Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: where do you stand?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:09:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not surprised that I haven't received any answers yet. If I were an atheist I wouldn't want to answer them either.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:12:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Welcome back Ben!

(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?
Sure.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?
Logic is not a form of evidence, you can make inductive arguments using the evidence you found to arrive at some conclusion.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?
If you mean "valid" then sure, but that does not get you anywhere, if you mean "sound" then no.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Of course, the planets of our solar system existed long before we had evidence for them.
I think I know what you are trying to get at, but be advised, neither an inductive or an abductive argument will make the "God hypothesis" viable.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:15:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

My problem with this statement is "more plausibly true". The problem I see here is this eliminates two-valued logic arguments like syllogisms and instead implies logical arguments based on evidence, past experience, etc. The best method we know of working with plausibility based reasoning is the scientific method and it is fairly clear where that stands on the issue of God's existence.

So diatribe aside: if a logical argument was presented that made God's existence much more plausible than non-existence I would think God's existence was plausible.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

I see logic as a systematic way of reasoning.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

I accept that people have attempted to make logical arguments for God. I have examined each of those and find them unconvincing.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

I am probably wrong here but in a few minutes of trying to think of something that exists for which I don't have objective, physical evidence I can't come up with anything. For one it is throwing together some words that can have a lot or no meaning in different context (objective, physical, exist). There are things like emotions but we have objective, physical evidence those exist even if they are not physical entities themselves (can observe reactions in brains when they occur for example). Same for something like ideas and ideals, those aren't physical entities but they are obviously abstraction of real objects and can be shown to be so.

For now now I will say no and be content to be proven wrong.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:18:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:12:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Of course, the planets of our solar system existed long before we had evidence for them.

I had thought about this but the objective, physical evidence of those things existed all along we just hadn't detected or did not yet have the ability to detect those things.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:18:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:09:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm not surprised that I haven't received any answers yet. If I were an atheist I wouldn't want to answer them either.

A whole 50 minutes of waiting made you conclude that?
I made a post about the PoE some weeks ago and noone replied so I guess I obliterated Christianity in its entirety.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:18:01 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:12:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Of course, the planets of our solar system existed long before we had evidence for them.

I had thought about this but the objective, physical evidence of those things existed all along we just hadn't detected or did not yet have the ability to detect those things.
Good point, then I'd answer "no".
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:24:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

Yes, although I do not see how (see answer to #2).

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

Logic and evidence are two different animals, you cannot conflate the two. Evidence makes one hypothesis more likely than the hypothesis would be without it. Logic is the application of inference. Thus it is impossible for logic to be evidence since it categorically is a different thing.

You can prove by logic certain logical truths, for example mathematical truths. However this is not regarded as evidence. Perhaps you can prove that God exists on virtue of pure logic, however there are two problems:

1. God's existence deals with ontology, or being, and we do not have an a priori understanding of being. Thus it is literally impossible to soundly argue from pure logic for anything's existence. it would be like trying to prove Pythagoras' theorum without knowing that a "triangle" is. You simply have no idea what you are trying to prove.

2. They often use a posterori, or "synthetic" justification for their premises, thus leaving the world of "pure logic". E.g. cosmological arguments usually use the a posterori observation of causality as justification.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

Yes. Dylan's is probably the closest I have seen to one. Or arguments from perfection. These ultimately end up attempting to define God into existence, but they are the only classes of pure logical attempts I am aware of.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

Don't know. If something is in a state of being, or "existence" then it may be inevitable they physical evidence will exist. We cannot make the claim either way because of problem #1 - we do not have an a priori understanding of ontology yet.

---

Note if you attempt to twist my answers to argue something irrelevant (e.g. somehow shoehorning "objective value" into truth like you often do) then I am going to ignore you. This is a warning Ben.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:25:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:09:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm not surprised that I haven't received any answers yet. If I were an atheist I wouldn't want to answer them either.

Or, perhaps most here are just tired of your constant use of fallacies and ignorance.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:32:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:18:01 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:12:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Of course, the planets of our solar system existed long before we had evidence for them.

I had thought about this but the objective, physical evidence of those things existed all along we just hadn't detected or did not yet have the ability to detect those things.
Actually both our answers are compatible since we are basically expressing the same thing.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:32:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:09:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm not surprised that I haven't received any answers yet. If I were an atheist I wouldn't want to answer them either.

You make it sound like atheists are somehow "committed" to their beliefs. I don't know where you live but most atheists I know (and I live in a very liberal area of London, UK) are apathetic about their beliefs.

I personally couldn't really care less about what my position is - and I have given up giving myself labels such as "atheist" or "strong atheist" etc. since I really could care less what they are. They only serve as a tool for others to generalise me (like you have just done in your post there).

Given that I have frequently changed my stance of matters of belief - and often to positions I seriously dislike (e.g. epistemological skepticism), I see notions that "I wouldn't want to answer something" by virtue that it may challenge my current position completely absurd.

I can gladly say I do not like many of the positions I hold, yet I do. I challenge you to show a philosophical position you believe that you personally dislike believing is true. I would be quite impressed if you could give one, let alone one of any significance.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 12:33:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?
Yes. It would be no more definitive than no-god - we are talking logical deduction not empirical evidence.


(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?
Deduction is not evidence. It has worth, but is not scientific evidence.


(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

There are none that have been persuasive yet. They exist, yes, but do not satisfy point 1. "more plausibly true than false"

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Sure.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:12:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Welcome back Ben!

Thanks!

(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?
Sure.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?
Logic is not a form of evidence, you can make inductive arguments using the evidence you found to arrive at some conclusion.

If we can discover mathematical truths by pure reason alone, do you think that pure reason can discover other truths (ie God's existence?)

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?
If you mean "valid" then sure, but that does not get you anywhere, if you mean "sound" then no.

Are they more plausibly unsound than sound? I'll give you one example.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
The universe has a cause

Do you consider that conclusion to be more plausibly sound than unsound?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Of course, the planets of our solar system existed long before we had evidence for them.
I think I know what you are trying to get at, but be advised, neither an inductive or an abductive argument will make the "God hypothesis" viable.

Planets would still exist with objective, physical evidence even if we were ignorant of it. Do you consider "reason" or "truth" or "logic" or "abstract objects" as objective and physical entities?
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:34:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

Which god? Which argument(s)? Whose logical conclusions? As long as something is logical, it is plausible. Your fatal error is that what you propose is most often not logical.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

Yes, but only if based on solid premises.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

No.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

Yes.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:42:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:15:19 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

My problem with this statement is "more plausibly true". The problem I see here is this eliminates two-valued logic arguments like syllogisms and instead implies logical arguments based on evidence, past experience, etc. The best method we know of working with plausibility based reasoning is the scientific method and it is fairly clear where that stands on the issue of God's existence.

"Plausibility" is an inference to the best explanation - a process grounded in pure reason. Reason is precursory and essential to the scientific method.

So diatribe aside: if a logical argument was presented that made God's existence much more plausible than non-existence I would think God's existence was plausible.

What do you think of the Kalam Cosmological argument?

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

I see logic as a systematic way of reasoning.

Do you agree that through the use of reasoning we can discover truths? (Such as mathematical truths)?


(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

I accept that people have attempted to make logical arguments for God. I have examined each of those and find them unconvincing.

Do you find all of the arguments to be more plausibly false than true?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

I am probably wrong here but in a few minutes of trying to think of something that exists for which I don't have objective, physical evidence I can't come up with anything. For one it is throwing together some words that can have a lot or no meaning in different context (objective, physical, exist). There are things like emotions but we have objective, physical evidence those exist even if they are not physical entities themselves (can observe reactions in brains when they occur for example). Same for something like ideas and ideals, those aren't physical entities but they are obviously abstraction of real objects and can be shown to be so.

For now now I will say no and be content to be proven wrong.

Do mathematical objects have objective, physical evidence? Abstract concepts? Truth?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:52:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 1:28:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:12:02 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Welcome back Ben!

Thanks!

(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?
Sure.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?
Logic is not a form of evidence, you can make inductive arguments using the evidence you found to arrive at some conclusion.

If we can discover mathematical truths by pure reason alone, do you think that pure reason can discover other truths (ie God's existence?)
As Envisage pointed out, God's existence is a question of ontology that cannot be answered by a priori knowledge.


(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?
If you mean "valid" then sure, but that does not get you anywhere, if you mean "sound" then no.

Are they more plausibly unsound than sound? I'll give you one example.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
The universe has a cause

Do you consider that conclusion to be more plausibly sound than unsound?
I consider it definetly unsound for a multitude of reasons.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
Of course, the planets of our solar system existed long before we had evidence for them.
I think I know what you are trying to get at, but be advised, neither an inductive or an abductive argument will make the "God hypothesis" viable.

Planets would still exist with objective, physical evidence even if we were ignorant of it.
Notice that I said "before we had" not "before there was".

Do you consider "reason" or "truth" or "logic" or "abstract objects" as objective and physical entities?
Reason is a process of brains.
"Truth" is a label we give to things our epistemology deems worthy of it. If by "truth" you mean "what correspondes with reality" then yes truth is objective but not a physical entity of itself, however the question is how we can have knowledge of this objective truth.
Abstract objects are dependent on minds and minds are dependent on the physical.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:56:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

No, but I would be more inclined to further investigate whether the alleged god exists.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

No. I consider logic to be a method for evaluating evidence.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

Yes, but I think they are faulty.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

Not in any meaningful way. As someone else mentioned, everything we currently know to exist provided objective, physical evidence for its existence. We just didn't know of the subject's existence until we found the physical evidence. Anything that exists in a way that is meaningful has some sort of impact on the physical world. If something impacts the physical world, then it can be tested in objective, physical ways. To not generate objective, physical evidence is to not exist in any meaningful way.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 1:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 1:42:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/8/2015 12:15:19 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

My problem with this statement is "more plausibly true". The problem I see here is this eliminates two-valued logic arguments like syllogisms and instead implies logical arguments based on evidence, past experience, etc. The best method we know of working with plausibility based reasoning is the scientific method and it is fairly clear where that stands on the issue of God's existence.

"Plausibility" is an inference to the best explanation - a process grounded in pure reason.
Wait, wait, wait abduction is based on evaluating hypotheses against eachother, something that you cannot do by pure reason. You have to examine evidence confirming or disconfirming them.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 2:13:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

(1) If I were to hear personally convincing arguments FOR the existence of God, I would not go so far as to say that I would completely accept the fact that He exists. Bit I WOULD admit that I would find the idea more plausible. Thing is, though: I have never heard a convincing argument. Really, not even a GOOD one.

As an Agnostic--and lapsed Catholic--If I had to rate the possibility right now, I would put it at 90-10 AGAINST Him existing. Well...at least the traditional Biblical, Abrahamic-type God. Yahwerh.

(2) Logic as a form of Evidence? Hmm..tough one. I think that logic is usually based on evidence. But in and of itself it is not evidence.
For example: look at a court of law. In the legal sense, a witness could take the stand and make a logical statement why he thinks the accused murdered the victim. All his arguments might be logical, and make perfect sense. But by themselves they would not be construed as solid evidence. Although they might be useful in swaying the jury.

(3)I have as of yet heard no logical arguments for the existence of God. Oh..I wish I had, but alas, no. Nada.

(4)Yes! I DO believe something CAN exist just because thus far we have not been able to prove it. Or find evidence of it. Science is filled with examples of this. Stuff like Black Holes, radiation, germs, quantum mechanics, Dark Energy, etc. All those things have always existed but for 99% of the time Mankind has been around we knew nothing about them. And indeed would have been disbelievers in them had somebody told us about them before they were proven to exist.

That last fact is the primary reason I consider myself an Agnostic and mot a "full-blown" Atheist. I am always open for arguments for the existence of God, and am accepting to the possibility of some sort of supernatural Entity. I just do not think there is nearly enough (any?) evidence of that. At least so far.

But ya never know.

Thanks--Great topic!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 3:23:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

No, because despite all of the logical arguments there is still no hard evidence.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

Only when supported by facts that can be tested and corroborated.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

Yes, but none of them can be verified.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

Hypothetically, yes.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:34:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Im not standing im sitting
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:50:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

Perhaps, I have not encountered such a thing.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

No.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

Yes.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

Yes, of course, but we have no way to know without it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 8:56:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

1) Yeah, but it would not be enough to make me worship said deity.

2) No, only the mechanism through which we interpret evidence.

3) I'm sure there are, as there are innumerable combinations of words in the English language alone. I've yet to encounter one in the wild but I'm sure one exists and that it may rear up into commonality as we learn more of the universe.

4) Sure, but there's no reason to believe it until it has evidence. For the longest time there was no evidence that germs existed that we could see, yet now that our understanding of biology has expanded we have enough to say they do without a doubt.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2015 9:02:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

Yes.

But it works both ways, there are logical argument for the non existence of God.

*Depending how God is defined.


(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

I see logic having to do with premises and conclusions and evidence more with observation so no.


(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

Yes.

Do you accept there are logical arguments against Gods existence ?

Do you accept that the rationalization used for God against counter arguments are implausible ?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

Yes.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:17:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

(1) I think this is a loaded question.
(2) I think this is also a loaded question.
(3) Yes. With Caveats.
(4) Yes. But you cannot know it exists without objective, physical evidence.

So, an explanation.

(1) Presupposes that it is possible for a logical argument, alone to show something is more plausibly true or false. To be able to demonstrate something is true or false through logic requires presuppositions to be validated, which requires evidence.

(2) Okay, so not a loaded question as much as sort of missing the point. Evidence + Logic = conclusion. Logic on it's own is not evidence of a conclusion. Evidence without logic cannot be used to draw a conclusion. It is a combination of the two that allows us to generate demonstrable conclusions, IE: Knowledge.

(3) There are logical arguments for God, in that the conclusions follow the premises. However, in all cases, the premises cannot be shown to be true, and in many cases can be shown to be false. Therefore answering the question truthfully isn't really answering the question I think you're reall asking.

(4) It is possible for anything to exist. To be able to KNOW it exists, requires you to be able to demonstrate it.

I will follow up on this one: I may glance out my window and see a 100 foot tall Bill Clinton running down the street. I may beleive he exists, and convince myself that he exists. But unless I can show actual evidence rather than my own personal experience, I will never know whether he exists or not, even, though I am absolutely convinced he did. To know he exists, I must have demonstrable evidence that can be validated and used to conclude the existance of Mecha-Bill, until that time while I may beleive he exists, I do not know it because knowledge is demonstrable.

Seeing is believing. Seeing is NOT knowing.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 12:23:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Poor little benny, desperately trying to convince himself that he bet on the right horse.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:00:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You're back, Ben?

Welcome back.

At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?
No.

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?
No. Logic works best as an accountable way of understanding evidence; not creating it.

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?
No. They are arguments intended to unaccountably induce belief, not accountably demonstrate existence.

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
A definition of 'exist' must first be agreed.

Is existence a property of objects, or are objects identifiable elements of existence? Why?

Please define 'exists' in a way we can both understand unambiguously and accountably without the use of objective, physical evidence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 1:22:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 12:24:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?

Yes, although I do not see how (see answer to #2).

(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?

Logic and evidence are two different animals, you cannot conflate the two. Evidence makes one hypothesis more likely than the hypothesis would be without it. Logic is the application of inference. Thus it is impossible for logic to be evidence since it categorically is a different thing.

I just wrote my entire post and I got logged out and kicked off the internet for no reason. Ugh.

I meant logic as in "logical truths" or "pure reasoning" as you've elucidated below.


You can prove by logic certain logical truths, for example mathematical truths. However this is not regarded as evidence. Perhaps you can prove that God exists on virtue of pure logic, however there are two problems:

It depends on how you define evidence. Evidence can be anything that supports your rationale. We can have purely theoretical "proofs" that are used as evidence supporting some truth.

1. God's existence deals with ontology, or being, and we do not have an a priori understanding of being. Thus it is literally impossible to soundly argue from pure logic for anything's existence. it would be like trying to prove Pythagoras' theorum without knowing that a "triangle" is. You simply have no idea what you are trying to prove.

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by "we do not have an a priori understand of being so it's literally impossible to soundly argue from pure logic for anything's existence?" Does this just mean we can't have an accurate understanding of what it means for anything to exist? Can't we argue that no married bachelors exist? No square circles? No dead people that are simultaneously alive? Why can't we argue in the same fashion that it's logically necessary for God to exist? Take Anselms argument for instance.

2. They often use a posterori, or "synthetic" justification for their premises, thus leaving the world of "pure logic". E.g. cosmological arguments usually use the a posterori observation of causality as justification.

Can't that still be used as evidence for what is most plausible?

(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?

Yes. Dylan's is probably the closest I have seen to one. Or arguments from perfection. These ultimately end up attempting to define God into existence, but they are the only classes of pure logical attempts I am aware of.

Why can't it be the reverse? Whatever is shown to exist necessarily is labelled God. By the way, what is Dylan's argument or where can I find it?

(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?

Don't know. If something is in a state of being, or "existence" then it may be inevitable they physical evidence will exist. We cannot make the claim either way because of problem #1 - we do not have an a priori understanding of ontology yet.

I still don't know what this means. Does it essentially mean that we can't know that anything exists?

---

Note if you attempt to twist my answers to argue something irrelevant (e.g. somehow shoehorning "objective value" into truth like you often do) then I am going to ignore you. This is a warning Ben.

Lol didn't even cross my mind
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 2:04:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/8/2015 11:20:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) if logical arguments for God's existence make God's existence more plausibly true than false, would you accept that God most likely exists?
No, I would require evidence to validate gods existence.
(2) Do you consider logic to be a form of evidence?
No. Logic can be used to analyze evidence.
(3) Do you accept that there are logical arguments for God's existence?
There may be arguments, but can they be supported by evidence? Is there any demonstrable evidence for god?
(4) can something exist without objective, physical evidence?
We usually study and determine an object as a result of the evidence available. If something exists without evidence, how are we able to investigate it?