Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheist mythbusting

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 8:18:45 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

Give us a example of number 5 Ben.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 8:28:39 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:18:45 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

Give us a example of number 5 Ben.

There are no square triangles. There are no purple-skinned US supreme Court justices.
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 8:34:54 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

How is it disproved?


(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

Possibly. How about some examples?


(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Perhaps not, but it's a pretty good indicator. Especially when you consider the claims of most theistic religions.

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

And?


(5) you can prove a negative.

Unless you're a theist.


(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

OK, and... ?

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

What evidence?

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

But not understanding how it works does, apparently.


(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

And yet that is what the term means to a great many people.


(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

So where are we going with this?
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 8:40:17 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:28:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:18:45 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

Give us a example of number 5 Ben.

There are no square triangles. There are no purple-skinned US supreme Court justices.

You are just adopting your own worldview here. My god can do anything, and if he chooses to make square triangles, thus making 4=3, he can.

Similarly for purple-skinned justices.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 8:51:50 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:34:54 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

How is it disproved?

Theism can't be "disproved" but it can be less plausible by showing the antithetical claim is more reasonable. The problem with this is that you're up against thousands of different conceptions of God, many of which are very generally defined.


(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

Possibly. How about some examples?

There are no square triangles. The evidence against the claim is that it defies the laws of logic.


(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Perhaps not, but it's a pretty good indicator. Especially when you consider the claims of most theistic religions.

It depends on how you define evidence. If evidence is defined as something tangible then yes. If evidence is defined as "information indicating whether a claim is a true or false" then it's not.

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

And?

That's it.


(5) you can prove a negative.

Unless you're a theist.

What do you mean?


(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

OK, and... ?

That's it.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

What evidence?

Fine-tuning of the universe, for example. The most plausible inference is that it was the result of intelligent design.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

But not understanding how it works does, apparently.

No it doesn't, even though your response was likely facetious.


(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

And yet that is what the term means to a great many people.

They are wrong.


(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

So where are we going with this?

You need to justify your position if you disbelieve.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:09:18 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:40:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:28:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:18:45 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

Give us a example of number 5 Ben.

There are no square triangles. There are no purple-skinned US supreme Court justices.

You are just adopting your own worldview here. My god can do anything, and if he chooses to make square triangles, thus making 4=3, he can.

Similarly for purple-skinned justices.

The claim is self-refuting since "can" assumes that it is not simultaneously possible and impossible, which relies upon the validity of the absoluteness of the laws of logic.
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:51:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:34:54 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

How is it disproved?

Theism can't be "disproved" but it can be less plausible by showing the antithetical claim is more reasonable. The problem with this is that you're up against thousands of different conceptions of God, many of which are very generally defined.


(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

Possibly. How about some examples?

There are no square triangles. The evidence against the claim is that it defies the laws of logic.


(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Perhaps not, but it's a pretty good indicator. Especially when you consider the claims of most theistic religions.

It depends on how you define evidence. If evidence is defined as something tangible then yes. If evidence is defined as "information indicating whether a claim is a true or false" then it's not.

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

And?

That's it.


(5) you can prove a negative.

Unless you're a theist.

What do you mean?

Most of the things I can think of that are negatives and can be proved relate to the properties of things or universal laws. (e.g. things don't fall upwards). But introduce an all-powerful being into the equation, and there are no longer any such rules. They can cause things to fall upwards, or the sun to stand still in the sky, or water to turn into wine.


(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

OK, and... ?

That's it.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

What evidence?

Fine-tuning of the universe, for example. The most plausible inference is that it was the result of intelligent design.

Your answer assumes the consequent. "Fine-tuning" implies a "tuner". There is a simple explanation for why the universe exists in the form in which we find it - because if any of the parameters were different, it would be a different universe. There's nothing special about that.


(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

But not understanding how it works does, apparently.

No it doesn't, even though your response was likely facetious.

As soon as there is a natural cause for something, the need for an intelligent designer is removed. This is why ID proponents try so hard to demonstrate that well-established aspects of evolution, for example, haven't happened.



(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

And yet that is what the term means to a great many people.

They are wrong.


(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

So where are we going with this?

You need to justify your position if you disbelieve.

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:11:49 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 9:09:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:40:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:28:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:18:45 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

Give us a example of number 5 Ben.

There are no square triangles. There are no purple-skinned US supreme Court justices.

You are just adopting your own worldview here. My god can do anything, and if he chooses to make square triangles, thus making 4=3, he can.

Similarly for purple-skinned justices.

The claim is self-refuting since "can" assumes that it is not simultaneously possible and impossible, which relies upon the validity of the absoluteness of the laws of logic.

Are you saying logic is above God?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:41:57 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
I see nothing mythbusting, just silly circular logic and the old 'less filling, tastes great' argument.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:51:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:34:54 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

How is it disproved?

Theism can't be "disproved" but it can be less plausible by showing the antithetical claim is more reasonable. The problem with this is that you're up against thousands of different conceptions of God, many of which are very generally defined.


(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

Possibly. How about some examples?

There are no square triangles. The evidence against the claim is that it defies the laws of logic.


(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Perhaps not, but it's a pretty good indicator. Especially when you consider the claims of most theistic religions.

It depends on how you define evidence. If evidence is defined as something tangible then yes. If evidence is defined as "information indicating whether a claim is a true or false" then it's not.

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

And?

That's it.


(5) you can prove a negative.

Unless you're a theist.

What do you mean?

Most of the things I can think of that are negatives and can be proved relate to the properties of things or universal laws. (e.g. things don't fall upwards). But introduce an all-powerful being into the equation, and there are no longer any such rules. They can cause things to fall upwards, or the sun to stand still in the sky, or water to turn into wine.

Claiming that something does not exist can't be proven false unless it's empirically verified to the contrary or it defies the laws of logic.


(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

OK, and... ?

That's it.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

What evidence?

Fine-tuning of the universe, for example. The most plausible inference is that it was the result of intelligent design.

Your answer assumes the consequent. "Fine-tuning" implies a "tuner". There is a simple explanation for why the universe exists in the form in which we find it - because if any of the parameters were different, it would be a different universe. There's nothing special about that.

Fine-tuning doesn't require a tuner. Here's the definition: "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

And we rely upon inference to the best explanation as to whether our universe arose by chance or by intelligent design. It's by virtue of competing hypothesis that we make our inference, not because the contrary positon is possible. You might argue that it's possible that a Boeing 747 could be constructed by a tornado hitting a junkyard. Doesn't make it the most plausible inference as to whether the Boeing 747 was the product of chance.


(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

But not understanding how it works does, apparently.

No it doesn't, even though your response was likely facetious.

As soon as there is a natural cause for something, the need for an intelligent designer is removed. This is why ID proponents try so hard to demonstrate that well-established aspects of evolution, for example, haven't happened.

What if naturally occurring things were intelligently designed? If there is no intelligent designer, then there's only an illusion as to how natural things work.



(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

And yet that is what the term means to a great many people.

They are wrong.


(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

So where are we going with this?

You need to justify your position if you disbelieve.

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:55:09 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 9:41:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I see nothing mythbusting, just silly circular logic and the old 'less filling, tastes great' argument.

I see nothing but silly circular logic coming from you. After you demonstrate how your claim is true, I'll demonstrate mine.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 9:56:53 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 9:11:49 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:09:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:40:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:28:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:18:45 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

Give us a example of number 5 Ben.

There are no square triangles. There are no purple-skinned US supreme Court justices.

You are just adopting your own worldview here. My god can do anything, and if he chooses to make square triangles, thus making 4=3, he can.

Similarly for purple-skinned justices.

The claim is self-refuting since "can" assumes that it is not simultaneously possible and impossible, which relies upon the validity of the absoluteness of the laws of logic.

Are you saying logic is above God?

I'm saying that any claim where God can do the logically impossible is self-refuting.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 10:07:44 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

I agree with every one of these points, and I appreciate your posting them.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 10:09:49 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 9:55:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:41:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I see nothing mythbusting, just silly circular logic and the old 'less filling, tastes great' argument.

I see nothing but silly circular logic coming from you. After you demonstrate how your claim is true, I'll demonstrate mine.

Simple: you have done nothing except reinforce your own construct. I'm not necessarily saying you're premises are wrong but you've 'proven' nothing... just trotted out some rehashed logical phrases.

Conversely, no one has 'disproven' you. It's the endless back and forth that does nothing to remedy 2 polar opposite ideologies. Less filling, taste great.

What sounds clever to 1 is foolish to another and vice versa.
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 10:24:31 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

(5) you can prove a negative.

Unless you're a theist.

What do you mean?

Most of the things I can think of that are negatives and can be proved relate to the properties of things or universal laws. (e.g. things don't fall upwards). But introduce an all-powerful being into the equation, and there are no longer any such rules. They can cause things to fall upwards, or the sun to stand still in the sky, or water to turn into wine.

Claiming that something does not exist can't be proven false unless it's empirically verified to the contrary or it defies the laws of logic.

Like black swans? We can prove the claim they don't exist is false by finding one. So why has no one proved the claim "God doesn't exist" is false?

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

What evidence?

Fine-tuning of the universe, for example. The most plausible inference is that it was the result of intelligent design.

Your answer assumes the consequent. "Fine-tuning" implies a "tuner". There is a simple explanation for why the universe exists in the form in which we find it - because if any of the parameters were different, it would be a different universe. There's nothing special about that.

Fine-tuning doesn't require a tuner. Here's the definition: "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

And we rely upon inference to the best explanation as to whether our universe arose by chance or by intelligent design. It's by virtue of competing hypothesis that we make our inference, not because the contrary positon is possible. You might argue that it's possible that a Boeing 747 could be constructed by a tornado hitting a junkyard. Doesn't make it the most plausible inference as to whether the Boeing 747 was the product of chance.

"Tuning" requires a tuner in any normal sense of the word. This is why ID advocates like to use it. It presuppoes their conclusion.

Also, you haven't addressed my second point. The universe is the way it is. If any of those physical constants were different, I concede the universe would be very different. We probably wouldn't recognise it. But so what? We are here to postulate about it precisely because it is the way it is.



(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

But not understanding how it works does, apparently.

No it doesn't, even though your response was likely facetious.

As soon as there is a natural cause for something, the need for an intelligent designer is removed. This is why ID proponents try so hard to demonstrate that well-established aspects of evolution, for example, haven't happened.

What if naturally occurring things were intelligently designed? If there is no intelligent designer, then there's only an illusion as to how natural things work.

I didn't say naturally occurring things preclude the possibility of a designer - they just make one unnecessary. And why does the lack of such a being make nature an illusion?

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

So where are we going with this?

You need to justify your position if you disbelieve.

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

Do you mean like God / Jesus?
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 10:44:41 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

No, and I only need to use the arguments usually applied to God to refute this.

a) My dragon is a spirit, he has no physical form. That doesn't mean he's not real.

or

b) My dragon is a real, physical being. But his cells are completely non-reflective. Light just passes straight through them, thus making him literally invisible.

Additionally, what is "logically absurd"? Which of the following statements do you consider logically absurd?

1. Black is white.
2. God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
3. God is both a spirit and a physical being.
4. The sun can stand still in the sky.
5. Pigs can fly.

And how do you distinguish between something that is logically absurd, and something that is simply not true?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:07:19 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 10:44:41 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

No, and I only need to use the arguments usually applied to God to refute this.

a) My dragon is a spirit, he has no physical form. That doesn't mean he's not real.

or

b) My dragon is a real, physical being. But his cells are completely non-reflective. Light just passes straight through them, thus making him literally invisible.

Additionally, what is "logically absurd"? Which of the following statements do you consider logically absurd?

1. Black is white.

A little paint will do the job.

2. God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

Sure, we can and i reckon God ought to be in the very least able do that what we can do.

3. God is both a spirit and a physical being.

Matter is energy, the spirit is energy, energy is energy.

4. The sun can stand still in the sky.

Sure, all you need to do is to stop the Earth's rotation which is possible if you apply enough energy to make it happen.

5. Pigs can fly.

http://www.abc.net.au...

YES THEY CAN!!!


And how do you distinguish between something that is logically absurd, and something that is simply not true?

Truth is, you can't really which goes both ways. There is no way to prove that God exists and there is no way to proof that God does not exist. However, with God being God and God being able to prove his own existence if he does exist and wishes to do so, i am inclined to say, "Let him proof if".
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:31:27 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 11:07:19 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/25/2016 10:44:41 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

No, and I only need to use the arguments usually applied to God to refute this.

a) My dragon is a spirit, he has no physical form. That doesn't mean he's not real.

or

b) My dragon is a real, physical being. But his cells are completely non-reflective. Light just passes straight through them, thus making him literally invisible.

Additionally, what is "logically absurd"? Which of the following statements do you consider logically absurd?

1. Black is white.

A little paint will do the job.

2. God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.

Sure, we can and i reckon God ought to be in the very least able do that what we can do.

3. God is both a spirit and a physical being.

Matter is energy, the spirit is energy, energy is energy.

4. The sun can stand still in the sky.

Sure, all you need to do is to stop the Earth's rotation which is possible if you apply enough energy to make it happen.

5. Pigs can fly.

http://www.abc.net.au...

YES THEY CAN!!!


And how do you distinguish between something that is logically absurd, and something that is simply not true?

Truth is, you can't really which goes both ways. There is no way to prove that God exists and there is no way to proof that God does not exist. However, with God being God and God being able to prove his own existence if he does exist and wishes to do so, i am inclined to say, "Let him proof if".

Yep. Post 15.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:34:52 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 10:09:49 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:55:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:41:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I see nothing mythbusting, just silly circular logic and the old 'less filling, tastes great' argument.

I see nothing but silly circular logic coming from you. After you demonstrate how your claim is true, I'll demonstrate mine.

Simple: you have done nothing except reinforce your own construct. I'm not necessarily saying you're premises are wrong but you've 'proven' nothing... just trotted out some rehashed logical phrases.

Where did I claim to 'prove' anything? And I don't care whether they're "rehashed" logical phrases or not as long as they're logical. Believe it or not, many atheists believe these myths.

Conversely, no one has 'disproven' you. It's the endless back and forth that does nothing to remedy 2 polar opposite ideologies. Less filling, taste great.

These are based on logical principles. There's no "sides" to take.

What sounds clever to 1 is foolish to another and vice versa.

So tell me what you disagree with and why. Vague criticisms are inherently useless.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:49:49 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 10:24:31 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

(5) you can prove a negative.

Unless you're a theist.

What do you mean?

Most of the things I can think of that are negatives and can be proved relate to the properties of things or universal laws. (e.g. things don't fall upwards). But introduce an all-powerful being into the equation, and there are no longer any such rules. They can cause things to fall upwards, or the sun to stand still in the sky, or water to turn into wine.

Claiming that something does not exist can't be proven false unless it's empirically verified to the contrary or it defies the laws of logic.

Like black swans? We can prove the claim they don't exist is false by finding one. So why has no one proved the claim "God doesn't exist" is false?

Because God is most often defined as a non-physical being which isn't subject to empirical verification.


(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

What evidence?

Fine-tuning of the universe, for example. The most plausible inference is that it was the result of intelligent design.

Your answer assumes the consequent. "Fine-tuning" implies a "tuner". There is a simple explanation for why the universe exists in the form in which we find it - because if any of the parameters were different, it would be a different universe. There's nothing special about that.

Fine-tuning doesn't require a tuner. Here's the definition: "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

And we rely upon inference to the best explanation as to whether our universe arose by chance or by intelligent design. It's by virtue of competing hypothesis that we make our inference, not because the contrary positon is possible. You might argue that it's possible that a Boeing 747 could be constructed by a tornado hitting a junkyard. Doesn't make it the most plausible inference as to whether the Boeing 747 was the product of chance.

"Tuning" requires a tuner in any normal sense of the word. This is why ID advocates like to use it. It presuppoes their conclusion.

It's the term secular scientists use too.


Also, you haven't addressed my second point. The universe is the way it is. If any of those physical constants were different, I concede the universe would be very different. We probably wouldn't recognise it. But so what? We are here to postulate about it precisely because it is the way it is.

Yes, obviously, if the constants were different the universe would have been different. That isn't the issue. The issue is making an inference as to whether the constants were set by chance or by intelligent design.



(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

But not understanding how it works does, apparently.

No it doesn't, even though your response was likely facetious.

As soon as there is a natural cause for something, the need for an intelligent designer is removed. This is why ID proponents try so hard to demonstrate that well-established aspects of evolution, for example, haven't happened.

What if naturally occurring things were intelligently designed? If there is no intelligent designer, then there's only an illusion as to how natural things work.

I didn't say naturally occurring things preclude the possibility of a designer - they just make one unnecessary. And why does the lack of such a being make nature an illusion?

It depends on what we're proposing an explanation for. A designer is necessary when positing that naturally occurring things are means towards ends. An answer as to "how" supposes that natural things have ends in themselves. If God doesn't exist, natural things don't have ends in themselves. Therefore, an answer as to "how" can only be illusory. It's observer-relative.

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

So where are we going with this?

You need to justify your position if you disbelieve.

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

Do you mean like God / Jesus?

If God is defined as a physical, empirical entity then yes. If not, no. I don't believe God is a physical, empirical entity.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:53:41 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 10:44:41 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

No, and I only need to use the arguments usually applied to God to refute this.

a) My dragon is a spirit, he has no physical form. That doesn't mean he's not real.

Define "dragon."

or

b) My dragon is a real, physical being. But his cells are completely non-reflective. Light just passes straight through them, thus making him literally invisible.

Can we bump into him?

Additionally, what is "logically absurd"? Which of the following statements do you consider logically absurd?

1. Black is white.
Yes

2. God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
Yes
3. God is both a spirit and a physical being.
No
4. The sun can stand still in the sky.
No
5. Pigs can fly.
No

A side note, many of these yes/no questions require qualifiers.

And how do you distinguish between something that is logically absurd, and something that is simply not true?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 11:55:44 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 11:34:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 10:09:49 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:55:09 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:41:57 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
I see nothing mythbusting, just silly circular logic and the old 'less filling, tastes great' argument.

I see nothing but silly circular logic coming from you. After you demonstrate how your claim is true, I'll demonstrate mine.

Simple: you have done nothing except reinforce your own construct. I'm not necessarily saying you're premises are wrong but you've 'proven' nothing... just trotted out some rehashed logical phrases.

Where did I claim to 'prove' anything? And I don't care whether they're "rehashed" logical phrases or not as long as they're logical. Believe it or not, many atheists believe these myths.

Conversely, no one has 'disproven' you. It's the endless back and forth that does nothing to remedy 2 polar opposite ideologies. Less filling, taste great.

These are based on logical principles. There's no "sides" to take.

What sounds clever to 1 is foolish to another and vice versa.

So tell me what you disagree with and why. Vague criticisms are inherently useless.

The whole endeavor. Wasted energy. Reminds me of logic back on 95... yes I'm dating myself. I opened hoping to see something novel but alas nope.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 12:03:09 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

Okey.


(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

Umm.........errr.............hmm..........., trouble is this just opens the door to all sorts of "woo" being evidence for anything and everything.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Yes it is. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but absence of evidences effects the probability of something being more likely to exist or not exist.


(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

I find this more as theistic whining, why ? cause you don't hear them making the same claims say about the aliens coming to earth and raping people.

They ONLY use this whole line about non belief vs belief x doesn't existence to God belief....................

So get back to me when your consistent on that line of reasoning, till them, shut up, im tired of it.


(5) you can prove a negative.

Some negatives you can't disprove.

Some negatives (at least in theory) can be disproven, some can't.


(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

Not too sure on that, it seems to me that some ones psychological could include beliefs.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

Well there is evidence for alien abduction...........

There is evidence that we are controlled by lizard people............

You need evidence that can hold up to scrutiny.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

And just because something is complex and/or you exist, doesn't mean you are the result of intelligent design.


(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."


(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 12:49:40 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 11:49:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 10:24:31 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

(5) you can prove a negative.

Unless you're a theist.

What do you mean?

Most of the things I can think of that are negatives and can be proved relate to the properties of things or universal laws. (e.g. things don't fall upwards). But introduce an all-powerful being into the equation, and there are no longer any such rules. They can cause things to fall upwards, or the sun to stand still in the sky, or water to turn into wine.

Claiming that something does not exist can't be proven false unless it's empirically verified to the contrary or it defies the laws of logic.

Like black swans? We can prove the claim they don't exist is false by finding one. So why has no one proved the claim "God doesn't exist" is false?

Because God is most often defined as a non-physical being which isn't subject to empirical verification.

So is it being an entity that makes disproof impossible? Love is non-physical, so is anger. You might even say gravity is, in the sense that it's not corporeal. Yet it's clearly possible to demonstrate that the claim any of these doesn't exist is false.



(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

What evidence?

Fine-tuning of the universe, for example. The most plausible inference is that it was the result of intelligent design.

Your answer assumes the consequent. "Fine-tuning" implies a "tuner". There is a simple explanation for why the universe exists in the form in which we find it - because if any of the parameters were different, it would be a different universe. There's nothing special about that.

Fine-tuning doesn't require a tuner. Here's the definition: "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

And we rely upon inference to the best explanation as to whether our universe arose by chance or by intelligent design. It's by virtue of competing hypothesis that we make our inference, not because the contrary positon is possible. You might argue that it's possible that a Boeing 747 could be constructed by a tornado hitting a junkyard. Doesn't make it the most plausible inference as to whether the Boeing 747 was the product of chance.

"Tuning" requires a tuner in any normal sense of the word. This is why ID advocates like to use it. It presupposes their conclusion.

It's the term secular scientists use too. Yes they do, that doesn't make it right. I suspect it is a concession to the ID crowd because they knew they were never going to get them to stop using it, or just couldn't think of something better at the time. I dislike it, because of its implications.


Also, you haven't addressed my second point. The universe is the way it is. If any of those physical constants were different, I concede the universe would be very different. We probably wouldn't recognise it. But so what? We are here to postulate about it precisely because it is the way it is.

Yes, obviously, if the constants were different the universe would have been different. That isn't the issue. The issue is making an inference as to whether the constants were set by chance or by intelligent design.

And I've heard no good argument to suggest they were. To argue that they must have been set the way they are because they are the way they are appears nonsensical. If we accept that there are an infinite number of configurations they might have assumed, leading to an infinite number of possibilities for what the universe would look like, then this is just the way it happened. Nothing about this implies anything massively improbable.

As an example, what are the odds of being killed by a falling piano? Billions to one. Yet, if I'm walking past a high-rise tomorrow, and a crane drops one on my head, the probability goes from 0.0000000000001 to 1 - it's certain. No magic involved.



(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

But not understanding how it works does, apparently.

No it doesn't, even though your response was likely facetious.

As soon as there is a natural cause for something, the need for an intelligent designer is removed. This is why ID proponents try so hard to demonstrate that well-established aspects of evolution, for example, haven't happened.

What if naturally occurring things were intelligently designed? If there is no intelligent designer, then there's only an illusion as to how natural things work.

I didn't say naturally occurring things preclude the possibility of a designer - they just make one unnecessary. And why does the lack of such a being make nature an illusion?

It depends on what we're proposing an explanation for. A designer is necessary when positing that naturally occurring things are means towards ends. An answer as to "how" supposes that natural things have ends in themselves. If God doesn't exist, natural things don't have ends in themselves. Therefore, an answer as to "how" can only be illusory. It's observer-relative.

You've lost me. If there is no God, there is no end target, and therefore nothing is a means to an end. So? Asking "how" isn't implying an end, it's just saying "this the way it is, and here's the cause."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

So where are we going with this?

You need to justify your position if you disbelieve.

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

Do you mean like God / Jesus?

If God is defined as a physical, empirical entity then yes. If not, no. I don't believe God is a physical, empirical entity.

God isn't physical, according to your definition.
Jesus was physical (according to many).

The statement "Jesus is God" would therefore appear to be a logical contradiction, according to those who believe he was a real, historical being with a physical presence.
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 12:56:36 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 11:53:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 10:44:41 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

No, and I only need to use the arguments usually applied to God to refute this.

a) My dragon is a spirit, he has no physical form. That doesn't mean he's not real.

Define "dragon."

or

b) My dragon is a real, physical being. But his cells are completely non-reflective. Light just passes straight through them, thus making him literally invisible.

Can we bump into him?

Yes, you can, because he has a real, physical body. If you connected with him, you would know it. But, he's also unbelievably fast, and incredibly shy. So the chances of you bumping into him are so close to zero, you might as well say they don't exist.


Additionally, what is "logically absurd"? Which of the following statements do you consider logically absurd?

1. Black is white.
Yes

2. God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
Yes
3. God is both a spirit and a physical being.
No
4. The sun can stand still in the sky.
No
5. Pigs can fly.
No

A side note, many of these yes/no questions require qualifiers.

And how do you distinguish between something that is logically absurd, and something that is simply not true?

OK, so a spirit is a non-corporeal consciousness. How can it also be corporeal? And with regard to 4 and 5, what makes them simply wrong instead of logically absurd?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 1:09:05 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/26/2016 12:56:36 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 11:53:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 10:44:41 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

No, and I only need to use the arguments usually applied to God to refute this.

a) My dragon is a spirit, he has no physical form. That doesn't mean he's not real.

Define "dragon."

or

b) My dragon is a real, physical being. But his cells are completely non-reflective. Light just passes straight through them, thus making him literally invisible.

Can we bump into him?

Yes, you can, because he has a real, physical body. If you connected with him, you would know it. But, he's also unbelievably fast, and incredibly shy. So the chances of you bumping into him are so close to zero, you might as well say they don't exist.


Additionally, what is "logically absurd"? Which of the following statements do you consider logically absurd?

1. Black is white.
Yes

2. God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
Yes
3. God is both a spirit and a physical being.
No
4. The sun can stand still in the sky.
No
5. Pigs can fly.
No

A side note, many of these yes/no questions require qualifiers.

And how do you distinguish between something that is logically absurd, and something that is simply not true?

OK, so a spirit is a non-corporeal consciousness. How can it also be corporeal? And with regard to 4 and 5, what makes them simply wrong instead of logically absurd?

5. Pigs fly... didn't you see the famous simpsons episode where Lisa became a vegetarian?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 3:24:35 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

(5) you can prove a negative.

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

I could say the exact same thing and refer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it would be the same.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 4:01:19 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/26/2016 1:09:05 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 11/26/2016 12:56:36 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 11:53:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 10:44:41 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:52:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/25/2016 9:10:17 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

What about if the reason for my disbelief is a lack of evidence for? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Do I need to "suspend belief" in the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, or am I permitted to assume it's not there?

You aren't really disbelieving based on lack of evidence though (depending on how evidence is defined.) You're disbelieving because the inherent physical qualities of which define something are said to not be present. It's equivalent to saying something physical exists non-physically. It's logically absurd.

No, and I only need to use the arguments usually applied to God to refute this.

a) My dragon is a spirit, he has no physical form. That doesn't mean he's not real.

Define "dragon."

or

b) My dragon is a real, physical being. But his cells are completely non-reflective. Light just passes straight through them, thus making him literally invisible.

Can we bump into him?

Yes, you can, because he has a real, physical body. If you connected with him, you would know it. But, he's also unbelievably fast, and incredibly shy. So the chances of you bumping into him are so close to zero, you might as well say they don't exist.


Additionally, what is "logically absurd"? Which of the following statements do you consider logically absurd?

1. Black is white.
Yes

2. God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
Yes
3. God is both a spirit and a physical being.
No
4. The sun can stand still in the sky.
No
5. Pigs can fly.
No

A side note, many of these yes/no questions require qualifiers.

And how do you distinguish between something that is logically absurd, and something that is simply not true?

OK, so a spirit is a non-corporeal consciousness. How can it also be corporeal? And with regard to 4 and 5, what makes them simply wrong instead of logically absurd?

5. Pigs fly... didn't you see the famous simpsons episode where Lisa became a vegetarian?

It's still good , it's still good.
Osmium
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 9:00:20 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 8:05:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
(1) Theism is not disproved by disproving notions of God as depicted in the world's major religions.

No it isn't, but in some cases it can be. And something that is very obvious to me and probably others is that most theists believe the way they do because they were at sometime influenced by one or more of the major world religions. There is always a subtle suggestion of that influence even with those who claim to be simply spiritual.

(2) evidence is not necessarily something tangible.

How so?

(3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I agree.

(4) defining your position as "lacking belief" but assuming God's absence until shown otherwise is actually belief that God doesn't exist and does not qualify as "lacking belief." It's disbelief. Disbelief entails non-belief but non-belief doesn't necessarily entail disbelief.

How does this apply in context here?

(5) you can prove a negative.

Huh?

(6) the definition of "belief" in philosophy is referring to a state of affairs in which the believer accepts as true. Belief is not referring to a description of your psychological state.

Maybe, but keep in mind that beliefs can be influenced by psychological state.

(7) there is evidence that theism is true.

Was this neatly placed after number 2 for a reason?

(8) science allows us to understand how something works. Understanding how something works, in principle, does not tell us whether it was the result of intelligent design.

True.

(9) there is no definition of God defined as "that which explains the unexplained."

In the context here I will argue it's an honest mistake that's been made by theists over and over again. Some of the greatest minds in history fell prey to such thoughts. However, where actual progress was made is when they abandoned the easiest assumption of "we can't explain it so it must be God's influence". Settling for that is giving up on understanding. It's a refusal to progress and blatantly promotes ignorance.

(10) to say that God's existence is unlikely to any degree is a statement of disbelief.

To say that God does not exist is a statement of disbelief, period. What's with your use of words "unlikely to any degree"? Philosophical jargon and playing with words doesn't change the truth about anything.