Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:91-120|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Refuting All Arguments for/against God

Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:25:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago

Sorry if i went over the character count. You got me excited when you said Boltzmann Brain lol.

-999 Characters

This is hugely speculative, on every single level.

Even if I took your argument for granted though.

If we assume a universal boltzman brain is possible, that is all the matter in an infinitely number of eternally existing universes arranged into a brain.

The issue here is that every other state except a brain is also possible by the same laws of physics (string theory, QM, etc.). And there are vastly more ways we can arrange matter to be "not a brain" than as a brain.

Therefore, over time, the possibility of a Boltzmann brain existing, regardless of the size (let alone a universal on) tends to zero. Any number divided by infinity will give zero.

Therefore the same premises that lead to the conclusion that a universal boltzman brain is possible also leads to the conclusion that such a brain existing for infinite time is impossible.

I would need to see very good reason for thinking otherwise.

Right. I know the whole thing is pure conjecture. The personal spiritual platform i believe in the most uses these things like multiverse, Boltzmann Brain, etc. to only justify its possibility.

I'm using it here to try and justify a god, but in the end of the day... i think a god is the least likely spiritual outcome. So, it would be hard for me to argue for it since i have already argued against it.

In regards to demonstrating any of this, BB, MV, ST, etc... you know full well i can't and i will gladly concede and let much smart people in the field be the ones that take up the task.

I am a little bias when it comes to leaning spiritual bc i have had experiences a spiritual platform seemingly answers best. The way i argue it to myself isn't in the sense of being able to demonstrate it, i only argue it as a "given all these presuppositions" is it possible... I think given everything above with some tweaking to the theories, i see a vague possibility... and that's all i care about in the end of the day. However, i will never assert i have the truth or that i can prove this stuff in any way. One has to be responsible and have enough integrity to concede when there is no proof... and, i concede if we are taking this beyond conjecture and/or possibilities.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
Yassine
Posts: 3,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:43:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 5:30:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
- Let's try this. I'm obviously going with the Islamic definition of God. The Ash'ari school advances two standard radically different cosmological proofs, the one has to do with contingency/possibility & the other with eventuality/change. The first called 'Illyyah (deductive causation) & the other Sababyyah (inductive causation). The latter one is probably far more interesting but it's too complicated to list here, especially in terms of background. So I'm going with the first option, which could lead to some semantic problems but whatever.

Definition:
God is a Necessary (necessarily existent) Singular Absolute (with absolutely free will) & Transcendent (disjoint from all creation) being.

I am not sure I would even call something like that a "God", since that is compatible with plenty of non-conscious or non-intelligent "things".

- On the contrary. The definition is a scriptural definition, not an abstract one. It's Tawheed, the most fundamental concept of Islam. Specifically, theologians infer Tawheed from the 112th chapter of the Qur'an:
(112:1) Qul Huwa Allahu ahad = "Say, He is Allah, the One" (1).
(112:2) Allahu assamad = "Allah, the Absolute [Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend]" (2).
(112:3) Lam yalid walam yoolad = "He begets not, nor is He begotten" (3)
(112:4) Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad = "And there is none like unto Him" (4)
=> Theologically, inferred from the scripture, Allah is: singular (1), absolute (2), self-sufficient necessary being (2-3), transcendent -disjoint from creation- (4-3). Thus, conceptually, a being which corresponds with these 4 conditions is identified with Allah.

Says nothing on it's power, or what it knows, or does.

- The above four are the essential attribute, Will is expressed naturally through the attributes of 'meaning', namely: knowledge ('Ilm), will (Irada), & power (Q'udra). That is, God has absolute knowledge, absolute will & absolute power. This is because having the will to do necessarily implies having the knowledge & the power to do.

A singular thing that necessarily exists that is disjoint from a created universe with "free will".

- Absolute Will, or absolutely free will, in the sense that it's not contingent on an external factor. Why this is important to the Ash'aris relate to the issue of a world being contingent on God would be itself necessarily existent, for otherwise God would be subject to change. The Ash'aris insist on the absolute nature of God's will.

With the exception of "free will" (whatever the heck that means...) I can pose that the "number three" fits that definition if we accept platonic objects. Clearly the Islamic concept of God is more substantive than this.

- Absolute Will, in the sense that God has the will to realise any possible things over any others, all being equally contingent on Him, thus the will to realise all possible things & any combination of them. The substantiation usually comes scripturally, not metaphysically.

This issue is that even if I accepted this argument in its entirety, and believe the conclusion is 100% perfect and flawless, then I can happily carry on my atheist life as an atheist because it fits no definition of God that had any impact on the universe, or my life, or what we expect the universe to be like. It is a nothing concept.

- God as cause, origin, creator... of the universe?

So I am not sure what you would like me to respond to.

If you would like to adjust it to even "a singular intelligent being who created the universe", then I would be interested. But right now your concept is entirely abstract.

- 'Intelligent', no. A singular being who created the universe, sure.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:54:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2018 4:49:43 PM, Envisage wrote:
... in 1,000 characters or less.

You will get a maximum of 3 responses from me in this thread (similar to a debate setting), where you can refine or adjust refutations I present to your argument.

Rules:
1. Present any argument for or against the existence of God
2. Define your "God" briefly before presenting your argument, otherwise I will default to the following definition:
God - A all- powerful, knowing and good creator of the universe.
3. You must present your argument in 2,000 characters or less
4. Argument needs to be presented in logical form, with premises and reasons for accepting the most controversial of those premises (the logical form can be excluded from the 2k character limit)
5. I will respond with the highest leverage refutation using a maximum of 1k characters. I may provide references infependent of this limit.

Enjoy, use this as an opportunity to critique and understand your own arguments. Open to both theists and atheists, I have done dozens of debates from both sides.

Now that i have used my "for" god argument, i'm going to try and use my reasoning that i don't believe a god exists... however, i've never tried to write it as a syllogism so i might not be able to.

p1 God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent
c1 God knows everything, can do anything, and has emotions.
p1 One can listen to their favorite song and enjoy it.
p2 One doesn't listen to their favorite song only.
p3 If one only listened to their favorite song it would turn into their worst song.
p4 if one could only listen to their favorite song they would know everything about it, can imagine any part of it.
p5 If one could change the song they would change it.
c2 if one couldn't change the song and could only listen to this one, it would turn into torture.
p1 God knows everything, can imagine anything, and feel everything.
p2 God has the power to not be god (can change the song).
p3 God would change the song to not be tortured.
c3 God doesn't exist (would willingly not be god).

This is more so a reasoning why i think god would be tortured as an immortal as he is defined. I haven't wrote a syllogisms since my first year in college (19 years ago) but i think this is a good argument against why it would be unsustainable to be god. With the power to not be god and human, say, god would choose mortality and not be god. I don't know... if you can think of a good way to write this let me know. I'd be interested to see what you could do with it.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 7:35:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 2:25:32 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sorry if i went over the character count. You got me excited when you said Boltzmann Brain lol.

-999 Characters

This is hugely speculative, on every single level.

Even if I took your argument for granted though.

If we assume a universal boltzman brain is possible, that is all the matter in an infinitely number of eternally existing universes arranged into a brain.

The issue here is that every other state except a brain is also possible by the same laws of physics (string theory, QM, etc.). And there are vastly more ways we can arrange matter to be "not a brain" than as a brain.

Therefore, over time, the possibility of a Boltzmann brain existing, regardless of the size (let alone a universal on) tends to zero. Any number divided by infinity will give zero.

Therefore the same premises that lead to the conclusion that a universal boltzman brain is possible also leads to the conclusion that such a brain existing for infinite time is impossible.

I would need to see very good reason for thinking otherwise.

Right. I know the whole thing is pure conjecture. The personal spiritual platform i believe in the most uses these things like multiverse, Boltzmann Brain, etc. to only justify its possibility.

I'm using it here to try and justify a god, but in the end of the day... i think a god is the least likely spiritual outcome. So, it would be hard for me to argue for it since i have already argued against it.

In regards to demonstrating any of this, BB, MV, ST, etc... you know full well i can't and i will gladly concede and let much smart people in the field be the ones that take up the task.

I am a little bias when it comes to leaning spiritual bc i have had experiences a spiritual platform seemingly answers best. The way i argue it to myself isn't in the sense of being able to demonstrate it, i only argue it as a "given all these presuppositions" is it possible... I think given everything above with some tweaking to the theories, i see a vague possibility... and that's all i care about in the end of the day. However, i will never assert i have the truth or that i can prove this stuff in any way. One has to be responsible and have enough integrity to concede when there is no proof... and, i concede if we are taking this beyond conjecture and/or possibilities.

You haven't responded to my specific counter-argument that such an eternal brain is impossible.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 7:52:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
P4: If an entity is made of nothing then it is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist.
P5: God is not made of something (Modus Tollens 1&2 Previous post).
C: God does not exist.

This argument is logically invalid. Even if I accepted P4 and P5 as true, the conclusion doesn't follow deductively.
This is the real issue. You think its logically valid. I quadruple dare you to show me the rules of logic and inference that makes it valid. You will be able to write this out in formal notation if it was actually logically valid, (logically valid).

Are you seriously disputing that the opposite of something is nothing?

No.
No.
No.

I am disputing that the opposite of "not "made/comprised/whatever of something" is "made/comprised/whatever of nothing.

You have a second qualifier here. Ergo using my first rebuttal:
S = Something
M = Made/comprised, whatever
N = Nothing
G = God

Then:
G = ~MS (from your P1-3, C1, whatever)
N = ~S (I am happy to say that nothing is "not something)
It doesn't follow that

G = MN

You literally cannot get to that conclusion via. the laws of inference and logic alone. You would need to introduce a new premise. I can argue that:

1. G = ~MS & ~MN
2. S or N
G = ~M

Ergo, the qualifier is false.

"Not made of something" is not the same as "made of nothing" for reasons already argued. If these really were logically equivalent then you would be able to re-write P4 as follows:

"If an entity is not made of something then it is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist"

That is indeed the conclusion which follows from my syllogism. I still have not seen which of the premises you have refuted other than stating that "it is not logical". You will have to do better than that.

I said it was logically invalid. So the conclusion doesn't follow. That's point-blank refuted in philosophy. You would need to show it is logically valid first.

Even if I accepted P5, then the only conclusion that follows is:
"God is indistinguishable with which that doesn't exist". That's not the same as "God doesn't exist".

To write your argument in a logically valid structure then you need the following premises:
P4: Anything is not made of something does not exist
P5: God is not made of something
C: God does not exist.

This is a BARBARA (AAA) syllogism, and logically valid. If P4 & 5 are correct then the conclusion deductively follows.

Good luck proving P4 though.

Good luck proving that premise. My "fundamental substance" argument holds up here. I can also pose an infinite regress too:

My cup is made of something (otherwise it doesn't exist).
The "something" my cup is made is is made of something (otherwise it doesn't exist).
And so on.

No, I'm afraid not. If you will recall I used the word "entity" in the first syllogism. My argument is limited to entities. I would dispute that sub-atomic particles are an entity.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com...

entity
countable noun
An entity is something that exists separately from other things and has a clear identity of its own.


I would dispute that an individual quark or electron has a clear identity of its own. All quarks (of a particular type) and all electrons are exactly the same. They cannot be classified as entities.

If you limit this to limited to entities then you have now just lost all justification for P4:
"P4: If an entity is made of nothing then it is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist."
Since there is now no fundamental reason to accept this is universal if "non-entities" can be "made of nothing" and yet still exist.

The infinite regress issue therefore still applies. There will exist something (entity or not) that is not made of something simpler, yet still exists.

Additionally, this is a spurious argument. I don't have to prove that sub-atomic particles exist. They indisputably do. Therefore I am happy to concede that they are contingent (dependent) on whatever occurred in the first tiny fraction of a second of the Big Bang. I have no problem with that. We currently don't have that information but that is of absolutely no concern to me in making the argument in the OP about God.

Either it's turtles all the way down, we have an infinite regress of each more fundamental substance is made of something else, or, we hit some something that exists but is not made of something.

See above. You forgot that my argument was limited to entities. Also, infinite regress stops at the Big Bang (for our universe --- which I have no onus to prove exists) until we have more knowledge about the state of play within the Planck Epoch.

Now, to go a step even further I propose the following:
Electromagnetic field.
Space-time
Higgs field

All of these fields can be said to "exist", for they have real measurable effects on matter. Yet it is a stretch to claim they are "made of something", and clearly they are not indistinguishable with something that doesn't exist.

I see no reason why God wouldn't be analogous.

Already answered above.

They aren't "entities", right? hen my reponses above apply. If you go this route then I see no reason to accept P4.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 7:55:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 6:43:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:02:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/19/2018 2:20:22 PM, Harikrish wrote:
1. God commits immoral acts according to the bible (genocide, flood etc)
2. God cannot be immoral. (Objective morality argument)
3. Therefore the scriptures are false.
4. Therefore the God of the Bible is false.

This argument is logically invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, even if all the premises were true.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The argument is not much different from Willian lane Craig objective morality argument.

1. God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

It's completely different lol. The premises are different and it has no logical stricture. WIlliam lane Craig's argument is a modus tollens argument, and is logically valid. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 8:05:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
P1 The sun has superhuman gravity, power, and influence.
P2 The sun has power over nature.
P3 The sun has power over human fortunes via farming, scheduling, and human productivity.
P4 The sun is worshiped by me and my fellow heliolaters for those reasons.
P5 The sun exists.
C1 God exists.

Argument isn't logically valid. Thus even if all the premises were correct, the conclusion doesn't follow. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Care to elaborate?
Try this then.

P1 If god exists, then it is a superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes.
P2 The sun has power superior to humans.
P3 The sun has power over nature.
P4 The sun has power over human fortunes via farming, scheduling, and human productivity.
P5 The sun is worshiped by me and my fellow heliolaters for those reasons.
P6 The sun exists.
C1 God exists.

Ok...
You have something like:
1. G = A + B + C + D
2. S = A
3. S = B
4. S = C
5. S + D
6. S = A + B + C + D (2-5)
7. S = G (1 & 6)

Fine.

1. Equivocation on "being". Being in reference to god is something intelligent, or conscious.
2. Equivocation on "power over nature". Every definition of God I have seen accepted would state that God has infinite power over nature. Not a finite power.

If you can prove the Sun is intelligent or conscious, then I don't see an issue with saying that the Sun is a God, and it exists. We would just need to invent new terminology to describe the deities worshipped by monotheistic religions, since they have different qualifiers.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 1,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 11:15:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 8:05:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
P1 The sun has superhuman gravity, power, and influence.
P2 The sun has power over nature.
P3 The sun has power over human fortunes via farming, scheduling, and human productivity.
P4 The sun is worshiped by me and my fellow heliolaters for those reasons.
P5 The sun exists.
C1 God exists.

Argument isn't logically valid. Thus even if all the premises were correct, the conclusion doesn't follow. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Care to elaborate?
Try this then.

P1 If god exists, then it is a superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes.
P2 The sun has power superior to humans.
P3 The sun has power over nature.
P4 The sun has power over human fortunes via farming, scheduling, and human productivity.
P5 The sun is worshiped by me and my fellow heliolaters for those reasons.
P6 The sun exists.
C1 God exists.

Ok...
You have something like:
1. G = A + B + C + D
2. S = A
3. S = B
4. S = C
5. S + D
6. S = A + B + C + D (2-5)
7. S = G (1 & 6)

Fine.

Yay!
I did it!

1. Equivocation on "being". Being in reference to god is something intelligent, or conscious.

Except for the fact that being can simply mean "existence" without an intelligence restriction there within.

2. Equivocation on "power over nature". Every definition of God I have seen accepted would state that God has infinite power over nature. Not a finite power.

Except that you said in your OP that *we* get to define the god we're trying to prove.
Heliolatry is a very real thing and the sun's power over nature on earth is near infinite.
No sun, no earth.

If you can prove the Sun is intelligent or conscious,

Why should I have to?
You said to provide your own definition of god and I used a superhuman existence.
Also, intelligence as we know it is clearly contingent on the sun existing, therefore we can argue that the sun is superior to intelligence itself as it allows for intelligence's existence.
Without intelligence, the sun could thrive, without the sun, intelligence (as we know it) doesn't exist.

then I don't see an issue with saying that the Sun is a God,

Yay again!

and it exists. We would just need to invent new terminology to describe the deities worshiped by monotheistic religions, since they have different qualifiers.

That's fine.
But the god of heliolatry is a god that actually exists and with respects to this god, NO ONE should be an atheist.

With respects to a creator of the universe, of course, that sh*t is bunk, so atheism there makes perfect sense.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 11:15:58 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 2/24/2018 8:05:20 AM, Envisage wrote:
P1 The sun has superhuman gravity, power, and influence.
P2 The sun has power over nature.
P3 The sun has power over human fortunes via farming, scheduling, and human productivity.
P4 The sun is worshiped by me and my fellow heliolaters for those reasons.
P5 The sun exists.
C1 God exists.

Argument isn't logically valid. Thus even if all the premises were correct, the conclusion doesn't follow. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Care to elaborate?
Try this then.

P1 If god exists, then it is a superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes.
P2 The sun has power superior to humans.
P3 The sun has power over nature.
P4 The sun has power over human fortunes via farming, scheduling, and human productivity.
P5 The sun is worshiped by me and my fellow heliolaters for those reasons.
P6 The sun exists.
C1 God exists.

Ok...
You have something like:
1. G = A + B + C + D
2. S = A
3. S = B
4. S = C
5. S + D
6. S = A + B + C + D (2-5)
7. S = G (1 & 6)

Fine.

Yay!
I did it!

1. Equivocation on "being". Being in reference to god is something intelligent, or conscious.

Except for the fact that being can simply mean "existence" without an intelligence restriction there within.

Then it doesn"t classify as a "God" in the sense I use the word. God always entails some level of agency, or personification. A "thing" that exists doesn"t qualify, regardless of how powerful or whatever it is.

2. Equivocation on "power over nature". Every definition of God I have seen accepted would state that God has infinite power over nature. Not a finite power.

Except that you said in your OP that *we* get to define the god we're trying to prove.
Heliolatry is a very real thing and the sun's power over nature on earth is near infinite.
No sun, no earth.

I wouldn"t classify it as a God. It"s just an equivocation on definitions.

If you can prove the Sun is intelligent or conscious,

Why should I have to?
You said to provide your own definition of god and I used a superhuman existence.
Also, intelligence as we know it is clearly contingent on the sun existing, therefore we can argue that the sun is superior to intelligence itself as it allows for intelligence's existence.
Without intelligence, the sun could thrive, without the sun, intelligence (as we know it) doesn't exist.

"Superiority" is irrelevant. Intelligence/agency is.

then I don't see an issue with saying that the Sun is a God,

Yay again!

and it exists. We would just need to invent new terminology to describe the deities worshiped by monotheistic religions, since they have different qualifiers.

That's fine.
But the god of heliolatry is a god that actually exists and with respects to this god, NO ONE should be an atheist.

With respects to a creator of the universe, of course, that sh*t is bunk, so atheism there makes perfect sense.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 1,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 2:35:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Without intelligence, the sun could thrive, without the sun, intelligence (as we know it) doesn't exist.

"Superiority" is irrelevant. Intelligence/agency is.

So to you, an intelligence is god, but something that is superior to intelligence itself is irrelevant?
Come on.

Why the arbitrary intelligence requirement?
Something has to be inferior to the sun in order to be god in your view?
Doesn't pass the smell test.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 3:38:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 7:55:06 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/23/2018 6:43:09 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:02:22 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/19/2018 2:20:22 PM, Harikrish wrote:
1. God commits immoral acts according to the bible (genocide, flood etc)
2. God cannot be immoral. (Objective morality argument)
3. Therefore the scriptures are false.
4. Therefore the God of the Bible is false.

This argument is logically invalid. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, even if all the premises were true.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The argument is not much different from Willian lane Craig objective morality argument.

1. God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

It's completely different lol. The premises are different and it has no logical stricture. WIlliam lane Craig's argument is a modus tollens argument, and is logically valid. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

1. Scriptures do potray God as immoral. Fact.
Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them."

2. God is immoral. He did send tbe flood. Fact.

3. But God cannot be immoral so the scriptures are wrong.

4. But if the Bible is wrong then what Christians believe is wrong.

5. But if the bible is right then God is immoral.

6. Therefore Christians are immoral because they follow an immoral God.

Unlike Willian Lane Craig's moral argument which are based on assumption, when facts are considered like the actual portrayal of God then the conclusion follow the facts.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 4:14:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/23/2018 5:32:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:21:42 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
Envisage :
I would define a minimal God as an intelligent being who created the universe.

SecularMerlin :
So no being no matter how powerful could qualify for the moniker of god if it were not the creator of the universe?

Sure, let's call it a "actual magician" instead.

Want to disprove "actual magicians"?

Seriously, this dancing around definitions and concepts is tiresome. Just define what you want to argue, and go from there.

I hope you understand that I don't care about winning or I would just come up with an impossible definition and try to stump you. I am far more interested in what you believe and why.

That is why I am trying to determine what your minimum requirements are for a being to qualify as a god.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 4:40:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. God is not defined by scripture. Therefor, arguing that a scriptural characterization of God is irrational or immoral is of no logical consequence to the nature or existence of God.

2. Human depictions and characterizations of the gods are symbolic, metaphorical, and ideological: they are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be actual propositions. And to treat them otherwise, whether one is a theist or an atheist, is to misunderstand the whole phenomena of theism.

3. No human can ascertain the nature or existence of a deity. So debating the question is rendered a pointless pursuit before it begins. However, the value of practicing faith in a certain deistic ideal can be debated, as it does have real and measurable consequences.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 4:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 4:14:17 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:32:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:21:42 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
Envisage :
I would define a minimal God as an intelligent being who created the universe.

SecularMerlin :
So no being no matter how powerful could qualify for the moniker of god if it were not the creator of the universe?

Sure, let's call it a "actual magician" instead.

Want to disprove "actual magicians"?

Seriously, this dancing around definitions and concepts is tiresome. Just define what you want to argue, and go from there.

I hope you understand that I don't care about winning or I would just come up with an impossible definition and try to stump you. I am far more interested in what you believe and why.

That is why I am trying to determine what your minimum requirements are for a being to qualify as a god.

Don"t really know. I haven"t really put much thought into it. Would need to be an agent/conscious/intelligent though.

Why do you care what I believe? That"s not the purpose of this thread. This thread is about having your theological arguments refuted.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 4:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 2:35:35 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Without intelligence, the sun could thrive, without the sun, intelligence (as we know it) doesn't exist.

"Superiority" is irrelevant. Intelligence/agency is.

So to you, an intelligence is god, but something that is superior to intelligence itself is irrelevant?

Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient.

Come on.

Why the arbitrary intelligence requirement?

Because that"s part of my arbitrary definition of God. God must be an agent/intelligent.

Something has to be inferior to the sun in order to be god in your view?
Doesn't pass the smell test.

"Inferiority" is equally irrelevant.
Harikrish
Posts: 38,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 5:02:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 4:40:27 PM, PureX wrote:
1. God is not defined by scripture. Therefor, arguing that a scriptural characterization of God is irrational or immoral is of no logical consequence to the nature or existence of God.

2. Human depictions and characterizations of the gods are symbolic, metaphorical, and ideological: they are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be actual propositions. And to treat them otherwise, whether one is a theist or an atheist, is to misunderstand the whole phenomena of theism.

3. No human can ascertain the nature or existence of a deity. So debating the question is rendered a pointless pursuit before it begins. However, the value of practicing faith in a certain deistic ideal can be debated, as it does have real and measurable consequences.

But deistic ideals are presented in scriptures which are Human depictions and characterizations of the gods are symbolic, metaphorical, and ideological: they are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be actual propositions. And to treat them otherwise, whether one is a theist or an atheist, is to misunderstand the whole phenomena of theism.

A good argument can be taken from deistic ideals found in the Bible.

1. Scriptures do potray God as immoral. Fact.
Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them."

2. God is immoral. He did send tbe flood. Fact.

3. But God cannot be immoral so the scriptures are wrong.

4. But if the Bible is wrong then what Christians believe is wrong.

5. But if the bible is right then God is immoral.

6. Therefore Christians are immoral because they follow an immoral God.

Unlike Willian Lane Craig's moral argument which are based on assumption, when facts are considered like the actual portrayal of God then the conclusion follow the facts.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 5:07:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 4:52:47 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/24/2018 4:14:17 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:32:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/23/2018 5:21:42 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
Envisage :
I would define a minimal God as an intelligent being who created the universe.

SecularMerlin :
So no being no matter how powerful could qualify for the moniker of god if it were not the creator of the universe?

Sure, let's call it a "actual magician" instead.

Want to disprove "actual magicians"?

Seriously, this dancing around definitions and concepts is tiresome. Just define what you want to argue, and go from there.

I hope you understand that I don't care about winning or I would just come up with an impossible definition and try to stump you. I am far more interested in what you believe and why.

That is why I am trying to determine what your minimum requirements are for a being to qualify as a god.

Don"t really know. I haven"t really put much thought into it. Would need to be an agent/conscious/intelligent though.

Why do you care what I believe? That"s not the purpose of this thread. This thread is about having your theological arguments refuted.

I am agnostic. My claim is that we are unlikely to ever know for certain.

Each separate god claim must be examined on a case by case basis. There are literally thousands of religions and some of them have literally thousands of denominations. Many are mutually exclusive.

I could define a god as any being, real or ficticious, that have ever been worshipped. You cannot deny that by this definition there are "gods" but I don't believe you are simply looking for a trick definition, so I am trying to determine what "a god" is to you. I thought we could go from there.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 7:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 5:02:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 4:40:27 PM, PureX wrote:
1. God is not defined by scripture. Therefor, arguing that a scriptural characterization of God is irrational or immoral is of no logical consequence to the nature or existence of God.

2. Human depictions and characterizations of the gods are symbolic, metaphorical, and ideological: they are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be actual propositions. They are intended to be images and stories used to convey theological ideals. Only ignorant fools and naive children think they are intended to be a proposal of actual conditions and events.

3. No human can ascertain the nature or existence of a deity. So debating the question is rendered a pointless pursuit before it begins. However, the value of practicing faith in a certain deistic ideal can be debated, as it does have real and measurable consequences.

A good argument can be taken from deistic ideals found in the Bible.

No argument can be "taken from" them because they pose no argument. They simply offer us ideals that we can either adopt or reject, as we choose, depending on the value we derive from our choice.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 8:11:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 7:35:01 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/24/2018 2:25:32 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Sorry if i went over the character count. You got me excited when you said Boltzmann Brain lol.

-999 Characters

This is hugely speculative, on every single level.

Even if I took your argument for granted though.

If we assume a universal boltzman brain is possible, that is all the matter in an infinitely number of eternally existing universes arranged into a brain.

The issue here is that every other state except a brain is also possible by the same laws of physics (string theory, QM, etc.). And there are vastly more ways we can arrange matter to be "not a brain" than as a brain.

Therefore, over time, the possibility of a Boltzmann brain existing, regardless of the size (let alone a universal on) tends to zero. Any number divided by infinity will give zero.

Therefore the same premises that lead to the conclusion that a universal boltzman brain is possible also leads to the conclusion that such a brain existing for infinite time is impossible.

I would need to see very good reason for thinking otherwise.

Right. I know the whole thing is pure conjecture. The personal spiritual platform i believe in the most uses these things like multiverse, Boltzmann Brain, etc. to only justify its possibility.

I'm using it here to try and justify a god, but in the end of the day... i think a god is the least likely spiritual outcome. So, it would be hard for me to argue for it since i have already argued against it.

In regards to demonstrating any of this, BB, MV, ST, etc... you know full well i can't and i will gladly concede and let much smart people in the field be the ones that take up the task.

I am a little bias when it comes to leaning spiritual bc i have had experiences a spiritual platform seemingly answers best. The way i argue it to myself isn't in the sense of being able to demonstrate it, i only argue it as a "given all these presuppositions" is it possible... I think given everything above with some tweaking to the theories, i see a vague possibility... and that's all i care about in the end of the day. However, i will never assert i have the truth or that i can prove this stuff in any way. One has to be responsible and have enough integrity to concede when there is no proof... and, i concede if we are taking this beyond conjecture and/or possibilities.

You haven't responded to my specific counter-argument that such an eternal brain is impossible.

I don't understand your argument for why it isn't possible quite yet. Are you saying the universe itself cannot be infinite, therefore the material of that universe making the brain would eventually die out and there goes the BBrain as well?

You said the same things that make it possible, make it impossible... what are these? Also, that infinite leads to zero, can you clarify this (especially how it can't be fixed if the entity was self-replicating). Please do it in layman's terms if you want me to have any meaningful answer back.
"For me, insanity is super sanity. The normal is psychotic. Normal means lack of imagination, lack of creativity." --- Jean Dubuffet
Harikrish
Posts: 38,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2018 11:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 7:17:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 2/24/2018 5:02:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 4:40:27 PM, PureX wrote:
1. God is not defined by scripture. Therefor, arguing that a scriptural characterization of God is irrational or immoral is of no logical consequence to the nature or existence of God.

2. Human depictions and characterizations of the gods are symbolic, metaphorical, and ideological: they are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be actual propositions. They are intended to be images and stories used to convey theological ideals. Only ignorant fools and naive children think they are intended to be a proposal of actual conditions and events.

3. No human can ascertain the nature or existence of a deity. So debating the question is rendered a pointless pursuit before it begins. However, the value of practicing faith in a certain deistic ideal can be debated, as it does have real and measurable consequences.

A good argument can be taken from deistic ideals found in the Bible.

No argument can be "taken from" them because they pose no argument. They simply offer us ideals that we can either adopt or reject, as we choose, depending on the value we derive from our choice.

The bible is still the subject of much debate among biblical scholars. It is debated under textual criticism, biblical historicity, new archeological discoveries and contradictions/discrepancies found between the original manuscripts and its later adoption into the bible. You not being a biblical scholar are ignorant of such developments.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2018 12:37:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 7:52:58 AM, Envisage wrote:

P4: If an entity is made of nothing then it is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist.
P5: God is not made of something (Modus Tollens 1&2 Previous post).
C: God does not exist.

This argument is logically invalid. Even if I accepted P4 and P5 as true, the conclusion doesn't follow deductively.
This is the real issue. You think its logically valid. I quadruple dare you to show me the rules of logic and inference that makes it valid. You will be able to write this out in formal notation if it was actually logically valid, (logically valid).

Are you seriously disputing that the opposite of something is nothing?

No.
No.
No.

I am disputing that the opposite of "not "made/comprised/whatever of something" is "made/comprised/whatever of nothing.

You have a second qualifier here. Ergo using my first rebuttal:
S = Something
M = Made/comprised, whatever
N = Nothing
G = God

Then:
G = ~MS (from your P1-3, C1, whatever)
N = ~S (I am happy to say that nothing is "not something)
It doesn't follow that

G = MN

You are still engaged in the fallacy of thinking I have made two separate claims. An incomplete sentence cannot be a claim. Next you will be telling us that "God is" is a claim and then "God" is a claim. That's absurd. The above does not conform to any propositional logic I know. There is no conjuction or disjunction between M and N and that's because they are not separate propositions even though you would like them to be.

You literally cannot get to that conclusion via. the laws of inference and logic alone. You would need to introduce a new premise. I can argue that:

1. G = ~MS & ~MN
2. S or N
G = ~M

Ergo, the qualifier is false.

See above.
Besides, even if I accepted this as valid logic, you have only asserted that G = ~MN.
Where did that come from?

"Not made of something" is not the same as "made of nothing" for reasons already argued. If these really were logically equivalent then you would be able to re-write P4 as follows:

"If an entity is not made of something then it is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist"

That is indeed the conclusion which follows from my syllogism. I still have not seen which of the premises you have refuted other than stating that "it is not logical". You will have to do better than that.

I said it was logically invalid. So the conclusion doesn't follow. That's point-blank refuted in philosophy. You would need to show it is logically valid first.

Even if I accepted P5, then the only conclusion that follows is:
"God is indistinguishable with which that doesn't exist". That's not the same as "God doesn't exist".

I'm confused. I thought you had already accepted P5 as coming from the first syllogism. Are you now objecting to that first syllogism?

If two things are indistinguishable then they must be the same. Do you have an objection?

To write your argument in a logically valid structure then you need the following premises:
P4: Anything is not made of something does not exist
P5: God is not made of something
C: God does not exist.

This is a BARBARA (AAA) syllogism, and logically valid. If P4 & 5 are correct then the conclusion deductively follows.

Good luck proving P4 though.

I don't like your P4. You are trying to overgeneralize. Perhaps it should read "An entity which is not made of something does not exist ". However, I prefer my own P4 since it incorporates its own justification for why it is valid.

Good luck proving that premise. My "fundamental substance" argument holds up here. I can also pose an infinite regress too:

My cup is made of something (otherwise it doesn't exist).
The "something" my cup is made is is made of something (otherwise it doesn't exist).
And so on.

No, I'm afraid not. If you will recall I used the word "entity" in the first syllogism. My argument is limited to entities. I would dispute that sub-atomic particles are an entity.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com...

entity
countable noun
An entity is something that exists separately from other things and has a clear identity of its own.


I would dispute that an individual quark or electron has a clear identity of its own. All quarks (of a particular type) and all electrons are exactly the same. They cannot be classified as entities.

If you limit this to limited to entities then you have now just lost all justification for P4:
"P4: If an entity is made of nothing then it is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist."
Since there is now no fundamental reason to accept this is universal if "non-entities" can be "made of nothing" and yet still exist.

Firstly, I haven't conceded this. Secondly, I am not concerned about non-entities. It only needs to hold true for entities for my argument to be valid.

The infinite regress issue therefore still applies. There will exist something (entity or not) that is not made of something simpler, yet still exists.

Sorry, but you can't sneak in "entity or not". The infinite regress issue does not apply since my argument is limited only to entities.

Additionally, this is a spurious argument. I don't have to prove that sub-atomic particles exist. They indisputably do. Therefore I am happy to concede that they are contingent (dependent) on whatever occurred in the first tiny fraction of a second of the Big Bang. I have no problem with that. We currently don't have that information but that is of absolutely no concern to me in making the argument in the OP about God.

Either it's turtles all the way down, we have an infinite regress of each more fundamental substance is made of something else, or, we hit some something that exists but is not made of something.

See above. You forgot that my argument was limited to entities. Also, infinite regress stops at the Big Bang (for our universe --- which I have no onus to prove exists) until we have more knowledge about the state of play within the Planck Epoch.

Now, to go a step even further I propose the following:
Electromagnetic field.
Space-time
Higgs field

All of these fields can be said to "exist", for they have real measurable effects on matter. Yet it is a stretch to claim they are "made of something", and clearly they are not indistinguishable with something that doesn't exist.

I see no reason why God wouldn't be analogous.

Already answered above.

They aren't "entities", right? hen my reponses above apply. If you go this route then I see no reason to accept P4.

You will have to be more specific. What is it about P4 that you can't accept? Do you know of any entities which exist but are made of nothing?
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2018 1:48:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/24/2018 11:17:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 7:17:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 2/24/2018 5:02:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 4:40:27 PM, PureX wrote:
1. God is not defined by scripture. Therefor, arguing that a scriptural characterization of God is irrational or immoral is of no logical consequence to the nature or existence of God.

2. Human depictions and characterizations of the gods are symbolic, metaphorical, and ideological: they are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be actual propositions. They are intended to be images and stories used to convey theological ideals. Only ignorant fools and naive children think they are intended to be a proposal of actual conditions and events.

3. No human can ascertain the nature or existence of a deity. So debating the question is rendered a pointless pursuit before it begins. However, the value of practicing faith in a certain deistic ideal can be debated, as it does have real and measurable consequences.

A good argument can be taken from deistic ideals found in the Bible.

No argument can be "taken from" them because they pose no argument. They simply offer us ideals that we can either adopt or reject, as we choose, depending on the value we derive from our choice.

The bible is still the subject of much debate among biblical scholars. It is debated under textual criticism, biblical historicity, new archeological discoveries and contradictions/discrepancies found between the original manuscripts and its later adoption into the bible. You not being a biblical scholar are ignorant of such developments.

And sports teams are still much debated among sport enthusiasts. So what? People like to talk endlessly about their favorite subjects. But in the end there is nothing to be philosophically debated about football, or biblical ideals. They both offer is something that we can take or leave as we wish, and as we find personal value in them.
reece
Posts: 839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2018 2:49:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2018 4:49:43 PM, Envisage wrote:
... in 1,000 characters or less.

You will get a maximum of 3 responses from me in this thread (similar to a debate setting), where you can refine or adjust refutations I present to your argument.

Rules:
1. Present any argument for or against the existence of God
2. Define your "God" briefly before presenting your argument, otherwise I will default to the following definition:
God - A all- powerful, knowing and good creator of the universe.
3. You must present your argument in 2,000 characters or less
4. Argument needs to be presented in logical form, with premises and reasons for accepting the most controversial of those premises (the logical form can be excluded from the 2k character limit)
5. I will respond with the highest leverage refutation using a maximum of 1k characters. I may provide references infependent of this limit.

Enjoy, use this as an opportunity to critique and understand your own arguments. Open to both theists and atheists, I have done dozens of debates from both sides.

I'm against the existence of your god.

Is your god falsifiable?
dsjpk5
Posts: 5,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2018 8:22:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2018 4:49:43 PM, Envisage wrote:
... in 1,000 characters or less.

You will get a maximum of 3 responses from me in this thread (similar to a debate setting), where you can refine or adjust refutations I present to your argument.

Rules:
1. Present any argument for or against the existence of God
2. Define your "God" briefly before presenting your argument, otherwise I will default to the following definition:
God - A all- powerful, knowing and good creator of the universe.
3. You must present your argument in 2,000 characters or less
4. Argument needs to be presented in logical form, with premises and reasons for accepting the most controversial of those premises (the logical form can be excluded from the 2k character limit)
5. I will respond with the highest leverage refutation using a maximum of 1k characters. I may provide references infependent of this limit.

Enjoy, use this as an opportunity to critique and understand your own arguments. Open to both theists and atheists, I have done dozens of debates from both sides.

God, as described above doesn't exist because tensed facts don't exist... therefore the universe wasn't created:

P1. The universe is caused if and only if tensed facts exist

P2. Tensed facts do not exist

C. The universe is uncaused
TheMorningsStar
Posts: 159
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2018 12:10:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't know if anyone else has come up with this argument before or something similar, but here goes:

Argument from Historical Analysis:
A1) The field of history is a valid field of study and one can attain knowledge from the study of history.
P1) It is possible that the supernatural exists.
P2) If it is possible that the supernatural exists, it is possible that something supernatural has happened in the past.
P3) If it is possible that something supernatural has happened in the past, it is possible that those events/things were recorded.
P4) If it is possible that those events/things were recorded, it is possible that those records exist today.
C1) Some of the historical documents we have might have recordings of supernatural events/things.
P5) The quantity of evidence for gods in historical documents far exceeds the amount of evidence for some historical people/events.
P6) The quality of evidence for gods in historical documents far exceed the quality of evidence for some historical people/events.
P7) If belief in said historical people/events is justified, then belief in gods is also justified.
P8/A2) Belief in said historical people/events is justified.
C2) Belief in gods is justified.

I know that you may not accept A1, but I would appreciate it if we could, just for the purpose of this discussion, work under the paradigm that A1 is true (as that is a different debate entirely).

________________________________________________

Defending the controversial premises:

P1 is simply from an epistemological point of view. If one cannot prove that the supernatural is false then it remains possible, even if improbable.
P2-4 mostly just follows from P1 and C1 follows from P1-5.

P5 is true as there tends to be more documents about gods then any individual in history. Even many documents in history that mention people/events also mention god(s). I think that this premise is mostly uncontroversial.

P6: I would normally justify this with more than one example, but the 200 character limit, so...
Gilgamesh.
We have a few poems about him, most can't be traced even close to his life (if any).
We have the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was oral for centuries before being written down and contains many aspects that are legendary/mythical.
We also have the King List, which lists him (with a legendary detail about him) as well as "mythical"/legendary beings.
Yet he is considered historical by most scholars in the relevant field due to that evidence (P8/A2 is partially just acceptance of the scholarly consensus).
When it comes to gods we have people who act as eye-witnesses, we have stories about gods that are embarrassing for the believers of said gods (embarrassment criteria), we have people of one religion accepting that other gods exist and do good (Saga of the Greenlanders, biased towards Christianity, acknowledges that a prayer to Thor gave them food in the winter), people who worshiped a single god even acknowledge other gods exist (Exodus 12:12 for example acknowledges that the Egyptian gods exist).
I can go further on this if you contest the points so far.

P7 I think is uncontroversial.

P8/A2 is, as said above, partially just accepting the scholarly consensus.

C2 follows from the above.

I cannot wait to see your rebuttal!
This is also the first time I have put the argument into a logical form, so I hope I did alright.
TheMorningsStar
Posts: 159
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2018 12:13:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2018 12:10:17 AM, TheMorningsStar wrote:
I don't know if anyone else has come up with this argument before or something similar, but here goes:

Argument from Historical Analysis:
A1) The field of history is a valid field of study and one can attain knowledge from the study of history.
P1) It is possible that the supernatural exists.
P2) If it is possible that the supernatural exists, it is possible that something supernatural has happened in the past.
P3) If it is possible that something supernatural has happened in the past, it is possible that those events/things were recorded.
P4) If it is possible that those events/things were recorded, it is possible that those records exist today.
C1) Some of the historical documents we have might have recordings of supernatural events/things.
P5) The quantity of evidence for gods in historical documents far exceeds the amount of evidence for some historical people/events.
P6) The quality of evidence for gods in historical documents far exceed the quality of evidence for some historical people/events.
P7) If belief in said historical people/events is justified, then belief in gods is also justified.
P8/A2) Belief in said historical people/events is justified.
C2) Belief in gods is justified.

I know that you may not accept A1, but I would appreciate it if we could, just for the purpose of this discussion, work under the paradigm that A1 is true (as that is a different debate entirely).

________________________________________________

Defending the controversial premises:

P1 is simply from an epistemological point of view. If one cannot prove that the supernatural is false then it remains possible, even if improbable.
P2-4 mostly just follows from P1 and C1 follows from P1-5.

P5 is true as there tends to be more documents about gods then any individual in history. Even many documents in history that mention people/events also mention god(s). I think that this premise is mostly uncontroversial.

P6: I would normally justify this with more than one example, but the 200 character limit, so...
Gilgamesh.
We have a few poems about him, most can't be traced even close to his life (if any).
We have the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was oral for centuries before being written down and contains many aspects that are legendary/mythical.
We also have the King List, which lists him (with a legendary detail about him) as well as "mythical"/legendary beings.
Yet he is considered historical by most scholars in the relevant field due to that evidence (P8/A2 is partially just acceptance of the scholarly consensus).
When it comes to gods we have people who act as eye-witnesses, we have stories about gods that are embarrassing for the believers of said gods (embarrassment criteria), we have people of one religion accepting that other gods exist and do good (Saga of the Greenlanders, biased towards Christianity, acknowledges that a prayer to Thor gave them food in the winter), people who worshiped a single god even acknowledge other gods exist (Exodus 12:12 for example acknowledges that the Egyptian gods exist).
I can go further on this if you contest the points so far.

P7 I think is uncontroversial.

P8/A2 is, as said above, partially just accepting the scholarly consensus.

C2 follows from the above.

I cannot wait to see your rebuttal!
This is also the first time I have put the argument into a logical form, so I hope I did alright.

Realized I forgot to define god.
God-Supernatural being that is/was worshiped by a people/society.

Sorry for the super broad definition as it is even broader than I like it, but, as an omnist, I find it hard to define the term
Harikrish
Posts: 38,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2018 12:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2018 1:48:22 PM, PureX wrote:
At 2/24/2018 11:17:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 7:17:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 2/24/2018 5:02:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/24/2018 4:40:27 PM, PureX wrote:
1. God is not defined by scripture. Therefor, arguing that a scriptural characterization of God is irrational or immoral is of no logical consequence to the nature or existence of God.

2. Human depictions and characterizations of the gods are symbolic, metaphorical, and ideological: they are 'artifice'. They are not intended to be actual propositions. They are intended to be images and stories used to convey theological ideals. Only ignorant fools and naive children think they are intended to be a proposal of actual conditions and events.

3. No human can ascertain the nature or existence of a deity. So debating the question is rendered a pointless pursuit before it begins. However, the value of practicing faith in a certain deistic ideal can be debated, as it does have real and measurable consequences.

A good argument can be taken from deistic ideals found in the Bible.

No argument can be "taken from" them because they pose no argument. They simply offer us ideals that we can either adopt or reject, as we choose, depending on the value we derive from our choice.

The bible is still the subject of much debate among biblical scholars. It is debated under textual criticism, biblical historicity, new archeological discoveries and contradictions/discrepancies found between the original manuscripts and its later adoption into the bible. You not being a biblical scholar are ignorant of such developments.

And sports teams are still much debated among sport enthusiasts. So what? People like to talk endlessly about their favorite subjects. But in the end there is nothing to be philosophically debated about football, or biblical ideals. They both offer is something that we can take or leave as we wish, and as we find personal value in them.

You are even wrong about football. It's debate about the sport that has resulted in changes to the rules and safety gear worn by the players.
Envisage
Posts: 3,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2018 5:57:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I will only one premise, which is the main weakess:

P7) If belief in said historical people/events is justified, then belief in gods is also justified.

So I will assume that the quality of evidence of some Gods is higher than quality of some evidence by which the existence of some historical figures is accepted (P6).

P7 I think is uncontroversial.

!!

I don't. At all.

Bayes theorem is the most bastardised theorem used by non-mathematicians but I really think its use here will illustrate why this is problematic.

Bayes theorem is great if you know the prior probability and the quality of evidence. The quality of evidence becomes a multiplier for the prior probability of each explanation, or event.

For each set of evidence we can posit a binary explanation (X explains evidence, or "not-X").

Now, the actual existence of historical figures fits in here too. Let's apply this example:

We have a set of evidence that needs an explanation, the writings about Socrates from Plato etc.

One explanation is that there existed a person named Socrates who came up with this stuff.
Alternative explanations need to explain the collusion of independent accounts.

If we know the prior probability of philosophers existing, or collusions, then we can work this out.

This works nicely, even with poor quality evidence.

Do the same with a God however and we run into a problem. There simply is no way to set any, let alone a high prior probability. Because we don't have examples today we can compare or verify it to.

Thus this is where historical analysis becomes futile. Even if a God is both the reason and explanation for the set of evidence, there is simply no way to get to the conclusion that God best explains it from historical methods alone because of the issue of prior probability.

This was rushed so I hope I makes sense.

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