Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Me vs. Arguments for God

tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:31:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

If you are really a kid of 13, surely you have something better to do with your time, like school work, for instance?
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:36:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:31:35 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

If you are really a kid of 13, surely you have something better to do with your time, like school work, for instance?

I only come online after I finish all school work, etc.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:48:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

God is Spirit and there is more spiritual evidence for God and an afterlife than any other single topic. Spiritual evidence is individual, testimonial, personal and on many different levels depending upon the person. Observation of the spiritual realm is a reality that I testify to and it is undeniable in the magnitude of its reach in Human history.
Science and spirit are two different natures so I would prefer you not conflate the two in your rebuttal.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 7:01:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:48:29 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

God is Spirit and there is more spiritual evidence for God and an afterlife than any other single topic. Spiritual evidence is individual, testimonial, personal and on many different levels depending upon the person. Observation of the spiritual realm is a reality that I testify to and it is undeniable in the magnitude of its reach in Human history.
Science and spirit are two different natures so I would prefer you not conflate the two in your rebuttal.

So basically my argument is lol, a spiritual existence is supported by a wide spectrum of spiritual evidence and it and the concept of God should be considered at minimum. If we would consider testimonial evidence in court a spiritual existence has more evidence than any other claim, God and an afterlife EXISTS.
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 7:12:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:48:29 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

God is Spirit and there is more spiritual evidence for God and an afterlife than any other single topic. Spiritual evidence is individual, testimonial, personal and on many different levels depending upon the person. Observation of the spiritual realm is a reality that I testify to and it is undeniable in the magnitude of its reach in Human history.
Science and spirit are two different natures so I would prefer you not conflate the two in your rebuttal.

Basically an argument from religious experience. Let's just analyse an inference to the best explanation.

Argument Against Religious Experience

This argument is not a deductive one, thus shall not be presented in such a fashion. I shall merely analyse the following facts and formulate an inference to the best explanation via. abduction.

Facts

1. Religious experiences occur
2. These experiences vary
3. Scientific explanations exist
4. Religious explanations exist
5. God has free will

(1) Entailed by argument, thus true for the argument to be properly phrased or derived.

(2) True since different religions would entail different experiences if they do cite religious experiences, which they do. Ergo, they should vary.

(3) Affecting the physical body will in principle affect the mind. Studies with psilocybin have under rigorous conditions been shown to induce psychosis and religious experiences in the minds of patients. Refer my debate with mfigurski (http://www.debate.org...), or Envisage's amazing debate with Popculturepooka (http://www.debate.org...).

(4) This is the framework of the argument, so is undisputed.

(5) Axiom: An intelligent being x has free will if not contingent deterministically on any object y. God is (1) intelligent, and (2) non-contingent as being the cause of reality, thus possesses free will.

Inference to the Best Explanation

When appealing to abduction to find the a priori most likely explanation among a set of competing hypothesis, the following criteria are used:

1. Principle of simplicity
2. Testability & background knowledge
3. Explanatory & predictive power

I'll cross-apply these criteria to the two explanations for religious experiences--naturalistic and theistic.

#1. The principle of simplicity states that among a set of hypotheses, the simplest explanation is a priori best. What is "simplicity"? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy phrases it in ontological definition: "[Simplicity] measures the number of kinds of entities postulated by the theory. ... Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. ... Other things being equal, if T1 is more ontologically parsimonious than T2 then it is rational to prefer T1 to T2."[http://plato.stanford.edu...] Propositions of theistic explanation: God, physical universe+laws; propositions of naturalistic explanation: physical universe+laws. 3 vs. 2 in assumptions, ergo naturalism is more ontologically parsimonius, thus a priori most likely.

#2. Testability--ethereal experiences have been tested. Fact 3 supposes this, while there's no testability for religious experience. Testability thus posits that F3 > F4. Background Knowledge--no "background knowledge" of God exists, while naturalism is an assumption in biology, since theism is *not* assumed in most scientific fields. Lack of that assumption is naturalism by definition, since naturalism does posit everything is naturalism, key assumption of the uniformity of nature.

#3. This is tied. Both naturalism & theism posit <>A (where 'A' is a religious experience), and De Morgan's laws from Boolean algebra and modal logic posit that <>A --> <>[]A --> ~[]A. To justify that theism posits ~[]A, use fact 5--free will entails ~[]P, where 'P' is a variable that can refer to anything. Naturalism doesn't posit []A either, so presumption is <>A since it *is* []A, at least contingently. Additionally, such experiences do occur outside of A.

Expansion of #3:

Reductio:

P1. A is true (assumption for reductio)
P2. []Experience posits []S (subject of experience) (assumption of reductio)
C1. []AG --> []G (where 'G' is God) (C from assumptions P1 and P2)
P3. From P2, []ADr. (experience of *any* subject of a dream) --> []Dr.
P4. []ADr.
C2. []Dr. (figurative assumptions of dream are true)
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:01:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:12:24 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:48:29 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

God is Spirit and there is more spiritual evidence for God and an afterlife than any other single topic. Spiritual evidence is individual, testimonial, personal and on many different levels depending upon the person. Observation of the spiritual realm is a reality that I testify to and it is undeniable in the magnitude of its reach in Human history.
Science and spirit are two different natures so I would prefer you not conflate the two in your rebuttal.

Basically an argument from religious experience. Let's just analyse an inference to the best explanation.

Argument Against Religious Experience

This argument is not a deductive one, thus shall not be presented in such a fashion. I shall merely analyse the following facts and formulate an inference to the best explanation via. abduction.

Facts

1. Religious experiences occur
2. These experiences vary
3. Scientific explanations exist
4. Religious explanations exist
5. God has free will

(1) Entailed by argument, thus true for the argument to be properly phrased or derived.

(2) True since different religions would entail different experiences if they do cite religious experiences, which they do. Ergo, they should vary.

(3) Affecting the physical body will in principle affect the mind. Studies with psilocybin have under rigorous conditions been shown to induce psychosis and religious experiences in the minds of patients. Refer my debate with mfigurski (http://www.debate.org...), or Envisage's amazing debate with Popculturepooka (http://www.debate.org...).

(4) This is the framework of the argument, so is undisputed.

(5) Axiom: An intelligent being x has free will if not contingent deterministically on any object y. God is (1) intelligent, and (2) non-contingent as being the cause of reality, thus possesses free will.

Inference to the Best Explanation

When appealing to abduction to find the a priori most likely explanation among a set of competing hypothesis, the following criteria are used:

1. Principle of simplicity
2. Testability & background knowledge
3. Explanatory & predictive power

I'll cross-apply these criteria to the two explanations for religious experiences--naturalistic and theistic.

#1. The principle of simplicity states that among a set of hypotheses, the simplest explanation is a priori best. What is "simplicity"? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy phrases it in ontological definition: "[Simplicity] measures the number of kinds of entities postulated by the theory. ... Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. ... Other things being equal, if T1 is more ontologically parsimonious than T2 then it is rational to prefer T1 to T2."[http://plato.stanford.edu...] Propositions of theistic explanation: God, physical universe+laws; propositions of naturalistic explanation: physical universe+laws. 3 vs. 2 in assumptions, ergo naturalism is more ontologically parsimonius, thus a priori most likely.

#2. Testability--ethereal experiences have been tested. Fact 3 supposes this, while there's no testability for religious experience. Testability thus posits that F3 > F4. Background Knowledge--no "background knowledge" of God exists, while naturalism is an assumption in biology, since theism is *not* assumed in most scientific fields. Lack of that assumption is naturalism by definition, since naturalism does posit everything is naturalism, key assumption of the uniformity of nature.

#3. This is tied. Both naturalism & theism posit <>A (where 'A' is a religious experience), and De Morgan's laws from Boolean algebra and modal logic posit that <>A --> <>[]A --> ~[]A. To justify that theism posits ~[]A, use fact 5--free will entails ~[]P, where 'P' is a variable that can refer to anything. Naturalism doesn't posit []A either, so presumption is <>A since it *is* []A, at least contingently. Additionally, such experiences do occur outside of A.

Expansion of #3:

Reductio:

P1. A is true (assumption for reductio)
P2. []Experience posits []S (subject of experience) (assumption of reductio)
C1. []AG --> []G (where 'G' is God) (C from assumptions P1 and P2)
P3. From P2, []ADr. (experience of *any* subject of a dream) --> []Dr.
P4. []ADr.
C2. []Dr. (figurative assumptions of dream are true) : :

Jesus didn't have to debate anyone. All he did was speak the words our Father gave to him. Some of the people who listened to the words he spoke believed they were true.
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:01:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Read the OP.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:03:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:01:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
Read the OP. : :

I did and I told you that Jesus didn't have to debate.
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:04:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:03:45 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:01:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
Read the OP.

I did and I told you that Jesus didn't have to debate.

That isn't relevant to the OP of this thread ...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
lucky59
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:09:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:04:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:03:45 AM, lucky59 wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:01:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
Read the OP.

I did and I told you that Jesus didn't have to debate.

That isn't relevant to the OP of this thread ... : :

It is relevant to the OP but you're too blind to understand it.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:30:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

Mereological Ontological Argument
P1) I exist.
P2) Therefore, something exists.
P3) Wherever something exists, the mereological sum of all things exists.
P4) Therefore, the mereological sum of all things exists.
C) Therefore, God exists.

Modal Epistemic Argument
P1) For all p, if p is unknowable, then p is necessarily false (first premise; the principle),
P2) The proposition "God does not exist" is necessarily unknowable (second premise),
P3) Therefore, "God does not exist" is necessarily false (from both premises)
C) Therefore, necessarily, God exists (conclusion; from (3)).

The modal epistemic principle: If it is metaphysically impossible to know p, then p is necessarily false.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:33:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:30:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

Mereological Ontological Argument
P1) I exist.
P2) Therefore, something exists.
P3) Wherever something exists, the mereological sum of all things exists.
P4) Therefore, the mereological sum of all things exists.
C) Therefore, God exists.

(1): P4 doesn't entail C, since God as defined isn't the "mereological sum of all things"
(2): P3 entailing P4 commits fallacy of composition


Modal Epistemic Argument
P1) For all p, if p is unknowable, then p is necessarily false (first premise; the principle),
P2) The proposition "God does not exist" is necessarily unknowable (second premise),
P3) Therefore, "God does not exist" is necessarily false (from both premises)
C) Therefore, necessarily, God exists (conclusion; from (3)).

The modal epistemic principle: If it is metaphysically impossible to know p, then p is necessarily false.

Reverse MEA: "God exists" is equally unknowable, epistemic nihilism reductio, defeats P2. Reductio refutes P1.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:41:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:33:02 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:30:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

Mereological Ontological Argument
P1) I exist.
P2) Therefore, something exists.
P3) Wherever something exists, the mereological sum of all things exists.
P4) Therefore, the mereological sum of all things exists.
C) Therefore, God exists.

(1): P4 doesn't entail C, since God as defined isn't the "mereological sum of all things"
It only is for the sake of this argument. I know you gave a different definition in the beginning, but I felt like bringing up something original.

(2): P3 entailing P4 commits fallacy of composition
P3) is the principle of mereological composition. It is a valid argument as a fallacy of composition only arises when infering the features of the whole from the features of its parts, which is not done here. P4) follows from 2, 3 modus ponens.



Modal Epistemic Argument
P1) For all p, if p is unknowable, then p is necessarily false (first premise; the principle),
P2) The proposition "God does not exist" is necessarily unknowable (second premise),
P3) Therefore, "God does not exist" is necessarily false (from both premises)
C) Therefore, necessarily, God exists (conclusion; from (3)).

The modal epistemic principle: If it is metaphysically impossible to know p, then p is necessarily false.

Reverse MEA: "God exists" is equally unknowable, epistemic nihilism reductio, defeats P2. Reductio refutes P1.
I concede.... *sobs
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
tejretics
Posts: 6,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 8:43:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:41:57 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:33:02 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:30:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

Mereological Ontological Argument
P1) I exist.
P2) Therefore, something exists.
P3) Wherever something exists, the mereological sum of all things exists.
P4) Therefore, the mereological sum of all things exists.
C) Therefore, God exists.

(1): P4 doesn't entail C, since God as defined isn't the "mereological sum of all things"
It only is for the sake of this argument. I know you gave a different definition in the beginning, but I felt like bringing up something original.

Your argument is that if there is a universe with only x and y, x+y exists, and x+y=God. Basically, God is the universe. In other words: "Universe exists, so God exists, because both are the same." Not even Spinozan pantheism ... just universe=God.


(2): P3 entailing P4 commits fallacy of composition
P3) is the principle of mereological composition. It is a valid argument as a fallacy of composition only arises when infering the features of the whole from the features of its parts, which is not done here. P4) follows from 2, 3 modus ponens.



Modal Epistemic Argument
P1) For all p, if p is unknowable, then p is necessarily false (first premise; the principle),
P2) The proposition "God does not exist" is necessarily unknowable (second premise),
P3) Therefore, "God does not exist" is necessarily false (from both premises)
C) Therefore, necessarily, God exists (conclusion; from (3)).

The modal epistemic principle: If it is metaphysically impossible to know p, then p is necessarily false.

Reverse MEA: "God exists" is equally unknowable, epistemic nihilism reductio, defeats P2. Reductio refutes P1.
I concede.... *sobs*
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ClashnBoom
Posts: 886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 9:56:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

Miracles? I don't if any of these were already debunked but here's a list of Godly miracles http://listverse.com...
I will change my sig weekly. Week 4.

Fun fact of the week
Clumsy alien Jar Jar Binks was introduced in The Phantom Menace for comic relief, but he was initially a two-faced mercenary who was to betray Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master played by Liam Neeson.

Joke of the week:
Nerd 1: "Why can't you trust atoms?"
Nerd 2: : "Cause they make everything up!"
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 10:15:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 8:43:44 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:41:57 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:33:02 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 7/8/2015 8:30:32 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 7/8/2015 6:10:19 AM, tejretics wrote:
OK, this is a challenge I'm taking on. Let God be defined as any intelligent cause of the universe. You can present any of your arguments for God, and I'll try rebutting them. Fire away.

Mereological Ontological Argument
P1) I exist.
P2) Therefore, something exists.
P3) Wherever something exists, the mereological sum of all things exists.
P4) Therefore, the mereological sum of all things exists.
C) Therefore, God exists.

(1): P4 doesn't entail C, since God as defined isn't the "mereological sum of all things"
It only is for the sake of this argument. I know you gave a different definition in the beginning, but I felt like bringing up something original.

Your argument is that if there is a universe with only x and y, x+y exists, and x+y=God. Basically, God is the universe. In other words: "Universe exists, so God exists, because both are the same." Not even Spinozan pantheism ... just universe=God.
*sobs



(2): P3 entailing P4 commits fallacy of composition
P3) is the principle of mereological composition. It is a valid argument as a fallacy of composition only arises when infering the features of the whole from the features of its parts, which is not done here. P4) follows from 2, 3 modus ponens.



Modal Epistemic Argument
P1) For all p, if p is unknowable, then p is necessarily false (first premise; the principle),
P2) The proposition "God does not exist" is necessarily unknowable (second premise),
P3) Therefore, "God does not exist" is necessarily false (from both premises)
C) Therefore, necessarily, God exists (conclusion; from (3)).

The modal epistemic principle: If it is metaphysically impossible to know p, then p is necessarily false.

Reverse MEA: "God exists" is equally unknowable, epistemic nihilism reductio, defeats P2. Reductio refutes P1.
I concede.... *sobs*
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic