Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does God Exist?

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:20:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think I disproved God. Well… not really, but I'm off to an interesting start.

This is the only argument against God that I have personally created, more or less from scratch without having to rework some previous argument. I think I'm on to something. Anyway, given the truth of P2, (defending monism will be quite a large project in itself) is this a strong argument against the existence of God? Hopefully, I haven't embarrassed myself.

P1: All things being held equal, a simple hypothesis is much more likely to be true than a complex hypothesis. (The Law of Parsimony)

P2: Monism is, by its very nature, a simpler hypothesis than dualism, and it has at least the same explanatory scope as dualism to explain the nature of minds (i.e., evidence would suggest that mental properties are best explained by reference to their connection with the physical brain, and there is no known mental phenomenon which must necessarily be subject to a dualist explanation).

P3: If monism is true, then dualism is false. (if A then ~B)

P4: Monism is very likely to be true. (from 1 and 2)

P5: Therefore, dualism very likely to be false. (from 3 and 4)

P6: Therefore, it is very unlikely that any being with a mind can exist without a physical body. (from 5)

P7: God is described as a being with a mind that exists without a physical body.

C: Thus, other evidence held equal, God is very unlikely to exist. (from 6 and 7)

Copyright 5/16/10 Jacob Freeman
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:29:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 1:28:27 PM, mongeese wrote:
Have you made an argument that may lower the chance of God existing? Yes.

Have you disproved God? Far from it.

My thoughts exactly. Nobody can 100% disprove God.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:37:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"P1: All things being held equal, a simple hypothesis is much more likely to be true than a complex hypothesis. (The Law of Parsimony)"

Sounds like Occam's razor. No, it fails to apply to Deities and most philosophies, the reasoning used in "The Law of Parsimony" has no reason to be true.

Elaborate on P1.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:42:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 1:37:34 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
"P1: All things being held equal, a simple hypothesis is much more likely to be true than a complex hypothesis. (The Law of Parsimony)"

Sounds like Occam's razor.

It basically is Occam's razor.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:49:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.


I'm liking this.

Elaborate please:

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 1:58:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.

Well... I still think there are better reasons to suppose that physicalism is true as opposed to idealism or neutral monism - two views that are not terribly well defended in the 21st century.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
How do you know that God does not have a body? He is different to how we see something as a "body", but it does not invalidate the fact that He exists.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:02:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
most living things have a penis. god is not described having a penis therefore it is very unlikely that god exists.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:04:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:02:33 PM, badger wrote:
most living things have a penis. god is not described having a penis therefore it is very unlikely that god exists.

i know most living things don't have penises but i wouldn't have posted if it wasn't to use that as an example.
signature
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:04:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:02:33 PM, badger wrote:
most living things have a penis. god is not described having a penis therefore it is very unlikely that god exists.

That made me Lol. xD Sigged.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

Epic self defeatage.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:06:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 1:58:29 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.

Well... I still think there are better reasons to suppose that physicalism is true as opposed to idealism or neutral monism - two views that are not terribly well defended in the 21st century.

Monistic idealism: the only substance(s) that exist are mind(s). Certainly it wouldn't be implausible to think on idealism mind(s) can exist without the body.

I'm not too sure about neutral monism as I believe the philosophy says that the only kind of substance(s) that exist are neither mental nor physical. Maybe a case can be made.

I'm just pointing out that the conclusion would not come easily at all even granting your most controversial premise. But I would hotly contest p2 in any case. :)

If you want to debate it you can always send me a challenge. :)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:07:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:02:33 PM, badger wrote:
most living things have a penis. god is not described having a penis therefore it is very unlikely that god exists.

That's an interesting derivation, but it fails.

An entity can have its genitalia removed and still exist.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:07:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:04:12 PM, badger wrote:
i know most living things don't have penises but i wouldn't have posted if it wasn't to use that as an example.
there are beings called "plants."
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:08:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:07:35 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/16/2010 2:04:12 PM, badger wrote:
i know most living things don't have penises but i wouldn't have posted if it wasn't to use that as an example.
there are beings called "plants."

It was a joke. xD
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:04:43 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

Epic self defeatage.

Explain. I'm not even sure defeatage is a word.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:11:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:06:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:58:29 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.

Well... I still think there are better reasons to suppose that physicalism is true as opposed to idealism or neutral monism - two views that are not terribly well defended in the 21st century.

Monistic idealism: the only substance(s) that exist are mind(s). Certainly it wouldn't be implausible to think on idealism mind(s) can exist without the body.

I'm not too sure about neutral monism as I believe the philosophy says that the only kind of substance(s) that exist are neither mental nor physical. Maybe a case can be made.

I'm just pointing out that the conclusion would not come easily at all even granting your most controversial premise. But I would hotly contest p2 in any case. :)

If you want to debate it you can always send me a challenge. :)

I read you're dualism debate the other night (very impressive; it's kind of what inspired me to create this argument), and I would certainly want to challenge you on this, after I do some more research and adequately defend P2. :)
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:12:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:09:40 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/16/2010 2:04:43 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

Epic self defeatage.

Explain. I'm not even sure defeatage is a word.

I think what he's getting a is that if our ignorance is that radical about God that you couldn't know whether God exists either. So, really only agnosticism would be reasonable.

Or maybe I'm wrong about what his point was.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:12:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:11:09 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/16/2010 2:06:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:58:29 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:46:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
P2 is extremely dubious. And I mean very extremely dubious.

Note: I could just agree with p2 but say that the monism I'm asserting is either monistic idealism or even perhaps neutral monism and your entire argument would collapse.

Well... I still think there are better reasons to suppose that physicalism is true as opposed to idealism or neutral monism - two views that are not terribly well defended in the 21st century.

Monistic idealism: the only substance(s) that exist are mind(s). Certainly it wouldn't be implausible to think on idealism mind(s) can exist without the body.

I'm not too sure about neutral monism as I believe the philosophy says that the only kind of substance(s) that exist are neither mental nor physical. Maybe a case can be made.

I'm just pointing out that the conclusion would not come easily at all even granting your most controversial premise. But I would hotly contest p2 in any case. :)

If you want to debate it you can always send me a challenge. :)

I read [your] dualism debate the other night (very impressive; it's kind of what inspired me to create this argument), and I would certainly want to challenge you on this, after I do some more research and adequately defend P2. :)
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:13:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:11:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/16/2010 2:08:42 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
It was a joke. xD
My post was the opposite.

there are things called females too. i guess you wouldn't know anything about what's in their pants. lol i joke.
signature
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:18:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:09:40 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/16/2010 2:04:43 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/16/2010 1:43:09 PM, innomen wrote:
It is an absurd position to take that there is no God.

We have 5 senses (or so), a very limited intellectual capacity and that's it. With just those 5 senses and our ridiculously limited ability to comprehend there are those who can affirm that they know there is no God. They have this limited perception and are able to see through all realities, dimensions, and so much more and then can come to the conclusion that there is no God. It is absolutely arrogant and egocentric (not to mention laughably silly) to think that what we can perceive and understand is all there is.

I also think it's silly to make God into a being that has the personality characteristics of a being that has these great limitations. It makes us more comfortable to package Him in a way that we can better understand, but it's as absurd to do tha as it is to affirm there is no God.

Epic self defeatage.

Explain. I'm not even sure defeatage is a word.

It isn't.

What do you believe about God?
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:19:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:07:02 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 5/16/2010 2:02:33 PM, badger wrote:
most living things have a penis. god is not described having a penis therefore it is very unlikely that god exists.

That's an interesting derivation, but it fails.

An entity can have its genitalia removed and still exist.

since when is god bound to natural laws. you're comparing a supernatural being to natural beings... same as me
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:19:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 2:04:40 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/16/2010 2:02:33 PM, badger wrote:
most living things have a penis. god is not described having a penis therefore it is very unlikely that god exists.

That made me Lol. xD Sigged.

i'm glad you liked it.
signature
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 2:23:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Something that seems to be impossible is both on the theist and atheist side. The atheists may think that the Existence of God is impossible, but I can say the same about the length of the universe. It is unprovable that it is infinite, and it is impossibly infinite. Therefore, when you see that even on this side of disbelief in God, there is something highly debatable, then you can say that just because the existence of God is also highly debatable or too hard to understand for some people, does not mean that God does nor exist.

I find it impossible to believe that there is not one who created everything. Everything is too good to prove Him wrong.