Theism vs. Atheism debate

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 540
Topic's author
#31
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
At a certain point, a belief becomes more rational than not. My criteria for sufficient evidence is when there's more information supporting the claim than against it. A "preponderance" of information is difficult to measure but I don't think it's a fruitless pursuit.
 
#32
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Who or what claims the existence of gods.
#33
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
"prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."
Do you have any evidence that would support the existence of the object in this man made claim?

#34
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
The idea is that something that is proven to be neccessary must exist.   The Kalam and similar arguments purport to prove a prime, conscious creator is neccessary through pure logic alone - hence no evidence is required.

My view is that such arguments show the origin of the universe was very strange, but they don't prove that strangeness was due to something that could reasonably be called a god, let alone God.


#35
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Depends entirely on how you define theism.
Are you trying to make an argument in support of a SPECIFIC GOD or GODS?

(IFF) you are arguing in support of a NON-specific god or gods or some sort of necessary thing (THEN) no rational Atheist will object.

A hypothetical necessary thing gets you nowhere closer to any sort of SPECIFIC GOD or GODS.

Nanabozho is just as likely as Marduk which is just as likely as Jupiter which is just as likely as Brahman.
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
At a certain point, a belief becomes more rational than not.
You're describing Rational-Relativism.
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
I'm going to have to dispute knowledge being obtainable in the first place, maybe that is pedantic, but I'd argue any claim cannot be provable. 
Rigorously defined logical terms and statements (tautologies) can be determined to be coherent (true) or incoherent (false).

Truth requires facts and facts require indisputability, independent verifiability, and or provable logical necessity.
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
Tautologies can only be true within a given logical framework,
Agreed.  I'm not sure that changes anything.

Experimental facts, or empirical knowledge, can also never be said to be even provisionally true
It sounds like you're referring to Hume's problem of induction.

5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. If experiments show results to a 5 sigma confidence level, that means if the results were due to chance and the experiment was repeated 3.5 million times then it would be expected to see the strength of conclusion in the result no more than once. [LINK]

Most published "studies" never reach 2 sigma.

There are very well established standards of evidence, although most people are not aware of them and most claims overstate their own confidence.

Give me any true empirical fact.
The planet earth exists.
#39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
All of that is to say, however, to show that you can't prove anything without first agreeing on terms and then you'll always be wrong or incomplete. Now, we can discuss whether we all think we should believe in god(s), but there is no way to give any evidence either way. And the prime mover argument assumes an origin to the universe, which I don't see how that's necessarily true. 
Noumenon is a logical necessity.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) we can't really say anything else about it.
#40
WyseGui
WyseGui's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
4
WyseGui's avatar
WyseGui
0
0
4
-->
@Fallaneze
At the end of the day the debate will come down to providing some sort of proof to support the claim.We seemingly live in a universe where it is impossible to prove God real or not. Atheist are always going to take a logical stance on it. Theism isn't exactly logical but then I don't really think it is supposed to be.
#41
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3


Give me any true empirical fact.
The planet earth exists.

You can't prove this,
You asked for an empirical fact.  The term 'empirical fact' is non-standard and I don't know what you think it means.  I do know there is a difference between true and provable, though, and you didn't ask for something that is provable.
#42
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
I think facts don't need to be proven to be true.  They need proof only to be known to be true.

#43
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@nagisa3
If you read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you will get a more subtle view of what the word 'fact' refers to!

What ever the internet says, we often use the word 'fact' for what is true but unproven.   Something can be a fact without being proven, but it can't be a fact unless its true.

It was a fact that Australia was the biggest island in the Pacific even before it was discovered - facts exist to be discovered and proven; they do not come into existence by being discovered or proven.

Topic's author
#44
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@nagisa3
I appreciate your knowledge and careful epistemological approach to this but in order to share knowledge, at all, statements *must* be capable of being invariably and universally true. 

Topic's author
#45
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
For anyone trying to follow along with the central discussion, here is where it left off.

Secularmerlin asks, "Do we further agree that no amount of evidence short of sufficient justifies belief?"

To which I responded "yes."

I'm waiting to see his next move.

#46
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Ok then what is the difference between a universe with an unobservable deity and one with no deity at all? You have the floor.
#47
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If that deity provides an afterlife the difference is very important.
Topic's author
#48
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@nagisa3
Have you ever learned anything by reading about it? If yes, then knowledge can be shared. To say that knowledge can't be shared is a self-defeating statement since that itself is purported to be a statement of knowledge. If it's not purported to be a statement of knowledge then it's meaningless. We might as well be talking in gibberish. Nskekekekemdkdod wieodididkdkdk wodododkoeowpeodkdldododo wosododkdkdnowowododod

Topic's author
#49
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
(1) I object to your use of the term "observable" since we've established that the question of whether God exists is not subject to empirical inquiry. The differences must exist in understanding alone. 

(2) we are not discussing "deity", we are discussing "God" defined as a "prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe."

Once you accept or reject these points I'll continue.
#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
If the being is unobservable then how do we tell the difference between it and no being at all? I think that is a fair question.
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
...you cannot claim a fact is true without proving it.
I'd say you cannot claim a disputed fact is true without proving it.

If you'd like to formally dispute the claim, "the planet earth exists" then please do so.

If you are serious, please provide your preferred definitions of "planet", "earth", and "exists" so we can be 100% positive we are on the same page.
#52
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Have you ever learned anything by reading about it? If yes, then knowledge can be shared. To say that knowledge can't be shared is a self-defeating statement since that itself is purported to be a statement of knowledge. If it's not purported to be a statement of knowledge then it's meaningless. We might as well be talking in gibberish. Nskekekekemdkdod wieodididkdkdk wodododkoeowpeodkdldododo wosododkdkdnowowododod
Well stated.
#53
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I object your trying to move the goal posts from some prime eternal conciousness to the specific prime eternal conciousness you have referred to as God. If you had a specific character in mind the time to mention that was when I asked "which god?" 

Even If you can prove that a prime eternal conciousness exists this conciousness is as likely to be Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as whatever god(s) you think exist until you can provide sufficient evidence otherwise.
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
If that deity provides an afterlife the difference is very important. 
Irrelevant unless the rules of entry can be clearly established. 

Otherwise there is no actionable data.

Also I hate to be a stickler but the god(s) and the afterlife are two separate things demonstrating one would not necessitate the other.
Topic's author
#55
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
"Prime, eternal consciousness and creator of the universe" is not any specific version of God nor did I imply that it was anything different.
#56
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
What is the difference between God, god(s) and deity in that case? I infer from you objection that they have different meanings to you so you will have to tell me how God differs from a deity.
#57
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Also I'd like to talk about this definition of yours. Firstly I would like to know what you mean by prime. Secondly I would like to know how you could gauge that an unobservable being possesses conciousness. Thirdly I would like to know how any finite beings (like us) could possibly verify that something was eternal.
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Otherwise there is no actionable data.

Also I hate to be a stickler but the god(s) and the afterlife are two separate things demonstrating one would not necessitate the other.
Well stated.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@nagisa3
All facts are under dispute, otherwise they are an assumption in my opinion. If you Don't let evidence weigh in, it's an assumption. 
Eh, not necessarily.  We don't seem to be disputing the english language (for example).  There is some minimum agreement on basic facts that is prerequisite to any conversation.

I'd say you cannot claim a disputed fact is true without proving it.

If you'd like to formally dispute the claim, "the planet earth exists" then please do so.

If you are serious, please provide your preferred definitions of "planet", "earth", and "exists" so we can be 100% positive we are on the same page.

If you refuse to provide your preferred definitions, then you are merely gainsaying. [LINK]
Topic's author
#60
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
To keep consistency. We may have a shared understanding that "deity" refers to the defintion of "God" being used in this thread but for people who are just joining in they may think that it refers to a different meaning.

"Prime" meaning "first." I will get to your second and third points as our discussion progresses.

So, do we have an agreed upon definition of God, evidence, sufficient evidence, and that the question of whether God exists must be evaluated logically rather than through empirical inquiry?