The Instigator
CalebEr
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
backwardseden
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheists have a burden of proof

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
CalebEr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2020 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 785 times Debate No: 125629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (1)

 

CalebEr

Pro

It has long been argued that atheists do not have a burden of proof to fulfill, Since they only "lack belief" in God, And do not make any definitive statements on whether he does or not.

Is this view correct, Or is the mantra "I lack belief in God" merely an excuse that is put forward in order to avoid the burden of proof that the atheist must rightly shoulder? Today, I will be demonstrating that the latter is true.

The "law of contrapositive" says that all conditionals are logically equivalent to their inversions. In order to find out what the inversion of any given conditional is, All you need to do is negate both terms (the P and Q) of that conditional, And then switch their positions with each other. For example,

-If it is wet outside, I will not go for a walk (P -> ~Q)
is logically equivalent to:
-If I go for a walk outside, It will not be wet (Q -> ~P)

With this in mind, Let's take the popular atheistic quip that is so commonly trotted out by non-believers: -

I lack a belief in the existence of God (~P -> Q)

Now, Let's find the logical equivalent of this statement by negating each term and changing their positions:

-The non-existence of God is a belief I do not lack(~Q -> ~~P)

"Do not lack" is a double negative, And so we are at liberty to remove it from the conditional, Thus discovering the logical equivalent of this popular atheistic quip to be:
-The non-existence of God is my belief(~Q -> P).

"I lack belief in God" and "The non-existence of God is my belief" are thus both the same statement, And therefore the atheistic position requires just as much substantiation as the theistic position: "I believe that God exists"

Now, Some might allege that this argument, If true, Would make it so that we cannot ever be truly neutral on any conditional whatsoever. But I am not convinced that this is the case. True agnosticism goes both ways. Someone who is truly agnostic would not just say "I lack belief in the existence of God"; they would also have to say "I lack belief in the Non-existence of God" as well. My argument shows that someone who says that they lack belief in the existence of God, Without saying that they lack belief in the non-existence of God, Is essentially saying that they are inclined to believe that he doesn't exist. And since they are inclined to believe that way, Surely they have reason for doing so?
backwardseden

Con

Atheists are individuals. They are not "grouped ten polarized dancing on the floor" Ian Curtis as you insist. Your religion forces you to believe in one thing and only one thing, A book. So you REALLY expect a god to leap from it and prove itself? Why of course you do. So you really expect atheists to have B. O. P. Of your god?
It is always always always up to theists to prove that their god exists. No exceptions. None. Since there is no evidence for a god, And never has been in the entire existence of the human race, There can be no genuine educated intelligent belief for it. Now since it is you, The theist, That believes in this so-called "god", For whatever reason that may be, The B. O. P. Is up to you to prove that it exists. You as my debating opponent MUST prove that your god(s) exists. After all why should it be the atheists positioning to prove something that has never been proven? Talk about being extra counterproductive. And better yet, Why should an atheist even ---care--- to prove that your god(s) even exists? Creationists can't.
So you tell atheists how can atheists prove nonbelief because that's what atheism is?
Then you get atheists who really don't care to involve themselves in your book to prove it's god's existence or any other god's existence especially when they haven't given a hoot to do any research on it. But here's the catcher YOU must absolutely care according to your bible and follow it's laws, Rules and regulations, Many of them quite absurd that only an idiot would put into place such as Deuteronomy 13: 9-10, Deuteronomy 17-2-5 and Leviticus 20:13 otherwise you don't believe in this specific god because you do what you want, How you want, And you do whatever you want, To what suits you best towards your wants, Needs, And desires and you toss the rest of the bile into the trash. That's what keeps christianity going with it's over 30, 000 denominations especially when there's 1 peter 3:15 which is a true impossibility because NOBODY knows christianity and can possibly follow it's god's and christ's storybook character of print only laws, Rules and regulations from its BOOK as obviously there is no consensus. 30, 000 denominations at least? Um nope.
Now suppose a genuine god were to knock at your door, How would you be able to recognize it was a genuine god? Btw, I know the answer to this question. Let's see if you do.
What about children and babies who have not yet been indoctrinated into not knowing anything at all about any god because every single person, No exceptions, None, Is born as an atheist? What's their B. O. P. Since they are atheists?

* "The only way you can be a bad atheist is to believe in god. " Matt Dillahunty
* "You don't get to put your unreason upon the same shelf with my reason. " Bill Maher
* "Atheism is a response to a single claim, That some god exists. We don"t believe that"s true so we"re atheists. And that"s all it means. " Jen peeples

Atheism: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=7o5h0DdcyTA - Reasons for accepting atheism B. O. P.
"Religious claims fail to meet their B. O. P. " Matt Dillahunty
"Its not that we accept atheism because you"re accepting a nonbelief. Or let me rephrase it. It the rejection of a belief. It means the same thing I suppose. You"re suggesting that we believe in something never indicated until indicated I can"t believe it. I mean you can make up any number of things that can come to your imagination, But when you posit them as true it is incumbent upon you to come up with a reason why we should believe that it is true. " Aron Ra
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=WbxqvugoJuw - Proof that atheism is accurate and correct
Atheism doesn"t have the B. O. P. It is the rejection of claims that have not met their B. O. P.
Atheism is the lack of belief in something.

Since you are all over the map with you pincushioning the word "logic", Let's define that word.
1. The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. A particular method of reasoning or argumentation:
We were unable to follow his logic.
3. The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. Reason or sound judgment, As in utterances or actions:
There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. Convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness:
6. The irresistible logic of the facts.

None of those definitions in which case, When applied, Has anything to do with YOUR god.
Science? Nope. Reasoning? Nope. Knowledge? Especially nope. Sound judgment? Nope. Truth? Especially nope. Facts? Nope once again.
You don't even know what a god is. You cannot test nor can you demonstrate a god. It is impossible because you cannot define a god because none has been defined by anyone in the history of the human race because no god has ever been seen, Defined, Told to anyone through talking about/ oratory, Written about from a god's point of view as far as to how it can be tested, Demonstrated and thus defined. Once again, That is just one reason why no god from any religion not ever, Not for any reason would ever use text, Namely the bible as an example as a source of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence, The absolute worst form possible to any god from any religion.

Oh and btw, Which god? Yeah I'm assuming that it is the silly little immoral unproven storybook character god of print only of the bible but you in being completely gutless, Didn't mention it, Naturally. And why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Quadrillions of gods? Or the very best bet is why not 0 gods since you have no evidence to back up your obvious claim that you think a so-called god exists? Don't you think it's best and wise to have evidence beforehand to be able to back up your claim that a god exists rather than believing in a god with no evidence whatsoever of its existence because nobody ever has and thus believing in it?
100% the B. O. P. Is always upon the person that believes in a god to prove it's existence. Again, Why should an atheist even care to prove a god?
Debate Round No. 1
CalebEr

Pro

My opponent seems to have misunderstood the topic of the debate, As much of his response was dedicated to insisting that I, As a theist, Have a burden of proof. Notice, However, That I never denied this at all. I fully agree that anyone who makes an ontological claim about the nature of reality (e. G God exists; God does not exist) has a burden of proof to fulfill. My main point of contention is that this standard, If we are being consistent, Should apply to atheists just as much as it does to theists.

I gave a (hopefully) cogent argument for why this is above. Allow me to reiterate:
-All statements are equivalent to their inversions. To invert a proposition, You negate both of its terms and switch the placement of the antecedent and the consequent with each other. Now consider the statement, "Atheists lack belief in the existence of God. " The inversion of this statement is, "The non-existence of God is the belief of Atheists. " Therefore, Saying that you lack belief in God (or anything for that matter) can be taken as an admission that you believe in God's non-existence.

Now, If all beliefs must be quantified or proven in order to be rationally believed in, Then the atheist, Logically, Has a burden of proof, Since they technically "believe in the non-existence" of something. This belief makes an ontological claim (namely, That God does not exist) meaning that it would be included under the definition of the B. O. P that I outlined earlier. There is no way around this. The fact is that the atheist, Under typical standards of the B. O. P, Are just as required to substantiate their position as theists are. If you deny this, Then you are fundamentally denying the established standard of the B. O. P, And thus ultimately saying that the neither the theist nor the atheist is required to prove their positions. Or in other words: If you deny my argument, You deny the existence of the burden of proof.
backwardseden

Con

Awe fluffy doesn't wike his wittle banter claws in a noose when he cannot explain his knot of a knitting farm without the yarn properly. If he doesn't like his entanglements of furry sheeps skin, Then he shouldn't have created a debate where he expects everybody with a gargantuan stringy used moldy sock in the mouth to agree with his enticing viewpoints from his rectal itch to be wiped with a furry goats hair *yawn and god is this boring* with everything that flows from his yak of a brain to form a thought.

"If we are being consistent, Should apply to atheists just as much as it does to theists. "
Well garsh there, Who is this "we"? Nope. It's you, Just your failed attempt at trying others to comply with your failures.
And you are not consistent. Because atheists are not consistent. Atheists are individuals. You as theists try to be consistent, But even you fail at that also because as stated before there's over 30, 000 denominations of christianity so there's no consistency PE-IR-OD with theism. Gosh! My underarms could fart out better excuses.

Nope. You've lost the privilege to reiterate. So we're going to skip that paragraph. And of you don't pay attention to a few things that I've brought up, We're going to skip your debate altogether. Sounds like a plan? Good.

"Now, If all beliefs must be quantified or proven in order to be rationally believed in, "
Well see atheism is not a belief. Once again as proven it is disbelief/ nonbelief. Um duh, Oh yeah, The videos AND quotes by experts and specialists that know far better than your teeny tiny itty bitty brain that cannot conceptualize what an atheist is, Because you do not know what an atheist is, Therefore you have no grounds to stand on, And as you can see I CAN back up what I state and say with evidence and you can't because I have, Wow, So we, That would be you and I, Can toss out your usage of "rationally" because there is no rational with theism. Indeed not only that but there is no rational, Thinking, Reasoning, Common sense nor logic that goes along with with your precious egotistical theism. Oh darn, Is that going against what you believe in because you can't prove otherwise? Then you should have not posted this debate without first understanding what atheism is rather than trying to bluff at its meaning and thus making false definitions and expecting others to wonderbra your silly little hijinx affair.

See, I really hate it when little supposed christian (don't worry, There is no such thing as a christian) teeny bopper s--ts still stuck in high school with a high school edumacation that CAN'T READ. And according to Pew Research Center, The very best poll company in the world those who are religious have roughly a 15% lesser edumacation than those who are atheists for obvious reasons and those who are of lesser age have an even lesser edumacation for obvious reasons. Mmmmmm in my opponent's final paragraph for his RD2, Had he paid attention to RD1 of what was stated unto him, Nah, All of his notions are slaughtered by four concepts that are beyond his tinklings of the stary night in his yodeling gummy bear brain. So why should I take interest in the final RD? If I do, It'd better be a damn good radiator hose from my opponent. If not, I won't.
Debate Round No. 2
CalebEr

Pro

There you have it folks. My opponent has fully admitted that he is not interested in addressing my actual argument:
"You've lost the privilege to reiterate. So we're going to skip that paragraph. " He is deliberately ignoring the defense I gave of the contention I am arguing in favor of, Because he knows that he cannot refute it.

"Well see atheism is not a belief. Once again as proven it is disbelief/ nonbelief. "
If you had payed ANY attention to my argument, You would know that I have proven logically and deductively that disbelief in a proposition can be legitimately taken as a belief in the negation of said proposition. This is true by virtue of the law of contrapositive, Which again states that all statements are as true as their inversions. "I disbelieve in the existence of God" is the EXACT same statement as "The non-existence of God is my belief". To deny this is to deny logic, But I wouldn't be surprised at this point if my opponent went ahead and did that, As he has thus far shown that he has no understanding of how cogent argumentation is to be formulated.

"The videos AND quotes by experts and specialists that know far better than your teeny tiny itty bitty brain"
These "experts" and "specialists" should study up on logic a bit more. Perhaps they to are not aware of the law of contrapositive? Or maybe they are, But are fine with defining "atheism" incorrectly regardless? Whatever the case, In the end this is just an irrelevant appeal to authority.

"you should have not posted this debate without first understanding what atheism is rather than trying to bluff at its meaning and thus making false definitions"
So far, You have provided absolutely no argumentation with regard to my proposed definition of atheism (i. E, Atheism is the belief in the non-existence of God). You're merely asserting that it's wrong and moving on with your day as if you have provided a sufficient refutation.

"See, I really hate it when little supposed christian (don't worry, There is no such thing as a christian)
Nice self-contradiction, Bud. I cannot be a Christian if Christianity doesn't exist.

"All of [your] notions are slaughtered by four concepts that are beyond [your] tinklings of the stary night in [your] yodeling gummy bear brain"
Are you an actual child? There is NO WAY that you are as old as you say that you are on your profile. No adult who has any amount of respect for himself talks like this. Like, Unironically calling someone a "gummy bear brain". Totally unbelievable, And highly inappropriate.

Well, This was a pretty insufferably debate. Before I conclude, Allow me to recapitulate my main argument:
P1. All beliefs require evidence
P2. Lacking belief in something is the same thing as believing in that thing's non-existence
P3. Atheists lack belief in God, And therefore believe that God does not exist (import of P2)
C1. Therefore, Atheists believe something (entailment of P2 and P3)
C2. Therefore, Atheists require evidence (conclusion of P1 and C1)

Again, This argument is deductive, In that in order to deny the conclusion(s), You must show that one of the premises is somehow flawed. But by the very nature of the argument, None of the premises can even be denied in the first place, Unless you are also willing to deny canons of logic as well. For instance, Denying P1 would do away with the burden of proof altogether. Denying P2 would result in the negation of the law of contrapositive. And denying P3 would be an implicit denial of both P1 and P2.

The conclusion is thus inescapable for anyone who is concerned with sincerely seeking for truth: Atheists have a burden of proof.
backwardseden

Con

There you have it folks. My opponent has fully admitted that he is not interested in addressing my actual arguments, Plural.

Well golly cabbage batbrain? Guess what I just looked up? Wikipedia which also know better than a teeny bopper unedumacated scab like you. Atheism.
Atheism is, In the broadest sense, An absence of belief in the existence of deities. [1][2][3][4] Less broadly, Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. [5][6] In an even narrower sense, Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. [1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism, [9][10] which, In its most general form, Is the belief that at least one deity exists. [10][11][12]
Happy now?

Awe well let's address the experts since the teeny bopper with a high school edumacation scarcely 16 years old thinks he can outdo them and their logic in which case Matt was once a christian for more than 20 years but gave in his resignation because he no longer had any reason to believe it, Just as no one does.
Awe isn't that why sure since you know nothing and do not know how to do any research of any kind (wow this is fun to make a complete void of you) also, As Matt, The host of the Atheist Experience for more than 15 years. , Would certainly know a lot more about atheism, Life, Honesty, Truth, Well everything there is to know, Than an unedumacated rubber baby booty bumpers big black hole baby brained reject like you who thinks he's smarter than everybody who has ever existed on planet earth. Right fluffy cow pasture that exists in your brain?
Aron Ra Aron Ra[2] (formerly L. Aron Nelson, Born October 15, 1962) is an American author, Podcaster, And atheist activist. Ra is the host of the Ra-Men Podcast[3][4][5] and a regional director of American Atheists. [3] He had previously served as president of the Atheist Alliance of America[6][7] and ran as a Democratic candidate for Texas' District 2 Senate seat. [8]
Aron Ra was born in Kingman, Arizona, And baptized as a Mormon. Despite his religious upbringing, He states that he has been a skeptic from a young age. [9]

"So far, You have provided absolutely no argumentation with regard to my proposed definition of atheism
Well gosh gooly gee gosh golly gee gosh darned it all I can't possibly imagine why? Now say "duh". Can you open wide with your baby spoon cause here is comes. . . Ready picnic lunch on his feces? BECAUSE IT'S YOURS AND THERE'S NO TRUTH BEHIND IT. As stated in so many ridiculous ways so many times.
"You're merely asserting that it's wrong" BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. PEOPLE, NAMELY EXPERTS AS PROVEN AND EVEN DEFINITIONS HAPPEN TO KNOW BETTER THAN you. You cannot just invent excuses as is the supposed "christian" way, And don't worry, There is no such thing as a christian, To get your way because you want to steamroll over others and get your way like a wittle wost soiled brat that you KNOWINGLY are.

Awe that is so cute, Now my opponent is trying to call me a child when he is a child. Actually I am 59. I have to talk down to uterus boys like you in their pink praying panty undies. Dare an intelligent conversation take place where you can present any kind of truth where you do not have to invent excuses and or flat out lie for something in which case you clearly know nothing about such as this case, And because you don't you have to pretend that you do? Of course not. You are 100% living proof of that and you also did it on the other debate proving that you are a true contradictory hypocrite. You tried to claim rules for yourself but claim that it's illegal for me to do it here. Is that a joke?

Highly inappropriate is when you cannot even evaluate yourself as being dishonest and untruthful.

P1. All beliefs require evidence
How come your god doesn't? Especially to millions, Perhaps even a billion who attend church every single Sunday, Never question, And that's because according to your bible, It does not allow questioning?
P2. Lacking belief in something is the same thing as believing in that thing's non-existence
So what about dividing 0 by 0 and knowing that there is no error? What about knowing that Pi has an answer?
P3. Atheists lack belief in God, And therefore believe that God does not exist (import of P2)
No, It's nonbelief/ rejection/ absence of belief in a god. Just because YOU want to redefine atheism, Doesn't make YOUR definition, True. This in fact shows 100% that you have no idea, None as to what atheism is. So this debate is invalid.
Awe gee, Well once again which god? And why only one god?

"None of the premises can even be denied in the first place,
They just were by someone who knows a lot more about the subject matter at hand rather than you guessing and inventing excuses from something in which case you know nothing about and were also prove wrong by those that know better than you. Tisk risk. You are not smarter than they are. You are not smarter than definitions. You are not smarter than Wikipedia. You do not know more than they do. Sure, Pretend that you do. But do it in your crib. K?

"The conclusion is thus inescapable"
Sure. Now rub your tushy for a magic genie to appear and give your three magic wishes.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anc2006 3 months ago
anc2006
Oh hi CalebEr. It is me, Intelligence_06.
Posted by Surgeon 3 months ago
Surgeon
Yes deep down it probably comes down to the axioms we hold to be true and the interpretations we put on them. But I open the door to you, To ground your beliefs not in a mysticism but in nature itself.

Having said that it is much more important to unite against the tide of nonsense from poorly founded metaphysics and epistimology. It never ceases to amaze me how in 3 generations (since Foucault, Derida et al) we have gone from well educated (but shockingly flawed) philosophers to outright idiocy especially in the "scholarship" of the humanties who exhibit all the signes of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I can find no other word other than evil (yes even without a god), To describe the destruction of intellect, That it embraces.

Just take a look at us having to use the term "objective" truth. We both know what we mean. But truth is truth and should require us to use no adjective. But we have to use it, Becuase the language in society has shifted so much towards subjectivism and co-opting the word truth for its own rhetorical ends. Modern society not only does not care for truth, But also does not care for logic (only rhetoric). And I am convinced it doesn't care. Sad times.
Posted by CalebEr 3 months ago
CalebEr
1. This is true to some extent, But I think the applicability of these arguments fundamentally depends upon what the proposed definition of "God" is. Are we talking about a God who has all Omni-attributes, Like that of Judaism, Islam, Christianity, And (perhaps) deism? Or are we talking about a god who is powerful in some aspects, And weak in others (as seen in Norse and Greek mythology)? These arguments, When conglomerated, Seem to point pretty succinctly to the former.

2. I don't think I have anything else to add to this point. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, Haha

3. I concur that atemporality seems to have counter-intuitive repercussions at its base, But upon closer examination, I remain unconvinced that there is any fundamental incompatibility between atemporality and causation. As I have attempted to outline already, Time isn't (in my view) a necessary precondition for causation to be intelligible. And even if you were to demonstrate otherwise, There are a plethora of other interpretations that are open.

I am glad that we share common ground in our detestation of the modern movement away from objective truth. These days, Such a position is becoming much less prominent than it has been, And is receiving much less respect than it deserves.
Posted by Surgeon 3 months ago
Surgeon
Well let"s continue to slug it out :-)

1. The problem with the culmulative case (as WLC provides for example), Is that apart from the resurrection, All cases could apply to very well to any god, Or each to separate gods. I don"t see how any of the traditional arguments accumulate to point purely at the Abrahamic god. I appeal to the parsimonious natural explanation.

2. Only if you contort what causality is. We have agreed that this is debatable, But there is nothing to suggest that my reading is false, But again it is parsimonious. But to repeat I think simultaneous causation is an illusion.

3. In my view we are just descending into meaninglessness ascribing properties of causation, Decision making, Agency to an atemporal being (whatever that means). This goes to the weakness of the Theist position, When we hash it out we are only left with inscrutability, Which as I have previously said is a point for Athiesm, Not Theism. That is a bug of the system not a feature.

I share the belief of Theism in objective truth, Immaterial existence, Eternality of an existence. I share with Theist philosophy an innate distrust and indeed disgust with post-modernism, Relativism and subjectivism. I applaud the efforts of WLC et al, To stand in opposition to these dangerous ideas. I do not concede supernatural agency is needed, Infact I think that such a thing is impossible.
Posted by CalebEr 3 months ago
CalebEr
1. Concerning the substance of your response, I don't think that "God" is as large of a logical leap as you have purported it to be. Without getting bogged down in the specifics, I agree that the impossibility of physicalism does not point exclusively towards God, Which is why I (as a theist) have to make a cumulative case for his existence, Using this fact as only partial evidence that sets us off in the right direction.

2. "Time could be just a natural result of the new physical systems emerging from the phase transition of natural eternal existence. "
This may very well be true, But if time is the subsequent or simultaneous result of anything, Wouldn't it be true that it abides by causal laws? Again, I don't see how this helps your case.
And even if you were to refute my argument about time not being a precondition for causality, That wouldn't show that it is. Nor would it affect my main argument, Which is that causality, In the most general sense, Only needs to presuppose "ex nihilo Nihil fit" and "non-contradiction", Not time.

3. Seeing as I am running out of room to answer, Allow me to quote Dr. Craig, As he summarizes this point quite nicely:
"In any case, Even if time is a precondition for causality, Why should that preclude God's being the cause of the universe? Many Christian philosophers and theologians, Perhaps the majority today, Think that God has existed for infinite past time and created the physical universe a finite time ago. . . This was Isaac Newton's view as well. He thought absolute time was just God's duration, Which is from eternity to eternity. "
Here I would point back to the fact that the mind (especially an all-knowing one) is sufficient to generate a mental sequence of events. If God has a stream of consciousness, Then he may exist in time, And time may just be eternally contingent upon him.
This isn't my personal view, But I just wanted to point it out to show that there are others available for those who struggle with this que
Posted by Surgeon 3 months ago
Surgeon
1. My reference to dishonesty was to you using my subconscious against me, Not your argument per se.

With regards to physicalism, I think we fundamentally agree. You see that as helping your point as you get back to something that agrees to a God concept. But how you can make the logical leap from that point eternal existence to a God? If a "natural" Existence, Exists it has always existed, Even in a non-physical form. The BB therefore represents not a "creation", But a "phase transition" from a previous state to its current state. There is no parsmiony in imputing a god into this schema, Ie the whole thing works perfectly well without one, Ie why not just stop at a natural existence has always existed?

2. Well I am glad you concede that it is disputed. You sounded a little more dogmatic than that in your response.

Anyway, I do not see the contradiction you are highlighting, Why presuppose that time was "caused". It seems to me you are imputing agency without foundation. Time could be just a natural result of the new physical systems emerging from the phase transition of a natural eternal existence at the point of the BB. Each subsequent stage of the Universe is then set in motion by causal systems, Post planck time.

3. I am not the one with the problem here, But the definition of the god concept you are defending is. You argue that I do not understand "immutability". OK lets say I do not. Why are you using language that pre-supposes time and change to defend an attribute of a timeless and changeless being. For example "take on", "create", "sequence of thoughts". I just return to the point that it seems incoherent to me. You could argue that the paucity of the English language cannot be used to describe a god. Maybe, But that is a point for me, Not for you as you are descending into meaninglessness.

Can mind create time. I would argue not. You are fundamentally arguing for the Primacy of Consciousness over Existence. To me that is simply false.
Posted by CalebEr 3 months ago
CalebEr
1. But you see, Nowhere did I assume that you were committed to physicalism. I sort of assumed otherwise. You'll recall that I stated that when you do a theoretical analysis of what it is to be the timeless and therefore immaterial being who has existed from eternity past, You get to something very close to the Abrahamic conception of God. This, Of course, Presupposes that physicalism is false, Which in retrospect shouldn't be too hard for you to swallow, As according to your argument physicalism cannot be true.

Further, I would challenge the notion that my argument is dishonest. You said that absolute non-existence cannot exist. I conceded that, But then showed how it does not help forward your position because it means that something which conceptually looks a lot like God must have always existed.

2. Of course this is disputed! I don't see how the fact that people disagree on this furnishes sufficient reason to reject my argument though.

To reiterate: Since time is a result (or subsequent effect) of the big bang, We can conclude that time does not instantiate causal laws- indeed, It cannot, For it seems to abide by them! In other words, Causality cannot presuppose time if time's existence depends upon a cause!

3. You have still failed to provide argumentation in favor of this contention. For that reason, I have to simply disagree with your definition of immutability here. I don't think that one is committed to believing that God, The most powerful being in existence, Is not able to will to create things because he lacks temporal components. Is the mind not sufficient enough to formulate a mental sequence of thoughts and events, And therefore time? Surely it is!
Posted by Surgeon 3 months ago
Surgeon
@CalabEr

1. As neither you nor I know what my subconscious mind is up to, I think that point is at best moot. At worst a little dishonest.

But on the substantive issue, Who said I was committed to physicalism? I have made no such claim, Indeed I think it is perfectly consistent to be both a naturalist and accept non-physical existence. A magnetic field exists, But it is non-physical in nature. For all I know, What we see as our physical universe could just deep down be excitation of packets of quantum fields potential (see Quantum Field Theory). Who knows? I am open to the possibility. But it"s still natural existence, Not supernatural. I think you are falling into the trap of straw-manning my Atheism. I am glad you agree Existence, Exists but it doesn"t have to be something you can "kick".

2. This is disputed. I take an event and property based view of causation. Events are immanent and spatial-temporally located, While facts are transcendent. That is, The event of Brutus's stabbing Caesar is concrete, Occurring at a particular spatiotemporal location, While the fact that Brutus stabbed Caesar is something abstract and non-spatiotemporal. I regard universal origins as an event.

In my view WLC equivocates on causation, And felt uncomfortable enough with his position (when attacked by Drange), To give a response around how spontaneous causation was infact possible (not very convincingly). I"m not sure WLC is terribly clear on this, He certainly not "aced" it yet.

3. How does an a-temporal being "take on" anything, Let alone new qualities. He is akin to a frozen void absence of energy, Charge, Mass, Force, Potential! A frozen void which is still apparently traversing an infinite number of thoughts. This just seems to be incoherent to me.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
@CalebEr - "Eternally existent being would look like, You get very close to the current conception of the Abrahamic God. "
I see. Would that eternally existent being look like you get very close to the current conception of the Abrahamic god be as in the torah, The KJV translation, The NIV translation, The NLT translation, The book or mormon, Or how bout the quran as examples? Or how about all of those examples that were just listed scrunched together? Or perhaps none of those examples since you have no idea as to what a "god" is? Or the very best bet is how bout YOUR definition of what an "Eternally existent being would look like, You get very close to the current conception of the Abrahamic God" So why don't you tell us EXACTLY what an "Eternally existent being would look like"?
Ah yes, You are going to yet ignore all my hails, Please, Choking breath and violin dancing, For your ingrown curled up fetus roughage as always? Why of course you are. Give the man a cheapened exploding cigar!
Posted by CalebEr 3 months ago
CalebEr
Another point with regard to the 3rd argument you presented. Let me reiterate the point that I have already outlined- the notion of actual infinity is only incoherent when postulated in a physical context. So while it might be true that God had an actually infinite number of thoughts before his decision to create, That would in no way preclude him from making said decision, As he is not physical and therefore not bound by finite limitations.

And even if you were to prove that the actual infinite is incoherent even in a non-physical context, Another possible response would be that God's knowledge is a result of his omnipotence, In that whatever is true is true by virtue of God declaring that it should be. Thus, No fact could really evade his notice, Since he is the one actualizing those facts in the first place.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 months ago
dsjpk5
CalebErbackwardsedenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a "teeny bopper" as an insult. That's poor conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.