There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 554
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
Also, how is the bible credible? 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.

This is basic.

If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!) you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance). These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.

They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.

However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.

I call these creatures the "Gingerbread Men".
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
how is the bible credible?
Credible in which context? Historical accuracy? I lack observational data to render a conclusive judgement.





3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The Christians believe that the Hindus are delusional.
Which Christians?
TAUTOLOGICALLY.

A Christian = someone who believes JESUS is real and all other religions are FALSE.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
@Athias
Ok, let’s take a step back and start from square one.

Does god exist?

Follow up question:
Who is that god?
Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.

This is basic.

Both sides should be able; that is not the same as both sides being bound to make positive statements and provide logical support.


If you constantly attack without making any positive statements and refuse to clarify your criticisms when paraphrased (Nuh-uh that's not what I said, go back and read the words and prove it, you can't prove me wrong!)
Non sequitur. Holding you to your burden is not the same as "prove me wrong." If you make a positive claim for which you've provided little to no logical support, then it is the prerogative of any other to criticize your claim.

you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).
This is projection based on your non sequitur.

These individuals may (or may not) have a coherent position (as they often repeatedly claim in vague terms and bald assertions), but regardless, inexplicably refuse to communicate. They mistakenly believe that the darkness gives them the benefit of the doubt.

They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
More projection; no one is stating that their position is validated in the wake of one's failure to substantiate the contrary.

However, based on epistemological standards of evidence, they do not have the benefit of the doubt. You must show your logic, because without evidence to the contrary, your position is logically incoherent.
And what is that position? You're arguing against a straw man.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".
Where and by whom were these exceptions made?
Here's the claim.

BigFoot (spirituality and or god) is false.

Here's your response.

Prove it.

Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?

You claim this is a "strawman" but instead of clarifying your position, which should be quite simple, you pretend you have no opinion.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
TAUTOLOGICALLY.

A Christian = someone who believes JESUS is real and all other religions are FALSE.
Substantiate this tautology.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Both sides should be able to make positive statements and provide logical support.

This is basic.
Both sides should be able; that is not the same as both sides being bound to make positive statements and provide logical support.
If you neglect this step, then you end up playing the Burden-of-Proof ping-pong-game all day and all night.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
you are hiding behind the massive and very blurry wall known as the ambiguity fallacy (also known as the appeal to ignorance).
This is projection based on your non sequitur.
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's the claim.

BigFoot (spirituality and or god) is false.

Here's your response.

Prove it.

Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?\\
Are you qualifying scrutiny using one's motives?

You claim this is a "strawman" but instead of clarifying your position, which should be quite simple, you pretend you have no opinion.
It's "simple." But, I'm not obligated to clarify my position. As the author of your claim, you are.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.
No.

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Does god exist?
Yes.

Who is that god?
Irrelevant.

Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?
Other gods do exist, yes.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
They believe that if they can merely cast doubt on certain obscure peripheral details of their opponent's argument (or pepper enough ridicule and ad hominems into their diatribe), then they are automatically proven correct without ever having to state their own argument.
More projection; no one is stating that their position is validated in the wake of one's failure to substantiate the contrary.
You can't expect someone who refuses to make a counter-claim to explicitly state their opponent is wrong.

For example, I someone says, "you must support your claim that BigFoot is real", wouldn't you agree that would be a de facto argument supporting the hypothesis that BigFoot is fake?

Oh, but they didn't EXPLICITLY say "BigFoot is fake"...  Of course not.  Not all arguments are necessarily EXPLICIT (but they should be).
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
Does god exist?
Yes
Is he/she/it the only god, or are there other gods?
Other gods do exist, yes.
Good. Now substantiate your claims.

  1. God exists
  2. He/she/it is accompanied by other gods

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If the critic is unable or unwilling to make a counter-claim, then they are making a de facto appeal-to-ignorance.
No.
What are they appealing to?  What type of argument would you say they are making?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Why on earth would you ask someone to prove BigFoot is false unless you believe that BigFoot is real?\\
Are you qualifying scrutiny using one's motives?
I'm suggesting that it is reasonable to infer someone's argument based on their demands.

Especially if they refuse to clarify their position.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You can't expect someone who refuses to make a counter-claim to explicitly state their opponent is wrong.
Now, you're speculating.

For example, I someone says, "you must support your claim that BigFoot is real", wouldn't you agree that would be a de facto argument supporting the hypothesis that BigFoot is fake?
No. The "someone" in question may perhaps be an agnostic impartial to claims of either. None of that would be relevant, anyway. The goal is logical consistency. You have a burden as the author of your claim to substantiate its affirmation, not concern yourself with those who can or aren't authoring counterarguments. And if you your duty and due diligence, then constructing a counterargument would be futile.

What are they appealing to?  What type of argument would you say they are making?
It's an appeal to onus probandi. As for the argument, can it be said there's an argument being made? If I state, "prove it" what is the actual argument? Is there no such thing as scrutiny in debate?

I'm suggesting that it is reasonable to infer someone's argument based on their demands.
How?

Especially if they refuse to clarify their position.
Their responsibility to their position has nothing to do with yours.


Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Good. Now substantiate your claims.
I won't. I will not answer the supplication of one who has denied me the same courtesy.

But, if you're curious, 3RU7AL and I did have a rather extensive discussion on the matter here:



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
My statement made that arrangement clear.

p: I can believe spirituality is false.
q: Therefore, I do believe spirituality is false.

Hack away.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
p: I can believe spirituality is false.
q: Therefore, I do believe spirituality is false.

Hack away.

Why would I hack away? Looks solid to me.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
@Athias
@Athias
I won't. I will not answer the supplication of one who has denied me the same courtesy. 
I haven't made a claim on this thread, so I have nothing to substantiate.

But if you really want me to answer my own questions, fine. 

@3RU7AL, Athias, ethang5

1. We don't know
2. We don't know
3. We don't know

The reason that "we don't know" is the only answer that we can say is because of the fact that God (or gods) exist outside of the observable universe. How is this always the case? Because God (or one out of more than one gods) created the observable universe. The observable universe consists of everything inside it, so if the god/gods were inside the universe, that means that they created themself/themselves. Unless this is what you believe (in which case you also have to substantiate it), we can come to the conclusion that God/gods must exist outside of the observable universe. 

The observable universe contains everything that we can observe. It is contingent upon the speed of light, c, which is the speed of causality. Any experiments that we do can only affect the surroundings at the speed of causality, which means that no matter what experiments we do, they can never determine something outside of the observable universe. Hence, God is unobservable. 

As demonstrated by thought experiments such as Schrödinger's Cat and Russel's Teapot, if we are unable to obtain all information in a system, then we are unable to come to a conclusive answer. No one can say that the cat in the box is 100% alive or 100% dead, or that there is or isn't a teapot in between Earth and Mars. If we opened the box, or were able to observe every cubic inch of space in between Earth and Mars, we would be able to answer "yes" or "no", "alive" or "dead". However, since we aren't able to do so, we are left with "we don't know". Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe, and we are unable to observe anything outside of the universe, we will never be able to 100% know whether a particular god/set of gods exists or not. 

@Athias
Your turn



PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
p: I can believe X.
q: Therefore, I do X.
p: I can believe that daily human sacrifices are necessary to ensure that the sun rises tomorrow.
q: Therefore, I do human sacrifices on a daily basis.

Is this solid?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
Similarly, since God exists outside of the observable universe,
Not necessarily, consider Spinoza's perfectly logical god.

...and we are unable to observe anything outside of the universe,
At least at this particular moment.

...we will never be able to 100% know whether a particular god/set of gods exists or not. 
But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.

We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
I haven't made a claim on this thread, so I have nothing to substantiate.
I never said it was this thread. It was in reference to a past thread you created, "there's no evidence for a particular god's existence." You led me to believe that you were constructing a proof that you would, as of yet, abandon, and when prompted for further information, you, as far as I'm concerned, lied. I choose whom I engage in debate over certain subjects, and I sustain a certain level of decorum.


Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
p: I can believe that daily human sacrifices are necessary to ensure that the sun rises tomorrow.
q: Therefore, I do human sacrifices on a daily basis.

Is this solid?

That's not his argument.

It's:

p: I can believe X
q: therefore, I do believe X.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
But what we CAN do is analyze the DESCRIPTIONS of these god claims and identify multiple critical and fundamental logical incongruities.

We can be quite certain that incoherent descriptions of gods are FALSE descriptions.

Or inconsistent descriptions.

And it's important to note that a false description =/= false object.

Furthermore, if something does have description, it is perceivable; if it's perceivable, it must exist.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
The onus is always on the one making the positive claim.
Which is the one that attempts to promote the primary concept as reality.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
He certainly would be expected to back it up.
You'd Better ask 3RU7AL to back it up then.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Furthermore, if something does have description, it is perceivable; if it's perceivable, it must exist.
You're right.

Just like BigFoot.
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Athias
I never said it was this thread. It was in reference to a past thread you created, "there's no evidence for a particular god's existence." You led me to believe that you were constructing a proof that you would, as of yet, abandon, and when prompted for further information, you, as far as I'm concerned, lied. I choose whom I engage in debate over certain subjects, and I sustain a certain level of decorum. 
To be plainly honest, I forgot about this. To make it up with you, I'll present a proof now:

From Oxford [1]:
evidence
NOUN
mass noun
  • 1The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
In all of the available body or facts of information we have regarding the existence of god, we don't have any evidence that definitively, and completely, prove any one deity. If we did, then everyone would believe that god/those gods that the evidence proved the existence of. Since this is not the case, we can say that there is no evidence for any particular god/gods.

Anyways, the person stating something (in this case, asking someone else making the claim to substantiate it) has nothing to do with the statement itself, since literally anyone else could have made the exact same statement that I made to you. In other words, it's not an excuse to dodge my point.

That's not his argument. 

It's: 

p: I can believe X
q: therefore, I do believe X.
Fine.

p: I can believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.
q: Therefore, I do believe that Hitler did nothing wrong.