CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
How to prove God is the creator of the observable universe.
I am a Christian.
To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:
"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.
Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.
Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.
Uh oh, I'm have a sneaking suspicion I'm about to hear something completely one-sided, self-important and utterly rife with hypocricy and contradiction.
To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:
"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
... I'm sorry, do you know an atheist who is not aware of this concept? Do you believe you've revealed some great secret only you intellectual Christians have considered?
That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.
Er, yeah, get on with it...
Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
._. ... yawn... Yeah, got it. Carry on.
If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.
Er... okay. Good to know. Point yet?
Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.
Okay easy.
If god could have always existed without being created, god being even more complex than general matter,
Than it is far, far more likely for matter to have simply always existed.
If matter (being the far simpler thing) could not have simply always existed, than god could not have simply always existed and must have been created himself.
Uh oh, I'm have a sneaking suspicion I'm about to hear something completely one-sided, self-important and utterly rife with hypocricy and contradiction.
"To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:
"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.""
... I'm sorry, do you know an atheist who is not aware of this concept? Do you believe you've revealed some great secret only you intellectual Christians have considered?
"That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe."
Er, yeah, get on with it...
"Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?"
._. ... yawn... Yeah, got it. Carry on.
"If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God."
Er... okay. Good to know. Point yet?
"Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God."
Okay easy.
If god could have always existed without being created, god being even more complex than general matter,
Than it is far, far more likely for matter to have simply always existed.
If matter (being the far simpler thing) could not have simply always existed, than god could not have simply always existed and must have been created himself.
Disproving your own definition.
That is actually a better defense of atheism.
Marius
Nice try though, better than that Srom dude.
12hrs 21mins ago
-------------------
I think you have to define what is matter in its fundamental relation to the universe.
If you attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself, then I will grant that you have another name for the Christian God.
No need for you to quarrel with us Christians, you just have another name for God.
Is that okay with you, or you still will not accept God even by your name for God which is matter?
What we have to do now is to reconcile what you believe is the everything created by matter which is your God, with the everything that is created by God in the Christian faith, if you also attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself.
Shift 8, that star thing, putting two of those around something you copy and paste will make it bold and one will make it italic. Click the "Show Help" below where you are entering an argument, you may have to scroll down on your browser, and it will show you how. That way you don't have to copy and paste the entire thing and you can keep the debate clearer.
So, to the important parts:
I think you have to define what is matter in its fundamental relation to the universe.
Matter is the Universe. It's all the stuff that makes up the Universe, earth, stars, you me, all the atoms, etc.
No need for you to quarrel with us Christians, you just have another name for God.
Is that okay with you, or you still will not accept God even by your name for God which is matter?
I do not have a god at all. I believe the natural state of the Universe is existence and creation is unnecessary for existence. We are a happy (for us) coincidence. But it's not that odd a coincidence considering the size of the Universe, and likely a lot of beings on planets with the right conditions have come to the point in evolution where they could ponder these things.
You seem quite agreeable, unfortunately I find the vast majority of Christians to be self-righteous and hateful toward others who don't believe what they believe. I find most of the social policies the majority of Christians champion to be forces for evil in the world, and humanity would be better off without this particular superstition.
Sorry, but I take it as something of a moral obligation to quarrel with Christians in hopes of making the world a better place. If the majority were as agreeable as you seem to be, I would not feel this need. Perhaps Christians should quarrel with one another more to fix this.
What we have to do now is to reconcile what you believe is the everything created by matter which is your God, with the everything that is created by God in the Christian faith, if you also attribute to matter the creation of everything in the universe that is not matter itself.
Do you comprehend my point now?
I will not submit to this dogma. I do not believe the Universe was created by anyone, nor in the fundamental mentality which would allow one to submit to a god if one did exist.
People are smart and naturally good all in all when we think and do not allow ourselves to be controlled by such superstitions.
Matter is encompassed by the universe. It's mostly nothing (unless you believe as I do in the ultimate particles).
Indeed, there's no sign of any underlying magically imbued Æther whatever; no deity hiding between atoms, or anything else for that matter.
Do you not find it oddly perverse that He should make such an effort to hide himself after ordering us to spend our all too brief lives searching for him?
So matter is the only thing in the universe, and therefore matter and the universe are identical, do I get you correctly?
And what is your concept of the universe, as also again your concept of matter, be concise, precise, and definitive.
Thanks for finding me agreeable, I try my best to express my thoughts about the existence of God which I submit for myself with a reason is obvious.
But to prove it to another person it takes concepts and words, that is where people can argue forever, and that is why I always ask people to first agree to come to mutually agreed on concepts and also to mutually agreed on rules in the exchange of thoughts, for otherwise people will be talking past each others' heads, which is irrational and what we call crazy.
What is your concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
Here again is my concept of God:
"God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
And here is my concept of the universe:
"The universe is the totality of existence where we humans live in and are parts of, so also everything that exists or can exist, and even imaginary things subjects of man's discourse; the observable to man universe is just a part of the total universe."
And here is my first rule for the viability of our conversation:
"Please keep to the universe where we are living in and seeing the components of even though we don't see everything at all in the universe, but we do see the stars, the distant galaxies, etc."
Sir, you need to work on your Socratic irony. There exists a fine line 'twixt intelligent irony and perversely idiotic questioning. You have erased this line.
So matter is the only thing in the universe, and therefore matter and the universe are identical, do I get you correctly?
And what is your concept of the universe, as also again your concept of matter, be concise, precise, and definitive.
Thanks for finding me agreeable, I try my best to express my thoughts about the existence of God which I submit for myself with a reason is obvious.
But to prove it to another person it takes concepts and words, that is where people can argue forever, and that is why I always ask people to first agree to come to mutually agreed on concepts and also to mutually agreed on rules in the exchange of thoughts, for otherwise people will be talking past each others' heads, which is irrational and what we call crazy.
What is your concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
Here again is my concept of God:
"God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
And here is my concept of the universe:
"The universe is the totality of existence where we humans live in and are parts of, so also everything that exists or can exist, and even imaginary things subjects of man's discourse; the observable to man universe is just a part of the total universe."
And here is my first rule for the viability of our conversation:
"Please keep to the universe where we are living in and seeing the components of even though we don't see everything at all in the universe, but we do see the stars, the distant galaxies, etc."
-----------------------
Just keep this paragraph in mind:
-------------------
"But to prove it to another person it takes concepts and words, that is where people can argue forever, and that is why I always ask people to first agree to come to mutually agreed on concepts and also to mutually agreed on rules in the exchange of thoughts, for otherwise people will be talking past each others' heads, which is irrational and what we call crazy."
--------------------
Now, I will ask you whether you agree to the following propositions, starting with #1:
------------------
I have said earlier that I would be presenting some propositions for us all to agree to, in order that we can get closer to the actual debate on God's existence or non-existence, and not be talking past each others' heads.
Here are the propositions, not all of them but the ones that I can see to be most important for us all to agree to:
1. We must agree to work together to come to concurring on concepts most crucially involved in the God debate, and also to concurring on rules which all will abide by.
2. We must agree on a concurring concept of God, though not admitting the existence of the God corresponding to the agreed on concept of God.
3. We must agree on a concurring concept of the universe.
4. We must agree on a concurring concept of what it is to prove the existence of something.
5. We must agree on a concurring concept of what is evidence.
6. We must agree to abide by the rule that God's existence or non-existence is in reference to only the universe where we live in and are parts of, and where we see also the stars and even the distant galaxies and other components making up the universe.
These are my proposed concepts to agree on, and with #6 one rule so far that I am proposing we all agree to abide by.
Now, everyone if you have any propositions that you desire must be agreed on by everyone, on concepts and also rules, please present them in your posts.
------------------------
Now, you will say that I am repeating things, that is your observation and it is correct in those instances where I do repeat things, but what you would like to see is that we argue forever and ever and ever, and that is not of any value but to be all wasteful with our time and energy and bandwidth.
I can see that there are people who are not sincerely into resolving a debate but into endless argumentations, and you can see that yourself if you notice that they don't want -- and they even oppose or impede -- to come to agreement on concepts and rules, and also they will resort continuously to muddle up the issue and to divert it to irrelevant questions.
I think I have done these stupid God debates a billion times over now so I'm just gonna say a witty comment; If God was all knowing he should be able to beat himself at checkers or at chess, but in order to beat himself he has to outsmart himself, meaning that he really isn't all knowledgeable.
I think I have done these stupid God debates a billion times over now so I'm just gonna say a witty comment; If God was all knowing he should be able to beat himself at checkers or at chess, but in order to beat himself he has to outsmart himself, meaning that he really isn't all knowledgeable.
Suck me. I win. ;)
8hrs 41mins ago
----------------------
Well, you are challenging God to play chess against Himself so that whether God loses or wins against Himself God is proven to you to be not all knowledgeable.
Do I get you correctly?
I ask you, why should it be that your conclusion is that God is thus not all knowledgeable whether He wins or loses in playing chess against Himself?
The conclusion should be God in playing chess against Himself God whether He losses or wins, He is still all knowing, because the same God Himself is winning as also is losing, so it's a draw between God and Himself, wherefore His all-knowing feature is not compromised.
Can you comprehend that?
Tell you what, you gamble your money against yourself, and see whether you lose or win against yourself you end up with less or more money than the money you got started with?
Seems like my intuition that you, Marius have no understanding of epistemology at all has been proven right. Let me show you why.
I believe you have said, "Tell you what, you gamble your money against yourself, and see whether you lose or win against yourself you end up with less or more money than the money you got started with?"
This statement, on its own, commits the 'false analogy' fallacy not once but twice.
First, you have given an analogy which compares a 'gambler' to God. Obviously this is bullshit (and I'm not afraid to call your bluff) because if God is, in your words, the creator of everything in the universe except for Himself, how can you compare a gambler to him? If there are two creators (I can safely say this since you're assuming the gambler has similar characteristics with God, which is why you used that analogy in the first place) , that would be a huge contradiction on your part. Why? Because if there are two creators 'of everything in the universe except themselves', then one must have created the other. But if one HAS TO create the other, then they both have to create each other. This will then lead you to an infinite regress, which inferior theist debators always fall into the logical trap of.
Second, in your analogy, you liken money to knowledge. This is another false analogy. Money is quantifiable, while knowledge isn't. Philosophers even go so far to argue that money is a metaphysical concept that does not exist.
No need to go into analogies, just tell me if God is challenged to play chess against Himself, and Himself or God wins (loses), will God be less knowledgeable, and therefore there is no God?
And also if you play or gamble against yourself by betting in a horse race so that if yourself or you win or lose, do you come out with more or less money that you started with?
You are avoiding the real issue presented by Pizza.
Read the post of Pizza again.
You are engaged in the habit of avoiding the issue at hand.
You are engaged in the habit of avoiding the issue at hand.
I disagree with your accusation. But in a bizarre way, you seem to be avoiding the issue at hand.
No need to go into analogies
Right. So says the person (i.e. you) who gave the analogy of the gambler (for the second time, I might add).
just tell me if God is challenged to play chess against Himself, and Himself or God wins (loses), will God be less knowledgeable, and therefore there is no God?
I actually do agree with this argument. I would just reorganise this into a slightly different and better way to argue the point, as follows:
1. God is defined as a personal being who knows everything.
2. Personal beings have free will.
3. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable (like how there are more possible moves in Chess than one. Whether the move is correct is a whole different story). This means that before you make a choice, there is a state of uncertainty during a period of potential, where you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential or desire to change your mind before the decision is final.
4. A being who knows everything cannot have a "state of uncertainty" since it knows its choices in advance.
5. A being that knows its choices in advance has no potential to avoid its choices. Therefore, a being that knows its choices in advance does not have free will.
6. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, this logically means that a personal being who is omniscient (i.e. knows everything) cannot exist.
Actually, checkers has been found to be a tie( perfect play, using algorithms, from both players results in a draw.)Chess, is also likely a tie seeing that the most frequent score for the super gms of chess is a tie. Thus, if god was all knowing, he would tie with himself.
Let me see if I am correctly rephrasing your two premeses and the conclusion you have so far drawn from them.
P1: According to Christianity, God created everything except himself.
P2: Everything that exists or can exist is part of the universe.
C: Therefor, God created everything except himself.
Is this right?
15hrs 31mins ago
--------------------------
That is correct, you get me correctly
What do you say, can you also accept the conclusion "God created everything except Himself," i.e. God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
Not really, no. This isn't even a real argument form, it's just a tautology. If you're asking us to assume the truth of your premises for the sake of your argument, you have to deliver something more as a conclusion than repeating one of your premises.
Was I being too generous in thinking you wanted us to assume the truthfulness of Christianity's presentation of God, and then talk about what that means? Because your argument makes even less sense if we don't assume that Christianity is correct about God.
If we do assume Christianity is correct about the nature of God, then your argument can be summarized as follows. '[True statement]' represents the phrase 'God created everything but himself', and I did this to illustrate the relationship between the first premise and the conclusion.
P1. Christianity believes [true statement.]
P2. The universe contains everything that exists.
C. Therefor, it is true that [true statement.]
It concludes that God created everything but himself because Christianity believes him to have done so, which is dubious - but it still presents a conclusion with which I can accept as long as I have assumed the truth of Christianity's view on God. Because you asked me if I can accept this, I'm guessing you think I can accept this, and the only way I can accept this is...by assuming Christianity is right about God.
Now, in the following summary, '[false statement]' stands for 'God created everything but himself', to show what happens when I don't assume Christianity's correctness on the nature of God. This works even if the statement's truth value is not known but I just used 'false' to shorten it.
P1. Christianity believes [false statement].
P2. The universe contains everything that exists.
C. Therefor, it is true that [false statement].
Concluding the truth of a false statement because Christianity believes it is even less intuitive that the conclusion reached from the first argument.
I am asking you whether you are informed about the concept of God which is the correct one in the Christian faith in God's relation to the universe.
You don't have to admit anything at all, just that you have got to get the correct information about the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, that is all in the Christian faith.
If you don't have the right concept as believed in in the Christian faith, then you are not barking up the right tree at the right God insofar as the Christian faith is concerned.
You could be barking up the right tree at the right God insofar as your own concept of God is concerned even though yes I know you don't accept the existence of any God, god, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.
I am asking you to please keep to the conceptual realm; when we have agreed on the concept of God in the Christian faith, then we can logically go forth to prove His existence in the objective reality realm of existence, that God that is in concept considered by Christians to be the correct concept of God.
If it's not the case that you're asking me to assume anything, then I've already outlined what your argument is reduced to. I feel like I clearly explained it in my previous post.
Of course the answer is no, I can't accept that conclusion. And I already said that, too.
I am not yet into arguing properly and strictly yet for the existence of God, just into at present the task that is or should be our common concern, to get concepts agreed on which are crucially indispensable in the resolution of the God debate, and also the rules to abide by.
Now, if you say that I have said that I am giving arguments. that is all in the realm of concepts.
I will ask you also to give your arguments against God at this stage when we still have not agreed on list of concepts and rules to abide by, if you care to do so.
It is really necessary for us to keep to this distinction, what we might call a rehearsal in concepts or in the conceptual realm, before we go forth in the actual reality realm of objective existence.
Later, we might work out a list of propositions for us all to agree on, which are crucially connected to the God debate.
Now you will say that I am slippery, well that is your prerogative, I cannot stop you; but you have still got to agree with me that without mutually concurred on concepts and rules, our engagement in the debate of God's existence or non-existence is illogcal or sterile but a most only hot-air release.
You see, when there is disagreement, we must work for agreement on concepts and rules otherwise we will be forever arguing endlessly to no avail whatsoever.
I submit all human interactions where one side is at odds with another side, both sides must first come to agreement on concepts and rules.
Unless you want to subscribe to the one rule, namely, the rule whereby the side that can kill the most if not all of the side's members is the rule to observe, of course not.
The very first thing I tried to do was make sure I understood what you were saying, so I summarized your two premises and your conclusion and you told me I understood you correctly. Considering your premises and conclusion compose an argument for God, it's strange of you to say you are not yet arguing for God.
I can agree that Christianity generally views God as the creator of the universe. I can agree that the universe contains everything that exists as we are able to measure existence. But I can't agree with the conclusion because it doesn't validly follow, and this is the third time I have communicated that. So if you would like to clear that up, please go on with it.
Okay, I take note that you are acquainted with the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
This piece of information about the correct concept of God in the Christian faith is good for the determination of God to be in existence or not in existence insofar as the concept is in the Christian faith.
You seem to want to insist that I prove to you that God exists, but I am telling you that I have not really come yet to proving, although I did give some arguments which you say is premise one and premise two whatever, and you can't see how God exists follows, etc.
There are still things to come to agreement on before I really go into and with you the proof of God's existence from my part and God's non-existence from your part, be patient.
There are plenty of writers here and I am trying I think for the present most urgent to get them to agree with me that unless we all first come to agreement on concepts and rules, we can uselessly argue forever and not come to any conclusion that is binding on everyone who has the use of reason, and is not stubborn with repeating I deny, I deny I deny, I deny with his lips.
Okay, tell me or do you agree with me that we must first come to agreement on concepts and rules?
Yes, yes, you agree already with the concept in the Christian faith, namely that it is the Christian position that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, again insofar as the Christian faith is concerned, and also in the Christian faith as insofar God in His relation fundamental relation to the universe is concerned.
I am working with someone right now to have him give just five examples of what it is to prove that something exists, just five examples from his lifetime so far wherein he had proven something to exist.
And then I am also asking everyone to come to a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence, in as short as even not more than 50 characters.
And I have not yet come to the rules for everyone to abide by in the God debate, except perhaps one so far from myself, that we must keep to the universe where we are living in and are parts of.
You seem to have some unusual ideas about how debates might work. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but hopefully clarifying things. If you already knew this, carry on- you're free to use the site however you want but it will be probably be more difficult.
I can see the other posts in this debate but I'm not automatically informed of them like you are, so I don't have much of an idea what all your other conversations look like. I only know what you and me are talking about. And if you're waiting to continue the debate until you get every participant in the same place, you'll be waiting forever. Some people will forget about it and stop replying, and others will just refuse to agree with you on whatever point. So I suggest taking each discussion individually and going from there.
How to prove God is the creator of the observable universe.
I am a Christian.
To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:
"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.
Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.
Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.
I am still looking for my last reply to Rage, and I can't find it yet, because I was interrupted in sending my last reply to Rage with an instruction to login again, while I was logging in again and succeeded in logging in again, the page has changed.
Anyway, I am not sure what is your purpose here, but I am into not exactly the debate as a tit for tat, but into debate as I said in my original first post to first come to agreement on concept and rules, but almost everyone here wants to plunge right away into proving or disproving God existing.
So, I am asking you to tell if I have already told you, about my proposed six propositions for everyone to work on about agreeing to, starting with the first one, namely, to agree that we must come first to concurring concepts and rules.
Now I will go back to look for my reply to Rage which is about telling him not to bring in Hume in this present conversation because the man is dead, and if he has appropriated ideas from the man, just present them as his own in his own words, no need to parade Hume at all; if the ideas are good on their own merits, so they are good and people can see them to be good, if not then bringing in Hume is an irrelevancy at best and at worst trying to lean on authority.
No, you haven't presented your six propositions to me, but keep in mind we're not going to be able to all work on them together. This site is not a good forum for true group discussions. You may have to come to slightly modified definitions for every participant.
I have not really come yet to proving, although I did give some arguments
What a contradictory statement. Proofs are subsets of arguments. You don't need to have proof to develop an argument (although you do need proof to develop a logical argument), but you need an argument for a statement to be considered a proof.
I am working with someone right now to have him give just five examples of what it is to prove that something exists, just five examples from his lifetime so far wherein he had proven something to exist.
Still don't see how this is required in the UoD. Being the creator of the debate does NOT mean you have the right to dictate what everyone says. Just like how if one is the invisible space daddy that you call "God", "He" cannot dictate what each of us does because, according to the leading Christian theologians, this supposed "God" gave humans free will (in the philosophical sense). Since "He" gave us free will, then we have the ability to make choices and "He" cannot dictate what we say, think, act, etc. How do you think atheists, like myself, can declare, as Nietzsche did, that "God" is 'dead'?
Tell me Rage, do you agree to the following propositions, as a starter do you agree to proposition 1?
1. We must agree to work together to come to concurring on concepts most crucially involved in the God debate, and also to concurring on rules which all will abide by.
2. We must agree on a concurring concept of God, though not admitting the existence of the God corresponding to the agreed on concept of God.
3. We must agree on a concurring concept of the universe.
4. We must agree on a concurring concept of what it is to prove the existence of something.
5. We must agree on a concurring concept of what is evidence.
6. We must agree to abide by the rule that God's existence or non-existence is in reference to only the universe where we live in and are parts of, and where we see also the stars and even the distant galaxies and other components making up the universe.
As I have already said, I would agree with your propositions insofar where the God debate is concerned. However, I don't see you providing any positive arguments at all.
[qoute=Marius]How to prove God is the creator of the observable universe.
I am a Christian.
To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:
"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.
Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.
Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.
Marius
[/quote]
Of course, you can see through my OP that I have an argument against atheists' contention against God if they are directing themselves against the Christian God, but I am still in my OP inviting atheists to come to the correct information about the concept of the Christian God in His fundamental relation to the universe.
You see, atheists the ones who write against God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, must pick one of these entities to focus their arguments on, but I see they just keep on attacking without any specific target, and that is irrational.
So, I am asking all atheists and everyone keen on the God debate to agree to the following propositions I have presented, and you can find them at the end of this webpage or at the end of the last webpage:
[quote=Marius] Marius(16) 1 point
[ I don't know how this message is going to come out, but I just want to address everyone, not to support or to dispute anyone. ]
-------------------
Okay, everyone here, from the start this is what I have chosen to do here, a Perspectives Debate.
A Perspectives Debate is an open question where the positions are tracked by tags. Perspective Debates are best used for an issue that can't be broken down easily in to two sides, such as "What's the greatest band ever? By default, any CreateDebate user can post in a Perspectives Debate.
-----------------------
I have said earlier that I would be presenting some propositions for us all to agree to, in order that we can get closer to the actual debate on God's existence or non-existence, and not be talking past each others' heads.
Here are the propositions, not all of them but the ones that I can see to be most important for us all to agree to:
1. We must agree to work together to come to concurring on concepts most crucially involved in the God debate, and also to concurring on rules which all will abide by.
2. We must agree on a concurring concept of God, though not admitting the existence of the God corresponding to the agreed on concept of God.
3. We must agree on a concurring concept of the universe.
4. We must agree on a concurring concept of what it is to prove the existence of something.
5. We must agree on a concurring concept of what is evidence.
6. We must agree to abide by the rule that God's existence or non-existence is in reference to only the universe where we live in and are parts of, and where we see also the stars and even the distant galaxies and other components making up the universe.
These are my proposed concepts to agree on, and with #6 one rule so far that I am proposing we all agree to abide by.
Now, everyone if you have any propositions that you desire must be agreed on by everyone, on concepts and also rules, please present them in your posts.
Really, you don't need to paste your entire first post here. I saw it when you made this debate and I saw it when you pasted the whole thing two posts ago. If you're truly, actually trying to come to an understanding here, then point out the specific thing you think I need to pay closer attention to. Otherwise you're not helping anything.
You see, atheists the ones who write against God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, must pick one of these entities to focus their arguments on, but I see they just keep on attacking without any specific target, and that is irrational.
How many atheists have busted out a serious argument against the existence of the Greek pantheon or Wiccan nature spirits? Not that some of them couldn't, but Wiccans and ancient Greeks aren't an atheist's typical debate partner here. Christians are. This explains why the vast majority of atheist's arguments (here and elsewhere) attempt point out absurdities in Christian doctrine by using passages from the Bible, and/or outline contradictions in the Christian God's attributed qualities like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. That's pretty specific.
If you have proposed definitions for that list of six things, you should probably post them. It's not feasible or necessary to have all the participants of this debate on the same page.
We all have our faults, sir; I'm a bigoted, irascible lunatic who dearly wishes that he lived in the late 18th century.
To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:
"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
And who created him?
I have dealt with the question before, but as this is the correct version of the concept, whereas all those that I had discussed and dismissed before had been spurious, I should think it prudent to ask the usual sort of difficult questions that we have all asked before, under surprisingly similar circumstances.
Though, you should perhaps be forewarned of the following logical trap: 'He does not need a creator because he is God'. I am sure that you have no intention of responding in a similar manner, as that is the 'incorrect' version of the faith, but as Mr. Berry once said, 'You never can tell'.
That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.
How can one be at once faithful and understanding?
Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
I do not presume to speak for all atheists, but I am certainly aware of that nonsense; hence my atheism.
If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.
Insofar as any God is concerned, I make no distinction between one species of fanciful delusion and another. That your cult is the largest of them all is neither here nor there.
Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.
No, I still cannot accept the proposition. Would you care to try arguing rather than simply thrice stating your premise?
I am now asking everyone to agree that unless we get to agree on mutually concurring concepts and rules to abide by, we can argue forever and ever, and never come to any conclusion one way or the other.
What do you say, do you agree with my view that we must come first to concurrence on concepts and rules?
You might say that it is impossible to come to concurrence on concepts and rules.
Well, those who don't subscribe to the idea and actual engagement and succeed thereby to come to concurring concepts and rules, they can go their own way to argue among themselves each one with his own concepts and rules.
But I am sure that men of genuine reason and a sense of reality will come to agreement on concurring concepts and rules, and they will eventually sooner or later conclude together that yes God exists, or no God does not exist.
It's me again. Not letting you get away with your theistic waffle. Let me help my ally out here.
What do you say, do you agree with my view that we must come first to concurrence on concepts and rules?
You obviously do not understand the concept of "atheism". This is a lack of a belief of God(s) and/or a rejection of the notion of a god. Now, you are justified to expect us, as atheists, to recognise that your view/definition of God, but you can't expect us to agree that such a God exists. You can't even expect us to even agree that there is only a god as you have defined it. As an atheist, I have to recognise the fact that Muslims and Hindus define god differently (note that this is not a contention that I am expected to defend in the UoD here). So it would be irresponsible for you to invite atheists to debate with you and then dictate what they should or should not believe.
I am sure that men of genuine reason and a sense of reality will come to agreement on concurring concepts and rules, and they will eventually sooner or later conclude together that yes God exists, or no God does not exist.
I think you need to explain your claim here. What makes you so 'sure'?
Let me go back to the problem of existence here. The question 'what is existence?' is a deep philosophical question that has permeated the discussions of the best philosophers through the centuries. For example, the great German philosopher Leibniz famously asked the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" And the French philosopher Rene Descartes postulated a famous argument that can be simply summarised as "cogito ergo sum". Coming to the philosopher I most revere (aka the father of modern philosophy), the great Scottish philosopher David Hume postulated (what can be viewed as) an opposition to "cogito ergo sum", called the "Bundle Theory". Now, these are arguments familiar to anyone who has even bothered to seriously read through any introductory philosophy book. I invite you, Marius, the read through the arguments and then come and debate with me, instead of trying to sidestep the difficult questions posed by those who do not share all your views.
You cant prove that God is the creator or even that he exists at all. If He wanted you to have proof He would have given it to us, what He wants is for us to have faith, for that to work there can be no proof. Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe.
One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)
I agree with everything you've said, except for the point that "everything in the universe and earth can be explained through science." I can give you two very short arguments against this claim. First, the Scottish philosopher David Hume famously postulated an argument called "the Problem of Induction. This basically goes something like this: even if something has been observed to occur many times in the past, it does not necessarily imply that the same occurrence will happen again in future situations, even if you assume ceteris paribus. Thus, according to this argument, all sciences are logical fallacies (I dare you to challenge David Hume's argument.)
Second, David Hume also postulated another argument called the 'is-ought problem' (more affectionately known as "Hume's Guillotine"). This goes as follows: just because something IS happening in one way, it does not follow that it OUGHT to occur in this manner. Why is this important? Because science derive theories and concepts based on observations (and by "the Problem of Induction", these are logical fallacies) and even though science can tell us what IS happening, it does not tell us what OUGHT to happen due to the slippery slope.
Having said that, I agree fully that whether or not science can (or cannot) explain everything, it does not have any bearing on whether God exists or not. By its own nature, such an 'argument from science' is a red herring.
Because something hasn't been explained by science doesn't mean it cant be, it just means we haven't figured out how to YET. I don't see how the these arguments/ideas contradict my point. Just because something happens that has never happened before or happens differently than we expect it doesn't mean that the fabric of science is flawed or wrong it just means we haven't interpreted thing correctly.
You've completely misunderstood David Hume's argument, I'm afraid.
Let me give you an example to illustrate Hume's argument. I hope you've studied chemistry.
Assume that you add 5g of magnesium to 10ml of 5M hydrochloric acid. What you would observe is that hydrogen gas is given off, leaving behind a salt, magnesium chloride. Hume's argument is that even if you were to do the above experiment 1 million times, under the EXACT SAME CONDITIONS (i.e. temperature, humidity, time of day, etc.), and all the 1 million experiments yield EXACTLY the same result, it doesn't mean that the next experiment (i.e. 1,000,001th) would yield EXACTLY the same result. This is what David Hume is postulating.
Thus, your statement that "because something happens that has never happened before or happens differently than we expect it doesn't mean that the fabric of science is flawed or wrong it just means we haven't interpreted thing correctly" is, I can safely say, a total non-sequitur.
(By the way, I am on your side, I do NOT think that God is the creator, nor do I think that this supposed invisible space daddy exists. I am just opposed to the specific point you have raised above science being able to explain, according to you, "everything".)
I submit that it is impossible now to have Hume here to tell us what he really means with his writings.
What we can do now is to agree on what he means among ourselves, in order that we can take him to have contributed something useful or at least interesting in the problem of induction.
So, all who are keen on citing Hume should first get together to set up a list of propositions which they agree on to be the genuine thoughts of Hume as they can gather from his writings.
Otherwise it is useless because people who cite Hume in support of a position are going to be in effect arguing or should be in effect arguing on what is the true mind of Hume in his writings.
Best thing to do at present and in our present situation and with our present knowledge and also in the physical circumstances that we are in today, to not bring in authorities who are dead and cannot anymore give us their thoughts as to decide for us what they indeed truly think to be their messages.
Now, as regards the God debate, everyone interested must work together to come to a mutually agreed on concept of God and also the rules in the debate to abide by, otherwise it is a futile and I will say crazy engagement.
But if you want to dispute the existence of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe again in the Christian faith, people have got to get from the Christian faith what is for Christians their concept of God.
Now you will say that Christians don't have the same concept of God, and that is not the fact, they do have the same concept of God in God's fundamental relation to the universe.
If you insist that there are Christians who don't have that concept of God in God's fundamental relation to the universe, namely: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then just get the ones who do believe that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
Again, you seem to display a surprising lack of understanding of philosophical thought and epistemology.
Your only argument against David Hume's "Problem of Induction" and the "Is-ought problem" (or "Hume's Guillotine") seems to be summarised when you say, "Best thing to do at present and in our present situation and with our present knowledge and also in the physical circumstances that we are in today, to not bring in authorities who are dead and cannot anymore give us their thoughts as to decide for us what they indeed truly think to be their messages."
Let's breakdown this argument philosophically:
Premiss 1: We should not bring in authorities who are dead and cannot give use their thoughts as to decide for us what they indeed truly think to be their messages.
Premiss 2: David Hume is dead.
Conclusion: We should not bring in David Hume's arguments because we do not know for sure what he is saying.
Well, let's assume that I accept the first premiss (I do not at all accept the first premiss btw). Then, your idea of God being the "creator of everything except Himself" should also then be rejected because the people who first proposed (not 'repeat', but propose) that idea are long dead now. Immediately, that negates your whole argument for the existence of God since, according to you, we should not bring in authorities who are dead.
Now, let me explain why I do NOT accept the first premise.
By saying that we cannot be sure of whether their ideas are correct or not because the authorities are dead, you have committed one major fallacy in your argument. This is called the genetic fallacy. What you are trying to do here is to suggest the validity of the argument based on the origin of the argument. Why is this an error in reasoning? Because you are not dealing with the argument itself, but trying to sidestep dealing with the difficult rebuttals that I have posed to you. Why don't you try to deal with the argument itself instead of trying to formulate bullshit arguments that lack substance? Because I won't let you get away with trying to escape dealing with the arguments themselves.
everyone interested must work together to come to a mutually agreed on concept of God and also the rules in the debate to abide by, otherwise it is a futile and I will say crazy engagement.
I have already agreed to define this invisible space daddy you worship according to how YOU would define it. Unless you are now saying that your own definition is wrong, then that would be self-contradictory. Why don't you read my arguments before trying to attack me straw man yet again?
Now you will say that Christians don't have the same concept of God, and that is not the fact, they do have the same concept of God in God's fundamental relation to the universe.
Stop attacking me straw man! Since when have I said this? What gives you the right to assume what I am going to argue?
I am sure that the modern (and very much alive) top Christian philosophers and theologians would be ashamed of what you have written. Which philosophers am I talking about? Just to name a few: Prof. Alvin Plantinga from the University of Notre Dame (one of the top Christian universities in the US), Prof. William Lane Craig from Biola University in the US, Prof. Nigel Spivey from the University of Cambridge in the UK and Professors Roger Scruton and Richard Swinburne from the University of Oxford in the UK. All of the above philosophers I have deep respect for because they engage with the arguments with rigour. Perhaps you should read their works before trying to pass your nonsense off as 'arguments', I'm sure that these fellow Christians I have named would put you to shame.
I agree with everything you've said, except for the point that "everything in the universe and earth can be explained through science." I can give you two very short arguments against this claim. First, the Scottish philosopher David Hume famously postulated an argument called "the Problem of Induction. This basically goes something like this: even if something has been observed to occur many times in the past, it does not necessarily imply that the same occurrence will happen again in future situations, even if you assume ceteris paribus. Thus, according to this argument, all sciences are logical fallacies (I dare you to challenge David Hume's argument.)
Second, David Hume also postulated another argument called the 'is-ought problem' (more affectionately known as "Hume's Guillotine"). This goes as follows: just because something IS happening in one way, it does not follow that it OUGHT to occur in this manner. Why is this important? Because science derive theories and concepts based on observations (and by "the Problem of Induction", these are logical fallacies) and even though science can tell us what IS happening, it does not tell us what OUGHT to happen due to the slippery slope.
Having said that, I agree fully that whether or not science can (or cannot) explain everything, it does not have any bearing on whether God exists or not. By its own nature, such an 'argument from science' is a red herring.
8hrs 52mins ago
-------------------
Well, I would tell Hume that even though there is a problem in logic with induction so that we can never say that something is certain to exist or to not exist or to occur again or to not occur again, I will tell him to not dispense with intelligent self-guidance.
Suppose he sees that people are getting themselves killed by shooting themselves in their heads, so to prove that the next occurrence of shooting oneself in the head will not get oneself killed, he accepts the challenge to shoot himself in his head, because he is not sure that the next shooting in this case of himself by himself will get himself killed.
I submit thinking people who care for him should stop him, unless like Hume they have become un-intelligent, have become stupid, and worse, crazy; the government should put all such crazies in an asylum for their own safe keeping.
So, dear ReventonRage, even though to the mind of a Hume there is a problem with induction, that does not mean that you can dispense with intelligence in your mind and become stupid or worse crazy.
There is a distinction between logic and intelligence, and in everyday life I hope you always choose to act intelligently instead of acting logically, when you do have a choice to act intelligently instead of logically.
Now, what about the existence of God, well you can go on and on and on with logic that God does not exist, but if you use your logic intelligently, God exists.
Anyway, I like you to tell me what is it according to you to prove something to exist in objective reality from the part of man to man -- or man to animals.
Well, apparently you, Marius, think that David Hume is "un-intelligent, have become stupid, and worse, crazy". Let me say that you are one of the most prominent 'crazies' that should be put in an asylum. I can safely say this because philosophers (both Christian and atheist alike) agree that David Hume is perhaps the founder of modern philosophy and logical thinking. Christian and atheist philosophers alike agree that David Hume is intelligent and not, in any way, crazy.
Accusing Hume of being un-intelligent shows your own lack of intellect and is also a way to argue ad hominem.
You have also said, "Suppose he sees that people are getting themselves killed by shooting themselves in their heads, so to prove that the next occurrence of shooting oneself in the head will not get oneself killed, he accepts the challenge to shoot himself in his head, because he is not sure that the next shooting in this case of himself by himself will get himself killed."
This is a BLATANT false analogy because you have, once again, failed to grasp David Hume's "Problem of Induction". He is NOT in any way saying that the next occurrence will not happen. In fact, he is saying that we CANNOT BE CERTAIN that it will occur in the same way. He is taking the position that 'we cannot know for sure' what will occur, even if the past events have occurred in a certain way. This is a mark of a true skeptic, who is one that takes the epistemological position that true knowledge is unattainable. I suggest that you read up on philosophy and stop attacking me straw man because your rather unintelligible and unintelligent arguments are a waste of everyone's time.
You have also said, "There is a distinction between logic and intelligence, and in everyday life I hope you always choose to act intelligently instead of acting logically, when you do have a choice to act intelligently instead of logically."
Yes, there is a distinction between logic and intellect but you seem to have not understood the difference. Logic is, according to Professor J. Cook Wilson (as quoted in the OED), "The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of inference and of scientific method." Intelligence, on the other hand, refers to "the faculty of understanding" (again, quoted from the OED). In short, logic is PROCESS by which we derive rational conclusions (which, by the way, "rationality" is a whole other concept that is not the same as "logic" and "intellect".) from. Intellect is the QUALITY that gives us the ABILITY TO DERIVE LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS. That is the difference.
Until you can grasp that simple concept, I would have to be very skeptical about your intellect and, indeed, your ability to debate.
Rage, again you are missing the issue, I am asking you to omit bringing in Hume.
You are again engaged in avoiding the issue at hand, by continually dwelling on Hume who is dead, when I am asking people alive today and present here to come to agreement on concepts and rules in the God debate.
Your intention seems to divert this thread into endless arguments on what is the real thoughts of Hume when Hume is not here but dead, while we are here and alive, and you have a mind of your own.
This is a red herring. No one invited you to comment on the thread where I opposed to the initial commentator's view that "science explains everything". When I quote Hume, I am opposing to the view that "science explains everything" and not whether God exists or not. So, either you are defending the contention that "science explains everything" or you are not. If you are not trying to do any, then butt out. This specific thread is discussing the claim that "science explains everything".
I am not engaged in avoiding the issue at hand because the issue at hand with respect to this SPECIFIC THREAD is the view that "science explains everything". Clearly, you need to read the antecedent arguments more closely.
I repeat, just because someone is dead, it does not mean that his or her views are wrong or inconclusive. For example, the scientist Benjamin Franklin is long dead. Do we now suggest that it is wrong (or inconclusive) that lightning is really electricity? Another example. The authors of the Bible (e.g. Matthew, Mark and Luke) are long dead. Are we now to say that you doubt the word of the Bible, as a Christian, because they are dead? No. I do not doubt that you find the word of the Bible to be correct and I have to respect that. You, on the other hand, seem to have very little tolerance for my fellow atheists. I think that you need to give them more credit and respect for holding strong to their believes.
You also said that I have a mind of my own. Thank you for stating the obvious. However, it does not follow that since I have a mind of my own, I should not subscribe to David Hume's arguments like how you subscribe to the word of the Bible (by the way, I do not think that all of David Hume's arguments are good, I just agree with "The Problem of Induction" and "Hume's Guillotine").
For all intents and purposes, this reply is to to challenge the view that "science explains everything", as the original commentator wrote (as an argument against the existence of God). I am merely challenging that view. I would be very happy to defend my theological views against you, but let's do that in another thread.
By the way, your blatant misunderstanding of David Hume, the father of modern philosophy (i.e. the reason why we are even debating this at all), shows that you have not read any of his works. Again, read his works before engaging in an unlettered reply.
I have already mentioned about the need for man to distinguish between logic and intelligence: if your logic is going to make you act un-intelligently then it is about time you choose to act intelligently than keeping to your logic.
Thinking on Hume more carefully I see clearly the man did not give importance to the fact that the input of man's senses is restricted to the access of his senses in the actual situation mankind finds himself to be living in.
For example, when mankind was living without any telescope, etc., it was obvious to mankind that the sun goes around the earth, and that occurs everyday, so that mankind then concludes that it is a fact that the sun goes around the earth.
Coming to the problem of induction, if all the inputs of man's senses in his actual situation in time and in space confirms repeatedly his observation that every swan he sees is white, then it is obvious that he should conclude every swan is white.
But the color of swan is not any crucially important piece of information for mankind, in order for mankind to guide himself so as to survive and to continuously enhance his life and his knowledge of the world.
Before anything else about the color of swans being only white or also black, the power of man's mind to imagine things, that is a very crucial endowment in man from the Creator, that enables man to survive and to enhance his life situation and also increase his knowledge of the world.
If man had imagined that color in a swan need not make up the true nature of a swan, that it is something that can change and a swan is still a swan, then he could have gone to as much as possible all places to try to meet a swan that is not white but of another color for example black.
When man did go to other places and saw black swans even just one, then he realized that there are also black swans.
So, I submit Hume was very poor in thinking, he forgot to use his intelligence but he stuck to his mastery of logic, that is the reason why some people never get to know better things, and do better things by being most most most logical but neglecting the habit of thinking intelligently which intelligent thinking starts with an open mind.
My only reply to this is that there is more to understanding and studying the works of David Hume than spending 5 minutes on the Wikipedia page.
Clearly, you have completely misunderstood the "black swan problem". (By the way, your articulation of the "black swan problem" is unintelligible, unintelligent and rather crude.) This is an analogy that SUPPORTS THE "PROBLEM OF INDUCTION" rather than refutes it. This is because let's say a man has seen only white swans all his life (let's assume that he has seen 10 million white swans) up to now. It DOES NOT mean that there are ONLY white swans in the world. There might be black swans (hence, the "black swan problem") but since the man has only seen white ones all his life, he inductively argues that there are only white swans. Hence, this is an analogy of Hume's "Problem of Induction" (refer to my description of this problem.)
Again, you have attacked Hume ad hominem here. Let me defend him by saying that while you accuse Hume of being un-intelligent (which he was not), you yourself have displayed your startling lack of intellect by trying to misconstrue Hume's arguments (and trying to get away with that bullshit) to suit your own purposes. For once, why don't you sit down and go through some of the written works of David Hume and see how utterly inferior you are as compared to Hume.
Rage, I had sent this message to you but it has not come out for as I clicked on send what happened is that an instruction to login again appeared on my screen, afterwards I could not find the message below as sent already, so I am sending it again to you.
----------------------
I propose you don't bring in Hume, the man is dead.
If you have appropriated any of his ideas, just use them as coming from yourself without any reference to his name, because in referring to his name you are in effect telling people that you represent Hume but you don't, besides the man is dead; additionally you are disclosing to people today alive and here that you have no ideas at all from your very own mind, even if originally you read from others but appropriated and assimilated as to be your very own.
If you got your ideas from Hume and you believe them to be good for you as to be your own, just use your own words to tell what you know to be good for your own self, again without bringing in Hume's name.
If the ideas you have appropriated from Hume are not good enough for people today alive and here, as you express them in your own words without bringing in Hume, it is a gimmick for you to bring in his name because you are then appealing to authority; but you don't have any ideas except authority from a dead writer, and writers are a dime a dozen -- again if you think Hume's ideas are good to yourself, make them your own and reproduce them in your own very words without bringing in the name of Hume.
You will say that you have to use his words because otherwise you might not express them correctly, in which case you are admitting in effect that you yourself don't know what the dead man was talking about in his words uttered when he was alive.
So, don't bring in Hume and his ideas since you yourself don’t understand them.
Again, if you find Hume's ideas good for yourself, appropriate them and present them without bringing in Hume's name, in your own words; if they are good for yourself they can be good also for others who have also their own mind to judge the ideas on their own merits, not on any merits of a dead writer who cannot anymore be present to advance in his thoughts and discoveries of life and the world.
--------------------
Now, I hope this message come out, if not then there is some bug here.
I will respond to your other replies here, if this site works all right after I test if to see whether it has stabilized.
If you got your ideas from Hume and you believe them to be good for you as to be your own, just use your own words to tell what you know to be good for your own self, again without bringing in Hume's name.
I have not brought in Hume's name to justify my argument. I was merely quoting Hume. Much like how you would quote the Bible. Why don't you try quoting exact Biblical scripture without reference to the Bible?
it is a gimmick for you to bring in his name because you are then appealing to authority
It is utterly dishonest of you to accuse me of appealing to authority because I have not brought in Hume's name to justify my argument. I have shown how the argument works and why my own view is right.
So, don't bring in Hume and his ideas since you yourself don’t understand them.
I think that as a person who have studied Hume for the past 4 years, I do sufficiently understand Hume's basic arguments to represent them. Don't accuse me of anything if you don't understand me at all.
Again, I suggest that you ENGAGE WITH THE ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES. If you can, that is.
You cant prove that God is the creator or even that he exists at all. If He wanted you to have proof He would have given it to us, what He wants is for us to have faith, for that to work there can be no proof. Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe.
One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)
7hrs 50mins ago
-----------------------
I disagree with you, unlike you I know that man with his reason and sincerity can prove to himself and others who are reasonable and sincere that God exists as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
You also say:
"Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe."
I find that very edifying for myself, thanks.
About your question:
"One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)"
My answer is that God is also the creator of everything in the unobservable to man universe, everything that is not God Himself.
You see, let us understand the universe as the totality of existence where anything that exists or can exist, exists in, even God Himself exists in the universe understood by me as the totality of existence.
That makes the universe greater than God, because I say that God also exists in the universe?
First: when I say that God Himself exists in the universe which I understand as the totality of existence where everything that exists or can exist, exists in, I am not denying that God is greater than the universe.
I would be denying that God is greater than the universe if I were to say that God is imprisoned in the universe as like a convict is imprisoned in a jail.
Second: the totality of existence is a mental concept of a collection, a collectivity, that concept exists in my mind; in my mind the totality of existence is like an imaginary big shopping bag where I put my concepts of everything that exists or can exist, including the concept of God and everything else that is not God but created however by God.
So God is not in any way imprisoned in my imaginary big shopping bag, except my concept of God as of my concepts of everything that is created by God.
Hope you can comprehend that.
In the Christian faith God is transcendent to the universe and also immanent in the universe; for myself I will say that God is both inside and outside the universe He has created.
An atheist keeps insisting that I am saying something ridiculous when I say that God is also outside the universe because for him there is no outside of the universe; I keep telling him that by outside I do not mean as like one is outside one's house which house is in a neighborhood, by outside I mean that God is not imprisoned inside the space in which the material universe is located; but the atheist keeps on and on and on insisting that I mean outside as like outside one's house which house is located in a neighborhood.
Well, that is one very stubborn atheist who just insists that you must mean what and how he wants you to understand things the way He wants it.
One irrational atheist.
Now, I ask everyone, can a human be inside his house and also outside his house?
Sure, the way I see it, a human like myself can be inside his house like inside his bedroom inside the house and also outside, if he is in control of the whole house inside and outside, with closed circuit television cameras everywhere inside and outside the house, and remote control instrumentation.
You cannot prove this claim. I happen to believe it to be true, but even I acknowledge that it is simply not possible to 'prove' that God is the creator of the universe, let alone that he exists.
Any claims related to God or his existence should be treated primarily as a religious one. Religions are, by definition, based on the concept of faith. If it was possible to legitimately prove the existence of God, faith would no longer play a role, as it would become a fact. However, quite contrarily, it will always remain a theory with minimal concrete evidence to support it.
I'm being realistic here.
Religion = faith
Science = evidence, proof
Having these constant debates about God is so utterly pointless, see that it will forever be unfalsifiable as well as unprovable.
Aside from religious faith, man can prove the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, by his reason.
But we must everyone keen on the God debate by reason agree to first work together to come to mutually agreed on concepts and rules to abide by from the part of everyone.
What do you say, isn't that logical, instead of each one talking endlessly but with no agreement on the concepts and rules that everyone should agree on?
Now, perhaps at this point we have to agree that it is illogical for people to debate without first having come to agreement on concepts and rules binding on all parties engaged in the debate.
You agree to that, or you don't agree to that, in which latter case I cannot see how you can be logical in talking here.
Perhaps I am missing something. What is it that is being offered as proof? Making the assertion that "God is the creator of everything that is not God himself" does not provide any evidence, proof, or reason why we should accept this as true. Should we simply take your word for it?
Evidence, noun: 1) that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2) something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was evidence of his fever. 3) Law: data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
Proof, noun: 1) evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief that in it s truth. 2) anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3) the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4) the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5) Law: (in judicial proceedings) evidence having a probative weight.
Above from Dictionary.com
Below from Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary
Evidence, noun: 1) SIGN OF PROOF something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion: There is no evidence that the disease is related to diet. 2) PROOF OF GUILT the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime: The police have no evidence. 3) STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry.
Proof, noun: 1) CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something 2) TEST a test or trial of something to establish whether it is true 3) STATE OF HAVING BEEN PROVED the quality or condition of having been proved 4) TRIAL EVIDENCE the evidence in a trial that helps to determine the court's decision
Here are definitions from two different sources; there are even example sentences if you need them. If these don't help, let me know. We can work together to help you understand that they are so that you can apply them to your statement; putting proof or evidence into your statements turns sentences into arguments.
Agreed, Niko. I would offer another set of definitions from the OED.
Evidence refers to "ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion."
Proof refers to "that which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something.
Now, I don't think Marius should be able to get away from giving concrete, logical proof for his claims.
Give some examples of evidence that you know to be relevant for disproving God's existence.
In the process please also formulate your concept of evidence in not more than 50 characters, for there is an instruction here to the following effect:
"The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible."
So, I am asking you to give in just the minimum 50 characters in an argument, so that we can easily and quickly agree on what is evidence.
Of course the instruction is that an argument should be at least contain 50 characters, but the more one writes the more the possibilities of disagreement, so if you reduce your characters to the most essential which essential no one can anymore want to argue about, then that is the one everyone is in agreement on.
I do not need to respond to this. I have already quoted the OED, the leading authority in the English Language. You won't get a better response than that. (That is unless you're so ignorant as to not know what the OED is...)
You use the language yourself as to make yourself intelligible to others with the same language.
So, if you have any understanding of the words you are using like God, universe, proof, evidence, don't bring in dictionaries, tell people what are your concepts of those things: God, universe, prrof, evidence, proof, whatever; because dictionaries are made by people who are also using the same language we are using.
You must be able to express what your concepts are, as to be understood relevantly in the instant discourse, like for example if the discourse is about filling in a form where an applicant for a job has to write down information about his biodata and curriculum vitae, to the blank on sex he writes three times a week, then in the interview asked where he lives he answers in a house; that is not being relevant in giving your definitions of words, which you don't have to bring in the dictionaries to do so.
You are to all appearances a person of authority meaning you lean on authorities, without authorities you have nothing of your own thinking and writing.
You are to all appearances a person of authority meaning you lean on authorities, without authorities you have nothing of your own thinking and writing.
How dare you accuse of of committing the fallacy of appealing to authority? The 'appeal to authority' fallacy is committed when one claims that an argument is valid solely because it was formulated by a figure of authority and not on the merit of the argument itself. I have shown you why dictionary definitions are perfectly compatible because more than one person agrees with it (the OED was written by more than 10 professors of English at Oxbridge).
Now, once we have got through that to you, why don't you start giving us some evidence?
Dear Rave, the topic here is on the need of atheists to come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith, and also to come to concurring concepts which are most crucially involved in the God debate, and also to come to concurring rules all parties must adhere to.
Many things have been brought up already but they are not into the topic, and I am myself also diverted into producing arguments to prove the existence of God, that is the mother issue; but we are or I want everyone in this instant topic to first come to concurrence on concepts and rules.
So far I think I am succeeding in getting people to get the correct information of the concept of God in the Christine faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is:
"God is the creator of everything in the universe which is not God Himself."
Now, I seem to see that people are also into coming to concurrence on what is the concept of the universe we will accept for the purpose of the God debate, notwithstanding that many things are brought up which are not into the concept of the universe, like God being outside and it is impossible, whatever, etc.
Those things will have to come afterwards in as many topics as are needed to examine the interactions of God with the universe.
Here is my concept of the universe:
"The totality of existence where man lives in and is a part of, as also everything existing exists in, even things only imaginable and the subjects of man's discourse."
And as regards the rules to abide by for everyone, my first rule is that:
"In the God debate keep to the universe the one where man lives in and where he sees the sun in the morning, the moon at night, the stars beyond our earth and also the distant galaxies and everything else that he can see in the observable universe which is a part of the universe as the totality of existence.
So, please contribute to the actual topic, and produce your ideas which are your very own even though borrowed but appropriated and assimilated as your very own, no need to bring in Hume, and also dictionaries -- if you know the words and use them, you have already your concepts of the things you use the words to talk about.
Okay?
Now, tell everyone here what is your information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, and mind you just the information because I want to see whether you got the correct information: no no no no I am not trying to trap you into assuming that God is the creator of everything etc.
Just get the correct information of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe.
So also with your concept of what is the universe.
Now as regards your concept of what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality, please come up with just five examples of your having proven something to exist in objective reality in your own lifetime so far.
Then you can also search your mind on what is your concept of evidence; and don't go to the dictionaries.
If you don't know what is evidence in your stock knowledge, then keep quiet until you have already searched your mind and if there is really nothing about evidence in your mind, then study the dictionaries and adopt one and reproduce that one concept from the dictionaries but IN YOUR OWN WORDS, and don't bother to bring in the name of the dictionaries you have examined, because now you have your own concept of what is evidence.
Pick one concept of evidence that is to your intelligence most is the most relevant to the God debate.
the topic here is on the need of atheists to come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith
Disagree, because that is not the topic of debate in the thread (which you rudely interrupted) between the myself and the person who claimed that "science knows everything". Again, I repeat, If you want to debate against me on whether God exists, I gladly oblige. But let's do that debate elsewhere, by not replying to this thread.
Now, tell everyone here what is your information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, and mind you just the information because I want to see whether you got the correct information
I think that you must have been blind till now because I have clearly stated, in my first post to this debate, that I agree with your conception of what the Christian opinion of "God" means and what the universe means.
Now as regards your concept of what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality, please come up with just five examples of your having proven something to exist in objective reality in your own lifetime so far.
See my other post.
Pick one concept of evidence that is to your intelligence most is the most relevant to the God debate.
I have told you. The concept of evidence I subscribe to is one that is scientifically and philosophically proven as undeniable fact that serves to support an argument.
the topic here is on the need of atheists to come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith
Disagree, because that is not the topic of debate in the thread (which you rudely interrupted) between the myself and the person who claimed that "science knows everything". Again, I repeat, If you want to debate against me on whether God exists, I gladly oblige. But let's do that debate elsewhere, by not replying to this thread.
Now, tell everyone here what is your information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, and mind you just the information because I want to see whether you got the correct information
I think that you must have been blind till now because I have clearly stated, in my first post to this debate, that I agree with your conception of what the Christian opinion of "God" means and what the universe means.
Now as regards your concept of what it is to prove something to exist in objective reality, please come up with just five examples of your having proven something to exist in objective reality in your own lifetime so far.
See my other post.
Pick one concept of evidence that is to your intelligence most is the most relevant to the God debate.
I have told you. The concept of evidence I subscribe to is one that is scientifically and philosophically proven as undeniable fact that serves to support an argument.
[/quote]
----------------
Dear Rave, I am the author of this thread, and if you want to debate with someone else on something that is between you two, produce your own thread and do it in your own thread.
The topic here is on the need of atheists to come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith, and also all concepts crucially involved in the God debate, as likewise rules for everyone to abide by.
Now, tell me -- even though you say you did it already -- what is your concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe; don't say again that you told me already, just tell me now, and I promise you I will remember it and know where to look for it when i need it again.
I am asking you to give me five examples of things you have proven to exist, and so far I am not seeing any examples from you of your own experiences.
It is some trouble to navigate this forum, but suppose you now tell me those five or more examples, then I will remember them and know where I can find them again.
You say: "I have told you. The concept of evidence I subscribe to is one that is scientifically and philosophically proven as undeniable fact that serves to support an argument."
That is a most verbose and varicose formulation of a concept of evidence, suppose you also give just five examples of evidence from your own experiences of evidence "that serves to support an argument."
That should give more light to your verbose and varicose formulation of what is evidence, and I will be able to draft it in a concise, precise statement as to economise on convoluted wording.
And I promise you that I will remember them your examples of evidence, and know where to look them up again should I want to quote them.
So, will you now contribute your thoughts on the items above mentioned here in order to contribute to this thread that I am the author of, instead of bringing in authorities and authorities to divert the topic into arguments on what your authorities are saying.
I am the author of this thread, and if you want to debate with someone else on something that is between you two, produce your own thread and do it in your own thread.
Obviously, you don't understand the differences between a "page" and a "thread". Thus, your understanding of English seems to be poorer than your shoddy logic and inability to debate and think logically.
what is your concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe; don't say again that you told me already, just tell me now, and I promise you I will remember it and know where to look for it when i need it again.
Do I really need to say this again? I have already told you. Well, in case you are too dim to read, let me just repeat it again: my "definition" of a God is in accordance with the Judeo-Christian belief that you have laid out in the debate description. I do subscribe to the opinion that you have laid out in the description, for the sake of argument.
It is some trouble to navigate this forum
Well, I would say that you caused more trouble for yourself than others have caused for you. That is because you are narrow-minded where discussion is concerned and you have no tolerance for differences in opinion. In case you attack me straw man, let me state categorically that as long as you have unfalsifiable evidence and arguments for why God exists, I will gladly change my world view. But, it seems to me, you have none so far.
That is a most verbose and varicose formulation of a concept of evidence, suppose you also give just five examples of evidence from your own experiences of evidence "that serves to support an argument."
Simple. I can prove that there are, now, as I am replying to your unlettered rebuttal, five Scottish mints on my table. How do I know it? The senses of sight and touch reveal to me that there are five Scottish mints on my table. Furthermore, as I consume those five mints, the sense of taste, unique to the Scottish mints, confirms that there were five mints on my table. On the other hand, there are no good arguments to suggest that the contrary - that there were not five Scottish mints on my table - was true. Therefore, there were five Scottish mints on my table. In case you say that that is not a proof of five examples, I would say that you are wrong because each of the mints are unique in terms of shape, size and, indeed, volume and therefore they are five unique examples.
That is a most verbose and varicose formulation of a concept of evidence
Now, why don't you give evidence for your accusations?
I am the author of, instead of bringing in authorities and authorities to divert the topic into arguments on what your authorities are saying.
I would go further to accuse you of the same thing. Your definition of God seems to be derived from past theologians, whom I would admit are definitely smarter and more articulate than you (though admittedly, you're not a good benchmark to judge Christians by, since I have many friends who are excellent Christian theologians in their own right).
Now, just choose one concept of evidence from the dictionary definitions of evidence, that is the most appropriate to apply to the God debate, in order to prove that God does not exist or that He does exist, just one concept that all keen on the God debate will accept to be their mutually agreed on concept of evidence.
Sorry, maybe I'm confused, but you say that we can resolve the God debate if we accept that Christians believe, I repeat, believe, that God exists because of an unproven statement that God created everything there is except Himself. You haven't proven its validity in any way.
If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?
I am at present most concerned with getting everyone to agree to work together on coming up with mutually agreed on concepts crucially involved in the God debate, and also on rules to abide by.
I have explained already that we are now into concepts, please keep that in mind.
Sorry, maybe I'm confused, but you say that we can resolve the God debate if we accept that Christians believe, I repeat, believe, that God exists because of an unproven statement that God created everything there is except Himself. You haven't proven its validity in any way.
If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?
5 days ago | Tagged As: Proof please
[/quote]
before anything else, I say I am the author of this thread, what I mean is that I started this topic here in this CreateDebate forum, namely;
[quote=Marius]
[ Post 1 ]
Title of Topic: How to prove God is the creator of the observable universe.
I am a Christian.
To resolve the God debate, I invite atheists to first come to the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is as follows:
"Creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
That is the correct concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the totality of existence which I understand by the concept of the universe.
Do you atheists know of that concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe?
If you do not know that concept of God, then insofar as the Christian God is concerned you are in denying God's existence barking up the wrong tree at the wrong God.
Now, if you know the correct God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is: God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God.
Marius
[/quote]
That is the OP or first initiating post from the author of this debate topic which in other forums is called a thread.
I really must apologize for not using the codes here to make my writing more in accordance with the codes, but I am still looking for a page in this website where the codes are listed and examples of each given.
It is actually my intention to start a new debate topic as soon as everyone has agreed on concepts and rules, and as a matter of fact in order to quench the thirst of atheists who already wanted to plunge right away into disproving the existence of God, I did start a new topic but the powers that be here in effect required me to continue in the present topic, so I am now simultaneously getting people to agree on concepts and rules and also presenting my thoughts to show how God does exist in the totality of existence, which is my understanding of the universe, which universe is bigger than the observable to man universe.
Okay Niko, you ask:
"If you could please, would you explain how knowing what Christians believe proves that what they believe exists?"
First, if you know the correct information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, which is that:
"God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself,"
and second, if you agree with me to understand the universe as the totality of existence which contains also the observable to man universe,
then we can go forward in the totality of existence to look for God the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself.
And where do we look for God, or where do we start to look for God?
The question that atheists always ask is where is the evidence for God, so we will look for evidence for God in the observable to man universe; it cannot be otherwise since we cannot know the rest of the universe outside that portion we call and know to be the observable to man universe.
Do you follow me?
What I will do next, even though you atheists want to rush things and that is what I call haste is waste, what I will do next is to present propositions and also ask you atheists here to present propositions, and we work to agree to accept the propositions coming from us both.
That is the way to go to resolve the God debate, by agreeing on propositions one by one, instead of bringing in so many things to no purpose but to muddle up the issue or to divert it to all kinds of endless repetitious controversies.
Ok. Thank you for explaining that. Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were saying in your initial description. Yes, I agree; haste is waste. I like to argue things carefully. Sorry if I presented myself as stubborn and jumpy when it came to debating.
I also agree that we need to work together to resolve the God debate on both ends, otherwise it isn't a mutual conclusion.
Now, I have this concept of God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe, as follows:
"God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not Himself."
And I have this concept of the universe, as follows:
"The universe is the totality of existence where we live in and are parts of. as also everything existing exists in, even imaginary things but subjects of man's discourse."
You will notice that my concept of universe is much more expansive than the observable to man universe which is in turn a part of the expanded universe.
From my stock knowledge that was the concept of the universe until today when people make a distinction between the observable universe and the not-observable universe, but to be logical people will agree that both universes make up one universe, which I will call the totality of existence when I use the term universe.
Now, where does God come in, in this universe which is the totality of existence?
If God exists He is also a part of this universe, namely, the totality of existence.
That is where God comes in if He does exist, because I say that the universe is the totality of existence containing everything at all which does exist, even imaginable things which are the subjects of human discourse.
If God exists He is also a part of this universe, namely, the totality of existence.
Thanks for that comment. From this, I can construct an argument, based on the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence, to show that God, in fact, does not exist. Here is the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that began to exist, has to have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. That cause is God.
Ergo: Therefore, God exists.
Now, if you say that God is also part of this universe (although you have not clarified what "this" is supposed to refer to), then I have a few arguments to show that he (I refuse to use an upper case 'h') is not maximally powerful and therefore, cannot exist. First, if God is part of this universe, he exists within space and time. This entails that God therefore has a cause because he began to exist, in accordance with Planck's work on the physical constants. If he began to exist, he must have had a cause. However, if God has to have a cause, it entails that he is not maximally powerful (or omnipotent), as most Christian theologians agree, then the Judeo-Christian God cannot exist. Second, since God is also part of this universe, then he could not have created the universe because he would have to create himself. That would immediately turn into a circular argument that fails to provide a logical answer to the questions posed by the German philosopher Leibniz, who famously asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Now, you cannot escape from answering this question by saying that I am appealing to authority. Why? Because 1) I am merely quoting him and 2) most theologians, notably Christian ones, agree that God provides a sufficient answer to that question (since God is, according to theologians, the 'First Cause' or 'Prime Mover').
Finally, why can I confidently say that your statement is fallacious at best? Because, Christian theologians and philosophers, such as Professor William Lane Craig of Talbot School of Theology in the USA and Professor Richard Swinburne of the University of Oxford in the UK, have given various arguments for why God is not part of the existence (i.e. God is spaceless and timeless) in support of the various forms of the cosmological arguments for God's existence, notably the Kalam Cosmological Argument. To avoid appealing to authority, I have shown above that if your claim that God is part of this universe is true, then such a God does not exist.
Ask yourself this question, why is my body made of such? Why are your eyes shaped like that? The reason is because God made you of such, as everybody is a special child of God in his eyes. Although there are twins on this earth, they still have differences, like their thumbprints and stuff like that. Do you think you are a coincidence with the big bang theory? Or did we evolve from MONKEYS!!!AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! So think about this, and think what reason you were made for.
No, the idea is not to convert you but for us both to work our way into resolving the God debate.
Now, (1) you are aware of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, (2) are you also aware that the universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of?
Once you are aware of these two concepts, that of God and that of the universe, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
No, the idea is not to convert you but for us both to work our way into resolving the God debate.
I know, but you did state "then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God."
If I come to accept the existence of God, by your reasoning, have I then not been converted?
Now, (1) you are aware of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, (2) are you also aware that the universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of?
Yep.
Once you are aware of these two concepts, that of God and that of the universe, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
Can you see that?
I can see that, that is what you believe, but it is clearly illogical. If the Universe is the totality of existence, then God must exist within it, if not, then God must not exist.
No, the idea is not to convert you but for us both to work our way into resolving the God debate.
I know, but you did state "then we can resolve the God debate and you will come to accept the existence of God."
If I come to accept the existence of God, by your reasoning, have I then not been converted?
Now, (1) you are aware of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself, (2) are you also aware that the universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of?
Yep.
Once you are aware of these two concepts, that of God and that of the universe, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
Can you see that?
I can see that, that is what you believe, but it is clearly illogical. If the Universe is the totality of existence, then God must exist within it, if not, then God must not exist.
Can you see that?
17hrs 19mins ago
---------------
@ricedaragh:
You say:
"I can see that, that is what you believe, but it is clearly illogical. If the Universe is the totality of existence, then God must exist within it, if not, then God must not exist.
Can you see that?"
Read this post from me earlier, pay attention to the last part, after the [ here here here here ] line.
-----------------
Marius(13) Disputed 1 point
sierrastruth(204) 2 points
You cant prove that God is the creator or even that he exists at all. If He wanted you to have proof He would have given it to us, what He wants is for us to have faith, for that to work there can be no proof. Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe.
One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)
7hrs 50mins ago
-----------------------
I disagree with you, unlike you I know that man with his reason and sincerity can prove to himself and others who are reasonable and sincere that God exists as creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
You also say:
"Everything in the universe and earth (how it was all made how it works, floods, eruptions even seas splitting) can be explained through science but that doesn't mean that by accepting that, Gods existence is disproved. Did God not create science, math, gravity, atoms and energy all of which beautifully and amazingly make up and explain the universe."
I find that very edifying for myself, thanks.
About your question:
"One more thought for you, if God is the creator of the observable universe who or what is the creator of the unobservable universe?=)"
My answer is that God is also the creator of everything in the unobservable to man universe, everything that is not God Himself.
You see, let us understand the universe as the totality of existence where anything that exists or can exist, exists in, even God Himself exists in the universe understood by me as the totality of existence.
[ here here here here ]
That makes the universe greater than God, because I say that God also exists in the universe?
First: when I say that God Himself exists in the universe which I understand as the totality of existence where everything that exists or can exist, exists in, I am not denying that God is greater than the universe.
I would be denying that God is greater than the universe if I were to say that God is imprisoned in the universe as like a convict is imprisoned in a jail.
Second: the totality of existence is a mental concept of a collection, a collectivity, that concept exists in my mind; in my mind the totality of existence is like an imaginary big shopping bag where I put my concepts of everything that exists or can exist, including the concept of God and everything else that is not God but created however by God.
So God is not in any way imprisoned in my imaginary big shopping bag, except my concept of God as of my concepts of everything that is created by God.
Hope you can comprehend that.
In the Christian faith God is transcendent to the universe and also immanent in the universe; for myself I will say that God is both inside and outside the universe He has created.
An atheist keeps insisting that I am saying something ridiculous when I say that God is also outside the universe because for him there is no outside of the universe; I keep telling him that by outside I do not mean as like one is outside one's house which house is in a neighborhood, by outside I mean that God is not imprisoned inside the space in which the material universe is located; but the atheist keeps on and on and on insisting that I mean outside as like outside one's house which house is located in a neighborhood.
Well, that is one very stubborn atheist who just insists that you must mean what and how he wants you to understand things the way He wants it.
One irrational atheist.
Now, I ask everyone, can a human be inside his house and also outside his house?
Sure, the way I see it, a human like myself can be inside his house like inside his bedroom inside the house and also outside, if he is in control of the whole house inside and outside, with closed circuit television cameras everywhere inside and outside the house, and remote control instrumentation.
I am not denying that God is greater than the universe.
For God to have created something as complex as the universe, he would have to be more complex than the universe.
I would be denying that God is greater than the universe if I were to say that God is imprisoned in the universe as like a convict is imprisoned in a jail.
Then tell me where God resides, he is either a part of the universe or not, if not, he is unquantifiable and not knowable, a mere speculation, born out of a need to explain. Postulating a God, leads to an infinite regress.
So God is not in any way imprisoned in my imaginary big shopping bag, except my concept of God as of my concepts of everything that is created by God.
The thing is though, that God is in your imaginary shopping bag of concepts, because (A) you have a concept of what God is and (B) you exist, with that bag in your mind.
Just because your concept of God is that he resides outside the universe, doesn't make it less of a concept.
Sure, the way I see it, a human like myself can be inside his house like inside his bedroom inside the house and also outside, if he is in control of the whole house inside and outside, with closed circuit television cameras everywhere inside and outside the house, and remote control instrumentation.
Just because one is aware of what is going on outside, it does not mean that they are outside, I can watch a News story live from Japan, from the comfort of my couch, but I am not in Japan, I am in my home.
By your definition, any place I see is somewhere I am, this is somewhat true in a sense that if I see a news story from across the planet, I am still on the planet, just separated by a great distance. If I see a picture from the Hubble telescope, I'm in that place just viewing from an even greater distance.
But this is begging the question. What does place actually mean, in the totality of known space I exist, therefore I am part of the universe, and the universe is part of me. For the same argument to work logically for God he'd have to exist in order for the question to be asked, we have to assume he exists in order to follow this line of reasoning, we have no logical reason to do so.
"I can see that, that is what you believe, but it is clearly illogical. If the Universe is the totality of existence, then God must exist within it, if not, then God must not exist.
Can you see that?"
Didn't I say earlier here to another writer here that I understand the universe as the totality of existence and that God the creator is also within this totality of existence as also outside, transcendent, and by outside I mean He is in control and sees everything that is his creation, not that he is like outside as a man is outside his house on earth.
But right now I am into asking everyone to agree with my view that unless we first agree on concepts and rules, it is useless for us to each one talking on his on concepts and rules.
Do you agree to that?
I am honestly getting all mixed up with the realm of concepts where I am actually concerned with at this point in time, and the realm of objective existence where a lot of writers here are very impatient to get into, but without first coming to concurrence on concepts and rules to abide by in the God debate.
Didn't I say earlier that a human can know obviously that God exists, but when it comes to proof, since we must use concepts and words to prove, it is going to be interminable words with each one wise in his own words; and that is why I am of the most serious insistence that everyone work together first on concurring on concepts and rules to abide by.
There's a show help button on the argument writing page, it'll help you format these debates.
Didn't I say earlier here to another writer here that I understand the universe as the totality of existence and that God the creator is also within this totality of existence as also outside, transcendent, and by outside I mean He is in control and sees everything that is his creation, not that he is like outside as a man is outside his house on earth.
Did you I don't read all the arguments, that would be boring, and I remember you stating this, but what is your point.
But right now I am into asking everyone to agree with my view that unless we first agree on concepts and rules, it is useless for us to each one talking on his on concepts and rules.
I've already agreed that the belief you hold is the "true Christian" belief, what more can I do, If you wish for me to assume this then I shall for the purposes of inquiry.
Didn't I say earlier that a human can know obviously that God exists, but when it comes to proof, since we must use concepts and words to prove, it is going to be interminable words with each one wise in his own words; and that is why I am of the most serious insistence that everyone work together first on concurring on concepts and rules to abide by.
Personally, for all that unlettered babble you've spent your time on so far, I think that you have not made any good arguments against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e. the God that you believe in). Yes, I am well aware of Christian theology, especially with the concept of the divine Creator, since I was a Christian myself for nearly 13 years.
Going straight to the point now. You've asked the question, 'How to prove God (again, I reinforce that I'm talking about the Judeo-Christian God) is the creator of the observable universe?' Okay fine, you have defined what "God" means to Christians. However, you have not proved (note the diction here) that God is the Creator. Here's is why.
When I read and/or participate in these debates, Christians (i.e. theists who believe in the Judeo-Christian God) put forth arguments for their own belief in a supernatural space daddy in a way that seems to ignore, denounce or suppress the beliefs of other theists of other faiths, and therein lies the arrogance camouflaged by humility. What you need to do to prove that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the observable universe is as follows:
(1) Prove that there are no logically sound and valid arguments against your claim (that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the observable universe).
(2) Prove that there are good, logically sound and valid arguments for your claim.
The above two requirements are not the same because in order to do (1), you need to logically tear down arguments against your claim and then do (2) give good, logically sound and valid arguments for your claim. Until you do that, I don't think you can prove that the Judeo-Christian God is the creator of the observable universe.
What you have said does not do anything to prove God is the creator of the observable universe. Let's look at your argument:
Premise 1: God in the Christian faith is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
Premise 2: The universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of.
Conclusion: Therefore, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
I see two big problems in your above argument. First, in your conclusion you have made two claims - 1) God exists and 2) God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I would say that you have attempted to prove the second claim, but not the first. Again, you need to prove that there are no good arguments against the existence of God and then prove that there are good arguments for the existence of God.
Second, look at premise one and your conclusion. They BOTH say that God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. This is a circular argument because to reach your conclusion, you have already ASSUMED that your conclusion is true. And, by disguising your definition of God as the 'Judeo-Christian God', it does not absolve you of the fallacy you are committing.
I suggest that you work harder at proving your claim by engaging in the rigour of logical debate.
What you have said does not do anything to prove God is the creator of the observable universe. Let's look at your argument:
Premise 1: God in the Christian faith is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
Premise 2: The universe is the totality of existence in which everything at all that exists or can exist is a component of.
Conclusion: Therefore, it follows that God exists as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
I see two big problems in your above argument. First, in your conclusion you have made two claims - 1) God exists and 2) God is the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself. I would say that you have attempted to prove the second claim, but not the first.
[...]
8hrs 51mins ago
---------------------
Please read everyone here the answers I made already to earlier replies.
Dear ReventonRage, I like to invite you and me to come to agreement on what it is to prove that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts and outside man's mind.
Unless we have a mutually agreed on concept on what it is to prove that something exists as described by also a mutually agreed on concept of that something, it is futile to talk about proving it to exist or to not exist, because it is illogical.
Will you tell me what is your concept of to prove something to exist, or you want me to give my concept; you be the one first, because I can see you are conversant with what it is to prove something, okay?
In philosophy (or epistemology, to be more precise), there is only one way to prove that something exists, and I have laid it out in context of the UoD. Anyone who has not studied epistemology (apparently Marius is one of them) should do so.
Let's say I CLAIM (note: not 'assume', not 'conclude' and not even 'assert') that Object A exists. Here is how to prove that Object A exists:
1. Show that there are NO logical arguments, that are rational to believe, that Object A DOES NOT exist.
2. Show that there are logical arguments, that are rational to believe, that Object A DOES exist.
What do I mean by logical arguments that are rational to believe? These arguments MUST necessarily fulfill two truth conditions:
1. First, the premises MUST be true. (This is where EVIDENCE comes in.)
2. Second, the premises must LOGICALLY lead to the conclusion. What this means is that the links between the premises in the argument must be free of fallacies.
You give your concept of what it is to prove something exists in objective reality, now give just five examples of your having proven something to exist in objective reality in our own lifetime.
If you have never ever proven anything at all, keep quiet.
If however you have already at least proven something to exist in objective reality, produce them here.
Okay, if you in fact have never ever so far in your lifetime proven something to exist in objective reality, take up the practice and then when you have accumulated just five, produce them here, and I will gain from your experiences, okay?
Otherwise, keep quiet, you are just into continuously derailing the topic.
Well, that is simple. I would in fact, be inclined to prove that nothing "exists" in reality. This is something that David Hume argued strongly about.
But since you obviously have an aversion to logic, why don't I give you the opposing argument first (i.e. that things exists). The French philosopher Rene Descartes famously declared, "cogito ergo sum". His argument can be summarised as follows:
1. Because I doubt, I think.
2. Since I am able to think, I must exist.
3. Cogito ergo sum.
4. Therefore I exist.
However, as an empiricist, I believe that this argument does not hold water because the idea of "thinking" is deeply metaphysical. No one is able to prove that they are really "thinking" because there is no sense data to support it (i.e. no scientific method supports this claim).
Furthermore, if everything is made up of a bundle of properties/characteristics. Then perhaps, that is all there is to "things". For example, let's think about a piece of transparent glass. It is made up of properties such as "brittle" or "transparent" or even characterised by the molecules that it comprises of (which, in turn, have their own bundle of properties). Thus, according to Occam's Razor, we can see that it is perfectly logical to believe that the metaphysical concept of "a piece of transparent glass existing" is totally irrelevant because all that exists is a bundle of properties that have been amalgamated. Finally, therefore, the piece of transparent glass, does not exist.
This argument works for proving that all things do not inherently exist because there is nothing that does not have any properties.
By the way, I think that you are the only one in this debate who is "derailing the topic". You have tried time and time again to throw out red herrings at my arguments. Check yourself.
I have question for all those fellow atheists. Have you ever thought who created this earth? It can't be made by its own. There has to be someone that creates something. In order for you to do a load of laundry you have to do it yourself. The load will not start on its own. Its the same thing with the earth the earth can't be made on its own there for someone needs to start it.
You consistently present juvenile and flimsy challenges to athiesm and by doing so, you're being a poor ambassador for your faith. It's not as if there are no serious arguments against atheism or no respectable supports for Christianity; if you really want to contribute to discussions about belief, at least try to familiarize yourself with a few of them. Edward Feser's book 'Aquinas' might be a good place to start.
I submit that srom 1883 is making a good argument for the existence of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
-----------------
srom1883(619) 1 point
I have question for all those fellow atheists. Have you ever thought who created this earth? It can't be made by its own. There has to be someone that creates something. In order for you to do a load of laundry you have to do it yourself. The load will not start on its own. Its the same thing with the earth the earth can't be made on its own there for someone needs to start it.
17hrs 18mins ago
-------------------
I will put it this way:
The observable to man universe cannot have created itself, can we agree to that?
But in the totality of existence that is the whole universe, not just the observable to man universe, there is an entity not directly observable to man unlike the observable to man universe part, that is the entity that always exists, and it is this entity that satisfies the concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself.
If there is no such entity in the whole totality of existence that includes the observable to man universe part, then there is not always something, but there is nothing and we can stop talking once we postulate instead of there is always something, there is [sic] always nothing.
However, atheist cosmologists have another understanding of nothing, they understand nothing as something but they want you to wink both eyes of your mind to their very peculiar understanding of nothing as something anything, by which ultimately there is an explanation in the longest terms for the existence to them of the observable universe, they call it something like the laws of nature, etc.
Srom1883's argument was closer to a sloppy watchmaker's analogy than anything else.
Also, you keep assuming the existence of God as part of your argument for God, without supporting your assumptions. You'll have to explain why you think there is an unobservable entity, separate from the universe, and why this entity is the creator of the universe. You also have to support your assertion that atheist cosmologists are trying to pull one over on everyone.
Agreed. Marius has given a textbook circular argument (a fallacy familiar to most people through the "chicken and egg" problem). This occurs when someone presupposes the conclusion in order to deduce the conclusive, making such a deductive argument deeply fallacious.
Ok. Let me get this clear. You say that there is a beginning to everything, which I agree on; the thing that doesn't make sense is that you constantly say that, because of this, it is an entity that created the universe, despite the evident lack of valid evidence and proof.
The big question is, why does it have to be an entity that created the universe when there is more proof that it wasn't the work of an entity? Not only does the idea of God have no proof for its existence, but there are numerous hypocrisies that prove that God is only an imperfect, human idea.
srom1883 was making a lousy argument with no evidence to support his claims. I won't even call his statements 'premises' because in an argument, a premise needs to be backed by evidence and proof to show that it is necessarily true.
Like srom1883, Marius has made extraordinary claims. For example, Marius has said, "The observable to man universe cannot have created itself, can we agree to that?"
Where is the evidence for this? Why don't you quote a scientific journal that says this?
Furthermore, I don't think that you have defined the concept of a Judeo-Christian God very well. You started off by saying that the Judeo-Christian God is "the creator of everything in the universe except Himself." Now, you say, "There is an entity not directly observable to man unlike the observable to man universe part, that is the entity that always exists, and it is this entity that satisfies the concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself."
First, you make claims without evidence again. Why and how does the entity "not directly observable to man" always exist? You then go down a slippery slope, given absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that "it is this entity that satisfies the concept of God as the creator of everything in the universe that is not God Himself". If you want to make a point, why don't you prove it?
If there is no such entity in the whole totality of existence that includes the observable to man universe part, then there is not always something, but there is nothing and we can stop talking once we postulate instead of there is always something, there is [sic] always nothing.
I don't expect anything less intelligible and less logical from a theist who has to assume God's existence to prove that God exists. You might notice that this fits the description of an argument that argues in a circle (a basic fallacy known to anyone who has an inkling of what epistemology entails).
However, atheist cosmologists have another understanding of nothing, they understand nothing as something but they want you to wink both eyes of your mind to their very peculiar understanding of nothing as something anything, by which ultimately there is an explanation in the longest terms for the existence to them of the observable universe, they call it something like the laws of nature, etc.
Sigh, do I really have to say this again? Why can't you just quote which atheist cosmologist(s) you have read about that says this? What did they say specifically? And in what context did they say what they have said?
The load of laundry won't start because it isn't made by the Earth; it's artificial. Nature made everything that was in the Old World, before the Technological Era began. For example, how is ice made? The freezing of water, which was originally something that could only happen naturally. Now we have technology, which allows us to freeze things on our own. The Earth isn't a machine (natural), which the laundry machine is (artificial).
"It can't be made by its own. There has to be someone that creates something. In order for you to do a load of laundry you have to do it yourself. The load will not start on its own."
You do realise this argument has about as much value as a peice my dried in stool.
A Perspectives Debate is an open question where the positions are tracked by tags. Perspective Debates are best used for an issue that can't be broken down easily in to two sides, such as "What's the greatest band ever? By default, any CreateDebate user can post in a Perspectives Debate.
-----------------------
I have said earlier that I would be presenting some propositions for us all to agree to, in order that we can get closer to the actual debate on God's existence or non-existence, and not be talking past each others' heads.
Here are the propositions, not all of them but the ones that I can see to be most important for us all to agree to:
1. We must agree to work together to come to concurring on concepts most crucially involved in the God debate, and also to concurring on rules which all will abide by.
2. We must agree on a concurring concept of God, though not admitting the existence of the God corresponding to the agreed on concept of God.
3. We must agree on a concurring concept of the universe.
4. We must agree on a concurring concept of what it is to prove the existence of something.
5. We must agree on a concurring concept of what is evidence.
6. We must agree to abide by the rule that God's existence or non-existence is in reference to only the universe where we live in and are parts of, and where we see also the stars and even the distant galaxies and other components making up the universe.
These are my proposed concepts to agree on, and with #6 one rule so far that I am proposing we all agree to abide by.
Now, everyone if you have any propositions that you desire must be agreed on by everyone, on concepts and also rules, please present them in your posts.
To echo what zombee has already said, if you are waiting for everybody within this thread to come to an agreement in each of those criteria you will be waiting for quite some time.
Agreed. A classic example of this is how the theologians (even within the three Abrahamic monotheistic religions) cannot concur on a precise definition of what the word "God" is supposed to mean. Now, reluctant as I am to appeal to authority, but I doubt that if the theologians haven't managed to come up with a working definition they can all agree on, then I don't think Marius is going to do any better.
While I realize your intentions were perhaps humorous, given the history of the people on the site I am inclined to think otherwise.
The child is justified in his position. Ignoring the Umbilical cord and the touchable womb membrane as these things don't have a counterpart in the outside world that fit the analogy, who's to say(in this scenario where no prior knowledge of human anatomy exist) that the individual carrying the children is a female and not an hermaphrodite creature with tentacles? Any imaginable result must be given equal ground if we concede that unjustified claims can be possible without giving them due burden of proof. The only thing the children can prove is their own existence and the plane on which this existence takes place.
Interesting view. However, the point is that someone is incubating those children. Someone created them but, still yet, they still believe (even though infants don't have this cognitive ability) they will cease to exist after birth (which is used as a metaphor in this case for death).
"However, the point is that someone is incubating those children."
So you say. But existence alone does not imply creation.
"believe"
Upholding the status quo is not a matter of belief. I don't believe there isn't a god, I know there isn't. The status quo acts as knowledge until invalidated. Theism(specifically the belief in an infinite god) fails to meet the axiom of identity. That alone is basis for the denial of deities as axioms are preconditions for proof.
So these two newborns simply popped into existence out of nowhere. Yeah, I can totally see that happening.
You don't know there isn't a God. His intangible being doesn't mean nonexistence. So how can you disprove that which you can't see? Why don't you think for yourself rather than adopt someone else's desperate need to understand life?
You want a logical argument for God? How about this one by Alvin Plantinga, whose argument relies on the modal axiom S5 ("if something is possibly true, then its possibility is necessary" - necessary in this sense means "it is possibly true in all worlds"). His argument:
A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
"So these two newborns simply popped into existence out of nowhere. Yeah, I can totally see that happening."
Because you hold knowledge of human anatomy. They do not.
"You don't know there isn't a God. His intangible being doesn't mean nonexistence"
I DO know, I cannot concede the validity in any way an unjustified claim without giving every other half assed view equal measure.
"So how can you disprove that which you can't see?"
The status quo does my work for me in that regard, and sight is not the only means of observation.
"something is possibly true"
Which cannot and is not conceded when it comes to god and such unverifiable claims.
"Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists."
What a laughae attempt. Axioms are preconditions for proof. The axiom of Identity prevents an infinite god, and an axiom cannot be used to validate that which by definition goes against logic. How can you pretend to argue within reason when your premise is that reason is non existent and subjective? Also, I'm curious as to the nature of this argument, as since axiom are the mere preconditions of proof, why the (incorrect) usage of an axiom was treated as proof itself in this example.
"Because you hold knowledge of human anatomy. They do not."
I have nowhere near the "knowledge of human anatomy" to make another human being as physically, perfectly in tandem as God does. If you think you do, then that's a real display of astronomical egotism, and I can tell you without personal experience, you're not that good either. Besides, if we all just had this anatomical knowledge out-of-the-blue, and were that good, then we could just bypass medical school and become immediate doctors. "Gee, thanks mom and dad for all this money you spent on Harvard but I don't need it! Oddly enough, I just woke up this morning and had this amazing knowledge about how to perform heart surgery!" What a pathetic argument.
"Half assed view"?
I'm sorry, I have to have fun with this since you're the brain that said it. Half assed view? Is this not coming from a guy who thinks we have natural-born anatomical knowledge?
"The status quo does my work for me, and sight is not the only means of observation."
Soooo.... you basically chose your line of thinking because you're too lazy to attempt to disprove God? Okay, gotcha. By the way, if you fancy yourself a logical man (and I'm assuming you do), you might wanna rethink your lame 'status quo' guise - here's why. You choose your "beliefs" by weighing the pros and cons of your current situation against the considered situation. In this case, we would be talking about you weighing the pros and cons of being atheist against the pros and cons of belief in God. In atheism, there are no theological gains but, as (according to my own beliefs) God exists, there would be major theological downfalls (aka, burning in hell for eternity). In weighing the pros and cons of that chosen path with the pros and cons of converting to Christianity, you would have to surmise that based on the actual teachings of God (not what some - notice I said some, not all [Westboro Baptist is a good example] - Christian groups tell you), you would benefit by converting. In other words, with atheism, you believe you simply cease to exist; with belief in God, you have the opportunity to spend an eternity in Heaven with your loved ones.
Furthermore, your argument is based solidly on tangible evidence, for which you need all/some of your senses to validate. You can't see, smell, taste, hear or feel a mind - so how do you continue with the basis that minds exist? You can't.
"Axioms are preconditions for proof."
"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on them. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true." Key word there: assumed. So what you're basically saying, in criticizing my use of a perfectly legit logical argument to defend the existence of God, is that there is no different between my example of logic and your example of logic as they're both based on assumptions. And you know what they say about assumptions. ;)
"I have nowhere near the "knowledge of human anatomy" to make another human being as physically, perfectly"
The point is that in this scenario they lack evidence of a higher being just as we do. Unjustified assertions cannot be treated as possible.
"astronomical egotism"
I am an Objectivist, yes.
"anatomical knowledge out-of-the-blue, and were that good, then we could just bypass medical school and become immediate doctors"
I love how you are proving my point. We don't have automatic knowledge of anatomy like you just said. Without that knowledge, in your womb example, NO evidence is available for the existence of the mother.
"natural-born anatomical knowledge?"
Is this an ill-prepared misrepresentation of the status quo? If so, I see a lack of philosophical sense.
"Soooo.... you basically chose your line of thinking because you're too lazy to attempt to disprove god?"
I have been laughing at this for a while. What a pitiful way to combat the the status quo. So pitiful in fact I don't need to combat it. Say I am lazy as you say, I still have no burden of proof. Just as the defense in a court of law has no burden, because as it happens our system of law is based on logic.
"You choose your "beliefs" by weighing the pros and cons of your current situation against the considered situation"
This is not the formula of decisions through reason whatsoever. You have just identified yourself as a subjectivist.
You have also shown your ignorance of philosophy by using Pascal's Wager as an argument, as ChuckHades would be happy to lecture on, it is a mathematical failure. Does your understanding of philosophy originate from YouTube by any chance?
"Furthermore, your argument is based solidly on tangible evidence, for which you need all/some of your senses to validate. You can't see, smell, taste, hear or feel a mind - so how do you continue with the basis that minds exist? You can't"
So you disagree with Descartes? I may have to unleash Liber on you. I will link you to his debate.
"So what you're basically saying, in criticizing my use of a perfectly legit logical argument to defend the existence of God, is that there is no different between my example of logic and your example of logic as they're both based on assumptions."
Rand's philosophy begins with three axioms: existence, identity, and consciousness.[5] Rand defined an axiom as "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it."[6] As Leonard Peikoff noted, Rand's argument for axioms "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."[7]
Rand held that existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists." She further held that to be is to be something, that "existence is identity." That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is grasped in differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is grasped in differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one's first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge. As Rand wrote, "A leaf ... cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time... A is A."[8] Objectivism rejects belief in any thing alleged to transcend existence.[9]
Rand argues that consciousness, "the faculty of perceiving that which exists," is an inherently relational phenomenon. As she puts it, "to be conscious is to be conscious of something," that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or grasped except in relation to an independent reality.[10] "It cannot be aware only of itself—there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something."[11] Thus, Objectivism holds that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.[12] Expressed differently, existence has "primacy" over consciousness which must conform to it. Any other approach Rand termed "the primacy of consciousness," including any variant of metaphysical subjectivism or theism.[13]
Objectivist philosophy derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, calling causation "the law of identity applied to action."[14] According to Rand, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different they would act differently. As with the other axioms, an implicit understanding of causation is derived from one's primary observations of causal connections among entities even before it is verbally identified, and serves as the basis of further knowledge.[15](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand))
Hahahahhahahahah my day has been made. And while YouTube has its fair share of intellectuals it should by no means be the only source of knowledge of philosophy one possesses, as I am near certain is the case with my opponent. As I'm sure you realized from her insistence to use Pascal's Wager.
"The point is that in this scenario they lack evidence of a higher being just as we do."
Lacking evidence doesn't solve the question of how they came into existence. Just because they don't know who created them, doesn't stop the fact they were created by someone or something.
"NO evidence is available for the existence of the mother."
No evidence is available at that point (could fetuses comprehend such though), but the mother still does exist, despite the lack of evidence. Again, lacking evidence doesn't disprove the mother's existence. How did that prove your point? Obviously, a mother is involved.
"Is this an ill-prepared misrepresentation of the status quo?"
You tell me - that's what you said, not me.
"I still have no burden of proof."
So you say. You think Christians have the burden of proof because they believe in God, you claim he doesn't exist, so shouldn't you also try to prove it? This is a cop-out.
"This is not the formula of decisions through reason whatsoever. You have just identified yourself as a subjectivist."
Really? You're making this too easy - and you also just contradicted your own belief system. The statement I made ("You choose your "beliefs" by weighing the pros and cons of your current situation against the considered situation") is basically what the "status quo" is all about.
"The status quo bias is a cognitive bias for the status quo; in other words, people tend not to change an established behavior unless the incentive to change is compelling." And cognitive bias is "a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, leading to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality."
"You have also shown your ignorance of philosophy by using Pascal's Wager as an argument. Does your understanding of philosophy originate from YouTube by any chance?"
Again, I was attempting to understand the thinking of a "logical" atheist. Wouldn't it be logical, from an atheist point of view, to follow something that may not have negative consequence after life? Or does that line of thinking require too much vulnerability?
"So you disagree with Descartes?"
Nope. I said how can you continue with the basis that minds exist if you're basing your argument on tangible evidence, which goes against an atheists' argument of needing evidence in order to believe in something. Thoughts aren't tangible. Therefore, to believe just because you're thinking means you're existing isn't a good enough argument. I already believe in the mind, because I don't need the evidence it exists. I just know it's there.
And in regards to your whole Ayn Rand quote: despite what she says axioms are, "in traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on them." The fact that you're using someone else's argument, an imperfect human-being's argument, as the basis for your view on all of life is actually pretty tragic.
"Lacking evidence doesn't solve the question of how they came into existence."
But it does establish the status quo of the case.
"Just because they don't know who created them, doesn't stop the fact they were created by someone or something."
Existence does not imply creation. This is where the fallacious evil known as faith enters the equation:
Playboy: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?
Ayn Rand: Qua religion, no - in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very - how should I say it? - dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith. [Playboy interview with Ayn Rand]
"but the mother still does exist, despite the lack of evidence."
We know that, but the children in the womb have no ability to.
"How did that prove your point"
Because you cannot apply your knowledge of he mother in the scenario, you would have no evidence therefor no reason to acknowledge the mother's existence.
"So you say. You think Christians have the burden of proof because they believe in God, you claim he doesn't exist, so shouldn't you also try to prove it? This is a cop-out."
I am convinced you have no true knowledge of philosophy or logic. One is not called upon to prove a negative, the affirmative(that is to say the proposing party) carries all burden. My gnostic position is the result of the status quo therefor not an affirmation.
"and you also just contradicted your own belief system."
What the fuck? Status quo: the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs.To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are Perhaps you are referring to a fallacy that states that claiming the status quo is unfalsifiable in a scenario is fallacious, which would be correct. I haven't claimed such, I have claimed lack of compelling argument to make the topic debatable in the field of reason. And once again, you misrepresent me by referring to my philosophy as a "belief" system.
"Wouldn't it be logical, from an atheist point of view, to follow something that may not have negative consequence after life?"
Such redundant delusions. I could go the Hitchen's or ChuckHades route to answering this, but what the hell. The status quo says that since no evidence towards any afterlife is available and the philosophical argument of pascal's wager is a failed probability argument, I must treat the assumption as false.
" I said how can you continue with the basis that minds exist if you're basing your argument on tangible evidence, which goes against an atheists' argument of needing evidence in order to believe in something"
I am going to take the time to lol at your incompetence. I'm sure I will endure some comment for it, but I will live with it. You didn't check the Liber link did you? Liber is quite well at arguing for proof of the mind, he is my Platinga on the subject if you will. I just go a step further an hold that two things are evidenced, the mind and the plane of reality it inhabits, but that is irrelevant as you are simply concerned with the topic of the mind.
" I already believe in the mind, because I don't need the evidence it exists. I just know it's there."
Faih is not knowledge, it is the informal lack of.
" despite what she says axioms are, "in traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not and cannot be proven within the system based on them"
And? The preconditions for proof are the criteria an assertion must meet to be capable of being proven. Get that? First axioms, then proof. That is the process known as logic. I do believe I have already posted the quote explaining the priority of logic an reason over mysticism.
"The fact that you're using someone else's argument, an imperfect human-being's argument, as the basis for your view on all of life is actually pretty tragic."
Tragic is the depraved being who hold the evil notions you do, subjectivism is the justification for immorality, faith and force the destroyers of the modern world, and irrationality the enemy of individualism.
"Existence does not imply creation. This is where the fallacious evil known as faith enters the equation."
In this child/mother analogy, yes it does imply existence means creation. The mother, along with the father, created their child. How are you not getting this?
Regarding the Playboy interview with Ayn Rand: I definitely would not put too much credibility on what someone who can't seem to get an interview with anyone other than Playboy has to say.
"The children in the womb have no ability to."
The children in the womb aren't contemplating their existence. They can't. They're simply trying to develop.
"Because you cannot apply your knowledge of the mother in the scenario, you would have no evidence therefor no reason to acknowledge the mother's existence."
So, then you're acknowledging the fact that if the fetus could reason and didn't believe in a mother beyond his birth that his logic has failed to disprove his mother. And yet you're still using this as an argument.
"One is not called upon to prove a negative, the affirmative... carries all burden."
Well, I don't believe in atheism. So prove "nothing" exists. And you're attempting to prove a negative all the time by rationalizing that nothing exists. Again, you either can't disprove him or it's a cop-out so you don't have to try. Stop relying on logic and philosophy to back you up at all times - try thinking for yourself.
"The status quo says that since no evidence towards any afterlife is available and the philosophical argument of pascal's wager is a failed probability argument, I must treat the assumption as false."
The status quo says this, the status quo says that. You don't even think for yourself. You're basically a humanoid. So assuming you just cease to exist, what's the point in even living? Or do you choose to believe in that so you can do whatever you want in life and not have to account for it later? You just seem to not want to take responsibility for your actions.
I don't care what Liber has to say. I'm telling you that if you can use anything to prove the existence of the mind and/or "the plane of reality it inhabits," then your argument that God doesn't exist based on intangible evidence has NO basis.
"Faih is not knowledge, it is the informal lack of."
You must have faith our minds exist, or you don't believe they exist. Which is it?
"First axioms, then proof."
I've already explained this to someone else. "An axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true." You may attempt to build onto that, but it still remains that an axiom is nothing more than an assumption, a hypothesis. Therefore, the entire argument built upon the axiom is just that - an assumption/hypothesis. You're basically just assuming God doesn't exist, because you can't actually prove He doesn't.
"Tragic is the depraved being who hold the evil notions you do, subjectivism is the justification for immorality, faith and force the destroyers of the modern world, and irrationality the enemy of individualism."
1.) I have no evil notions - my beliefs in God are based on love and peace.
2.) Actually, your stance of objectivism seems to be the reason for immorality. I adhere to morals. For that matter, why would I act immorally when I believe I will be held accountable for my actions before God? You, on the other hand, do seem to think you can do what you like without any afterlife consequences.
3.) I'm not sure how you conclude that "faith and force are destroyers of the modern world."
4.) Irrationality is the enemy of individualism - but so is conformism. Both are yours.
Your entire point is void. You know a child requires the DnA of two parents because you exist in the outside world where such processes can be observed. The children themselves have no such window and this no evidence for the mother.
"I definitely would not put too much credibility on what someone who can't seem to get an interview with anyone other than Playboy has to say"
She wasn't interviewed by every popular commentator of her day, including playboy? And even if you were right, it wouldn't have anything to do with the validity of her arguments.
"They're simply trying to develop"
And thus have no capability to proof the existence of mother. If they poccessed cognitive function at this stage, they wouldn't have any evidence.
" reason and didn't believe in a mother beyond his birth that his logic has failed to disprove his mother. "
You keep trying to bring belief into this. Belief is seperate from logic. And disproving the mother was never the goal, the lack of justification for acknowledging the mothers existence is the issue.
"Well, I don't believe in atheism."
Neither do most atheists.
"So prove "nothing" exists"
Is that what atheism stipulates? Check your premises.
"Stop relying on logic and philosophy to back you up at all times - try thinking for yourself"
I am bursting with laughter. You by your own admission have conceded god is not provable, I have shown logic to take priority over mysticism because logic is the means of knowledge, and you use flawed philosophical contentions to support yourself. To ask one to stop relying upon their philosophy is to ask them to stop being themselves. We all adhere to the philosophies we hold, you can expect me to stop being an objectivist no more then I can expect you to not be a Christian. The issue at hand is that you are attempting to validate you faith through my medium, which it cannot do. Which again, I have seen you concede to in discussion with Gary.
"The status quo says this, the status quo says that. You don't even think for yourself. "
This doesn't challenge the validity of the status quo.
"So assuming you just cease to exist, what's the point in even living? "
I am an Objectivist, if you are unaware of the premises on this subject one like me would hold, you're not in a good position at all to discuss branches of philosophy like this. Such arguments are of the weakest caliber in discussions of faith. At this point I am growing sympathetic towards you. I am tempted to quote from the Virtue of Selfishness, but I won't waste the energy. Such an emotionally driven argument is below you.
"whatever you want in life and not have to account for it later"
I madam consider myself of the greatest moral fiber. It comes with being an Objectivist. But in regards to an afterlife, I do not consider being moral and virtuous something that deserves rewarding of a higher power, the merits of it are rewarded in the means. The ends are my own happiness, which I achieve for myself out of love for myself. I firmly hold the finality of life as its source of absolute value, if an afterlife existed I would not accept it.
"I don't care what Liber has to say."
I cannot post an entire debate, and Liber's arguments are a large part of what I use as defense for your contention regarding the mind.
"I'm telling you that if you can use anything to prove the existence of the mind and/or "the plane of reality it inhabits," then your argument "
If you refuse to even look at the premises of my defense then this is a non-issue. Your arguments have been dealt with, and if any you find inadequate I would be more then glad to have Liber lecture on their logical standing. Expert testimony if you shall.
"An axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true." You may attempt to build onto that, but it still remains that an axiom is nothing more than an assumption, a hypothesis."
It's painfully obvious you haven't the slightest notion of what has been explained to you. They are assumptions. Yes. Why can they not be proved? Because they must be met in order for an assertion to have the capacity to be proven. Why must they be met as preconditions? The same reason mathematical postulates and theorems are. They are self evidenced in part by the lack of logical contradictions and by seeing reality as an objective absolute. No two claims that exclude each other may both be true. On the existence of god, he cannot exist while not existing. One claim is correct. One is an affirmation(he exists). The other is a negative(he does not). Since the affirmative proposing something not yet established(the validity of something) whilst the negative counters the claim, the negative has no burden of proof, just the responsibility to negate arguments made by the affirmative. The goal is never to prove a negative(most argue it can't be done anyway), just to challenge a proposed claim.
"1.) I have no evil notions - my beliefs in God are based on love and peace."
Mysticism is the claim to justified irrationality, and as such is evil.
"For that matter, why would I act immorally when I believe I will be held accountable for my actions before God?"
Those morals you follow are not morals at all, they are abominations deserving of neither respect nor value.
"3.) I'm not sure how you conclude that "faith and force are destroyers of the modern world."
Link below.
"4.) Irrationality is the enemy of individualism - but so is conformism. Both are yours."
I win on the rational side by your own admission. On conformism, my philosophy is far from it, my insistence on the status quo is due to your inability to invalidate it. This site has people who specialize in their favorite argument. The status quo defense is mine.
"Your entire point is void. You know a child requires the DnA of two parents because you exist in the outside world where such processes can be observed. The children themselves have no such window and this no evidence for the mother."
Actually, it's not void. My whole point is you know, we all know, there is a mother. So you're saying the fetus (who, in this instance, is using your logic) is WRONG. The fetus' beliefs are therefore based on ignorance, as are yours.
"You keep trying to bring belief into this. Belief is seperate from logic."
Belief, logic - the fetus has neither, so what does that have to do with anything? Belief has nothing to do with logic? You would have to believe logic would work, or else you wouldn't even try, because you can't really know, since it's based on assumptions.
"Neither do most atheists."
How is that helping your argument?
"Check your premises."
You either don't believe in anything, or you're denying the existence of God. Which is it, because I hear both. There's a difference.
"I am bursting with laughter."
You're not the only one. P.S. How was this relevant, other than to prove presumptuous?
"You by your own admission have conceded god is not provable."
Again, presumptuous. Where have I said anything of the sort? Maybe I should have clarified and said, "Stop relying on logic and the philosophy of others to back you up at all times," since it would see you have no philosophies of your own, you're merely repeating that of others before you. I don't need validation of my faith - I have that whether "your medium" agrees or not. It would be unfair for someone to try to prove their faith using your logic, since your logic is absurd. To concede is not an admission of wrong.
"That doesn't change the validity of the status quo."
Valid? Yes. Cowardly? Very.
"I am growing sympathetic towards you."
Save it. I hardly believe you understand anything about me or my positions, so don't patronize me. It would seem you're not only presumptuous, but also arrogant. In asking the question I did, I was asking you, not your objectivity or your philosophers, if you honestly think you cease to exist after life, what is your purpose for life? Don't turn this back around on me because you're incapable of answering the question.
"I madam consider myself of the greatest moral fiber."
Describe your viewpoint of morality, because you haven't proven your moral to me thus far. You've continuously insulted my intelligence ("I am going to take the time to lol" and "I am bursting with laughter"), simply because your logic doesn't hold any weight, and by insulting my beliefs as "evil." You're a narcissist. Sorry to burst your bubble. Aren't you laughing now, because I thought that was pretty funny myself. By the way, if you did believe in an afterlife, would yours let you choose to accept it? Because that's not how it works.
"Your arguments have been dealt with."
How? You've offered nothing of considerable value. That fetuses don't believe they have mothers because they can't see them? Fetuses don't THINK, they don't BELIEVE. And the fact remains they STILL have mothers. Like I said, by attempting to validate this argument, you only contradict yourself.
".... just to challenge a proposed claim."
And I'm challenging you're claim that God doesn't exist. Somehow this is either extremely difficult for you, or you're acknowledging you can't. No, I cannot tangibly prove God exists, thus faith. That's what faith is: "Though you have not seen Him, you love Him." (1 Peter 1:8-9). Not everything I ask you has to follow along the lines of logic - if you can only answer questions based on a specific set of guidelines, rather than think for yourself, then you don't deserve to call yourself a philosopher or a logician.
"Mysticism... is evil."
I've not said one evil thing to you, nor have I presented myself as such. All humans have the capability of being evil. None of us are perfect. So I guess we could assume you're evil as well.
"The morals you follow are not morals at all."
Personal attacks now, huh? Are you a debator or a whiny 4th grader? What morals do you suppose I follow? Do you know me personally? Nope. In fact, you've proven yourself to be, not of "greatest moral fiber," but of lesser moral fiber than myself. Which makes you a hypocrite. That doesn't sound to moral too me. You can't even nobly represent your stance on libertarianism, which promotes freedom and individual liberty. You're as two-faced as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
"On conformism, my philosophy is far from it."
Your philosophy? So far I've only seen you claiming everyone else's philosophy, which makes you a conformist. Your perception of the status quo is erroneous. I don't even think you know how to validate it.
"My whole point is you know, we all know, there is a mother"
How dim can one be? We have that knowledge because we exist in the plane where the process of reproduction is observation.
"So you're saying the fetus (who, in this instance, is using your logic) is WRONG"
Considering that a negative isn't an affirmation, they wouldn't have been wrong
"The fetus' beliefs are therefore based on ignorance, as are yours."
My views are based on the processes of cognitive function, which is the only means of knowledge we possess.
"Belief has nothing to do with logic?"
Absolutely. They are seperate branches of philosophy.
"You would have to believe logic would work, or else you wouldn't even try, because you can't really know, since it's based on assumptions."
Based on? Axioms are preconditions(self evidenced through observation) but they do not dictate the claims themselves. Axioms are the result of taking the observable world and deducing that which describes their existence.
"How is that helping your argument?"
Just pointing out that atheism is not a position of faith, it is the lack of.
"You either don't believe in anything, or you're denying the existence of God"
This misrepresentation is irrelevant, as my position does not dictate to me the means I must use.
"You're not the only one"
I should be, you haven't invalidated my contentions whatsoever.
" How was this relevant, other than to prove presumptuous"
Wait, you just claimed the action A(laughing at the subject) equals B(presumptuous). You said you committed A as well, are you not at the receiving end of your claim?
"Again, presumptuous. Where have I said anything of the sort?"
In debate with Gary7777.
"since it would see you have no philosophies of your own, you're merely repeating that of others before you"
This doesn't affect the validity of my argument whatsoever.
"need validation of my faith - I have that whether "your medium" agrees or not."
Then why are you attempting to debate it? Your faith is unfalsifiable and not based on reason.
"since your logic is absurd"
Yet my position hasn't been invalidated.
"Valid? Yes. Cowardly? Very"
So be it.
"arrogant"
Absolutely.
"Don't turn this back around on me because you're incapable of answering the question."
I have already answered this question, I see the finality of life as its source of value.
"Describe your viewpoint of morality, because you haven't proven your moral to me thus far."
I have given you my model, Objectivism.
"You're a narcissist"
And refuse to regard that as anything other then a virtue.
"would yours let you choose to accept it? Because that's not how it works."
I wouldn't have choice in the matter? An arbitrarily chosen fate? Celestial North Korea? What a horrid ideal.
"And I'm challenging you're claim that God doesn't exist. Somehow this is either extremely difficult for you, or you're acknowledging you can't. "
Actually many would argue that you cannot in fact prove a negative, but that is irrelevant as it isn't necessary. If the affirming party cannot prove its claim, what is there for me to disprove?
"philosopher or a logician."
I am but a student of philosophy.
"I've not said one evil thing to you"
Every idea based on faith is evil. Every idea based on subjectivism is more so.
"So I guess we could assume you're evil as well."
That is for you to decide according to your moral code.
"Personal attacks now, huh"
You lost any right to complain when you responded accordingly with what you thought were insults.
"You can't even nobly represent your stance on libertarianism, which promotes freedom and individual liberty. You're as two-faced as a wolf in sheep's clothing"
Objectivism is the embodiment of indivualism, the greatest advocate of pure moral liberty and its greatest transition to economical thought, Laissez-faire Capitalism. How dare you put my love freedom of liberty into question in such context, not once have I insinuated you did not have a right to believe what you believe, only that it was irrational. If we must not agree on this issue, do not needlessly cause separation on another subject.
"Your philosophy? So far I've only seen you claiming everyone else's philosophy, which makes you a conformist"
Do you not refer to your religion as your own? And considering that objectivism dictates no single literal practice or tradition I cannot be a conformist.
"I don't even think you know how to validate it"
This isn't a debate on my philosophy, but perhaps one should e made.
You tell me. You're the epitome of dim. God also exists in a plane where the process of reproduction is observation. You're not proving this to your advantage at all - fetuses have no evidence a mother exists. Doesn't mean she doesn't. Christians have no physical evidence God exists. Doesn't mean He doesn't. So I'd guess the fetus would just have to believe it's got a mother on the other side then. Same concept.
"Considering that wrong isn't an affirmation..."
So you're saying people can't be wrong because "negative isn't an affirmation.". That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
"They are separate branches of philosophy."
You have to believe in a logical argument in order to try to prove it's true. Otherwise you'd be wondering around making baseless assumptions about everything.
"...atheism is not a position of faith, it is the lack of."
I believe that's long been understood.
"I should be, you haven't invalidated my contentions whatsoever."
You're right, but enlighten me further. Where's the fossil evidence of evolution? How come evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Where did the primordial soup come from, from which we all apparently originate? How come no reliable depictions of evolution can accurately be reproduced? How come reputable scientists discredit the theory of evolution? Despite your conceptions, evolution is just that - a theory. It's as simple as this - people will always believe in either creation or evolution because there isn't physical evidence of either.
"You said you committed A as well, are you not at the receiving end of your claim?"
You know, your annoying habit of turning everything into an equation is turning my stomach. How about we talk to each other without you pretending to be Ilya Ivanov? Furthermore, I thought since you were taking at liberties being an ass, I'd join in the fun. :)
"Then why are you attempting to debate?"
I could ask you the same thing.
"Your faith is unfalsifiable and not based on reason."
I will at least thank you for thinking it unfalsifiable. But unreasonable?. It doesn't have to be reasonable to you, but it's reasonable to me.
"And refuse to regard that as anything other than a virtue."
Really? Because doctors everywhere agree it's a mental illness. Nothing to be ashamed of. The first step to getting help is admitting you have a problem. :)
"Celestial North Korea?. What a horrid ideal."
Haha, no. :) (I actually thought that was funny in a good way). You choose your afterlife by making the right decisions in this life.
"If the affirming party cannot prove its claim, what is there for me to disprove?"
Exactly. We can't physically prove God exists, but you also cannot disprove Him.
"You're not proving this to your advantage at all - fetuses have no evidence a mother exists. Doesn't mean she doesn't."
But without that evidence when we are behind a veil of ignorance any unjustified claim has equal value.
"Christians have no physical evidence God exists. Doesn't mean He doesn't."
Of course it doesn't, but it is proper to treat the claim as false when discussing it. Magical pedophile unicorns that seek to ravage mankind run across the globe every night. We have an unfalsifiable claim using an argument from supernatural capability. We cannot treat this assertion as possible until supported by evidence.
"So you're saying people can't be wrong because "negative isn't an affirmation.". "
Apologies, a negative on an unjsutified claim cannot be wrong. A wrong assertion would for instance, be hatone uses inductive reasoning to come to a conclusion, like the teacher wil wear a blue shirt on Friday because he wears one every Friday. Someone else claims he will not. The teacher comes Friday with a a blue shirt. This negative was wrong. Negatives involving the lack of reasoning towards a subject that(by your own concession) cannot be validated cannot be shown to be wrong. In regards to the fetus, I present the age old contention that if you hold that existence implies creation, then for you to claim that god exists necessitates the position that he must have been created.
"Otherwise you'd be wondering around making baseless assumptions about everything."
Faith would be baseless. Assertions born from the observable world and conclusions born from the self evident premises within represent man's means of knowledge. If you hold that logic and reasoning are fallible, I hold that I am god. Without objective logic, the claim is unfalsifiable. With objective logic, the claim is easily rebutted.
"Where's the fossil evidence of evolution? "
Wasn't aware my position neccesitated evolution. I'll post a lecture on the subject below and if you want to pursue the subject fine, I'm not sure why you would or why initially mentioning it was neccesary.
"It's as simple as this - people will always believe in either creation or evolution because there isn't physical evidence"
Evolution doesn't dictate a view on the origin of life and is observable.Creationism dictates belief of a higher being. One is supportable, the other is not. One is a process described by evidenced events, the other is an argument of neccesity.
"You know, your annoying habit of turning everything into an equation is turning my stomach."
Why? It is an excellent way to describe things
"How about we talk to each other without you pretending to be Ilya Ivanov?"
Why? I am god remember?
"But unreasonable?. It doesn't have to be reasonable to you, but it's reasonable to me."
You lack justification beyond an argument from supernatural capability, which if taken as correct invalidates reason. So yes, it is unreasonable.
"Really? Because doctors everywhere agree it's a mental illness"
If the pursuit of my own self-interest and the fulfillment of my utility as the highest value is a disease, it is one I gladly accept.
"You choose your afterlife by making the right decisions in this life"
But arbitrarily forcing a fate upon me would defy any notions of free will in the grand schem of things. If I fulfilled my life as a moral being, and the end result is reward, if I hold value as a product of finality then I should be allowed to cease.
"Exactly. We can't physically prove God exists, but you also cannot disprove Him."
Disprove=to show something is false.
To hold a negative and to strive to disprove a subject are different. When the status quo has been done away with, it then becomes my duty to disprove the notion of god in a forum of equal ground.
"But without that evidence when we are behind a veil of ignorance any unjustified claim has equal value."
So then, by your own admittance, while Christians cannot tangibly prove God exists, atheists also cannot prove He doesn't.
"I present the age old contention that if you hold that existence implies creation, then for you to claim that god exists necessitates the position that he must have been created."
God wasn't created. He was the beginning. Otherwise, He wouldn't be God.
"Assertions born from the observable world and conclusions born from the self evident premises within represent man's means of knowledge."
"Conclusions born from the self evident premises within," by which I assume you mean an individual's decisions made from instinct. Again, a test of faith, as humans are all wired differently and must take what each one feels as either right or wrong.
"Wasn't aware my position neccesitated evolution."
Your position certainly doesn't necessitate intelligent design. And has been shown, atheists tend to either believe in the Big Bang or evolution.
"Evolution doesn't dictate a view on the origin of life and is observable.Creationism dictates belief of a higher being. One is supportable, the other is not. One is a process described by evidenced events, the other is an argument of neccesity."
Evolution is not described by evidenced events, otherwise it wouldn't be refuted by scientists. No evidence exists for evolution. That's a fact. So then, by your contention, both could be "arguments of necessity."
"I am god remember?"
If you were God, you wouldn't be an atheist.
"You lack justification beyond an argument from supernatural capability, which if taken as correct invalidates reason. So yes, it is unreasonable."
Again, this depends on what "reasonable" means to an individual. Once more, to believe in God is reasonable to me, even if it's not reasonable to you.
"If the pursuit of my own self-interest and the fulfillment of my utility as the highest value is a disease, it is one I gladly accept."
Narcissism (which you readily accepted) means "being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity." Basically, you're stuck on yourself. Basically, it's pointless to debate with a vain person because, in their minds, they're always right. I wouldn't be boasting about that. Makes you sound like the average woman.
"But arbitrarily forcing a fate upon me would defy any notions of free will in the grand schem of things. If I fulfilled my life as a moral being, and the end result is reward, if I hold value as a product of finality then I should be allowed to cease."
It doesn't defy free will. You choose the kind of person you want to be, thereby choosing where you will spend eternity. It isn't "forced" upon anyone. They make their own decisions. To Christians, simply ceasing to exist in not a reward, or an option.
"To hold a negative and to strive to disprove a subject are different. When the status quo has been done away with, it then becomes my duty to disprove the notion of god in a forum of equal ground."
Then your duty is worthless, because you cannot disprove God, nor can you "disprove the notion of god."
You wish me to disprove that which is evidently impossible? I will go back to my pedophile unicorn example.
God wasn't created. He was the beginning. Otherwise, He wouldn't be God.
Zenu wasn't created. He was the beginning. Otherwise, god wouldn't have been created. This line of contention goes nowhere.
by which I assume you mean an individual's decisions made from instinct
Not at all, I was referring to the premises and axioms of the reality we inhabit.
Your position certainly doesn't necessitate intelligent design.
Which doesn't exclude evolution and is pointless to bring into the discussion.
Evolution is not described by evidenced events,
So no new species have been observed in the past couple decades?
otherwise it wouldn't be refuted by scientists.
Which is why the majority of scientists accept it and progress it.
No evidence exists for evolution.
Then it wouldn't be a theory. Are you suggesting it is not a theory?
That's a fact.
You wish it to be.
If you were God, you wouldn't be an atheist
I lack a belief in a higher being than myself.
Basically, you're stuck on yourself.
As I have conceded too.
It doesn't defy free will. You choose the kind of person you want to be, thereby choosing where you will spend eternity. It USN't "forced" upon anyone. They make their own decisions. To Christians, simply ceasing to exist in not a reward, or an option.
If I do not hold value to an afterlife, than it would not be a reward to go to heaven. Arbitrating what is and what isn;t a reward is not a benevolent action and definitely not one indicating a god whose plan can be called benevolent.
Then your duty is worthless, because you cannot disprove God, nor can you "disprove the notion of god.
Make god evidently possible, than I shall strive to disprove him.
"In this case, we would be talking about you weighing the pros and cons of being atheist against the pros and cons of belief in God. In atheism, there are no theological gains but, as (according to my own beliefs) God exists, there would be major theological downfalls (aka, burning in hell for eternity). In weighing the pros and cons of that chosen path with the pros and cons of converting to Christianity, you would have to surmise that based on the actual teachings of God ..... you would benefit by converting."
You know, I've already refuted this argument on the debate entitled: "A question for Christians, and anyone else who thinks they've got an answer..."
To which you responded: "I wasn't justifying my reason for believing. My reasons for following God are between He and I etc."
For future reference, if you are going to use a logical argument to argue in favour of theism, then you're going to have to try to defend that argument using logic, using a logical argument to back up the existence of the monotheistic God, and then reverting to the irrefutable "subjective personal experience" defence when someone calls you out on it, only shows you to be a weak debator.
Can you not see why that argument is exceptionally weak? I've already listed some of the main reasons for believing the argument to be fallacious, do you disagree with them?
I don't recall "reverting" to an irrefutable defense - I told you the reason for that argument. And yes, I disagree with your arguments. What is your belief - that all existence came from the primordial soup? I'm not being condescending, I'm just asking.
"I don't recall "reverting" to an irrefutable defense"
Th3ZViru5: "My reasons for following God are between He and I"
This is an irrefutable defense, there is no way I can successfully dispute the subjective relationship you share with what you claim to be God, it's bulletproof, it's characteristic of how you (and only you) perceive existence/reality/God/etc, i.e. "Any claim that cannot be tested or subjected to some sort of independent verification is not a meaningful, legitimate claim."
You didn't say why though. Why do you think you your religion is special? You do realise Pascals wager has been used by most other religions, and in doing so they have exlcuded yours (and all the others that aren't their own), I mean, it would have some merit in probabalistic terms if all the worlds major religions got together at a summit and declared that all of their doctrines (and those of all the different denominations) were being changed in order remedy the false dichotomy posed by Pascal's wager, i.e. make the wager an actual dichotomy with 50/50 odds by unifying all religions against atheism by claiming one can escape hellfire by simply not being an atheist
"What is your belief - that all existence came from the primordial soup? "
Not all existence, but there is strong reason to beleive that is how life began on this planet.
"What is your belief ........I'm not being condescending, I'm just asking."
I don't beleive in anything that rationalism can't tell me, otherwise I'm liable to beleive in things that simply aren't true, but I'm also quite spiritual, I'm kind of a spiritual atheist (no it's not an oxymoron).
"Not all existence, but there is strong reason to believe that is how life began on this planet."
Then the soup had to have a source as well. I find it very hard to believe that all these acids, proteins, and biochemicals came together from nowhere and found each other in this soup, one capable of forming an entire, intelligent race of human beings. And, as we never actually saw that happen, how can you conclude that it did, or might have?
That's the only thing you want to refute, ok, fair enough, but don't expect anything except to be labelled a weak debator if you continue to use Pascal's wager, as I have refuted its claims, and you have provided no defense.
"I find it very hard to believe that all these acids, proteins, and biochemicals came together from nowhere and found each other in this soup, one capable of forming an entire, intelligent race of human beings."
I find it odd that you find this so hard to accept when you're willing to accpet all of Christianities. This isn't magic, using science we have postulated based on the likely conditions (e.g. composition of the atmosphere, ect.,) that existed on earth 4 billion years ago prior to the creation of life, that the basic building blocks of life (amino acids) could have been created spontaneously. Natural selection does the rest, i.e. Abiogenesis
"And, as we never actually saw that happen, how can you conclude that it did, or might have?"
I beleive lots of things I never actually saw happen, that's thing with science, once something is objectively verifiable I really don't need to see it to beleive it.
"...you continue to use Pascal's wager, as I have refuted its claims, and you have provided no defense."
There is no defense for Pascal's Wager. That's what I'm trying to tell you. I'm not defending it because I don't believe in it. I've told you numerously that I'm not using the Wager as my basis for believing, but rather as an attempt to understand how an atheist could not use this as a method of thought. You've refuted it. Great. But you're not seeming to understand that I am not personally advocating the Wager.
And how might you explain those reputable scientists who are against evolution? Those who say there is little scientific evidence in support of evolution and that evolution is, still yet, just a theory? These are some example of what science is showing us about evolution:
- Thus far, no fossils showing the transition from one stage to the next have been found.
- The Horse Series, which was a sketch in which evolutionists attempted to show the evolution of horses. However, the attempt was unfruitful, as different species were uses to compile the sketch, thus rendering it a contradiction to the theory of evolution.
- The bird Archaeopteryx, which is supposedly a mix between bird and reptile. Nothing showing a link between bird feathers and reptilian scales has been found.
- Maurice Caullery, author of the book Genetics and Heredity, wrote that, "Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."
- The Biogenics Law is contradicts evolution because it says life cannot come from non-life. Professor Ernst Haeckel produced fraudulent charts in support of evolution and was discredited by a L. Rutimeyer, Wilhelm His, Sr. and Albert Fleischmann.
- Evolutionists cannot explain how the whale (a mammal) reverted back to ocean life without leaving fossil signs on land of its progression.
- What did the duck-billed platypus evolve from?
- Radiometric dating is not accurate because it cannot be proven that radioactive decay is different or similar than it was millions of years ago.
- Carbon dating is unreliable for specimens over 3,000-years-old but has apparently been used to date specimens thought to be much older.
I thought atheists didn't have gods? Interesting. And why are you angry? Don't you agree with the picture? It's pretty much the exact same thing you've been saying all along.