A thought

Author: Tejretics

Posts

Total: 32
Topic's author
#1
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
Staying out of the Religion forum.

On this site’s “precursor” of sorts, Debate.org, I’ve debated God’s existence a ridiculous number of times, from both sides. Eventually, the topic became relatively uninteresting and I stopped.

I’m an atheist, but I think New Atheism is mostly dumb, there’s a good chance religion is a net positive for society, quasi-religions are inevitable anyway, and most common arguments against God’s existence (e.g., the omnipotence paradox, the problem of evil, the second order problem of evil, the contradiction between omniscience and free will, some of the more apparently sophisticated arguments of people like the late Michael Martin and the late Victor Stenger) fail (though the same is true of most common arguments for God’s existence, e.g., the kalam cosmological argument, the various versions of “ontological arguments,” the teleological argument and its variants, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the argument from religious experience, and so on). 

I’ve come to think, however, that possibly the strongest argument against God’s existence—of course, it is very much rebut-able, and it is fairly straightforward to have a long debate about it—is prima facie unlikelihood. This isn’t quite the same as Occam’s razor or Russell’s teapot or whatever—it’s not about burdens of proof per se. It’s just that, other things equal, it seems bizarre that the universe is created and/or ruled by an interventionist humanlike giant. And we should have a strong prior against that. So if we’re considering God’s existence from a Bayesian perspective, where H is the hypothesis that God exists and e is any evidence in favor of God, P(H) is low, so P(e | H) would have to be pretty high and P(e | ~H) would have to be pretty low for an argument in favor of God’s existence to not work.

(I am aware of other relatively strong arguments against God’s existence – for example, that God’s existence is possibly incompatible with B theories of time, which special relatively points in the direction of; that minds are processes that could require time as a prerequisite; that God is an efficient cause and not a simultaneous one, and that time is a prerequisite for that, so efficient causation of the universe of any kind is incoherent; various versions “reverse modal ontological arguments,” e.g., God being necessarily existent entails that the universe exists necessarily, which either it doesn’t or it does while contradicting God’s existence; some of the more abstract work in the philosophical literature about God’s spatial location. I nonetheless think the basic Bayesian argument might be stronger.)

I probably won’t respond to anything on this thread, but in case you’re interested in discussing with others. This also isn’t a strong opinion or one I’ve thought about too deeply. 
#2
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Tejretics
I’m an atheist, but I think New Atheism is mostly dumb
Truuuuuu
there’s a good chance religion is a net positive for society
Depends on how you define it.
(e.g., the omnipotence paradox, the problem of evil, the second order problem of evil, the contradiction between omniscience and free will, some of the more apparently sophisticated arguments of people like the late Michael Martin and the late Victor Stenger) fail
Explain the evil one.
(though the same is true of most common arguments for God’s existence, e.g., the kalam cosmological argument, the various versions of “ontological arguments,” the teleological argument and its variants, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the argument from religious experience, and so on). 
I am guessing this is a both sides meme.
I probably won’t respond to anything on this thread, but in case you’re interested in discussing with others. This also isn’t a strong opinion or one I’ve thought about too deeply. 
Okay.
Topic's author
#3
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Explain the evil one.
The first order problem of evil says that the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God (say G) is mutually incompatible with the existence of suffering in the world (say S). Since S is true, it follows that G is false. In set form (if P(x) is the probability of x):

P1) P(G ∩ S) = 0
P2) P(S) = 1
C) Therefore, P(G) = 0

The second order problem of evil says that God’s existence is mutually incompatible with the existence of “gratuitous puzzlement.” Since the problem of evil is a form of “gratuitous puzzlement” (i.e., needless confusion about God’s own existence), and it exists, God wouldn’t exist. (Sounds bizarre, I know, I dunno what academic philosophy looks like.) 

The nth order problem of evil says that the (n – 1)th order problem of evil poses gratuitous puzzlement, which means God doesn’t exist. 
#4
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Tejretics
Please simple words.

Are you saying the argument doesn't fail?
Topic's author
#5
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you saying the argument doesn't fail?
I don’t understand the question.

I don’t agree with any of the arguments I explained above, to be clear.
#6
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Tejretics

P1) P(G ∩ S) = 0
P2) P(S) = 1
C) Therefore, P(G) = 0
I have never seen shapes likes those. Can you put this into words?

What is “gratuitous puzzlement.”?
Topic's author
#7
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I have never seen shapes likes those. Can you put this into words?
Oops, sorry.

P1) The probability that both G and S are true is 0 (or, in some versions of the argument, less than 0.5). 
P2) The probability that S is true is 1 (or, in some versions of the argument, greater than 0.5).
C) Thus, the probability that G is true is 0 (or, in some versions of the argument, less than 0.5). 

G is the statement that “God exists and is omnipotent and omnibenevolent” and S is the statement that “suffering exists in the world.”

Basically, if God is all-powerful and all-caring, he wouldn’t have created a world with suffering in it. Since we know suffering exists, that means God probably doesn’t exist. 

What is “gratuitous puzzlement”?
Needless confusion (as I noted above).
#8
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Tejretics
Isn't this implying God is good?

Is that the problem with the argument? You did disagree with the first paragraph

Thank you for simplifying it. 
Topic's author
#9
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Isn't this implying God is good?
The argument is that God cannot be simultaneously omnibenevolent and omnipotent. So it doesn’t “imply” it, it’s from the definition of God this argument uses.

The argument has many problems, in my view, and I’d recommend searching for those problems on Google Scholar instead of asking me, since my explanations are probably pretty bad. 

#10
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Tejretics
The argument is that God cannot be simultaneously omnibenevolent and omnipotent. So it doesn’t “imply” it, it’s from the definition of God this argument uses.
Okay. Thought you were talking about a different omni.
The argument has many problems, in my view, and I’d recommend searching for those problems on Google Scholar instead of asking me, since my explanations are probably pretty bad. 
Any links you have in mind?
#11
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tejretics
I’m an atheist, but I think New Atheism is mostly dumb,...
What is the difference between what you believe, and new atheism, that makes new atheism dumb and your belief not?
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
All data is essentially the same.

it's just how we choose to order data that supposedly makes us different.

Theism and Atheism and New Atheism are all essentially the same. 

It's all  just down the addition of a few extra  A's and new's etc. 

A load of fuss about nothing really.

Nonetheless, entertaining.
#13
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I suspect that Tejretics, if he responds, may have a more rational answer.
Topic's author
#14
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@ethang5
What is the difference between what you believe, and new atheism, that makes new atheism dumb and your belief not?
My problem with New Atheism isn’t the atheism. Rather, it’s three-fold: (1) The outright dismissal of people who derive meaning from their religious beliefs as irrational and stupid. This lack of empathy (combined with a lack of epistemic modesty) really gets me. (2) The kinds of arguments they make against God’s existence being very weak, making their dismissal of faith seem even more acutely bad. (3) The claim that we should attempt to somehow eradicate religion from society. I do not think religion does more harm than good, though it’s certainly possible, and I think it is near-impossible to eradicate religious belief in some form—evidenced by the fact that, at its peak, New Atheism became a sort of quasi-religion (and in its quasi-religious practices, created environments exclusionary to both other kinds of important discussion about science and philosophy and to particular groups of people, such as women). 

#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Tejretics
That was a very rational answer with which I agree. Thanks.
#16
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tejretics
I’ve come to think, however, that possibly the strongest argument against God’s existence—of course, it is very much rebut-able, and it is fairly straightforward to have a long debate about it—is prima facie unlikelihood.
I, contrarily, think one of the best arguments for God is the unlikelihood of the universe without God, a necessary Being.

There would be no intent. How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability? One of the reasons science works is because we have confidence that things will work like they have in the past, thus predictability. If there is no mind or intention behind the universe why should we expect that to be the case? Why should we be able to find reasons for such a universe?

If there is no ultimate mind behind the universe why should we look for meaning and why do we continue to find it? We can explain natural functions like gravity and thermodynamics with mathematical formulas. Mathematics is a product of minds. A tree or rock does not think, let alone think in terms of mathematical probabilities. We discover these principles, we do not invent them. They seem to ring true whether we exist or not. Without your particular mind of my mind, they would still be true. Yet they require mindfulness. So the meaning seems built into the universe. The anthropic principle seems like the best explanation. 

2 + 2 = 4 means nothing to a tree or rock, yet it is a principle that can be nothing but what it is and is dependent on mindful beings thinking it yet it does not depend on any particular human mind for its existence. Thus, if you have two objects and add two more then you have four objects. Thus, 2 + 2 = 4 is an eternal truth that depends on mindful beings since it cannot be other than what it is unless you want to argue that it can be something other than 4 practically? Since it does not depend on any human mind and we discover these principles to make sense of our world and universe then God is a reasonable explanation. 

Thus, to date, God is a more reasonable and likely explanation than chance happenstance.

What about morality? How does relativism equal good? How can a relative, subjective, changing standard make sense of good? We see even in our cultures of Canada and the USA a changing view on what is good. We see what was once taboo, bad, and a moral outrage now embarrassed as good, acceptable, the moral norm. We see other cultures or societies or subgroups disagreeing with ours. That begs the question of what is actually good? Logically, how can two opposing views both be true and right at the same time and regarding the same issue when they contradict? And what is the identity of good in such cases? How can its identity be the opposite of what it is or the contrary depending on who thinks it? 

Is it more reasonable to believe that life comes from non-life and what is the evidence other than a naturalistic or materialistic mind frame? how does this happen? We never witness life coming from non-life. Thus, we have to assume it.

Why do we continue to find information and order that seems unlikely from chance happenstance? What kind of information would you expect to find from a random explosion? It would produce chaos.

What we witness is mindfulness coming from other mindful beings. 
We see meaning coming from the meaningful.
We see intelligence coming from intelligent mindful beings.
We see life coming from the living. 

Thus, the chance happenstance universe continually fails the experiential test. You can think it but you can't live by it. It is inconsistent with daily living and what we witness.

***

So I have not seen these questions adequately met by an atheistic worldview to date. Mostly they are ignored. I would be grateful for your explanation and a discussion on these and other issues since you are a thoughtful person, judging from pass encounters on DDO where I read your responses. 

This isn’t quite the same as Occam’s razor or Russell’s teapot or whatever—it’s not about burdens of proof per se. It’s just that, other things equal, it seems bizarre that the universe is created and/or ruled by an interventionist humanlike giant. And we should have a strong prior against that.
As put forth above, I think the opposite is true. It seems bazaar that a chance universe would produce meaning, mindfulness, information, sustainability,  and order. And it is not like God is created in the likeness of human beings but rather the opposite. That is, humanity is created in the image and likeness of God, not in a physical sense since God is Spirit, but in our mental capacity to think, reason, love, find purpose and meaning. 

So if we’re considering God’s existence from a Bayesian perspective, where H is the hypothesis that God exists and e is any evidence in favor of God, P(H) is low, so P(e | H) would have to be pretty high and P(e | ~H) would have to be pretty low for an argument in favor of God’s existence to not work.
Again, we approach the problem of existence from two different mindsets or worldview. I would argue that yours is inconsistent with the way things are and how they got to be that way. 

Not only this but if the Bible is what it claims to be then you would expect confirmations of what it says in regards to history and the sciences, not scientism, since the universe would be created by God's will and exists because of His providence and mercy and it is explained by God. Thus, you would have a fixed source for morality, meaning, purpose, truth, epistemology, etc. 

(I am aware of other relatively strong arguments against God’s existence – for example, that God’s existence is possibly incompatible with B theories of time, which special relatively points in the direction of; that minds are processes that could require time as a prerequisite; that God is an efficient cause and not a simultaneous one, and that time is a prerequisite for that, so efficient causation of the universe of any kind is incoherent; various versions “reverse modal ontological arguments,” e.g., God being necessarily existent entails that the universe exists necessarily, which either it doesn’t or it does while contradicting God’s existence; some of the more abstract work in the philosophical literature about God’s spatial location. I nonetheless think the basic Bayesian argument might be stronger.)
We humans live and exist and experience in the A-theory of time whereas God exists in the B-theory of time. We experience life in a physical manner where we begin to exist (a timeline) whereas God is a spiritual Being and since He is timeless He sees the physicality of time events before Him in the present. Past, present, and future are all the present to God in that He sees the whole of time in the present, now. Everything in the physical universe is laid bare before Him and since He created and put this universe into existence He understands it in all its aspects. We, as humans only see it in part (limited) and our experience is guided largely by the physicality of our universe and our existence. It has a beginning. God does not, thus timeless. God's existence is not physical although, in the living Word, the Son, He stepped into His creation and experienced the temporal. The Bible, at various times speaks of two worlds, two kingdoms, two realms (or the kingdom of God versus the kingdoms of the world) of which the realm of God is the greater and everlasting realm.     


I probably won’t respond to anything on this thread, but in case you’re interested in discussing with others. This also isn’t a strong opinion or one I’ve thought about too deeply. 


That is a shame. It is a peeve of mine when someone initiates a thread that I am interested in, make interesting comments, then step back from it and take little accountability for what they have said. I am glad to see that you have continued to answer questions and respond to comments, however. 
#17
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0
There would be no intent. How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability? One of the reasons science works is because we have confidence that things will work like they have in the past, thus predictability. If there is no mind or intention behind the universe why should we expect that to be the case? Why should we be able to find reasons for such a universe?
These are just questions.
If there is no ultimate mind behind the universe why should we look for meaning and why do we continue to find it?
Not an argument for God. Saying people find meaning has no link to God. If you happen to find a link to God.
They seem to ring true whether we exist or not.
There is absolutely no way to verify this to be true.

The 2 + 2 = 4 paragraph is in essence a repeat of the last paragraph. 
Thus, to date, God is a more reasonable and likely explanation than chance happenstance.
Describe to me the contrary position as in the not God argument.

If it wasn't clear I am not a fan of your questions. Instead of actually presenting an argument for your side you instead resort to condemning the other. Why not make a compelling argument instead of shifting the burden of proof?


#18
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tejretics
PS. I was wondering whether you agree with the comments of one atheist on the philosophic thread that God has nothing to do with philosophy since you bring up the subject? 
#19
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
There would be no intent. How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability? One of the reasons science works is because we have confidence that things will work like they have in the past, thus predictability. If there is no mind or intention behind the universe why should we expect that to be the case? Why should we be able to find reasons for such a universe?
These are just questions.
They seek understanding.

Not only questions but they are questions to an atheistic worldview. They seek to find out how from the atheist perspective, origins can be made sense of reasonably.

Either the universe owns its existence to a mindful Being, beings, or it is a product of chance. So, what is the reason for each view and how logical and logically consistent is it?

If there is no ultimate mind behind the universe why should we look for meaning and why do we continue to find it?
Not an argument for God. Saying people find meaning has no link to God. If you happen to find a link to God.
But we formulate mathematical equations that are not invented by us. We discover these meaningful, to us, PRINCIPLES. 

Not only this but we continually seek meaning in what, by atheist standards, would be chance happenstance, an ultimately meaningless universe.

We continue to live as if things matter. The majority of humanity, through existence, continue to seek out God or gods as the answer. Although that proves nothing conclusively in itself (an argument from popularity), it does bring to mind why we do this. We continually live as though things matter so inconsistent with chance happenstance.  

They seem to ring true whether we exist or not.
There is absolutely no way to verify this to be true.
Experientially and practically, you keep confirming these things are true, although theoretically and presumptuously you live contrary to those two qualities.  


The 2 + 2 = 4 paragraph is in essence a repeat of the last paragraph. 
I'm not following.

Thus, to date, God is a more reasonable and likely explanation than chance happenstance.
Describe to me the contrary position as in the not God argument.
Mindless, unintentional, purposeless, pointless, irrational, indifferent chance happenstance.


If it wasn't clear I am not a fan of your questions. Instead of actually presenting an argument for your side you instead resort to condemning the other. Why not make a compelling argument instead of shifting the burden of proof?

The questions themselves present an argument. That argument is, make sense of ultimately anything from a chance, chaotic, random, happenstance universe, one without a mind behind it that wills it and sustains it. 

First, with a chance happenstance universe what is the why? It just is. And why should there be a how or what?
#20
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0

Not only questions but they are questions to an atheistic worldview.
Care to tell me this worldview?
How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability?
Please put this in more simpler terms. Are you saying how did this universe form without a God? 
But we formulate mathematical equations that are not invented by us.
Who invented this?
Not only this but we continually seek meaning in what, by atheist standards, would be chance happenstance, an ultimately meaningless universe.
You can seek meaning in an ultimately meaningless universe, do you disagree?
Experientially and practically, you keep confirming these things are true, although theoretically and presumptuously you live contrary to those two qualities.
You saying it is true doesn't demonstrate it to be the case.
I'm not following.
What you said in the paragraph that starts with "2 + 2 = 4 means nothing to a tree or rock" is something you covered in the last paragraph. Things exist outside our mind which was the essence of the two paragraphs which is why I didn't cover it.
Mindless, unintentional, purposeless, pointless, irrational, indifferent chance happenstance.
Explain how God did so is a more compelling argument.
I'll entertain the strawman just here.
That argument is, make sense of ultimately anything from a chance, chaotic, random, happenstance universe, one without a mind behind it that wills it and sustains it. 
So you were begging the question? Instead of actually presenting an argument you are assuming it to be true without evidence.
First, with a chance happenstance universe what is the why? It just is. And why should there be a how or what?
Why does why matter to you? Do you want there to be a God or are you finally going to give an argument for once?
The reason why you can ask how or what is because we can use what we know to understand what and how occurs. Asking why requires to know the person doing it. I don't think you have a connection to God. If you did please present it to science as our best way to find observable evidence. 
#21
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist

Not only questions but they are questions to an atheistic worldview.
Care to tell me this worldview?
It either denies God/gods or it lives and looks at life as though none exists. Thus, its explanation of the universe is materialistic or naturalistic.

How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability?
Please put this in more simpler terms. Are you saying how did this universe form without a God? 
I'm asking to make sense of why we can do science or why things continue to function or in the same manner (uniformly) so we can predict outcomes and make equations that explain the way these processes work? In a random chance universe, why should things continue in the same way that we and every other human being have experienced them as happening or could reason out the process? There would be no reason for the process. It would be willy nilly.

Randon chance happenstance would be similar to expecting dice to roll by themselves without any intention in them rolling and then expecting them to continually roll the same number millions and billions of times without exception. While such principles can work theoretically they do not work experientially. If you think they do, then roll six exclusively one million times in a row with the same number coming up each time and without intentionally fixing the dice. Thus, unless the dice are fixed do you think you would be able to do this?

Now, with intentionality, you could rig the dice to perform the same outcome every time. 

But we formulate mathematical equations that are not invented by us.
Who invented this?
That would depend on whether you believe we discover these principles of mathematics that explain the way things function, these natural laws such as gravity or the laws of thermodynamics? Or do you believe we invent them? Do you believe they do not exist without our thinking them?

Well, granted it does not depend on any of our minds because these principles work whether we think them or not it would be reasonable to believe they depend on a necessary mind - God. Thus, there is a reason that we discover them. We, being made in the image and likeness of God think His thoughts after Him. We discover something in the process of how He makes or sustains the universe. 

Not only this but we continually seek meaning in what, by atheist standards, would be chance happenstance, an ultimately meaningless universe.
You can seek meaning in an ultimately meaningless universe, do you disagree?
Sure we can create meaning but ultimately it means nothing. 

Experientially and practically, you keep confirming these things are true, although theoretically and presumptuously you live contrary to those two qualities.
You saying it is true doesn't demonstrate it to be the case.
But one view is consistent with experience, the other is not. So you live contrary to what you inwardly believe. 

I'm not following.
What you said in the paragraph that starts with "2 + 2 = 4 means nothing to a tree or rock" is something you covered in the last paragraph. Things exist outside our mind which was the essence of the two paragraphs which is why I didn't cover it.
?

Mindless, unintentional, purposeless, pointless, irrational, indifferent chance happenstance.
Explain how God did so is a more compelling argument.
I'll entertain the strawman just here.
We could only know if God revealed this, which is what the Bible claims. Now, if the Bible is what it claims it would, in and of itself, have confirmations that what is said is true or reasonable to believe. I believe I can show that it is reasonable and logical in that history, experientially, philosophically that it does. 

The Bible reveals God spoke the universe into existence. He said, "Let there be light, and there was light."

Thus, the created order came from His mind. He thought it into existence. It was no more difficult to God than a thought. 

That argument is, make sense of ultimately anything from a chance, chaotic, random, happenstance universe, one without a mind behind it that wills it and sustains it. 
So you were begging the question? Instead of actually presenting an argument you are assuming it to be true without evidence.
I am asking for an explanation from a worldview that discounts God and that is reasonable to believe. How does that beg the question? If there is no intention behind the universe explain how and why it sustains itself and why it must?

Again, there would be no reason why, yet I bet you can think of many. Immediately you would think of why in terms of gravity and other factors like the distance between bodies like stars and planets and galaxies, in relation to gravitations pulls, etc, etc. 

First, with a chance happenstance universe what is the why? It just is. And why should there be a how or what?
Why does why matter to you?
It matters because I can make sense of the 'why' with God and ultimately I do not believe an atheistic worldview can and remain consistent with its starting presupposition - no God. 


Do you want there to be a God or are you finally going to give an argument for once?
It is not a question of wanting or not wanting but whether there is a God. My argument is that granting God these things become explainable and make sense. 

Morality makes sense if there is an unchanging, fixed, universal, absolute, ultimate reference point and measure. Without it why is your FEELING any better than mine? 

The reason why you can ask how or what is because we can use what we know to understand what and how occurs.
But do you know or understand origins? If you are wrong on origins how much more are you wrong on? 

Asking why requires to know the person doing it.
Why does the earth rotate around the sun? Gravitational pulls causes the orbit (or God as the reason behind gravity).

Why did the mouse eat the poison bait? It was hungry. Did that require I know the person for the explanation?

Why does the water rise at high tide? Because of the gravitational pull of the moon. Does that require I know a person?

Now, why existence? Why is there something rather than nothing? 

I don't think you have a connection to God. If you did please present it to science as our best way to find observable evidence.
How would you know since you deny God His existence, or at least ignore Him? What could I ever give to convince a person who does not want convincing? You would just find another reason to deny Him, another 'what if.' 
#22
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0
It either denies God/gods or it lives and looks at life as though none exists. Thus, its explanation of the universe is materialistic or naturalistic.
How about if I take the view that things did exist before the big bang but it wasn't God? 
I'm asking to make sense of why we can do science or why things continue to function or in the same manner (uniformly) so we can predict outcomes and make equations that explain the way these processes work?
Please tell me how God conforms to cause and effect. If God doesn't God has no support in science unless you are making the claim it created it. At that point please stop begging the question and prove to me God exists instead of assuming it is true.
Well, granted it does not depend on any of our minds because these principles work whether we think them
I did not grant this. Explain yourself.
Sure we can create meaning but ultimately it means nothing. 
Why does it have to ultimately mean something?
But one view is consistent with experience, the other is not. So you live contrary to what you inwardly believe.
This is begging the question again. I am not going to explain this because I have already given an answer earlier on that I would've used here.
?
The two paragraphs after "There would be no intent. How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability?" are the same. That is all.
We could only know if God revealed this, which is what the Bible claims.
Are you an agnostic?
The Bible reveals God spoke the universe into existence. He said, "Let there be light, and there was light."
I found this book called dog and in it and I stated "Let there be bad and there was bad". Is that proof of the devil (evil God)?
I am asking for an explanation from a worldview that discounts God and that is reasonable to believe.
Please read the prior statement earlier. I stated give me an argument. You said there was arguments in the question themselves. Meaning instead of actually giving evidence for your worldview you instead resort to begging the question by ridiculing the other side. You pretty much implied your side is true without even proving it.
If there is no intention behind the universe explain how and why it sustains itself and why it must?
Why does the universe need intention?
It matters because I can make sense of the 'why' with God and ultimately I do not believe an atheistic worldview can and remain consistent with its starting presupposition - no God. 
So what I am getting here is that it feels good to see the world in your way so you accept it?
My argument is that granting God these things become explainable and make sense. 
Begging the question yet again. You know you are not making an argument right?

How about we assume Devil (evil God) to be true? I feel like it explains the world.
Morality makes sense if there is an unchanging, fixed, universal, absolute, ultimate reference point and measure. Without it why is your FEELING any better than mine? 
Yet again no argument. You are basically saying my dad makes sense of strawberries. Without my dad how do I make sense of strawberries? I just picked up on this argument from authority. Instead of actually providing evidence God did this, you are saying God did this as an authority on the subject. While also shifting the burden of proof yet again. 
If you are wrong on origins how much more are you wrong on?
You are in no position to question my position. At least I don't lie about the reality of things. You use the supernatural (unattainable thing) to support your arguments. You use feelings to support your claims and an old book. 
Now, why existence? Why is there something rather than nothing? 
I don't know. Doesn't mean I will beg the question to be what I would like it to be. I would like to hear an argument instead of this constant deflection. 
How would you know since you deny God His existence, or at least ignore Him? What could I ever give to convince a person who does not want convincing? You would just find another reason to deny Him, another 'what if.' 
Who said anything about me? I specifically talked about science. Give your findings to science and see what they think of the supernatural. I am going under the suspicion you don't actually want to give your old book to science because you know they don't agree with the findings. If this is true then you are pretty much cherry picking what you understand through science to suit your agenda and discard what doesn't conform to it. 


Topic's author
#23
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
-->
@PGA2.0
PS. I was wondering whether you agree with the comments of one atheist on the philosophic thread that God has nothing to do with philosophy since you bring up the subject? 
I haven’t seen the comment, but my guess is I don’t.

Anyway, I’m not particularly interested in adjudicating the question of whether God exists. This thread was related more to comparing the relative strength of arguments against God’s existence than (1) discussing various arguments on both sides or (2) checking if this argument actually disproves God in the absolute, rather than relative to other atheistic arguments. So I’m not going to put in much effort in responding to you; my apologies! (Feel free to have the discussion in this thread if you’d like, though, I’m sure other people are willing to engage.)

Topic's author
#24
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 501
3
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
3
4
8
There’s an error in the original post. It says:

So if we’re considering God’s existence from a Bayesian perspective, where H is the hypothesis that God exists and e is any evidence in favor of God, P(H) is low, so P(e | H) would have to be pretty high and P(e | ~H) would have to be pretty low for an argument in favor of God’s existence to not work.
That should read “in favor of God’s existence to work.” 
#25
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It either denies God/gods or it lives and looks at life as though none exists. Thus, its explanation of the universe is materialistic or naturalistic.
How about if I take the view that things did exist before the big bang but it wasn't God?
That just takes the process back one step further.

It still does not explain whether the process is a) random chance happenstance or b) initiated by a mindful, intelligent, intentional Being. 
 
I'm asking to make sense of why we can do science or why things continue to function or in the same manner (uniformly) so we can predict outcomes and make equations that explain the way these processes work?
Please tell me how God conforms to cause and effect.
I like the scenario R. C. Sproul uses. Suppose we are exploring a new part of the globe and come across a fairly new hoed garden, organized in neat rows, with ten different crops just sprouting that we include in our diet, in the middle of the jungle. We assume that there is a gardener but after waiting a week no gardener shows up. We search everywhere and there is no sign of human life anywhere within hundreds of miles that would tend the garden. The jungle looks pristine except for this one patch of ground. We speculate on all kinds of things but the gardener dies the death of one thousand explanations. Does that mean there is no gardener? We have exhausted our explanation of reasonable causes of the garden's existence. Well, it still does not explain the existence of the garden. 

God is an explanation for the universe. God is also a reasonable explanation for the universe. We can trace cause and effect back to a point in time yet no further. For a number of solid reasons, we speculate that the universe had a beginning. We see a causal effect of things up to that point yet no further. Since everything we witness has a beginning we reason it is logical based on the data that the universe has a cause as well. Of course, we can speculate that some things do not have a cause. Those things would be eternal. Is the universe one of those things? Evidence to date suggests otherwise. So we have to have a sufficient cause for the universe if the universe has a beginning. Was the Big Bang the cause of the universe? It begs the question of what caused the Big Bang and why did it happen? Is the explanation for the universe covered within the universe? Jim Wallace, a homicide crime detective who worked for the LA police force and is used to examining crime scenes would look at the scene of death from within the room to determine if the evidence pointed to suicide or murder. If the clues pointed to outside evidence the crime would be investigated as a homicide because the evidence pointed to someone outside the room causing the death.

So the question comes down to can the evidence within the universe point to a sufficient answer or not?

Now, if you are asking if God conforms to cause and effect how can an eternal being have a cause? God exists outside of time. 
 

If God doesn't God has no support in science unless you are making the claim it created it. At that point please stop begging the question and prove to me God exists instead of assuming it is true.
The claim I am making is that science relies on consistency/repeatability. How does a random chance happenstance chain of events create that sustainability and consistency? I am asking for a reasonable explanation from you. I am questioning whether you can provide one that makes sense of science from your foundational starting point - a universe without intent nor intelligence. 

Well, granted it does not depend on any of our minds because these principles work whether we think them
I did not grant this. Explain yourself.
2 + 2 = 4. Is that always true or can it ever be false? If so, in what universe? Thus, it seems to be a universal truth and something that does not just depend on your mind or mine thinking it. It seems self-evident and necessary and yet it requires mindfulness to think it. Principles of mathematics such as natural laws are discovered, not invented. They take minds to think them yet they are discovered not invented unless you can show that they only exist because you or I think them. The problem is they were operating before we discovered them or thought about them. Thus, we seem to be discovering someone else's thoughts before us. They don't seem to depend as to their explanation on any one human being or human origin since we discover them. We fit these principles into formulas or simple equations such as for gravity --> g = GM/r 2, or the force of gravity on earth -->  F g = mg.

The equation for the force of gravity is




That, to me shows the economy and simplicity of God and yet also His complex and incomprehensible mind. Thus, in science, we seem to think God's thoughts after Him. 


#26
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist

Sure we can create meaning but ultimately it means nothing. 
Why does it have to ultimately mean something?
Why are you asking that meaningful question?

Meaning seems built into our reasoning. We search for it. The absurdity would be looking for meaning in a meaningless universe. We could arbitrarily make it up but at the end of the day, it is meaningless. So the question becomes why are you looking for meaning in a meaningless universe? Does it help you cope? For what reason - it is all meaningless anyway. 

But one view is consistent with experience, the other is not. So you live contrary to what you inwardly believe.
This is begging the question again. I am not going to explain this because I have already given an answer earlier on that I would've used here.
It is an explanation that satisfies what we witness. The other view does not. So one view is capable of making sense of things because from experience we witness them happening and the other view is not. So, the other view begs the question.  

?
The two paragraphs after "There would be no intent. How does chaos and chance happenstance explain uniformity of nature and nature's sustainability?" are the same. That is all.
And the answer is baffling. Chance happenstance is nothing in the sense that it has no ABILITY. Chance is a mathematical probability that describes what can happen but how does it make something happen? Why does this point of singularity we call the Big Bang explode?

We could only know if God revealed this, which is what the Bible claims.
Are you an agnostic?
No. The speculating is for your benefit. I'm trying to get you to think of what is more reasonable, your foundational starting point or mine. 

The Bible reveals God spoke the universe into existence. He said, "Let there be light, and there was light."
I found this book called dog and in it and I stated "Let there be bad and there was bad". Is that proof of the devil (evil God)?
What dog? Where did this notion of 'dog' as the greatest conceivable Being come from? If your dog spoke the universe into being what is your evidence that dog exists? Now with God, you knew of Him long before I brought Him up, I'm sure. 

Since your notion is different and contrary to my notion at least one of us is wrong in our view. Would you grant that? If so, present your evidence for your dog and why I should believe it. 

I am asking for an explanation from a worldview that discounts God and that is reasonable to believe.
Please read the prior statement earlier. I stated give me an argument. You said there was arguments in the question themselves. Meaning instead of actually giving evidence for your worldview you instead resort to begging the question by ridiculing the other side. You pretty much implied your side is true without even proving it.
Again, you are assuming I have no evidence. The context in the Bible speaks of historical people, places and events. There is reason to believe at least some of these people, places and events existed because they have been confirmed or mentioned in other secular historical writings.

The time frame of prophecy is also reasonable to believe. The evidence for the OT writings precedes the NT writings. The prophecies contained in the OT come to pass as predicted. That is just another evidence that what was recorded came to pass as recorded.

The evidence for Jesus Christ and His resurrection is reasonable and believable. Numerous secular writings mention Him in various ways including giving information on how He died and what His followers thought for it was reported by these secular historians they believed He rose from the dead. There are also a number of things that sit well with the resurrection accounts and trying to explain them away runs into many difficulties.

As to the OT, the NT Jesus claims it speaks of Him from cover to cover. This typology is seen and explained throughout the NT and makes sense. The intricacy of it is overwhelming for those who are studied on the two covenants. Hundreds of examples could be given by me alone. So, what is said in the NT is backed up by the OT. The promised Messiah would have to come before the Old Covenant was done away with for the OT speaks of the Messiah coming to His OT people. The OT is largely concerned with God's relationship with specific people that He makes a covenant with and they agree to it (Exodus 24:3, 7). God warns these people of blessings and curses (Deuteronomy 28) and what would happen if they were disobedient. Throughout the OT we read of a disobedient people and of God warning these people of judgment as promised in Deuteronomy 28 if they did not repent and turn back to Him, per the covenant. He sends prophets and teachers to them and yet they still ignore and forsake Him. Thus, as prophesied, He brings the promised judgment for disobedience upon them. After AD 70 we no longer see these OT people as able to keep the covenant as stipulated in the Law of Moses. Thus, the prophecies of Jesus and the OT have come about in the exact manner they were said to. 

Now, you may think all of this is coincidence or self-fulfilled prophecies but the evidence shows otherwise. I keep challenging others to dispute the evidence but seldom get any takers. I have even gone to the trouble of setting up threads on the subjective yet most have very scanty knowledge of prophecy.  

There are also many questions about life and existence that have a reasonable answer biblically. The problem is a way too often that people who hear the evidence already have their minds made up. You can't convince someone who does not want to be convinced. They will think of one-thousand-and-one ways to what if you or deny the evidence.   

If there is no intention behind the universe explain how and why it sustains itself and why it must?
Why does the universe need intention?
Because if there is no reason or meaning why the universe exists why do we keep finding reasons and meaning in such a universe? Not only this but why would or how can something without intelligence, reason, or meaning sustain itself indefinitely? 

I used the analogy of dice rolling themselves and constantly coming up with the same specific number. First, how do dice roll themselves? Second, how does the same number constantly appear (constants), without variation (i.e., natural laws) by random chance happenstance? The same number appearing over and over suggests something is fixed. Why would something be fixed if it is all random chance happenstance? Once you get over that hurdle we can carry on in investigating a blind, indifferent chance universe.  


It matters because I can make sense of the 'why' with God and ultimately I do not believe an atheistic worldview can and remain consistent with its starting presupposition - no God. 
So what I am getting here is that it feels good to see the world in your way so you accept it?
My view f the universe gives a reasonable and sufficient explanation. I do not see yours making sense of anything from your core or foundational starting point (i.e., no mind).

My argument is that granting God these things become explainable and make sense. 
Begging the question yet again. You know you are not making an argument right?
Are you saying my argument makes no sense? I already gave reasons that are reasonable from my worldview position. I am asking you to do the same from yours that I may examine them. 


How about we assume Devil (evil God) to be true? I feel like it explains the world.
Then present your arguments for the devil as reasonable to believe and any evidence that backs up your claims. 

Morality makes sense if there is an unchanging, fixed, universal, absolute, ultimate reference point and measure. Without it why is your FEELING any better than mine? 
Yet again no argument.
My argument is why do your feelings trump mine if yours are as subjective as mine? So, I am asking for the reason that you feel your subjective opinion is any "better" than mine if it is all subjective and there is no fixed, universal identity for morals. Go ahead and explain why. You see, I am interested in how what you perceive as moral is anything other than your subjective preferences or likes? What makes those good? Again, if "good" has an identity then it can not be its opposite but only what it is. So what is it? Take a specific example and explain why it is good rather than just your subjective likes. I like ice-cream. You SHOULD like ice-cream. If you do not like ice-cream you should be put in prison. That is a description of my likes until I enter the word should, then it becomes a moral imperative and something that should be done whether I like it or not. That is what a preference is, a description. It expresses personal taste or something subjective. What should be the case expresses an objective value, something prescriptive. 

You are basically saying my dad makes sense of strawberries. Without my dad how do I make sense of strawberries? I just picked up on this argument from authority. Instead of actually providing evidence God did this, you are saying God did this as an authority on the subject. While also shifting the burden of proof yet again.
I am saying that what your dad likes to eat has nothing to do with quantitative values. That is just a preference. It describes something subjective. 

A moral ought describes something that should be, an objective. How do you arrive at a prescriptive from what is descriptive?
 
If you are wrong on origins how much more are you wrong on?
You are in no position to question my position.
So, only my view is examinable? Yours is off-limits? That is a rather emotional answer. It attacks the man (me) rather than my argument. Thus, it is fallacious. 

At least I don't lie about the reality of things.
How am I lying? You are getting very defensive. 


You use the supernatural (unattainable thing) to support your arguments.
I reason we exist (meaning not only us but the universe and going back to the foundation of everything) either because of an original supernatural or natural cause. Can you think of another reason?


You use feelings to support your claims and an old book.
I use logic. I am suggesting one or the other and then I am asking the reason for your answer. The fact that you can't give one yet you eliminate God is not sufficient in my view. 
 
Now, why existence? Why is there something rather than nothing? 
I don't know. Doesn't mean I will beg the question to be what I would like it to be. I would like to hear an argument instead of this constant deflection. 
You don't know yet you look completely to a natural reason unless you include God (the supernatural). Most scientists beg only the natural explanation. Do you think they know better than you do or I do? Can they make sense of something rather than nothing other than through tautology? 

How would you know since you deny God His existence, or at least ignore Him? What could I ever give to convince a person who does not want convincing? You would just find another reason to deny Him, another 'what if.' 
Who said anything about me? I specifically talked about science. Give your findings to science and see what they think of the supernatural. I am going under the suspicion you don't actually want to give your old book to science because you know they don't agree with the findings. If this is true then you are pretty much cherry picking what you understand through science to suit your agenda and discard what doesn't conform to it.

Again, you seem to think that science is the be-all and end-all of the discussion but I question in regards to origins if it is science or scientism. Do you know the difference? 


#27
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Tejretics
PS. I was wondering whether you agree with the comments of one atheist on the philosophic thread that God has nothing to do with philosophy since you bring up the subject? 
I haven’t seen the comment, but my guess is I don’t.

Anyway, I’m not particularly interested in adjudicating the question of whether God exists. This thread was related more to comparing the relative strength of arguments against God’s existence than (1) discussing various arguments on both sides or (2) checking if this argument actually disproves God in the absolute, rather than relative to other atheistic arguments.
Again, for me, it is not so much the question of whether God exists as to which view of existence is more reasonable and makes better sense in explaining existence. You said in your OP that most arguments for God's existence fail. Well, that is exactly how I view most arguments for atheism. 

To me, it seems that you want to discuss the merits against God's existence without examining any arguments for His existence which I find unfair. That is stacking the deck and since you created the thread it is in your purview to do so. I was very interested in your support for your position of atheism, however. You see, I don't see it as sound a position as you would have to believe it to be so, or else you would logically believe something entirely different, or just believe in spite of the evidence against your belief. 

So I’m not going to put in much effort in responding to you; my apologies! (Feel free to have the discussion in this thread if you’d like, though, I’m sure other people are willing to engage.)
And I recognize that it is perfectly within your rights. I just am disappointed, however. I liken it to an absentee landlord whose tenants what to bring a grievance against him but he is never there to give an account or answer concerns. 
#28
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0
That just takes the process back one step further.
Which would contradict God creating the world in whatever days right?
We assume that there is a gardener but after waiting a week no gardener shows up.
Thank you for pointing out you assume there is a God. I on the other hand state plants can grow without humans yet remain agnostic to God not present the claim that I have a way of understanding the supernatural. 
Of course, we can speculate that some things do not have a cause.
No you can't. I reject this. No one has yet to find anything that disagrees with the core principle of cause and effect. Please justify this. Don't shift the burden of proof and since this is contingent on what you said later I will stick to just rebutting this.
God exists outside of time. 
Justify this as well. Don't shift the burden of proof or beg the question.
The claim I am making is that science relies on consistency/repeatability. How does a random chance happenstance chain of events create that sustainability and consistency?
Even if I agree with your strawman neither is your worldview consistent with science. You have made that abundantly clear with the R. C. Sproul example. You assume there is a gardener but none shows up. You assume there is a God but none shows up. 
Principles of mathematics such as natural laws are discovered, not invented.
Difference between an invention and discovery? I am not going to challenge the constant shifting of the burden and lack of explanation unless that is all you got.
Why are you asking that meaningful question?
Shifting the burden of proof yet again. Are you going to answer it or is this the question game?
Meaning seems built into our reasoning. We search for it. The absurdity would be looking for meaning in a meaningless universe. We could arbitrarily make it up but at the end of the day, it is meaningless. So the question becomes why are you looking for meaning in a meaningless universe? Does it help you cope? For what reason - it is all meaningless anyway. 
You basically said there is x because y is absurd. Why would we find meaning in a y universe? This is not explaining nor even sufficiently answering the questions I am posing to you. You are basically deflecting like what you do almost every single scenario just because you can't answer simple questions. I know the answers are complicated but I would've thought you would've at least tried to explain your point of view. 
It is an explanation that satisfies what we witness.
It satisfies your feelings. Your eye has no desire but your mind does. You have latched onto something instead of actually having a coherent system to make sure what you latch onto isn't flawed. 
So one view is capable of making sense of things because from experience we witness them happening and the other view is not. 
Making sense is also begging the question. If it wasn't clear to you whatever confirms God makes sense but what doesn't make sense to you. Meaning to people who already agree with you they are going to feel like yeah this make sense but when it comes to people who disagree with you. You have to demonstrate it or else you are appealing to a crowd. Remember I don't believe in God so do explain yourself. 

You just can't stop assuming God is true because it just makes sense. I know you believe in God I just want to know if you know it exists. 
And the answer is baffling.
Okay. 
I'm trying to get you to think of what is more reasonable, your foundational starting point or mine. 
Wait so are you implying you are not in no position in changing your mind? All I get from here is you do this while I will put nothing on the line. This has got to be anti-intellectualism. I don't think you will admit to valuing God over truth and say something like well they are both the same thing or something. 
What dog? Where did this notion of 'dog' as the greatest conceivable Being come from? If your dog spoke the universe into being what is your evidence that dog exists?
dog exists outside of time. 
Now with God, you knew of Him long before I brought Him up, I'm sure. 
Is this an appeal to time? I am coining the word. You are using time as a measurement of you being correct. Time does not have the ability to do so unless we are discussing time specifically. We are not. We are speaking about God so this is an appeal to time or an appeal to tradition.
If so, present your evidence for your dog and why I should believe it. 
If you are not going to do it for God I won't do it for dog.
Again, you are assuming I have no evidence.
That entire thing you just wrote was filled with appeal to tradition, anti-science and begging the question.
Because if there is no reason or meaning why the universe exists why do we keep finding reasons and meaning in such a universe?
Why is there a need for an ultimate meaning? You are not answering simply shifting yet again.
Not only this but why would or how can something without intelligence, reason, or meaning sustain itself indefinitely? 
I am sorry but humans die and as far as we know we don't retain what makes us as in the brain. Are you going to admit this is begging the question as we have no scientific backing for our identity carrying on after death therefore God does it?
how do dice roll themselves?
You have a double standard. God exists outside of time like you said and the dice doesn't. Meaning by you even asking this you are complacent in comparing two vastly different things unless you would like to tell me how dice being moved by something is similar to God being moved by nothing. 
Are you saying my argument makes no sense?
No you are not giving an argument. I would have to receive an argument for it to make sense. As of yet all I have got is that God exists outside of time and examples that are comparing two vastly different meaning no argument for God.
Then present your arguments for the devil as reasonable to believe and any evidence that backs up your claims.
You haven't so I won't either. 
My argument is why do your feelings trump mine if yours are as subjective as mine?
Thank you admitting you bringing your feelings into this not irrespective of it.
I am saying that what your dad likes to eat has nothing to do with quantitative values.
I 100% nailed you on that comparison yet you decide to make a different point. You don't how bad the structure of your own arguments were which shows in your lack of explanation of your previous argument here.
I'll add not understanding your own argument by giving a non-sequitur as a response to the list.
A moral ought describes something that should be, an objective. How do you arrive at a prescriptive from what is descriptive?
Is and ought distinction has yet to be falsified. I'll await for you to do so.
Yours is off-limits?
You have yet to fulfill your burden of proof and expect me to do what you didn't.
Most scientists beg only the natural explanation. Do you think they know better than you do or I do?
Basically admitting you are pro science when it suits you but against science when it doesn't conform your worldview.
Again, you seem to think that science is the be-all and end-all of the discussion but I question in regards to origins if it is science or scientism.
Again, questioning the very thing we accept to bring the best results. This is anti-science yet again. 
#29
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That just takes the process back one step further.
Which would contradict God creating the world in whatever days right?
God would be the process, His creating. So, you have a transcendent eternal being (thus without cause) creating the physical, external universe.

We assume that there is a gardener but after waiting a week no gardener shows up.
Thank you for pointing out you assume there is a God. I on the other hand state plants can grow without humans yet remain agnostic to God not present the claim that I have a way of understanding the supernatural. 
There is evidence for God, as I explained in my last post, evidence that is not easily brushed away. State plants? Not following. Do you mean the state plants? I never stated them except to say that the garden is orderly and ten plants humans eat grow in the garden. 

Of course, we can speculate that some things do not have a cause.
No you can't. I reject this.
Good, then that makes two of us, yet I have heard the argument for no causality. 

No one has yet to find anything that disagrees with the core principle of cause and effect. Please justify this. Don't shift the burden of proof and since this is contingent on what you said later I will stick to just rebutting this.
One such argument is the Steady State Theory which has been refuted by most scientists as implausible. 

Another, if a transcendent being did not cause the universe and it came from nothing there can be no cause since nothing would have no cause or need of a cause.

Another is brute facts, that there is no explanation for a fact.

Another is the argument from quantum physics that "there can be effects without causes.  And if quantum events do not need causes, then perhaps the universe doesn’t either."   https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/do-quantum-mechanics-invalidate-the-causal-principle/


God exists outside of time. 
Justify this as well. Don't shift the burden of proof or beg the question.

If God created the physical universe then He would have to exist separate from the physical universe. Self-creation is a self-refuting term. So, if you believe the universe came into being and had a cause that cause would have to come outside the universe and be sufficient to create the universe.

Also, time has a beginning. The beginning of the universe is arguably times beginning. What would an eternal being need with time? He has no beginning and no end. We have a beginning. Anything that has a beginning in this physical universe can be explained in a time-relationship. 

The claim I am making is that science relies on consistency/repeatability. How does a random chance happenstance chain of events create that sustainability and consistency?
Even if I agree with your strawman neither is your worldview consistent with science. You have made that abundantly clear with the R. C. Sproul example. You assume there is a gardener but none shows up. You assume there is a God but none shows up.
What strawman? Does science rely on observation and repeatability? Does it rely on consistency to obtain scientific facts?

My worldview has what is necessary for consistency. How does willy nilly chance happenstance? You have not answered my questions. I am trying to understand how your worldview, apart from God, makes sense of these things. 

“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease.”

Colossians 1:17 
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

The R.C. Sproul example/analogy just illustrates a very annoying fact, that there is a garden (the universe) yet no reasonable explanation given for it if there is no gardener. It is certainly an anomaly from anything we witness. When we see an ordered garden we witness its cause is due to someone planting it and usually sustaining it by looking after it.  

 
Principles of mathematics such as natural laws are discovered, not invented.
Difference between an invention and discovery? I am not going to challenge the constant shifting of the burden and lack of explanation unless that is all you got.
All I am pointing out to you is that it is most reasonable to believe that if I found a formula for something that is verified outside myself I would think someone else was responsible for it since it conveys information. If I saw a billboard that said "Next service station in 23 miles" I would assume someone put that information there rather than it just materialized for no reason. And 23 miles later when I drove by the service state I would know the information was correct. 

Why are you asking that meaningful question?
Shifting the burden of proof yet again. Are you going to answer it or is this the question game?
It is not me who is avoiding answering questions. I'm looking for your answers from your worldview because I do not believe you have reasons that make sense. So, I put your worldview on the spot. My explanation came after the barb, per below. 

Meaning seems built into our reasoning. We search for it. The absurdity would be looking for meaning in a meaningless universe. We could arbitrarily make it up but at the end of the day, it is meaningless. So the question becomes why are you looking for meaning in a meaningless universe? Does it help you cope? For what reason - it is all meaningless anyway. 
You basically said there is x because y is absurd. Why would we find meaning in a y universe? This is not explaining nor even sufficiently answering the questions I am posing to you. You are basically deflecting like what you do almost every single scenario just because you can't answer simple questions. I know the answers are complicated but I would've thought you would've at least tried to explain your point of view. 
My reasoning is that we are creatures of reason and meaning. It seems built into our DNA. If the universe has no meaning to it then we are creating something that has no ultimate meaning. Yet you continually look for meaning. You debate meaning on DebateArt.com. 

As for the two points that I can't answer simple questions and explain my point of view, my point of view is the biblical God has created the universe and in looking to Him and His revelation I find logical answers; answers that make sense and confirm what I witness experientially. I see life coming from the living. I see a person coming from the personal. I see logic coming from logical beings. I see mindful beings coming from other mindful beings. I see those who love coming from others who love. I see those who appreciate beauty coming from others that appreciate beauty.  

It is an explanation that satisfies what we witness.
It satisfies your feelings. Your eye has no desire but your mind does. You have latched onto something instead of actually having a coherent system to make sure what you latch onto isn't flawed. 
It satisfies my feelings? It is not a feeling. It is what I witness. I do not see humans coming from apes. I witness a human being giving birth to another human being. I do not see life coming from something lifeless. I see living being producing more living beings. I do not see a rock that is able to reason. I see human beings that are able to reason. With the last point, it brings to mind how something inorganic could produce something organic in the first place. I am waiting for your explanation. Will I have it?

So one view is capable of making sense of things because from experience we witness them happening and the other view is not. 
Making sense is also begging the question.
Actually experiencing it or seeing it happen is a factual confirmation. 

If it wasn't clear to you whatever confirms God makes sense but what doesn't make sense to you.
I'm not exactly sure of what you are saying here but I will give you what I perceive you are saying. 

I witness life coming from the living and God would be the necessary living Being that all other life came from. 


Meaning to people who already agree with you they are going to feel like yeah this make sense but when it comes to people who disagree with you. You have to demonstrate it or else you are appealing to a crowd. Remember I don't believe in God so do explain yourself. 
What I am saying is I have experiential evidence that what I think is confirmed by what I experience. With an atheist view what you think is not confirmed by what you witness, so you live contrary to experience. Atheists have theories that do not confirm what we witness and science built on scientism.  


You just can't stop assuming God is true because it just makes sense. I know you believe in God I just want to know if you know it exists.
And you can't stop assuming that materialism and naturalism are true. You assume this even though it does not make sense from your foundational starting point - chance happenstance.  
 
And the answer is baffling.
Okay. 
I'm trying to get you to think of what is more reasonable, your foundational starting point or mine. 
Wait so are you implying you are not in no position in changing your mind? All I get from here is you do this while I will put nothing on the line. This has got to be anti-intellectualism. I don't think you will admit to valuing God over truth and say something like well they are both the same thing or something. 
I know when someone starts attacking the man instead of the arguments they are bankrupt. This is what you just did. 

What dog? Where did this notion of 'dog' as the greatest conceivable Being come from? If your dog spoke the universe into being what is your evidence that dog exists?
dog exists outside of time. 
That is just an assertion.

Now with God, you knew of Him long before I brought Him up, I'm sure. 
Is this an appeal to time? I am coining the word. You are using time as a measurement of you being correct. Time does not have the ability to do so unless we are discussing time specifically. We are not. We are speaking about God so this is an appeal to time or an appeal to tradition.
No, when you speak of God you have an image or thought of what constitutes God. Thus, you know of Him while you deny Him. 

If so, present your evidence for your dog and why I should believe it. 
If you are not going to do it for God I won't do it for dog.
I presented various arguments in my previous post. 

Again, you are assuming I have no evidence.
That entire thing you just wrote was filled with appeal to tradition, anti-science and begging the question.
It was an appeal to the Bible as evidence as well as other arguments.

#30
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist

Because if there is no reason or meaning why the universe exists why do we keep finding reasons and meaning in such a universe?
Why is there a need for an ultimate meaning? You are not answering simply shifting yet again.
The point is that we keep looking for meaning and keep finding it. Is there meaning in our existence or are we ultimately in a universe that is meaningless and indifferent to us? Why do you think we keep looking for meaning in a universe supposedly devoid of meaning? Again, you keep avoiding any answers. 

Not only this but why would or how can something without intelligence, reason, or meaning sustain itself indefinitely? 
I am sorry but humans die and as far as we know we don't retain what makes us as in the brain.
Here again, you and I differ. I believe there is a difference between the mind and the brain. 

Are you going to admit this is begging the question as we have no scientific backing for our identity carrying on after death therefore God does it?
I am pointing out I have a reason that comes from a reasoning being that is adequate in making sense of intelligence, reason, meaning. From your starting point or foundational beliefs, you do not. 

how do dice roll themselves?
You have a double standard. God exists outside of time like you said and the dice doesn't.
Well that is precisely the point, isn't it? The dice are an analogy of the intentional and the unintentional. I have a sufficient reason for the dice rolling with an intelligent being. Without one, what is yours? Then not only that, the constant rolling of the same number suggests the dice are fixed for the very reason that if you rolled the dice one million times how far would you go before the dice rolled different numbers? For me to fix the dice so the same number rolled every time would mean I intentionally did that. Not so with a chance happenstance universe. You see, the intention represents such things as laws of nature. There would be no reason why things remained constant such as laws of nature by chance happenstance. Every roll would be willy nilly. Now, in theory, you can state the probability is reasonable but again, it does not meet the experiential test.    

Meaning by you even asking this you are complacent in comparing two vastly different things unless you would like to tell me how dice being moved by something is similar to God being moved by nothing. 
The dice rolling a constant would show they are fixed not untampered with and randomly rolled. Plus, with God, you have the means of rolling. With chance happenstance what are the means? 

Are you saying my argument makes no sense?
No you are not giving an argument. I would have to receive an argument for it to make sense. As of yet all I have got is that God exists outside of time and examples that are comparing two vastly different meaning no argument for God.
The argument is that God gives sufficient reason for understanding existence. It is logical to think that from the living comes other living beings. God would be the necessary being. The universe in itself does not give sufficiency or understanding. You and those who hold your view of existence and the universe build on a foundational belief that does not make sense. Without an intentional being, you are left with your core foundational belief being chance happenstance. That has no ability in and of itself, no intentionality. It is not the simplest explanation. 

Then present your arguments for the devil as reasonable to believe and any evidence that backs up your claims.
You haven't so I won't either. 
My argument is why do your feelings trump mine if yours are as subjective as mine?
Thank you admitting you bringing your feelings into this not irrespective of it.
I am presenting the case that would have to be without an ultimate, objective, universal, unchanging standard. 

I'm saying that two subjective beings without an objective outside source would bring be just as relative. So, from such a position why are your feelings better than mine? Hitler had feelings. His preference was the elimination of over 11 million undesirables. Why is that bad if everything is relative? It is just one preference over another that he had the means to execute.  

So, without such an objective standard why is what you believe any better than what I believe? It is not. I just becomes who can win out in implementing their subjective preference of feelings or likes or desires. 

I am saying that what your dad likes to eat has nothing to do with quantitative values.
I 100% nailed you on that comparison yet you decide to make a different point. You don't how bad the structure of your own arguments were which shows in your lack of explanation of your previous argument here.
You did no such thing. I presented a scenario from what would be you position outside of a necessary being in which we derive morality from. You obviously did not understand what I was getting at. 

I'll add not understanding your own argument by giving a non-sequitur as a response to the list.
A moral ought describes something that should be, an objective. How do you arrive at a prescriptive from what is descriptive?
Is and ought distinction has yet to be falsified. I'll await for you to do so.
What a subjective relativist does is describe what is and the prescribe what ought to be from what is. I can do that too. I like ice-cream (descriptive and explaining what I like). You must like it too or else I will put you in prison (assuming I had the means to do so). What is done in the example is an ought is derived from a like or preference. What makes that good or right? Nothing. The exact opposite could be derived depending on the feelings of the person demanding the consequence. I hate ice-cream. Therefore you must hate it too. Thus the identity of what is good or right is transient. It keeps changing thus it is not logical and therefore inconsistent. It has no fixed address.

Yours is off-limits?
You have yet to fulfill your burden of proof and expect me to do what you didn't.
I lost the relevance of this one. What was it in relation to?

Most scientists beg only the natural explanation. Do you think they know better than you do or I do?
Basically admitting you are pro science when it suits you but against science when it doesn't conform your worldview.
Do you know the difference between science and scientism?

Again, you seem to think that science is the be-all and end-all of the discussion but I question in regards to origins if it is science or scientism.
Again, questioning the very thing we accept to bring the best results. This is anti-science yet again. 


Science starts with a philosophical presupposition. There are many things scientists cannot answer. It is the crutch atheism uses, their god if you like. Science says science says...