Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Is the question,"does god exist?"even viable?

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 9:36:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
God is supposedly an immaterial being, so that means that you have to believe in the immaterial in order to believe in a god.

But that means that the question of the existence of a god is not even ready to be asked.

First, the debate needs to be on Materialism vs Dualism.

Under dualism, there is a belief in an immaterial world. This means that 2 dualists can debate the existence of a god.

Under materialism, there is only a material world. This means that you need to debate the existence of the immaterial before you can debate the existence of a god.

So, this thread is about putting forth the best arguments and rebuttals for materialism and dualism.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 11:07:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 9:36:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
God is supposedly an immaterial being, so that means that you have to believe in the immaterial in order to believe in a god.

But that means that the question of the existence of a god is not even ready to be asked.

First, the debate needs to be on Materialism vs Dualism.

Under dualism, there is a belief in an immaterial world. This means that 2 dualists can debate the existence of a god.

Under materialism, there is only a material world. This means that you need to debate the existence of the immaterial before you can debate the existence of a god.


So, this thread is about putting forth the best arguments and rebuttals for materialism and dualism.

Note that you are arguing against substance dualism, which is only a subset of dualism. For example you can have property dualism, among others.

Although it is true that to assert that the immaterial is a 'property' is to also assert that God is a 'property', which won't sit comfortably with the theist.

Also though, there are reductionist idealism, where God is fundemental and the material is manifest from the immaterial, so essentially the material and immaterial are the same thing fundamentally, but the immaterial is fundemental.

Similar things can be positive for materialism (albeit much less popular).

If you are arguing against substance dualism, where God by definition is completely different to the material world, then yes there are significant problems with it you can raise with interactionism, epiphenomenalism, etc. Mind-brain dependence, pragmatic reducability of consciousness and so on.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 11:10:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 9:36:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
God is supposedly an immaterial being, so that means that you have to believe in the immaterial in order to believe in a god.

But that means that the question of the existence of a god is not even ready to be asked.

First, the debate needs to be on Materialism vs Dualism.

Under dualism, there is a belief in an immaterial world. This means that 2 dualists can debate the existence of a god.

Under materialism, there is only a material world. This means that you need to debate the existence of the immaterial before you can debate the existence of a god.


So, this thread is about putting forth the best arguments and rebuttals for materialism and dualism.

I think the cognitivism of God is important to establish first before any debate on God's existance can commence. What is God? What is it's primary nature? Once you establish a primary nature, then the question of it's existance becomes sensible and meaningful.

Although I would argue that establishing such a nature necessarily limits God (and hence is incoherent).

You might be interested in my non cognitivism argument vs Daley in the following debate:
http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 11:21:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 11:10:07 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/2/2014 9:36:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
God is supposedly an immaterial being, so that means that you have to believe in the immaterial in order to believe in a god.

But that means that the question of the existence of a god is not even ready to be asked.

First, the debate needs to be on Materialism vs Dualism.

Under dualism, there is a belief in an immaterial world. This means that 2 dualists can debate the existence of a god.

Under materialism, there is only a material world. This means that you need to debate the existence of the immaterial before you can debate the existence of a god.


So, this thread is about putting forth the best arguments and rebuttals for materialism and dualism.

I think the cognitivism of God is important to establish first before any debate on God's existance can commence. What is God? What is it's primary nature? Once you establish a primary nature, then the question of it's existance becomes sensible and meaningful.

Although I would argue that establishing such a nature necessarily limits God (and hence is incoherent).

You might be interested in my non cognitivism argument vs Daley in the following debate:
http://www.debate.org...

Thank you. I made this thread because I got into a really interesting conversation with a theist, and, when "debating", everything came down to him being a dualist and me being a materialist.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 12:06:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think arguments from consciousness (inverse and absent qualia) pretty much have materialism/physicalism sewn up.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 3:30:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 9:36:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
So, this thread is about putting forth the best arguments and rebuttals for materialism and dualism.

Is love immaterial?

According to the Bible God is spirit.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

And the Spirit is love.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love" " We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:8,16

Does love exist?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 4:03:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 3:30:26 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/2/2014 9:36:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
So, this thread is about putting forth the best arguments and rebuttals for materialism and dualism.

Is love immaterial?

According to the Bible God is spirit.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

And the Spirit is love.

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love" " We know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and he who remains in love remains in God, and God remains in him.
1 John 4:8,16

Does love exist?

Love is the result of a chemical reaction in the brain (material). Now, the question is, is that all it is?

Is love just the reaction in the brain, or is the brain like a shortcut on your desktop, and it opens up the file in an immaterial mind or soul?

I take the position that love is just the reaction in the brain.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Springheeledjack
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 4:46:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course it is viable. The problem with OP's position is that it's reached by circular reasoning, in that he assumes nothing other than material things can exist, therefore an immaterial thing (God) existing is ridiculous.

I want to know what reasons OP has for assuming only physical stuff exists.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 4:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Based on your view we are neurochemical zombies/robots, and our subjective experience and consciousness is nothing but an illusion. Therefore, this discussion is no more meaningful than monkeys throwing feces at each other to enforce submission. The terms: "Prove, evidence, reason, logic, determine, conclude, error, fact, objective, subjective, concept, etc.." are all meaningless. Under these terms, logic is nothing but personal computation and there is no intellectual obligation to follow it.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:10:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 4:46:06 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
Of course it is viable. The problem with OP's position is that it's reached by circular reasoning, in that he assumes nothing other than material things can exist, therefore an immaterial thing (God) existing is ridiculous.

I want to know what reasons OP has for assuming only physical stuff exists.

Intuition (like the principles of logic and math). However, since intuition is spiritual or transcendent it doesn't exist; there is no actual "rational logic", and logic and intuition is just a subjective tool for survival based on the teaching of Nietzsche. So who knows, maybe evolution made him become born having the subjective belief that everything is material for survival reasons.

Of course, since philosophical materialism denies it's validity, it is self-refuting.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:29:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 4:47:59 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Based on your view we are neurochemical zombies/robots, and our subjective experience and consciousness is nothing but an illusion. Therefore, this discussion is no more meaningful than monkeys throwing feces at each other to enforce submission. The terms: "Prove, evidence, reason, logic, determine, conclude, error, fact, objective, subjective, concept, etc.." are all meaningless. Under these terms, logic is nothing but personal computation and there is no intellectual obligation to follow it.

Lack of tangible existence =/= meaningless. This is a rediculous straw man. We build axioms based on our mental models of reality, we have a conception of what a tree is, a toilet is, what it is to 'move', to burn etc. Just because the manifestations of these conceptions are material in materialism, doesn't mean that the representation is meaningless, and that includes for immaterial 'entities' such as numbers etc.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 5:31:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 5:10:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/2/2014 4:46:06 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
Of course it is viable. The problem with OP's position is that it's reached by circular reasoning, in that he assumes nothing other than material things can exist, therefore an immaterial thing (God) existing is ridiculous.

I want to know what reasons OP has for assuming only physical stuff exists.

Intuition (like the principles of logic and math). However, since intuition is spiritual or transcendent it doesn't exist; there is no actual "rational logic", and logic and intuition is just a subjective tool for survival based on the teaching of Nietzsche.

Neitzsche's take on logic is not the only model of understanding it in materialism.

So who knows, maybe evolution made him become born having the subjective belief that everything is material for survival reasons.

Of course, since philosophical materialism denies it's validity, it is self-refuting.

Subjective =/= 'True' and 'False' does not exist.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 7:16:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/2/2014 5:29:10 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/2/2014 4:47:59 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Based on your view we are neurochemical zombies/robots, and our subjective experience and consciousness is nothing but an illusion. Therefore, this discussion is no more meaningful than monkeys throwing feces at each other to enforce submission. The terms: "Prove, evidence, reason, logic, determine, conclude, error, fact, objective, subjective, concept, etc.." are all meaningless. Under these terms, logic is nothing but personal computation and there is no intellectual obligation to follow it.

Lack of tangible existence =/= meaningless. This is a rediculous straw man. We build axioms based on our mental models of reality, we have a conception of what a tree is, a toilet is, what it is to 'move', to burn etc. Just because the manifestations of these conceptions are material in materialism, doesn't mean that the representation is meaningless, and that includes for immaterial 'entities' such as numbers etc.

What do you mean by "lack of tangible existence"? If you mean immaterial then this defeats the OP and the immaterial exists. Does this mean logic, mathematics, and philosophy does not exist without a material form, and can be converted to have weight, mass, length, width, and height?
My post responds to the OP whom seems to believe in hardcore/monistic materialism, eliminative materialism to be exact (eliminating everything which cannot be explained materially by redefining it in material terms) all for the sake of maintaining the undefended assumption of materialism. Under this type of materialism, having subjective conscious experience is an illusion, it follows that visualizing these concepts is an illusion as well, and nothing more than neurochemical reactions.

At 10/2/2014 5:31:52 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/2/2014 5:10:45 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 10/2/2014 4:46:06 PM, Springheeledjack wrote:
Of course it is viable. The problem with OP's position is that it's reached by circular reasoning, in that he assumes nothing other than material things can exist, therefore an immaterial thing (God) existing is ridiculous.

I want to know what reasons OP has for assuming only physical stuff exists.

Intuition (like the principles of logic and math). However, since intuition is spiritual or transcendent it doesn't exist; there is no actual "rational logic", and logic and intuition is just a subjective tool for survival based on the teaching of Nietzsche.

Neitzsche's take on logic is not the only model of understanding it in materialism.

Wouldn't that mean that logic and math did not exist before the existence of biological brains?
Anyways, I am very interested in hearing of these other models.
So who knows, maybe evolution made him become born having the subjective belief that everything is material for survival reasons.

Of course, since philosophical materialism denies it's validity, it is self-refuting.

Subjective =/= 'True' and 'False' does not exist.
Whether there is reasoning/evidence or whether it is true or false doesn't matter in that context. What matters is whether our instincts believes the ideology to be better for survival or ensuring superiority, assuming the ability to adapt.