be picking cards in the first place.

No reason to believe that force is intelligent, even if it did exist.

Well what is intelligence? How does intelligence affect outcomes? Impossibly unlikely outcomes become a certainty if one chooses to pursue that action.

That assumes that the choice is special. And that the outcome ever needed to be affected.

I.e. We cannot privilage our current circumstances if we do not know what all the other circumstances are.

We've calculated the possibilities against life-permitting conditions for a multitude of independent occurrences that needed to happen simultaneously.

1. We don't know what life permitting conditions are
2. We don't know what the tolerance of the conditions are
3. We don't know the range of selection is, if there is one

We know what they can't be. What's left leaves the impossibly low life-permitting conditions. I'd be really surprised if you haven't seen the calculations done on life-permitting conditions.

I have. Have you not seen my recent debate vs zmikecuber? I have argued for the fine tuning argument in high detail, from the theists side. Check it out, I think I am in an excellent position to critique it.

Therefore I have no idea how you can make that statement. At best you can say life as it exists on Earth is impossible, but life in Earth =/= life at all.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 2:49:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:55:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whether religious or not, how convinced are you of what you believe to be the cause of existence?

Very convinced. Because my answer is, 'I don't know'.

What evidence contrary to your beliefs would cause you to be more unsure?

To be honest, I don't know. I would like to think that strong evidence of a deity would cause me to change my beliefs, but I recognize that I am a stubborn person who does not always use evidence to justify my beliefs, though I try. So I hope that strong evidence would change my beliefs, though my guess is that I would not change overnight.

I am ~95% sure of deism

If scientific breakthroughs prove that the Big Bang is the result of identifiable phenomena that doesn't transcend the universe, if objective morality has a logical reason for existing, if intelligence shows to result from non-intelligence, if the source of the beginning information required for the first strand of DNA is identified, if the overwhelming odds against our existence and continued odds allowing sustainability of existence is explained via other life given a larger sample size, if love is discovered to be exclusive to some physical cause, why and how independent forces of nature came to be, and the question of why anything really exists at all is answered, I will have no reason to believe God exists.

Ehh. I don't have enough of a problem with deism to respond to this.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
steffon66
Posts: 240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:01:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:55:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whether religious or not, how convinced are you of what you believe to be the cause of existence?

What evidence contrary to your beliefs would cause you to be more unsure?

I am ~95% sure of deism

If scientific breakthroughs prove that the Big Bang is the result of identifiable phenomena that doesn't transcend the universe, if objective morality has a logical reason for existing, if intelligence shows to result from non-intelligence, if the source of the beginning information required for the first strand of DNA is identified, if the overwhelming odds against our existence and continued odds allowing sustainability of existence is explained via other life given a larger sample size, if love is discovered to be exclusive to some physical cause, why and how independent forces of nature came to be, and the question of why anything really exists at all is answered, I will have no reason to believe God exists.

hey great question man. that wasnt sarcasm i think it is a great question. its hard for me to believe in god because i cant believe that he created all this from nothing and came from nothing. and if something had to have come from nothing then i would believe that matter and energy came from nothing before i would beleive that a perfect all knowing all powerful god came form nothing. i think there is a more logical explanation for things got here though i dont know what it is. just because you dont know how things got here and your feelings tell you its all for a reason doesnt mean its for a reason. people who are told differently as children feel differently so your feelings on the matter prove nothing.
also everything is flawed. we arent smart enough to know right from wrong and if you think we do then id ask why there is controversy on every single precept ever conceived? and given the horrible things we go through on earth and how little some of us have when god has everything he wants and is all powerful and could have made us better off id have to say god is bad if he exists. i hope there isnt a god who would do this to us. as for how sure i am of my beliefs i dont know how to give you a percentage but im pretty darn sure. and as for what would change my beliefs. i dont know what would change my beliefs. even if i saw and heard god i would probably think i was hallucinating unless he somehow proved it to me which im sure he would if he existed and wanted me to know about him. its hard for me to believe in miracles because there are innocent children dying in fires and stuff and the miracles im hearing about are old people getting saved from cancer who btw went to the doctor. if there god was real and the bible was true and they believed it they wouldnt take medicine, wouldnt have to take medicine, and things would be much much different.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 4:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:55:45 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Whether religious or not, how convinced are you of what you believe to be the cause of existence?

What evidence contrary to your beliefs would cause you to be more unsure?

I am ~95% sure of deism

If scientific breakthroughs prove that the Big Bang is the result of identifiable phenomena that doesn't transcend the universe, if objective morality has a logical reason for existing, if intelligence shows to result from non-intelligence, if the source of the beginning information required for the first strand of DNA is identified, if the overwhelming odds against our existence and continued odds allowing sustainability of existence is explained via other life given a larger sample size, if love is discovered to be exclusive to some physical cause, why and how independent forces of nature came to be, and the question of why anything really exists at all is answered, I will have no reason to believe God exists.

Essentially, once everything you are unsure of is scientifically explained, you will not believe in God? So is your belief in God founded in your uncertainty behind the explanation of a variety of logical and scientific things?

It seems you rely upon rational and empirical arguments far too much to solidify your belief in God. Belief in God should primarily come from studying the texts of religions, meditation, and spiritual experiences. Rational arguments, while tempting, are useless concerning God and his nature.