What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider
Religion
Philosophy
logic

Posts

Total: 436
#331
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes after observing that it is an effective method.
"Effective" in what?

That us why I have confidence in it and not in faith based beliefs which cannot be demonstrated.
What you described is a faith-based belief. You bear "confidence" in a method (scientific method) that provides meaning to an environment (reality) of which you claim you are uncertain. (And no, arbitrary percentages will not suffice; in order to relate your knowledge to that of which you claim you are uncertain would necessitate that you grasp that of which you are uncertain, contradicting that you are uncertain.

When you baldly state something without some demonstration that is  by definition a bald assertion. You cannot demonstrate your perceptions to anyone but yourself and peoples perception and senses are testable observably unreliable. 
Except, I did demonstrate. I just did not demonstrate in a manner which you can "test." And you have yet to substantiate the necessity of tests as it pertains to existence. Why must existence be tested for?
#332
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
It seems far more logical to me, that something that cannot be proven to exist is unlikely to exist.
"Seem" is not an argument. And "unlikely"? How is ontology subject to probability?

Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary, if said something cannot be proven to exist in the first place.
Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary if one does not affirm its nonexistence.

Let's take the flying spaghetti monster for example.....Do you find it necessary to disprove it's existence?
It isn't that it's necessary. One wouldn't be able to disprove its existence. Your capacity to identify it, especially distinguishing it from a "flying rigatoni monster" or "flying fettuccine monster," indicates your perception of it; therefore, it must exist.

I think that this just goes prove, that logic is not reliably logical. 
I understand your intent to be rhetorical but this makes no sense.

#333
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,935
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@OntologicalSpider
How we define "God".  God = Universe.  Simple minimal brainer. 

Minimal brainer is appropriate for most religous-like people who have little concern for more comprehensive and complex considerations.
#334
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Perhaps I should have said, that logic is not consistent.

And you're right, ontology is as ontology does. 

#335
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Efficacy is the ultimate validation.
Efficacy in what?

This is a statement of GNOSIS (which is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION).
Yes, it is necessarily one of Gnosis, but its being "functionally indistinguishable from opinion" is opinion.

Historically, something like radio-waves (might be said to have) "existed" "before" they were demonstrated (colloquially).

HOWevER, NOBODY could CLAIM they "existed" before they were demonstrated.

Certainly anybody could HYPOTHESIZE that radio-waves existed before they were demonstrated.

But that HYPOTHESIS, could not be considered REAL-TRUE-FACT until AFTER empirical demonstration.
Yes, but its qualification under empirical demonstration did not affect its existence, only our "considerations." If anything, you are making my point. The scientific method facilitates the expression of that existence within its framework. Why is it necessary then? In a roundabout way, both you and secularmerlin are essentially stating that "Science is necessary for Science." And I don't deny that.

The claim that "some things" may "exist" "undiscovered" DOES NOT CONTRADICT the fact that ANY claim of "existence" must be either empirically verifiable (demonstrable) or logically necessary.
Nice try. But that wasn't secularmerlin's argument. Secularmerlin stated:

There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance.
First, claims don't require proof. In order for the claim to be qualified as "true" it necessitates logical substantiation. Second, my question was: why does existence need to be tested for? (And consider that you both pretty much admitted that existence precedes your tests.) Not, "why does empirical verification require tests?"

It must be distinguishable from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.
Why?

MONISM.
Yes.
#336
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps I should have said, that logic is not consistent.
How is logic inconsistent?
#337
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?
One is synonymous with placing one's "faith." The other is accepting its truth.
#338
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
And you have yet to substantiate the necessity of tests as it pertains to existence. Why must existence be tested for?
In order to distinguish EXISTENCE from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.
#339
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"flying fettuccine monster,"
Amazing.
#340
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Yes, it is necessarily one of Gnosis, but its being "functionally indistinguishable from opinion" is opinion.
If you are unable to distinguish your statement/claim from opinion, then your statement/claim is FUNCTIONALLY indistinguishable from opinion.

My claim (GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from opinion) IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY (TAUTOLOGY).
#341
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Yes, but its qualification under empirical demonstration did not affect its existence, only our "considerations."
It affects our ability to make (reasonable/logical) TRUTH-claims about existence.

Without perfectly clear-cut lines of separation between (claims of) REAL-TRUE-FACT and (claims of) GNOSIS-OPINION, "science" itself devolves into DOGMA (COERCION) which is functionally indistinguishable from religion.
#342
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
"Effective" in what?
Separating fact from fiction most particularly in a way that improves human quality of life which I have vested interest in as a human. If the scientific method could be shown ineffective in this regard or a more reliable method were to present itself I would have no choice but to adjust my beliefs accordingly. This does not seem likely to me based on reasonable expectations based on past experience.
Why must existence be tested for?
It only needs tested for if you want anyone to take you seriously. Otherwise your claim can and should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't care about your arguments being taken seriously by all means disregard.
#343
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?
One is synonymous with placing one's "faith." The other is accepting its truth.
Since it is this second I meant I will take this as a yes. At least you are consistent in accepting unsubstantiated claims. Fascinating. Do you equally accept unsubstantiated claims that have not been made like a god that has not been proposed but could be? Or those that are made ironically but also cannot be disproved like the flying spaghetti monster?
#344
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
"Science is necessary for Science." And I don't deny that.
Ok, in order to engineer useful systems, all materials, forces, and properties (to be utilized) must be quantified.

Any undefined variables will degrade the reliability of your system.

The Scientific Method is a framework for reducing uncertainty (+3 sigma).

The Scientific Method is not a DOGMA, but is validated by demonstrable efficacy (bridges, computers, medicine).

If a superior framework renders The Scientific Method obsolete, I will be the first to adopt the superior alternative.
#345
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
The claim that "some things" may "exist" "undiscovered" DOES NOT CONTRADICT the fact that ANY claim of "existence" must be either empirically verifiable (demonstrable) or logically necessary.
Nice try. But that wasn't secularmerlin's argument.
Perhaps not but this is more or less what I was getting at.
#346
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
...but it must be a test before we can claim it exists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance.
First, claims don't require proof.
Claims of GNOSIS/OPINION do not require proof (because they are unfalsifiable).
Claims of REAL-TRUE-FACT absolutely DO demand empirical verification and or logical necessity.

In order for the claim to be qualified as "true" it necessitates logical substantiation.
Yes.  (IFF) you pretend your claim is "true" (THEN) you must demonstrate by empirical verification and or logical necessity

Second, my question was: why does existence need to be tested for?
In order to distinguish REAL-TRUE-FACT from GNOSIS/OPINION.
In order to QUANTIFY properties that can be engineered into useful systems.

(And consider that you both pretty much admitted that existence precedes your tests.)
What "point" are you trying to highlight?  Sure, GLOMPRANO-WAVES "might" "exist" "undiscovered".  How is this claim even remotely useful?

Not, "why does empirical verification require tests?"
Existence must be tested for in order to verify efficacy of a claim.

Existence must be tested for in order to AVOID BEING DUPED BY CON-ARTISTS.
#347
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
In order to distinguish EXISTENCE from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.

How are existence and qualia/gnosis/personal-private-experiential/opinion distinct?

Amazing.
Thank you.

If you are unable to distinguish your statement/claim from opinion, then your statement/claim is FUNCTIONALLY indistinguishable from opinion.

My claim (GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from opinion) IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY (TAUTOLOGY).
Please reference and/or demonstrate the tautology which indicates that gnosis is functionally indistinguishable from opinion.

It affects our ability to make (reasonable/logical) TRUTH-claims about existence.

Without perfectly clear-cut lines of separation between (claims of) REAL-TRUE-FACT and (claims of) GNOSIS-OPINION, "science" itself devolves into DOGMA (COERCION) which is functionally indistinguishable from religion.
No, it affects your ability to validate (qualia) your application of empiricism. I don't reject the necessity of logic, but empirical verification =/= real true fact necessarily. Real true fact is an expression of logical consistency. And once again, you're making my point: Science is necessary for science. Is existence contingent on the distinction between religion and science? And if so, can you express this distinction in a manner that is fundamentally discrete from the principles/qualia espoused by religion?
#348
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
but empirical verification =/= real true fact necessarily. Real true fact is an expression of logical consistency.
REAL-TRUE-FACT must be empirically verifiable and or logically necessary.
#349
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
My claim (GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from opinion) IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY (TAUTOLOGY).
Please reference and/or demonstrate the tautology which indicates that gnosis is functionally indistinguishable from opinion.
(P1) GNOSIS = UNFALSIFIABLE
(P2) OPINION = UNFALSIFIABLE
(C1) GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION

Functional, demonstrable, distinction between GNOSIS and OPINION is not QUANTIFIABLE.
#350
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Separating fact from fiction
The distinction between fact and fiction is immaterial.

most particularly in a way that improves human quality of life
Quality of life is immaterial.

which I have vested interest in as a human.
Your vested interest is immaterial.

If the scientific method could be shown ineffective in this regard or a more reliable method were to present itself I would have no choice but to adjust my beliefs accordingly.
Your beliefs are immaterial.

This does not seem likely to me based on reasonable expectations based on past experience.
You're both appealing to your own incredulity as well as rendering argumentum ad antiquitatem. [Also, "seem" is not an argument.]

And my overall point in mentioning the instances of immaterial notions is to indicate that which you grasp or accept about the material is fundamentally informed by the  immaterial.

It only needs tested for if you want anyone to take you seriously. Otherwise your claim can and should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't care about your arguments being taken seriously by all means disregard.
Why does anyone taking me seriously matter? I cannot control that. What I can control is whether my argument meets a description of logical consistency as it is defined. And my argument is both consistent and sound based on my premises.

Since it is this second I meant I will take this as a yes. At least you are consistent in accepting unsubstantiated claims.
They're not unsubstantiated. They just don't meet a standard informed by your confidence.

Do you equally accept unsubstantiated claims that have not been made like a god that has not been proposed but could be? Or those that are made ironically but also cannot be disproved like the flying spaghetti monster?
"Equally"? Since when is "acceptance" quantifiable? And the acceptance of that which I don't know bears no utility in ontological examination. But as I told zedvictor, the FSM exists as it is perceived/identifiable.


#351
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, in order to engineer useful systems, all materials, forces, and properties (to be utilized) must be quantified.
What is "useful" if not qualia?

Any undefined variables will degrade the reliability of your system.
What is reliability if not qualia?

The Scientific Method is a framework for reducing uncertainty (+3 sigma).
Uncertainty cannot be "reduced" because it necessitates certainty of the scope of that which you are uncertain. Now if you're using uncertainty in a manner synonymous with "unsure" of "not confident," then what is "uncertainty" if not qualia?

The Scientific Method is not a DOGMA, but is validated by demonstrable efficacy (bridges, computers, medicine).
The evaluation of which is informed by qualia. You call it a computer; you call it a bridge; you call it medicine; you assert that what it does is distinct from what it doesn't do based on definitions used to rationalize your perception of it. You can test for it, but it's contained within the scope of said perception. Efficacious toward what? That you're capable of perception? Logic is a regulation of consistent perception. But ultimately what does consistency indicate? Value (qualia.)

If a superior framework renders The Scientific Method obsolete, I will be the first to adopt the superior alternative.
I don't think there's a method superior in analyzing Science-y things.
#352
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
Is anyone in here even trying anymore to argue that a god really exists? I've been following this a while and it seems we're REALLY far down the rabbit hole of reason.  I think the original spirit of the topic was likely more along the lines of what's your best reason to be convinced a god is real, but we're talking about all sorts of other tengents, which, fifteen pages in, I guess is to be expected. Carry on I guess. I just don't think it's winning any converts. 
#353
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Claims of GNOSIS/OPINION do not require proof (because they are unfalsifiable).
Claims of REAL-TRUE-FACT absolutely DO demand empirical verification and or logical necessity.
Not that either. Case in point:

1. Athias claims his shoes are red. (This requires no proof because it's a claim. Claims by definition bear no proof.)
2. Athias's shoes being red can be proven (this requires proof because it's an affirmation of evidentiary information.)

In other words, claims aren't real-true-fact. Once they require proof, they are no longer claims. Real-true-fact require proof because they're proven.

Yes.  (IFF) you pretend your claim is "true" (THEN) you must demonstrate by empirical verification and or logical necessity
A claim isn't a claim if it's true. So why must one demonstrate its "truth"?

In order to distinguish REAL-TRUE-FACT from GNOSIS/OPINION.
In order to QUANTIFY properties that can be engineered into useful systems.
How is "useful" devoid of opinion?

What "point" are you trying to highlight?  Sure, GLOMPRANO-WAVES "might" "exist" "undiscovered".  How is this claim even remotely useful?
All the more reason the statements mentioned by secularmerlin contradict. If something does not necessarily require tests to exist, but also require tests to "claim" existence, then what is the function of the first statement?

Existence must be tested for in order to verify efficacy of a claim.
Perhaps "statement" will suffice. And verify "efficacy" in what respect? That what you're perceiving is actually what you perceive? If you cannot escape the bias of your own experience, then how do tests preclude you from being duped by "con-artists"? How is consistency not one huge "CON-JOB"?

(P1) GNOSIS = UNFALSIFIABLE
(P2) OPINION = UNFALSIFIABLE
(C1) GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION
Let me try:

(P1) Athias is happy.
(P2) Athias's cousin is happy.
(C1) Athias is functionally indistinguishable from his cousin.

You need more than just relating them under the context of falisfiability.

#354
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Is anyone in here even trying anymore to argue that a god really exists? I've been following this a while and it seems we're REALLY far down the rabbit hole of reason.  I think the original spirit of the topic was likely more along the lines of what's your best reason to be convinced a god is real, but we're talking about all sorts of other tengents, which, fifteen pages in, I guess is to be expected. Carry on I guess. I just don't think it's winning any converts. 
Because when all arguments are reduced, what's left is an indication of value. I press on to test the consistency of my points, not to necessarily win any converts. I suspect the same is true for 3RU7AL. As for secularmerlin and zedvictor, they're just incorrigible heretics...



#355
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Well we are not going to accomplish anything so long as you feel no need to substantiate your claims and more especially if you don't even understand why you would be expected to. I wish you good luck finding an interlocutor more on your own level. 
#356
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Because continuing debate shows us that one persons logic is another persons illogic.
#357
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
1. Athias claims his shoes are red. (This requires no proof because it's a claim. Claims by definition bear no proof.)
2. Athias's shoes being red can be proven (this requires proof because it's an affirmation of evidentiary information.)

In other words, claims aren't real-true-fact. Once they require proof, they are no longer claims. Real-true-fact require proof because they're proven.
This is a good example.

We agree a claim is not necessarily a REAL-TRUE-FACT.

So, perhaps I must specify, a claim of REAL-TRUE-FACT demands empirical demonstration and or logical necessity.

A claim of OPINION and or GNOSIS merely demands the credulity of the audience.
#358
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Because continuing debate shows us that one persons logic is another persons illogic.
LOGIC =/= OPINION
#359
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Because when all arguments are reduced, what's left is an indication of value. I press on to test the consistency of my points, not to necessarily win any converts. I suspect the same is true for 3RU7AL. As for secularmerlin and zedvictor, they're just incorrigible heretics...
Well stated.
#360
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
A claim isn't a claim if it's true. So why must one demonstrate its "truth"?
There are no "facts", only factual claims and non-factual claims.

A "fact" may be (abstractly) "independent" from any claim (statement of claim) (the map is not the territory), however, nobody can discuss (entertain) a "fact" without making a statement (claim) of implicit "fact", for example "god($) is real".